OT: Music downloader fined 1.9 million

[richwhite9]

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.

 

 

I remember horror stories from the 70s of bands that moved 250,000 albums regularly but couldn't make money off their record contracts: they were so far in debt to the record companies that the occassional Gold Album (500,000) wouldn't earn them a penny. J Geils was frequently mentioned as that kind of band. Records were calling cards for many. The company would come up with studio money and some tour advance money. In turn the band would give up publishing rights and royalties. MTV videos led to a whole new type of accounting shenanigans for video promos as advance money.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

Maybe I've given up. Just got a check from ASCAP for $60 and again the most-played song from our album is not credited at all on the statement.

 

Although I really appreciate your comment, being a fine musician unfortunately has nothing to do with it.

 

Besides, I'm mainly talking about 90% of the musicians out there, not the very few who are well-known and making money. I'm talking about myself and my own band(s) and other musicians in a similar situation.

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's The Beatles. Never been another band like them since, probably never will. That's a rarity.

 

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.

 

That's a shame because I find as a musician going to a concert (almost any concert) invariably helps improve my own approach to this business. They are case studies in what works and what doesn't when it comes to performing in front of an audience and are very educational. Who knows, it might make your own performances better or inspire you.

 

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".

 

Dude, that "can of worms" has been open since the dawn of music! There have been and will always be club owners that want you to play for free or very little money. No big news flash there.

 

Look, all I'm saying is that the business model for selling music has changed drastically. You can't go back to the way it was; it's impossible. So you either find a way to make it work or you don't.

 

Somebody mentioned not being able to make an album like The Joshua Tree on $10k. I would counter that one should never have to spend $1 million making a record (like Def Leppard did). That's just insane. And the music sucks anyway. There has to be a better balance.

 

 

If you can build up a good fan base, most of those fans will want to support you and buy your music because they like you and they want to be a part of the experience. The key is building up the fan base. The way NOT to do that is to stifle the distribution of your music, either legally or illegally.

[ozymandias]

B3er,

 

There have been and will always be club owners that want you to play for free or very little money. No big news flash there.

 

And just listen to the bands that play there ... 90% are awful, point being that no getting paid for something brings out lowers the general quality of that something; same reasoning applies to studio albums.

 

If you can build up a good fan base, most of those fans will want to support you and buy your music because they like you and they want to be a part of the experience. The key is building up the fan base.

 

I think we both have different amounts of faith in mankind . I'd bet - without having any data - that the number of people who would pay for a product the "meat" of which they could otherwise have for free is about 10%. I've got a very good friend who's a big fan of this artist. He bought two of his CDs, but downloaded his other 4, because he felt he supported the artist enough by buying 2.

 

I agree with you that some things have changed, but I'm not convinced artists should roll over and play dead. No real effort has been done to date to try and really fight it. Laws are a joke and enforcement is left to private organizations such as the RIAA. Of course it won't stop! This needs collaboration on a world-scale between law enforcement agencies but it can be done. That's the only solution I see unless someone cares to tell me where the missing money is going to come from. If an "average" successful band sells ~ 50,000 copies of its album @ 10$ a piece, that's 500,000$ that went puff. And usually a band sells a few albums in the run of its career.

 

 

[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.

 

Maybe I've given up. Just got a check from ASCAP for $60 and again the most-played song from our album is not credited at all on the statement.

 

Although I really appreciate your comment, being a fine musician unfortunately has nothing to do with it.

 

Besides, I'm mainly talking about 90% of the musicians out there, not the very few who are well-known and making money. I'm talking about myself and my own band(s) and other musicians in a similar situation.

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's The Beatles. Never been another band like them since, probably never will. That's a rarity.

 

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.

 

That's a shame because I find as a musician going to a concert (almost any concert) invariably helps improve my own approach to this business. They are case studies in what works and what doesn't when it comes to performing in front of an audience and are very educational. Who knows, it might make your own performances better or inspire you.

 

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".

 

Dude, that "can of worms" has been open since the dawn of music! There have been and will always be club owners that want you to play for free or very little money. No big news flash there.

 

Look, all I'm saying is that the business model for selling music has changed drastically. You can't go back to the way it was; it's impossible. So you either find a way to make it work or you don't.

 

Somebody mentioned not being able to make an album like The Joshua Tree on $10k. I would counter that one should never have to spend $1 million making a record (like Def Leppard did). That's just insane. And the music sucks anyway. There has to be a better balance.

 

 

If you can build up a good fan base, most of those fans will want to support you and buy your music because they like you and they want to be a part of the experience. The key is building up the fan base. The way NOT to do that is to stifle the distribution of your music, either legally or illegally.

 

 

Lemme put it another way on a tangible level:

 

I liked what I heard when I heard Organissimo on the tube a few months back. I'm not much of a jazzer, but if I was surfing i-tunes and saw you I might grab a track.

 

I will never see Organissimo in concert:

 

1. I don't go to venues where alcohol is served.

2. I rarely go to shows

3. Chances are that I am playing a gig at the same time.

 

What you are saying is essentially you don't want me as a customer. You won't get me as an audience member but you could as a record buyer. You've publicly stated that your recordings are not a product, but a business card to get me into a venue that I can't step foot in (because of the booze).

 

Likewise, every person who works second or third shift won't see you, they cant since you mainly play at nite. Your turning them away from being a customer, since you feel you don't have a product. Handicapped people often can't get to a show, yet you don't have a product to give them.

 

If someone feels there recordings are worthless, it doesnt give me a lot of confidence in the product. If someone feels it's not even a product, they have shut me out, and a good portion of America.

 

 

[zephonic]

 

Somebody mentioned not being able to make an album like The Joshua Tree on $10k. I would counter that one should never have to spend $1 million making a record (like Def Leppard did). That's just insane. And the music sucks anyway. There has to be a better balance.

 

 

+1. The size of the budget is often inversely proportional to the musical proficiency of the artist involved...

 

 

BTW, I'm doing my album with no budget at all

[Nillerbabs]

I feel kind of ambivalent about this thread; I believe albums should be credited with payment, but OTOH downloading and copying of music is irreversible.

 

I think what Radiohead did with their album "In Rainbows" was really cool, and at the time i believed that it might usher in a new era of music sales. Letting people pay whatever they want to - well, I'd never heard them before, and I got it for free. Turned out it wasn't my cup of tea. However, many of my friends paid reasonable sums for their albums in respect of the confidence they had been given by this gesture. And if it turned out I had liked the music, I would've too.

[kanker.]

Sorry, but Def Leppard f*&%king rocked

[Joe Muscara]

Sorry, but Def Leppard f*&%king rocked

Yeah, all 3 and 3/4 of the original band.

[Mogut]

btw... the rare occasion, the last cd I actually bought. What a great talent... youtube sensation

 

http://www.youtube.com/ronaldjenkees

[Griffinator]

Sorry, but Def Leppard f*&%king rocked

Yeah, all 3 and 3/4 of the original band.

 

+1

 

 

We call them the Ded Leppars around here..

[Jim Alfredson]

 

What you are saying is essentially you don't want me as a customer. You won't get me as an audience member but you could as a record buyer. You've publicly stated that your recordings are not a product, but a business card to get me into a venue that I can't step foot in (because of the booze).

 

Likewise, every person who works second or third shift won't see you, they cant since you mainly play at nite. Your turning them away from being a customer, since you feel you don't have a product. Handicapped people often can't get to a show, yet you don't have a product to give them.

 

If someone feels there recordings are worthless, it doesnt give me a lot of confidence in the product. If someone feels it's not even a product, they have shut me out, and a good portion of America.

 

 

Nonsense. Our recordings are still for sale and always will be. They are a product; I just don't always think of them that way. I don't blink an eye giving CDs away to people if I think it's worthwhile.

 

All I saying is that I'm not surprised when they show up for free on a blog somewhere and I've decided to not waste any energy getting upset about it because there is absolutely nothing I can do. I can and have asked blogs to take them down and then they just appear on another blog days later. The time I spend trying to track them down and writing nasty emails to the admins would be better spent either practicing, writing, or working on the business side of things.

 

You can still buy them and if you like the band. I hope you do (they are good records). We're still going to make good / hopefully great records because we enjoy doing it. People are still going to buy CDs at shows because, as I said before, they want to take part of the experience of the show home with them. And some people will always want a physical product whether they come to a show or not. Some people like the ease of iTunes, so we have our stuff up there.

 

Again, it's about obscurity. It's about options. At this stage in the game, everything is on the table.

 

It's not that I don't think our music has worth. Of course I think it has worth or I wouldn't be out here doing it, busting my ass. Wouldn't it be great if every one who likes our music bought a CD? Of course it would! It would also be great if every person I meet each day would just hand me $20. While we're in fantasy-land, it would also be great if I had a CS-80, a roadie or two to haul my gear, and I didn't have to drive an average of two hours to gigs. But that ain't gonna happen and there's no use in getting upset about it.

 

Call me a realist. I don't care how many people get together on this in regards to the industry, government, what have you... it's not going away. The technology is here. It's one thing to copy-protect software, which always stays within the digital domain. It's another to try and stop copying music, which has to become analog at some point and thus will always be able to be recorded and distributed, even if we went back to mix-tapes. It's just the nature of the beast.

 

Again, you have to give people a reason to buy the CD / mp3s rather than download the tunes for free. I don't have all the answers here... nobody does. But to put your energy in trying to go back to how it was in 1995, when a CD burner cost $300 and barely anybody was online, is foolish. You can't go back in time, you can't change the march of technology. So figure out how to make it work for you.

 

We need new copyright laws, new ways of calculating royalties, new distribution channels, a new definition of "record label", etc. The whole thing has changed. And in my mind it is far more for the better than not. It's empowering.

[Cygnus64]

[

But to put your energy in trying to go back to how it was in 1995,

 

Nobody is suggesting this.

 

What I vehemently object to is when people give up, in any way in anything in life. I had a terminal illness in 2004 and was given a week to live, no kidding. I kicked the reaper's pansy sissy A$$$$$$! I'm a fighter.

 

I'm flabberghasted when people say "THe technology is here to stay". This technology is so new that the paint is still drying on it. Nobody 20 years ago could have predicted any of this, yet people talk like Moses wrote this on a new tablet that it's here to stay.

 

Personally, I dont think the internet will last more than 5 years in it's current state. The anonymity is being challenged every day. Lawyers are getting more and more subpeonas, employers are searching facebook, you name it. It will come to a point where everyone will have an internet number, just like a tax ID.

 

It's up to musicians, filmmakers and software folk to raise a stink. If we collectively raise enough of one, it will matter. I sure don't want a tax, I want the piracy slowed. It can be done, regardless of the Nay-sayers. If the studios and labels cant do it, the politicians will and take their cut.

[Jim Alfredson]

Hey congrats on beating your illness! Much respect there.

 

I don't view myself as giving up (that comment was tongue in cheek). I'm just trying to adapt to the changing landscape. I honestly don't see the point in fighting the blogs; I think it's much more useful to think of them as a means to an end.

 

[SMcD]

Out of curiosity, what's the typical percentage of record sales that ends up in a recording musician's pocket?

[SMcD]

As most people aren't lawyers, and even for some who are, they don't all practice copyright law, I think the rules aren't truly set in everyone's mind. I know I see lots of gray areas.

 

Some for examples:

 

1) What if I buy a CD and rip the music off into MP3s and keep them on my computer? What if sometime after I've done this one of my kids steps on the CD and breaks it in half? If I no longer have the receipt that proves I've purchased it, am I potentially in trouble here?

 

2) I have put music on two different computers from CDs I've bought so I can listen no matter which one I'm on. Is that ok?

 

3) Youtube -- what is the deal with Youtube? I can find a studio recording of just about any song I want there. I can then use any number of recording applications (like Audacity or Freecorder) to record the audio and save it as an MP3. Is that allowed? When things are so readily available, it just lends itself to the masses believing it is perfectly legal to do. In the case of Youtube, I'm sure we've all see things that were up briefly only to be taken down to some copyright violation (that happened when that clip of A Fine Frenzy from The Tonight Show was put up; I went to see it and it had been removed), and yet I can go see and hear Mr. Jones by The Counting Crows and Killer Queen by Queen and on and on and on. I use Youtube all the time to hear a version of a song that the band is working on. I don't think I've ever NOT been able to find a song there. It's amazing.

 

4) What if I record an internet radio station and save a few songs from that as MP3s? I didn't buy them, yet here is a VERY good recording of it. Is that legal?

 

5) What if I buy a CD and then rip the music and then later (maybe even YEARS later, I see the CD on Ebay)? Can I keep the MP3s on my machine?

 

I think if you asked 10 different people on the street these questions you might get 10 different answers.

 

Furthermore, what if you borrow a CD from somebody and rip the songs to your hard drive? Is that considered stealing music, even if YOU aren't distributing it?

[Yoozer]

Furthermore, what if you borrow a CD from somebody and rip the songs to your hard drive? Is that considered stealing music, even if YOU aren't distributing it?

It's infringement, because it's exactly what the small print on the disc (making unauthorized copies) doesn't want you to do.

 

Since corporations seem awfully hell-bent on defining that you have a "license to listen", a neat loophole would be to buy old vinyl (you paid for the license) and get a high-quality MP3 file of the actual song; because that's what you paid for. The fact that you've moved formats should technically be irrelevant, as you are allowed to make copies for yourself. I love second-hand CDs myself; the music industry doesn't.

 

I agree with you that some things have changed, but I'm not convinced artists should roll over and play dead. No real effort has been done to date to try and really fight it. Laws are a joke and enforcement is left to private organizations such as the RIAA. Of course it won't stop! This needs collaboration on a world-scale between law enforcement agencies but it can be done.

How many fans do you think you are going to have left when you make a Music Gestapo? There's already a big backlash against the RIAA and the MPAA and their practices, and it only gets bigger when you have the ASCAP shouting that they want to get paid every time your phone rings - because hey, you just might have a ringtone of one of their members, and this means a public performance. In their haste to get a cut of the pie they squeeze it into crumbling bits, leaving nothing.

 

On the other hand, perhaps it'll kill off obnoxious ringtones.

[zephonic]

Personally, I dont think the internet will last more than 5 years in it's current state. The anonymity is being challenged every day. Lawyers are getting more and more subpeonas, employers are searching facebook, you name it. It will come to a point where everyone will have an internet number, just like a tax ID.

 

I can't believe that you consider this to be a good thing. Our lives are devoid of privacy enough as it is. Rather than uniting and making a stand against illegal downloading, I think we should unite and make a stand to keep the internet a free and anonymous place.

 

You may lose a few bucks, but that's a small price to pay for liberty.

 

BTW, do you know that some artists made more money from ringtones than CD's last year? I don't hear anybody about that. New markets.

 

As I see it, we'll be giving away free mp3's and sell DVD's. Their sales are still strong and not everybody is willing to download an entire DVD.

I don't have the figures for recent years, but in 2006 DVD sales surpassed CDs and were still growing. Maybe the latter has just had its day.

 

Cassettes, reel-to-reel, 8-tracks, vinyl, DAT, MD and soon CD...ciao!

 

[resigned]

The Internet is the black hole of post-socialism. Soon no media will be profitable hence no media will be worth producing. What will pass for music in the future will be a tapestry of mix tapes.

[zephonic]

The Internet is the black hole of post-socialism. Soon no media will be profitable hence no media will be worth producing. What will pass for music in the future will be a tapestry of mix tapes.

 

I would say that iTunes has proven to be tremendously profitable. And they give you somewhere between $0.60 and $0.65 per song. Try asking a record company for 60% royalties, and let me know how that works out.

 

What I can not believe is that musicians are defending a recording industry that has systematically taken advantage of them for decades. Stockholm syndrome, anyone?

[Griffinator]

The Internet is the black hole of post-socialism. Soon no media will be profitable hence no media will be worth producing. What will pass for music in the future will be a tapestry of mix tapes.

 

I would say that iTunes has proven to be tremendously profitable. And they give you somewhere between $0.60 and $0.65 per song. Try asking a record company for 60% royalties, and let me know how that works out.

 

What I can not believe is that musicians are defending a recording industry that has systematically taken advantage of them for decades. Stockholm syndrome, anyone?

 

Absolutely agree with every part of this.

 

The internet has given musicians the ability to break from the major labels.

 

Yes, it's true, that unfortunately it's also given every hack with a guitar or a sequencer an audience for their stupidity, but only the impossibly stupid actually get any air time online (e.g. "Chocolate Rain")

[Tonysounds]

With radio and top 40, musicianship is gone... There are the exceptions of course. One that comes to mind is Adele, which i just recently "acquired" her album '19' ....

People still do listen to the radio B3er. At my work this guy plays 95.5 (detroit) all day long everyday. It plays the same 5 songs over and over again. So personally I get a chance to hear this new pop music everyday. Hiphop, or different flavors of hiphop rule the radio top 40. Ive given it-it's fair chance, I listen hard for the talent, but its not there. So pay for it if you wish, i wouldnt.

 

Which means what exactly? This is your power as a consumer: you can buy it, or don't buy it; you can listen to the radio, or don't listen to the radio, but your opinions on the quality of what's out there is still no rationale for whether or not it deserves your money when you're taking it the product.

 

You go to a fast-food restaurant, one that you know is crap, but is ultra-successful: good luck telling them that their product is unhealthy, nutritionally bereft, even if they're the most recognized product, and that as such, you are entitled to their Big Mac, but you are not paying for it. "And gimme fries with that too."

 

This thread is really freaking me out: there are some logical "explanations" and rationales for behavior that just baffle me.

 

Its musician-on-musician crime: if we were talking about any our day job workproduct (whether it be deposition summaries, or home repair, medical evaluations, computer programming, or any service that you all provide), would you have the same cavalier approach to someone treating YOUR services in this way? I think not. I can't understand whether everyone really believes the rationales they are throwing out, or whether because they don't make their house payments with their music, that they can't fathom the concept that there are those of that do or did or might be able to in the future. Of course at this rate, you can forget the "might be able to" idea: from what I see here, no one believes music should be paid for.

 

 

[Tonysounds]

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.

 

One side is complaining that someone who couldn't be bothered to spend $.99 a song but had no problem TAKING it for free.

 

The rest are complaining that when you can go get it for free, and the prevailing belief is that you are ENTITLED to it for free and therefore will make it available for free, their revenue stream/livelihood is taken away from them.

 

[Cygnus64]

[

I can't believe that you consider this to be a good thing.

 

Woah there! I couldnt be more against it, I am totally opposed to it.

 

I think it will come from the movie industry. The governor of CA knows a thing or two about blockbuster movie income, and he's lookin for some serious dough for his state, the movie capital of the world.

 

What I am saying it that we have a spankin new technology that nobody could imagine in their wildest dreams 20 years ago, yet people are proclaiming "There's nothing you can do". They said that about polio too. If we couldnt imagine the invention of mp3s, we cant imagine the invention of "mp3-be-gone."

 

Look at what happened in Bozeman MT recently. It was shot down over public outcry, but the next attempts might not be:

 

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-inside-job/2009/06/19/in-bozeman-giving-up-privacy-for-a-paycheck.html

 

At some point, some activist judge is going to agree to allowing that, and then the whole sytem changes.

 

You may lose a few bucks, but that's a small price to pay for liberty.

 

Liberty has never been about stealing music, movies and books. Musicians et al need liberty too.

[Tonysounds]

*beep* wrong. No, it's infringement. The term theft in law deals exclusively with objects that can be stolen physically.

 

If I scam you, it's called fraud.

If I take a loaf of bread away without paying, it's theft.

If I download a song, it's infringement.

 

There's a very good reason these three things are separate terms, and no amount of complaining will make them change (a certain amount of lobbying might, however).

 

Sorry my friend, YOU get the buzzer on this one.

 

First, the definition of infringement: the act or an instance of infringing; especially : the unauthorized use of copyrighted or patented material or of a trademark, trade name, or trade dress see also EQUIVALENT, FAIR USE.Infringement of a copyright involves the copying of a material and substantial portion of the protected work. If the alleged infringer denies copying, the copyright holder may be able to prove infringement with circumstantial evidence of the infringer's access to the protected work and of similarities between the two works.

 

In other words, this pertains to the authorship, and the use of a protected work in a new, uncredited work.

 

Secondly, you posted an answer regarding physical product: an mp3 is a physical product: if its on your hard drive, or on your iPod, iPhone, mp3 player, or cassette or cd, its there. Just because you cant touch or see it, doesnt remove its physical properties. If you doubt this, just consider kiddie porn cases: those files on the accuseds hard drive seem to be physical evidence in those cases.

 

And again, this is all just rationale: everyone here knows if you downloaded it, you took it; now its a matter of whether youre calling it what it is, stealing.

 

[Tonysounds]

"It ain't over till the fat lady sings." As far as the particular trial of this one person.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/167058/has_the_riaas_fight_against_file_sharing_gone_too_far.html

 

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4994

 

Both of these links came up in Google News today. First - I BUY my music. There are some downloaded things on my computer, like samples of various keyboards that I was contemplating purchasing, but those samples presumably are legal. Guess I'm old-fashioned, or else my ears still like to hear dynamic range, good bandwidth, what used to be called fidelity - I still like to have CDs - a physical product I can hold in my hand.

Now, I do make copies of these CDs to play in my car and van; but I don't pass them out to others.

 

Interesting that this verdict and penalty were arrived at by a jury of HER PEERS. And since this was an appeal, a jury of HER PEERS found her guilty and assigned a hefty penalty a first time as well.

[EscapeRocks]

One thing I think is important to note, and some have touched on it in this thread just a bit:

 

Perception.

 

The perception amongst a vast majority of the non-musician, music listening public, is that ALL artists who have song being played, or are the "flavor of the week," are mega successful and rich.

 

They also view the music business, and the RIAA as this big, bad, monster winning exhorbinant judgments against housewives.

 

(please note: this is not my opinion)

 

When I hear people talking about these issues in my office or elswhere, the sentiment is always the same; "screw them, stop buying music," and it makes them go to great lengths to find other ways to get music without paying for it.

 

This is something a local music writer expressed in an op ed a year or so ago. Basically he said while the RIAA and musicians have the absolute right to not have their works pilfered, and those who willing do it to redistribute should be fined in some manner, the industry needs to find a way to educate.

 

So many people don't understand that the music business is just that, a business. So a form of non-heavy handed education needs to take place. Music plays such an integral part of everyday life that most never think of it in terms of being a business, and a job for those of us lucky enough to have it as a job.

 

He also opined that the RIAA while needing to protect itself and musicians, needs to evolve with the times, and realize we're not back in the day when people made "mix tapes" for parties on their old reel-reel machines.

 

Interesting thoughts.

 

To finish up here, I asked a coworker at my day job what she thought about this 1.9million fine after she read about it and mentioned to me. She basically echoed what I hear a lot. "god damned music people...as if they don't have enough money already."

 

Perception.

 

 

 

 

[Tonysounds]

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.

 

The problem is not everyone in the music industry performs; many if not most songwriters don't perform or derive income from performance at all; and of course, this issue affects those in music production, whether it's the studios, the session players, graphic artists....etc., etc.

[Joe Muscara]

The perception argument is interesting, because I bet the majority of those people who think "god damned music people...as if they don't have enough money already" know people who are in local bands, who play local clubs, who aren't well known and aren't making a ton of money. So why are they (we, really) forgotten when this issue comes up? And why don't they think about all the other people who make a living from music? For every rich Britney, there's a bunch of session musicians, producers, etc. who aren't getting rich, just making a living.

[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.

 

The problem is not everyone in the music industry performs; many if not most songwriters don't perform or derive income from performance at all; and of course, this issue affects those in music production, whether it's the studios, the session players, graphic artists....etc., etc.

I agree 100%. I'm glad Mr. Nathan is here to remind us first-hand of that fact. If he hadn't posted here, I might have forgotten that whole aspect of the business.

[Cygnus64]

Perception.

 

 

 

 

I call it "convenient justification". People know it's wrong, yet they find a way to rationalize it.

 

I went on tour years ago with two brothers who were the ultimate cheapskates and wouldnt tip, EVER. We would eat a meal in a restaurant, and near the end of the meal, one would always say "The plate is dirty, no tip". "The service was slow, no tip". The restroom was dirty, no tip". "I didnt like her attitude, no tip".

 

It's the EXACT same thing:

 

Well, the music sucks anyways, no purchase.

 

Damn musicians have too much money, no purchase.

 

It was overpriced anyways, no purchase.

 

The musicians only got a small amount anyway, no purchase.

 

Music labels are evil and they eat live babies at meetings, no purchase.

 

It's just a bunch of people lying to themselves to justify their stealing.