12 Year Old Girl sued by RIAA
- Thread starter Stridder44
- Start date
Ripcord
Senior Lurker
Not to pick too many nits, but under most contracts today you, as an artist, would only see about $4-$5 of the $20 CD. Of course, chances are that you wouldn't actually see this money - it would go towards the $700,000 you "borrowed" under your contract to the record company for them to produce and promote your album and tour.
I don't disagree that stealing music via Kazaa, etc is wrong, and I WOULD be concerned about it. I'd also be more concerned about the estimated 30% of albums sold worldwide that are manufactured by organized pirates.
However, sales have been floundering, and execs need a target so as not to be revolted against by shareholders. The execs so far have only needed to find a scapegoat long enough that they have time to cash in (i.e. Hillary Rosen, RIAA pres) and move on to "the next project"...
Ripcord
Senior Lurker
Well, they already have... As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Internet radio stations now are required to pay fees to the RIAA for each song. Part of the way this was pushed through the FCC was the thought that digital broadcasting allows for the "perfect" duplication of a media, whereas terrestrial broadcasting always produces an inferior copy (I'd beg to differ on the "perfect" part when listening to my 56Kbit Village Voice stream, but they pay the fees anyway...)
Some countries, like Germany, have imposed a tax on every blank CDR sold that supposedly goes to pay media industries for supposed copyright violations. Essentially I'm being told that I, as a CDR consumer, am assumed to be a criminal - I can't possibly be buying a blank CDR for any purpose other than stealing...
edX
mac shaman
so long as there are theives, the rest of us will have to pay for what they steal. i'm all for getting rid of the thieves instead. as for this girl and her family, sounds like what she needs is what most americans need - education in how things work. nothing is 'free' and doing something because other people do it doesn't make it right. but i'll admit, i wish they'd get hold of some of the teens that freak on this stuff knowing damn well what they're doing. and if that's you, then so be it.
now, on the other hand, the Grateful Dead freely distributed and encouraged others to distribute their live concert tapes. as a result, they were one of the top grossing touring bands. they probably made more money in merchaindising at a few shows than one of their real records brought in for the same year. they were very tight about protecting their artwork.
so maybe the rules should change. but untill they do, people participate in file sharing at their own risk. they shouldn't cry when they get caught.
now, on the other hand, the Grateful Dead freely distributed and encouraged others to distribute their live concert tapes. as a result, they were one of the top grossing touring bands. they probably made more money in merchaindising at a few shows than one of their real records brought in for the same year. they were very tight about protecting their artwork.
so maybe the rules should change. but untill they do, people participate in file sharing at their own risk. they shouldn't cry when they get caught.
In Italy too. All media storage has added tax since this year. CDs, DVDs, hard drives (computers), iPods... Preassumption: EVERYBODY uses their media / harddrive etc to store illegal mp3z. Logic: add tax and that pays to RIAA etc. How are they going to figure how much who is going to get? And, the assumption "everybody is guilty" is so wrong. All money got with that tax will be money only for Berlusconi and other corrupted members of government, no cent of that money will ever go to any artist. (Except maybe to live shows of some local porn artist
). So wrong.Im surprised at the comments on this subject. First of all, file sharing is only assumed to be illegal. The logic is " if your downloading a song, your not paying for it. Therefore it's stealing." This is not true. As others have mentioned there is a tax on "blank media" that goes DIRECTLY to the RIAA for the purpose of paying royalties to artist. Its no sursurpriseperise that the RIAA does not want to discuss how much money they've collected or paid out as a result of this "tax". There are many issues here other than "stealing music". The RIAA is trying very hard to protect a dying business model. Remember, you can only inflate the price of a bunch of 1's and 0's (mp3, AAC files). If the RIAA is really concerned about people obtaining artist work without the artist being paid, why not go after the 1000's of "Buy, Sell, and Trade" music stores. In those cases money is being transfered and there is more of a argument for copyright violation.
The Home Recording Act deals with this. Thats why it's NOT illegal to record music of off the radio. Royalties from songs recorded of off the radio come from the blank media "tax".
The Home Recording Act deals with this. Thats why it's NOT illegal to record music of off the radio. Royalties from songs recorded of off the radio come from the blank media "tax".
Well, the "blank media" tax doesn't exist everywhere. Besides, you can't assume that because a person pays a tax for CDRs that it makes up for downloading free music, and therefore it's not stealing. One can't excuse the other.
I'm fairly neutral in this debate, in that I think the RIAA is crap and shouldn't go around suing 12-year-olds, but I have friends in a band that had the #1 pirated song for awhile this summer. They busted their a$$es and went in to debt to record a hit album. The fact is there are a lot of really popular bands that don't make money until their 3rd or 4th album because of the money they borrow from the label to make the first one. When (if) illegal downloads affect sales on an album, it affects whether or not they get a chance to make a 2nd or 3rd album.
I'll be honest, I used to download music at a moderate pace, but after hearing my friends' story, I've either deleted the files, bought the albums, or replaced them with iTMS files.
d8n_two
I'm fairly neutral in this debate, in that I think the RIAA is crap and shouldn't go around suing 12-year-olds, but I have friends in a band that had the #1 pirated song for awhile this summer. They busted their a$$es and went in to debt to record a hit album. The fact is there are a lot of really popular bands that don't make money until their 3rd or 4th album because of the money they borrow from the label to make the first one. When (if) illegal downloads affect sales on an album, it affects whether or not they get a chance to make a 2nd or 3rd album.
I'll be honest, I used to download music at a moderate pace, but after hearing my friends' story, I've either deleted the files, bought the albums, or replaced them with iTMS files.
d8n_two
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
Actually, I think I *did* hear about a failed legal action taken by some studios regarding used music stores. As I say, it failed, but it didn't stop them from trying.
d8n_two - I wonder if your musical friends had managed to bypass the studio and somehow get their album directly onto iTMS if they'd have fared better...
Another random thought: I think it's absurd to suppose that if a song has been downloaded 1 million times, that means that the song **would** have sold 1 million copies if p2p sharing were outlawed. When computing record company losses, a 1-to-1 download-to-lost-sale ratio is not supportable.
d8n_two - I wonder if your musical friends had managed to bypass the studio and somehow get their album directly onto iTMS if they'd have fared better...
Another random thought: I think it's absurd to suppose that if a song has been downloaded 1 million times, that means that the song **would** have sold 1 million copies if p2p sharing were outlawed. When computing record company losses, a 1-to-1 download-to-lost-sale ratio is not supportable.
brian,
I'd like to believe that alternative distributing would have worked out better for my friends. They did self-distro for a long time and had minimal success. Once a major label was interested. They exploded. The money the label put behind them got them massive radio play and allowed them to record three videos, of which one got was top 10 on MTV for a long time. Not to mention the ability to work with world class producers and studio hands.
I should clarify, though. My friends are doing just fine now. They were lucky enough to have one blockbuster hit and two moderate hits to follow it. They were just really nervous when record sales started to level and the hit single was very popular on Kazaa.
You're absolutely right though, the idea that there is a 1-to-1 ratios of illegal download and lost sale is ridiculous.
d8n_two
I'd like to believe that alternative distributing would have worked out better for my friends. They did self-distro for a long time and had minimal success. Once a major label was interested. They exploded. The money the label put behind them got them massive radio play and allowed them to record three videos, of which one got was top 10 on MTV for a long time. Not to mention the ability to work with world class producers and studio hands.
I should clarify, though. My friends are doing just fine now. They were lucky enough to have one blockbuster hit and two moderate hits to follow it. They were just really nervous when record sales started to level and the hit single was very popular on Kazaa.
You're absolutely right though, the idea that there is a 1-to-1 ratios of illegal download and lost sale is ridiculous.
d8n_two
I do agree with some of the above. I also use the iTMS to download music. I cant argue with the fact that bands (myself included) does not get paid for music downloaded of p2p networks, my main point is that this issue is not a clear cut as the RIAA would make most people believe.
The "blank media" tax does not make up for every song downloaded or played over the air. Its not ment to do that. It is set up to offset the "supposed" losses the companies take form those who record music off the radio.
The next time someone says "downloading music is copyright infringement", ask them why. There are 3 key issues that the copyright act covers. Sales, copies, and distribution. The "logical" argument the RIAA wants people to believe is the p2p networks illegal constitute distribution. Not so fast. P2p software allows people to have "access" to a folder or set of folders. If having a file in a folder can be considered distribution, how do you distinguish between a music file and any other file on a network? Using that same example, if someone saw a CD in my unlocked car and took it would that be a violation of the Copyright Act?
The Copyright Act and the Home Recording Act actually defines why file sharing is Legal. The DMRA is why the RIAA is now going crazy.
There is a very interesting debate on this issue over at Mac-central. Im not sure if im allowed to post the link, but you can search for "why the RIAA lawsuits are invalid". It really is a good read.
The "blank media" tax does not make up for every song downloaded or played over the air. Its not ment to do that. It is set up to offset the "supposed" losses the companies take form those who record music off the radio.
The next time someone says "downloading music is copyright infringement", ask them why. There are 3 key issues that the copyright act covers. Sales, copies, and distribution. The "logical" argument the RIAA wants people to believe is the p2p networks illegal constitute distribution. Not so fast. P2p software allows people to have "access" to a folder or set of folders. If having a file in a folder can be considered distribution, how do you distinguish between a music file and any other file on a network? Using that same example, if someone saw a CD in my unlocked car and took it would that be a violation of the Copyright Act?
The Copyright Act and the Home Recording Act actually defines why file sharing is Legal. The DMRA is why the RIAA is now going crazy.
There is a very interesting debate on this issue over at Mac-central. Im not sure if im allowed to post the link, but you can search for "why the RIAA lawsuits are invalid". It really is a good read.
According to copyright laws, part of the rights held by a copyright owner is the ability to say how and when their product is distributed. Most P2P programs are a form of distribution. Whether it is used to distribute workload (distributive computing) or files, distribution is what these programs do. When a person knowingly shares a file that has a copyright held by by someone other than themself, they are opening an illegal distribution channel. It's not that much different than a guy in the alley selling burned copies of albums.
As for distinguishing between a music file and something else, you can't, other than the file extension, which can be altered. The person, however, knows if the file (s)he puts in that public folder should be shared or not. That's why Steve Jobs was right when he said this is not a technical issue, it's a behavioral one.
Having a file in a folder is one thing. Opening the folder to the world and allowing others access to copy the file is distributing it from your computer to theirs.
d8n_two
As for distinguishing between a music file and something else, you can't, other than the file extension, which can be altered. The person, however, knows if the file (s)he puts in that public folder should be shared or not. That's why Steve Jobs was right when he said this is not a technical issue, it's a behavioral one.
Having a file in a folder is one thing. Opening the folder to the world and allowing others access to copy the file is distributing it from your computer to theirs.
d8n_two
nervus
fencer
We have it here though: the music industry gets money out of blank tape cassettes, blank CDR's, blank DVDr's.
In my country you are paying through your nose for direct (50%) and indirect (20%) taxes. Above that there are extra additions for poor Polygram and its Ilk.
If you think I exaggerate please check (just as an example
) the prices at Apple's dutch webstore."As this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers," Mitch Bainwol, the group's new chief executive, said in the statement.
I wonder, what is the moral standard of man who thinks that parents should invade the privacy of their children?
I would not do that to mine ... (And believe me they know the difference between right and wrong: they buy their CD's).Greetings
nervus
edX
mac shaman
i believe that is a violation of a more common law called theft - taking what isn't yours. one that is also included in the moral guidelines of the 10 commandments as well. taking or sharing a file that doesn't belong to you constitutues the same crime. copyright is just a method of assigning ownership.
But there you have it. A lot of parents don't teach their kids as well as you. Some ignore the fact that their kids are doing it, and some encourage it by example (read: do it themself). Some are just clueless. I think parents should just make themselves aware if their kids are doing it, and understand the consequences both they and thier kids could face.
As for the laws in your country, I feel for you. Is it not understood that there are many legitimate uses to those media that have nothing to do with the music industry or piracy? What was the public debate like in passing those laws? Also, is that just in the Netherlands or throughout the EU? Just curious.
d8n_two
nervus
fencer
Our governement is quite uninterested in matters as long as it is put in "rules" ("aanwijzingen van de minister"). We still have the mentality of the old regents (you know, from the 1700's) : "if it is good for trade, it is allright" and "Sunday is for God, the rest of the week for Mammon". Ah well, it created an interesting society
Public debate is not of any interest in these matters: the chosen ones in parliament just decided it. Remember: you choose a party not a person here; your choice (once per 4 years) is determined by a package deal.
I believe we have it in all EU countries in some form (percentages will differ).
Greetings
nervus
Well, I was trying to avoid sounding like a name dropper, but since you ask, they are The All-American Rejects.
d8n_two
Satcomer
In Geostationary Orbit
I agree with your position, just not your wording to convey it. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.
IMHO your above analogy is flawed. The person in the alley is SELLING the burned copies is doing it for PROFIT. A P2P network (by the vast use of it) is NOT getting a fee from distribution of the songs. The real argument should be a person PAYING for the P2P program. That's were the fee comes from. There should be the argument.
The fee or what the guy in the alley is charging is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm only arguing that both situations are distribution channels not authorized by the legal copyright holder. That is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder. The issue of paying for a P2P program is another part of the issue to which your point is well taken. There is more than one side of the issue that must be (is being) argued.
d8n_two
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
Off-topic, but still: I'm pretty sure I've heard of AAR, though I've never heard them.
I've always wondered at filesharing programs that try to get you to upgrade to a "pro" version. They don't bring much of anything new, and I'm not going to pay $10 for a program that lets me download stuff for free (legal/moral/ethical issues aside).
I wonder if anyone has ever shared the registered version of a P2P Pro application? :|
I've always wondered at filesharing programs that try to get you to upgrade to a "pro" version. They don't bring much of anything new, and I'm not going to pay $10 for a program that lets me download stuff for free (legal/moral/ethical issues aside).
I wonder if anyone has ever shared the registered version of a P2P Pro application? :|