OT: Music downloader fined 1.9 million

[EscapeRocks]

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.

 

 

Again I think it is perception, and frankly what the media sells them on. So growing up, listening to music and seeing all these "lifestyle of the rich and famous" type stories and hype about musical acts gives one the perception that national acts who have a "Record" are bazillionaires. They (the public) are fed this hype about entertainers, so they naturally extrapolate. I know when I was growing up and before my first venture into the industry, I never ever thought about all the ancillary people who need/do make their living in the business, the same as my dad going to his everyday job.

 

As far as knowing local musicians and bands, I'm sure some of the "why are we forgotten" is due to so many of us... well at least for me... have a day job that pays the bills while we forge our way through the music biz. So they dont look at us as our job, even on a local level, as being music.

 

I think this all ties into what the local writer was saying about the need for education of the music listening public.

 

 

[Tonysounds]

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.

 

This is all great, IF youre a PERFORMER. If youre a songwriter, or someone who composes and records his/her own music, but doesnt perform, then what? Ill give you one scenario: 50 years from now, those performers will be playing the same repertoire that we are now (which Im guessing in many of our cases, is already 20+ years old). And if you think gigs are hard now, what about 50 years from now when people dont even know much less care about the music of THIS time, ie., OLDIES???

 

 

[ProfD]

The market has been over-saturated with music. As a result, the perception is that music should be free.

 

Technology is empowering. Chances are still 1 in a gabillion that one could sell product without live performance i.e. 'Chocolate Rain".

 

Yet, the old-fashioned approach still works especially used in conjunction with technology.

 

If artists/bands are willing to write good songs, record, market and promote their gigs, they can make money through concerts, CD sales and merchandise.

 

The bottom line is that it takes a lot of hard work and/or money to sell music i.e. attract listeners.

[Tonysounds]

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?

 

Great, sell your music while you can: after all, its the internet, and it should be free, and why pay $.99 or $1.29 for your music when I can find it for free? And hey, its a small price to pay for FREEDOM!!!

[Cygnus64]

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

 

Union scale for a 4 hour session is $480 plus $48 for pension and $22 health and welfare. That comes with a 1.5 hour break, so the session is usually 2.5 hours with a break at the end.

 

Yup, that's being taken advantage of all right.

 

I played on an REM album, backing string stuff. I got a check last year for 2 grand. I made the album in 1991. I get lil checks every few months for an album I played some whole notes on that took a few hours.

 

It's a BIG music world. There is a lot more out there than 4 college dorks with geetars making beer money at a dive bar, it is a BUSINESS.

 

 

[zephonic]

Fine, as a session musician you did well. Let me inform you that as a recording artist you typically get 4 percent of the PPD (price published to dealer), and that is usually only AFTER the expenses have been recouped.

If you are your own label and looking for major distribution, you'll be lucky to get 20%, and then only if you financed the recordings yourself and present the major with a finished product.

 

Big Business indeed.

 

On a different note, I think the record industry had artificially inflated itself to breaking/busting point. The situation today is a much more realistic reflection of recorded music's place in the grand scheme of things.

 

I am just repeating myself, but again, the world is ever-changing. Your choice is to get with it, or get stuck in the past.

 

[Cygnus64]

Let me inform you that as a recording artist you typically get 4 percent of the PPD (price published to dealer), and that is usually only AFTER the expenses have been recouped.

If you are your own label and looking for major distribution, you'll be lucky to get 20%, and then only if you financed the recordings yourself and present the major with a finished product.

 

 

Those numbers are huge, whether you can see that or not.

 

You seem to be under the impression that a label is solely made up of fatcats smoking cigars, that fairies do all the work. There are a LOT of people involved, from the janitor to the security guards, secretaries, printers, delivery people, truck drivers, lawyers, on and on and on and on. Thousands of people. They need paid too, and they are.

 

I am just repeating myself, but again, the world is ever-changing. Your choice is to get with it, or get stuck in the past.

 

Back at ya. Enjoy your illegal downloads while you can, because it wont last for ever (at least in the States). When that tax comes, it will alter the internet in huge ways, and it's mainly the fault of illegal downloaders.

[Eric Iverson]

While I don't approve of illegal downloading, I hope that the Internet doesn't become over-regulated, when it's such a vital tool for democracy.

Ask people in any third world country!

[Tonysounds]

I just don't understand how anyone can think that illegally downloading music is "getting with it". And again, if these same proponents for file sharing/downloading were making their living (not weekend warrioring, but truly making it their career) of of music they wrote, performed and produced, whether with a major label, indie label, or on their own, how forgiving would they be of this practice?

 

I played with Hello Dave for years; they actually posted their albums (5 of them) onto Napster, kazaa, limewire, anywhere they could, because they made their living from live performance. We used to tell people from the stage "we have cds over here, but if you can't afford them, you can download them for free at....just tell your friends!"

 

We had/have limited distribution (funny how you have a deal with chains and yet, every time I'd go into one, I'd stop and look for our albums and guess what...none!) but sold merch at the shows, and you could buy the stuff online, but the prevailing thought was 'give it to them free, get them to shows'. That's fine. But WE made that decision. And that's the difference.

[Tonysounds]

While I don't approve of illegal downloading, I hope that the Internet doesn't become over-regulated, when it's such a vital tool for democracy.

Ask people in any third world country!

 

Especially those third world countries where poverty, starvation and disease run rampant: where would they be without the internet?

[EscapeRocks]

I suppose they want to make an example of her because she fits a profile that would scare easily, but I can't see anything but massive negative backlash from the public at large.

 

I just saw this after rereading my much later in the thread responses.

 

The above is what I was alluding to. Forgetting the merits of the case, this is the "buzz" that's going around right now in the public at large. As I said in a previous post, I have coworkers, many of whom don't know the extent of my involvment in music, saying the music business are a bunch of rich crybabies.

 

Community, non music topic, message boards are full of rants against the music business saying they're so far behind the times.

 

The interesting thing, is a couple places I have read, the majority of people say illegal downloading/sharing is wrong, but so is the excessive fine.

 

One person started a blog saying it stop buying music, boycott the industry.

 

 

Again, I am not commenting on the merits of the case at hand, and I know the diatribes from musicians here and other places will fly against the people who are calling out the "rich music business". I am just pointing out that what Griffinator said is happening in various circles of the public at large.

 

 

 

 

[Cygnus64]

I suppose they want to make an example of her because she fits a profile that would scare easily, but I can't see anything but massive negative backlash from the public at large.

 

I just saw this after rereading my much later in the thread responses.

 

The above is what I was alluding to. Forgetting the merits of the case, this is the "buzz" that's going around right now in the public at large. As I said in a previous post, I have coworkers, many of whom don't know the extent of my involvment in music, saying the music business are a bunch of rich crybabies.

 

Community, non music topic, message boards are full of rants against the music business saying they're so far behind the times.

 

The interesting thing, is a couple places I have read, the majority of people say illegal downloading/sharing is wrong, but so is the excessive fine.

 

One person started a blog saying it stop buying music, boycott the industry.

 

 

Again, I am not commenting on the merits of the case at hand, and I know the diatribes from musicians here and other places will fly against the people who are calling out the "rich music business". I am just pointing out that what Griffinator said is happening in various circles of the public at large.

 

 

 

 

 

The court of public opinion doesnt apply here. There can be no "backfire", since there is nothing to backfire on. Those who choose to steal choose to steal. They might use it as more justification in their mind, but they have already justified it.

 

I'm sure that more than a few parents have been a but taken back by this, and will monitor their kids downloads a bit more closely. The fear of being socked with an enormous fine is enough to do that. Ironically, the RIAA has said that they won't be going after individuals, they will be going after ISPs.

[Mogut]

People just dont want to pay for music, period! They can get radio for free, youtube... I could go on. If theres less music, no one would care, if theres more, no one cares. If it costs too much, they'll find something else to do.

 

I get it...

 

Music to most people music is just amusement, a pastime, an interest, entertainment and sometimes a hobby. To us, music is an obsession... Most of us wish it could be a lucrative job, but the truth is it cant be for the majority. I think alot of performers (in minor league's) find it difficult to accept this reality.

 

 

[jarrell]

Take another industry, say the supermarket. Imagine that all food stores, like Safeway, Trader Joes, the corner grocery, all went to the honor system... you could shop and pay nothing, or just pay 1 out of every 10 times. I'll bet you'd hear a lot more rationalizations about the entire food industry - "big companies like Safeway make too much money, big agri-farms make too much money, farms (big and small) can just set up road side stands instead of selling to companies like Safeway, and people from the big city will just drive out and buy from the road side stands if their produce is good enough," etc. etc. If you own a family farm, you may never sell as much from a roadside stand as you could selling to supermarket/distributors, and so you can no longer afford to send your daughter to music school. Plus maybe what you really enjoy is farming, not running a roadside stand, and you aren't happy that other people's taking your products for free has forced you into an additional business that you aren't interested in.

 

OK, this analogy is a stretch, but I think that human nature being what it is, when people can get something for free that they used to pay for, without getting caught, many will, to quote Nike, just do it. When I mention to to other software engineers who believe "music should be free, musicians can just play gigs," how would you like it if your company started just paying you way less money because they decided software should be pretty much free (apologies to RMS :-), most of them agree they would not like that. I think that is one key thing here - whatever your day job, is it OK for someone else to take part of your work, your product, your paycheck, without your approval? I guess it is OK if I can then get my food and housing for free. It would be nice to tell the landlord or the bank that housing should be free, so I will stop paying my rent/mortgage and continue to live there. It isn't moral to make unilateral decisions about someone else's stuff, and then not being honest about it on top of everything - just say I am taking stuff for free because I can get away with it, and I don't care about how that affects anyone else.

 

Having said all that, I think the fine is excessive, although apparently she did refuse to settle.

 

 

 

[zephonic]

While I don't approve of illegal downloading, I hope that the Internet doesn't become over-regulated, when it's such a vital tool for democracy.

Ask people in any third world country!

 

Especially those third world countries where poverty, starvation and disease run rampant: where would they be without the internet?

 

I'm from Kenya, which is considered to be a "developing" country by most. Poverty is still an issue here, thank God starvation is not, and HIV remains a threat to the promiscuous ones. The internet has indeed been vital to many people here, not the least for myself.

And now for you, mr. Tony, have you been to the third world and seen it for yourself? Because you seem to be pretty sure that we don't need the internet.

 

 

 

[MonksDream]

A few thoughts:

 

OK, this analogy is a stretch...

 

Let's drop the analogies, please! They don't seem to assist anyone in understanding what the issues are or how to resolve them. People get hung up on arguing over whether and how the analogy applies rather than the issues at hand. Issues of infringement, theft, and fair use and compensation are not unique to the online world but analogies to the physical world are, at best, of limited utility and, at worst, misleading.

 

I find suspect the idea that a music download = a lost sale. That rationale is used to calculate the "losses" to the industry by downloading. However, in my experience people who are willing to pay for their music are not generally the same people that are heavy downloaders and vice-versa.

 

It is difficult for me to stomach the music industry's claim that they are litigating against downloading in the interest of artists using the same copyright law they have used for almost 100 years to systematically disenfranchise those same artists. I don't believe the industry gives a damn about the artists. People within the industry may; historically the industry itself has not.

 

 

 

[Bridog6996]

Rarely does any $$ actually get taken from the actual artists with file sharing. Upwards of 90% of commercially released albums never a make a dime for the artist. Artists only get royalties when their expenses (advances, studio costs, materials, pretty much EVERYTHING) are recouped, and since the artists' pay the company back based on their share (usually pennies on the dollar), most albums never make it into the black. And it has been that way since the beginning. So really this beef is coming from the record companies and not the artists, with the exception of a few self-righteous ones like Metallica. I don't say that because I don't think it's wrong to steal, but I think it should be clear just who is getting robbed. Rallying against file sharing in the name of benefiting artists is misguided.

 

Major artists have always made their "real money" from touring, and in my opinion, file sharing can only empower artists by getting their music heard by more people. That equals more fans, more butts in the seats at concerts, more t-shirt sales, etc. I've discovered a handful of my favorite bands through file sharing, mostly a friend who burned a cd for me of a particular band or a mix they thought I'd like. In all those cases, it ended up benefiting the artists rather than hurting them by actually putting MORE of my money in their pockets.

 

Let's face it. Record companies have never had any practical business sense. When radio was first introduced, record companies actually sued radio stations in order to stop them from broadcasting their music for free. Sound familiar? Now, radio is a record company's principle form of publicity. If record companies were smart they'd be embracing all the new technology coming out and use it to their advantage, not fighting a 10-year old losing battle.

 

And yes, it is a losing battle. This "victory" against a mother of four means absolutely nothing. There's also no way that judgment will stand. It'll come down dramatically on appeal I'm sure.

[Mogut]

And yes, it is a losing battle. This "victory" against a mother of four means absolutely nothing. There's also no way that judgment will stand. It'll come down dramatically on appeal I'm sure.

Like i said in the first post, I hope this backfires on the RIAA. Although since no one cares about music, I doubt no one will care about this mother of 4.

[SMcD]

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.

 

Yes, but if somebody gives me a CD to burn, does that not constitute a gift? How can gift-giving be controlled by law?

[Jim Alfredson]

And what about used CDs? Technically you're buying the product, although the record company is not getting any of that income, just like they're not getting any income from free mp3s.

[SMcD]

That's true as well, B3er.

 

The problem with trying to define laws and regulations for this sort of thing is all the variables involved. There's too many possible loopholes, like the ones you, me and stepay mentioned. Where do we draw lines?

 

 

[Yoozer]

Secondly, you posted an answer regarding physical product: an mp3 is a physical product

 

Can you read this text? Yes, you can. Does this mean that any other user of the forum right now can't? No. Physical products deal with scarcity and exclusivity; when you steal, you deprive someone else of the usage. You have an unique collection of atoms you can't duplicate; if they're here, they're not there.

 

Not so with bits and bytes. I give this unique string of text away to thousands of people at the same time, at zero cost for myself and for them. There's no difference with any other file; it's just that those are longer and aren't human-readable. You have a burning candle. I take my candle and hold it next to your candle's flame; now both of us have the light, and neither of us have lost the candle or the light.

 

I'd welcome if music was a physical product; in that case, the right of the buyer would mean that I could do whatever I want with it. First sale doctrine, anyone?

[Griffinator]

And what about used CDs? Technically you're buying the product, although the record company is not getting any of that income, just like they're not getting any income from free mp3s.

 

The record companies at one point tried to get legislation passed where used shops had to pony up license fees, but it was shot down.

[Mogut]

Christ, you guys are slaughtering the poor horse LOL

[cnegrad]

IMHO you can forget all the rationalizations, the legal nomenclature, and the public's perceptions. From where I sit, it all comes down to human nature: Given a choice, if someone can get something for free with little chance that they're going to get caught, they'll go for it almost every time. Technology has rendered recorded music easy distributable, and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. As someone said earlier in the thread, if recorded music goes away people won't really care. They'll just rehash the same old stuff and keep on stealing from the indies...

[Bridog6996]

The RIAA just needs to accept the rules of the new game and stop fighting a useless battle. Yes, it's illegal, and we can carry on about ethics and whatnot until the cows come home, but it's the world we live in now. Artists can either accept it and figure out how to make it work, or not accept it and, well, I don't know what. Do something else, I suppose. Artists who have embraced the so-called "free music era" are actually raking it in more than ever. Anything can be made profitable if approached in a creative manner.

[Griffinator]

The RIAA just needs to accept the rules of the new game and stop fighting a useless battle. Yes, it's illegal, and we can carry on about ethics and whatnot until the cows come home, but it's the world we live in now. Artists can either accept it and figure out how to make it work, or not accept it and, well, I don't know what. Do something else, I suppose. Artists who have embraced the so-called "free music era" are actually raking it in more than ever. Anything can be made profitable if approached in a creative manner.

 

It's a funny thing...

 

Radiohead did just fine asking people to just pay whatever they thought the album was worth.

 

Seems to me there are a lot of folks who would gladly pay when offered a choice of how much to pay...

[cnegrad]

Radiohead is a bad example, since they benefitted from all the major label promotional money spent in previous years to get them where they are today. For an unsigned indie artist, that kind of promo is virtually impossible to achieve.

[Steve Nathan]

The bad things human beings will do to other human beings for money and power is the bulk of our history. Given the opportunity to get something for nothing, too many of us will take it every time if we think we won't get caught. Taking someone's work without compensation is presented here as a complex issue, but at the end of the day it's really nothing more than "right or wrong". Everybody knows it's wrong, but only some people give a sh*t. The more things change the more they stay the same. And railing at the RIAA, or David Geffin, blaming the radio or Brittney, hiding behind technicalities or exploiting loopholes doesn't change the fact that your taking something that doesn't belong to you. But it does help those who lack the stones to be honest, to look in the mirror and not see a scumbag.

 

[Griffinator]

Radiohead is a bad example, since they benefitted from all the major label promotional money spent in previous years to get them where they are today. For an unsigned indie artist, that kind of promo is virtually impossible to achieve.

 

I call BS.

 

Radiohead benefitted a hell of a lot more from their own promotion.

 

The only real help they had was MTV with their very first single (back in '92) "Creep".

 

After that, they had little to no label support. They got progressively "weirder", and Capitol got progressively less interested in trying to push them. No radio support whatsoever, nothing.

 

Radiohead (and Dream Theater, on the other end of the spectrum) are great examples of bands who succeeded despite their labels basically leaving them to their own devices after the first record.