You got a raw deal: Richard Marx to Jammie Thomas
p2pnet news view RIAA | P2P:- According to Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, kind of), Jammie Thomas-Rasset owes $80,000, for a total of $1.92 million, for a play list of 24 songs.
A lot of people have expressed wonderment not only at the amount, but also at her selections.
But taste is individual and everyone is entitled to listen to whatever they want —- although the Big 4 would have it otherwise as they use legal systems around the world, and ‘trade’ organisation such as their RIAA, to try to forcibly channel music lovers into buying their ‘product’ only.
Among the tunes listed in the RIAA vs Jammie Thomas-Rasset copyright infringemnent case is Richard Marx’s ‘Now and for ever,’ on EMI’s Capitol label.
Check it out below (until it gets taken down ‘by request’ as other YouTube versions have been).
Would you pay $80,000 for it?
Because that’s the amount and Minnesota jury decided was fair and reasonable for each of the 20 songs whose copyrights Jammie is alleged to have infringed to the tune of $1.92 million.
But, “As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music,” Marx says in a statement quoted by Ars Technica.
“I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels,” he says, going on »»»
These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets.
So now we have a “judgment” in a case of illegal downloading, and it seems to me, especially in these extremely volatile economic times, that holding Ms. Thomas-Rasset accountable for the continuing daily actions of hundreds of thousands of people is, at best, misguided and at worst, farcical. Her accountability itself is not in question, but this show of force posing as judicial come-uppance is clearly abusive.
“Ms. Thomas-Rasset, I think you got a raw deal, and I’m ashamed to have my name associated with this issue,” he adds.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
June, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“I’m ashamed to have my name associated with this issue,”
No doubt you are, Richard.
And every artist who is associated with a major label (and smaller labels under the majors) should be ashamed now too.
All your names are associated with this hurtful unfair ridiculous fiasco. Time to reconsider your ties.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
So DO something about it Richard!
June 24th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
While he SEEMS sympathetic, he still spouts the corporate pablum by his belief that downloaders are
a cause in the decline of the labels.
This …
” These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets. ”
is in reality the ENTIRE cause.
While I generally don’t like comparing real world examples to File Sharing, this one seems to fit the general attitude of
the labels and artists that still cling to the Downloads …
I am a pipe smoker, and I order pipe tobacco once a month from an online distributer in NJ.
The largest Pipe seller in my state is only 21/2 hour drive south of me. I only order from him
in a ‘pinch’ though, and sometimes the owner is a little .. tense .. about his competition, blaming the
internet for his much slimmer sales. He has not set up, and has no intention of setting up a way of
selling his products over the internet and is resentful of those who buy from internet vendors.
But, the simple fact is, while I CAN phone in an orde to him, his prices are on average 30 to 50%
more than my online vendor.
The internet isn’t the enemy. His own refusal to try to enter the internet market, coupled with
his higher prices is the problem.
Competition.
If he were willing to attempt to join his competitors online, and price competitively, his business would turn around.
He is his own enemy by being stuck in the brick and mortar world without compromise.
Sound familiar ?
June 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
It’s quite apparent many artists are now regretting their “marriage” to these labels, and are indeed thinking of a “divorce”.
Jammie’s penalities have opened some eyes.
I expect to see more artists foregoing new label contracts and dealing directly with their fans in the future.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
But will he chip in $80,000 to cover his song?
June 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“But will he chip in $80,000 to cover his song?”
That’s not the first time I’ve seen this suggestion (?) posted.
For those who are serious… C’MON!
I applaud any label-contracted artist that comes out like this, regardless of whether they still “have a problem” with file sharing or not. It means they can at least see the labels for what they are, and are willing to risk the consequences from speaking out. That’s a plus, and it doesn’t mean that down the road, they won’t start to realize that file sharing is not the enemy (as they’ve been conditioned by the labels to believe in the first place). The more artists that do this, regardless of what you think of any of them, or regardless of whether you like(d) their music or not, the better the truth will come out sooner.
To direct insults or implied criticisms at an artist after “coming out” like that, against their labels, is disingenuous and just plain stupid.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
He should be happy that someone even thought to download and listen to one of his songs.
And all the news stories are saying “illegally downloaded”, was she found guilty of illegally downloading the songs or copyright infringement/distribution. Cause as far as Im concerned there is a major difference. I dont have a problem with someone downloading a song for personal use. I do think it is wrong to buy a song/cd and rip it and then uploaded it to 1, 12, 100 or 500,000 people.
If she wasnt convicted of illigally downloading the songs then the media/RIAA and others need to stop saying that.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:19 am
“But will he chip in $80,000 to cover his song?”
you mean 1$ ? since the remaining 79999 goes to the RIAA lawyer shit
June 25th, 2009 at 5:49 am
I actually kind of like Richard Marx’s music, though these days I’m ashamed to admit that I ever listen to any major label artist. I sure as hell don’t pay for them.
I’ll echo the above sentiments: I won’t begrudge the guy his personal opinion against file-sharing (though I disagree with him), but if he really feels as bad as he does about the massive rip-off that was the Jammie Thomas case, he should consider doing something other than just expressing empty sentiment.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
” If she wasnt convicted of illigally downloading the songs then the media/RIAA and others need to stop saying that. ”
She was, in a sneaky roundabout way.
Even though she wasn’t sued for it, Judge Davis inserted it in Jury instruction 18. Judge Davis ordered
that a download is an infringement and she should be found guilty.
I do believe cash was probably involved.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
In an interview on YouTube, JTR explains she OWNS the CDs, so she didn’t download ‘em, so she can’t be convicted of downloading if she already paid for the CD’s.
Distribution/making available, is another thing all together.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
” n an interview on YouTube, JTR explains she OWNS the CDs, so she didn’t download ‘em, so she can’t be convicted of downloading if she already paid for the CD’s.
Distribution/making available, is another thing all together. ”
Distribution, which they could not prove … read the Jury instruction.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
If they could not prove distribution and she already owns the CD’s why does it matter and why is she guilty of downloading some “IP” she already pays for?
This is the part that confuses me. What is she actually guilty of? Is it illegal to download for yourself something you ALREADY paid for? They already have royalties from her CD purchases so where’s the loss worthy of a guilty verdict?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
” This is the part that confuses me. What is she actually guilty of? Is it illegal to download for yourself something you ALREADY paid for? They already have royalties from her CD purchases so where’s the loss worthy of a guilty verdict? ”
This confuses all of us, including the lawyers out there who HAVE a sense of ethics.
The verdict only makes sense to the RIAA, and apparently Judge Davis, whatever his reasoning
may be ( green colored, I imagine ).
June 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES?
Why were not the songwriters (including Richard Mark) included in te lawsuit as an indispensable party to the lawsuit by virtue of being legal or
beneficial owners of the songs? See Wikipedia for the term “indispensable party”.
“An indispensable party (or necessary and indispensable party) is a party in a lawsuit whose participation is required for jurisdiction or the purpose of rendering a judgment. Often, an indispensable party is any party whose rights are directly affected by disposition of the case. Many jurisdictions have rules which provide for an indispensable party to be joined (brought into the case as a party) at the discretion of the judge. In some cases, the inability to join such a party means that the case must be dismissed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indispensable_party
It is my understanding that if Richard Mark (assuming he owned his song” did not want to be in the lawsuit, the case for the Marx song had to be dismissed. that would prevent the possibility that Jammie Thomas could be sued again for the same thing, the second time by the songwriters, who obviously are not going to get anything from whatever damages are eventually paid by Jammie Thomas.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES?
Why were not the songwriters (including Richard Mark) included in te lawsuit as an indispensable party to the lawsuit by virtue of being legal or
beneficial owners of the songs? See Wikipedia for the term “indispensable party”.
“An indispensable party (or necessary and indispensable party) is a party in a lawsuit whose participation is required for jurisdiction or the purpose of rendering a judgment. Often, an indispensable party is any party whose rights are directly affected by disposition of the case. Many jurisdictions have rules which provide for an indispensable party to be joined (brought into the case as a party) at the discretion of the judge. In some cases, the inability to join such a party means that the case must be dismissed.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indispensable_party
It is my understanding that if Richard Mark (assuming he owned his song” did not want to be in the lawsuit, the case for the Marx song had to be dismissed. that would prevent the possibility that Jammie Thomas could be sued again for the same thing, the second time by the songwriters, who obviously are not going to get anything from whatever damages are eventually paid by Jammie Thomas.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:44 am
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES?
Any lawyer care to comment on this?
June 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
” WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES?
Any lawyer care to comment on this? ”
This has been answered.
There are no indispensible parties since the artists DON’T OWN THEIR OWN SONGS.
Therefore no need to worry about what that pesky artist thinks or cares about.
A good example is the Paul McCartney article in which Paul clearly states that he has to pay someone every time he
perform HIS OWN SONGS.
You won’t get a lawyer to comment on anything directly in a blog.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
^^^ That’s because McCartney signed such a deal where he doesn’t own the copyrights/distribution rights/performance rights/publishing rights.
If you do it all yourself, you can do whatever you want.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
” ^^^ That’s because McCartney signed such a deal where he doesn’t own the copyrights/distribution rights/performance rights/publishing rights.
If you do it all yourself, you can do whatever you want. ”
Exactly.
Technology is at a place now where it is actually financially in reach of average musicians to create, record, produce and
distribute without the need of the labels.
Marx, McCartney, and every current Label artist had pretty much no choice. Do as the labels want, sign away your rights,
or never get airplay, et al .. no one will ever hear you.
The label artist that owns the right to their own material is a VERY rare breed.
We all know that this is the real reason they want P2P criminalized, and the net policed and monetized.
Yes, NOW, you can do it all yourself.
Then , you had little or no choice.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
@Dred
I know, that’s what I meant. And now many label artists are doing that. Marx actually writes music for many different artists, which impresses me. He’s also funny about how he used to look, watching interviews with him was quite entertaining. His music is not for everyone, that’s for sure, but at least he can write, record, perform, and produce.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
” I know, that’s what I meant. ”
Thanks, I stand corrected.
There are way too many that still equate rightsholders with artists, not realizing that the rightsholder is almost never the artist.
( there are a couple of Richard Marx songs that I am pretty fond of myself ).
June 27th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES?
When I posed the question I wasn’t thinking of artists, but the songwriters or the song publishers that may own the songs.
Then are these indispensable parties or not?
I seriously doubt that all the 24 songs downloaded by Thomas belonged to the record companies (as ownres).
Then the is the concept of beneficial owners.
When an artists or songwriters gives up ownership of their work in exchange of royalties they become beneficial owners of the work.
Amerian copyright laws recognizes the right of beneficial owners to sue when their work is infringed.
See section §501. Infringement of copyright:
“The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411 [17 USC 411], to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it”.
So, even if an artist or a songwriter gave away the legal ownership, as beneficial owners they may have a right to be compensated by infringes of their work. As such they may have been indispensable parties in the Thomas lawsuit and without them in the lawsuit there can be no damages. The concept protects Thomas from a new lawsuit from the beneficial owners.