RIAA sues more file sharers
p2pnet.net News:- The Big Five record labels have unleashed their RIAA enforcers against another group of innocent people whom, they claim, are “devastating” the huge, multi-billion-dollar international industry.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has sued 482 more people for alleged copyright infringement and, “The RIAA’s newest round of legal action includes copyright infringement lawsuits against 213 individuals in St. Louis, 55 in Denver and 206 in Washington, D.C. and eight in New Jersey,” says a Reuters report here.
P2p file sharing is here to stay but instead of using it to revitalize their dying businesses, the labels are bent on crushing the very people upon whom they depend for their revenues – their customers.
But not one of the people pilloried by the RIAA has ever been found guilty of anything. Not one of them has ever appeared before a judge because the RIAA makes victims an offer they can’t refuse: ‘Settle out of court and this will all go away.’
The RIAA victims are ordinary men, women and children, and rather than chance the huge financial penalties that losing to Big Music’s limitless resources and expert legal teams inevitably would entail, they always settle out of court for around $3,000 at the low end.
“I’d like to resist the RIAA and the recording industry,” Lorraine Sullivan, one of the first people whose name was made public told p2pnet last year. “I wish I could. I wish I didn’t have to worry about my future. But I’m terrified of bankruptcy.”
The last “A” in RIAA stands for America, yet only Warner Music, one of the five firms that keep the RIAA in business, is actually American. The others are Vivendi Universal’s Universal Music Group (France), Bertelsmann AG’s BMG (Germany), EMI Group’s EMI (UK) and Sony’s Sony Music (Japan).
And while they claim the lables sue-’em-all campaign is dramatically reducing the number of file-sharers, at a conservative estimate, 4 million people are online at any given moment uploading, downloading or sharing one billion files every month.
All the entertainment industry has to do is develop new business models (there are plenty of possibilities) so the online buying public can get what they want without having to pay through the nose, as they do at the moment. Using the Net as a marketing and distribution vehicle would cut overhead and free up resources for use against the real criminals – counterfeiters and their ilk who really are costing the industry billions as they peddle fake product on the streets and blackmarkets of the world.
If software components were online at affordable prices, there’d be little to rip off. The problem, wouldn’t vanish, but it would be drastically reduced.
So far, Big Music has sued 3,429 men, women and children on the grounds that they’re sharing music online without having paid the labels, who own the copyrights, for the privilege.
As things exist, the only people who benefit in any substantial way are, as usual, the lawyers who are milking people on both sides of the fence.
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:49 pm
That is the most loaded article I’ve ever read. But, one thing was glossed over…file sharing is ILLEGAL. Sure, I’ve downloaded a few songs from Kaaza in my time (not anymore now, though), but they are going after people who are doing A LOT of file sharing…and what is filesharing of copyrighted stuff???? It’s ILLEGAL. So, I say sue away. People have had their warning. Sure, I think CDs are overpriced. I also think cars are overpriced…but that doesn’t mean I can go to the car lot and “share” a car. Buck up and pay the $.99/per song on Napster or iTunes or just buy the CD. Do you really need 1000 plus songs on your computer??? Do you really need that much music?
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:52 pm
You’re painting the file sharers as victims. They are criminals. Get your facts straight. Stop making up lies and “facts” out of thin air.
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:52 pm
Your statement that the RIAA is suing “innocent” people is interesting. These people admittedly have downloaded music online. Downloading music that you don’t own the rights to online is ILLEGAL. That makes these people GUILTY, doesn’t it? How the law suits are made, whether the downloaders are rich or poor, how much the music industry charges for music (don’t buy it if it’s too much money) or how they go about trying to quell the onslaught of downloaders really becomes irrelevant. Stealing is stealing. I think that shoes cost too much, but I won’t walk into a store and take them without paying as a form of protest. That would only get me SUED. I’ll instead, buy cheaper shoes. Nike may be what I would prefer, but I’ll buy a generic brand because I am a law-abiding citizen. What keeps NIKE selling shoes expensively is that people keep on buying them. JUST LIKE THE MUSIC. Don’t like the price? DON’T BUY IT. Beware, however, that STEALING IS CRIMINAL.
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:55 pm
And you thought the *article* was loaded?
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:56 pm
Yes, you do need over 1000 songs on your computer. Especially if you like listening to alot of music, you dick. Sueing people is fucking bullshit, it proves nothing, we seem to forget that the bands have no say in the matter what so ever. I don’t hear the bands telling me to stop downloading their music, I don’t see bands like Megadeth, or Misfits filing complaints in court for someone “sharing” their intellectual property! If anything it’s the band, not the industry that should be sueing, this tell me one thing, it’s the industry is the real monster, not the people sharing. Bunch of goddamn greedy fucks that wanna tell you what to listen to and how much it’s going to cost! FUCK THE RIAA!!
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:57 pm
Kinda funny that you, who has none of the facts either, can judge another you deem to be uninformed.
I’m sorry, by ‘kinda funny’ I mean to say ‘useless’.
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:57 pm
well everytime they do this they always say that they have sued up to 3429 suits since last september how do we know this has anyobe verfied this or is this just comming from the riaa we already know they lie about p2p usage going down who’s to say each time they do this they really only sue 60 and say 482. how may of those suits have just been dismissed for what ever reason and how many people have chosen to fight. I wish a independemt group would look into this for the truth!!! another point this is all just a scare tatic well everytime they do this it’s gets less and less coverage by mass media only on websites like this does it get reported most file sharing are not into whats going on so if it’s scare tatic i see being less and less effective, one more thang they always say the lawsuits started last sept, if memory servs me it started last june
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:02 pm
No court has ever found that sharing music is illegal. The RIAA wants you believe it is. Remember, if you walk out a shoe store with a pair of shoes, that is one less pair the store has to sell. Not quite the same as sharing music.
For a great read- see :
Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity by Lawrence Lessig
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:05 pm
Sharing is about helping your friends, and making the world a better place. Sharing is NOT stealing. Profits over people is nonethical, and the campaign calling Piracy == Stealing is untruthful. This is an excellent example of the RIAA not giving customers what they want, and attempting to use the legal system to pervert the free market and negatively impact our free use rights.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:06 pm
Hey, I agree that the industry is huge and overbearing and greedy. So don’t support them. Don’t buy their music. And, if you choose to steal it (as defined by copyright laws), then expect to be sued. It’s black and white.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:07 pm
Here’s what I don’t get. Why is downloading an mp3, which is not a pure copy of the original music, but a facsimile at best, illegal? And before you suggest an mp3 is as good as the real thing, if that’s the case – why don’t they sell mp3s on CD in the store? Suggesting that my collection of mp3s is an illegal, finacial smack against the recording indistry is like suggesting that someone’s photocopy of coles notes is an illegal literary collection. Although I collect mp3s for the purpose of trialing new music, I still buy the music I really like on CD, as do most mp3 downloaders. So get real. It’s not like I can depend on radio, TV or even my local music store to give me access to anything but mainstream fodder.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:08 pm
I used to think that Justice meant that for every case one got a fair judgement and a fair price. However the reality is you can do time or go bankrupt just to serve as an example to the rest. Even if you get to court, it depends whether you can afford a fair day?
After doing 2 years for no reason, and then not even getting an apology, my attitute is… To the question, exactly how much music am I downloading a month? I’m getting my two years worth. The RIAA can go **** itself for all I care. Life’s a bitch… go figure.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:08 pm
Yes, but you can go to a library and “share” a book. You have oversimplified the problem and your response is as loaded as the article.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:14 pm
according to Canadian law, it is not illegal to download and file-share songs. The senant has decided its no diffrent than going to the library and borrowing a book, or photocopying a page out of a book. Whats the diffrence between file-share and cd-sharing?
the RIAA is a bunch of greedy snot sucking terd licking, losers. and they cannot touch me because I’m AM Canadian.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:16 pm
another thing…If they artist don’t care if you “share” their songs…why do they copyright them? Why not submit them as public domain? Why not give their CDs away for free? Why not let you download them from their band site?
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:21 pm
But, you can’t go to a library, scan a book cover and copy the pages and make an exact replica…at least not legally. Sharing is going to a friends house and listening to his/her CD.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:21 pm
You bastard Canadian!
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:24 pm
Either they are shill posters or people who are failing understand that no court proceeding, no investigation, no finding of facts in these individual cases takes place.
A plausible scenario is that an RIAA “investigation” finds a user online sharing 29,000 files on a P2P network. Out of those 29,000 files, 14 FILENAMES match titles of releases whose copyright is held by an RIAA member.
In actuality, the clueless user has made mp3 backups of a legitimately purchased CD’s for their own personal use and through a MISTAKE on their part they have accidentally shared the entire contents of their harddrive on the P2P network.
Now the RIAA “investigators” can say, “our client’s rights have been violated by an eggregious offender who was sharing over 29,000 files on a P2P network”
The RIAA lawyers can then interrupt this individual’s daily life, threaten them with an un-winnable lawsuit (which would most likely be winnable with a great Tech lawyer and lots of money, because the RIAA really has negligable evidence and a burden of proof, p.s. IANAL) and offer them this deal that net’s the RIAA many throusands of dollars and negligable legal fees.
How would you, a non-lawyer, react if some monolithic corporation came harrassing you demanding that you pay X amount of dollars or face a life-disrupting lawsuit which would royally mess up your life if you even thought you had a chance of winning.
It’s called extortion! It’s the illegal last resort of a non-creative industry, that being the MUSIC MARKETING Business (Not to be confused with the MUSIC MAKING Business)!
These are not ripped off artists (but rather the perpetrators of that crime) and these are not people concerned with upholding laws for the common good. These are greedy capitalists and landsharks with contempt for equality and opportunistic motives.
Don’t be fooled!
Buy music from artists directly and go to live shows, remove the middle-man! We have the technology!
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:25 pm
For all those people that say suing file sharers is bull shit. you need a refresher in general economic principals. Think of it this way. For every X number of songs downloaded illegally, there is a financial impact to the those companies that produce, distribute and retail music. When those companies have bad earnings, what do they do…they lay off employees. If your friends or parents were one of those employees, I bet you would stop downloading files pretty fast.
Pay the 99 cents, its good karma.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:30 pm
I agree that the RIAA is using the legal system to pervert the free market. The overwhelming number of people downloading free music is a clear indication that that comsumers are unhappy with that cost of music and that record companies shoud change their policies. Regardless of wheather downloading copywrited music for free is illegal or not, consumers will continue to do so untill they feel that there is a balance between the price of music and the product they recieve. This should not be a question of legality, but of what the consumers feel is the fair market value of the music they indend on buying.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:35 pm
ouch… cant the RIAA see that filesharing is promoting the music, and helping sales, not killing them…! get real RIAA!
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:35 pm
Crackah arsed hockey loving freaks stealing our intellectual property… Oh wait, we got Pam Andersen now – ok its even.
Seriously, the strategy of flooding P2P with corrupts and suing users dumb enough to keep open shares is a losing battle.
Got corrupted files (the kind that start screeching 25 seconds into the song)? Use MP3 Shield, this program has no adware, crapware, spyware or other garbage – it scans directories and detects BS files.
It found about 400 bad songs on my music directory – after batch deleting them all, my MP3s are finally usable again. So far 100% accuracy.
Media Defender (the co. that floods corrupts for the RIAA) can piss up a tree.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:36 pm
Why didn’t the music industy sue us in the 60s,70s,80,sand 90s when we were taping music from the radio fm stations.I have quite a selection and I dare you to sue me.I am even going to transfer these Golden Oldies to cds.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:37 pm
Meanwhile, spam is now 80+% of email traffic, costing companies about half a billion dollars per year, and what are our elected representatives doing? Sucking up to Hollywood by passing anti-filesharing laws while ignoring the spam tidal wave entirely.
If ever there was an obvious case of perverse incentives and perverted priorities, this is it.
Meanwhile my solution to Hollywood avarice is to simply *not consume its products.* It’s not hard to do, all it takes is a little imagination and will.
We do still have imagination and free will, don’t we?
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:37 pm
Hey dimwit…
Some people also use downloading to preview what to buy, or to replace damaged disks that have been purchased previously. I know I own 7 scratched copies of Pink Floyd’s Pulse disk(s).
Point 1) The artists do not usually copyright their songs, the Label who owns their ass does.
2) Until recently (when Disney was afraid of losing the rights to Micky F***ing Mouse) after 30 years art, music and film were supposed to go in the public domain. Copyrights were meant to protect the profits of a company for “Not more than 30 years”. Disney was afraid of losing their coyright on Mickey and co. and lobbied congress to pass new copyright laws, which they obligingly did and the law now effectively gives them a lifetime of copyrights.
3) They often do, through radio stations, and contests, etc.
4) They have been doing that as a way of promoting their music, for years- even before P2P was around.
5) I am starting to think you are either too dumb to be on this site on your own or you work for the RIAA. <– the most likely condition.
6)The labels make such a killing on Concert tickets, and other merchandising they should be giving away the music anyway.
7)Most of the new music made today sucks. 10 tracks and only 1 worth listening to.
Now go eat some crow twit.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:42 pm
Calculated losses based on electronic copies is pure speculation. In most cases individuals who receive or distribute electronic copies of copyrighted material would never have purchased the material in the first place if a freely distributed copy had not been made available. Each electronic copy does not equal a lost sale. When a person is prepared to purchase a product they typically do so, regardless of the availability of a free copy. The argument is made that programmers and artists need to be paid and that the “lost sales” obviate the high prices, but this is a catch-22. Lower the prices and more people will buy your product who have no need for it, and raise the price and the few who need or want your product will still buy it. Just because something is popular does not mean that people will buy it for the asking price. The more popular something is the more it will be purchased and freely traded. I’m sure you’ll find that more popular books find their way into more libraries. The fact of the matter is that the music industry got spread out and the monster companies saw their precious inflated, artificial, hopeful, dreamy, greed-crafted earnings estimations fail to pan out and blamed it on someone else instead of blaming it on themselves for thinking that profits will rise forever into infinity until they are so fat with cash and so glorious in the eyes of investors that they’d just about be ready to take that self-faithful step out onto the water before their fat pig asses sank to the bottom like a stone.
RIAA, be happy with the billions you make, pay your people better, and stop suing citizens in the country that pays for your yachts.
You WILL reap what you sow…
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:43 pm
so what let them sue. I wish they Come Knocking at my door they would be surprised at my cd collection from morpheus in them days they weren’t sueing so I Downloaded over ten thousand songs.so there You Idioltic RIAA!!!!! By The The Great Downloader
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:44 pm
I Love Your Story
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:46 pm
No, but many people go to the library and Photocopy relevant portions of research materials… That is illegal, but I have never heard of a publisher suing a library for providing a photocopier. Most books require you to get written permission to photocopy, excerpt, etc.
Besides what happened to “Fair Use”? I bought the Vinyl then I made a cd from it, so I could listen to this rare piece of music in my car (as it has never been offered on cd)… It goes on… What if you need to replace a cd, that has been killed through years of use, and cannot find the cd again? Why should you not be able to download it for free (after all the label got paid already)- because they are greedy f**ks… And you are a corporate hack, a bad one at that. Do you obey all the laws? Do you drive at 65 MPH or less according to the posted signs? If not then you are a Hypocrite, and seem especially concerned with music rights… which begs the question WHO ARE YOU concerned with? what ever happened to Civil disobedience. Question Authority- Epsecially the Government.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:48 pm
haha.. u go dawg…………..fuck riaa……….
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:48 pm
Whose “facts” are you using? Besides when you say “facts” I think you mean “statistics” which are subject to interpretation. Perhaps you should check your reality…
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:48 pm
Does anyone remember when it was a dream of American culture to increase the number of things in life that are free? The greed monsters have turned that around. It used to be that jeans and sneakers were cheap and good water was free, TV was free, Towns were building parks and pools for free use. You could listen to music on the radio that was chosen by a real DJ or requests and not a demographic formula. You could pop a tape in and record the songs you liked right off the freewaves. It seems if anything is a good deal someone finds a way to grab it and squeeze more money out of it. I have no doubt we will soon be paying for air.
Let’s not let anyone have anything for free, we wouldn’t be smart prostitutes if we did that!
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:53 pm
as far as i know there is no such thing as a music library … well maybe p2p netwoks.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:54 pm
How many of these people who downloaded files would have purchased them had this not been possible? Why are the independent studios – who by the way don’t seem to have a problem with filesharing, more profitable now then ever before? The RIAA are a bunch of business dinosaurs, too intent on continuing to shaft the artists and consumers to consider exploring new ways to do business. Others learned to adapt or go out of business – why do these idiots deserve special protection from the government and legal system?
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:55 pm
Indeed, didn’t several labels just settle Several real big lawsuits over price fixing? Just another way to screw the public.
I know they did ’cause I got my check for $13.98 from the state of Va recently.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:59 pm
I’d like to respond to your uninformed comments:
6) Most major concert promoters and merchandising companies are not owned by the labels so the labels don’t make any money from concert ticket sales or t-shirts, etc. The labels spend a lot of money making artists stars and then people go to their concerts and buy their stuff but the label needs to sell records to make their money back and hopefully some profit.
Who’s the twit now?
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:59 pm
It is not good karma… and that line is also BS… They have bad earnings because today’s music frequently sucks so bad that a lot of people are not willing to pay $14-$30 for a G**damn cd with one good song on it. Not to mention my personal opinion, that if they made better music and a broader selection of artists rather than the pop treacle (Brittany, Justin, etc…et al.) that they insist on shoving down our throats then they might be profitable.
June 22nd, 2004 at 11:10 pm
Still you, I notice you choose to nitpick 2 out of 8 items… and you still managed to botch the facts….
6) [X] Concert promoters pay the labels and the artist for the performance. Not to mention the amount of money paid to the labels from advertisers. (Budweiser, Corona, Margaritaville tequila, etc.) It is not my problem that they choose to make stars out of (frequently young people with bad representation) who happen to be cut out “artists”. Further they often make much more money than they acknowledge, and I’ll bet that if someone at the IRS crawled through the records of most record companies, they would be found to be based in Bermuda or some other offshore “tax shelter”, and not paying their fair share of taxes either.
June 23rd, 2004 at 2:16 am
LOL, nice, he/she seems to be oblivious to the real world, just as the Recording Co fat cats living off of others blood, sweat and tears are and will be. sorry big 5, technology has empowered the regular joe to the point of allowing them to do just what you do, adapt or stagnate and die.
soon the distribution will be controlled by the artists regardless, we’ll just have to endure the clawing and scratching of the old guard.
June 23rd, 2004 at 2:26 am
“Trickle down theory”?
hmmm. Now where have I seen that phrase before?
June 23rd, 2004 at 2:27 am
Has anyone asked this question? How does one know if the song they are down loading is copyrighted? Suppose you never heard of the artist. How is a poor file sharer supposed to know the difference?
June 23rd, 2004 at 3:16 am
I run a small independent record company and have worked at major labels so please tell me your credentials for being an authority on the music business. I did not botch the facts – concert promoters do not pay the labels! They pay the artists! In fact when record companies want tickets at a concert for one of their own artists they have to pay for them!
In regards to not being able to copy a shirt or a car that is true. But it doesn’t change the fact that just because what we create is intangible and can be copied means it can be stolen. Most people who download don’t even own the orginal… What you are doing is stealing and even though you refuse to believe that it doesn’t mean their aren’t any intelligent people who do see it as stealing and are fighting to protect what we have created.
We spend a lot of money making the general public aware of artists and songs so we should be compensated for it. If you don’t want to buy it, don’t. But don’t steal what I worked so hard to help create with the artists. I don’t think a Ferrari is worth $250,000 but it doesn’t make me justified to then take it. If I don’t want it I don’t buy it.
June 23rd, 2004 at 3:25 am
I don’t know how you think I’m oblivious to the real world – the problem is you are oblivious to the music business and don’t understand how it works. I’ve been in the business for over 10 years and have a perfect understanding of how it operates.
If most artists could control their own distribution and promotion then why aren’t they doing it? Don’t tell me the reason is because labels won’t let them – it’s because it takes a lot of money to promote and market an artist and their songs and most new artists can’t afford to do it. The record label is no different than a bank… If you have a mortgage like I do look at your statement and see how much money goes to them in interest! You’ll see that tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars goes to them for interest on top of the cost of your house that you have to pay back as well. It’s not fair but if you want to borrow THEIR money than it’s their rules. If you have the money to buy a house outright then you don’t need them but most people don’t – just as most new artists need the record company (bank) to fund them. Sure artists who have been around for a while can afford to make their own records because they have borrowed and paid the labels back for their initial loan…
Tell me where you work and I’ll come by and take (steal) whatever you make and see how you like it.
June 23rd, 2004 at 4:18 am
Hey you dumb Fuck …We Payed for The Music When we bought the CD…How would you like it if Laws said you couldn’t share your tools or lawnmower with your friends or neighbours. Ohhh thats different you say.well its not and if you keep on letting the big GREEDY COMPANIES run your Country,just to line thier pockets , don’t be suprised when you can’t even have a yard sale because it’s hurts the Retail Stores..Its people like you that let that shit Happen….So why dont you go sit in your big easy chair and be safe so you dont have to fight for whats wrong….Im sure you will let other people do it for you…..cobbie@mts.net …. You want to write me..bring it on… Do you have the balls to post your e-mail …asshole????? I highly doubt it…
June 23rd, 2004 at 4:46 am
My point was if you buy a car and it breaks down due to improper care you can’t go and steal another one to replace it. A CD that is properly cared for won’t stop playing so if you don’t keep care of it and it doesn’t work it’s unfortunately your fault.
There’s nothing wrong with lending your neighbours your tools or lawnmower so they can use it and then return it just as there’s nothing wrong with lending a friend a CD to listen to and return when they are done – the problem is if they make a copy there’s now two or more of the product that was only purchased once. When you lend your tool or lawnmower the neighbour can’t copy it and have their own so if they want one they need to BUY it.
No one is forcing you to buy a lawnmower or CD so if you don’t want to buy it then don’t – but please don’t steal what I work so hard to create.
I would have no problem posting my email if the people I were communicating with were decent and intelligent people. You can’t even write a civil well thought response without swearing and making insults.
If you want people to take your arguments seriously then communicate like a normal person.
June 23rd, 2004 at 5:37 am
Finally someone gets the headlines right. RIAA sues more file SHARERS. Not DOWNLOADERS. NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN SUED FOR DOWNLOADING. So keep on downloading people, it’s 100% safe. Just keep that sharing on the down low.
June 23rd, 2004 at 8:20 am
Good Karma, huh? Do you think that it is right that I bought 3000 ‘lp’s, put average $60000 toward ‘karma’!
Along comes the ‘brand new format’. So, can I trade in my ‘record’ for a CD, at a discounted price? HA! Even though I ‘own’ the rights to listen to said music? I don’t think so!
The industry laughed in our collective faces when 8 track went to cassette then to LP. They laughed all the way to the bank!
Now, all of a sudden, there is a new ‘medium’. One that cannot be controlled.
I simply OWN the rights to what I have on album. I worked hard, and purchased those rights. I don’t give a damn if the music that I paid to have comes out on a string that you pull between your teeth! I still own the rights to listen to the music that I have paid for!
June 23rd, 2004 at 8:37 am
You have obviously never bought an LP!
Young folk may not know that in the days when music was cool, us ‘old folk’ used to buy LP’s by the thousands!
Along comes the new format, and out goes our $1000’s worth of LP’s!
No ‘trade in’ value.
I’ve ‘paid’ for about 40000 songs. I have the right to listen to them, in any way I choose.
June 23rd, 2004 at 8:49 am
Is there anyone that reads this site willing to post a ‘name’ as opposed to Anon?
June 23rd, 2004 at 2:52 pm
There is a fundamental difference between a car or a lawnmower and a song (as opposed to a CD). A car is physical property a song is intellectual property.
When I buy a car or a lawnmower I pay the person who owns the car; however, when I pay you for your song I am paying for the right to listen to your song whenever and however I want.
When I buy a CD I am paying for both the medium (i.e. the CD) and the right to listen to the song (the intellectual property). So if the CD is damaged I still have the right to listen to the song. That’s why backups are permissable under Fair Use.
I would be wrong if I stole a CD. It’s wrong if I steal your intellectual property, but it’s also wrong to ask me to pay for the same thing twice.
June 23rd, 2004 at 4:15 pm
You make a good point about it being intellectual property but I disagree with Fair Use personally. Unfortunately music being intangible allows it to be duplicated but if there was no technology allowing this there would be no argument in favor of it… Think back 40-50 years ago when there was just vinyl and the average person couldn’t make copies… If the record you purchased was damaged due to your neglect then you had to buy another one if you wanted another copy just as you would have to replace a pair of socks that wears out after time… If a device was ever created that would allow physical objects to be duplicated then you would see how fast a law would be created to restrict it and protect manufaturers (rightfully.)
The bad news is I’m in a business that the product is intangible. Good news for you is that if you buy a CD you can make a copy for yourself so you have a backup BUT if friends and strangers (through P2P, CD copying) start making copies that’s the problem as they never purchased it. I have no problem with them borrowing it and listening to it but if they want it they should buy it and not steal it.
You also have strayed from the spirit of the argument which was saying copying of music should be allowed whether a person owns the original or not because the record industry are “fat cats” and music is overpriced.
Please respect our product because if you truly loved music you would pay for it. It costs money to record and promote an artist so that you hear it on radio, on TV and in the clubs. Sure we want to make a profit for our efforts but so does every other business out there! You think music is overpriced? How much do you think it costs to make a $100 Polo shirt?! The mark-up for profit on those are surely a lot more than a CD is.
My last point again – if you don’t like the cost then don’t buy it. No one is forcing you! I’m not rushing out to buy a Ferrari and I’m not running out to steal it either…
June 23rd, 2004 at 5:38 pm
Normal people swear and get bent out of shape when they care about something that is wrong with the world! It is not my fault nothing makes your blood boil.
June 23rd, 2004 at 5:49 pm
Of course YOU would disagree with fair use “personally”… You are a record company hack, you cannot let your self see that your methods and ideas are wrong headed, that would not fit in with your idea of reality. Not My Problem… Sorry.
Point of fact, a lot of people who download music do it to make an informed decision about buying the CD. You people are so wrapped up in corporate profits it is sickening. You might as well be working for Haliburton- your methods are so corrupt.
We respect artists not the people you choose to be artists and then promote the hell out of until people concede to with brainwashing through repeated radio play.
Some of the best music I have ever heard came from the internet and bands that get no radio play. It took a while to find the cd but when possible I have purchased cd’s with songs I liked on them. But there are other times I have not been able to find the cd to purchase, case in point- Mindless Drug Hoover- has several cd’s that have been available for a while… But you cannot find them. Not in the USA and not in Britain. So, how am I supposed to purchase it or other “out of print” items?
ABout your last point, I don’t buy cd’s I don’t like, but frequently I CAN’T buy the CD’s I do like.
June 23rd, 2004 at 6:00 pm
I run 2 indie record labels and am a producer, not to mention a musician. I have been involved in music in some way or another for over 15 years. I started recording and producing when I was 18. I have been on both ends of the rope.
Some of the most successful bands I have been involved with have offered their songs for download as a marketing tool, and it has worked wonderfully. I have helped make several regional bands recognized in markets they would not have otherwise had access to through normal channels.
There has always been an attitude in the recording industry that if it is not done through “normal” channels and channel partners it is not the right way to do it. You cling to old ideals and care not for your artists.
BTW go actually read your artist agreements ( you may need a lawyer to sort it out for you) but most have clauses that the monies paid to the artist go to the labels (indirectly) and in portion, the point being that promoters do pay the labels (indirectly). Labels also get paid by radio stations, and internet radio stations…
And again a lot of people who download also go out eventually purchase the cd’s if they are worth it. If not then they frequently delete the files, or leave them to listen to later and see if it helps change their minds.
June 23rd, 2004 at 6:03 pm
I tried to register and did not receive the email from this site.. Try it and let me know if you have any luck. I am proud of my comments and do not mind being emailed or identified…
June 23rd, 2004 at 6:04 pm
The Reagan administration and most subsequent Republican scourges…..
June 23rd, 2004 at 6:13 pm
No Swearing this time I Promise………Lets look at another aspect that for some reason the RIAA seems to ignore…..why is it the RIAA doesn’t go after the second hand stores and alike for reselling CD’s. They sell billions of CD’s a year collectivly and the owners profit personally without paying anything to the industry or Artists. Lets go after the little guy instead thats giving it away. hmmm I wonder why that is ???? (2) The RIAA is 100% self serving and have NO INTEREST in helping the Artists make more money, they only want to make sure their pockets are full so they can own million dollar homes and ride around in fancy cars….Maybe you can tell me honestly how the money on a .99 song is distributed, that would be interesting to know….Im sure it will show who’s really making the money. Also the point I was making with the tools & lawnmower was that I bought it and I should be allowed to share it with whom I choose…..If some person I don’t even know see’s a sign that says free to use,I have the right to let him use it, same as I do a CD or song….Yes the Artists do have the right to make a profit for their hard work but the RIAA does not……Yes they pay the Artists first but could collect double the profits….that is a form of loansharking, and the last time I looked loansharking is still ILLEGAL, but of course we are talking BIG BUSINESS now aren’t we…..Changing the name to Copyright Rights doesn’t change the out come. It’s about time the Artists started their own Record Industry, so their music could be sold at a fair price, but then again Im sure the RIAA would find away to stop that too……Your arguement holds no Merit what so ever for the Artists only for the Greedy RIAA. ……Cobbie
June 23rd, 2004 at 9:02 pm
I just did a test sign-on with no problem. Try again : )
Cheers!
June 24th, 2004 at 2:12 am
I do care that’s why I’m trying to convice you guys that P2P is stealing. Except I’m diplomatic about it… Try swearing in a court or on TV and see how people respect what you are saying. It’s hard to treat you serious when you can’t even have a decent conversation.
The sky is blue and I can show you it is blue but you’ll still think it’s green. Downloading copyrighted material is stealing but no matter what I argue you won’t agree.
June 24th, 2004 at 2:42 pm
Thanks for not swearing!
1) Why would anyone go after used CD stores? Someone legitimately bought the CD once, owns it and if they decide to sell it that is their business. Car companies don’t go after used car lots for selling a car that they sold originally! The problem is people who download the songs for free and don’t pay anyone for it – not people reselling something they already bought.
2) Not sure on the exact breakdown but I’m assuming the online retailer gets most of the GROSS revenue – doesn’t necessarily mean that they make a profit though.
3) I’m not arguing with you lending tools or a CD because if you read carefully what my msg contains it says there is no problem lending someone a CD to listen to but if they make a copy that is a problem as they now have the exact same disc without paying for it. If I lent you a lawnmower and you put it in a machine and it made an exact duplicate for free that you could use anytime you wanted and I still had my lawnmower do you think that’s fair?
4) Let artists start their own labels – many do and labels aren’t stopping them. What is stopping them is the money needed to record, market and promote on a level that is needed to make the mass population aware of their music so that they hopefully buy it. Try going to a bank and ask for a loan to make a record!
That’s why record companies who are a bank fund artists to allow them to make thier music and in return expect to make money for doing so. Just like the bank who lent me money for my house wants to make money in return for the mortgage. I don’t see anyone complaining about the banks though…
Tell me what business you are in and imagine someone no longer paying for what you make because they can download it for free… How would you pay for your rent/mortgage, food, clothing, etc. It wouldn’t be nice would it? Well that’s what is happening to us. Think about it…
June 24th, 2004 at 2:58 pm
OK, tell me what industry you work for and show me that they aren’t out to make “corporate profits” as you describe! Every business needs to make a profit else they wouldn’t be doing it!
How come any other company can make a product, charge more for it and it’s OK but when the record business does it you guys say it’s a rip off and it justifies you not paying (stealing) for it?
Quit making excuses for stealing music!
Let me rebut these two comments as well:
“We respect artists not the people you choose to be artists and then promote the hell out of until people concede to with brainwashing through repeated radio play. ” – Then how come the majority of illegally downloaded music is popular music? You may not like commercial artists but the majority of people stealing their work do! Are you saying if you don’t respect them it’s OK to steal from them?!
“ABout your last point, I don’t buy cd’s I don’t like, but frequently I CAN’T buy the CD’s I do like.” – I can’t find a pair of old Air Jordan’s that I want to buy but does that give me the right to steal them from someone I know who has them and won’t sell them just because I know where I can take it? I do hear you though that you want to buy it but can’t find it but it still doesn’t justify the stealing.
Let me end by quoting this post from June 22nd that a friend thought I wrote and showed me – and in turn got me on this site reading and debating with you…
22 Jun, 2004 21:49
“That is the most loaded article I’ve ever read. But, one thing was glossed over…file sharing is ILLEGAL. Sure, I’ve downloaded a few songs from Kaaza in my time (not anymore now, though), but they are going after people who are doing A LOT of file sharing…and what is filesharing of copyrighted stuff???? It’s ILLEGAL. So, I say sue away. People have had their warning. Sure, I think CDs are overpriced. I also think cars are overpriced…but that doesn’t mean I can go to the car lot and “share” a car. Buck up and pay the $.99/per song on Napster or iTunes or just buy the CD. Do you really need 1000 plus songs on your computer??? Do you really need that much music? “
June 24th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
Your logic is circular… Chasing your tail, along with the dinosaur-like industry you are trying hopelessly to protect.
The Problem is not the downloading, the problem is that the record labels and marketing organizations refuse to change their marketing strategies and try new things… The law of the land is simply ADAPT OR DIE… and you have one foot in the grave, and the other on a bananna peel.
CD sales are down, because the labels got greedy and started trying to change a cheap ($3) cd into an expensive pyramid scheme ($17.00 baseline) for bad music. The music industry picks people to make stars out of, and if the public does not buy it they whine, they complain about profits, they blame everybody but the industry itself (sounds like the Bush administration) refusing to accept it’s own mistakes… Try making good new music, be innovative and embrace change, or go extinct.
June 24th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
Thanks. I will try it agin.
June 25th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
Your logic doesn’t make sense – if people never liked the music then no one would be downloading it! Reality is all that music you say isn’t any good people ARE downloading and enjoying.
If you don’t think it’s worth $17 then don’t buy it – but don’t STEAL it either.
Quit making excuses for stealing.
June 25th, 2004 at 6:40 pm
Respect is a two way street that starts with self-respect. You cannot have mutual respect without having self-respect first.
People will not respect artists who do not have self- respect for themselves or respect for thier fans.
Filesharing has nothing to do with the price of music, but rather respect, or lack of.
Artist need to EARN that respect from the fans. Your fans are not a inexhaustable resource of mindless masses of people who plunk down thier money for your talent, nor are record companies your keepers. Just as you the artist are unique and have talent as an individual, so is each and everyone of your fans a unique human being, and on that level of humanity you are one in the same.
Connect and relate directly with the people and respect will happen.
June 25th, 2004 at 6:44 pm
MUSICIANS… RECORD AND DISTRIBUTE YOURSELF.
EVERYBODY ELSE DOWNLOAD UNTIL THE INDUSTRY EITHER ADAPTS OR GOES BROKE.
IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS… GUESS WHAT … IT WONT MATTER.
June 25th, 2004 at 7:00 pm
These lawsuits are going nowhere. Not one of them has even gone to court.
All you hear about are hush-hush settlements that only serve as a pr campaign.
Filesharing isn’t illegal and no-one has been arrested.
None of the people the record companies have threatened to sue have ever been arrested for filesharing.
It’s true people can sue anybody in civil court for frivilous and silly things. It happens all the time and the RIAA are now the kings of unworthy and frivilous civil lawsuits, because they are too cowardly and greedy to really solve the problem. Sue your customers and see if they ever buy anything else from you again.
June 25th, 2004 at 7:04 pm
If they say you bought the rights to listen to the music and not the music itself, doesn’t that mean that you can listen to it and change format as you see fit.
If you can’t move the music from LP to mp3, or from player to player,then they should give you your money back because they are in breach of the contract and public trust when they originally sold you the music.
June 25th, 2004 at 8:42 pm
Actually, asshat, you can go to a car lot and share a car. If your buddy buys the car as many of your friends as you can gather can share it till your heart’s content. In fact, you’re even free to pull it apart piece by piece and make 20 copies of all the pieces and put them back together so all your friends can have their own copy of the car. Don’t be an idiot. You aren’t taking anything away from anyone by making a copy of a CD. Every CD I buy (and I don’t buy CD’s from the RIAA labels) gets ripped to my hard drive so I can listen to it in any car in my house as well as my MP3 player. I make at least 2 hard copies of the CD…one for my car and one for my living room stereo…and the original goes into storage so I don’t have to worry about destroying the original copy. Somehow we are only buying a license to listen to this music but at the same time we are restricted to only listening to it on the physical medium it is distributed on. Even if we have a valid license we can’t get another copy of the media without buying another license. Get your head out of your ass and realize that the RIAA is full of shit and needs to be thrown out with the bathwater.
June 28th, 2004 at 5:08 pm
Your circular logic is boring everyone on this thread… Go file a lawsuit… or adapt your marketing techniques. Even the statistics you quote are inaccurate.
Neither you nor anyone else can conclusively prove that the “lost sales” caused by downloading are directly effecting record sales.
Record sales are slowing because fewer and fewer people can justify $20 for bad albums (Alcoholica- I mean Metallica, Brittany, Justin, etc.). Get a grip and look at reality. Record sales are down, because the majority of the music sucks and it is terribly over priced- Not because people are downloading it. There has been study after study that tells the labels, and you what the problem is and they do not listen. The majority of the studies, show that downloading is no more harmful to sales than the taping of cds and giving them to friends- which I have never seen anyone get sured for. I for one have found it goes a long way toward generating word of mouth PR.
Incidently what atrists do you represent- since you seem to be too wrapped up in this issue?
July 2nd, 2004 at 3:54 pm
This is my last post on this subject with you as you don’t know what you are talking about.
Studies like the Harvard study on downloading that say downloading doesn’t affect sales are innacurate – I even tried discussing this with it’s authors with no luck after I questioned some points in their study.
The bottom line is I have been in the business for over 10 years and once Napster became a household name and people realized they could steal music sales began to really drop. No study can show me (a person actually in the business that is being studied rather than some outside person making assumptions) that downloading hasn’t affected sales. The best study to conduct is to ask most people (especially teens) how they get their music and most will tell you that they download rather than buy it. I’ve been told many times by people “You buy music? Who does anymore!” That proves to me that people are stealing rather than buying. Most know by now that it is wrong but would rather get the music for free and still have $20 to spend.
In fact compilations which take all the best songs and put them on one CD have had the biggest drop in sales which counters your argument people don’t want to pay $20 for a bad CD. When we give them the option of not buying the album and getting all the hits on one convenient CD then how come no one is buying them? Maybe it’s because they are downloading all the hits themselves and making their own CD compilation!
My closing statement is that if you don’t like the price of and quality a CD (as you clearly don’t) then don’t buy it! Simple as that! If you don’t like my product I don’t want you to but it but at the same time It does not give your the right to steal it!
End of argument!
July 8th, 2004 at 1:18 pm
Thiis just in – another study showing downloading DOES affect music sales negatively! Go get your facts straight and stop stealing!
http://sympatico.msn.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040706.gtpolarajul6/tech/Technology/techBN/sympatico-technology
August 20th, 2004 at 4:18 pm
It’s not illegal. And even if it was illegal, you know what else is? Hacking. Spying on people’s internet habits is a seriously unethical crime, but why aren’t they getting in trouble with the law? Because they have money. The amount of money they actually sue people for is outrageous. It’s one thing if it were a dollar a song. But instead, they try to get so much more than that. Remember the girl from the Pepsi commercial? Over a period of 3 years, she and her siblings downloaded about 900 songs. When the RIAA got her, they made her pay $3000, and if her family hadn’t settled out of court, and lost, the RIAA would have been able to prosecute them to the full extent: $150 000 per infringement. That would bankrupt her family, and completely ruin her life. Do the math: Losing a court case of 900 downloaded songs would take an average person more than 270 years to pay for it. That’s why they couldn’t take that risk; not when a multi-billion dollar giant like the RIAA has infinite lawyers at their disposal. In fact, just to prepare for court would cost them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
So, like many other victims, this girl’s family had to swallow their pride and pay up. Don’t you get it? The RIAA is cutting their losses and then some by bullying working families. And yet, who do they give any of this money to? The artists? No, it goes back into the greedy pockets of the major labels so they can sue more people and stay at the top. I can’t believe you’d defend something so criminal. Whatever your opinion of downloading is, nobody has the right to intimidate these people like this.
August 20th, 2004 at 4:28 pm
Yeah, what the hell does the RIAA think they’re doing? Not only are they suing their own consumers and losing more supporters in the process, but they don’t even represent the artists. When they sue someone, does the money even go to the artist? I don’t think so. And if the lawsuits cause people to start boycotting major labels, and sales drop, do the artists get any compensation? And even if the artists do want to sue people, they’d never make like a short, balding drummer named Lars and do it themselves, because they know it would just make them look like assholes. So instead, they let someone else do it for them while they remain anonymous and “support” their fans.
August 20th, 2004 at 4:30 pm
They don’t copyright the songs, the major labels do. If they market their music independently, or sign with an independent label, they decide whether or not they want to copyright the songs.