RIAA Seeking $1 Million in Damages from a Student for Sharing 7 Songs on Kazaa

if the record labels and the RIAA wanted to stop piracy all they need to do is stop producing digital music.

Return to vinyl, most indie bands put out vinyl anyway. It makes it much harder to copy digitaly, only real music nerds have the gear to do it right, plus you have to do it in real time.

I know it only takes one person to upload something but it would be alot harder to find stuff. People would get frustrated and just go out and buy the album.

Oh and why do musicans deserve to be multi-millionaires? I know tons of people who would be HAPPY just making a decent living playing music and many that are. After all it is a pretty easy job, well easier then digging ditches.

As a musician currently on tour on several countries, I honestly believe it's the end of an old era and the beginning of a new one where musical recordings are free to the user, the media (i.e. internet) providing it pays royalties, and artist gain money by playing. I personally don't care if someone downloads my album and maybe shares it with its friends, it's just more exposure to me and if they like it they will go to my shows (the real business of artists by the way).
Actually the whole "album" idea may be getting old, as there is really no commercial need to produce a whole album anymore, albeit of course artistic needs.
If these old discography guys try to keep pushing old ideas, they'll go broke soon. It's actually happening already, they just don't let go, refusing to enter into this new paradigm.

If you overall like the music from a certain CD or something, I think you should go out and buy it. Now on the other hand suing some guy for sharing 7 songs is ridiculous. I know people who have downloaded thousands and tens of GB's of music.

So that's ok?

Sounds really confusing as to exactly how they determine these cases. It all seems very one-sided to me and that big-wig record companies just want more money. The artist only gets so much while the record companies pull down the most mula.

And overall it's affecting artists very little. Explain the platinum albums and 3,000,000 ringtone downloads and then maybe there's a reason to sue people who share music.

reply to post by RFBurns

I suppose I see your point... $6 theft = $1,000,000.00 fine
What do you think a traffic violation is worth?

I have purchased every Beatles 'album' first on vinyl
then on Open reel tape
then on 8 track (yes, I'm that old)
then on cassette
most, i currently have on CD's

I was always under the impression that you bought the right to listen to the music, not the media.

So, why is it that when my records got scratched and destroyed, the record company would not replace the media (I, of course, would be willing to pay for the media but not the music again)

When my open reel tape recorder, 8 track player and cassette player bit the dust; why wouldn't the record companies update the media for me?

No, I do not, in the least, feel guilty for downloading music i've paid for many times.

I've NEVER downloaded Madonna and all that other crap from the 'artists' that scream the loudest about their 'art' being stolen.

By the way, do you listen to music on the radio?.... you see where i'm going with this.....

I have no problem with the artists getting their due... and have paid for the NIN download, and Radiohead. I was pleased that the artists got ALL the money and not the money grubbing slugs from the record labels.

(steps down from soapbox)

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Thanks for the info, friend. Nevertheless, these mechanisms should be fair.

In Russia, this question is still unregulated.

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by Loke.

 

The RIAA, ASCAP/BMI, and SESAC protects artists. and if you were really knowledgable about the industry, you would know this,

This is a funny quote. Seems that RIAA does not protect artists. It just protects its interests. See the following site :

www.dailykos.com...

It is only one of the few results I get out of searching google for RIAA fraud. Seems there are quite a few over-exagerated fees for copying music. This is what we could call a scare tactic. Trying to make an example out of this guy.

I own a lot of CD's that I have bought right after hearing the album in its entirety on the net. I do not have 400$ a month to discover music from every different music style. I love music and the music I like I will want in high quality on a nice cd.

Sometimes when I go to an hmv and try listen to an album very quiclky, and decide to buy it.... I am very disapointed. Why? because of bias. You cant exactly listen to 8 or 10 rare cds theyve just opened up and just say: WELL HEY all of them where crap so im going home.... And listening to a song for a half second each doesnt give any of them justice.

No the music industry must find a way to compensate for online music without taking on overwheight fees to the few people that are not able to understand that Kazaa is no longer the way to go.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Well its called copyright violations and its basically stealing from the artist.

If you were the artist or band that wrote and created that work, and someone ripped you off six bucks or so for the songs, times how manu hundreds of thousands if not millions of dowloaders, add that up and thats what your band and talent just lost.

I think the punishement fits the crime.

Cheers!!!!

I am currently in the music industry, my band has attained many levels
of success. I have been touring the world, writing and recording for about
15 years. There are 3 things that bring in money.

1. Touring (guaranteed contracts), plus any back end upon exceeding
limits or successfully selling out venue.

2. Merchandise - Shirts, hats, pins, stickers, posters etc.. (Not including CD's)

3. Selling music (physically by CD or electronically by MP3's)


The first (touring) brings in ok money depending on your status. Bot those
wages usually cover any equipment rental, van or bus rental, gas, meals,
staff (merch person, driver, techs etc) and all leftovers are then divided by the amount of members, not to mention a percentage going to the manager
and booking agent.

The second (Merch- minus audio) in my experience brings in the most.
Printing in bulk results in lower cost to the artist which results in higher
profit on the goods. Sold out show means a couple of thousand of kids buying a shirt for $15-$20. One sold out show could easily pay the merch
bill and the rest is the bands to split. In all my years, that is where the
real money is made.

Now imagine what Metalica makes in merch... Astronomical.
Arena 50,000 people x $25 a shirt


The third (CD's and MP3's) pay the least. All initial money is reverted back
to the record label. In other words, the label may give you an advance in
the hopes that your record will do well. Let's say they give you $10,000 in
advance. Most spend the money foolishly. However that money is really
to record. After the record is released, you receive nothing until after $10,000 in sales is made. Most contracts today deal with ascap and itunes
and have a "downloadable" section in the contract. Artists are not making
too much money here. They charge about .99 cents per song. But there are
fees to having your song searchable, plus your manger gets a percent.
Then the band divides what is left pending on their agreement. This leaves
the artists to split roughly .60 cents in the end per song.

Personally I prefer touring and getting out there. Merch sales can be great
thus resulting in a financial success. I get a check from ASCAP twice a year
and it is laughable. I deposit it because I earned it, but it's silly. Even at a scope of a band like Metalica they must surely chuckle when those ASCAP
checks come in. Digital downloads result in about 2 percent of touring bands
income.

Notice how it is the RIAA with the lawsuit and not the artist. I do agree it's
wrong, but have you ever burned a CD for someone, made a mix tape?!
It's file sharing and we are all guilty.

I'm just one artist with one point of view. The next guy could kick and
fuss over .60 cents. Me, I'd rather hit the road and sell merch and play
my heart out.

Just this morning a article appeared in the Dallas Morning News from a Los Angeles Times writer that says the group that represents the Recording Industry has said that they will stop pusuing file-sharers but work with the ISP providers to Flag certain bulk file sharer's and warn them.If they persist the ISP provider will Deny Service.
The first step to regulating the Web more, the security agencies will be thrilled about this one.
hosted.ap.org...

if you read the end user agreements on the cd's you buy there is some pretty funny stuff in there. like you are allowed to have a backup copy as long as you own the original. say the original gets stolen out of your car, you're supposed to delete you backup copy. also if you move out of the country or file bankruptcy. you're supposed to give it up in those instances too.

i will leave this for now...until i get more info

two lines

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Solomons]

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Solomons]

reply to post by RFBurns


First off, who all on this thread would happily allow someone to take money from their pocket?

Second, think how inconvienient it would be if your favorite band said "screw it, you can only hear our songs in concert."

Originally posted by RFBurns
Well its called copyright violations and its basically stealing from the artist.

If you were the artist or band that wrote and created that work, and someone ripped you off six bucks or so for the songs, times how manu hundreds of thousands if not millions of dowloaders, add that up and thats what your band and talent just lost.

I think the punishement fits the crime.



Cheers!!!!

The crime being liking the creator's work and distributing it?
They should be glad that people are listening to their songs not sue their fans

[edit on 21-12-2008 by itsthatsow]

reply to post by itsthatsow


The artist is not suing for someone listening, they are suing because someone distributed material they were not authorized to do so.

The 1 million dollar fine is the maximum the kid can face. And it depends on the artist pushing the lawsuit as to how far they want to prosecute, as well as their licensing organization they are signed up with.

To the one poster regarding the math..do the math right and find your statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And the very reason why fines are so high today is because of the last 10 years of pirating copyrighted music across peer to peer networks, websites like kazaa, napster etc who gladly hosted this pirated material, which again if the math is done right, the artist lost tons of revenue, no matter how much one thinks it is worth.

A major artist makes more than some unknown local or regional band going around opening for those major artists.

In any case, doesnt matter what I say or what you all think of what I am saying. Its illegal, the kid did something illegal, and will end up paying the price for it. I didnt make the law, congress did. So bark up that tree ok.

I only happen to agree with it. Mainly because my operations, both terrestrial radio broadcast and internet broadcast, pay fees for licenses to play the material and use it in our commercial ads, thus making it perfectly legal. And when my buisness has to pay more fees because freeloaders out there think they deserve the right to get something for nothing is when I stand firmly behind the laws on the books, as do the artists..major artisits I might add, that send me letters and emails thanking buisnesses like mine that support the copyright laws and the artists by playing their material.

Again this kid who took it upon himself to post material he clearly did not have the right to do so violated the law...period. That kid should have thought of the consequences before doing what was done. Its time for people who violate the law in this manner to be held accountable for their stupid actions. And if it werent for all that freeloading uploads of music over the last 10 years, then there wouldnt be all this huge fines and mess over music now.

Tell you all what, go to work for free. Just tear up your paychecks and not even bother cashing them or depositing them into your accounts. If you all really think its justifiable to post material for free that was intended to make the authors a living, then you wont have any problem working for free and burning your paycheck.

But you wont will you. So why should any artist be willing to burn their paycheck?

Grow up.





Cheers!!!!

Its interesting that when the cassette & vinyl were in their early days musician unions were in uproar. They figured they would be out of work becuase nobody would need live musicians to perform any longer.

of course we know this led to the golden era of recorded music and record companies selling plastic discs at vastly inflated prices.

The digital medium has corrected the anomoly. Artists primary source of income will be live performaces & merchandising thats the way it should be.

There is no law that says musicians have to be multi millionares from the sale of recorded material. The market is not nature its an artificially created entity designed to make money. Record companies cant stop social change. Unfortunately for radio stations etc theyre part of the old system which remain accountable to draconian copyright laws. But they make money from that so i dont give a crap about them.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by yeti101]

Originally posted by RFBurns
Well its called copyright violations and its basically stealing from the artist.

Cheers!!!!

Dumb. The Record companies are the ones stealing from the artists, not the music listeners and fans.

Even if you are listening to an artists song that you didn't pay for, you are still supporting the artist.

There is many ways to look at this as I am seeing from the posters on this board but to me I see it a bit from both sides. While I do have some understanding of how Piracy affects the recording industry I also know that the RIAA has been unreasonable in charging higher fees all the time while people end up with a CD for one, two or three songs on the radio only to get filler on all the unreleased songs. In order to hear a song on the pay per song sights you have to order it first. I find that counter productive to the music industry.

If there was a way to share that would keep people from burning the music I would say this problem of piracy would not be as big a deal. Most people want to burn the music so that they can listen to it on their stereos, in their cars and other places. Most people aren't going to spend all their time on their computers so it is not as if hearing the music online will cause CD sales to plummet. If anything the desire to have the music for ones stereo would necessitate that they buy a CD. I know that there is no technology to do this but if so it could help.

What the industry can do as of now is to drop CD prices and maybe make music only available online where people can sample songs and decide to either buy the songs individually or as a complete CD. If nothing else make stores carry screening rooms where booths are set up to listen to music before they buy it. Walmart gives about a minute long samples and that is really not going to do it. If the music industry would take polls on how they could improve themselves than it may help all the way around.

Do you put alcohol in front of an alcoholic? Do you entice a Heroine or crack addict with crack? Giving people the chance to get music conveniently and free on line is the same thing as enticement. You don't tempt someone with something so easy. Just because it is illegal does not mean you can blame a person from breaking a law that is so easy to break. Busting this kid is not sending a message. There are a ton of people pirating and most know that who gets busted is a crap shoot.

As far as hurting the artist, well that depends on the artist. Some artist are mega rich and I doubt they are going to go hungry. Those that are starting out could use a break and deserve to have their works make a profit. If the mega rich really wanted to something they would donate more than half their profits to charities. I don't feel bad for the long established multi millionaires or the quite successful and long established RIAA. The RIAA needs to work with people to change piracy rather than attacking them.

reply to post by RFBurns


Dowling v. United states, supreme court case in 1985. Determined that music piracy (then in the form of bootlegged phonorecords) does not equate to simple theft, but rather entails a more complicated set of rules and rights regarding intellectual property. Copyright infringement, not stealing.

Also, artists make no money from record sales anyway, it's just the corporate fat cats getting payed in that deal...

reply to post by Karlhungis


All I am going to say about this is THE JURY!!!

This can go away and not be brought back if several Juries will just tell the RIAA NO! When they get several NO's from several juries it will not be cost effective, lawyers and all, to continue seeking monies that Juries are refusing to give...
We do have control over these happenings AS JURORS...