What if you were found guilty and a jury decided you owed the record labels $80,000 per song. Not a host site or major player, we're talking about a regular person in the US who downloaded 24 whole songs. Like what, two albums?
Scary stuff no matter what side of the argument you're on. Obviously they'll never get it, but it does show that they're serious about prosecution, and the jury of peers agreed.
Thoughts?
Where does borrowing a CD from a friend and putting it on your iTunes fall? How about burning a copy off of a friend?
In the end What difference does it make if I "file share" over the interwebs over loading a single CD onto multiple computers?
EDIT... berkeley it, everything I have came from a legit hard copy(not always mine but...) or a paid in full iTunes download. But that SUCKS hard for the lady getting sued.
The way I understand the law, you can download a song off the net (which is like borrowing from a friend) but you can't share the file with anyone else. I didn't look at the particulars of the case but perhaps the person shared the file, which is how they ended up on the record company radar.
There are bands that I would never, ever, have bought had it not been for Napster. Plus I would like to think bands would have to put on a better live act to draw in people.
Oh, and Metallica can still suck it.
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
No, how about crappy albums from crappy artists marketed almost exclusively towards teenage girls. That and people woke up and saw that the recording industry has been overcharging for CDs from the start. After years in broadcasting, I can honestly say that I'm not sorry about any of the problems the record companies are facing.
Hmmm, I'm curious to hear the proverbial "rest of the story" when it comes out later. Getting an American jury to side with the recording industry like that is mighty peculiar.
jimbob_racing wrote:The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.No, how about crappy albums from crappy artists marketed almost exclusively towards teenage girls. That and people woke up and saw that the recording industry has been overcharging for CDs from the start. After years in broadcasting, I can honestly say that I'm not sorry about any of the problems the record companies are facing.
They're blaming downloading on declines, just like they blamed the cassette tape for declines in people liking disco..
This story is nothing new, the RIAA has been suing people for years and getting little to no traction. They just randomly select someone from a list of downloaders they get from trolling around, and then try to make an example out of them. If they were smart, they wouldn't sue these people, they'd interview them about why they downloaded instead of buying a CD. Then.... Provide a product to fill that niche they are currently underserving... However, They're not interested in that, because they are lazy.
Appleseed wrote: There are bands that I would never, ever, have bought had it not been for Napster. Plus I would like to think bands would have to put on a better live act to draw in people. Oh, and Metallica can still suck it.
This.
Buy your mp3's from Amazon. It's legal and the price is not exorbitant. Also they have no DRM protection so they're yours to do with what you want.
The RIAA is the dying super nova of the record industry. You can't sue people into making you profitable again. The dinosaurs who ran the industry were used to controlling distribution. They no longer control that part of the business. They will have to get used to the new reality in which they do not dictate the terms of music and what is popular to people. It's going to take more than money to make a star now. Even then, I can't explain American Idol.
G2P FTW!
ANY business that relies on the distribution of information/content is in trouble, or will be soon, whether that's the music industry, the newspaper industry, cable TV, the US Postal service or whatever. They will all have to radically change, or they will have big problems.
They all made a lot of money for a long time getting content/data/information from the creator to you, but you don't need them anymore. This is the real revolution of the internet: It was designed from the start to make sharing data very simple, and as far as the wire is concerned, anything that can be digitized is just data. It doesn't much care if it's a text message or the entire Kubrick canon.
Great time to be in the content creation business. Not so much for content distribution.
Tim Baxter wrote: Great time to be in the content creation business.
Not if you want content creation to be a business.
This simply means that up and coming artists will still have to get real jobs to pay their bills, as free sharing means no one will pay for your songs, even if the record companies go out of business. So instead of being screwed out of royalties by the record companies, artists will be screwed out of their royalties by the fans directly.
I disagree, but it would take more time to explain it than I care to give. Short version is two points: (1) when you cut out the middleman, especially when he's taking he lion's share, you leave a lot for the artist, and (2) there WILL be new business models, but anyone who says they know what they are at this point is lying or a fool.
P71 wrote: What if you were found guilty and a jury decided you owed the record labels *$80,000 per song*. Not a host site or major player, we're talking about a regular person in the US who downloaded 24 whole songs. Like what, two albums?
Did you even read the article you linked? She was sharing more than 1700 songs. This is the second trial in which she was found guilty (the first was deemed a mistrial by the judge because he erred in jury instructions given at the beginning of the case).
While I find the $80,000/offense fine completely ludicrous, it seems she is guilty as charged and would have done well to settle for reasonable amount (as the RIAA typically allows, and has stated will allow her to do now, despite the verdict).
Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke’s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can’t compete
It’s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete!
And for the record, I think the RIAA should DIAF and the major music labels would do well to update their business model. But, laws are laws, the RIAA chasing file-sharers isn't new, and anybody continuing to share is willfully ignoring the law on the matter.
Tim Baxter wrote: I disagree, but it would take more time to explain it than I care to give. Short version is two points: (1) when you cut out the middleman, especially when he's taking he lion's share, you leave a lot for the artist,
Excpet file sharing doesn't just cut out the middleman. It cuts out any money going to the artist, period. Which also means no money for the guys mixing, the studio musicians, etc who do not go on tour with the artist and make money from the touring.
I have no problem with the artist gettig the money directly, and paying for the studio time/musician's time, etc. but file sharing removes that money, too.
I have a friend that worked for "a major multi-media corporation" with an office here in the "home of the world's largest corporation" land. He said that they had a huge problem with the Russians bootlegging their DVD's. They weren't selling anything in Russian because if it. They went to the Russians and biatched about all the illegal copying and selling on the street of their stuff. The Russians told them that $20 was a lot of money in Russian and people couldn't afford that. They started selling the DVD's for $2 instead and completely ended the illegal street corner businesses/illegal copying. People would much rather have a factory DVD for a little more than what the pirates were selling them for.
Honestly, I work in entertainment. Every weekend I am at one casino or another here in Atlantic City setting up, running, or taking down a concert.
the Artists do NOT make that much money off of album sales.. concerts and live shows are where they make a TON of money
A friend of a friend is in that middle ground between starving artist and rock star. Doesn't have to have a real job because he makes enough to get by off of his music, but spends 200 days a year on the road in smokey clubs to pull in that much. He also is a guest speaker regularly to music business classes at the local university.
Anywho, his take on it is that you can't control the distribution. Pandoras box is open. What you have to do now is put out a good enough product that people are passionate about your work. Some will buy it, some won't. Regardless, they are the people who will turn your 50 person show into a 500 person show, or your 500 person show into a 5000 person show. The music is the medium that gets them to the show, and the show is where the money is made.
As long as the pr0n industry doesn't get on board, I'm ok 
Plenty of studies indicate that the most active music pirates (arrr...) are the most active consumers of music, period. They're more likely (sometimes by a factor of 10) to buy a CD, attend a concert, tell their friends, etc. By chasing after the most active downloaders, the recording industry is effectively punishing their best customers.
alex wrote: Plenty of studies indicate that the most active music pirates (arrr...) are the most active consumers of music, period. They're more likely (sometimes by a factor of 10) to buy a CD, attend a concert, tell their friends, etc. By chasing after the most active downloaders, the recording industry is effectively punishing their best customers.
Ding! I download music solely to see if i like it. If i like it, i go out and buy the CD copy which sounds way better. I let my buddies know all the time if i like a band or not as well. They think it's funny.
However, they aren't chasing the most active downloaders, they're chasing the "low hanging fruit" of the file sharing world. The only people that get sued are the ones that don't quite understand they they've been sharing an entire Brittney catalog for years.
I stopped buying music because of all this crap. In 1974 I bought a license to hear "Dark Side of the Moon", It was on Vinyl at the time. Then in 1980 I bought a License to hear "Dark Side of the Moon" on Tape, it was the law, it was on a different format. Then in 1982 I bought another license to hear "Dark side of the Moon" on vinyl because I wore out the first one. In 1995 I bought another license to listen to "Dark side of the Moon" on CD because they changed the format. Then it occurred to me the majors were making me buy the same license over and over again as formats change and I was stupid enough to keep lining up. "berkeley this", I said to myself, I am not going to by anymore licensees of "Dark Side of the Moon" for the rest of my life, and I will not make myself vulnerable to lawsuit by downloading it. So i voted with my dollar. Now I listen to streaming internet radio and radio exclusively and the CD's I have.
Prince (the prick) and other smart artists are developing and moving to business models that skip trying to control distribution through constrictive licenses. The "open source" live music based small business model is growing as rapidly as the major label "proprietary taste filter" model is evaporating. Good!
This lawsuit "victory" is another nail in the coffin of the majors.
You'll need to log in to post.
