OT: Music downloader fined 1.9 million

[Bill Heins]

I think the fine is excessive and ridiculous...stealing is stealing BUT extortion is illegal as far as I'm concerned as well. It's not like she's a Pro Football player driving drunk and running over construction workers...oh yeah, you get 30 days for that

 

Bill

[zyzik]

I think the fine is excessive and ridiculous...stealing is stealing BUT extortion is illegal as far as I'm concerned as well. It's not like she's a Pro Football player driving drunk and running over construction workers...oh yeah, you get 30 days for that

Bill

 

+1, exactly. If we gonna punish for stealing - let's be consistent and do that to everybody not just to poor people.

 

 

[kanker.]

Its my opinion music is overpriced.... all the way down the line

What brand of toilet paper do you wipe your opinions with?

 

I prefer Charmin Ultra

[Martin Hines]

Unfortunately for them, the message they sent is NOT the one they wanted to.

 

If they had picked on one of the users out there with massive catalogs, song lists in the tens of thousands, and gone after them, no one would be sympathizing with the defendant.

 

That lady was (and is) an idiot. She has a fixed IP internet address, all the songs were traced back to her Kazaa account on that particular computer inside her house, and her Kazaa account name "tereastarr" was a name she had used in other forums for years.

 

Oh, I missed that. Nevertheless, they claimed that etc. That is not the same as prove, and the fact that they eventually culled it down to 24 may indicate that the original claim of 1700 could not be proven. But I admit I'm speculating here.

 

The RIAA "proved" the 24 by having a company download those 24 songs from her hard drive while she was still sharing them on Kazaa. There really wasn't any need to sue her for all 1,700 since this has always been about sending an anti-piracy message to other consumers out there.

[zyzik]

I agree, that's really stupid having fixed address for activity like this...

 

BTW it's interesting that nobody go after illegal movies sharing,

at least I never heard of case about "stealing" films.

 

Anyway they will scare nobody with this lawsuit, because 90% of sharing and hackers sites are out side US.

[Martin Hines]

It's not like she's a Pro Football player driving drunk and running over construction workers...oh yeah, you get 30 days for that

 

Bill

The sentence was more than just "30 days":

-- huge financial settlement with family of victim (he probably paid millions)

-- 30 days in jail

-- 2 years under house arrest

-- 8 years on probation

-- 1,000 hours of community service

-- forfeiture of his drivers license for life

-- agreement to submit to random drug and alcohol testing

 

The sentence was ALSO what the family of the victim wanted.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1100610.html?asset_id=1099832&asset_type=gallery

[ozymandias]

I agree that this is desparate act on a dying industry using fear tactics to try to save itself. I think they would be much more successful with television ads appealing to people's conscience.

 

Fear is a useful tactic for enforcing the law.

Without it most if not all shops in your neighborhood would've been long since looted.

Without fear of repercussions many people would commit horrible crimes. Fear is not a bad thing, and as for conscience ... it's nice, but most people would sell theirs for 12$ (the cost of a CD, vs downloading it).

 

 

[Bill Heins]

It's not like she's a Pro Football player driving drunk and running over construction workers...oh yeah, you get 30 days for that

 

Bill

The sentence was more than just "30 days":

-- huge financial settlement with family of victim (he probably paid millions)

-- 30 days in jail

-- 2 years under house arrest

-- 8 years on probation

-- 1,000 hours of community service

-- forfeiture of his drivers license for life

-- agreement to submit to random drug and alcohol testing

 

The sentence was ALSO what the family of the victim wanted.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1100610.html?asset_id=1099832&asset_type=gallery

 

So if the family didn't receive millions of dollars what punishment do you think they would have wanted?

 

Take a look at the average sentence non-millionaires receive

 

Bill

[Steve Nathan]

You still don't get it, do you?

 

Criminal vs. Civil is not about semantics.

 

Within the context of this thread it remains a smokescreen for people unwilling to face the fact that they are unscrupulous.

 

If B3er thinks he'll benefit from giving his music away, that's fine as long as it's his decision to make. But, Captain Kidd here has made the decision to take B3ers music without asking (or paying), and then has the gall to tell him he's doing him a favor so get used to it. And if we rollover for this BS, how long before nobody will buy a CD at your gig when they can get it free on their IPhone?

 

And the rationalization for stealing the product of someone else's hard work without paying.....The radio at work sucks. Starwars 6 blew so I have the right to steal movies. Vista is crap so I'm justified running cracked versions of Reason and Abelton

 

 

 

 

[kanker.]

If B3er thinks he'll benefit from giving his music away, that's fine as long as it's his decision to make. But, Captain Kidd here has made the decision to take B3ers music without asking (or paying), and then has the gall to tell him he's doing him a favor so get used to it. And if we rollover for this BS, how long before nobody will buy a CD at your gig when they can get it free on their IPhone?

Exactly. You're playing a club, a patron (or 20) thinks "man, this band's great!" and pulls out their internet capable phone and downloads your albums for "free" in lieu of buying them. Not that far fetched at all....

[Jim Alfredson]

Nope. Not that far fetched.

 

So what are you going to do about it?

 

Sue everybody with an iPhone?

 

The reality is that the old model is gone. It's sink or swim time. Gotta figure out how to make the technology work in your favor. There will always be people who want to purchase the music in some physical form, especially at the gig where they can get the band to sign it. But to expect to make an actual living by selling recorded music... well, you'd be better off spending your time practicing than trying to track down every blog and other site with your music on it for free.

 

Seriously; it is so simple to make a digital copy of a file and then to email that file to someone or put it on a server. What can be done to stop it?

 

Nothing.

 

So, better that you decide how your music is presented (bit-rate, file format, etc.) than someone else. As someone mentioned, you have to offer other things to get people to buy the physical product. It's not enough to just have a CD. And frankly at the level we're at, CDs are basically business cards anyway.

[ozymandias]

The thing is, with all of these arguments, I don't think either side addresses the real issue. Copyright law was introduced to protect the people who create content and make it profitable for them, which encouraged the creation of more content.

 

On the one hand, I too don't believe digital sharing will ever go away (not that I approve of it, quite the contrary). On the other hand, if you take the copyright laws away you're depriving the very important group which lies at the foundations of the music industry its source of income.

 

Either way this group ends up income-deprived. Less and less artistic chances will be taken. Fewer and fewer new artists will emerge from the bottom ("engineered stars" dropped from above won't count). Big productions will become scarce. Artistry will suffer, as will the songs we get on the radio. To make real, lasting art, an artist needs to be able to pursue his/her art 24/7 (Picasso didn't become famous by doodling on his free weekends). To support this 24/7 pursuit, money is needed - the money generated by the art created.

 

I never hear a solution to this by either side. How do we get the money back into the system? Both sides are so obsessed with laying the guilt on the other that the discussion gets derailed early on and remains shallow. I honestly don't know the answer, but I still believe copyright laws are worth fighting for, even by inefficient RIAA lawsuits - but this is far from being a satisfactory solution in my view.

 

 

 

 

[Joe Muscara]

ozymandias, I think B3-er is discussing the answer in the post above yours (which you may not have seen). He's exactly right, the model has changed. The industry seems to be very stuck in the old model and fighting to keep it that way instead of trying to use their power to make some new great way of doing business. So, it's up to the rest of us to move on and do what we need for us.

[Yoozer]

The thing is, with all of these arguments, I don't think either side addresses the real issue. Copyright law was introduced to protect the people who create content and make it profitable for them, which encouraged the creation of more content.

 

And the flip side was that the content was to be released into the public domain eventually, to enrich it, with a period set to 28 years in a time that had a far lower rate of information dissemination than what is the case now. Not gonna happen when they move that time of copyright up to a century, and none of the artists are going to profit from it, because they'll probably be dead.

 

How do we get the money back into the system?

Wouldn't it be neat if you'd just make music because - I don't know - you like making music? I'd be interested in the possible what-if-scenarios if the entire industry would croak; call it morbid curiosity.

 

Less and less artistic chances will be taken.

Debatable. You takes an artistic chance because you feel like doing so. When the producer yanks you back because it might not sell enough and it would be more of a hit otherwise, what then?

[zephonic]

People, with all this complaining about illegal downloads, let's not forget one thing. The new business model is here.

 

iTunes is IMMENSELY succesful, it proves that people are willing to pay for music. What's more, YOU can put YOUR music on iTunes and earn more per song than ANY record company would EVER give you.

 

This is a golden age for musicians. All you have to do is find a way to attract attention and you could be doing major business really quickly if your stuff is good.

 

So yeah, people do illegal downloads, just the way they taped music from the radio or copied albums from friends or the library. But they still BUY music as well, and with the new outlets (iTunes etc.) you, the artist, can cut out the middle man and earn all the money!

 

So what exactly are we complaining about? It's a brave new world, get with it.

 

[Cygnus64]

What can be done to stop it?

 

Nothing.

 

 

There isnt a governor in America who wouldnt salivate over an internet tax.

 

You would probably have to register via your SS number. If every email, download, upload, etc was taxed, monitored, on and on, the problem would end. I'm not going to break the rules and start in on politics, but certainly a lot of politicians would love to get their grubby paws on a piece of the action. Al Capone didnt go to jail for his crimes, he went for tax evasion.

[SMcD]

...And then someone (anonymously of course) replied with a pretty sanctimonious post about how I should be thankful that the blog is exposing people to my music. He/she said that our problem is not downloading, it's obscurity.

 

And I was pissed off. And then I thought about it. And realized that he/she is right.

 

Who listens to music on terrestrial radio anymore? Anyone? Sans the occasional cool jazz program on my local public radio station, I don't listen to the radio at all because it's commercialized bullshit. It's programmed by robots for robots. I listen to my iPod. Most of the stuff on my iPod is downloaded.

 

Used to be you could listen to the radio and a great DJ might play Zappa one minute, Art Ensemble of Chicago the next, maybe some Yes into some Taj Mahal, etc. That shit is long gone.

 

Blogs and mp3s and youtube are the new radio. It's the absolute best way to get your music out there and get fans.

 

We sell 90% of our CDs at gigs. Gigs are where we make our money. Gigs are why we play music in the first place... to play in front of 1200 appreciative jazz fans like at the Rochester Jazz Festival last Friday or a mere 50 close friends in a living room, like at Bill Levinson's place in New Hope on Wednesday...

 

+1000 to this entire post.

 

I'll freely admit that I download music illegally sometimes. Mostly, I use it as a way to get familiar with a band that I don't know much about.

 

Last summer, I started getting into Deep Purple. At first, I downloaded a few of their songs, just to sample them. I liked it so much, that I started purchasing some of their albums. If I hadn't had the chance to get acquainted with them using the Internet, I probably never would've learned about them. Downloading music, at least for me, is like test-driving a car before you buy it.

[Martin Hines]

 

So if the family didn't receive millions of dollars what punishment do you think they would have wanted?

 

Take a look at the average sentence non-millionaires receive

 

Bill

He most likely did get a lesser sentence than someone who had less money, but in this case the victim's family wanted this to be over and the case settled. My point was he received a lot more punishment that only spending 30 days in jail.

[Cygnus64]

 

So if the family didn't receive millions of dollars what punishment do you think they would have wanted?

 

Take a look at the average sentence non-millionaires receive

 

Bill

He most likely did get a lesser sentence than someone who had less money, but in this case the victim's family wanted this to be over and the case settled. My point was he received a lot more punishment that only spending 30 days in jail.

 

Lets face it: if the guy didnt have big bucks, the family would want his head on a platter. They didnt want it to be "over" for any other reason than cashing that gazillion dollar check.

 

There's no way to spin this. He's spending 30 days in jail (not prison, jail). That's like a punishment for a really overdue library book. He bought himself out of it. The families' wishes are lagely irrelevant since they are based on money and only money.

[zyzik]

Seriously; it is so simple to make a digital copy of a file and then to email that file to someone or put it on a server. What can be done to stop it?

 

Nothing.

 

+1 exactly right, nothing and some should be happy that somebody download their music illegally because otherwise nobody would buy it anyway...

[ProfD]

Really dig the passion expressed here especially from those who understand the music business and how music is a product.

 

I find it silly and sad that musicians of all people think music should be free.

 

I suspect those 'musicians' who think music is over-priced have no personal desire to get paid for their own.

 

Record companies aren't getting over on anybody. Even if the product they push is inferior, they aren't forcing people to buy it.

 

Otherwise, the business model for selling music has changed. It is especially conducive to the 'little' artists and musicians who aren't signed to big record companies.

 

Many Hip-Hop artists got their record deals selling product out of the trunk of their cars and on the street. Moving 40k CDs at $8 a piece is $320k.

 

The grind remains the same. B3-er is definitely on the right track.

 

Artists/musicians have to build a fanbase i.e. find folks willing to buy a concert ticket, CDs, downloads, etc.

 

Nowadays, that could very well mean putting free music up on a band website. It's a gamble but very well could put another butt in a seat.

 

Companies do it all the time i.e. loss leader. Bait with one thing to sell something else. Musicians have to become better businesspeople. They certainly have to stop ripping each other off.

[GDP]

Many Hip-Hop artists got their record deals selling product out of the trunk of their cars and on the street. Moving 40k CDs at $8 a piece is $320k.............

 

Nowadays, that could very well mean putting free music up on a band website. It's a gamble but very well could put another butt in a seat.

 

Companies do it all the time i.e. loss leader. Bait with one thing to sell something else. Musicians have to become better businesspeople. They certainly have to stop ripping each other off.

 

This is the correct assessment, in my opinion. Business means risk.....Capital (money, time, effort, talent) is put at risk for the purposes of capitalizing on it. Jobs are created and sometimes industries are created as well.

 

I realize capitalism is a dirty word these days but it does work, and there are rules.......some of these rules maintain that the product has worth and demands a price. If not no-one buys it and the risk does not pay off......no easy, quick way around it!

 

Certain marketing techniques might require a freebee now and then, but I think we can all agree that is done to further sales and hopefully profit. Profit will allow one to keep going with their success.

[SMcD]

Beyond the legal and ethical issues behind downloading, there's also the fact that the quality, and often selection, of the songs on P2P networks are vastly inferior. If I had a nickel for all the bad recordings I've seen on Limewire and the like...

 

Plus, there's the sentimental value of owning a physical copy of an album. That's what scares me the most about music going digital-No more liner notes, no more album covers.

[Jim Alfredson]

It starts with no longer referring to recorded music as a "product". It should instead be thought of as an investment / glorified business card in order to entice people to come to your performances. It's a promotional tool.

 

You make money by entertaining people, playing live. In other words, you make money by making music. Novel concept.

 

Once they are at the performance, then the record / CD / DVD etc. that they might not have already downloaded becomes merchandise (gotta build catalog and have multiple releases). T-shirts. Bumper stickers. Limited edition vinyl pressings... whatever. It's an easier sell because people want to take some of that experience home with them.

 

I think the future lies in releasing music for free on the internet as mp3 or flac or whatever, but in a format of your choosing, the way you want it presented. Then offer your fans the option of either paying for higher quality files or a limited edition physical copy on CD or, even more cool (and harder to copy!), vinyl.

 

This is an amazing time to be a musician. We can produce, record, and distribute our own music by ourselves with current technology. No middle-man needed. Labels should be co-ops, with like-minded artists sharing publicity costs such as magazine / internet ads.

 

Now all we need are gigs!

 

 

 

 

 

On another note, I pray to sweet baby Jesus that an internet tax never happens. Talk about killing creativity.

[ozymandias]

Yoozer,

 

Wouldn't it be neat if you'd just make music because - I don't know - you like making music? I'd be interested in the possible what-if-scenarios if the entire industry would croak; call it morbid curiosity.

 

Getting good at something takes time. Stephen King wrote in his book "On Writing" that all writers start out at a reasonable level, and what differentiates the really good ones from the chaff is writing nonstop 24/7, making it their job. I agree with Mr. King. Why does anyone think song writing is any different? Do you think the Beatles would've produced their fantastic albums if they all had day jobs and would meet every Monday and Thursday to jam in Ringo's garage?

 

B3er,

 

It starts with no longer referring to recorded music as a "product". It should instead be thought of as an investment / glorified business card in order to entice people to come to your performances. It's a promotional tool.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but do the numbers back it up? Did they back it up ~ 15 years ago, when there still wasn't any musical piracy? Can one make a decent living off just gigging? Is there enough of it to go around? (I asking since I don't know; I'm not a professional musician) Haven't you kept the same model as 15 years ago and just took away the income from selling albums without replacing it? (after all, musicians gigged back then too, right?)

 

[Griffinator]

News flash, ozy:

 

The only musicians that made significant income off record sales 15 years ago were the ones who went platinum.

 

Why? Because the record contracts they hand out guarantee it. You're bound to use the producer, engineer, and recording studio they dictate (and 15 years ago you couldn't argue, not like you had a studio in your basement) and it all came out of your advance. On the backend, the record company claimed all manner of promotional costs associated with getting your sales accomplished before they even thought about paying you your points.

 

Back @ 1994, Maximum Rock and Roll did a breakdown of a standard industry contract and calculated it out to about $8K per band member for a four-piece, half a million records sold.

 

So, essentially, except for the chosen few who broke huge, no artists made any money off record sales back then either.

 

Labels did, but not the artists...

[ozymandias]

Griffinator,

 

Your claims are a double-edged sword. I could equally say that record labels took many many chances that didn't pay off in the past on young artists. Maybe 10% did and went platinum, which helped not only pay the artist, but also fund that label's other ventures, including the search for young talent. Getting a young talent into the studio, getting him/her an experienced producer, doing arrangements, recording in a good studio - that's a truckload of money. How much did the great albums of the past cost? Now imagine for every 10 such albums, 9 went down the drain in terms of financial payoff. Labels often get a bad name for being greedy. Sure there's some bureaucracy as with every corporation, but big labels can also get things moving, things that ordinary musicians can't afford. Can you imagine The Joshua Tree being produced on a $10k budget? What about Back to Black? Night at the Opera? Abbey Road? The Wall? These are the pinnacles of rock and they were all very expensive in terms of facilities used and manhours put into them. I personally don't believe they could've been pulled off without a substantial investment, both financial and temporal. You just couldn't cut Pearl Jam's first album in some crummy garage studio using your 1000$ sound card and SM57s. Even Glen Ballard's home studio, which churned out one of the most influential 90s album (Jagged Little Pill), was armed to the teeth and had Glen in it, who himself is a knowledgeable musician who is a product of the expensive, high-end music industry which is getting hit because of illegal music downloads.

 

[Edited: that's not to say the current home-recording revolution doesn't have its benefits, but is that the issue we're discussing? It seems to me we're talking about piracy and its ill effects.]

 

You should look at the entire industry as a black box. On the one end you get money + talent + time going in, on the other end you get music. If you take away a substantial portion of the money you're upsetting the balance. You can't run a successful industry on talent and hard work with no money to fuel it. Money isn't evil! It's actually the most sincere form of flattery. Someone paying for your album - now that's the greatest compliment in the world. Screw "I love your music". Show me your real appreciation, give me your sweat in the form of dollars. That's as heartfelt as it gets!

 

Anyway, all of these are just my hunches. Without any numbers it's very hard to get to any decisive conclusion, so if anyone here is familiar with the numbers I'd be more than happy to hear them. How much did the music industry make in, say 1990? From gigs? From selling records? How much did an "average" artist earn? That's the sort of data we need here to reach a conclusion.

 

 

[Griffinator]

I was just making a point about artists making money off their record sales 15 years ago.

 

Again, unless you moved a bare minimum of 500,000 units, you didn't make money.

 

And most artists (not just average, most) didn't sell 500,000 units.

[Cygnus64]

It starts with no longer referring to recorded music as a "product". It should instead be thought of as an investment / glorified business card in order to entice people to come to your performances. It's a promotional tool.

 

You make money by entertaining people, playing live. In other words, you make money by making music. Novel concept.

 

 

I have to say that I'm really surprised at your comments, as you are a fine musician. I would think that your viewpoint would be a bit less myopic, especially since your comments in the ASCAP thread seem to contradict what you are saying now.

 

Some of the best pop music written has never been performed live. The Beatles quit performing after 1966. When they put out their anthology series around 2000, the Beatles made about 100 million dollars, 30 years after they broke up. No concerts.

 

Mike Oldfield recorded Tubular Bells by himself, he couldnt perform it.

 

I HATE concerts. You have to drag me to one, I never go. I don't like the crowds, the volume, the parking, the traffic. Kind of ironic since I play 200 a year. I'm not the only one. The concert experience is apples and oranges to the recording experience. They are seperate entities. I own thousands of CDs from people I've never seen in a concert.

 

 

When you give up the profits to recordings, you're opening a whole nother can o worms. If a band thinks their going to make a living off of t-shirts and gigs, somewhere down the line someone will say "Give away the T-shirts, think of the exposure". A club owner will say "We can't afford to pay you much, but think of the exposure". A TV show will say "We can't afford our normal residuals, but think of the exposure". That movie company will say "We would like to use your music for free, think of the exposure". When you find your tunes being sold on a site and someone else is profiting, they will say "think of the exposure".

 

You'll be the most exposed person in the unemployment line.

[Cygnus64]

I was just making a point about artists making money off their record sales 15 years ago.

 

Again, unless you moved a bare minimum of 500,000 units, you didn't make money.

 

And most artists (not just average, most) didn't sell 500,000 units.

 

Session players do.