Excessive Damage $80,000 per mp3

I challenge you to find someone vaguely connected with the world around them who thinks the recording industry are stand-up guys right now. Seriously, everybody hates those morons already. It's just that thanks to their cartel setup, nobody can do anything about it. I wouldn't mind seeing what would happen if someone brought a full RICO case to bear. I've heard some murmurs about it but no one has done it yet.

The reaction has gotten as far as having at least one musician calling for the RIAA to be disbanded.

Score one for Moby, but can he get Eminem to go along with him on this one? [grin]

Wouldn't a RICO case require a federal prosecutor?

I'm surprised that a jury went so harsh on this woman. Even $800 per song would have totaled $19,200, an amount that seems more than enough to punish and dissuade.

This is completely absurd. I find it unbelievable how such a claim could not be directly dismissed as excessive.

The methods of the RIAA remind me of organized crime. Just instead of sending thugs with guns, they abuse the legal system. They should be the ones put on trial.

I think it is absurd.

I really only commented to be the only non-staff member of gamedev to post :)

Quote:

Original post by SiCrane The reaction has gotten as far as having at least one musician calling for the RIAA to be disbanded.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Score one for Moby...

Score half for Moby. He's signed to Mute Records, which is owned by EMI, which is a member of the RIAA, so the proof of his convictions will be when he decides to terminate his publishing agreement or otherwise circumvent the RIAA in the release of his music.

The key to disempowering the RIAA is artists realizing they don't need record companies. Record companies need them, so why do they let the record companies own the material and set the agenda? (Yes, I know, it's because a lot of "artists" are nothing but performers, puppets, and need the marketing muscle of the record companies to push them on non-discerning consumers.)

The good thing is, a lot of artists are realizing this. Lots of 'em are going indie these days. It's not too pricey to put together a decent digital recording studio, at least not as much as it used to be.

The main concern with going indie is the marketing aspect, but there are a lot of artists out there making great use of technology (YouTube, soundclick, all the social networking sites) in order to get their voices heard.

Big record companies are becoming less and less valuable to artists, and that is why they are pulling little stunts like this.

I always wondered what happens in those cases? So she files bankruptcy and her credit rating goes down? Are they just trying to make a message? If they did they should target the people sedding TB of data. That would make a bigger impression, or not. I mean it seems like people that use encrypted torrents on private sites are never found guilty.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi Quote: Original post by SiCrane The reaction has gotten as far as having at least one musician calling for the RIAA to be disbanded. Quote: Original post by LessBread Score one for Moby... Score half for Moby. He's signed to Mute Records, which is owned by EMI, which is a member of the RIAA, so the proof of his convictions will be when he decides to terminate his publishing agreement or otherwise circumvent the RIAA in the release of his music.

Sure. Moby seems so 1999 anyway. What does No Doubt have to say about this? [grin]

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi The key to disempowering the RIAA is artists realizing they don't need record companies. Record companies need them, so why do they let the record companies own the material and set the agenda? (Yes, I know, it's because a lot of "artists" are nothing but performers, puppets, and need the marketing muscle of the record companies to push them on non-discerning consumers.)

American Idol perfectly illustrates your acknowledgment.

The performing puppets phenomena is nothing new. It's actually the normal model found in the music business, going back to the late 1940's if not earlier. [To tie this into another bit of recent news, check out the Woody Guthrie biopic starring David Carradine for a portrayal of the music business back then and an artist's refusal to surrender to it.] The very concept of musician as artist - I should say the practice of calling any musician an artist - took hold during the mid to late 1960's, when musical acts who didn't write all of their material began to be seen as inauthentic. [I suppose we could blame Bob Dylan. **] Before that, would it make sense to call Pat Boone an artist? Moving forward in time, would it make sense to call the Village People artists? Milli Vanilli? It seems to me that the music industry has always been hostile to musical groups that it could not control, that it could not use to produce product. To get back to the American Idol comment that I started off with, it's clear that there is a lot of talent in America that goes undiscovered and unappreciated so long as it remains outside of the system of the music business. This approach keeps that talent desperate for success and desperate people tend to sign over too much control. That's why they let the record companies own the material and set the agenda. They want to be stars, not artists, and the record companies are looking for stars, not artists.

** I'm talking about pop music, not jazz etc.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread $80,000 per mp3 is excessive. What do you think? Will this verdict generate a backlash as this writer suggests?

Judging by a sample size of one, yes. I told a coworker unaware of the case about it. He said that he had a habit of buying CDs of music he liked, but that he would now stop. He was pretty pissed.

Here are more details about the issue: Filesharer ordered to pay nearly $2m

Quote:

... But it's not just Thomas-Rasset who will be upset over the latest verdict. Joel Tenebaum, a 25-year-old student from Boston, is facing a similar trial in the coming month in which the RIAA are seeking damages of $1m. The case began with a letter Tenebaum received in 2003, when he was in his late teens, asking for damages of $5,250 for seven illegally downloaded songs, also via Kazaa. Tenebaum replied to the industry body to say he could not afford that amount, but offered to pay them $500. The RIAA declined and Tenebaum heard nothing about the matter for several years, during which time he finished high school and went to college in Boston. Meanwhile, the RIAA continued its legal assault on individuals accused of illegal filesharing. Its scattergun methods resulted in official letters being sent to a 12-year-old girl and a deceased woman, and the method has since been dropped by the RIAA in favour of working with internet service providers to combat illegal filesharing. This is too late for Tenebaum, however, because in 2007 the case reared its head again, and this time the RIAA were seeking damages of $150,000 per song. A full trial has been delayed several times while Tenebaum, who enlisted the help of Harvard legal professor Charles Nesson and his students, sought the unusual measure of having the trial streamed over the internet. The webcast was vetoed by the judge, but Tenebaum continues to build support for his case via his blog, Twitter and the website joelfightsback.com. Tenebaum's will be the second case of its kind to reach a federal court in the US, following that of Thomas-Rasset. Considering her original fine of $220,000, Tenebaum was reasonably sure that a jury would not find in favour of such a high amount as $1m. Now he must convince the jury that the context of his case is different, because he was young when he downloaded those songs and because attitudes to filesharing were different then. ... Tenebaum's trial is due to begin on 20 July. Thomas-Rasset and her legal team have yet to decide whether to appeal against her $2m fine.

Quote:

Original post by BeanDog Quote: Original post by LessBread $80,000 per mp3 is excessive. What do you think? Will this verdict generate a backlash as this writer suggests? Judging by a sample size of one, yes. I told a coworker unaware of the case about it. He said that he had a habit of buying CDs of music he liked, but that he would now stop. He was pretty pissed.

Are you implying that he will now acquire them illegally? If not disregard the rest of this rant, but.... where's that soapbox? ahhh, yes

I'm sorry, but while I agree that a new model is needed and that the record industry are acting like dicks in this case, this isn't some sort of civil disobedience where you're standing up to an oppressive regime by pirating music. It's one thing to argue that your rights are violated when your fair use of purchased music is impinged, but another entirely to say that this gives you the right to pirate someone else's work. There seem to be people who believe that all music should be free, and have some sort of philosophical objection to paying for music. And if you believe that, fine, go listen to artists who share your view and make their music available for free (there are plenty of them on the web).

Where the dmca and the recording industry fail massively is both with regard to fair use and proportionate response. For fair use, what's needed is a clear set of rights with regard to licensed works (this should apply to software too). Simple things like right of re-sale, format shifting, right of refund, freedom from spyware and oppressive DRM.


As for proportionate response to infringement, ask yourself this question:

when was the last time you heard of someone being fined $800,000 (10 songs) for shop lifting a cd?

I personally believe that music is quickly becoming a non-rival, non-excludable (therefore, public) good. The music industry wants to equate downloading MP3s with shoplifting, but people will never fully buy into that notion, because on some level they understand that the act of downloading a song doesn't reduce the availability of the music to others (hence the non-rival part). And as far as excludability is concerned, the cat is out of the bag. The Internet is here to say and it's never going to be difficult for people to download the music they want for free. The RIAA can try to scare people by making examples out of a select few, but statistically it is unlikely that you'll ever get caught for stealing music.

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong, but it does mean, in my opinion, that it's futile to try to keep the music industry alive in its current form.

So what's the solution? I don't necessarily think there is one, or that one is even needed. The average occupation earns tens of thousands of dollars per year. The idea that musicians deserve several orders of magnitude more than that has been ingrained in our culture, but there's no real reason for it to be that way. In fact, it is not that way for the great majority of musicians.

The music industry wants to scare us into thinking that if this revenue goes away, then there will be no more music. But there's always been music. There's been music as long as there's been fire. And this notion of the world-famous, multi-millionaire pop-stars is a purely 20th-Century phenomenon and I truly believe that historically it will be seen as a bizarre little blip, even though these days we regard it as normal and unmovable.

That's not to say that there won't be world-famous musicians. This is the internet, after all. Whereas 19th Century musicians probably achieved fame only regionally (with perhaps a few exceptions), the Internet is without regional limitations. Instead, you have word-of-mouth limitations, where people will probably achieve fame within certain demographics or social circles. The occasional person may break out of that to achieve broader success.

But anyway, if a musician is able to garner a core of patrons who are willing to shell out cash for hard copies of CD's with artwork and notes, posters, t-shirts, special editions, autographs, etc. If they can make a living off of that, then they can be a musician. Otherwise they should find something else.

And hopefully that should weed out a lot of the crap acts that are just in it for the fame and fortune.

But to answer the original post, yeah this is pretty damned shocking and horrible. The woman stole $3.96 worth of music and they've ruined her life over it. If I steal a bag of chips from the grocery store, it's unlikely I'd even be prosecuted. I'd probably be told never to return to the store. If I was charged & fined, it might be a few hundred dollars. Maybe $1000. I don't know. I'm just rambling. But obviously, the RIAA is pretty evil and I doubt people are going to take this much longer.

question is, when was the last time you heard of someone shoplifting a record and then making thousands of copies and then giving them out to anonymous people in a public place.


technology is awesome, for good and for bad.

Quote:

Original post by ChaosEngine As for proportionate response to infringement, ask yourself this question: when was the last time you heard of someone being fined $800,000 (10 songs) for shop lifting a cd?

To play devil's advocate, you're comparing apple and oranges here. The price you pay to legally acquire your own copy of a CD is about $20. The price you would pay to legally acquire the digital distribution rights to the songs on that CD would have quite a few more zeroes at the end of it.

Further playing devil's advocate, I thought even the RIAA lawyers were surprised at the scale of the payout awarded by the jury in this case. In this particular case it's more the jury's decision process that I find odd. I'd even feel a bit sorry for the RIAA for the backlash against them - well, if they didn't have a prior track record of filing bogus cases for massive amounts on flimsy pretexts, and if they didn't have a track record of screwing over artists. It's somewhat hard to feel sympathetic when they're so ruthlessly mercantile.

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” - Abraham Lincoln

Quote:

Original post by ChaosEngine Quote: Original post by BeanDog Quote: Original post by LessBread $80,000 per mp3 is excessive. What do you think? Will this verdict generate a backlash as this writer suggests? Judging by a sample size of one, yes. I told a coworker unaware of the case about it. He said that he had a habit of buying CDs of music he liked, but that he would now stop. He was pretty pissed. Are you implying that he will now acquire them illegally? If not disregard the rest of this rant, but.... where's that soapbox? ahhh, yes I'm sorry, but while I agree that a new model is needed and that the record industry are acting like dicks in this case, this isn't some sort of civil disobedience where you're standing up to an oppressive regime by pirating music. It's one thing to argue that your rights are violated when your fair use of purchased music is impinged, but another entirely to say that this gives you the right to pirate someone else's work. There seem to be people who believe that all music should be free, and have some sort of philosophical objection to paying for music. And if you believe that, fine, go listen to artists who share your view and make their music available for free (there are plenty of them on the web). Where the dmca and the recording industry fail massively is both with regard to fair use and proportionate response. For fair use, what's needed is a clear set of rights with regard to licensed works (this should apply to software too). Simple things like right of re-sale, format shifting, right of refund, freedom from spyware and oppressive DRM. As for proportionate response to infringement, ask yourself this question: when was the last time you heard of someone being fined $800,000 (10 songs) for shop lifting a cd?

I don't know how it works in the US, but in Sweden, and some (most?) other European countries we already pay a tax on all recordable media, the proceeds of which are meant to compensate record labels, movie companies and artists for piracy-related losses. Since I already paid for said media, I fail to see any moral impediments to retrieving what I was forced to buy.

As for the "philosophical objection to paying for music" argument, filesharers don't buy less music, they tend to buy more. I know a guy who's obsessive about downloading music and organizing it into a massive library (totalling half a TB or so last time I asked,) yet he still spends most of his disposable income on CDs. When another acquaintance of mine stopped pirating, her CD purchases dwindled to a fraction of their previous level.

It seems to me that the record industry has some irrational philosophical objection to people listening to music without paying, even when it means more profit for them when people do, rather than the other way around.

There is no special tax on recordable media in the US.

I have also read that music "pirates" also purchase more music than non "pirates".

I mostly agree with CDProp. The days of platinum record rock stars are waning.

Quote:

But anyway, if a musician is able to garner a core of patrons who are willing to shell out cash for hard copies of CD's with artwork and notes, posters, t-shirts, special editions, autographs, etc. If they can make a living off of that, then they can be a musician. Otherwise they should find something else.

Recordings become advertisements rather than substitutes for concerts. I suppose the Grateful Dead pointed the way in this regard.

Another factor leading to the demise of the industrial era music industry is the shrinking range of radio programming, not to mention the end of local radio programming. Radio may not hold the same place for today's youth that it used to, but I've experienced the magic of the device. If I start listing the tunes... anyway.

I can back up Valderman with my own personal anecdote. I don't pirate music, but I can say that I've never been so willing to shell out cash for music as I have been since I started using Pandora. I like music, and I like to own music, and I like to support good musicians, but there's a serious barrier of entry when it comes to actually buying CDs, which is that I simply don't want to spend $12 or whatever on a band that I'm mostly unfamiliar with. Now, if you tend to like the music that's played all over the radio, this might not be a problem, because you can listen to the music and go, "Hey, I like this", and go out and buy the CD.

On the other hand, since we do have legal services like Pandora which accomplish the goal of exposing one to new music one might like and want to purchase, it sort of reduces it as an argument in favor of unfettered free downloading. Also, I am one of the losers who downloaded In Rainbows for free, loved it, and never gave Radiohead a dime. I feel terrible for doing it, but I've been in a sort of financial tailspin over the last couple of years (I worked for Sensory Sweep, yay!), and paying for music I acquired legally has been pretty low on my priority list. But I should point out that bit of hypocrisy on my point just to be fair.