1st Suits Filed vs Online Music Swappers

[Scottler]

A 12 year old honor student in New Yorks upper West side was sued as well, despite the fact that her mother pays a $29.95 monthly charge for the program she uses to download.

What burns me is that the artists themselves say they're not in this for the money, it's about being able to express themselves, and all this other nonsense.

Bull crap.  

The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, and I hope to God that this backfires on the recording industry.

I will NEVER buy another new retail CD again, because I don't want to give them a dime of my money.  From now on, all my CD purchases will be made at second hand CD stores, where the money stays away from them altogether.

Also, and maybe someone will know this more than I, but this is a civil suit, so there will be no jury.  If someone were to fight it, couldn't they request a jury trial?  My thought is that if someone fights it and wins, with a jury, then wouldn't the precedent be set, thus eliminating future lawsuits?

No one will fight these guys though, and the RIAA knows it.  It's a scare tactic.  You know that the RIAA will offer a settlement to everyone they sue, and most people, not having the kind of money they're looking for, will take the settlement.

My question for the RIAA is this.  Can you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my downloading music has directly caused a decline in your sales?

EVERYONE'S SALES ARE DOWN.  Music, movies, athletic events.  We're in a recession, meathead.  Of course sales are down.  

You don't see Microsoft suing over lost sales because people downloaded FrontPage or Windows, yet I know for a fact that there are sites out there that do just that.

This is nothing more than a bunch of upper class a$$holes trying to bully the rest of the nation into complying with the rules that benefit them the most.

It's always been my understanding of copyright law that you can't make a PROFIT from copied music.  You can do it for yourself all you want.   Just like in the 80s I could tape a song off the radio.  Maybe I should go to jail for that too.  Or what about back when cassettes first came out and people copied their albums and 8-tracks onto cassette?  Let's round them up and hang them too!

Meanwhile, murderers and rapists walk the streets or get paroled....

[Fozzer]

[quote]Better watch it Fozzer.

[Iroquois]

I think this is just rediculus. If recording artists are going to sue us for downloading their music, why don't authors sue libraries. Libraries give books away for free don't they? I was just looking around the website of a Canadian electronics store. Most of the CDs on their first page around $10-$15, fair but thoes are only the ones on sale. If you look a little deeper, many CDs are $20 plus. Now it only costs $1 to make the disk and perhaps another $5 per disk for putting music on it, including mixing and editing. That means that these so called artists are getting $14 per disk. If their CD sells 1 million copies, thats $14 million for them. They have the nerve to say that this is forcing them too loose money. Oh, they might get $10 million instead. That's more than my entire imediate family makes combined in a dogs year (or 7 human years).

Think about it logically too. Who the heck is going to fork out $20 for a 14 song album that only contains 2 songs they like. Also, it's mostly teenagers who buy CDs and with car insurance and school, how can they afford to keep buying that stuff. That's why people turn to Kazaa.

I haven't time to read all the posts so sorry if somebody has already mentioned this. It has been a long time since Apple Computers has come out with something really inovative. It's their new pay per song system. This system allows you to purchase high bit rate songs individually (for something like a buck US) without having to buy the whole album. You simply download and pay with your credit card. This will be the wave of the future. Unfortunately this is only available in the US as of now but there are plans to expand to Canada and the rest of North America in the very near future.

BTW, well said Hyperion. You are absolutely correct. It seems today that both our governments are worried about unimportant issues. With elections comming up both North America's major players, these issues are becomming no more than a grab for votes.

[Scottler]

Thx, Orenda.

Although I've gotta say, your math is a bit off.  The artists WISH they got that kind of cut.

Truth be told, about a year and a half ago, I remember Britney Spears being all over the news because she was getting $2 per CD, which was double the other artists average cut.

Sad.  The artists don't even get the money.  I could almost see supporting THAT.

[BFMF]

If the artists are only getting a very small percentage of the profits, is it the RIAA who is 'stealing' all the money?

There's a reason why people are being forced to turn to Kazaa. The last music CD I bought was over $20!

If they would cut their cd prices in half, they might make more money in the long run.

[Professor Brensec]

I can tell you first hand that for 'sheet music', the writer (or copyright owner, if the song has been purchased) gets 20 per cent of the retail price.
For recordings of music, the writer (or copyright owner) gets 7 per cent of the retail price and the performing artist gets 6 per cent (the industry has always valued the composer slightly higher than the artist - many can sing or play - but few can write).

The royalty shares from public performances/braodcasts of the work are supposed to all go to the copyright owner of the song.

These are standard Australian Music Industry contract figures from the late '70's and early '80's, but I'm sure the percentages would be much the same now and would have been pretty universal. Obviously, special deals are cut between 'extraordinary' artists and recording companies, but they would be confidential anyway.

As for Libraries lending books. No library in this country charges for borrowing of books. Late fees are charged to cover administration fees and have no relationship to the actual lending of the book itself.
This being the case Libraries here don't charge for lending books so are not infringing copyright. You can lend a book to anyone. You just can't COPY it. You can even sell it. But you can't sell copies.

If you read the copyright on the inside of any book you will see it is forbidden to reproduce for any purpose whatsoever, any part of the published material, without permission. There is no mention of profit, or own use etc. You can't copy them unless you have permission from the copyright owner/publisher, who will give certain organisations (like charities and Churches etc) limited permission to do so for specific purposes.

As for the Entertainment Industry types claiming to be 'unfussed' by the money and being only in it for the 'self expression'. I agree - Bullsh*t.
But the Law is the Law, and they are right until it's changed.

[Smoke2much]

Libraries do pay out to authors.  In the British system they compile a list of the most borrowed books and pay out a "percentage" to them.  A few years ago it was Terry Pratchett who was number one most borrowed author and thus got the highest pay out.

Will

[Iroquois]

[quote]Libraries do pay out to authors.

[Scorpiоn]

If there was ever a time to pray/hope/wish for something.  Now is the time.  I hope to everything everyone in the world considers holy that this backfires on them.  It is a fact, that if it weren't for KaZaA, I wouldn't have bought all four of those Rammstein CDs in my stereo, or that Fear Factory, or the Evanescence, or the Metallica, or the Ludacris, or the Shakira, or the... you get my drift.  The only reason I'd even get a CD burner is because the best classical music is to be found in games, and it's not as if you can pop your CD-ROM in your walkman.  In fact, because of KaZaA, I've bought four, count 'em four games.  I remember Roger Ebert writing an article on how P2P networks are beneficial to the industry, since they introduce users to music they wouldn't have heard otherwise.  He actually said CD sales went up since KaZaA came around.  As far as the RIAA is concerned, I hope there canopy jams and their engine explodes. >:( Eat it. :-X

[Scottler]

AMEN SCORPION!

[Katahu]

Why the hell is the RIAA is sueing NOW?!!

When Napster first existed, the RIAA did not sue those who used it (the public). Intead, Napster was just shut down.

Why don't they just shut down Kazaa as they did with Napster instead of being such @$$HOLES, Dimwits, Nitwits, and Drunkards by sueing everyone. And I mean everyone!!!! Elderlies, KIDS, and low-income families??

The Recording Industry just wants money. Sure, I understand. The U.S. Constitution does promote capitalism. However, the damned RIAA (pardon my language, but I'm pissed) is taking this thing WAAAYYYYYYYY too far. >:(

You're right. Why are murders, rapists, and MAFIAS walking around the streets while the INNOCENT, low-income, lower-class families are being SUED???

Those families need the money that they currently have in order to pay for their children's education (like college, etc.). Once those children get their education, they will have a brighter future.

However, the RIAA DOESN'T CARE about that. By sueing the families (of any level), they are taking away the future of the children.

Pardon me if I am off-topic. I am just giving an example of CAUSE and EFFECT.

I will now say this to the RIAA: BACK OFF AND STFU!!!!!

pardon my anger.

[Wing Nut]

I could be wrong about this; but if I remember, Napster based their file sharing on files that they kept on a server.  That means they were supplying bootleg music for people to download.  Kazaa is based on everyone sharing files with everyone else, so Kazaa has no control over what is shared.  That's why they can't be shut down.  Kazaa does have legitimate file sharing uses, like the gun camera footage we were talking about last week or new artists trying to get their material heard.

I do not mind paying for my CD's.  I like the booklets you get, and I like reading the liner notes to find out who else may have appeared (like Duane Allman playing on Layla).  Personally, I'm not so sure the industry is getting what they deserve.  Yes they rip us off, yes the artists are the ones who should be gtting the money, but there will always be people who bootleg cd's and cry poor no matter how cheap cd's are.  Go to the payware forum and look how many people moan about 'oh, I would love to, but since I can afford a decent computer to play on and $50.00 for one game, I can't afford to PAY for an airplane...'  It's the same thing.  

I don't like the recording industry, I don't like paying $18.00 to get a CD with one song on it that I like, but if you're going to bootleg, at least be honest and admit you're just being cheap...

[Scorpiоn]

Cheap?

[Professor Brensec]

There seems to be two threads about the same thing going on - on in the 'Cafe' - no harm. Just a mention.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. People aren't asking for money when it comes to Kazaa. They aren't making copies, it's Kazaa itself that does that. If they want to get rid of this, punish Kazaa not the public.  

The whole concept is that, if music is available to be downloaded free, the direct result is that the CD won't be bought, hence lost sales.

I know how everyone feels about the Artists (some) and the Record Companies (all). But there are others who are being diddled.
(I've covered this in the other thread, so for a more comprehensive explaination see that but, just quickly..........)

The people who write the music are not always the artists. Few of the writers are 'Stars', nor do many of them have the luck to have a song go to the top 10, after being taken on by a 'Major Artist'. Most are 'part time' or 'struggling' and rely on royalties which are calculated on retail sales or public braodcasts by radio stations, TV etc.
They are being diddled out of their income, everytime a sale is lost due to a free download.
They deserve their rewards for their work.

I beleive many Artists have their own Websites now where you can 'sample' their wares, before purchasing. But don't expect to be able to download from there, they're not idiots. Why don't Kazaa, if they believe they provide this option for people, just get rid of the ability to download (steal) the song and just make them 'listen only'. Like a 'read only' document.
That way, people with limited budgets can hear what they're buying before they do, and Artists get 'free' promotion.  ;D

(I always thought you could ask to hear an album before you bought it in a Music store. That's what those booths are for!)  ;)