In the case of this 200 Kilo women it is the fact that she ONLY enabled here files for sharing.
As the judge agreed with the recording industry that it is illegal to enable the files to a filesharing platform, the recording industry had no more problems.
There was no need anymore to prove that other users downloaded something from here.
The act of enabling the files was already the law breaker.
So all you downloaders have no problem. Everybody who gave some datas to others have a problem.
no. downloading is illegal too (in the united states anyway), its just that these lawsuits are focusing on uploaders because the laws against distributing copywritten material are tougher.
as far as this case goes, i'd like to hear from some of the music producers on this board about how they feel about copyright laws. if these laws weren't on the books, artists would never be protected.
what is the justification for stealing music, and why shouldn't it be a crime? who are we trying to protect here? getting free music is nice, but who are we kidding if we try to point the finger at the RIAA.
this woman got slammed, but take a closer look, she basically got what she deserved for being such a pig. the RIAA attempts to settle with EVERYONE at a very small fraction of what they could justly get in court (college students can usually get away with paying a grand). this woman's defense was that it was a case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY!!! she claimed that she never even used kazaa. well, apparently, the jurors thought otherwise. also, the damages they hit her with were on the low side of what they law provides.
The thing is that study after study has shown that downloading has very, very little impact on declining album sales. RIAA is chasing after a red herring and making the rest of us pay for their crusade.
The thing is that study after study has shown that downloading has very, very little impact on declining album sales. RIAA is chasing after a red herring and making the rest of us pay for their crusade.
downloading has "very very little impact on declining album sales" ???? x 100
if there is a study or multiple studies to support this, i still call bullshit and question how sophisticated those studies are. the growth of illegal downloads is unquestionable....as it relates entirely to the growth of the internet. its not just the affluent who own computers and have access to high speed internet anymore.
The recording industry went through this with the advent of cassettes, and then again with used CDs. Remember when Garth Brooks was trying to withhold his new CDs from any store that sold used CDs? He lost that battle, and he's still a rich fuck, right?
Indie music artists should be okay, I would think. Conventional wisdom in the cassette/CD era held that taping an album actually benefitted that artist by increasing their exposure/fan base, in that the new listener was now more likely to eventually support that artist in some way -- perhaps by attending a live show, where most indie artists make more $$$ than on album sales. If downloading spreads that music quickly to more listeners, those artists should in theory be reaping a larger benefit, and more quickly.
But what about small label heads -- live-show attendance in lieu of an album sale doesn't benefit them like it does the artist. Or small labels that press reisusses? These guys/gals seem to be in the most precarious position. I agree with the above sentiment, I'd like to hear from some of them here.
I have no sympathy for major-label CEOs... sorry your bonus package won't include a gold-plated Lexus this year, my dudes. Just a normal Lexus.
The thing is that study after study has shown that downloading has very, very little impact on declining album sales. RIAA is chasing after a red herring and making the rest of us pay for their crusade.
downloading has "very very little impact on declining album sales" ???? x 100
if there is a study or multiple studies to support this, i still call bullshit and question how sophisticated those studies are. the growth of illegal downloads is unquestionable....as it relates entirely to the growth of the internet. its not just the affluent who own computers and have access to high speed internet anymore.
This is an old argument (internet old at least).
Let's just clarify: can/does downloading affect sales? Sure. I don't think anyone disputes this.
But we're talking about the significant drop off in album sales over the last few years that has people wringing the skin off their hands. And in that regard, what the research suggests is that file-sharing isn't remotely sufficient to explain the severity of that drop.
Does it contribute? Probably...but the industry has tried to make it sound as if file-sharing is THE reason they can't sell as many CDs as they once did when. In reality, it's probably not as big a reason as myriad others, foremost, in my mind, being the increased number of entertainment options available to people besides music PLUS the ubiquity of music in other mediums besides the conventional CD (that are still legal).
And then there's the popular (and perhaps true) claim that the overall quality in popular music has taken a nosedive.
For 19 years I have been releasing vinyl to the tune of 60+ releases.
My last few releases were up on the Internet to download for free within 3 weeks of their release.
Since I had a decidely limited "niche" market, releasing only 500-1,000 copies of any release, it became apparent that this downloading did have a negative effect on my business.
Rather than try to sue or bitch about it I just decided to retire the label.
I'm sure other people in my position experienced the same thing.
Not sure if any one independent label will be sorely missed, but as a whole this has to have a negative effect on the obscure/underground/limited press VINYL record business.
The internet's also helped people develop more niche-oriented tastes than they would if they just relied on, for instance, top 40, MTV, and Billboard as so many folks did growing up in.
Even Pitchfork steals people away from maintream homogenization, I'd argue, even if most people here probably agree that they just susbtitute another paradigm for taste. But online stores like Aquarius and Dusty Groove certainly have huge presences and point people in new directions, as do discussion boards like this one.
no. downloading is illegal too (in the united states anyway), its just that these lawsuits are focusing on uploaders because the laws against distributing copywritten material are tougher.
as far as this case goes, i'd like to hear from some of the music producers on this board about how they feel about copyright laws. if these laws weren't on the books, artists would never be protected.
what is the justification for stealing music, and why shouldn't it be a crime? who are we trying to protect here? getting free music is nice, but who are we kidding if we try to point the finger at the RIAA.
this woman got slammed, but take a closer look, she basically got what she deserved for being such a pig. the RIAA attempts to settle with EVERYONE at a very small fraction of what they could justly get in court (college students can usually get away with paying a grand). this woman's defense was that it was a case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY!!! she claimed that she never even used kazaa. well, apparently, the jurors thought otherwise. also, the damages they hit her with were on the low side of what they law provides.
I know why you really like this verdict. Cause the only people that truly win are lawyer's who are involved.
During an occasionally testy cross examination, a Sony executive said what many observers have suspected for a long time. The RIAA's four-year-old lawsuit campaign is costing the music industry millions of dollars and is a big money-loser for the record labels.
One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing.
Would you be willing to bet, that not one single cent from the money that is awarded, goes to any artist???
Also, she did a couple of stupid things. The biggest reason she got hit was because she used a screen name for Kazaa that they easily were able to prove was hers.
I was reading somewhere today, that they aren't really sure if she's living on the reserve. Which might be a huge problem in it's self.
I know why you really like this verdict. Cause the only people that truly win are lawyer's who are involved.
i don't represent the RIAA and there are only a handful of people who have been dumb enough to defend themselves in litigation against the bottomless pockets of the record industry all for the noble cause of stealing other people's art.
its amazing that this board is filled with music lovers, yet almost none of you seem to recognize the fact that a) stealing music is wrong and b) while indie heads might benefit by downloads cause it serves as free advertising, what about the music industry as a whole?? with music sales continuing to plummet and artists making less and less money, how many future stars are going to give up everything to pursue a career in music when less and less people are getting record deals?
I know why you really like this verdict. Cause the only people that truly win are lawyer's who are involved.
i don't represent the RIAA and there are only a handful of people who have been dumb enough to defend themselves in litigation against the bottomless pockets of the record industry all for the noble cause of stealing other people's art.
its amazing that this board is filled with music lovers, yet almost none of you seem to recognize the fact that a) stealing music is wrong and b) while indie heads might benefit by downloads cause it serves as free advertising, what about the music industry as a whole?? with music sales continuing to plummet and artists making less and less money, how many future stars are going to give up everything to pursue a career in music when less and less people are getting record deals?
This woman did something illegal, she was offered to settle the out of court and she declined.
Did she really think she could win ?
Why should we feel sorry for her ?
Jaywalking's illegal, too. Some people here feel like she got hit with the equivalent of a million-dollar ticket for not staying inside the crosswalk.
so if the punishment didn't fit the crime, why don't you suggest an appropriate fine?
keep in mind that even with the current penalties, which everyone here seems to think are outrageous, people are still downloading millions of songs illegally every day.
so if deterrence is a factor in establishing a law and the penalties for violating such law, how could the govt ever expect to stop people from violating the copyright laws (which millions of people are flagrantly doing every day) by setting the penalties any weaker than they are right now?
none of you seem to recognize the fact that a) stealing music is wrong and b) while indie heads might benefit by downloads cause it serves as free advertising, what about the music industry as a whole?? with music sales continuing to plummet and artists making less and less money, how many future stars are going to give up everything to pursue a career in music when less and less people are getting record deals?
Once again, what does this have to do with file sharing? You seem insistent on this point so you tell me: quantify what % of declining album sales is file sharing responsible for?
It's worth noting that transformations in technology have often created crises in the music industry. Sometimes, they've been real: sheet music - which was once THE music industry - got merked by the invention of the phonograph (among other social changes), for example. Other times, the reaction was overboard - look at the hysteria around cassette tapes.
I'm not saying, for the long term, something like file sharing won't be a real force of change. But where is the conclusive data that can prove, right now, that the decline of album sales has anything to do, in a major way, with file sharing?
its amazing that this board is filled with music lovers, yet almost none of you seem to recognize the fact that a) stealing music is wrong and b) while indie heads might benefit by downloads cause it serves as free advertising, what about the music industry as a whole?? with music sales continuing to plummet and artists making less and less money, how many future stars are going to give up everything to pursue a career in music when less and less people are getting record deals?
Stealing music is wrong, it's just a question of how wrong. I wouldn't blink if she had gotten hit with the equivalent of a parking ticket, but she got hit with EVERYBODY'S parking ticket.
Similarly, I could something like Canada's relaxed marijuana laws (as I understand them)... technically illegal, but you don't get prosecuted for personal use, you get prosecuted for large-scale dealing.
As for the major labels... I have sympathy for bands that get stuck on those labels, but I can't muster any sympathy for, for instance, Warner Brothers. These are massive corporations, lumbering dinosaurs who could be adapting to the changing times instead of pleading poverty.
And I mean that in two ways: they could be adapting by finding new, more efficient ways to put a higher quality product out there in an evolving, more difficult marketplace, AND they could be cutting all sorts of corporate fat before claiming they have to scale back on the amount of records they can release.
Hopefully, artists who care about music will always try to make that music, while there'll be less incentive for Brittneys and boy bands to leave the suburban shopping-mall circuits.
none of you seem to recognize the fact that a) stealing music is wrong and b) while indie heads might benefit by downloads cause it serves as free advertising, what about the music industry as a whole?? with music sales continuing to plummet and artists making less and less money, how many future stars are going to give up everything to pursue a career in music when less and less people are getting record deals?
Once again, what does this have to do with file sharing? You seem insistent on this point so you tell me: quantify what % of declining album sales is file sharing responsible for?
It's worth noting that transformations in technology have often created crises in the music industry. Sometimes, they've been real: sheet music - which was once THE music industry - got merked by the invention of the phonograph (among other social changes), for example. Other times, the reaction was overboard - look at the hysteria around cassette tapes.
I'm not saying, for the long term, something like file sharing won't be a real force of change. But where is the conclusive data that can prove, right now, that the decline of album sales has anything to do, in a major way, with file sharing?
i'm not building a case here, so i really don't feel compelled to go scouring the internet for studies on the relationship between illegal file sharing and declining record sales. to me, the relationship is direct and super obvious.
what is the counter-argument, that (a) people have less disposable income or (b) that music just sucks? we know that the economy is shit under bush, but we also know credit card debt has never been higher and young people, as consumers, are spending more money (on a % basis compared to the rest of the population) than ever before. so (a) is out. as for whether the music sucks, well, that is subjective, and even if it does suck, people have SHITTY TASTE and always have.
The thing is that study after study has shown that downloading has very, very little impact on declining album sales. RIAA is chasing after a red herring and making the rest of us pay for their crusade.
C'mon, now--the only thing such studies tell us is that their methodology was somehow fundamentally flawed.
Young people don't pay for music anymore. It's over. I don't know how anyone could continue to deny that.
and even if it does suck, people have SHITTY TASTE and always have.
Don't discount the power of corporations to control or at least shape and direct that taste.
Hollywood spends $20-50 million marketing $100 million shitty films so that they can bring in $200 million. If they spend enough $$$ on advertising, they can convince teenagers that they want to be force-fed almost anything. They could be upping the ante instead of lowering the bar. And, in fact, many of the studios, notably Paramount, did in the late 60s and well into the 70s.
I would argue the same can be said of records; i.e. a higher percentage of music buyers had "good taste" in the 60s and 70s than in, say, the 80s and 90s. Some of this had to do with a corporate climate in which more creative music was being offered and advertised (along with, sure, mounds and mounds of turds).
Why didn't you answer any of the question I asked?
This isn't about stealing. It's about a business model that is outdated and close to being done.
Like I've said in the past. My family was in the retail music biz (And other aspects also) for over 25 years. When this first started happening in the late 90's, I knew right away where we were headed. Right before we closed, we didn't look around and search out our customers who were downloading or using Microwave and look to sue. The game changed and we got out.
The fact that the RIAA had to sue a single mother and won over $200,000 is not a victory in my mind for the music biz. I'm pretty sure a ton of lawyers like urself feel it is.
If I was her I'd be putting the RIAA on blast all over the internet. More people need to see how ignorant they are. $9,250 per song? I wonder how the artists feel about that.
As for the major labels... I have sympathy for bands that get stuck on those labels, but I can't muster any sympathy for, for instance, Warner Brothers. These are massive corporations, lumbering dinosaurs who could be adapting to the changing times instead of pleading poverty.
Agreed. The first thing the labels need to do is come together and pick one damn outlet for selling music online. Instead of acting like the five families of the mob. Not that I think they will ever be willing to do this.
Next, they need to get over this idea that people are stealing when they take a song they purchased and put it on another device of theirs.
Then, they need to drop the price. This whole idea of selling a single download for .99 cents is bullshit. Since manufacturing and distribution of a tangible product is done with.
Similarly, I could something like Canada's relaxed marijuana laws (as I understand them)... technically illegal, but you don't get prosecuted for personal use, you get prosecuted for large-scale dealing.
Also,
In Canada it is not illegal to download. They do go after people who try to make a profit off it. Also, we pay a levy on all audio recording media and that money is suppose to be distributed to artists. Tho, I still don't know any artist that have gotten any money in the last 6 years these levies have been collected.
Why didn't you answer any of the question I asked?
You asked one question and it was stupid. "Would you be willing to bet that the individual artists aren't receiving any of the money from these lawsuits?" All of the money that has been received by the RIAA has surely gone to their lawyers...and then some. But if you think that is the issue than you are missing the whole point. This is about deterrence. We download music because the fear of getting caught is minimal. Its risk v. reward. The reward of getting free music outweighs the risk right now by a mile. The RIAA is trying to change that. Publicity for this lawsuit might help.
This isn't about stealing. It's about a business model that is outdated and close to being done.
Yea, because people are stealing!! Take away the stealing and the business model is back to status quo. In fact, if illegal file sharing didn't exist, the record companies would be making a KILLING. How much easier is it to hop on itunes or amazon and instantly download a song then to go stand in line at best buy. Give me a break dude.
Yea, because people are stealing!! Take away the stealing and the business model is back to status quo. In fact, if illegal file sharing didn't exist, the record companies would be making a KILLING. How much easier is it to hop on itunes or amazon and instantly download a song then to go stand in line at best buy. Give me a break dude.
But did you/do you feel the same way about cassette copies of albums? And if not, isn't it really the scale of the theft that bothers you, and not any individual act of theft?
Yea, because people are stealing!! Take away the stealing and the business model is back to status quo. In fact, if illegal file sharing didn't exist, the record companies would be making a KILLING. How much easier is it to hop on itunes or amazon and instantly download a song then to go stand in line at best buy. Give me a break dude.
But did you/do you feel the same way about cassette copies of albums? And if not, isn't it really the scale of the theft that bothers you, and not any individual act of theft?
This analogy is not a good one.....
Back in the seventies there were "bootleg" tape companies that MASS PRODUCED copies of tapes and distributed them. These companies/people were sought after, arrested and shut down.
Making one or two copies of a cassette was never a worry.
But the internet allows ANYONE to become instant distributors to a market of millions of people....this is the real issue.
Comments
In the case of this 200 Kilo women it is the fact that she ONLY enabled here files for sharing.
As the judge agreed with the recording industry that it is illegal to enable the files to a filesharing platform, the recording industry had no more problems.
There was no need anymore to prove that other users downloaded something from here.
The act of enabling the files was already the law breaker.
So all you downloaders have no problem. Everybody who gave some datas to others have a problem.
Peace
Hawkeye
these files expire
whats next?
ps
as always
FUCK THE RIAA WITH A RUSTY CROBAR UNTL IT HEMMORAGES TO DETH
I wonder how much this song is worth?
The video is certainly worth more than $9250
no. downloading is illegal too (in the united states anyway), its just that these lawsuits are focusing on uploaders because the laws against distributing copywritten material are tougher.
as far as this case goes, i'd like to hear from some of the music producers on this board about how they feel about copyright laws. if these laws weren't on the books, artists would never be protected.
what is the justification for stealing music, and why shouldn't it be a crime? who are we trying to protect here? getting free music is nice, but who are we kidding if we try to point the finger at the RIAA.
this woman got slammed, but take a closer look, she basically got what she deserved for being such a pig. the RIAA attempts to settle with EVERYONE at a very small fraction of what they could justly get in court (college students can usually get away with paying a grand). this woman's defense was that it was a case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY!!! she claimed that she never even used kazaa. well, apparently, the jurors thought otherwise. also, the damages they hit her with were on the low side of what they law provides.
downloading has "very very little impact on declining album sales" ????
if there is a study or multiple studies to support this, i still call bullshit and question how sophisticated those studies are. the growth of illegal downloads is unquestionable....as it relates entirely to the growth of the internet. its not just the affluent who own computers and have access to high speed internet anymore.
Indie music artists should be okay, I would think. Conventional wisdom in the cassette/CD era held that taping an album actually benefitted that artist by increasing their exposure/fan base, in that the new listener was now more likely to eventually support that artist in some way -- perhaps by attending a live show, where most indie artists make more $$$ than on album sales. If downloading spreads that music quickly to more listeners, those artists should in theory be reaping a larger benefit, and more quickly.
But what about small label heads -- live-show attendance in lieu of an album sale doesn't benefit them like it does the artist. Or small labels that press reisusses? These guys/gals seem to be in the most precarious position. I agree with the above sentiment, I'd like to hear from some of them here.
I have no sympathy for major-label CEOs... sorry your bonus package won't include a gold-plated Lexus this year, my dudes. Just a normal Lexus.
This is an old argument (internet old at least).
Let's just clarify: can/does downloading affect sales? Sure. I don't think anyone disputes this.
But we're talking about the significant drop off in album sales over the last few years that has people wringing the skin off their hands. And in that regard, what the research suggests is that file-sharing isn't remotely sufficient to explain the severity of that drop.
Does it contribute? Probably...but the industry has tried to make it sound as if file-sharing is THE reason they can't sell as many CDs as they once did when. In reality, it's probably not as big a reason as myriad others, foremost, in my mind, being the increased number of entertainment options available to people besides music PLUS the ubiquity of music in other mediums besides the conventional CD (that are still legal).
And then there's the popular (and perhaps true) claim that the overall quality in popular music has taken a nosedive.
My last few releases were up on the Internet to download for free within 3 weeks of their release.
Since I had a decidely limited "niche" market, releasing only 500-1,000 copies of any release, it became apparent that this downloading did have a negative effect on my business.
Rather than try to sue or bitch about it I just decided to retire the label.
I'm sure other people in my position experienced the same thing.
Not sure if any one independent label will be sorely missed, but as a whole this has to have a negative effect on the obscure/underground/limited press VINYL record business.
Even Pitchfork steals people away from maintream homogenization, I'd argue, even if most people here probably agree that they just susbtitute another paradigm for taste. But online stores like Aquarius and Dusty Groove certainly have huge presences and point people in new directions, as do discussion boards like this one.
I know why you really like this verdict. Cause the only people that truly win are lawyer's who are involved.
Anyways.. Some more fave parts of the trial.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-music-industry-exec-p2p-litigation-is-a-money-pit.html
Would you be willing to bet, that not one single cent from the money that is awarded, goes to any artist???
Also, she did a couple of stupid things. The biggest reason she got hit was because she used a screen name for Kazaa that they easily were able to prove was hers.
I was reading somewhere today, that they aren't really sure if she's living on the reserve. Which might be a huge problem in it's self.
Did she really think she could win ?
Why should we feel sorry for her ?
i don't represent the RIAA and there are only a handful of people who have been dumb enough to defend themselves in litigation against the bottomless pockets of the record industry all for the noble cause of stealing other people's art.
its amazing that this board is filled with music lovers, yet almost none of you seem to recognize the fact that a) stealing music is wrong and b) while indie heads might benefit by downloads cause it serves as free advertising, what about the music industry as a whole?? with music sales continuing to plummet and artists making less and less money, how many future stars are going to give up everything to pursue a career in music when less and less people are getting record deals?
Fuck Big Business
Fuck A Law
Fuck The Police
Fuck Everything
Fuck Everybody
Jaywalking's illegal, too. Some people here feel like she got hit with the equivalent of a million-dollar ticket for not staying inside the crosswalk.
so if the punishment didn't fit the crime, why don't you suggest an appropriate fine?
keep in mind that even with the current penalties, which everyone here seems to think are outrageous, people are still downloading millions of songs illegally every day.
so if deterrence is a factor in establishing a law and the penalties for violating such law, how could the govt ever expect to stop people from violating the copyright laws (which millions of people are flagrantly doing every day) by setting the penalties any weaker than they are right now?
Once again, what does this have to do with file sharing? You seem insistent on this point so you tell me: quantify what % of declining album sales is file sharing responsible for?
It's worth noting that transformations in technology have often created crises in the music industry. Sometimes, they've been real: sheet music - which was once THE music industry - got merked by the invention of the phonograph (among other social changes), for example. Other times, the reaction was overboard - look at the hysteria around cassette tapes.
I'm not saying, for the long term, something like file sharing won't be a real force of change. But where is the conclusive data that can prove, right now, that the decline of album sales has anything to do, in a major way, with file sharing?
Stealing music is wrong, it's just a question of how wrong. I wouldn't blink if she had gotten hit with the equivalent of a parking ticket, but she got hit with EVERYBODY'S parking ticket.
Similarly, I could something like Canada's relaxed marijuana laws (as I understand them)... technically illegal, but you don't get prosecuted for personal use, you get prosecuted for large-scale dealing.
As for the major labels... I have sympathy for bands that get stuck on those labels, but I can't muster any sympathy for, for instance, Warner Brothers. These are massive corporations, lumbering dinosaurs who could be adapting to the changing times instead of pleading poverty.
And I mean that in two ways: they could be adapting by finding new, more efficient ways to put a higher quality product out there in an evolving, more difficult marketplace, AND they could be cutting all sorts of corporate fat before claiming they have to scale back on the amount of records they can release.
Hopefully, artists who care about music will always try to make that music, while there'll be less incentive for Brittneys and boy bands to leave the suburban shopping-mall circuits.
She should consider herself lucky !
i'm not building a case here, so i really don't feel compelled to go scouring the internet for studies on the relationship between illegal file sharing and declining record sales. to me, the relationship is direct and super obvious.
what is the counter-argument, that (a) people have less disposable income or (b) that music just sucks? we know that the economy is shit under bush, but we also know credit card debt has never been higher and young people, as consumers, are spending more money (on a % basis compared to the rest of the population) than ever before. so (a) is out. as for whether the music sucks, well, that is subjective, and even if it does suck, people have SHITTY TASTE and always have.
C'mon, now--the only thing such studies tell us is that their methodology was somehow fundamentally flawed.
Young people don't pay for music anymore. It's over. I don't know how anyone could continue to deny that.
Don't discount the power of corporations to control or at least shape and direct that taste.
Hollywood spends $20-50 million marketing $100 million shitty films so that they can bring in $200 million. If they spend enough $$$ on advertising, they can convince teenagers that they want to be force-fed almost anything. They could be upping the ante instead of lowering the bar. And, in fact, many of the studios, notably Paramount, did in the late 60s and well into the 70s.
I would argue the same can be said of records; i.e. a higher percentage of music buyers had "good taste" in the 60s and 70s than in, say, the 80s and 90s. Some of this had to do with a corporate climate in which more creative music was being offered and advertised (along with, sure, mounds and mounds of turds).
This isn't about stealing. It's about a business model that is outdated and close to being done.
Like I've said in the past. My family was in the retail music biz (And other aspects also) for over 25 years. When this first started happening in the late 90's, I knew right away where we were headed. Right before we closed, we didn't look around and search out our customers who were downloading or using Microwave and look to sue. The game changed and we got out.
The fact that the RIAA had to sue a single mother and won over $200,000 is not a victory in my mind for the music biz. I'm pretty sure a ton of lawyers like urself feel it is.
We shall see.
- spidey
Agreed. The first thing the labels need to do is come together and pick one damn outlet for selling music online. Instead of acting like the five families of the mob. Not that I think they will ever be willing to do this.
Next, they need to get over this idea that people are stealing when they take a song they purchased and put it on another device of theirs.
Then, they need to drop the price. This whole idea of selling a single download for .99 cents is bullshit. Since manufacturing and distribution of a tangible product is done with.
Also,
In Canada it is not illegal to download. They do go after people who try to make a profit off it.
Also, we pay a levy on all audio recording media and that money is suppose to be distributed to artists. Tho, I still don't know any artist that have gotten any money in the last 6 years these levies have been collected.
You asked one question and it was stupid. "Would you be willing to bet that the individual artists aren't receiving any of the money from these lawsuits?" All of the money that has been received by the RIAA has surely gone to their lawyers...and then some. But if you think that is the issue than you are missing the whole point. This is about deterrence. We download music because the fear of getting caught is minimal. Its risk v. reward. The reward of getting free music outweighs the risk right now by a mile. The RIAA is trying to change that. Publicity for this lawsuit might help.
Yea, because people are stealing!! Take away the stealing and the business model is back to status quo. In fact, if illegal file sharing didn't exist, the record companies would be making a KILLING. How much easier is it to hop on itunes or amazon and instantly download a song then to go stand in line at best buy. Give me a break dude.
But did you/do you feel the same way about cassette copies of albums? And if not, isn't it really the scale of the theft that bothers you, and not any individual act of theft?
This analogy is not a good one.....
Back in the seventies there were "bootleg" tape companies that MASS PRODUCED copies of tapes and distributed them. These companies/people were sought after, arrested and shut down.
Making one or two copies of a cassette was never a worry.
But the internet allows ANYONE to become instant distributors to a market of millions of people....this is the real issue.