Obama Sides With RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Music Track

[ArchieStone1]

Source: Wired Magazine

The Obama administration for the first time is weighing in on a Recording Industry Association of America file sharing lawsuit and is supporting hefty awards of as much as $150,000 per purloined music track.

The government said the damages range of $750 to $150,000 per violation of the Copyright Act was warranted.

"The remedy of statutory damages for copyright infringement has been the cornerstone of our federal copyright law since 1790, and Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation of the statutory damages provision," Michelle Bennett, a Department of Justice trial attorney wrote (.pdf) Sunday to a Massachusetts federal judge weighing challenge to the Copyright Act.

The position -- that the Copyright Act's monetary damages are not unconstitutionally excessive -- mirrors the one taken by the Bush administration and should come as no surprise.

Read more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-sides-wit.html

[ixion]

1. RIAA is crap. I'm sorry to see Obama supporting it.

:(

[Captain Hilts]

3. He's been 'for' this all along. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Biden has been in the RIAA/MPAA pocket for years as well

Unfortunate but foreseeable.

[depakid]

19. Agreed. I expect very little from the Obama adminstration on this front

even though I suspect he and others are well aware of intellectual property law abuses, they won't cross their corporate supporters in this or any other areas- such as biotech patent abuses.

[Captain Hilts]

46. I actually generally support the policy but not this enforcement. nt

[NashVegas]

48. RIAA Is Cutting Back On Suits, Is The Irony

As more people challenge their suits, the legal costs add up in a big way.

[Sivafae]

164. Well if you consider that a lot of artists are refusing to renew their contracts

and are going their own way, the record companies are losing a lot of $$$. They just don't have the revenue.

[stlsaxman]

120. Unfortunate but foreseeable that musicians need to eat, too,

[Donnachaidh]

138. yeah BUT -- do the musicians even see a large portion of those *damages*

Or does the majority of it wind up in the pockets of the *suits* at RIAA?

[Bake]

146. Bingo! The musicians AREN'T getting their share.

The RIAA is screwing them over just like they are screwing the public.

Bake

[ProgressiveProfessor]

147. That is why a new distribution model is needed. The current structure stinks worse than AIG

[nc4bo]

148. and has stunk for a very long time. RIAA wants to be rewarded

for NOT modernizing its business models with the technology. Digital formats, quality material and transferability is what people want and would be happy to pay for.

The boat sailed and the labels and RIAA missed it. Now it wants to punish people for WANTING new technology, better quality material (one good song on a 18 song cd sucks as does paying $15-20 for that one good song) and a wider range of music selection.

JMHO - Bad decision from this administration.

[mistertrickster]

187. Totally agree--Digital playback technology was available as early as

the early '70s, but we had to wait until the PC revolution in the late 90's to get digitized music.

Hundreds of millions of people were denied distortion-free music so that RIAA could make billions milking outdated technology.

RIAA kept its finger in the dike for so long that the computing flood just overwhelmed them.

[indepat]

26. Clear violation of the Constitution imv: that such monetary punishment does not fit the crime

in the typical instance is prima facia. Instead, give compensatory damages and treble the amount in damages a la RICO. See, that was easy. :P

[DS1]

2. RSA-encrypted torrents in 4, 3, 2...

:eyes:

[Pavulon]

67. yeppers

untraceable content. end to end.

[ACTION BASTARD]

171. Wait till this hits on a piratebay/old school Napster scale

Then it will be game over for riaa scum.

[ArchieStone1]

4. I'm with Obama on this one

As much as I'd love to have these songs for free, people worked hard for their creation and deserve a profit for their talent.

[skipos]

8. Thanks for considering the artists.

Not many people around here do that.

[harmonicon]

13. give me a break

Musicians aren't pushing for this, corporate executives are.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. I know a fairly major musician,

His entire band has received less than $1700 in royalties for online sales, contract expires next year and their label, Universal, is trying to squeeze them even harder on the CD side of things and will barely give an inch on online sales. Universal claims their online sales just aren't that profitable and there is nothing more to give!

[Deja Q]

31. Holy shit.

:(

The Internet is the future. And as much as, for personal use, I've no qualms re: DRM, as somebody who makes intellectual property too, I do support DRM and want to stop its stealing.

Except I'm for the artist. Not the dirty label that's arguably stealing too.

[ejpoeta]

124. that's the problem. nobody wants to screw the artists. but the record companies

use them as some kind of shield when they seem to be screwing the artists. they want their money. they don't care about the artists or anyone else.

[NashVegas]

50. Eminem Just Lost a Lawsuit

Apparently artists who signed before the era of iTunes are there for the dicking, as far as the courts are concerned.

This month, artists have been testifying up on Capitol Hill, at the RIAA's bequest, about how radio should be forced to pay performance royalties, like the ones that were rammed through DC to make webcasters pay through the nose.

No one ever said musicians were the sharpest tools in the shed; what the testifiers don't realize is that making radio cough up more money (to make up for what the labels and/or bandleaders should but AREN'T) is only going to help the Madonnas of the world and kill what little diversity is left on the airwaves.

[sofa king]

188. I don't know a single musician who expects to make real money off of sales.

They all focus on drawing people to the shows they play. Music distribution, rather than sales, is what makes their money, and free distribution spreads the farthest. Most of the musicians I know have stories of how someone's spectacular first album is sitting in a vault somewhere where it will never be heard, because the label deigns not to distribute it.

Furthermore, with the improvement of recording equipment and editing capabilities quickly moving over to the PC, the record labels are facing a day when they really don't have much left to do with the musicians themselves, and only control an aging library of songs distributed in shitty MP3 format. A FLAC soundboard recording of a live show, on the other hand, is usually free and sounds much, much better.

So let those gangsters control their little fiefdom, and watch them be passed by completely as fans move on to better things.

Support your local musicians by actually going to see them. It's fun.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

195. these guys have no shortage of money from CD sales

But in light of their treatment by Universal when it comes to online sales, they really don't care if people download singles for free. And even if somebody buys their ENTIRE record online it is still treated as the sale of a dozen singles for royalties purposes.

Their beef is rather than spreading the windfall from online sales around, for which there is basically zero non-promotional overhead the record companies are crying poverty on online sales and trying to put them other another contract that will see them make virtually nothing from online music sales and significantly less from CD sales.

Their next project isn't a record at all, they want to setup a large independent concert promoter that will focus on smaller, better quality venues (concert halls instead of hockey arenas) and forego the stupid and expensive aircraft carrier stages, laser light shows and fireworks.

[ikojo]

22. AMEN!! The Grateful Dead gave away their music

via allowing taping of concerts that were freely traded, for decades. I don't think they're lining up for food stamps. Musicians make money on merchandise and touring.

I think the RIAA is admitting that most of today's acts SUCK so they have to squeeze very last penny from their customer in order to make it.

[Deja Q]

41. That makes a perverse sort of sense... Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glaPiyo09EU

There's about as much creativity there as there is a skunk being ran over by a SUV... then listen to her idiot comment 30 seconds in.

Glad you said "acts". "artists" are increasingly rare...

[bperci108]

74. Same with Lefty Cheerleader / Singer-songwriter David Rovics.

All his albums are free on his site. But folks still happily pay him for his stuff. (People are basically decent and will do the right thing, but be dicks about it like Metallica? Fuck them; I hope their shitty music goes viral and they lose millions...)

Precisely why I support direct artist-to-listener music.

www.davidrovics.com

I never would've heard him or even OF him in the normal channels. His tunes got me through some dark days in the pit of Bush-rule.

[stlsaxman]

122. that's right- music isn't worth the plastic it's printed on, The Dead RUINED it for the rest of us..

that don't draw 200 thousand people to a gig @ 50 bucks a pop.

Why should i pay for it? It's only music?!?!

[harmonicon]

139. I don't think a grateful dead concert was ever $50

Their ticket prices were also reasonable.

Don't you make more money from gigs than record sales? At least a few years ago when I was playing pop music, independent musicians sold more cds at gigs than just having them sit in shops. With the exception of free gigs, which I've also played, I've always gotten more money from a single ticket or cover charge than from a cd sale, and the people at that gig are far more likely to buy a cd and maybe a t-shirt than someone who doesn't go to the gig. I'm sure I've sold more tickets to my shows and more cds because of people sharing my music via mp3 than I would have without. This whole thing just makes me think of the "shock! horror! tapes!" b.s. scare of decades ago. Did tape recorders ruin music?

[stlsaxman]

183. The last band i was in produced an album of music (cd's are an album). we were/are proud of it.

I produced 13 tracks and we had 100 printed discs. Four of us got 5 each to use as we willed. We sold some at $10 and used the other last 20 in promotional packages... we sold some on CD Baby and even paid a little more to have it available on iTunes, Rhapsody and Napster and other online d/l services. I think i received about 35 bucks from downloads.

Remember, we are all veteran musicians and didn't delude ourselves with any grandiose dreams of fame and fortune. We got our music out there, and it paid for itself. That's all we wanted. Something to sell at gigs or give away as calling cards. That's all music is really about these days. If one single other person "gets it"... we've done our jobs.

The bars are now asking bands to pay for tickets so they either sell them or comp them but the clubs don't give a flying fuck about the music anymore...

Don't get me wrong- i LOVE the D.I.Y. aspect of this new era of the music business. Pardon me for sounding jaded. I've been living the dream for so long i've lost count of the times i've been shaken awake. I'm just blessed that i have music in my life.

But, i wouldn't have it any other way...

[skipos]

24. Yeah, musicians don't want to get royalties for their songs,

they want you to have them for free. That's why they sign record deals and publishing deals, so you can get free songs. :eyes: Don't worry, you will still be able to steal songs and ensure that the corporate executives, producers, songwriters and artists don't get any money. Anyway, I'd love to continue this discussion, but I need to go to Sears and steal myself a sweater. Only corporate executives will be harmed by that, and it is only $15, so no big deal.

[wuushew]

The sweater analogy is very bad for obvious reasons

Mankind had thousands of years of happy existence before the artifical creation of intellectual property. I guess it was a living hell.

[harmonicon]

35. And how many albums have you released? How much do you get from downloads?

I've released a few, and I could give a damn if people get them for free. I've only ever signed record deals for exposure, not for money. Do you know how little money musicians get from online sales of their music compared to the record company? There is no product there. It's only information. I don't want people to steal my cds, but I'm happy if they play them for friends. What is the record company selling when they sell a download? They don't own the bandwidth being used. They should receive nothing from a download - not one fucking cent.

[Two Americas]

83. hear hear

Musician here, 18 albums.

It is the record companies ripping everyone off, not the fans. The fans are generous and fair - always. I want their lives to be made as easy as possible.

[Djinn]

203. also the "try before you buy" thing

Albums cost a stupid amount of money in Australia, less than $1 per $30 CD goes to the artist, which even when the line was "but the record companies pay for their manufacture" seemed ridiculous to me. Certainly now it's obscene.

I've bought hundreds more CD's since downloading came in, mostly because I don't want to fork out $30 if I only like one or two songs. Trying for free makes me go out and BUY the CD.

I generally prefer smaller indie bands and can often download from their own website and pay them directly - no record company in sight. Long live the download I say.

[Captain Hilts]

47. I don't mind paying for creative content. It's like voting for someone you like. nt

[NYC Liberal]

64. Except that artists don't see any of this money that the RIAA settles for.

So you're wrong.

"ensure that the corporate executives, producers, songwriters and artists don't get any money" -- you are already doing that by supporting the antiquated model of the RIAA, which is fast dying.

iTunes proved that internet distribution works. Now we just need to cut out the middleman (RIAA et. al.) and let the ARTISTS take the benefits.

[riverdeep]

157. Steve Albini did an article years ago doing the actual math.

Here is a budget that was for a typical band from that era (1994) This is the last section for the take-home:



The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html

Read the entire article, it's pretty good. Point being, millionaire rock stars have always existed, but the typical musician was getting screwed.

edit: deleted all but the last section, rest was unneeded for point

[spoony]

92. When you steal a sweater, it's gone and must be replaced

When you "steal" a song it is still there. There are good arguments to be made on both sides, but that isn't one of them.

[slay]

109. Excellent point

:)

[progdonkey]

126. are you a musician?

I'm a musician, and I would love anything and everything I record to reach every single possible listener as easily as possible, because the more who hear it, the more who will then want to see me PERFORM LIVE. Tracks are advertisements for shows. And artists signed record and publishing deals because that was the only way to get an album made and out on the radio, which was the only "professional" way to advertise! Bands have always wanted fans to record their shows and pass the tapes around, because it's free advertising--they'll no longer need the record company and its connections to radio. Now, with the internet, the old record company model is even more obsolete, which is why the companies are being so draconian--new artists no longer really need them, while they absolutely need new artists.

500 people in a geographical area got your track for free and like it enough to come see you perform in town, you charge them just $5 for a ticket and that's $2500 income from ticket sales alone. At the venue you can also have CDs/merchandise, etc. Of course, that's not net, so each musician's take for the night is going to be much less, but I'd rather get $2 from a newly-minted life-long fan than $.75 from someone who's just curious--and that's assuming I'm getting 100% of the download price!

Your sweater analogy is actually quite good... at destroying your argument. Assuming it's, like most, a shirt made by a person in Indonesia making 2c a shirt, then stealing that $15 sweater really DOES only hurt the executives who are exploiting the others' labor. But other than that, that you would analogize a physical piece of merchandise with a music track shows just how little you know about the subject.

Do you think that, when you pay $15 for a CD at Best Buy (or for a sweater at Sears), that even half of that is ending up in the artist's pocket? Do you know anything about this issue, other than "Ah, it's STEALING!!!"?

[riverdeep]

158. This concept of the tracks as just being an advertisement

for the 'real' product, the live show, is one I've heard before. It's an interesting take, but I would say it doesn't apply to some bands that absolutely do see the tracks as their art. The Beatles are the most famous example. They stopped playing live and took the studio to unheard of levels. Steely Dan was another band that were really more of a studio entity.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

85. Agree with the post above

Recording artists by and large aren't pushing for this at all. Which I am one and my music is on file sharing sites, so you would assume I am for this. But really only the corporations are taking the hit on file sharing, unless in a few instances like in the case of Metallica vs. Napster when you have an artist that moves insane amount of product they tend to see the millions they are making taken down a peg or two. But overall this is a corporate money grab only out to punish the very people who buy their product. Public relations wise this is a disaster and has been since Metallica vs. Napster, the corporate record companies dont get it and probably never will. This benefits no one except the corporations and the ones at the very very top. Obama is way off on this and I am chalking it up either he himself being in bed with these corporations or ignorance, either way it isn't good for him to come out in favor of this.

[harmonicon]

12. how many albums do you have available for download on itunes or anywhere else?

I have some. I could care less if people "steal" them. Fuck, I've never seen a single cent from an itunes sale. This has nothing to do with the artists, but the corporate pigs who steal from them. Musicians get money, mostly, from gigging and radio play. Record sales account for very little income that musicians receive, and download sales account for almost none at all (when tied to a major record label).

[Deja Q]

37. Well said!!

:yourock:

[Incitatus]

70. Since they don't get squat for CD sales, anyway, online downloading

can only increase their popularity, making more people go to their concerts and request radio play. IIRC, most bands get about a dollar for every CD sold.

I wish more bands would go independent and just put their music on their own websites for download. Radio Head did this and did very well by just asking for donations. If they are any good, they will eventually get the attention and popularity they deserve without a major record label taking a majority of profits from the band.

[riverdeep]

159. I thought Radiohead only released a low quality version their songs?

I'm not a Radiohead fan so I don't know.

[and-justice-for-all]

178. Exactly..They might get $0.5 per cd sold...

the money is in the shows, something that can never be downloaded. There is something to be said for attending a show and buying some merch.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

89. I am with you on this

My music is avaliable on file sharing sites and while I have gotten a check from itunes and emusic it is a joke what the amounts are for. I make money on touring and radio play like any other band that isnt Britney Spears or Rhianna. This benefits the corporate record labels and honestly the backlash we saw a few years ago with the Metallica vs. Napster debacle only hurts them in the long run anyway. Corporate record labels and the RIAA are so out of step with what is going on with this new medium of file sharing it is laughable and that is why labels like Sony are nearly bankrupt. It isnt the mean old consumer stealing music from them it is the way these corporate labels have reacted to it.

[percussivemadness]

172. why do Americans say "I could care less"

because that means you care more...

[dana_b]

179. don't know. I think it's supposed to be

I couldn't care less.

[totodeinhere]

14. But the problem is that the artists will get little or nothing out of this.

Sound Exchange sucks up most of the money that they get from royalty payments. This isn't about the artists. It's about the greedy record companies.

[fedupinBushcountry]

63. John Mellencamp on the Music Business

On My Mind: The State of the Music Business
John Mellankamp

Over the last few years, we have all witnessed the decline of the music business, highlighted by finger-pointing and blame directed against record companies, artists, internet file sharing and any other theories for which a case could be made. We've read and heard about the "good old days" and how things used to be. People remember when music existed as an art that motivated social movements. Artists and their music flourished in back alleys, taverns and barns until, in some cases, a popular groundswell propelled it far and wide. These days, that possibility no longer seems to exist. After 35 years as an artist in the recording business, I feel somehow compelled, not inspired, to stand up for our fellow artists and tell that side of the story as I perceive it. Had the industry not been decimated by a lack of vision caused by corporate bean counters obsessed with the bottom line, musicians would have been able to stick with creating music rather than trying to market it as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mellencamp/on-my-mind-the-state-of-t_b_177836.html">more

[FiveGoodMen]

153. Most of the money goes to the record company

Not the artist.

[Realityhack]

204. I don't think that is what is at issue at all.

Many people agree that the artists and even the record companies deserve to be paid. And that it is illegal to pirate music. And that those who do pirate music should be punished.

What is at issue is wither the fines for violation are excessive.

Let's say your child downloads a couple of albums illegally. That is a crime and he/she should be punished. As their legal guardian you would be responsible for damages etc. Assume 10 tracks per album at about $1 per track.

Obviously we all know you owe the companies $20 for the stolen tracks. And some money for legal fees and some punitive damages to prevent you from just going ahead and doing it hoping not to get caught.

The question is... what is a reasonable amount for all that other stuff.

Using the current numbers you would be responsible for between $15,000 and $300,000 just for those 20 tracks.

If a judge tried to give punitive damages like that to someone shoplifting two CDs I doubt it would hold up. They would rule it as excessive. Can you see a judge saying someone who shoplifted two CDs from walmart owed walmart $300,000 in damages?

I am not saying people should not be punished for breaking the law, but there is a legitimate question as to wither these judgments are reasonable. And keep in mind my example is just a couple of CDs with a MINIMUM of $15,000.

[NWHarkness]

5. $150,000 fine

for a product that sells for 99 cents.

Thank god these asshole record companies are heading toward extinct.

[960]

53. Amen to that! How ridiculous is this???

A $500 fine would be sufficient even if they feel like being nazis.

[Ms. Toad]

95. The fine isn't just for the one download.

It is for all the subsequent distribution of that download. Each person who gets it from you creates and additional fine.

The RIAA suits I've seen (and I have seen a couple) have targeted people who download multiple songs, then place them on file sharing sites so the each of the songs is distributed (in many instances) to hundreds or thousands of other people. RIAA walks in with pages and pages documenting when and to whom (by user name) each song has been downloaded and re-distributed. I have yet to see them (or read of them) going after someone who was downloading for personal use and not redistributing. Compared to the fines sought in court, the initial requests are not all that outrageous - usually no more than a few thousand dollars. The big bucks are imposed by the court when the individual who was caught doesn't agree to a settlement.

Artists are free to record and distribute music outside of RIAA - but if they choose to go through RIAA, they are entitled to have their rights enforced by RIAA (even if they do only get a pittance in money, enforcement of their rights is one of those things they do get).

[Occulus]

108. They're targeting torrents and filesharing in general

Clarification: the following applies to using bittorrent client software and other filesharing software. It does not apply to websites you upload to for other users to type in a web address- that's just a blatantly obvious way to go about it, and such websites are usually shut down rather quickly for that reason.

I don't know if you're aware of the technical side of the process, so I'll explain it in brief- when you download these files, you simultaneously upload fragments of the file to other users. Theoretically, downloading a .mp3 of Madonna's "Ray of Light", for instance, can net you a $150,000 fine per user connected to you as you both download and upload the file.

So, really, we're actually talking about the potential for over a million dollars damages per instance, by the time you count each instance (user who downloaded from you as you downloaded from someone else). I'm not certain you can control how many people connect to you to download from you at once. I'm sure it depends on the software you're using and the bandwidth available, though.

This is, theoretically, worth well over a dozen individual $150,000 fines. 'Naziesque' doesn't go far enough.

These services exist as 'data clouds'. Anyone connecting into the cloud can download anything provided by the cloud, but the process works in both directions, in real time.

[Ms. Toad]

135. The cases I've seen (and the supporting evidence)

have been for traditional download and subsequently making it available for upload. The last one I looked at was a couple of years ago (and the fines demanded were still in this same ballpark).

They may well have changed their targets and fine strategy to target people who are now using different technology that makes it harder to track (deliberately, in many cases) but results in (at least theoretically) more individual copyright violations to share a single piece of music.

If the targeted individual could prove how many users received a copy of his/her complete Madonna's "Ray of Light" was downloaded, it would make an interesting legal argument to counter the argument that the splitting of the file into fragments creating hundreds of copyright infringements as each fragment was downloaded or uploaded by establishing that the process only resulted in a dozen complete copies being made. I wouldn't want to pay for that defense - particularly since the evidence gathering would be pretty pricey (and might require the cooperation of people who don't want to be targeted). The mechanism of making a reproduction shouldn't increase the number of reproductions made. But if they can only prove how many fragments were uploaded or downloaded - and you can't limit that by proving that the mechanism created only a handful of complete copies - the cost of using evasion technology (which is what it is when used for this purpose) may have dramatically increased the price aid for getting caught.

[Sivafae]

165. Thank you for clarifying that point. However, it doesn't stop it from being free exposure.

The record company doesn't have to pay a dime for Johnny to download a song, dig it and then go out and buy the whole back catalog from a source that has the music in pristine condition and without viruses.

[Ms. Toad]

173. But it is up to the artist (or RIAA as the artists' agent)

to decide if they want to take advantage of that free exposure.

I'm all in favor of artists deciding to take advantage of free exposure as a marketing tool, by making part of all of their music available on whatever terms they choose - free, reduced cost, copies that "vanish" after a limited window. But it needs to be their choice - not one that is made for them by people who take it upon themselves to copy and make available someone else's music.

The problem with unauthorized file sharing is that it isn't the artists' choice to use this particular free exposure to market their products. I'd be pretty unhappy if my photography work showed up in a right to life publication and someone told me I should be happy about it because it was free exposure. (Given some of the work I do involves retouching images of 14-25 week preemies, it is not unreasonable to assume that it someday might end up there.) It's still free exposure - but it is free exposure I might have paid to avoid.

The point is that as an artist, I get to decide who gets to copy and distribute my work. If I were a recording artist, I could do that directly - and about 15% of recording artists do - or I could choose to let RIAA handle it on my behalf.

I may not agree with all of RIAA's tactics (and I think extorting money by suing parents for their child's activities - even after the child has admitted the file sharing RIAA has obtained a default judgment against that child - is beyond the pale: http://www.eff.org/cases/capitol-v-foster ).

BUT as to the general principle that artists (or their designees) have a right to control the reproduction and distribution of their work, I agree with RIAA. I don't even have that much problem with RIAA seeking to impose very large fines on the people who are deliberately engaging in filesharing without the consent of the artist (or their designee) in a manner that makes it harder to be caught (and thus more costly). (On the other hand, if I were counsel for a target inclined to fight RIAA, though, I would certainly make the argument I outlined above - only XX actual copies were distributed - just because the file was broken into XXXX pieces in order to accomplish the distribution of XX files doesn't make the target liable for XXXX separate infringing reproductive acts - probably using the analogy that just because in the process of copying an mp3 file the computer splits it into bunches of pieces and parts which it stores in non-contiguous locations on your hard drive doesn't change its essential nature that it is one reproduction.)

[MilesColtrane]

186. You know what they say, you can die from exposure.

[MichaelHarris]

6. My guess is

if you don't steal you don't have to worry about it.

[Dappleganger]

18. That is pure bullshit!

You tell us how you are going to defend your innnocent little ass if you have NOTHING in your bank account???

Don't ASSume anything--the RIAA goes after whomever they choose and don't give a damn about the innocent!

[MichaelHarris]

86. I'm innocent and I have

around 2000 songs, paid for every one of them. I have nothing to fear but fear itself.

[Realityhack]

205. The fact that no innocent person has ever been tried for something they didn't do relieves me.

Or it would if it were true.

[Deja Q]

36. The record companies engage in practices that could arguably be called 'stealing' too.

That argument's been presented by others in this thread.

Both sides need to be ethical, as do customers.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

56. ding!

Thank you!!

I'm so tired of the "lecture" I get every time I watch a DVD (ok, movies in this case, but the principle is the same).

Doesn't matter that they're trying to dress it up in cutesy jokey jokies so ... what, we'll curse at them less? So we'll laugh amicably as they tell us don't take our money or they'll have our ass in a sling??? With all the money they have to pursue a lawsuit in the first place...

[MichaelHarris]

88. I'm not lecturing anyone

I'm saying I pay for all my downloads.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

143. sorry I was unclear

I didn't mean you seemed to be lecturing. I meant I agreed very much with your post.

I was talking about the scolding warnings at the beginning of DVD's.

:hi:

[MichaelHarris]

87. I can't speak for them

but I'm ethical. Does two wrong still not make a right?

[Ms. Toad]

97. Actually, that isn't true.

RIAA often sues people who have stolen nothing - and most of them pay.

RIAA wrings the owner of the internet service from your provider. Often more than one individual uses the service - in our home there are three people, including one teenager. If the teenager downloads and distributes the music, RIAA is going to find me (since the internet service is in my name) and sue me. I can get the case dismissed because I did not personally download and distribute the songs - but during discovery they are going to ask who has access to the service and I am legally obligated to give them that information - so they're going to get to the teenager anyway - so most people just pay.

If you are not protecting access to your wireless service by a password, your neighbor's thefts may get you dinged (and you may not even know it), and it will still cost you a bundle for defense, even though you would likely win that case.

[Xenotime]

141. Good for you. Stealing is wrong.

[Cant trust em]

9. I would have been blown away if he would have supported free file swapping

What does he gain politically from supporting us getting free music?

[depakid]

20. That's not the same as supporting draconian penalties for little guys

through abusive intellectual property laws- while corporate abusers walk away free and laugh all the way to the bank.

[MessiahRp]

23. Well for one he just put a $150,000 bounty on nearly every one of his younger supporters...

What does he gain politically from prosecuting all of the young people that were the lifeblood of his campaign?

Rp

[espiral]

65. re:

What does he care? He already got his...

[MessiahRp]

133. If he wants to be re-elected in 2012, he better care

The people this will go after are the heart and soul of Democratic campaigns. The ones who do the lit drops and phone banking. The ones that do door knocking from house to house and travel to different locations where the help is needed on the drop of a dime.

The young people this will attack are the people that worked the hardest to get him elected. If he loses them, he has a good shot at losing 2012.

Rp

[espiral]

161. exactly

That was my point, that this sort of behavior is rather foolish of him.

[riverdeep]

160. Exactly.

All those hopeful young people with Obama insignias painted on their face? - yep, they download and file share.

[Deja Q]

39. Nothing, and would lose a lot more.

Plus, it's not free. People made the music. Called "intellectual property".

The problem is the greed of the RIAA, especially combined with how little the artists (who do the actual work) make.

They're "too big to fail", the RIAA. No doubt they'll whine and bleat for a bailout too; the underlying problems forgotten about. (like GOOD music; not this pre-manufactured excessive pop garbage.)

Plus, with this economy, they have the nerve to blame everything on "illegal file swapping". Bollocks. People aren't going to pay ridiculous prices for CDs with 11 tracks on them without good reason. Not when each CD is $17, and most DVDs are... $15~$25 and contain a lot more for the money.)

[Cant trust em]

84. I'd buy a lot more CDs if they weren't 17 bucks.

14.99 is fair.

[MichaelHarris]

90. new

cars are like 30,000, they used to be a lot less. You gonna start stealing them also?

[HughBeaumont]

118. (ugh)

[Cant trust em]

149. No, but i'll give it a lot more thought before I buy a car

How much do I really want this car?

Moreover, there a lot of things wrong with this analogy.

[Occulus]

151. Don't know...

Can you make a 1:1 copy of the car in the lot?

No?

Then the analogy doesn't hold true....

[B3Nut]

152. I'd buy a lot more CD's if the sound quality wasn't squashed to hell.

I mostly buy only jazz and classical these days, rock CD's are too damned loud and compressed.

The industry needs to embrace this---> www.turnmeup.org

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Cant trust em]

154. The compression depends on the sound

For example, the new Cream re-masters just suck. It's way too spread out, particularly when listening on headphones. I'll take the original vinyl monos anyday.

[OnyxCollie]

10. The ability to track data transfers

without warrant should come in handy for the Obama administration.:eyes:

And all the King's horses
And all the King's men
Couldn't bring the 4th amendment
Back to life again.

[Lilith Velkor]

11. CHANGE! n/t

[totodeinhere]

15. I am saddened to see the Obama Administration take the same stand that the Bush Administration had.

As indicated by another poster in this thread, this is not change. I did not vote to continue to line the pockets of the big record companies while most artists get nothing but crumbs.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. And the Clinton Administration...this shit all stems from the DMCA

Which Clinton, as you well know, signed.

[Deja Q]

33. The DMCA is a real fuckup.

Lexmark makes toner cartridges for HP but sued, using the DMCA, when HP tried making their cartridge. I suppose I should grow some balls and look it up, but it doesn't take much thought to realize a large corporation will misuse a law for unjust profit. It's hard to like a law when it's being abused more by the side it's not meant to target.

[Sivafae]

166. Sounds like we need Torte reform!

[druidity33]

184. are you making little cakes? nt

[Realityhack]

206. Agreed the DMCA needs to be repealed n/t

[Deja Q]

42. With luck, President Obama will do something about that too. Stealing can happen by either side.

[espiral]

66. re:

Saddened, okay; but are you truly surprised?

[JTFrog]

111. Your a little peach ain't ya? n/t

[espiral]

162. realism ftw n/t

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dappleganger]

16. Fuck the RIAA and their bully tactics!

I'm sorry but the president is WRONG on this issue. RIAA uses their powers to drag innocent people through the court systems, who then in turn pay them for fear of losing everything they own. RIAA has a problem with the truth--the innocent are assumed guilty unless they have enough $$$ to prove themselves innocent.

And anyone who thinks that RIAA is going after people to give more $$ to artists is nothing but a corporate shill! The artists themselves are hardly seeing a dime out of these judgements. All this is about is fucking over people who don't have enough $$ to defend themselves properly and who for the most part have done nothing wrong.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. The justice department is overflowing with RIAA/MPAA/BSA hacks

Hilary Rosen, the anti-christ herself is lobbying on behalf of a number of IP law shitheads looking for Obama appointments,

[msongs]

25. death to song writers and recording artists! long live file stealing...ooops sharing and btw...

next time somebody burgles your house and steals all your stuff dont call the cops cause the burgulars are just sharing eh?

Msongs

[depakid]

30. If you'd read the economic analyses- rather than reacting emotionally

You'd realize that file sharing- sampling music- has actually NOT resulted in losses. Indeed, due to various facotrs, there are often gains for artists and publishers. That's yet another thing that makes this so insane.

[digidigido]

76. Right, and war is peace, sorry my little entitled teen ager who grew up stealing music

The reason there is no economic profitability in the music business is because no one buys cd's when they can steal the music on limewire
and there is an entire generation who came of age with this concept, and it fucked things up for everyone. Yes, read Mellencamps article
on the music biz, he's right too, the whole thing went south because of greed from the corporations who overcharged for a lesser
product, and the passive aggressive backlash of consumers who decided that made it ok to steal

[depakid]

80. Don't take my word for it- read it for yourself

Beats name calling and foot stomping:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=652743">File-Sharing, Sampling, and Music Distribution

"The use of file-sharing technologies, so-called Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks, to copy music files has become common since the arrival of Napster. P2P networks may actually improve the matching between products and buyers - we call this the matching effect.

For a label the downside of P2P networks is that consumers receive a copy which, although it is an imperfect substitute to the original, may reduce their willingness-to-pay for the original - we call this the competition effect.

We show that the matching effect may dominate so that a label's profits are higher with P2P networks than without.

Furthermore, we show that the existence of P2P networks may alter the standard business model: sampling may replace costly marketing and promotion. This may allow labels to increase profits in spite of lower revenues."
----------

Here's another nice empirical paper:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf">The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales

"We find that file sharing has no statistically significant effect on purchases of the average album in our sample....

If we are correct in arguing that downloading has little effect on the production of music, then file sharing probably increases aggregate welfare. Shifts from sales to downloads are simply transfers between firms and consumers.

And while we have argued that file sharing imposes little dynamic cost in terms of future production, it has considerably increased the consumption of recorded music.

....We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales. OLS estimates indicate a positive effect on downloads on sales, though this estimate has a positive bias since popular albums have higher sales and downloads.
------------

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9197/hr4279.pdf">CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Cost to the taxpayers for enforcement: $435 million over the 2009-2013 period

BASIS OF ESTIMATE
For this estimate CBO assumes that the bill would be enacted by the beginning of fiscal year 2009.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $435 million over the 2009-2013 period, subject to the appropriation of the necessary amounts. Those amounts would be used to enhance activities to enforce intellectual property rights by the Executive Office of the President, PTO, and DOJ.


Yep, we as taxpayers should spend $435 million to help the RIAA and MPAA enforce draconian criminal provisions and civil damages that bear no resemblance to the damages suffered.

If there EVEN ARE DAMAGES SUFFERED- a claim that objective research findings show to be dubious AT BEST.

Typically American "cut off nose to spite face" policy brought to you by bought off Republicrats.

[girl gone mad]

82. Your argument is as silly as every past argument the RIAA made...

against things like taping from the radio, taping from CDs or cassettes, swapping mixed tapes, used record and CD stores.

These are all things the RIAA sued over before digital file sharing came along.

They were wrong then and they're still wrong.

Sharing music doesn't hurt the artist. It never has. It helps them gain exposure, which is what most artists crave. The real money has always been in concerts, promotional items and commercial deals.

[digidigido]

91. That is either ignorant or disingenuous. Tape degrades, analog copies are inferior to their masters

Every subsequent copy on analog tape is down a generation and it's quality is significantly infereior. In addition
tape copies were rarely done with artwork and notes. Tape copies required setting things up in real time and
demanded much more effort. These days you can copy the material from a cd in a minute or so and get the
artwork from Itunes and drop it onto your ipod in a heart beat.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics, common sense should prevail in some cases

[depakid]

107. Your argument is now that downloaded MP3's are as high a quality as original CD's?

:rofl:

[DaDeacon]

144. Wow, being that wrong has to take work!

Lookit, I grew up back when tape trading of live shows was cool moreover I loved the early days of digital music as new artist couple be found with in a few seconds by just browsing what other people with music you like were sharing. Sorry to break it to you but the "Golden Age" of music buying never happened! Smaller acts with less (believed) mass market appeal never had a fair shake, and what the record companies could sell without any effort they did. This is not and issue of artist protection but rather an attempt to create a new income source. To be fair the RIAA could look for $10 per track fees and be punitive but no they want $750 - $150000! Why?
Easy they don't care about file sharing they just want a few gold mines to balance out the books! Really do you think they are going for the full file sharing community? Hell no, just a few cases they think they can win and say how much they collected in illegal fees to say "look what we can do to you".
To the higher point what should be done is to allow the free flow of digital music and spend more money with digital radio & webzins. Offer exclusive tracks @ live shows and via paid fan clubs. I mean Hell take a 13 tack album down to 9 tracks openly available and offer more music and content via fan and artist interaction! This guaranties review to the artist and helps the industry track up and coming music movements.

[populistdriven]

185. Abbie Hoffman Would Steal This Post! You Should Too!

Steal This Movie! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5858962939917432628

Steal This Book! http://www.eriswerks.org/steal.html

Steal This Wiki! http://wiki.stealthiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Zhade]

199. Copyright infringement is not the same as theft of physical property.

Don't worry, no one's bootlegging *your* stuff.

[bitchkitty]

28. The more things change.... n/t

[ChromeFoundry]

29. The RIAAs sole purpose is to protect

recording companies and their profits. The RIAA is not an org to protect artist's property or rights.

I am against the mission of the RIAA and feel that major record labels are no longer needed in this digital age. The more artists that self-promote or promote via digital download, the louder you will hear the major record labels bitch and moan about theft. The majority of artists receive very little profit from hard media and digital content because the label consumes it.

To further clarify, I am in no way advocating theft of content.. I just feel that there is a better way for the artists to gain more profit, and the recording labels to gouge the consumers and artists- LESS.

[Deja Q]

34. The artists do the actual work.

Oh, the label is entitled - they are the one that spreads the word, but they do take more than they deserve.

Well, it's legal, but it's not always ethical...

[ChromeFoundry]

49. I just cannot see a $750 - $150K fine per track

when there isn't anything close to that in damages!!!

What pisses me off is all the Tort Reform bills.. but if you lose a leg out of a hospitals negligence... that is only worth $25K???? WTF? Your leg and your life is about equal to a CD compilation of music.

[strategery blunder]

32. Because a 2.25M fine for ripping a 15-track album

isn't cruel and unusual punishment. :sarcasm:

I don't agree with free file sharing but up to $150k per song would bankrupt anyone who ripped even one CD. Waay beyond the pale.

I could support up to 10x actual damages (like between $100-200 per album illegally downloaded) but greedy RIAA executives can go fuck themselves. I'd rather suicide myself then see them get one cent out of me (but I have never downloaded music without paying for it, and even that I very rarely do).

[cadmium]

38. oh no!!! lets not slit our wrists.

[Deja Q]

40. I'd be kinkier if you licked our wrists instead.

[cadmium]

175. ha ha. n/t

[ArcticFox]

43. Hearkening back to 1790, they should limit the term to 14 years

If the government is going to argue that "The remedy of statutory damages for copyright infringement has been the cornerstone of our federal copyright law since 1790," then let's see a return to the original meaning in all respects.

The Constitution granted copyright and patent protection "for limited times." In 1790, the term was 14 years, with another 14 years if the author was still alive.

We learned of copyright in law school as the "Mickey Mouse law." Every time the protection of Mickey Mouse was set to expire, Congress would extend the term.

Now, the term is "70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first." http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/.

One would think that with the instantaneous transmission of information nowadays as compared with 1790, a SHORTER TERM would be called for. The fact that we have just the opposite is completely ridiculous.

Just one more disappointment with Obama I guess.

[harmonicon]

61. great idea

I don't know if it will ever fly.... well, maybe in our lifetime we'll see it come to pass.

I find copyright in general to be a joke, though it does protect against outright fraud in some cases (passing something off as something other than what it is).

I'm a composer, and I don't ever copyright my work. What would the point be? If someone were to copy my work and profit from it, there are methods of legal recourse to that without officially having copy righted something, but I doubt that anyone in my field would ever do that - it just wouldn't be profitable.

I think that people need to go back to distinguishing between physical products and information. If I read a child a story from a book that I own, is the child stealing, because I've provided them with information from that book without making them pay? I really so no difference between listening to an mp3 and listening to the radio. If I really like something, I'll buy the cd/record/whatever. Yeah, some people would rather not have the cd but do want the mp3s - fine. They shouldn't be expected to pay for what they don't want though.

[digidigido]

96. What do you think life expectancy was in 1790?

Data compiled in 1790 by a prominent physician, Dr. Benjamin Rush, indicates that of 100 people born in the city of Philadelphia, more than one-third died before the age of six and only one quarter of the population survived beyond 26. Life expectancy in 1790 for the US population was 34.5 years for males and 36.5 years for females.

[ArcticFox]

168. And the point?

Your point seems to be that, in the majority of cases, a copyright under the 1790 laws would expire after the end of the original 14 year term, because an author would likely be dead by that time.

As to why life expectancy was so short back then, according to your numbers, you had 33% of people living 6 years or less. That's a serious pull to the low end, and I doubt very many 5 year olds sought copyright protection. What was the expectancy of those surviving beyond 18 years?

[Jkid]

44. Easy Solution: Restrict Copyright to 10 years. Decriminalize Non-Profit Copyright Infringement

Fuck the RIAA!
Fuck the MPAA!
Fuck the suits behind the BSA!
And fuck 'em all for the DMCA!

[Deja Q]

45. It's sad; thanks to youtube I bought a lot of CDs...

for I would never blindly buy them at the store.

At times they are wholly clueless; especially when audio quality on a compressed video clip is utter crap. :dunce:

[digidigido]

98. and fuck the artist too, whether you know it or not

[Nihil]

142. That certainly seems to be your approach.

Nothing in this decision is supporting the artist.
Everything is (surprise!) supporting the major corporations.

If you actually looked into it rather than just snaffling the
popular headlines, you would find out how much impact this will
have on musicians below the megastar level - zero.

I realise from your posts that your heart is in the right place
(i.e., wanting to support the people who create the works) but
I'm afraid that your knowledge is incomplete (at best).

:shrug:

[Zodiak]

51. The artists are fighting back

At least the ones in Britain are....they are tired of the record companies destroying their fan base with this evil corporate crap.

http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/index.html

This group of British artists are joining together to say they created the music and should have the final say in whether they allow downloads, or covers, or whatever. And guess what? These artists do NOT want record companies to sue "illegal" downloaders....they embrace these technologies instead.

So the big argument that protecting musicians is the reason for these lawsuits does not hold water. The musicians are getting pissed. How would you like to have your name dragged through the mud so your corporate sponsor can squeeze a few more bucks out of your fans?

Lars Ulrich's reputation is mud amongst metal fans nowadays precisely because he turned against his ardent supporters. No one else wants to be "that guy".

[gtar100]

You said it - that's the key to survival in the music business these days - embrace the technology

It's definitely shaken things up and the pigs are squealing the loudest (with apologies to the animal variety). Open source software has very much influenced the landscape of software. The openness of music on the Internet has changed the face of the industry. Those who can work with the change will survive - and many do so quite well. Those who fight the change will be disgruntled -- and they are.

What has been made possible through download technology has broken holes in a system we set up years ago. It's the thrust of technology - openness, sharing. It's shifted the whole paradigm and called into question the very roots of capitalism. What the capitalists are losing is the easy kill, the money-for-nothing bankroll. What the world is gaining is more modesty and heart in those who have something worth sharing. They may not become über-rich, like the Stones and other past rock-and-roll icons, but the path for a meaningful life through music is still there. The greed must die.


(All hail to the savior of the modern world - Richard Stallman). :)

[ejpoeta]

127. the people at the top of the business seem to be against any music sharing

while those just trying to make a name for themselves want their music out there. i have bought albums because i have heard the music online. I am more than happy to buy music. the problem is that I can't put it on my non ipod mp3 player. if I buy music, i should be able to do what i want with it. and yes there are other places to buy digital tracks, but most of them don't seem to have all the music i am looking for. so then there is itunes.... so i can listen to the music on my computer. sure, i'll pay for music.... but i want to use it where i want to use it. not on one of the accepted devices. if places like itunes are going to make it so i cannot use the music without itunes, then they should make itunes accessable to MY mp3 player.

[NashVegas]

189. It's Mostly the Legal Department

People in the lower levels of the promotions department LOVE file sharing because they know a hotly traded file means people care and it's going to translate into album sales. The VPs don't like it so much because if they budget $1 million to promote song A - by artist 1 who was signed for $30 million - getting it played on the radio and in movie soundtracks, and it flops it while song B - by artist 2 who is only in a development deal - spreads like wildfire online, they're going to have a lot to answer for.

[caseycoon]

52. YUCK! K&R n/t

[960]

54. Where's Frenchiecat telling us why this is the right thing to do?

[Lilith Velkor]

73. Wait for it.

[QC]

77. She's busy shutting down discussion in GD: P right now.

Once she has bullied everyone into silence over there she'll probably make it over here.

[Marrah_G]

190. She can't bully anyone smart enough to ignore her existence!

[JohnnyLib2]

134. Uh-oh

:scared:

[antimatter98]

55. Obama = BushCo folks. More of the same. n/t

[trthnd4jstc]

57. As a small business owner, I hate seeing people stealing content. It takes a lot of money and time

to create value, and the artists and producers have a right to be able to license and sell their work, as well as receive damages whenever their work is stolen.

[harmonicon]

62. what is being stolen? information? bits and bytes?

Can one really steal information? If I read some copyrighted material to you that I've bought, have I just instigated a crime? If you remember it and repeat it to someone else, are you and they both stealing?

[madrchsod]

58. obama used the internet to his advantage

and now he intends to restrict the amount of content we are able to download or file share. he`s decided to restrict public documents from the public and between conyers ,finstein,and obama public documents will be granted on a need to know basis.

riaa gives the artist and writer pennies on the huge amount of money they collect.

[Honeycombe8]

59. What's wrong w/the admin. taking the side of the law? It's copyright infringement, right?

The administration would logically be in favor of supporting our laws, wouldn't it?

????

[GoesTo11]

60. What, no prison time?

No death penalty?

[ozu]

68. Shocking

And by that I mean not at all shocking considering the DoJ is staffed by ex-RIAA litigators.

[OwnedByFerrets]

69. Oh YES!!! This is sooooooooooooo much more important

than investigating war crimes against humanity.:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Zhade]

200. HEAR HEAR!

NT!

[winyanstaz]

71. so its a bigger crime to steal a song than to rape a kid?

You don't see pedophiles being fined this much or paying such a hefty price when they steal a child's life. No ,.they get a maybe 20 months and then they get to go home.
I am just saying...this sure doesn't fit the crime.
And as a Band member that got ripped off by a large number of people such as Yahoo giving away our songs for years for free. (Because the record company that signed us had it in very very small print that they could do what they wanted with our music for "advertisement purposes")..we got ripped off big time...but I don't see any fines for record companies that don't pay their artists.
Again, its the little guy that will get the hammer.

[Psephos]

72. Corporatism is NOT what I voted for. n/t

[ForrestGump]

193. Well, it is what *I* voted for.

But only because I didn't have a choice and the only consistent outcome of the election would have been that one corporatist or another would have gained power.

No, I'm not saying that Obama is bad or is going to do a bad job, but I was never thrilled about the choices we were presented. So none of this kind of thing is at all surprising. I just hope that, on balance, his administration maximizes the good and at least makes it less obvious than before that this is really the United Corporations of America.

[Ed76638]

75. ASS!!!!!

[evilkumquat]

78. Yeah, Courtney Love Sucks, But...

...she made a damned-fine speech detailing just how crooked, corrupt and greedy the recording industry is and why, in general, digital piracy really doesn't hurt the artists themselves.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

[mvd]

102. Doesn't suck IMO (ok, maybe personally - but personally only)

Nice feature she did.

[caseymoz]

79. I want artists to get paid and consumers to be served, and $750 per 99 cent song is too much.

Is that overcharge supposed to be about the principle of the thing, or is it supposed to terrorize people? If you go to a store and steal a $5 worth of merchandise (about 5 songs at 99 cents) is a fine of between $3750 and $750,000 in any way just? No. In fact, it's so unjust, and so biased toward the wealthy that it deserves protests. Like the war on drugs, if you protest it directly by any normal political methods, it could put your name on a list of people to check for illegal downloads. Now that is chilling. Worse, if you try to pay the artist directly through their website after a torrent download, that in itself could be construed as probable, and get you searched for illegal downloads.

There is another way the government could catch people: by the same surveillance program that's supposed to be saving us from terrorists. It makes the government a dictatorship favoring the RIAA.

I'm torn though. I want musicians to get paid. I want the creative people to see money for what they make. Would paying them through the Internet generate enough revenue? It's not just music I'm worried about here. It's movies, TV shows, software, news stories and writing. Hollywood is now damn worried about what's happening with downloads, and they should be.

Now, if we could totally take the RIAA out of the picture, maybe creative people can have their websites, and before or after their product recordings, movies, or written pages they could actually "self-advertise" (I mean why not? For years other "free content" was paid for by advertising). You'd have to wonder how to put small payments on your ATM card, but it should be possible.

Let's say if they want a bigger production, they release the "acoustic track" or demo first and just ask people for money to put more production value in it? Or maybe the fans could do it and present it to the artist for approval? (That would turn the creative process on its head, but people are already doing mostly the same things.)

Meanwhile, the big movies would probably become extinct, once the price of the first run goes from $10 to $2 per view.

I don't know if any of this would work. If people will pay for things they already own. I hope it does. One thing for sure, once any product becomes digitized, it's practically free for the whole world. The person who created it then has to depend on "the kindness of strangers" to get paid. Musicians might be doing better than they are now, since they receive such a small percentage of the sales for their work.

The point of the Internet was swift, free exchange of information. Nobody knew how broad a meaning "information" could have.

[sakabatou]

81. Looks like tons of user are fucked

[dave_p]

93. Fuck copyright. Rip everything

Shameful, from an Administration I greatly admire. This orgy of filthy corporate greed has utterly discredited copyright, which most of us would otherwise respect (reassonable fees, creator benefits, 30-year limit). To hell with it all. I salute the pirates.

[digidigido]

99. Just what is it YOU do for a living? How would you like it if I said I don't think I'll pay you for

it

[slay]

94. Boycott ALL musicians who side with the RIAA!!!

This kind of bullshit leads to being monitored by the state - will have a chilling effect on people willing to speak the truth because of it - and is illegal in that the punishment does not fit the crime - $150,000 for ONE FUCKING SONG?!?! Give me a break you capitalist fuckheads!!!

[digidigido]

100. Oh Grow Up

Boycott people who value their work enough to want to be compensated for it... great idea ....NOT

[slay]

105. Dude - if you like it, you'll buy it cause you want to support the artist - NOT cause

the govenment makes you. Wow. Your thinking on this is 100% wrong - siding with the corporate scumbags. Maybe you enjoy punishment. "SMACK! Thank you master may I have another?" But whatever - free country.. at least for now. :eyes:

[merwin]

130. If you want to support the artist, go to their concerts. Artists make next to nothing

and usually lose money on CD sales. The only people profiting from those are the record companies.

[slay]

136. Excellent point merwin

I meant to include that in my post as well. :)

[totodeinhere]

194. It's not a case of valuing their work or not. The fact is that artists are not being failry...

compensated by Sound Exchange. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense for an artist who wants to be fairly compensated to support the RIAA because the RIAA only looks out for corporate interests and doesn't really care about the artists who produce the music.

[mvd]

101. They've got to realize the RIAA is often no more their friend than the downloaders

:thumbsup:

[slay]

106. Indeed

Like I said in post #105 - If you like the musician you will buy it - pay for it - to support the artist because you want to hear more - not because we allow the government to scare the shit out of people - that the govenment will put them in jail for sharing music. Unfuckingreal. Support the artists but NEVER the corporate scum like the RIAA!

[mvd]

163. Yes, I ALWAYS pay for music

And I've spent thousands on my collection. If I would download, I would pay for it if I like it and delete it from my computer if I don't like it. Also, I try to seek out indie/independent artists to support.

[pop goes the weasel]

103. fine, then

Before the advent of sound recording, if you wanted to hear music, you had to go listen to a musician play live. Sound recording put musicians out of work, since a band could be replaced by a record player. And now the recording industry, which was never a friend to musicians, is finding themselves the ones who are increasingly unnecessary, since musicians are increasingly going directly to fans again. Massive fines against people who freely trade mp3s will only drive the trend faster.

Then there is the issue of what is being traded. I have downloaded ripped music that is unavailable to me in the US or difficult to get. It's stuff I never would have heard if it wasn't for "illegal" downloading. And people elsewhere in the world do the same with music from the US. We're not evil pirates out to sink the artists. We would buy the artists' works if they were both available and affordable. I would certainly pay extra if I could get quality translations of song lyrics instead of what my ripping friends manage to conjure up. We just don't like having our music availability limited for us by corporations and governments that decide what nations can have access to what art, and in what quantities, and at what cost. And then, just imagine--more musicians known in more places, playing to new audiences, bridging gaps between cultures and nations. Art should flow freely across borders.

Then there is the comparison with crafts and graphic arts. Go to any site on the internet and you will find graphics. These graphics are easily ripped. It is so easy that very few visual artists make any strong attempt to maintain control over the images that they create, unless those images are used for profit or someone else tries to claim creative ownership. Craft patterns are easily duplicated by those who know what they are doing. And the upshot for visual artists as well as for crafters of all sorts is that they actually have more people buying from them than they would have before if the only place they had to display their work was a local coffee house. I know crafters and artists who have been pretty hard up trying to sell in their local communities but are now selling their work internationally. So someone else steals their images or ideas? A lot of good those images and ideas would do anyone if they had never been seen at all. And what if the government decided to start going after everyone who downloaded an image to use on the desktop or as a screensaver, or just to share with friends? All the people who are so high and mighty about never having illegally downloaded music--have you sought out and paid the artist who created that last cute picture you just had to share with everyone on your mailing list? What? No? Why not? Would it be OK if the DRM approach was applied to your image files? How about to your church craft sale?

[jeff30997]

110. I wanted to say: screw the RIAA...

But you said it waay beter than I could.:)

[TheModernTerrorist]

104. its true

[Mithreal]

112. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $435 million over the 2009-2013 period

depakid post #80

[Mithreal]

113. Think we could protect the Constitution better if we put it on cd?

I know, stupid joke but it is past my bedtime.

[JCMach1]

114. I would like to see him protect something besides the corporations

:(

I haven't been amused by his recent moves.

[dcindian]

115. How about supporting jail time for a war criminal?

Talk about backwards. Torture = gotta move on Downloading a 99cent song = $150,000.00 fine


Sorry but I just don't support this kind of justice.

[JCMach1]

116. I would support a $2 fine per track... that would 100% of the cost

online...

[slay]

119. You will pay what we tell you to!

Well, what they tell you too anyways. And just how will these fines be determined? Search warrents? Seizing people's computers? Who's going to count all the songs - find them on hard drives, burned discs etc? $2 is hardly worth all the time and effort. But $150,000.. now that's worth it. No.. wouldn't happen to most. It'll go like this - they will bust some people, make an "example" of them with these crazy fines. And that's when "the fear" sets in for the population. Oh man, I've downloaded songs.. do you think they will come for me today? Tomorrow? No don't send me that song you want me to hear - I could get arrested! How will they find out? Oh yeah, they will have to monitor our web traffic. Do you really want to legally give the government that much power? Hackers will resort to using trojans/viruses to store songs on other people's computers. Wait - what if that happens to me? And what about those poor people that got made an example of?

Here's the harsh reality and sooner or later, people will have to pick sides. You can either have file sharing, or a police state - but you can't have both. If you like an artist - support them! But never support the corporate scum that is the RIAA!

*on edit - Oh yeah, don't forget about the enevitable suicides of some of those charged over $150,000 per track who downloaded tons of albums. There is no way they will ever be able to pay it off and who wants to spend the rest of their lives working day in day out just to see a huge percentage of their income go to the RIAA?

[JCMach1]

129. You are right-- plus their are Constitutional questions here as well

Illegal searches and seizures...

Unusual punishment...

I will side with the Constitution on the issue (i.e. I think the fines violate it)...:patriot:

[slay]

137. Indeed

It's a frightening path these RIAA assholes wish to take us down - regardless of how people feel about file sharing - this extreme punishment approach they wish to take is just plain wrong. :hi:

[onenote]

201. so do you think $150K damages award would violate the constitution for any copyright infringement

Not talking about uploading or downloading music. Any violation. Involving any kind of copyrighted work -- a movie, a book, a piece of art. Anything. And infringing by copying it or performing it without authorization etc etc.

If someone took a copyrighted play and performed it without compensating the author of the play and sold 1500 tickets at $100 apiece, would you think an award of damages of $150K is unconstitutional?

The issue in the case wasn't whether it was unconstitutional to impose a $150K damages award on the uploading of a single track of music. It was whether it was unconstitutional for COngress (a) to provide for statutory damages at all and (b) to set a range for such damages, to be assessed by a judge (or jury) based on the particular facts of the case at hand, of anywhere from $200 to $150K.

There might be a case where, as applied, a damages award was excessive. But this case didn't present that issue.

[ima_sinnic]

117. sheesh. ok, we got those evil music downloaders, what about war criminals?

How about $150K fine for every innocent life that was stolen to enrich the bottom line of the war profiteers?

I'm soooo happy this administration has its priorities straight!
That teenager down the street downloading songs is a much bigger danger to society and has stolen a lot more than a bunch of sociopathic nazi torturers, warmongers, and predatory capitalists could ever dream of!!!


"change" I can believe in!!! YEAH!

[greguganus]

121. If they don't issue large fines, how will Obama & Biden get their cuts from the RIAA?

RIAA- Really Idiotic As Always.

[slay]

123. Where is the humanity in this kind of thinking?

$150,000 per track?!?! These "downloaders" are our friends and neighbors, brothers and sisters. Who the fuck are the RIAA but a bunch of corporate scumbags?!?! When the government sides with corporations over the rights of the people ($150,000 PER TRACK.. wtf) it is a sad day in America indeed. Oh wait, yet ANOTHER sad day in America indeed. I'd like to see what Rob Zombie, Trent Reznor, Bob Weir, The Beastie Boys, and other cool musicians think about this RIAA crap. I feel confident they would be very against it.

As I've said in all of my responses to this thread - before corporate apologists start jumping all over me - If you like the music, buy it and support the artist! But never support greedy corporate scum like the RIAA who use power, money, and governmental influence to control and punish everyday citizens, bending us to their will, and breaking us if necessary.

[Jester Messiah]

125. Easiest solution

Don't listen to RIAA-associated music. Don't buy their crap, don't download it, just don't have anything to do with it. Starve the monster!

[varkam]

128. So damages are only excessive when it's the rich and corporations getting hit with them?

But if it's poor, working-class folks getting hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgments, everything is fine and dandy.

Right. Gotchya.

[Hannah Bell]

132. name me one instance where a corp was assessed three times their income in damages.

[varkam]

155. I think you missed my point.

I was expressing frustration at the selective reforms to the tort system that some seem to favor.

Plus I can think of several cases where docs have gotten slammed with medical malpractice damages that far exceeded their incomes.

[G_j]

131. go after the criminal Bush for Christ's sake!!

[ArchieStone1]

140. 5 torture victims filed a lawsuit

Against Boeing for using its planes to aid rendition.
But the administration asked the judge to toss the lawsuit because of b"state secrets."

So the tally right now is:

You get tortured, you get $0.00
You get a song stolen from your record label, you get $150,000.

[humbled_opinion]

176. What if

You get tortured by being forced to listen to some Stolen rap music?

Whats the fine for the?

[kentauros]

145. Thank goodness for Netlabels, the Creative Commons and all those music blogs!

:D
http://creativecommons.org
http://netlabels.org

I am thankful, too, for the likes of Pacifica and other public stations. My musical tastes and knowledge would be severely limited without them, and nowhere near as expanded as it became with all the sites online for downloads. I'd say, too, that most of what I download is either rather obscure, from outside of the US or out of print. It's too bad the labels don't realize just how much more money they could make by releasing their vaults of out of print material as never-ending downloads. No money needed for packaging, artwork or marketing. Just make it available for sale per cut on your site and rake in the dough. Why are they so stupid when it comes to these simple concepts?

Here are the links I use regularly without having to bother with RIAA-approved music (however, some of that may still exist on somafm and Pandora) :

http://weirdomusic.com/news.htm
http://www.archive.org
http://blog.wfmu.org
http://www.ubuweb.com
http://music-favourites.blogspot.com
http://www.welove-music.net
http://passionate-music.blogspot.com
http://somafm.com
http://pandora.com
http://www.mysticradio.com

[nc4bo]

150. I believe what you say is true and the RIAA has been stinking for a very long time.

RIAA basically wants to be rewarded for NOT modernizing its business models with the technology. Digital formats, quality material, availability and transferability is what people want and would be happy to pay for.

The boat sailed and the labels and RIAA missed it. Now it wants to punish people for WANTING new, free from ridiculous boobytrapped technology, better quality material (one good song on a 18 song cd sucks as does paying $15-20 for that one good song) and a wider range of music selection.

So now they are free to "punish" their customers with the blessings of this Admin instead of developing a successful business model.

Newsflash to the O admin and the RIAA: it couldn't be stopped in the past and it will never be stopped. For every 1 you take down and punish, there will be 1000's of others left to take their place and newer and better filesharing programs will be developed and used. The RIAA will find itself becoming more obsolete as more and more musicians and other artists go directly to consumers via the internet and it can't happen soon enough for me.

RIAA needs embrace modern technology and music enthusists instead of rejecting them. Most people would prefer to shop for their music via the internet, they want to listen to samples in the peace and quiet of their own homes, they want to be able to find rare and hard to find albums or a rarely heard song from a band that never made it to someone's Top 100 list and would be happy to pay a fair price for it.

I think of the money and time wasted on these stupid lawsuits, watching the RIAA trying to get money from turnips and can't help but wonder how grand a model the RIAA could have created to attract technology lovers IF they had only tried to understand what people want and then capitalized on it.

JMHO - Bad decision from this administration.

[marshall]

156. I think we'll see more strong bold stands like this

Obama is not going to play games or play it safe like our daddy's president. He has fresh progressive ideas and thank goodness he is not afraid to lay them out there!

[StarryNite]

167. This is not bold...

Bold would be going after bush and cheney for their part in war crimes. And yet when it comes to this I hear the crickets.

[dana_b]

181. exactly. he is wrong on this

as has been pointed out many, many times in this thread. It's about protecting corporations, not the musicians.

[onenote]

198. actually, the administration is exactly right in what they wrote in their brief

Of course, what they wrote bears virtually no resemblance to what the article in the OP (and most of the posts in this thread) suggest.

The brief addressed the general constitutional issue of whether Congress could allow the victims of copyright infringement to claim statutory damages in lieu of having to prove actual damages and whether, in the abstract, not as applied to any particular fact situation, a range of between $200 (for an "innocent") and $150,000 (for the most egregious "willful" infrigement was reasonable. The brief, it should be noted, also pointed out that the plaintiff's constitutional claim was premature since there had been no finding of liability nor any award of damages in that particular case.

As an abstract construct, setting a range between which a judge, based on his/her evaluation of the facts, can base a statutory damages award, is not controversial nor should it be. Now, if and when liability is established and an award made, the plaintiff might have an argument that a particular award is arbitrary or otherwise unlawful. But in the abstract this was an easy call.

I should add that in one of the highest (if not the highest) statutory damages awards ever made, mp3.com was hit with a statutory damages award of around $25,000 per cd for each of several thousand cds it was found to have illegally copied and made available for downloading as part of a commercial enterprise. Personally, I think that award was unjustified; but given that the courts look to other awards as a touchstone, its unlikely in the extreme that a court would/could award $150K per music track. And there certainly is not anything in the government brief to suggest that the Obama administration would necessarily "support" that award if one was made.

[StarryNite]

169. I wonder

if this is why YouTube has been removing so many of the audio tracks from videos all of a sudden? Even on videos that have been up for years, now they take the audio from it or pull the whole vid. I've been on YT for over 2 years and I have about 40 YT videos up and ones that were fine before are now being yanked.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[and-justice-for-all]

177. RIAA is bullshit...

You can ask any number of artist, especially those in the metal scene about the RIAA and what it has done for them; the answer is always "Who the fuck is that?" and "We never received a check from them."

[New Dawn]

182. Fuck the RIAA!

[ForrestGump]

191. $150 000? That's ridiculous.

I'll settle for no less than the death penalty.














Who just said "...for RIAA executives"?

[ForrestGump]

192. I can't support the RIAA.

All those bombings, the kneecapping...I can't get behind a group like that. :-(

[GReedDiamond]

196. Some background on the RIAA...

The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) is a trade group that represents the major labels of the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, which the RIAA claims "create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States".<1><2>

The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve, a technical standard of frequency response applied to vinyl records during manufacturing and playback. The RIAA has continued to participate in creating and administering technical standards for later systems of music recording and reproduction, including magnetic tape (including cassette tapes and digital audio tapes), CDs and software-based digital technologies.

The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties.

The association is responsible for certifying gold and platinum albums and singles in the USA. For more information about sales data see List of best selling albums and List of best selling singles.

The RIAA's goals<1> are:

1. to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists;
2. to perform research about the music industry;
3. to monitor and review relevant laws, regulations and policies.

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comment on the RIAA:
I remember when I'd purchase an LP on vinyl, way back when, and on the back of the record would often times see the RIAA statement regarding the technical standards adhered to in the engineering, recording, mastering, etc., of the record.

The RIAA should stick to "enforcing" technical standards in music rather than chasing after file sharing individuals, generally speaking, when the downloads are for personal use, especially in those cases where, let's say, the person has previously purchased a copy of the song, on an LP, cassette, or CD, and that hard copy has worn out or become lost or damaged (for example, I've never owned a cassette that maintained over time the quality in playback that it originally had, and I've worn out quite a few vinyl records and repurchased some multiple times).

I do agree, however, that those who illegally download copyrighted material and subsequently REDISTRIBUTE to thousands of other individuals via file sharing networks have crossed a line and may very well deserve the legal ramifications that may follow for doing so.

In any case, as has been pointed out numerous times by others here, most artists make their real money from touring and merchandise sales, not from royalties on sales of CDs.

When an artist is signed to a label, the artist usually receives an advance payment that can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is to be used to record and turn in a finished master (or masters, depending on the number of releases stipulated in the contract with the label). That money can be used for almost anything, as long as the finished masters are turned in to the record label. Usually that means paying the producer, the engineer, the recording studio, session musicians, etc., but the money may also be used to some extent for living expenses of the artist(s), food, musical equipment, drugs(!) etc. When all is said and done, and the artist turns in the master to the label, the artist now owes the money received up front back to the label. Let's say the artist received $250,000 in advance to record two records. The artist will not make one penny back from sales until the $250,000 is recouped (if ever) by the label, at which point they may start getting some small royalties from CD sales.

And yes, I am an independent musician for thirty years now, I've got a discography of around twenty releases ranging from vinyl 45s and LPs, to CDs, on which I have composed songs, engineered, produced, and performed. I also have my own BMI affiliated publishing company, and I'm a member of NARAS.

[onenote]

197. what an outrageously, ridiculously misleading headline

The issue on which the Obama administration opined was not whether a fine of $150,000 per music track would be justified in a particular case. Rather the issue was whether the provision in the Copyright Act that allows copyright owners to elect the option of seeking an award of statutory damages in an amount, to be decided by the judge, of not less than $200 and not more than $150,000, was constituional. The law has long provided for this form of remedy and there is no serious argument that can be made that its not within Congress' constitutional authority to do so.

By way of further explanation -- if you are the owner of a copyright (say you drew and published a cartoon) and someone took that work and reproduced and sold it without your permission -- you have a private right of action for infringment and damages under the Copyright Act. As an alternative to proving the precise amount of damages you suffered -- which may be difficult to quantify -- the law establishes, both as a form of remedial compensation and to deter infringement -- a statutory damages option. Where simple infringement is proven, the judge has the discretion, based on the facts, to award an amount between $750 and $30,000 as it determines is just. If the plaintiff proves that the infringement was done willfuly, the upper limit on allowable statutory damages increases to $150,000; if the defendant proves he/she was not aware and had no reason to believe his/her actions were infringing, the court may reduce the amount of statutory damages to as little as $200.

The issue brief by the administration was general in nature -- it related to the constitutionality of the damages provision in general, not as applied to a particular case or type of infringement. Not to put too fine a point on it -- saying that the administration expressed support for a fine of $150K per music track is bullshit.

[TheModernTerrorist]

202. dupe

dupe