27 replies · 966 views
Presumably that's what the record industry wishes it could charge us all?
Duluth, Minn. (AHN) - A Minnesota mother of two must pay $222,000 to several record publishers after a jury Thursday here found her guilty of illegally sharing 24 songs.
Jamie Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that became the focus of the three-day trial, the first music downloading lawsuit that progressed to trial. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008735318
Seen that myself on the news this morn,made me think,
how would that go if it was gigs she/anyone was caught with 
Gazfella wrote: Seen that myself on the news this morn,made me think, how would that go if it was gigs she/anyone was caught with
Sharing them, still bustable.
Having them, while owning legit versions of same songs, not so bustable....but then the Recording Industry Ass of America are a law unto their own.
they make me WANT to steal from them.
Yes, I saw that on TV...
Why don't record companies sue/fire their own employees first?? They are responsible for bootleg recordings and demos..
Indeed*!*
Gazfella wrote: Seen that myself on the news this morn,made me think, how would that go if it was gigs she/anyone was caught with
One report said "She was warned that had the companies sued her for all 1,700 songs they found in her computer she could have faced a bill of £125 million."
There's also this story:
A car repair firm has been taken to court accused of infringing musical copyright because its employees listen to radios at work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm
I have to say its hard not to find oneself thinking the sooner all the record companies go bust the better. (Even if it means no new music, heck, we've got enough music already, and its not as if NO are going to be giving us any more product - but ideally some way will emerge to cut out the greedy middleman bastards).
So how can itunes get away with it then?
We've all got playlists and we can copy them to cd so...... as the yanks say ...go figure...
What a crock of shit that garage story is.
Employees are PERMITTED to listen to a radion in work under UK broadcast laws...the "artists" get paid from the Radio station's PRS licensing. If the garage allows members of the public to hear the radio, it too must hold a PRS license (about £50 a year for so small a "venue").
Record companies are cunts.
iTunes pays artists £0.00 per track too. they've managed to turn the net from a way to get rid of parasitic middle men, into a way to pay the leeches and not the musicians.
That woman deserves what she got.
iTunes have licenses to release the songs, but I'm surprised that artists get nothing (as far as UK goes, according to Cambo). The only other legal way I could get songs for free is through MySpace. Yet, not all of the songs have the download link activated.
She deserved what she got??? Record companies have been gouging us for years. If they sold albums for what they were really worth, I doubt people would 'steal' the music as much. As for the arguement that iTunes gives the artist no return...how is that different from cds? Artists never really got a return on cds or singles, it was always the concerts that raked the artists money...unless the artists were big enough to strong-arm the record companies that is....which I'm sure is the same with iTunes.
So stealing music doesn't really hurt the struggling artist, only record companies...actually stealing music probably helps more artists, as it gets their music out there and gives them more exposure to fill concerts.
F*** the record companies...they cry, but they've done this to themselves.
She deserved what she got???
Personally I'm too old for mp3s, I had way too many cds already when mp3s appeared, and it just doesn't feel right unless I have the physical object, with art, proper cd-sound and permanent media. Never downloaded anything that was 'available in the shops' (live bootlegs are another matter).
But I don't understand the scale of the damages that woman is facing. How can the record industry seriously claim to have suffered a loss of nearly $10,000 per track? It seems they have just plucked a figure out of a hat, based not on justice in this particular case but just to frighten everybody else. Its making one individual pay for everyone else's downloading, it seems to me, which doesn't seem just.
And the case about mechanics playing their radios loudly counting as a 'public performance', presumably that means that when my neighbours play their stereo loudly and disturb me I can get the performance rights society on the case and prosecute them for unlicensed public performance?
Incidentally, most of my cds were bought second hand, and I know the record industry would very much like to kill the second hand trade also. Software companies are already taking measures to stop it in their case (forcing you to register software with a particular address and PC config and charging a fee to change it), and I guess music-downloads with DRM do much the same thing.
And I understand that in the US second hand record shops now have to have expensive licences and are governed by the same stringent rules that cover pawn-brokers, thanks to music industry lobbying.
I don't actually approve of large-scale copyright violating downloading, but all corporations are by definition sociopaths, and if you give them an inch they try and take a mile.
EdelBrock wrote: She deserved what she got??? Record companies have been gouging us for years. If they sold albums for what they were really worth, I doubt people would 'steal' the music as much. As for the arguement that iTunes gives the artist no return...how is that different from cds? Artists never really got a return on cds or singles, it was always the concerts that raked the artists money...unless the artists were big enough to strong-arm the record companies that is....which I'm sure is the same with iTunes.
So stealing music doesn't really hurt the struggling artist, only record companies...actually stealing music probably helps more artists, as it gets their music out there and gives them more exposure to fill concerts.
F*** the record companies...they cry, but they've done this to themselves.
Well said, couldn't agree more. 
> > 404 error wrote:> She deserved what she got???> > But I don't understand the scale of the damages that woman is facing. How can the record industry seriously claim to have suffered a loss of nearly $10,000 per track? It seems they have just plucked a figure out of a hat, based not on justice in this particular case but just to frighten everybody else. Its making one individual pay for everyone else's downloading, it seems to me, which doesn't seem just.> quote]
I think they just want to scare people off - and set this as an example. "This is what happens if you do the same!"......
It has come this far - and record companies can only blame themselves. They want to rewin the faith of the record buying public now by adding extra DVDs and all that crap with their new releases. Plus, there's a shitload of 'remastered reissues' they're throwing at us, but there's still tons of interesting albums unavailable. They have to find the right balance and the right price for their products after years of overcharging.
what irritates me is why they say you cant bring cameras to a concert and film or takepictures.
aint no one gonna make any money off two high hippies you bastards.i do it anywaygot to document things or there will be nothing to remember.the good times.
i buy cds,but ampicky about who i listen to.fuck riaa.they aint losing that muchmoney if they are its because they are greedy fcuks.
404 error wrote: She deserved what she got???
Personally I'm too old for mp3s, I had way too many cds already when mp3s appeared, and it just doesn't feel right unless I have the physical object, with art, proper cd-sound and permanent media. Never downloaded anything that was 'available in the shops' (live bootlegs are another matter).
hit it on the spot! 
[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: That woman deserves what she got.
iTunes have licenses to release the songs, but I'm surprised that artists get nothing (as far as UK goes, according to Cambo). The only other legal way I could get songs for free is through MySpace. Yet, not all of the songs have the download link activated.
You mean to tell me that being fined $222,000 is reasonable for 2 albums worth of music?
My problem with all this is it's all antithetical to the very idea of what music is supposed to be. It's something to be enjoyed, and that enjoyment is meant to be shared.
The record companies are trying to take that away from us, which is corrupting the very quality of what music is supposed to be. The idea that they should get royalties for a radio played at a garage is ludicrous. It's an outdated and failing business model being milked dry.
They're only making the problem worse by treating us, their customer base, like criminals. The more they continue to make enemies through DRM and legal action, the more people are going to try to skirt the system. And I say more power to the ones that do.
When music was released 'properly' in a 'hard' format, to a certain extent, prices were more justified. The 'dealer price' for a CD was £6.50 - £7.50 - that's the price the record shop pays per item. The shop then sells them for around £4 more. That covers:
Delivery shipping Staff wages Overheads - lighting, rent, business tax, etc And of course, profit.
The original cost of an album is presumably from the recording costs, production, mixing, mastering, pressing, inlays, packing and distribution.
Still very expensive for £12 to the consumer, but you can sort of see where it goes. Better in the USA to buy for $10 or so...
As for the recording companies getting so het up about people downloading stuff, it's mainly their fault. There a re security features they can use, but oops... they cost MONEY!
As for it being the record companies spreading their product - yes, they have to in order to promote it, but most freebies go to distributors, DJs, radio stations, reviewers, record shops, journalists, etc. It's from those 'outlets' that they tend to get disseminated, so the companies do get screwed there. Still, there's no excuse for fining someone such huge amounts for downloading tracks - unless of course those tracks are so crap that they wouldn't have made a profit even if people had bought them in the first place...
Another factor that confuses things just a bit more is record companies letting things go out of print; I absolutely fail to see how fans trading files of things one can't buy (i.e. the Triffids and the Pop Group for me) causes great harm; if they kept some things in print they could satisfy that demand and make some money. Apparently for the companies though, they're looking for the quickest way to make a boatfull of cash, despite throwing boatfulls of it away in wasteful indulgences over the years.
Chris Nash wrote: When music was released 'properly' in a 'hard' format, to a certain extent, prices were more justified. The 'dealer price' for a CD was £6.50 - £7.50 - that's the price the record shop pays per item. The shop then sells them for around £4 more. That covers:
Delivery shipping Staff wages Overheads - lighting, rent, business tax, etc And of course, profit.
The original cost of an album is presumably from the recording costs, production, mixing, mastering, pressing, inlays, packing and distribution.
Still very expensive for £12 to the consumer, but you can sort of see where it goes. Better in the USA to buy for $10 or so...
As for the recording companies getting so het up about people downloading stuff, it's mainly their fault. There a re security features they can use, but oops... they cost MONEY!
As for it being the record companies spreading their product - yes, they have to in order to promote it, but most freebies go to distributors, DJs, radio stations, reviewers, record shops, journalists, etc. It's from those 'outlets' that they tend to get disseminated, so the companies do get screwed there. Still, there's no excuse for fining someone such huge amounts for downloading tracks - unless of course those tracks are so crap that they wouldn't have made a profit even if people had bought them in the first place...
Yer forgetting all the crap videos that get thrown into the mix as well, which costs way more than recording and distributing an album.
I have a cousin who's the vocalist of this local band here. They recorded stuff for their new album the whole day. the very next day, he was surprised that a friend of his was able to download their new recordings yesterday!
As I've mentioned, they should fire and sue their employees first. They are responsible for the bootleg/studio/demo recordings that are not available on the market (even the ones available!).
Indeed*!*
Chris Nash wrote: When music was released 'properly' in a 'hard' format, to a certain extent, prices were more justified. The 'dealer price' for a CD was £6.50 - £7.50 - that's the price the record shop pays per item. The shop then sells them for around £4 more. That covers:
Delivery shipping Staff wages Overheads - lighting, rent, business tax, etc And of course, profit.
The original cost of an album is presumably from the recording costs, production, mixing, mastering, pressing, inlays, packing and distribution.
Still very expensive for £12 to the consumer, but you can sort of see where it goes. Better in the USA to buy for $10 or so...
Well that was always the response from the music companies back in the pre-mp3 days when people complained about the outrageous cost of cds (I seem to remember like £16 in the UK at one point, in like 1992 pounds, not even allowing for inflation, heck they charged about £10 for a cassette tape).
It didn't really wash given the much lower cost for the same item in the US, and I'm pretty sure the record labels have since been successfully prosecuted in the US for running a cartel at the time, Lord knows what they got away with here. I've hated them ever since for their grotesque profiteering in that period.
The other thing that bugged me was how they'd complain about copying by emphasising you were paying for the 'intellectual property' not merely the physical object, but then they happily made a fortune from charging everyone for the intellectual property twice as people upgraded from vinyl to cd, rebuying music they'd already paid for the IP rights for. OK it would be impractical to give discounts for multiple formats, but it was galling the way they emphasised the IP element when it suited them but ignored it when emphasising the physical object increased their profits more.
But finally, given the breakdown of costs for cd that you list, it fulfilled my very low expectations of record company ethics when they started selling downloads, with almost none of those expenses, and charged pretty much the same as current cd prices, £1 per track.
If the record companies could beat illegal downloading then mp3 would end up providing them with the same bonanza of higher profits that cds did in the early days. I suppose though that if people are prepared to pay the same money for an inferior product, you can't blame the companies for taking advantage of it.
Oh yeah, and I forgot, with paid-for downloads there's all that DRM rubbish and only being able to play it on particular players, and no resale value.
I'm pretty sure the ideal business model for the record companies would be a pay-per-play system, where everyone's stereos are connected to the net and they charge you a fee every time you play the trac - or DRM with time limitations. If the technology ever allows them to do it, watch out. Illegal downloads may be unethical, but I reckon its mainly the threat of them that stops the corporations screwing us even more aggressively.
Spot on 404. Same happened here with the cd gouging in the early 90s...I remember the exact disc they started it with too...it was the Crow Soundtrack. ALl other cds were selling for $13, but you couldn't get the Crow for less than $18. After people still bought it, a month later, all the cd prices went up to a minimum of $15, with alot in the $18 price range.
Plus they took advantage of people, as if making a cd was more costly than a cassette or lp. There was no reason to charge $5 more for a cd.
I got this from another forum site:
Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy Piracy is not all that bad for musicians. In fact, research has shown that less popular artists actually profit from piracy. This can be concluded from, and is supported by several studies. Frustrated as they are, the music industry claims that they lose millions a year due to piracy, but is this really the case?
Two facts:
We will try to explain these two seemingly contradicting facts, and list three factors that may help us understand what’s going on…
Artists sell more albums thanks to piracy Several studies have shown that most artists actually profit from unauthorized sharing of files. They sell more albums because people have the opportunity to download songs and entire albums for free. A study by Blackburn (2004), a PhD student from Harvard, found that the 75% of the artist actually profit from piracy. Blackburn reports that the most popular artist (top 25%) sell less records. However, the remaining 75% of all artists actually profit from filesharing. The same pattern was found by Pedersen (2006, see graph), who analyzed the change in royalties paid by the Nordisk Copyright Bureau between 2001 and 2005.
But why do these artists sell more? Well, there are a couple of possible explanations.
LPs, CDs, DVDs and MP3s The increased album sales in the late 90’s may very well have been caused, at least in part, by the shift from cassettes and LPs to CDs (and not just piracy!). CD players were getting more and more popular and a lot of people were exchanging their LP collections for CD collections. After 2000, CDs were not that special anymore, and the number of albums sold normalized (see graph below). It’s also likely that the decline in CD sales was influenced by the increased popularity of DVDs and MP3s.
The Internet is changing the way people experience music Like we mentioned before, the Internet opened up a ton of possibilities for people to discover new artists and music. Not only illegal downloads, but also legal downloads, or paid downloads with the possibility to preview songs make it easier to discover new artists.
Social communities, and music services like Last.fm and Pandora also play a big role in the evolution of our music experience. Before the Internet, people had only a few possibilities to discover new music. Friends, radio stations and record stores are three of them, where the last two are in part sponsored by the marketing campaigns of the music industry. Today people are less dependent on what the music industry is campaigning for.
Wait a minute… the music industry and the RIAA always say that they are losing huge amounts of money because of filesharing. Isn’t this true? Well, the fact is that there are less albums sold in total compared to some of the years when album sales were booming. However, it is hard to attribute this decline in sales to piracy (alone). From the research that has been done on this topic we can conclude that the effect of piracy on the music industry’s lost income lies somewhere between 0 and 30% (of the decline in sales, not of the sales in total).
One of the things we can be pretty sure of is that the music industry is starting to lose control over their customers. A great deal of their income was generated by overly promoted albums and artists. It are those artists and albums that suffer the most from piracy. It gets harder and harder for the music industry to market artists to the top position of the charts now the customers heva all kinds of alternative ways to discover new music.
In conclusion we could say that music is more alive than ever before, that piracy is a tool to build a fanbase, and that the times when the music industry could dictate what we were listening to are over.
http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/
Indeed*!*
More, From the Artists themselves...
Some people here make up every excuse just to justify something. How can you speak for the artists - whether they should or should not allow illegal downloading, or that illegal downloading doesn't really affect them etc etc. Do you even know these artists? Or are these excuses just your way of making yourselves feel better. Telling yourselves that you are "true fans" and that by downloading illegally, you are just giving the selfish record companies their **** and that you are behind your favorite artists 100%.
What REAL Artists REALLY say about PIRACY...
Keith Urban, Grammy Award Nominee for Best Country Instrumental Performance: "Downloading can be a great way to share music, but downloading music illegally threatens the future of everyone that depends on you for their livelihood. Get music the right way! If you download, do it legally!"
Dixie Chicks, Grammy Award Winning and Two-Time Diamond Award Recipient: "It may seem innocent enough, but every time you illegally download music a songwriter doesn’t get paid. And, every time you swap that music with your friends a new artist doesn’t get a chance. Respect the artists you love by not stealing their music. You’re in control. Support music, don’t steal it."
Nelly, Multi-Platinum Hip-Hop Artist, Number One Hit "Hot in Herre": "As an artist you hate for someone to break into your home and take everything that you’ve accumulated over the last how many ever years you’ve been in this game. It’s like a dream to get here, and then once you get here to have someone take it from under you is real tough to deal with. We really look at it as stealing, because, that’s just it, to us it’s black and white, either you pay for it or you don’t. And, you’re not paying for it."
Stevie Wonder, Legendary Multi-Platinum Award-Winning Artist: "Record companies, publishers, radio stations, retailers, artists and others in our industry must take a very strong position against the stealing of our writing and music or else those writings and music will become as cheap as the garbage in the streets."
Missy Elliott, Writer, Producer, Rapper, Singer: "Hip Hop has always been about the attainable dream – about running your own business, your own club, your own fanzine. Turning your back on the bootleggers helps us pave the way for the next generation of entrepreneurs. We do our best to bring you the latest, hottest beats, and we appreciate it when our fans show their love and respect by going in that record store and buying the finished product."
Britney Spears, Multi-Platinum Award Winning Artist "Ooops! I Did It Again": "Would you go into a CD store and steal a CD? It’s the same thing, people going into the computers and logging on and stealing our music. It’s the exact same thing, so why do it?"
Mary J. Blige, Multi-Platinum Award Winning Artist, "No More Drama": "If you create something and then someone takes it without your permission, that is stealing. It may sound harsh, but it is true."
Sean (P. Diddy) Combs, Multi-Platinum Award Winning Artist, Producer, Founder and CEO of Bad Boy Entertainment: "As an artist who has dedicated his life to music and the music business, I have seen what illegal music copying has done and continues to do to new and established musicians. I understand why people download music, but for me and my fellow artists, this is our livelihood. When you make an illegal copy, you're stealing from the artist. It’s that simple. Every single day we're out here pouring our hearts and souls into making music for everyone to enjoy. What if you didn’t get paid for your job? Put yourself in our shoes!"
Luciano Pavarotti, Legendary Tenor: "Everyone who loves music should be able to enjoy the wonderful recordings that are created. But it's no secret that it takes hard work, expense and many people to make great recordings. Artists and composers –particularly the younger ones - will not stand a chance of creating music in the future if their recordings are simply stolen in this way."
Brian Wilson, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductee and Founding Member of the Beach Boys: "There are two issues here. First is the creative issue. When I decide not to release a piece of MY WORK, there is always a good reason for it. I created it, I should have the final say on whether it should be released or not. The other, of course, is obvious. It's the financial issue. I would never expect to hire anyone and not pay them for their services. When people buy counterfeits, the artist and the creator are not getting paid for their work. It's as simple as that. If my fans feel that I am unable to decide what work of mine should be released and feel that I do not have the right to make a living doing it, then why bother? The bottom line is the fan who is saying, "Oh man you're the greatest," is in reality stealing from you and your family, and more importantly not respecting your judgment on what you think is appropriate to bear your name."
many more @ http://www.musicunited.org
Indeed*!*
Another recent attempt to increase music sales:
Record labels to ditch CD singles for USB Flash drives
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/10/19/universal_replace_cd_music_with_usb/
Vulture wrote: Another recent attempt to increase music sales:
Record labels to ditch CD singles for USB Flash drives
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/10/19/universal_replace_cd_music_with_usb/
I read somewhere (probably in wikipedia) earlier this year that an artist already released an album (or a single) in SD memory card format. I don't remember the artist, but what I remember that it didn't do well in the market.
Indeed*!*
,,,,and OiNK was just busted today.http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSL2315584520071023
