woman gets sued for $200k for downloading songs.WOW!

[versuviusx]

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/ind ... 0710050641

[E Car]

Not for downloading, I believe, but for making songs available for others to download on Kazaa.

[Electricide]

that's why I never give, I only take.

[chris harris]

makes 99cents sound like a bargain!

[;ivlunsdystf]

I said it already in that Radiohead thread: RIAA is, in my assessment, SO OBVIOUSLY trying to stir up maximum controversy which will lead to congressional hearings which will lead to a deal whereby they get 1% of every dollar spent on internet connections for the rest of time. That's exactly why they are more than happy to take another single mom to the cleaners in court. A rural working-class single mom is MONEY for grabbing headlines.

The press and the blogs will play right into their hands, denouncing the recent judgement and RIAA's greed, and calling for a more reasonable arrangment so we can avoid more and more RIAA suits/settlements in the future. That's when RIAA will call for their automatic handout. It's the same thing they got when cassettes were introduced, and again with minidisc, and again with standalone CDRs (consumer grade).

It's not about RIAA wanting the 200k. That's chump change to them. It's not about deterrence either (actually, they'd rather we all do more and more illegal sharing, because it strengthens their position as victims). It's about a much huger amount that they hope to soak in, through direct government mandate, for the rest of time.

Mark my words.

[8th_note]

I said it already in that Radiohead thread: RIAA is, in my assessment, SO OBVIOUSLY trying to stir up maximum controversy which will lead to congressional hearings which will lead to a deal whereby they get 1% of every dollar spent on internet connections for the rest of time. That's exactly why they are more than happy to take another single mom to the cleaners in court. A rural working-class single mom is MONEY for grabbing headlines.

The press and the blogs will play right into their hands, denouncing the recent judgement and RIAA's greed, and calling for a more reasonable arrangment so we can avoid more and more RIAA suits/settlements in the future. That's when RIAA will call for their automatic handout. It's the same thing they got when cassettes were introduced, and again with minidisc, and again with standalone CDRs (consumer grade).

It's not about RIAA wanting the 200k. That's chump change to them. It's not about deterrence either (actually, they'd rather we all do more and more illegal sharing, because it strengthens their position as victims). It's about a much huger amount that they hope to soak in, through direct government mandate, for the rest of time.

That's the first explanation that I've ever read that could actually rationalize their behavior. You might be right, Tater. But I still think that they are just plain stupid.

[b3groover]

Or assholes.

Or stupid assholes.

[rwc]

The RIAA is a joke. A well funded, well supported, legislatively backed joke, but a joke nonetheless.

[;ivlunsdystf]

The RIAA is a joke. A well funded, well supported, legislatively backed joke, but a joke nonetheless.

They're not really a joke when they can use the courts to finish off some poor sap for p2p'ing approx. 20 Godsmack and Sarah MacLachlan songs, or when they can easily and (for now) legally extort approx. 4k from millions of people without even entering a courtroom.

They are definitely stupid assholes though.

[thethingwiththestuff]

i dont know who to believe! over at prosoundweb, a bunch of guys vying for terry manning's attention say "thieves" are ruining their industry!

WEIRD!

i'm of the mind that it's time for artists/labels to modernize and adjust their practices, FYI. apparently, some very very very very very popular band agrees with me.

[;ivlunsdystf]

i dont know who to believe! over at prosoundweb, a bunch of guys vying for terry manning's attention say "thieves" are ruining their industry!

WEIRD!

i'm of the mind that it's time for artists/labels to modernize and adjust their practices, FYI. apparently, some very very very very very popular band agrees with me.

Maybe Godsmack should offer to reimburse this poor Jammie woman for her troubles. They should be honored that somebody still listens to their stuff at all.

Of course the established bands are all totally silent on this issue. Metallica got burned a few years ago by speaking out against illegal downloading; likewise, only a few crazies would actually condone it when the industry is paying the bills. (I remember that Michael Moore encouraged piracey of Fahrenheit 911 before the last prez. election because, he said, he really wanted everybody to see it)

Radiohead is obliquely tackling the issue. Look, I just gave them more free viral hype! Oops. Those guys should be paying US.

[E Car]

i dont know who to believe! over at prosoundweb, a bunch of guys vying for terry manning's attention say "thieves" are ruining their industry!

WEIRD!

i'm of the mind that it's time for artists/labels to modernize and adjust their practices, FYI. apparently, some very very very very very popular band agrees with me.

I don't think it's fair to infer that they're saying it's theft because they want to impress the moderator.
It is theft, plain and simple, and if anyone here is interested in making a living in the industry of recorded music, then downloaders make it that much more difficult.

I support anyone's right to give away their produce for free if they so choose, but to take it is stealing. It doesn't matter if you're a single mother, sick, nice, or the biggest jerk on the planet. There is no correlation between these two positions.

Everyone wants to have access to what major labels create and promote, and most bands want to do business with them, but then as soon as they don't do what someone likes they're the big bad wolf. Artists aren't victims and business aren't oppressors--a contract is freely signed by both parties hoping to gain from it.

Downloading also hurts indie labels, studio owners and freelance engineers--anyone who labors on an album pays when the demand for that album is lowered. That's why we pay people to own what they produce.

Here's another perspective. Those folks as PSW are professionals and they know all this-- that the profitability of the music industry in general directly affects their ability to do what they love for a living. People who record music already give up a lot to work in this industry. To have people then steal something that was at least partially a labor of love adds insult to injury.

To then have whole boards of people who claim to love music and care about artists and engineers say that it's no big deal and it's mean is just idiotic. The first people to sue over downloading were artists. Of course downloading hurts artists. There is no money that major labels have that wasn't made by artists. Less for labels equals less for promotion, less for videos, less for recording and fewer royalties.

Radiohead has already benefited from years and years of major label support. Did they have the money to record their first albums and videos? Or the promotions people to break Creep to program directors in the US?

Giving away an album is only news if you're already big--and it will only get this big of a stir once. There isn't some magic wand that will be waved and all music will be free and more artists will be able to make better livings. (Unless they all charge $80 for their box sets, of course.)

There are people on other boards saying that they wished people would download their music. And other people, rightfully responding that if their music was selling they wouldn't feel that way at all.

Disagree with the settlement or the industry's strategy all you want, but downloading is stealing, and it does hurt artists, engineers, studio owners, video producers, major labels and indies and even related industries such as gear and instrument makers. Whether those people have money, kids, jobs or are as likable on paper as a single mother is of no consequence.

For the record, she made over 1,700 songs available and refused to admit she had done it. They offered her much lower settlements but she refused.

There are an estimated 25 downloads for every legitimate music purchase and 20 billion illegally downloaded songs every year.

[JGriffin]

Right on, Eben.

[thethingwiththestuff]

i dont know who to believe! over at prosoundweb, a bunch of guys vying for terry manning's attention say "thieves" are ruining their industry!

WEIRD!

i'm of the mind that it's time for artists/labels to modernize and adjust their practices, FYI. apparently, some very very very very very popular band agrees with me.

I don't think it's fair to infer that they're saying it's theft because they want to impress the moderator.
It is theft, plain and simple, and if anyone here is interested in making a living in the industry of recorded music, then downloaders make it that much more difficult.

Everyone wants to have access to what major labels create and promote, and most bands want to do business with them, but then as soon as they don't do what someone likes they're the big bad wolf. Artists aren't victims and business aren't oppressors--a contract is freely signed by both parties hoping to gain from it.

i didn't suggest they were saying that to impress a big time engineer, it was just a little territorial ribbing because i prefer the people and attitudes on TOMB.

i certainly don't think everyone wants what the majors offer nor to do business with them. i have no interest in major label music, nor signing to (the!) one. it seems like you're suggesting that artists make most of their money on record sales. doesn't it mostly come from touring? with the state of the record industry today, is an album much more than a promotional item to get folks to the live show and to get the tshirt?? don't fans purchase the albums anyway?

wasn't the whole business model of the past overblown and overhyped? is a cd really worth $20?? i know it "costs" that for promotion and all, but that's expensive.

also, many of us here ARE artists, engineers, and love music, not just claim to.

i absolutely agree radiohead could never have done this without the previous label support. i think excessive file sharing should be discouraged, but definitely not punished in this way.

[;ivlunsdystf]

For the record, she made over 1,700 songs available and refused to admit she had done it. They offered her much lower settlements but she refused.

There are an estimated 25 downloads for every legitimate music purchase and 20 billion illegally downloaded songs every year.

Point of fact: the judgement in court was only for 24 songs, not 1700.

I agree with what you are saying, that illegal downloading threatens a generally pretty good (but often cheesy) copyrighted entertainment industry.

We'll all stay tuned, of course. I certainly hope that we all can, as a species, find a better way to share our creative works with one another than the current status quo. I hope these "business as usual" $3,000 settlements aren't still happening in ten years, in other words. I think a major change in the system is needed (though not necessarily likely)

FWIW, the Bushies issued a statement yesterday in favor of the relatively high fine assessed to the single mother in court this week, saying that strong copyright law enforcement is necessary to protect the important US entertainment industry. RIAA is really in trouble if Bush is taking their side. He's not so popular nowadays.