US file-sharer gets $700,000 fine

[eppur_se_muova]

Source: BBC

A US student has been ordered to pay $675,000 (£404,000) to four record labels for breaking copyright laws after sharing music online.

The student from Boston University, Joel Tenenbaum, admitted in court on Thursday that he had downloaded and distributed 30 songs.

It is the second such case to go to trial in the US.

In the first case, a woman in Minneapolis was ordered to pay $1.92m for sharing 24 songs.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8177285.stm

---

Well, this sounds a little ... um, disproportionate.

[ixion]

1. These are BS cases that need to stop, IMO

the DMCA is a piece of trash.

[saigon68]

41. Obviously the Courts have a lot of Free Time

for shit like this.

I wonder how much this "little adventure" cost the tax-payers

[elias7]

45. This is only the second case tried

Try reading some news reports

[ixion]

46. one is too many

and I do read plenty of news, but thanks for the snark. :eyes:


This may be only the second case tried under a specific law, but it most certainly is not only the second time RIAA has savaged an individual citizen for sharing a few songs.

[anneboleyn]

114. Yes, there have been a number of cases settled out of court, with fines in the 5k range.

[Oregone]

2. If they are paying that much per song, they should get ownership rights on the music

[Deja Q]

4. And the money going to the artist who MADE the work to be stolen in the first place.

[IrishBuckeye]

123. I don't think this is how contracts are written up.

A musical artist is paid a sum of money by a company to compose and record music which will be distributed by the company for a cost and the proceeds of the sales will go to the comapany. I imagine this is how contracts are written when all is said and done.

[harmonicon]

127. not even close

For indies, the artist writes and records the songs (or sometimes records the songs of others). They sign a contract with a label to physically produce and distribute the recordings. Part of this contract gives the label a license on the publishing rights for the songs, usually for a fixed amount of time in a geographic region (it may be one country, a continent, or world-wide). The publishing rights are different than the copyright - the copyright is for the composition, where as the publishing rights are for the specific recordings at issue. When a radio station, for instance, plays a song from the album they have to pay publishing royalties which go to the record label. It is a limited license for the published material that someone acquires when they "buy" a download, a CD, etc. Places that have jukeboxes also have to pay for these (though that's through a blanket payment to the rights collecting agencies)..... so many different ways.

For major labels the model is similar, but in fact more of the inverse of what you suggest. In cases where albums have high production costs the label gives the artist an advance loan on future profits to record an album. They often are also charging the artist for all promotional events and materials. If the record exec comes to the studio and eats lunch, he charges to the artists (really). The tentacles reach into various places and levels depending on particular situations - some labels are involved with live concerts while some have nothing to do with it, etc. IF they do fund a tour, it is as a loan to the artist. If none of these things make a profit, the artist is in debt to the label. After costs are recouped there is profit sharing.

The share in these scenarios can vary widely. There are some indy labels, like Touch-and-Go, which split royalties 50/50 with artists, but that is incredibly rare. More likely is that the artist will receive between 5 and 15 percent. Also, in both instances, the only money a company pays an artist before an album is released is as an advance - if they don't make that money back, the artist is in debt.

The real horror story about all of this is how labels can use this to control the artists and the market. Say a label signs a 10 year publishing deal (it might be just for one album, but it might be for six) with a person/band. If the first record doesn't sell (or even if they decide not to release it because they don't think it will sell or think it isn't what they want to push at the time), they don't have to produce any more records, and the artist can't release that material for 10 years. If they sign a multi album deal and the label doesn't want to bother with them for that many albums, they're fucked - they can't go to another label or release material under that name anymore. It happens all of the time. Have you heard of Akira the Don? Probably not. He was going to be the next Eminem or P-Diddy, but the label refused to release his album because of his song "Thanks for All the Aids" which was incredibly critical of the powers-that-be and obviously not very radio friendly. He had to buy his album back from the label ($150,000 I think?) with proceeds from a song he licensed to a soundtrack. Sure, the record was the self-released, but no one in the US is going to hear about it.

[Deja Q]

3. Sounds like this Tenenbaum is getting a royal screwing...

On the plus side, the songs he distributed mustn't have been very good if he had to hand out more yet get fined nowhere near $1.92M...

[madaboutharry]

5. I don't understand what he actually did.

Are there sites were people can do this? And why would someone even want to when you can buy a song from iTunes for 99 cents? I don't get the point.

[swishyfeet]

6. Paying for music?

That's adorable.

[harmonicon]

7. I think asking for money for a download is as unjust as these fines

Information is free. It's as simple as that.

[ramapo]

9. Do you get paid for your work?

Everybody loves to ignore the fact that a person(s) put forth significant time and energy to create that "information" that others might enjoy. Like everybody, that person would like to be paid for their efforts.

You might like to believe that your just giving a return screwing to a large, heartless corporation that spends its every waking hour trying to screw everybody else and to an extent you're right. The artist has historically gotten a tiny fraction of download revenue.

Now these fines are totally out of line and seem to me to be immoral if not illegal.

But to say that asking money for a download is unjust is no different than saying it is ok to walk into Barnes&Noble and steal books and records to your hearts content.

[madaboutharry]

10. I see it as shoplifting.

I agree with you. I don't see any difference than if someone went into Barnes&Noble and stole a book or stole a shirt from Macy's. It is stealing.

I also agree that the amount of the fines is outrageous. It seems that the courts feel that if the fines were actually reasonable, that people wouldn't be scared off from doing this.

[indepat]

15. Were the crime racketeering, doesn't RICO just provide treble damages, but rather than treble

damages in this case, is it ten times, fifty times, one hundred times, or maybe 1,000 times? Why not just let the punishment fit the crime? :P

[Feron]

25. I disagree.

Say I'm interested in an artist, but haven't heard anything from them or a particular album. So I download a few tracks or an entire album. If I like it, then I go out and buy the CD. Or there are things like long out of print albums or demos that aren't available to purchase.

It's like going to a library and reading a book. Reading a book without buying it isn't stealing. It's only stealing if you leave the library without checking it out. Or if you jacked a shirt you tried on at Macy's.

Filesharing networks are a great way to get your brand out there. Believe it or not, there are people out there that buy music, but they aren't willing to pay $ on a blind buy. You should only worry if nobody wants to download your stuff.

Unfortunately a person can't always purchase an individual song. Some songs on iTunes and other places are only available to purchase if you buy the whole album. That discourages people who only want one or two songs from the album, but don't care for the rest. Not many people are willing to pay ten dollars for two songs.

And it would be great if the selection on imeem and other places were increased. Thirty second clips just don't do justice to a song. I want to hear the entire thing. Trying to track down a legal place to listen to a full album can be frustrating.

[thecrow]

40. Try Rhapsody... it lets you listen to full songs

Also you get$10 worth of free downloads per month so the subscription of 15.99 works out to 10.99.
ALSO, YOU ONLY HAVE TO BUY IF YOU WANT TO BURN A TRACK.
You can listen to anything you want.

[NashVegas]

131. Why the Library Model Doesn't Work

When you borrow a book from the library, you eventually have to return it.

Before Napster, people who loved music read magazines, turned on their radio, and bought albums from artists they were curious about.

When rock and alternative split, less people had a chance to hear music they were curious about on the radio, yet somehow, the Cure still sold albums and sold out arenas.

The Napster generation got initial breaks because radio wasn't serving the interests of real music lovers. That's over now. Music lovers have MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and tons of places to listen to music for free, without taking ownership.

Demanding ownership in this atmosphere means MIT has launched as much, if not more, thuggery towards artists as anything Wall St. ever came up with.


Trying to track down a legal place to listen to a full album can be frustrating.

In which case, it's not that important to you to begin with.

[merwin]

31. stealing involves a loss of physical property.

What would your insurance company say if you tried to claim that someone stole your cd collection by making a digital reproduction of it?

Or maybe that someone stole your painting because they scanned it into a computer.

Nothing is being stolen here. There are no real physical damages involved. There is no intent to profit from the reproductions. There is only a claim that each of the people he shared the files with would have bought the album otherwise, which is flawed logic.

Furthermore, if you follow this to its logical conclusion, i could be fined millions for making a mix tape (or cd these days) and distributing it to my 10 closest friends.

At what point does fair use become illegal reproduction? The RIAA would like you to believe that the volume of distribution is what matters here, but they are using a law that doesn't specify that it has to be over a certain volume of distribution. The original purpose of these laws is to prevent illegal sales of copied music, not to stop people from swapping music that they share a common interest in, which actually helps to boost the band's popularity, which in turn boosts sales. Just ask that band that Colbert turned from being in the thousand level ranking into the 75th most popular on amazon if they have seen a boost in cd sales.

I have bands that I completely support because they are great musicians. I go see their shows and buy their cd's (even though most don't see a dime from cd sales after the label gets done with all of their fees). Then there are the bands where I would not even pay a dime for their album, however if it happened to land on my desktop i might play the song once every few months, but I certainly wouldn't be disappointed if i never had the opportunity to listen to it again.

And to anyone arguing that it hurts the artists... file sharing hurts the artists about as much as dvd copying hurts the actors. Nearly 100 percent of cd sales goes to the label after they charge the artists for the cost of making the album. There is a reason you don't hear of any musicians suing anyone over file sharing. Ask any musician on a major label if they really make any money off of cd sales...

[onenote]

43. you can't make a claim to your insurance company because you don't "own" what was stolen

When you buy a CD you don't buy the songs, you buy the physical disc. That is what you own. The copyright owner still owns the songs. So if someone makes copies of your CD collection, they haven't stolen anything from you. You still have the one thing you own -- the discs. Which is why you can't make a claim to your insurance company.

[merwin]

52. so what if it was a cd you created?

You missed the whole point of my post. You cannot steal what doesn't physically exist.

The RIAA's argument is as insane as monsanto suing farmers because some of their genetically engineered crops blew seeds into a neighboring farmer's field.

When a law exists that is unjust and exists only for the benefit of a few powerful individuals, it is up to the people to revolt. That is why millions of dollars of tea was destroyed. It was why people made moonshine during prohibition. To a point, it is also why the marijuana laws are ignored (pot made illegal due to lobbying from the timber industry of all things). The RIAA is suffering no physical losses from this, certainly no more than if someone recorded a song off the radio, yet they say it is legal to fine you more than the fucking Enron executives had to pay for "illegal reproduction" for sharing (NOT SELLING) a few dozen songs worth at the most $50.

The craziest part is that you get a slap on the wrist, maybe a few hundred dollars fine for walking out of a record store with a few cds. And that is actually causing physical damages.

[onenote]

53. Disagree

Of course you can steal what doesn't "physically exist" -- think about patent law -- someone patents the design of something, someone takes the patented design (not the physical object) and creates their own design using it without a license from the patent holder or sells that design to someone else. They haven't stolen the patent holder's physical object. They've stolen a design. And it doesn't matter if they printed up copies of the stolen design and sold them on a street corner or if they put it on a file that they posted online.

And your point is exactly what I responding to -- you claimed a person can't collect from their insurance company for theft if someone copies their cd collection because the theft wasn't of a physical object. But you're wrong. The reason you can't file a claim is that nothing you own has been stolen. Imagine that you had a collection of CDs containing music you yourself had created and recorded. You own not only the CDs but the songs themselves. If you lend someone the CD to listen to it, no worries. If while they have it they copy it onto their hard drive and send it out to a million of their closest friends, you better believe that a theft has occurred. Intellectual property is property. To be protectable it may have to exist somewhere in a tangible form, but the law clearly distinguishes between a copy or phonorecord (the physical embodiment of the intellectual property) and the intellectual property itself.

And while I think the punishment levied against Tenenbaum is wildly disproportionate to his particular offense, the fact is that making a copy of a work that someone has created and is trying to sell available for free distribution to an unlimited number of people on line poses a far greater threat of harm to the owner of that work than someone walking out of a store with a few CDs.

[merwin]

55. Definition of theft:

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

Basically the common definition of theft that everyone agrees to... comes from English origin.

Reproduction of patent designs is not stealing either... and has no relevance to my argument. In your example, the person is directly profiting from the REPRODUCTION of the other person's design with intent to profit.

Do any of the people that the RIAA sues have any intent to profit from the sharing of the music? If not, then how can the RIAA say that there were any losses? They cannot prove that a single person would have purchased the original copy of the music, as the file sharers did not exchange any money.

Our patent laws are as insane as the laws pertaining to digital music. What if two people come up with the same idea... neither of them stole it from the other, but one of them patents the idea first. The other cannot legally make use of his idea. What good can come from that other than stifling competition and forwarding corporate agendas, as a company can buy patents and hold on to them until someone comes up with the idea on their own, makes millions, and then gets sued because a patent holding company was sitting on a patent waiting for this moment.

You're buying into corporate bullshit that did not exist until recently.

On another note, in my opinion what is happening here is the opposite of theft. With theft, you are depriving someone of something. With this, you are creating new copies an existing item, the end result being that there are MORE copies available rather than less copies.

So please quit using the word theft or stealing to describe this, as it is far from that. Illegal reproduction at best, with the illegal part being questionable under fair use, since no money is changing hands... the equivalent to a mix tape being given to friends.

[onenote]

61. corporate bullshit that didn't exist until recently?

Protection of intellectual property has been around a very very long time. As I'm sure you know, its even addressed in the Constitution.

But if it makes you feel better, I'll stop referring to copyright infringement (or trademark infringement or patent infringement) as a form of "theft." I'll call it what the courts
have called it for several hundred years: Piracy. Or maybe we can just compromise and call it "misappropriation of property".

And I haven't the time to address your statements about fair use other than to note that if taking something that is for sale and without authorization making copies of it and giving it away for free is
fair use in your book, I'd like to see the case that supports your position.

Finally, I have a question: if someone took your credit card information without your knowledge or consent and posted it online so others could use your card to make purchases, do you think the person who took the info and published it is free of guilt of anything so long he personally doesn't use the card to make a purchase?

[merwin]

81. Again, you're mis-representing my argument.

If someone posted my credit card info online and others used it is causing direct harm in the form of others making purchases that have a direct monetary value. People who copy music and give it for free to others are not causing direct monetary harm, unless it can be proven that they would have otherwise made a purchase of that cd.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. That is asinine. Stealing involves taking anything of value without permission.

[merwin]

106. And exactly what value does a digital reproduction of a cd have?

If the value is around 250,000 dollars per song, like the RIAA is claiming, then why can you buy it on iTunes for 99 cents? Does a fine that is 250,000 times more than the cost of the product make any sense at all?

Nobody takes these laws seriously because it is such a ridiculous amount. When a law does not make sense, people will not follow it. That is the reason that this is a losing battle for the RIAA. Otherwise moral people are not seeing the value in what the RIAA is doing and therefore are breaking laws that they considerto be unjust. It is the same reason that so many people ignore drug laws when it comes to marijuana. The laws make no sense, and therefore are ignored because that is the only recourse when elected officials won't change the laws.

Back to the theft argument, the definition of theft that I was using is the accepted legal definition... not my own. You cannot steal something that has no physical existence. You can copy it and use it for illegal purposes, but you cannot steal it. Ask your insurance company if their homeowners policy covers someone copying your CD's.

The kid is guilty of illegal reproduction of a copyrighted work, not theft. If it were theft, there would be physical damages. He is guilty of basically violating the terms of a license agreement. When you buy a cd, you do not own the song. You own the right to listen to the song on the cd... and if the RIAA had its way, you would not have the legal right to convert it to mp3 for your own listening.

Next time you accept a mix tape (or cd these days) from a friend, contemplate that you are guilty of the same crime as this kid and could be taken to court for up to several millions of dollars.

Furthermorem did you know that there is already a tax that gets split between the label, riaa, artist, and producer on blank cds and burners to compensate the music industry for the losses that may incur due to illegal reproduction. Personally, i think that people sued for filesharing should use this as part of their defense... the industry has been plenty compensated for whatever virtual losses through this tax paid by everyone who buys a cd burner or blank cd.

You are falling hook line and sinker for the RIAA's "poor me" argument, while they simultaneously screw the consumer and artists over. Go watch some Lou Dobbs for a while. He will probably make a lot of sense. You probably also nod your head in agreement when those MPAA commercials come on before movies equating downloading a movie illegally to stealing a car.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. You project much. You really are the bitter failed musician aren't you.

Intellectual property does have a value. The courts usually decide what it is. To say otherwise is ridiculous on it's face.

[merwin]

115. I am not a musician... software developer.

And all of the work I do that is not contracted by someone else I provide for free with donations.

The only way I would ever support charging for software is if you are either getting a support agreement or a physical disc, neither of which I want to provide on that level.

Even if I did charge for my software, I still see no issue with people copying and using it because I realize that the people who find value in it will pay. For example, I use the software MediaMonkey to manage my music. I illegally downloaded it for the first few months and liked it so much that I paid for a lifetime license to support development.

The current IP laws that exist are a complete joke and do nothing to protect the creator from illegal use. They have been written by lobbyists and exist to protect corporations and stifle competition.

If they were meant to protect the original creator, they would be much more limited in scope, have provisions limiting transfer and sale of the rights to holding companies, and apply for only long enough to ensure that the creator have time to bring the idea into reality and have a chance to make a profit... after which it moves into a reasonable royalty period then becomes public domain.

IP laws as they currently stand do nothing more than shut others out of the market and mke sure the corporations rake in the dough.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. So if I hack your computer and copyright software you have written have I stolen anything?

What's with the Lou Dobbs attack?

[merwin]

119. Not much of a problem because

all of my work is copyrighted the moment I write it.

I would go so far as to say that I have no issue with someone uses my source code to create a piece of software as long as they cite me, do not charge for the modified software, and provide source code as well.

I will happily provide source code to most anyone who asks, since their use or modifications will have the end result of making my software better and/or more popular.

On the other hand, if someone decides to profit from selling the modified software, I will definitely make them stop and possibly sue for damages of the total sales amount.

And as for the hacking into my computer, that will be reported to the police.

My point in all of this is that you cannot claim damages (at least not with a straight face) if there is no loss of physical property or revenue. The RIAA does not have to prove loss of revenue, simply that the act occurred. Therefore, they are profiting from what may have been a zero loss of revenue... which only encourages them to sue more and more people. Do you realize that if they really went crazy and started suing everyone who shared songs they could make literally billions upon billions of dollars in judgements in a relatively short period of time... but if they did that, people would realize that the laws as they are written are insane. That is why they stick to one or two and then take a break. Simply to remind people who is in charge.

The lou dobbs thing was a reference to his jumping onto the birther bandwagon, another comply illogical situation. I apologize for that paragraph. I do not know you well enough to make any assumptions or label you in that way. Intellectual property laws are a bit of a hot button topic for me, as it affects my work directly and half of the time I put out a piece of software I wonder who is going to sue me.

One of my projects was a ringtone website for old phones (single note at a time kind) that has a song library in the thousands, and I to date worry about being sued for having it even though it is most likely covered under fair use and I do not sell them.

To date I have had only one band contact me personally (major alt rock band from the 90's that will remain naeless) and that was just to warn me that their label was suing someone for IP infringement and that I might want to go off the radar at least with their songs for a few months. Not to tell me they were upset, just to give me a heads up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and I believe we mostly agree.

When you say physical property or revenue then we almost totally agree, although courts do give certain values to intangible things all the time. For instance loss of consortium, loss of a pet, loss of companionship I do realize those are a different than intellectual property but they are largely intangible in terms of value. Thanks for the quick education on intellectual property you should think about going to law school.

David

[merwin]

32. self-delete

self-delete

[merwin]

33. self-delete

self-delete

[merwin]

34. self-delete

self-delete

[onenote]

42. according to what I've read, the fine was imposed by a jury, not a judge

The Copyright Act provides that statutory damages for infringement can range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed. If the infringement was committed "willfully' the maximum amount of the damages can increase to $150,000 per work infringed; on the other hand, if it is determined that the person accused of infringement was not aware and had not reason to believe that his or her actions were infringing, the amount of damages can be reduced to $200.

If I was on the jury, I'd probably have argued for the lowest possible damage award. But I should note that I wasn't on the jury and I don't know all of the facts.

[GReedDiamond]

54. The other part of the defendant's "offense"...

...was that he was allegedly distributing the songs, by making them accessible to others, through his participation in the file sharing network. I suspect therefore that he was prosecuted, for not so much that he downloaded the songs w/o paying for them, as for the allegation that he illegally distributed them to others. If he were being prosecuted analogous to a shoplifting offense, the loss to the songs' "owner(s)" would be, at current market value, 99 cents X 30 songs = $29.70, a petty offense.

That said, the fines levied against the defendants in these most recent cases are obviously extremely over the top, if not in the realm of "cruel and unusual," and likely (hopefully) will be thrown out or greatly reduced on appeal.

Lastly, as an independent label musician, I'd like to say, "fuck the RIAA!"

[gorfle]

68. Isn't it interesting.

Speaking of shoplifting, if he HAD actually gone into a music store and stole the songs his charge of shoplifting would not have carried nearly as severe a penalty.

[harmonicon]

19. No, it's not the same. Not at all.

How many albums have you produced? How many are on itunes? I've produced cds, and at least one of those albums is on itunes. Don't just assume that I'm some sort of outside observer here. I am one of these producers that you mention, and I've given you what I consider to not only be my opinion, but an ethical fact.

I would say that it's ok to go into Barnes and Noble, read a bit of a book, and remember it - that's information, and it's not stealing. To steal a CD would be stealing, but bits of information are not a cd - they are just information; 1's and 0's.

[Regret My New Name]

24. Actually...

It would be more like going into the book store and making a photo copy of the book...and then most likely saving that to a file and allowing everyone else to have that book free of charge.

It's not like it was eight or nine years ago. These companies are finally catching on and we are able to buy our media in convenient formats at a reasonable price.

[harmonicon]

29. that's still not the same, because a photocopy is tangible.

Paying for something intangible is a scam, plain and simple. I still buy cds, but what I do more often is go to concerts. Sometimes people give me cds, and sometimes concerts are free. That's life. If I paid for a burned copy of the cd, I would be a sucker, because it's not the real deal (just as you would be a sucker to photocopy an entire book - the quality sucks compared to the original, and it would probably be more expensive in the end). I would be an even bigger sucker if I paid someone just to listen to their cd, which is effectively what you're doing if you pay itunes to listen to some music.

[merwin]

35. My main problem with iTunes and the like is that you pay the same price for less rights.

Digital downloads incur ZERO production costs. Physical CD's at least have a case, liners, and a pressed CD. On paid digital downloads you get an often lower-quality, highly restricted, crippled music file that the people you paid for can revoke your right to listen to at any time.

What people don't understand is that you're not paying for the songs when you download them. You're paying for the right to listen to the song on a limited number of devices for a certain period of time, which usually will be until the company goes out of business or changes their distribution format and invalidates all of the DRM.

On top of all of this, the RIAA also claims that it's illegal to make a digital reproduction of a CD that you legally purchased. They're attempting to turn music sales into a privilege to listen to the music rather than an item that is being purchased and you can manipulate however you wish. It's called fair-use, and the RIAA tries to ignore it.

[harmonicon]

37. EXACTLY

Thank you for explaining it in a more civil way than I did. I just find it next to impossible to have a discussion about this when 1. people like to assume what "artists" and producers like myself want based on RIAA propaganda they've been fed, and 2. a complete failure to understand exactly what it is they're paying money for when they buy something form itunes.

DRM is scary shit only insofar as people are willing to pay for DRM crippled media. If you just refuse to participate in their scam DRM stops being a problem, because it doesn't exist.

[Occulus]

38. DRM is a LOT scarier than that

DRM is why I don't/won't buy any music CD. Remember Sony's rootkit?

SecuRom. That shit is nasty. Even uglier are the software apps that won't run if you have Process Explorer running. Excusethefuckouttame, I paid for that software license. It shouldn't refuse to run "unless" I disable this or that background app; it should run, period.

Remember how Sony spent millions on a DRM scheme that was stupidly installed on the outer track of the CD? a $.59 felt-tip marker was able to defeat a DRM scheme that cost millions by simply drawing a circle around the outer edge of the CD.

The Sims 3 was cracked prior to official release.

Bioshock. It had activation limits on release- you could only install the thing five times before it wouldn't let you do it again. This was absolute hell for game reviewers at first, who install the same game on multiple platforms for compatibility and performance reviews. And never mind if you install the game while the activation server is down- NO SOUP FOR YOU! Again, cracks were available from the moment the game was out of the gate.

I am against DRM in any and all forms. There isn't a legit reason for DRM. ALL it does is punish legit users with arbitrary limits and capricious compatibility even with its own previous versions (SecuRom, you hear me, here?), while those who don't actually pay for the games download stripped copies that run perfectly because there's no DRM.

[harmonicon]

39. I haven't bought a piece of software in a few years now, and I don't play games...

... so I didn't know about a lot of that shit; you're right, it is scary. (and I'd like to note that the last time I bought software it came in a box because I didn't have a stable internet connection). It's like these people don't want anyone to pay for software. Right now I have one program I'd like to update, as well as my OS. I'm holding off, but maybe I'll break down and pay, even though it feels wrong. I do remember that sony DRM scheme, which was crap, but I didn't know about the hilarious hack for it. I just wish I didn't need to use some specific programs or features for my work so that I could switch to Linux and run all freeware and get these companies out of my life forever.

[provis99]

93. if musicians want money for their songs,

they can get off their fat lazy asses and play concerts. Collecting royalties is no different than a millionaire laying around the pool, living off investments rather than real work, and not doing a damn thing productive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. So if you went to oh RPGNOW.COM

and didn't pay for one of my books... you think you're entitled to that.

After all information is free... and I did not spend oh I don't know, eight months writing and editing and getting ready for print my last novel?

The fines might be out of line, but what you are telling people to do is quite frankly, stealing.

[harmonicon]

20. I have no idea what that website is for - even after going to it

I would say that if someone loaned me your novel and I read it and got the information from it that way that I would not be stealing it. If I had a physical copy of it that I stole from a shop, that would be stealing. As for time put into work, the last album that I produced - my part in it - was 18 months in the making. I've sold some of the cds of it that I got from the label in return for producing it. I've given far more away. No one has stolen any from me, but friends of mine have put the album up as torrents which strangers have downloaded, and that's fine with me.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

28. They sell books in PDF form.

Namely, manuals for various role-playing games by indie publishers, which have short print runs and aren't carried by mainstream bookstores. It's a pay-per-download thing.

I agree that intellectual property laws serve a valuable purpose, but the content production industry (that's what they are, just ask the RIAA) are going about it completely the wrong way. Instead of trying to adapt to new technology and ideas, they're taking the heavy-handed approach, trying to enforce their will on everyone and making examples of people to don't do things their way. It may be good for their pocketbooks, but they've lost the moral high ground.

This isn't a new thing, either. Twenty years ago, these same people tried to get Congress to levy an additional tax on VCRs, because they were essentially "piracy machines". The money from this would go straight to the RIAA / MPAA, who would of course use it to help struggling artists deal with the pain of having their work ripped off. If they could find a way to make CDs that you could only listen to x number of times, you can bet your ass that would be all you'd see on the shelves at Tower Records.

Sadly, unlike other industries, the RIAA prefers to hire Democrats to do their government lobbying, so you might not hear about it much on DU. Why do you think Fritz Hollings was such a big DRM advocate?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I'm happy for you, but RIGHT NOW the Copyright laws

are the way they are. Granted, they need a whole sale revision... because of new media and new distro models... and the fines are excessive. But yes, torrent downloading IS stealing.

For god sakes, music runs ninety-nine cents at ITUNES... hardly a bank breaker.

[harmonicon]

56. to compare a download from itunes with another download is a farce

Itunes is full of DRM laden shit. When you pay itunes for a song you don't actually own it - you only get a license for it, and ability to transfer it is very limited. Copyright is waived around all of the time in these suits, but copyright has very little to do with it - this has far more to do with production and distribution rights, that's why it's groups like the RIAA and not copyright owners bringing this shit up.

Even if itunes charged $0.01 for 1,000 downloads, I wouldn't pay it, because it is unethical to charge money for information. I will happily pay $40 for a cd that I really want, because then I own that cd - it's mine, not just a license to listen to it for a certain amount of time on certain devices in certain formats. I can do whatever I want with it.

To say "torrent downloading IS stealing" just isn't true. "Downloading certain things via torrents may be stealing in some jurisdictions" is more correct. If you paid to download mp3s (a pretty crap format anyway to be asking any money for) and then burned a cd of them to listen to in your car, would that be stealing? That's just making a digital copy - you're saying that making digital copies of music and moving them around are stealing. Now, to get more to the point about identical digital information, let's say that I buy a cd, turn it into mp3s on my computer and then make a torrent file of that. If there's a fire which destroys the cd, can I not then listen to the mp3s I've made from it? Would that be stealing? If there's a fire that destroys the cd and my computer, would it be illegal for me to download an identical (bit for bit - exactly the same as the one I'd made with my cd that I paid $$$ for) torrent to the one that I'd made? If you think when you buy music that you're paying for access to that digital information, it seems like this wouldn't be illegal in your eyes. When is it illegal? When is it legal? These questions are silly, because asking money for information is inherently an untenable ethical position.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Your opinion and you are free to it.

Right now, as the LAW stands right NOW, torrent is stealing unless it is FREE.

[harmonicon]

73. it is FREE

Money isn't exchanged. It depends what it is a torrent of, who owns what rights to it where, and where, and from who, you are downloading it to determine if, where, and when getting access to certain information is legal. I once heard about these total jerk black people who wouldn't leave a whites-only lunch counter. Thankfully the cops came in and roughed them up, because what they were doing was illegal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. No it is not. If I download Macromedia Dreamweaver, or

write brother's screenwriter (any version) it is not free. I am engaging in a clear case of copyright infringement.

[harmonicon]

84. it may be copyright infringement, but it's still free

"free" is a price - if you don't pay for something, it's free. Maybe someone else wanted to charge something else for it, but if that's not the price you paid, that's not the price you paid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Why do you think we are having these lawsuits?

Why do you think torrents are closed down?

You may think it is ok, but it is not free. It might seem free to you, but it is not.

Now we do need a wholesale revision of copyright laws, but if I download a copy of word 07 from ANY torrent... I am stealing... yes that is the name. The same goes if I download Dreamweaver, and a slew of many other programs.

I am engaging in a clear violation of Tittle XVII of the copyright law. And yes, I can be fined in a civil action. I guess a million plus makes those few songs NOT free huh?

[harmonicon]

91. Why are we having these lawsuits?

For the same reason that loads of the economy has gone to shit: corporate consolidation of an industry into the hands of a few greedy corporations. I honestly don't understand you trying to argue the law in this case. Do you really think the outcome of this case is just? Sometimes laws are unethical and wrong. I have no problem violating those laws. The entire world-wide economy is changing as the culture changes, and a few billionaires who are on the losing end of it are going to great means to stop the change, but they won't succeed in the end; they'll only serve to harm a few innocent pawns of history. As for downloading (and why do you refer to all downloads as being illegal? surely there must be a "legal" way to download dream weaver - it can't honestly only still come in a box, can it?) Word 07, I have no fucking idea why I would do that when I have NeoOffice, which is a great piece of freeware which will do all of the same things but wasn't created with corporate greed as the motive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. The laws need to be revised since they do not work in the current

environment, but under the current environment the way they are written, yes it is a violation.

I am not arguing whether the law is just or not, just that torrents are breaking them. And they are.

Now if you choose to release something at GNU, or open license, like my copy of Open Office, go for it. But Word is not free... and has little to do with greed.

Now I am proof positive you KNOW when Tittle Seventeen was written... and why it is having a hell of a time working today the way it was intended. But you are basically saying that the PRODUCER has no right to profit from the information they produce. Well, in an ideal world perhaps, the ideal world you may want to live in. In the real world where I live, I DO have a right to sell my work and to protect it from thieves. And lord knows I am NOT a large multinational corporation.

Now I release SOME of my work for FREE... and that is MY CHOICE. But that work is still copyrighted, under US Law... and it is MY CHOICE to give it away. It is not the choice of I don't know Adobe, to do that... and they have a right to profit, and I have a right to either buy their product, LEGALLY, or not. If I download it from a Torrent, I am engaging in theft, plain and simple. You are having a problem with that... good luck Don Quixote in changing the world to paradise.

[harmonicon]

100. Ha! I'm Don Quixote! .... you're probably right

I know that these are idealistic positions I have, and I think that it's fine. It's not that I think the producer has no right to profit from the information that they produce, but that an observer of that information has no obligation to pay. I don't think that paying for downloads should be illegal or anything, but I just think that digital reproduction of existing digital information is so different from what has come before it in terms of copying, that comparisons can't be made - it is the first time when pure abstract information has been so well guarded, and I think trying to keep up this guard is an impossibility. Just as it's technology here that is making all of this possible (good for some, bad for others - mp3s and such), I don't think it's right to condemn torrents which are another great technology, just because some people are using them in ways that some don't like. Personally I think an incredible model for information distribution and collection that's probably being ignored because it's viewed in mostly negative eyes.

Now, are we both clear on our respective positions, or do we have more to say? I think I'm done.

[backwoodsbob]

49. you're right

the next time someone pays tens of thousands for studio time and dares to ask for money for the music you should show up at concerts and protest


power to the people and all that

[harmonicon]

57. uh-huh

NO ONE PAYS MONEY FOR MUSIC!! If you hear music that someone else is playing and don't close your ears, are you stealing?! Ooohh.... what if you enjoy it?! Heaven forbid. People pay to attend concerts, people pay tow own cds, some people are dumb enough to pay itunes for a license to access low-quality digital files which may be turned into music on their computers and mp3 players, but no one pays for music.

This goes without mentioning that the next time someone pays tens of thousands of dollars for studio time, that person is an idiot on a grand scale with no appreciation for money anyway.

[backwoodsbob]

79. keep telling yourself that

whatever makes you sleep well

[harmonicon]

85. I don't sleep well because I'm a caffeine-addled insomniac

it has nothing to do with how I treat digital media (except for getting pissed off this week trying to get work done with various software that doesn't want to talk to each other).

How do you explain The Grateful Dead? They let people record their concerts and freely trade those recordings - the rule was that you couldn't sell them. That's because the music is free, and it's wrong to charge people for information. Yet they were regularly one of the largest money-making live music operations. Why do you think that was? Free music trading helped them, just as it helps all good musicians.

[merwin]

96. Guess how much the artists are getting from this lawsuit? ZERO! I am sick of idiots

who keep saying that the file sharing lawsuits are to protect artists. They're as gullible as the idiotic Republicans who thing the gubernment is going to take away their right to see a dr because that's what the right wing media is telling them.

Go look at a breakdown of where the money goes when an artist signs on to a major label. After all of the fees from the label for producing the album and distributing it, the artist is usually left in debt. It's a pyramid scheme, with all of the profits going to the record label executives.

http://torrentfreak.com/student-hit-with-fine-in-riaa-case-090731/
RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy told TorrentFreak that the ‘damages’ will not go to any of the artists, but to more anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” he said.

In total, the RIAA has spent over a million dollars on this case alone, to set an example to the millions of people who share files every day


So the RIAA spent over $1,000,000 prosecuting ONE PERSON who probably doesn't have $1,000 to his name (being a student and all) and is not distributing any of the profits to the artists. The artists don't even own their own damn song. The contract that they sign to get on the label and produce the album gives up their copyright for that song to the label.

Oh, and did you know that you're already paying a tax on each CD that you buy to make up for the losses that may incur from the possible unauthorized copying of music? So, in this case the student being sued is getting fined for something he is already paying a tax for in the form of a blank cd tax.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/

Smell a scam here? They are putting forth these lawsuits to forward their own corporate agenda, not because the artists are losing money. In fact, when was the last time you heard from a single artist at one of these trials. Never? Correct! It's all record company executives and the RIAA.

The RIAA is screwing over the artists and suing the consumers. How in the hell can they claim that radio play doesn't hurt CD sales, but file sharing does? How does one free reproduction promote the album, yet claim that another free reproduction directly harms them?

It's time for a revolt, and I see no better way than screwing them right back.

[swishyfeet]

8. Like that popular music?

There's a torrent that'll get you the Billboard Top 100 for every year since 1950.

If you're into that sort of thing.

Of course if they fine you at the rate of that second woman, it would be a 464 BILLION dollar fine. If they fined "someone I know" at that rate, they could take care of the current healthcare crisis.

[jakeXT]

134. They only have 100 songs of each year,there were sometimes 500-700 songs in the top 100 each year

I did sort my cd collection in that fashion, before torrents even existed.



http://www.gramble.com/music/70speak2.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Yes there are... they are called TORRENT... and boy

you can find anything in them...

I'd stay away from them...

And as to music... it's 99 cents, a few even less. Why risk it?

[rg123]

11. Just makes no sense to me

When you can record any song on the radio with your tape deck with no infringement or fine, but if you download the same song from the internet you get fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for a .99 cent song. If you are going to be fined it should be for only the value of the item .99 cents:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Would that be punishment? No

they are out of line... but what you are proposing is not exactly punishment.

[Mark D.]

23. It's Not That Simple

What they ultimately sued him for was distribution, not downloading. Sure, the downloading is part of it. But ultimately, he admitted to sharing hundreds of songs. Admitted it. This was what they called (if you read the write-up on the case) 'hard core'. This isn't someone who put one bag of chips in his jacket once, 4 years ago. This is someone who made a daily trip to the store and dumped the entire junk food shelf in a bag and walked out. That's again, just the downloading side. This person leaves their computer open like an accessible server. Then other 'users', or file sharing folks, download it from him. He acted like a hub.

Kind of like if someone wanted to shut down on-line computer activity in the area. They wouldn't go after the people just accessing the internet in their homes individually. 'Getting stuff' from the Internet. They'd go after the switching place they're all tied into. That's what the RIAA did. He was a big fish, an enabler on a larger scale than someone who just grabbed one file for their own use and didn't share, for example. Again, I think the fine is way more than the crime, but they're trying to set an example I guess. I'm not defending either of them.

But I do have tens of thousands of dollars worth of legal i-Tunes downloads and CDs and older cassettes. I like to support the artists who make great music that way, so they can make more. I read somewhere the most populous country on Earth, China, only 10% or so of music is actually purchased, that people have. The rest is file sharing or burning CDs for each other. The idea that Radiohead or NIN can release free CDs because they make so much in concerts is moot. They started doing that after they sold tens of millions of records and were household names. Try doing it if you're a local, little known artist or band.

Folks then say: Just make your money playing live. Really? For those folks, it's small gigs that pay almost nothing usually. The budgets to invest in making great albums that are timeless are drying up. YES, Steely Dan, Van Halen, Earth Wind & Fire, The Doobies, Led Zeppelin. They'd get hundreds or thousands to spend a year working on a CD that would be praised and enjoyed decades later. Now with less profit at labels, less goes to studio time from them, artists often turn to recording in their bedrooms, with half-deaf guitarists doing the mixing so it sounds like shit.

They're so broke, especially in today's economy, they can't even afford to hire a decent mix engineer to help them, let alone some costly super-studio. They've got two other jobs to suck up their time, with no record label budget for living expenses. So a lot less time is spent on making a quality product vs. making a cheap, terrible sounding, loss leader to hopefully get more low paying gigs. The labels have a hand in it. When they went for image-based artists over musicians. I remember hearing commentary from the singer in the band Mountain (Mississippi Queen, etc.) that he missed the day that ugly older musicians could sell records. Or something like that.

We have dancing 'divas' replacing R&B singers with vocal talent, where looks are the only 'talent' needed. We have emo kids crying about their guyliner. We have labels going for folks just like them if one of them sells anything, in utter desperation. They're run by accountants now, vs. actual former or current musicians or producers, who USED to run a majority of labels, and used to base selection on quality of music. They did their job then. They were a giant filter. The availability of cheap recording technology hurt that model, in helping allow any i-Pod earbud and guitar amp deafened musician to mix his own music, in a hurry, with quality as optional.

We have tens of thousands of MySpace pages full of tone-deaf singers left as they are, or auto-tuned to sound like robots, fully justifying their right to suck so badly, because someone else who's famous can't sing worth shit either. Yeah, forget raising the bar, bury the thing. Music used to be a place folks turned to for solace in a very troubled world. The world is more troubled, and much of the 'music' if you can call it that, is nothing but painful to listen to (compressed so loud it's pure noise), and even if done at a sensible level, it's terrible because the 'song' is devoid of any catchy melody and the performers suck.

You can find one in every thousand worth hearing again, but who has the time to sit and plow through a valley of wheat for a single diamond. We lost our filter, music got worse, lost value to many who now think it should be free. We now have, in these huge lawsuits and kids with wide open hard drives full of hundreds of thousands of songs they distribute, and ever worsening music, the equivalence of a dead bug twitching its legs. Emerging artists just have to find people who WILL pay for them, get them interested, and ask them directly to help pay for the making of their albums. Or the days of great albums will be over too.

[Crabby Appleton]

86. Word -nt

[hunter]

13. I hope he has like $19.93 in the bank.

When I was a student I hated that -- it was not enough to withdraw cash from an ATM. This was back in the old days when an ATM card was useless for anything but an ATM.

Honestly what's going to happen to the U.S. economy when nobody gives a shit about real money because they can't, when most of us have debts and judgments we can't pay, and bad credit?

It's like the first time my wife and I got a hospital bill in one of those big reinforced shipping envelopes. We had maybe $300 in the bank, two crappy cars, and a whole lot of debt.

I took the bill to the hospital and told them that I hoped the insurance company was paying them something because we had nothing.

The insurance company ended up paying about two-thirds of the bill. I doubt the hospital ever expected to collect more. It was all a game. We got them to stop calling by settling on something close to what it might have cost to stay in a nice hotel... not that we've ever stayed in a hotel where they keep waking you up all night to stick needles in your skin and tubes and wires in your orifices.

The music companies just want us to think their product is worth something. But even if they were giving it away for free they wouldn't be increasing the number of people who listen to it. If the record labels want to restore their business model they need to create some kind of trust that they are honorable middlemen serving both the the artist and the artist's fans. Suing the fans of an artist actually harms their business model.

[nc4bo]

17. I predict a return of debtor's prisons. nt

[New Dawn]

18. Fascism on the march.

[IrishBuckeye]

122. I know what's next? Wanting us to pay for software that took thousands of hours to create?

Clearly this has Hitler's fingerprints all over it.


/SARC!

[rollingrock]

21. Where's the ACLU?

isn't the constitution supposed to protect you against cruel and unusual punishment?

[pinniped]

22. This is what happens when your scumbag lawyer asks the jury to "send a message"....

to the music industry.

Leave it up to the stupid lawyer to consider this a victory. Maybe the scumbag lawyer should pay the fine.

"That to me sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy,'" he said. "$4.5 million would have been, 'We don't buy it at all.'"

[dballance]

26. Alleged File Sharing vs. Exxon Valdez

I'm so curious as to how a jury can be instructed to award such huge fines against individuals for this sort of thing. However, let's play devil's advocate and assume the defendant is guilty of sharing 30 songs. That means $675,000/30 is $22,500 per song. The recording industry has had to admit that the price per song is about 70 cents.

So the same courts that have found claims against a large corporation (Exxon) unconstitutional because of the disparity between the harm and the award are now throwing that logic out completely when it comes to judging the claim against the harm an individual "might' have caused vs the "harm" a huge record company actually suffered.

This is so fucked up I can't really understand it.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[humus]

27. Maggie's farm

Show me someone who is not a parasite and I will say a prayer for them.
B.D.

[scentopine]

30. High Crimes? Torture gets a walk...

The free market at work, again. Gov. gives out trillions to real criminals, health care execs get rich on the backs of sick people, AT&T wire tapping, Iraq war - suddenly we decide that justice needs to served for serving up some songs.

Corporate America (or multi-national corporate America) is so righteous in their pursuit of justice.

[hyphenate]

36. Okay, so let's say I have about 100 albums

pure vinyl. I've always taken real good care of my records, and while I don't listen to them anymore, the songs on the albums were items I purchased once upon a time. I should not have to repurchase those albums, so why shouldn't I find a way to get copies from someone who has already transferred their vinyl into mp3s?

The RIAA and all those other nuisance, thorn in the side vampires strike out at people who copy a few songs. No wonder some of us shake our heads and continue to buck the system--if we can.

[onenote]

44. again, you are under the mistaken impression that you bought the "songs"

You bought the album. Ownership of the songs remains with the copyright owner (just as ownership of the content of a book remains with the content owner after you buy a book). You can sell the albums (just like you can sell the book), but what you can do with the songs is limited by the nature of the "license" that was effectively conferred on you when you bought the album.

[Tesha]

69. That argument might actually succeed. But AFAIK, it's never been tried.

And it definitely wasn't the case here.

Tesha

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. I'm guessing if you could produce the albums and only those songs were downloaded you'd win.

[merwin]

107. If the RIAA sues you for that, they have to prove

that you did not own the album. However, if you attempt to use fair use as an affirmative defense, you have the burden of proof to produce the albums that you downloaded.

That is why this kid's fair use argument failed, and why all others will to. Once you put it into an affirmative defense, you are admitting that you did what they said, and fair use laws are such a narrowly written piece of shit that you most likely will be unable to meet the burden of proof...

It is questionable on whether it is covered under fair use since you are not making the reproduction from your own copy, however you would have a shot if you still had the vinyl, and thus can produce the fact that you own the license to listen to that song.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. That's what I said.

[merwin]

116. Yep, just confirming.

[merwin]

117. duplicate

[Unvanguard]

47. This is ridiculous and grossly unfair. Punishment is not the way to solve this problem.

To be an effective deterrent, the costs imposed must be so disproportionately high as to be an injustice to the person who shared music.

[harmonicon]

58. the RIAA is the problem, not the downloaders

[Unvanguard]

60. The RIAA is a problem, but the downloaders are another.

They are benefiting from a service they do not pay for, and thus weakening the incentives to produce good music.

[harmonicon]

71. not true

Find me a musician who says that. Oh, hey, I am one, and I'm %100 for free sharing of digital information, because it is the only tenable ethical position to hold. The service that they pay for an internet connection, and they benefit from it. No one ever produces good music because they get paid for it - the only music that is produced purely for monetary reasons is bad music.

[Unvanguard]

75. Then distribute your own music for free. Nothing wrong with that.

Others feel differently.

[harmonicon]

77. I do, as do most other musicians

This is the RIAA bringing these lawsuits, not musicians. Most studies show that free downloading helps artists.

[Unvanguard]

80. Those who provide the capital need incentives, too. And plenty of artists back the RIAA

in this.

One aspect you neglect is that free downloading probably has different effects on different musicians: obscure ones benefit, because it helps them get their music out, while mainstream ones are already prominent and only lose revenue as a consequence. In a world where intellectual property rights could be effectively and fairly enforced, the result would be that those artists for whom sharing would be beneficial, would share, and those artists for whom sharing would not be beneficial, would not share. Instead, because intellectual property rights over music are essentially unenforceable, any person who wants can freely download as much music as he or she pleases, without contributing to paying for the production costs of that music--and thus the amount of money people are willing to pay for good music is lower than the amount by which they value it, and the result is that less good music is produced.

[harmonicon]

83. do you really think that's true?

I just don't buy it - at all. This is basically true: "any person who wants can freely download as much music as he or she pleases, without contributing to paying for the production costs of that music", and I don't see any problem with that. Musicians make very little money from record sales, and I don't even see free downloading as competing for record sales. People who want to support musicians whose work they enjoy are easily able to do so; they can buy cds, t-shirts, attend concerts, etc. If big labels are losing money, maybe it's because this new large access to music is giving people other options on where to spend their money. If people are willing to pay for the shitty records they produce, I can see how downloading would only raise the quality of music being made. People who love making music will always do so for free, and they'll want to share it. If the RIAA wants more money, they should make products which people actually want to buy.

Here's an example of my "illegal" downloading. Just tonight, I listened to a John Hartford album that I downloaded. Why did I download it? Because it's been out of print for years, and the used copies that I've seen for sale cost about $75. Even if I'd paid $75 to some record dealer the record label (which may not even still exist) nor John Hartford (not least because he's been dead for years) would have benefitted. Do you really think I should be a criminal for this? Now I have access to music that I really love, and I can share it with others. Believe it or not, there is an ethics of dealing with torrents; anything I download, I upload in a 1:1 ratio. So, not only have I gained access to this next-to-impossible to find album, but I've also shared this great music with one other (well, several - one other in a statistical way) person who may or may not have shared it with others. If someone would rather listen to this than some crap that the RIAA is pimping right now, I think that's fine and dandy, not something to make court cases out of.

[merwin]

112. What can you possibly know about this?

It's not like you have a horse in this race or anything (joking).

I completely agree with you. Artists generally don't own the rights to their own songs, aside from live performances, yet are fully responsible for paying back all money that the label generously gives you. Aside from the few artists who have been around for a long while and have been able to negotiate the contracts in their favor a bit, I would venture that most artists, especially those who are less known, would love anything that gets their music out there as it generates fans who come to concerts.

The RIAA is concerned because they own the rights to the songs, not the artists.

I really wish I could find the website that broke down where the money goes and how most artists end up in debt after making a CD, while the labels make profit off of every one. It was either a Rolling Stone article or a Trent Reznor rant (I love the way he goes after the labels).

[harmonicon]

124. my dealing with labels has always been neutral to positive....

but I've only ever really dealt with indie labels. The only label that every paid us up-front was soon bought-out by a major, and we never heard from them again. They probably owe us more money, but not too much. One label did their accounting and said that for that year we owed them money, but it wasn't a lot, so they'd just leave it at that. Some others I never heard anything from despite what contracts may have said. None of this surprises or really even bothers me.

My songwriting partner and I have always owned the rights to our songs (well, I don't legally, because I think the publishing rights collecting agencies are crooked and I'd rather lose a few dollars than deal with them, but if anyone else wanted to claim ownership they'd get fucked in court) but have signed over publishing rights for various periods. Now, here's a real mind-fuck about "illegal" downloading: our one full-length album is on itunes. I don't know who put it there, but we certainly never agreed to it explicitly, though it was probably covered in our distribution deal. The real fucked up thing is that it's still up there now, though the contract we had was for 5 years and was up over a year ago. This may all be academic because there's a chance that no one's bought a single track from that record in the past year, but if they did we wouldn't see one cent from it - that is, they would be illegally downloading it since we own the publishing rights and don't have any current distribution or licensing agreements with anyone, including itunes. There's your illegal downloading, brought to you by itunes, bastion of the law. We thought about doing something about it, but figured while we don't still have interest in the band or marketing it (haven't played a show in over 4 years), we'd rather have the music be available to people than not. There's no way it sells enough for us to get any real money from it anyway. It does make me wonder how often this happens though.

Now I mostly just make even smaller time music. The last album that I produced (not my own work as a writer/composer) came out on a label funded mostly by small grants. The guy who runs it doesn't count on recouping the costs in sales. My payment for making that record was a box of cds to do with as I please (which was also how I took payment from indie rock labels). No contract - just word of mouth with someone who I trust with everyone involved only making the music for the love of it. I know that there are torrents of that album, and I doubt that a single person minds.

[Unvanguard]

126. If "people who love making music will always do so for free"

and that had the implications you suggest, we would not be having this conversation because all music would already be legally free: anyone who dared have the audacity to charge would quickly be undercut competitively by the people inspired enough to produce music for free.

The practice you defend eliminates any potential in the solution you propose: it is precisely the problem of illegal downloading that even if the RIAA put out quality products (which in the minds of many, anyway, it already does), there would be no guarantee that it would make much money from them anymore, because instead of paying people are free to simply download them illegally. This is precisely why the incentives for quality upon which virtually any market depends are eroded by the free access to the service that illegal downloading permits.

Regarding your second paragraph, I ought to clarify two points. First, it is undoubtedly the case that illegal downloading exercised with discretion can be perfectly benign: not only in the case you mention, where the product has not been on the market for years, but also when the products downloaded are ones that the person would not actually purchase otherwise. One obscuring tactic the recording industry uses in this controversy is that they pretend that every download signifies lost revenue equal to the price it would sell for at a store; this is a distortion for the simple reason that a lot more people will want something when it can be attained for nothing than when it costs twenty dollars or more.

Second, certainly I do not think that you or anyone else should be sued for this practice, unless the penalty were fairly trivial--in which case the effort would be pointless anyway. Considerations of justice, not economics, rule me here: as I said in my first post on this thread, to effectively deter the penalties would have to be so severe as to be monstrously disproportionate and unjust, as in the case that inspired the OP. I am not sure this particular problem admits of a legal solution at all; the best, perhaps, would be treating music as a "public good", letting people download it for free legally, and providing government subsidies to the music producers in proportion to the downloading success of their product.

But even that proposal would have a variety of practical difficulties in implementation.

[merwin]

111. Under your argument, the health insurance

companies are justified in how they act because they put up the capital when you have to go to the doctor.

The labels and RIAA (made up of the major labels) make the majority of the profit from all music sales already. Artists get virtually nothing.

And it is not true that they put up the capital. When you sign with a label, all of the money that they put up is directly owed to them by the artist. If the CD does not sell at all, the artist owes them the money. However, if the CD does sell, all the artist owns is the right to play the songs live. The first thing you do when you sign with a label is sign away nearly all rights to your own work.

It is a stacked deck, and that is why the labels are filthy rich and all but a few artists are dirt poor.

[Unvanguard]

125. Well, yes and no.

Do you think the health insurance market would work if insurance companies could not charge people for participation in their plans? Actually, the result would be an even swifter collapse than what we see with the music industry: the insurance companies would charge the people who do pay more and more, so more and more of them would join the free-riders, driving up the price of insurance for the payers yet further, until in all likelihood the number of people willing to pay exorbitant prices solely for the luxury of being able to call themselves "law-abiding" would be far too low to maintain the service.

We would not disagree, of course, if you argued that the health insurance industry were a grotesquely exploitative racket, because it is, and we are in dire need of a public insurance system, most preferably a single-payer system that covers everyone. But everyone agrees, implicitly because it is so obvious, that any reform of the health insurance industry will still involve people being compelled to pay, whether through taxes or premiums, for what they receive.

The same might be said for the music industry. It is not a question of whether for-profit corporations are abiding by the highest ethical standards of decency, for the answer to that in any industry is bound to be "no." It is simply a question of whether no rules of ownership is preferable to abused ones, and it seems to me that the answer is probably that it is not.

And if they did not put up the capital in any form, no artist would ever sign with them, for the artist would be better off releasing it on his or her own. The terms of the exchange may well be exploitative, it would not surprise me, but the exchange would not occur at all if labels did not have anything to offer.

[Beaverhausen]

76. that's ridiculous

I too am a musician with a self-produced CD. I didn't produce it soley for the money, but why should I not be compensated for the recorded music I created?

[harmonicon]

78. because it's information

Should everyone who listens to your CD have to pay you, or just the person who bought the CD? Would you mind if they put one of the songs from your CD on a mix tape for a friend, or would that be stealing? What if they - like many people do - ripped the tracks from your cd onto their computer to listen to.... would that be stealing? What if they leant your CD to a friend.... would that be stealing? I mean, the friend that they leant the CD to would have access to the information for free, even if they didn't own the CD. It's the CDs that you're selling, not the music on them, despite what you might like to think. File sharing just goes to prove that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. I finally got it, you are really confused over fair use

go ahead and re-read tittle seventeen on fair use.

By the way, here is a piece of trivia for you, copyright is NOT forever.

[harmonicon]

92. copyright is not forever, but it is for different amounts of time in different countries

Don't you find that to be a little fishy? Note the recent Amazon Orwell debacle. My only concern for copyright is as it directly effects me, the content producer. I don't mind if people distribute my recordings or musical scores any way they'd like, but I don't want them to pass them off as their own or sell them. That seems to just be common sense. As for fair use, I'm all for it, but I don't think the laws are in sync with present modes of cultural interaction. It seems to me that what all of this boils down to is profit/capitalism. The RIAA is arguing that this kid distributing "their" material cost them money, and I simply don't buy that argument. He wasn't claiming to be the producer of the content and wasn't making any money off of it. I would imagine that anyone who downloaded files that he had available would never have paid for a CD containing those files - that is the reality that the RIAA is fighting against.

[merwin]

97. You raise a point that most people do not know. The artist generally does not hold copyright on

the music he creates while on any of the major labels. That's in the first contract that you sign. You basically give up all rights to the content you record to the label, except the ability to perform the material live. That's why concerts are the only profitable part for most artists.

If it's an artist that I like, I make damn sure I go to concerts and buy some schwag from the artist, and even buy their CD's (mostly so I can get a nice lossless copy in the format of my choice).

Consumers are, generally, complete idiots and don't realize that the RIAA is bending over both the consumer and the artist... and yet we keep coming back for more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. You can release the copyright as a GNU

but the brouhaha over Amazon was... the people who loaded it to the KINDLE store did not own it... nor had the right to upload it. I am sure you understand this too.

At that point it was the HEIRS who saw it as their legal right to raise the issue...and they had that legal right under CURRENT laws.

They need a revision, but that is a whole different matter.

By the way, I CAN use sections of 1984 in a piece of published work, under fair use.

And you know it.

[harmonicon]

101. The Orwell heirs only own the copyright in the US

That was my point. In other countries his work is now public domain, and it seems to me that geographic restrictions could/should stop mattering in distribution over the internet. And, yes, I do know that you can use sections of 1984 under fair use, but I also know that even if someone claims fair use they can still be taken to court and forced to argue their case.

[NashVegas]

132. Ever Heard of a Guy Named Chuck Berry?

Or should we all just assume you believe Chuck's music is bad music?

[killbotfactory]

48. We have access to the biggest library on earth

Anything you want in any media format is available, anywhere, at anytime, for a small monthly fee or even for free.

Think for a minute how amazing that is.

And instead of changing their business model, they want to shut it down so they can soak us with fees. Awesome.

[mvd]

50. Great point!

And instead of lowering prices, the RIAA is raising them. Anyone who checks iTunes can see. That won't exactly help to slow down downloading.

[anonymous171]

129. They are paranoid that once we figure out that information is free,

then we might decide that other things should be free as well.

[autorank]

62. This is just the start.

And it's time to put this in perspective. Our judiciary is there to serve property interests, any type of
property. They more you have, the more "justice" you get.

It's time to have a "no CD month" and show the ghouls that we can stop paying them for an extended period.

This fine is offensive to any fair minded person. It's designed as financial terrorism. I don't care if
they offered a deal or not. There was nothing close to this damage and the same goes for the previous case.

This can't stand unchallenged.

[jmm]

63. If he stole $30 from a music store

most likely all that would happen would be they'd force him to sign a letter saying he'd never return.

Even if this is theft like some claim the fine is still overkill.

[Zavulon]

65. My nephew got caught shoplifting one CD, priced at $9.99, and

was brought to my sister's house by the cops.

I can't speak for all retailers, but I've never heard of the "sign a promise never to return" thing, nor would I trust a shoplifter to keep his word anyway.

The fine, on the other hand, is supposed to scare people into not doing it. It won't work.

[jmm]

66. The few retail jobs I had would do that with minor thefts.

Getting the cops involved over small stuff wasn't worth it to them. Also I knew a couple of people in high school who were made to sign letters. The letters pretty much were intended to intimidate them into not returning. If they came back then the cops would be called and the store would have proof of theft and trespassing.

[Zavulon]

67. Damn. Learn something new every day...

I worked two retail jobs and my bosses had a no tolerance policy. He would actually let the cops have freebies just to make sure they'd be willing to run in shoplifters. I heard of other such stores doing the same and I guess I just considered that to be the norm.

When I heard my nephew was brought home but not actually booked, I was surprised at the leniency. Of course, my sister did worse to the kid than the cops could have, but not all mothers do the same.

Anyway, thanks for letting me know, and for taking the time despite the fact that we're so digressing from the point of the thread (I didn't mean to do that, sorry). This "sign a promise" thing is absolutely new to me.

Cheers :hi:

[DeSwiss]

72. OT: "let the cops have freebies = bibery" n/t :-|

[Zavulon]

74. Technically, yes, but no more so than

the idea of free donuts and coffee. The cops never walked out with free big-ticket items.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. And it depends on the city

local PD has zero tolerance policy for any discounts or freebies for its personnel... which incidentally puts Dunking Donuts in a quandary, since free coffee for all emergency workers is corporate policy, and it is world wide (or at least North America). Yes, when they opened one in TJ we had free coffee, if we wanted it. I insisted on paying for mine and my crew... since I knew they were just starting and operating on the red.

[jmm]

64. Deleted

Duplicate post. This is what I get for posting on my phone.

[Beartracks]

70. Thank God! Democracy is now safe! n/t

:sarcasm: << in case this is needed

[MrSlayer]

89. This is fucking ridiculous.

$675k for 30 songs? Are you kidding me?

[Forkboy]

94. This makes me glad I don't listen to music on major labels.

[kpominville]

95. What a Frivilous Lawsuit

Instead of having the effect they hoped for, to scare people into not pirating. They have pissed off so many people that file sharing is still on the rise. It really has not slowed down since the days of Napster.

[PfcHammer]

102. Usenet ftw

[HughMoran]

105. Well, now that they got rid of that idiotic DRM crap, I have no issue paying $.99 for a song.

OTOH, the kid will never be able to pay the fine and it just makes me even more angry with the RIAA.

[merwin]

110. And yet you are guilty of the same crime

as this guy if you do something like put up a website that you personally use to stream your home music while you are at work... even more so if you do not password protect it.

The laws are written to not be in the interest of the public or the artist. They were written (literally) by RIAA lobbiests to protect their own interests.

[HughMoran]

133. Which is why I said I'm still pissed at the RIAA

I am so glad their iron-fisted approach to this issue has caused the industry to fail miserably.

IF there was NEVER DRM and they got into the retail game EARLY with REASONABLY priced digital music, they would have done a lot better.

Fucking fools - I hate fools, angry fools twice as much.

[anneboleyn]

113. Both Chaucer and Shakespeare would be in jail since they stole quite liberally from other writers

The concept of authorship/artistry that we have now is quite newly developed -- back in Chaucer's and Shakespeare's time(s) it was not at all unusual (some might say it was in fact usual) for a writer to borrow a storyline, characters, ideas for specific scenes, plot devices, etc. from other writers. The idea of artistic product as unique, "owned" property -- which commands royalties -- is a recent concept.

The problem here is that this judgement is absurdly inflated and just rewards the corporate entities that own and market these songs and not the artists who "write" them (and anyway how many of these pop stars are actually writing their own songs, like real bands in the seventies?). What disturbs me is that the jury seemed to be out to punish this grad student by assigning him an absurd debt he can never pay (he said that he immediately will file bankruptcy) for purposes that are hard to understand. Very hard to imagine.

These are show trials and I think both trials make a mockery of our legal system.

[merwin]

120. So in reality, the RIAA just shouldered us

with all of this kid's debt. Where are the republicans arguing for tort reform and payout limitations here like they do with medical lawsuits?

[anneboleyn]

121. Amen, great point! I dare say they won't utter a peep about this case.

And the taxpayers get to add a million dollars to our collective burden of debt.

[NashVegas]

128. Oh, Please

Tell everyone what the publishing industry was like at the time, will you?

The social Darwinism that Chaucer and Shakespeare were able to take advantage of to rise to prominence is not a model that today's talented, skilled, and knowledgeable artists will want to return to when they finally understand what's at stake.