Quote :

"A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs"

Quote :

"Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said. Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents. "

Quote :

"Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the RIIA was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable." "We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do," she said. "

$1.9 MILLION Dollar fine for "stealing" $24 worth of music.

This absolutly absurd. A 19 yr old chick stealing a $60 top from Abercrombie and Fitch would receive a slap on the wrist. A 19 yr old emo chick downloading a couple songs onto her laptop warrants a million + dollar fine.

I know this is a civil not criminal case but i'd still say this could be defined as a cruel and unusual punishment as noted by the 8th amendment. Especially since the RIAA bribed lobbied politicians to disregard an individual's 4th amendment right so that they could bully ISPs into forking over the identities of suspected *OH NO's* music pirates.

Quote :

"The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. "

I wonder how much of the settlement the "deprived" music artists will see.

The RIAA with its power and money is effectively using legal extortion against the population of this country.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM. Reason : aa]

6/19/2009 10:31:17 AM

I have no sympathy for anyone with two last names.

6/19/2009 10:38:45 AM

Quote :

"this could be defined as a cruel and unusual punishment as noted by the 8th amendment. "

Since when did the Constitution matter anymore?

6/19/2009 10:48:50 AM

What is this constitution you speak of? Sounds like some far fetched ancient document.

On a semi-related note. I just got an email from XM radio saying may rate will increase by $2/month per radio due to the fact that the RIAA has increased their fees significantly and XM has to offset costs. In principal I am canceling my XM music account but keeping the nav traffic.

6/19/2009 10:54:15 AM

heres the Ars write-up, from a techie point of view
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars
The bottom of the article has links to the continuing coverage they had during the whole trial.

My take-aways - this woman, in particular, probably was stupid to keep appealing the decision. The case was only focused on "did she, herself, download the music that was found on her computer, or can it not be proven that it was actually her, personally, that did the downloading". The defense that it wasn't actually her was believable, but not completely convincing.


Anyway, guilty or not, the more important part is the ridiculous penalty, which I also think should be considered cruel and unusual. It's completely absurd, and most of the blame for the actual penalty lies with the jury, not the RIAA. Obviously the whole things started with the RIAA, but the range of penalties under the Copyright Act can go from $750 to $150,000 per infringement. Therefore, even if the jury found her guilty, they could have fined her only 24 * $750 = $18,000.

But for some fucking reason, this group of 12 dipshits decided to pull the value of $80,000 per song out of their asses. Why? Who knows - maybe because they, collectively, felt that $80,000 was a "nice compromise" between $750 and $150,000.


Seriously - could no one in the jury room stand up and say "PEOPLE - WAKE UP! If your daughter was caught stealing 3 CDs from Best Buy, would you feel a $2M fine was acceptable?"

6/19/2009 10:57:06 AM

^or maybe its because they will all have nicer houses/cars/bank accounts because of it...*shrug*

6/19/2009 11:05:16 AM

Yep. This shit is ridiculous.

6/19/2009 11:05:49 AM

i completely disagree with the way this case has gone but

Quote :

"This absolutly absurd. A 19 yr old chick stealing a $60 top from Abercrombie and Fitch would receive a slap on the wrist. A 19 yr old emo chick downloading a couple songs onto her laptop warrants a million + dollar fine."

a potential difference would be if she downloaded them on something like bittorrent and was seeding the files - someone that steals a shirt from a store typically doesn't mass produce the shirt and give it away for free

6/19/2009 11:09:34 AM

that wasn't even at issue with this case. (and she was using Kazza, not bittorrent, although they both support sharing).

This case was focused only on "did Thomas steal these particular 24 songs"

6/19/2009 11:17:22 AM

Quote :

"or maybe its because they will all have nicer houses/cars/bank accounts because of it...*shrug*"

huh?

6/19/2009 11:25:25 AM

wait... did they nail her for sharing the files or for downloading the files? there is a massive difference in those two...

6/19/2009 11:28:16 AM

The inevitable bursting of the intellectual property bubble is gonna be so big, america might not survive it.
We really need to stop inflating it.
I mean, how fucking obvious does it have to be that ideas aren't and shouldn't be considered property?
Sad.

6/19/2009 11:30:57 AM

Quote :

"(CNN) -- A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs."

^ Copyrighted songs are the property of their owners. I think what just about everyone is objecting to is (1) the ridiculous amount of the award in question, and (2) that we can't just work this shit out already.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 11:31:32 AM

yeah its ridiculous and theres no way shes gonna be able to pay that amount of money off.

The RIAA THINKS they are sending a message to people to not download music... but they are too naive to realize that it's not going to work with the way that file sharing is structured. Their efforts are completely wasted.

6/19/2009 11:37:53 AM

Quote :

"wait... did they nail her for sharing the files or for downloading the files? there is a massive difference in those two..."

here is the charge
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE&s=MN&d=40411

Quote :

"Description: Capitol Records, Inc., Arista Records, LLC, Interscope Records, BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Records, Inc., and Warner Brothers Records, Inc. sued Jammie Thoms-Rasset for willfully violating the copyrights of 24 records by downloading copies of the songs from file sharing web site Kazaa. Defendant denied Plaintiff's allegations."

and even though there may be a "massive difference" between downloading and sharing files, that's still a pretty high hurdle to cross to claim $2 Million in damaged for sharing 24 songs. And if you wanted to get technical about it (and that's what courts are supposed to do - "get technical"), you'd have to prove exactly which parts of which songs were shared and to who - an impossible task. And with how P2P works, would you bust someone with "illegally sharing a song" if it was found that she (or Kazza or bittorrent) shared Bytes 36A8E1 and 8BC73 of Song X with User Y, and Bytes 192CD8 with User Z?

6/19/2009 11:46:30 AM

That jury sucks, bad. I would almost guarantee that they, or someone in their household, has illegally downloaded music before. $80,000 for just downloading the song? Really? You would think they would have awarded them the amount the property was worth, about a $1 a song.

6/19/2009 12:38:03 PM

They jury had to consist entirely of octogenarians. Internet... series of tubes... the devil... all that.

^I would have gone about $2-4 per song. If you go $1/song it really isn't a punishment, other than a "sorry, it's not free" punishment. Gotta bump up the per song fee to something higher than what it would have been had they bought it because the fee is meant to discourage the behavior.

Quote :

"24 records "

24 songs or 24 records? 24 songs: $48-$96; 24 "records": $500-$1,000.

Maybe the fine included the RIAA's legal costs? Still it would be awesome if the RIAA dropped millions in paying lawyers, the jurors, etc. just to get $50. Of course that's essentially what is happening in this case - no way anyone can pay that off. Probably not the RIAA's point though.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason : -]

6/19/2009 12:46:42 PM

Mind boggling. If you look at agentlions link, the editor notes 30000 similar cases have been filed. 30 fucking thousand. If you figured each case has 20 songs in question times the award per song, that is 48 billion.

The RIAA reports that they still did 10 billion in sales last year, down from 14 billion in 2000. So the award at that level would more than make up for potentially lost revenue for over a decades worth of the industry. This is before you consider other factors like competition for other forms of media, which probably had as much or more of an actual dent in the sales than illegal downloads.

And I don't get this, there was originally a verdict against for $224,000, but the judge awards retrial because he misdirected the jury in favor of the recording company

Quote :

"In Jammie Thomas's first trial, the jury had also found against her and assessed lower damages, but still $224,000. The judge ordered a retrial however, because he mis-directed the jury, declaring that merely 'making available' the music files for filesharing constituted distribution, even without any proof of actual uploading."

So, removing that, how the hell does this verdict come in an 9x the first jury verdict. What the fuck is going on here.


[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 12:50:29 PM

^^^, ^^ - here was the jury selection.
They're not octogenarians - just liars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars

Quote :

"The rest of the morning was taken up with jury selection, a tedious procedure that appeared to confirm Minnesota's reputation as a place of Lutheran virtue and hard work. Of the 19 people called up for questioning, no one admitted to having used Napster, KaZaA, or a P2P file-sharing program—and this despite the presence of several college students and recent grads. One juror said that his friend was a heavy user and that he had downloaded a couple songs from his friend's account, but he had stopped because he "didn't want to get caught and go be... here." (Laughter from court.) Another juror also said that a friend used LimeWire and had given him "a couple CDs" filled with songs. He didn't know much about the process beyond the fact that "everybody does it." Finally, one man had a son with a new iPod who had allowed a friend to load it up with some songs from the friend's collection. Most responses to these sorts of questions sounded like something right out of a Cupertino PR campaign, though. Apart from one guy with a Sandisk player, the personal music player of choice was the iPod. Just about everyone claimed to get their music from iTunes, though the Sandisk guy actually used Amazon instead. When the entire jury pool was asked if they had any opinion on the recording industry, even if it was just about the price of CDs, not a single hand went up. Throughout it all, Jammie Thomas-Rasset sat quietly, flanked by her three lawyers. The recording industry's five-person legal team sat across the courtroom wearing arguably better ties than the defense team. (The recording industry legal team includes two women, who were not wearing ties, including Jennifer Pariser of the RIAA who is overseeing the case for the trade group.) After tossing out four jurors (the ones who had the most experience with file-sharing friends), the court was left with a 12-person jury: five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees. "

[emphasis mine]

6/19/2009 12:54:31 PM

Eh, I should have read the next paragraph, it does look like her lawyers blew this one fierce

Quote :

"Questions that didn't come up in this trial include: whether the recording companies had valid copyrights to the tunes she was accused of having downloaded, whether the RIAA's ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators, what her own technical expert witness found, whether the RIAA's technical expert's procedures and findings were sound, what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual "distribution" of copyrighted music files, and what facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages. That was a lot to leave off the table in such a trial, we would think."

6/19/2009 12:55:14 PM

yeah, and they didn't call a single other witness besides the plaintiff.....

really? no computer experts of your own to explain what could have occurred? No character witnesses? anyone?

6/19/2009 1:01:58 PM

She did have a computer expert witness, even if he wasn't called during this trial. He's the one who figured out that the hard drive she claimed was in the computer at the time wasn't really in the computer at the time--turns out she had the hard drive replaced two weeks after the RIAA claims it sent her an IM to stop sharing.

The copyrights were valid and were admitted into evidence.

This case is a really bad example--the fine is ridiculous, but she is almost certainly guilty.

6/19/2009 1:45:03 PM

Lets see, if I had to pay 80k for each copyrighted song I've downloaded, I'm guessing I would be liable for ~200 million.

6/19/2009 2:19:40 PM

Quote :

"The inevitable bursting of the intellectual property bubble is gonna be so big, america might not survive it. We really need to stop inflating it. I mean, how fucking obvious does it have to be that ideas aren't and shouldn't be considered property? Sad."

Intellectual property is still property, you're just sending out a big FUCK YOU to every musician, writer, artist, movie producer, actor, and pretty much anyone who writes software by saying otherwise. As someone who fits into two of those categories, I'll just send a great big FUCK YOU right back.


Though I do agree that there's eventually going to be a "bursting" of sorts with regard to digitally-reproducible products and the way they are sold and marketed. To some degree it's already come in music... many indie label artists get more from their record company with commercial deals (as in, putting the music in a TV commercial) and various other deals than what they make from the music itself. The simple fact of the matter is that it costs virtually nothing to reproduce as many digital copies of intellectual property as people want (essentially free resources); economically it doesn't seem like a traditional "consumer buys product from producer" sort of system is going to be able to exist for that long... For better or for worse.

Music piracy is already mainstream, even the standard among a lot of people, and we can already see the rules changing in that medium (well, not strictly the "rules" as in law... those are the same. I meant the "rules" as in "the way the industry works"). Once (if) software or digital-book piracy becomes more mainstream, the industry is going to end up changing the way it does business and where its money comes from... again, for better or for worse.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 2:23:58 PM

Quote :

" really? no computer experts of your own to explain what could have occurred? No character witnesses? anyone?"

The comments at the bottom of one of those links speculates her lawyers are "up to something" and I suppose they intend to drag this through appeals for a long time. It's probably easier to submarine the entire case against her by focusing on any one spurious detail on appeal than it is to bring out every possible ammo they have in a jury trial (of which they certainly can't comprehend) and still have her on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

6/19/2009 2:36:05 PM

Where is this 1.9 Million going to come from?

This woman will probably have all her assets sold of for a couple hundred thousand max. Than she'll spend the rest of her days living on welfare, food stamps, and section 8 housing.

6/19/2009 3:28:32 PM

Quote :

"Intellectual property is still property, you're just sending out a big FUCK YOU to every musician, writer, artist, movie producer, actor, and pretty much anyone who writes software by saying otherwise"

Clearly this woman downloading a few songs to put on a mp3 disk to bee-bop in her ford taurus on the way to work everyday cause the artists and muscians 1.8 MILLION dollors in lost revenue. Bono himself is probably scrapping for food out of the dumpster b.c of this malicious pirate woman .

This battle has been going on since the dawn of recordable medium. During the 1980's the big deal was betamax v. MPAA since people could OMG record back up copies of the movies they purchased since shitty tapes degrade with use OMFG

6/19/2009 4:02:31 PM

Quote :

"Intellectual property is still property,"

No. No it's not. It was never property.
Lawyers, even those that fully support it, know and will tell you that it isn't and never was property. The term "intellectual property" is ONLY used because the original and accurate term "intellectual property rights" took too long to say. (Plus, of course, hyper-capitalists like the term "intellectual property" better because they like the idea of it actually being property.) There are rights given. That's all. All the rights do is create a temporary monopoly granted by the government. (...never mind that the "temporary" is WAY too fucking long -- and that they can retroactively lengthen it. * cough cough total bullshit cough *) The rights are similar to those rights we have to actual property, but they are not the same. They can't be the same. Ideas are not tangible. You cannot hold them in your hand. And most importantly, using another's idea doesn't rob them of it. Ideas are simply not property. You may incorrectly believe that they are, and you might even be a hyper-capitalist that wishes they are, but they are not.

Quote :

"you're just sending out a big FUCK YOU to every musician, writer, artist, movie producer, actor, and pretty much anyone who writes software by saying otherwise."

Nice try.... There are plenty of people that oppose intellectual property, and it seems that you'd be quite surprised to learn how many are not only capitalists, but are musicians, writers, artists, etc. Haven't you heard of open source software? Haven't you heard of other forms of content licensing like copyleft or the Creative Common's ShareAlike? Or did a big scary monster tell you only anti-capitalists support those? The only artists that really get hurt by the abolition of intellectual property [rights] are over-payed, and often over-rated celebrity types. I love what many artists and musicians have offered society over the years, but they simply don't deserve to be millionaires simply from having created meaningful content. So, in short, the only artists that this says "a big FUCK YOU" to generally deserve it.

Quote :

"As someone who fits into two of those categories, I'll just send a great big FUCK YOU right back."

So I guess you are a hyper-capitalist douchebag. (a great big FUCK YOU times infinity... )

Quote :

"Though I do agree that there's eventually going to be a "bursting" of sorts with regard to digitally-reproducible products and the way they are sold and marketed."

That's just the start. Eventually, people will demand an end to most, if not all, forms of intellectual property. Technology will continue to change, making the old control-based capitalistic approach of previous centuries obsolete. In a way, russia and china are fighting on the right side here. The real burst will be so large, (because of how we're inflating it while completely disregarding the possibility of a burst, let alone the existence of the bubble,) and it may happen so unexpectedly, that america may seriously not survive it. I don't really want that, because america is the best thing going. We all need to stop relying on this out-dated model.

Quote :

"To some degree it's already come in music... many indie label artists get more from their record company with commercial deals (as in, putting the music in a TV commercial) and various other deals than what they make from the music itself."

The point of art is not to sell out. Sure, very few may occasionally find the very small amount of overlap between real art and commercial "art", but the limits of the market shouldn't have anything to do with the motivations or success of actual artistic expression. They simply don't (and can't) fit.

But maybe you're right. I really love "Beep Beep", and other classics far more than anything by Tom Waits, The Pixies, or Beethoven...

Quote :

"The simple fact of the matter is that it costs virtually nothing to reproduce as many digital copies of intellectual property as people want (essentially free resources); economically it doesn't seem like a traditional "consumer buys product from producer" sort of system is going to be able to exist for that long... For better or for worse."

For better.

Quote :

"Music piracy is already mainstream, even the standard among a lot of people, and we can already see the rules changing in that medium (well, not strictly the "rules" as in law... those are the same. I meant the "rules" as in "the way the industry works"). Once (if) software or digital-book piracy becomes more mainstream, the industry is going to end up changing the way it does business and where its money comes from... again, for better or for worse."

Again, it will be for the better.

Also, it's not really piracy or theft. It's more like liberation. When slaves* were helped to escape their masters' land, the masters certainly would have called that theft. Was it? Was it really? The law says yes, but was it really? (no.) When I "liberate" an idea from the immoral authoritarian control the law places on it, that is not theft -- not even close.

*(please, before anyone incorrectly labels this as a distasteful comparison between human slaves and intellectual content, realize that it is an analogy -- slaves and intellectual content are not being compared.)

6/19/2009 4:02:54 PM

Quote :

"Where is this 1.9 Million going to come from? This woman will probably have all her assets sold of for a couple hundred thousand max. Than she'll spend the rest of her days living on welfare, food stamps, and section 8 housing."

they won't maker her do that. If the RIAA demands full payment, they'll garnish her wages for the rest of her life, and they will get a pittance of the original sum.

More likely, the RIAA will settle again and just ask for a lower price - 10s of thousands, like they were asking before going to trial.

6/19/2009 4:38:51 PM

So I guess my hard drive is worth $1.4 billion.

6/19/2009 5:04:15 PM

Quote :

"they'll garnish her wages for the rest of her life,"

not if she doesn't work and lives off of welfare or a rich husband

6/19/2009 6:45:13 PM

how often to traditional thefts go to civil trial?

6/19/2009 6:46:41 PM

^^ why would you assume she will give up and live off welfare?

She's not black, you know..... Just wanted to clear that up, because I know you have some strong feelings about blacks and welfare according to your "senate apologizes" thread

6/19/2009 6:55:02 PM

Quote :

"But maybe you're right. I really love "Beep Beep", and other classics far more than anything by Tom Waits, The Pixies, or Beethoven... "

Completely not what I meant. Artists producing a song specifically for a commercial would be selling out. Artists producing a song and then a commercial deciding to use it as-is would not be, and there are plenty of instances of this.

I don't have time to discuss the rest at the moment, but you completely missed the point of that bit.

6/19/2009 8:41:12 PM

here's a nice list of her options
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars

including "the constitutional challenge." The judge, before he took the case, already assailed the verdict of the lower court, claiming it was a ridiculous fine. And now in his court, the jury awarded 8 times as much. So maybe it will help to have the judge be outspoken against the constitutionality of it all

Quote :

"[The 8th] amendment says that "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Camara has already indicated that he plans to contest the award on these grounds unless Thomas-Rasset takes a settlement. Would it work? Recall that after the first trial, Judge Davis took his opportunity to assail that verdict with these words: "Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.""

6/21/2009 11:06:32 PM

Just wondering... has any musician, who for the sake of the argument I will treat as a "company", went out of business because of intellectual property theft?

How about a production company?

It reminds me of a Yogi Berra saying... "Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore.. it's too crowded."

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2009 11:22:54 PM

just declare bankruptcy...wouldnt she not have to pay then?

6/21/2009 11:34:35 PM

is she hot

6/21/2009 11:41:11 PM

^^^bands quit because they don't make enough money all the time. so do labels (especially small ones). it's impossible to prove if downloading had any impact on that. i think it probably does to a certain extent. but i also think the genie is out of the bottle and record companies just need to figure out new business models to make their businesses profitable.

and independent record stores have been hit especially hard. there are multiple examples of this around the triangle.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 12:41 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2009 12:30:44 AM

Quote :

"Just wondering... has any musician, who for the sake of the argument I will treat as a "company", went out of business because of intellectual property theft?"

Considering the massive decline in overall record sales (downloaded album sales don't make up for the losses in physical media sales) and and the resulting recording industry losses, its fair to assume:

-Many new artists did not get their break
-Signed artists have not been able to renew their contracts
-Lay-offs

Don't fool yourself - pirating music is not without consequences.

6/22/2009 12:49:24 AM

^

This is just an instance of the temporal causation fallacy, otherwise known as "A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B." In other words, it's not "fair to assume" that music piracy led to any of the consequences you describe, because you haven't in any way proven conclusively that music piracy caused the "massive decline in overall record sales."

There are many alternative explanations for why there was a massive decline in record sales. The most plain and obvious one is that the recording industry has simply failed, in recent years, to produce offerings that are compelling enough to buy. It's a mistake in the world of business to believe that past performance guarantees future results.

It may in fact be the case, and probably is, that piracy has some negative consequences. But again, attributing the overall decline of an industry to piracy is simply silly. Other industries, such as the software business, endure massive problems with consumer piracy and yet produce double digit year-over-year growth. Are they in quite the same boat as the recording industry? No. But it suffices to show that the effects of piracy on an industry's prospects are not singular determinants of its fate.

Let's play this game to its logical conclusion. Assume that your statement is true: that piracy has led to a massive decline in record sales. Does it follow, then, that reducing piracy today will lead to a revival of record sales?

Of course the answer is no, again, using some basic logic. That's easy enough to figure out. It's not logically or obviously the case that the recording industry has seen a "reversible" trend where they can restore their pricing power or the valuation of their "brands" through the use of lawsuits.

It seems to me that the only way to proceed at this point is to let bygones be bygones and try a new approach to the business. It blows my mind to think that suing single mothers for millions of dollars is a viable business strategy. Very few businesses except for perhaps the mafia have tried the approach of publicly threatening and destroying the customer's life and had much success.

Here's the reality: when a cultural artifact such as music is completely stripped of its authenticity and context, it becomes a commodity. It's just background noise, or worse, Mylie Cyrus.

The recording industry needs to restore authenticity and therefore value to music. The changes it needs to make are qualitative, and inherent to the industry's culture, and are perhaps impossible with the current generation of institutions.

6/22/2009 2:12:30 AM

i was totally about to say all of that

good post

6/22/2009 2:28:28 AM

What we need to do is outlaw Playstation. That's what's really cutting into music sales.

6/22/2009 8:11:52 AM

Quote :

"The recording industry needs to restore authenticity and therefore value to music. The changes it needs to make are qualitative, and inherent to the industry's culture, and are perhaps impossible with the current generation of institutions."

They thing is, they must still be making money hand over fist because I haven't seen any sort of willingness over the past 5 years to do anything more than churn out glitzy pitch corrected artists while leaving real artists that can actually sing having to resort to the indie labels. If the industry was getting harmed as much as they'd like us to believe, then they'd be desperate to search for new revenue streams (ie, different artists).

6/22/2009 8:30:10 AM

Quote :

"just declare bankruptcy...wouldnt she not have to pay then?"

read the link

Quote :

"Bankruptcy is of course an option, but there are potential complications: not all debts can actually be discharged in bankruptcy court. Back in 2007, the EFF prepared a brief report on the issue, intended for lawyers who were arguing exactly these types of cases. The report pointed out that copyright infringement judgments can be discharged, unless the infringement was ruled to be a "willful and malicious injury." (Note that although Thomas-Rasset was found liable for "willful" copyright infringement, this is a separate standard that requires a separate judicial ruling on her state of mind.) The issue doesn't come up often with relation to copyright infringement judgments against individuals, of course, so it's not clear how this might unfold. The takeaway, though, is that clearing the debt in bankruptcy court is possible, but not guaranteed. Should Thomas-Rasset take this route and fail to have the debt discharged, settlement would suddenly look like a super-appealing alternative to having wages garnished for the rest of one's life."

[quote]is she hot[/quote

6/22/2009 8:38:52 AM

Quote :

" Considering the massive decline in overall record sales (downloaded album sales don't make up for the losses in physical media sales) and and the resulting recording industry losses, its fair to assume: -Many new artists did not get their break -Signed artists have not been able to renew their contracts -Lay-offs Don't fool yourself - pirating music is not without consequences."

thats a pretty bad assumption. Money is still being pumped into music, just in different ways now. Talk to any remotely independent label that has been around for awhile and they will tell you that their company is booming right now. Why? Kids aren't spending as much money on CDs sure, but because music is so easily available online, kids are listening to a LOT more of it, and getting/liking albums from bands that they wouldn't have if they had to buy it. They then are going to their shows, buying their shirts etc.

Obviously I am not condoning just stealing all of your music, but I have been around bands, labels, etc. long enough now to see the "positive" side of it. The owner of our label has made more money the past 2 years than he has the rest of the time he has operated (hes not rolling in money, but just stating that his profits have gone up). But he'll be the first to say his CD sales have dropped considerably over the past 6 years, but his merchandise sales have gone through the roof along with show attendance. He pointed out to me on all the online sites he presales albums on, the "bundles" with Tshirts or DVDs coming with the CD for say $20 will dramatically outsell the single issue of the album for $9.99. The merchandising side of music is thriving. The indie labels have figured this out.

another example? at our last CD release show in 2007, we sold quite a few CDs..however in contrast, we sold twice as many tshirts (for the same price as the album). Sure I assumed that a lot of those kids had a leaked copy of our album that didnt buy it but were buying shirts, but you know what? Without that leaked copy, some of those kids wouldnt have paid to go to the show, and then paid to get a shirt.

6/22/2009 9:02:37 AM

^i think that jibes with my observations and experiences as well (hence my saying that record stores have suffered the most).

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM. Reason : of course vinyl sales have been on the increase so that has provided a very small glimmer of hope]

6/22/2009 9:15:30 AM

Quote :

"This is just an instance of the temporal causation fallacy, otherwise known as "A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B." In other words, it's not "fair to assume" that music piracy led to any of the consequences you describe, because you haven't in any way proven conclusively that music piracy caused the "massive decline in overall record sales.""

I wasn't attempting to prove that the drop in sales were a result of piracy. I just stated that as a given. You're trying to counter an argument I did not make.

If you want me to defend the assumption, you need only ask. To me it's completely fair to assume the recording industry is suffering due to piracy because:
-The timeline of the record industry's decline mirrors the rise in piracy
-The decline is universal: not unique to any company, genre, or industrialized region
-Sales of music players remain strong

If you know of another realistic, quantifiable cause of the industry's decline, I would honestly like to hear about it.

Quote :

"Other industries, such as the software business, endure massive problems with consumer piracy and yet produce double digit year-over-year growth."

Consumer software is in rapid decline. Business software licensing and embedded apps are where the growth is. That said, the software industry is a different market with different protection mechanics. Comparing it to music piracy is like comparing petty theft at car dealers to petty theft at gas stations. I don't think the consumer software decline is entirely due to piracy.

Quote :

"Of course the answer is no, again, using some basic logic. That's easy enough to figure out. It's not logically or obviously the case that the recording industry has seen a "reversible" trend where they can restore their pricing power or the valuation of their "brands" through the use of lawsuits"

Your logic only works if you assume that lawsuits produce a net reduction in piracy. Should I now call you out for using the very same fallacy? No; that would be asinine because I can tell that's not your point. You're only using it as a given to make another point.

PS: Just so we're clear, I am not defending the RIAA or this exorbitant fine, nor am I railing against pirates.

Quote :

" The merchandising side of music is thriving. The indie labels have figured this out."

You make a good point, but until we see if this can work for the industry as a whole, it's not a justification for piracy.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 10:28 AM. Reason : ^^]

6/22/2009 10:07:01 AM

Quote :

"The decline is universal: not unique to any company, genre, or industrialized region"

i'd have to ask you to look into that further. A lot of the more independent labels have actually seen an increase in revenue (once again, a drop in disc sales but an increase in revenue).

The timeline lines up with piracy because the timeline also lines up with the internet being a valid source for sharing music (and not necessarily sharing as in stealing albums, just the spread of music). Before the internet became useful for this, the huge labels had a much firmer stronghold on music via TV and the radio. Sure there were always underground movements with mixtapes and then mix CDs and fanzines etc. But that took effort and wasn't widely accessible to those who werent specifically looking to be a part of a music "subculture"

Now, with the internet as a music medium, you have joe 16 year old boy and susie 17 year old girl able to find out about all kinds of music that has never passed through the hands of a major label. All of a sudden now you have twice as many kids getting into X amounts of sub genres that are not getting radio airplay or having videos on MTV(ha, do they even show videos now?) from bands who are on independent or somewhat independent labels. So sure, the nickelback's and disturbed's of the world are seeing a drop in CD sales because kids have a lot more choices on what they listen to because of the internet. Sure they might latch onto a lot of sub genres that I think are completely terrible, but in all honesty, I'd probably support a lot of those groups over bands like nickelback.

CD sales are getting more spread out, some of it even going to bands or labels that dont use soundscan to get recognized by the billboard charts. Yes, there still has certainly been a drop in CD sales overall, but as I've stated before, revenue is up for the labels and bands that know what they are doing. Take a kid who only listens to the radio to get all of his new music and new bands and he may buy 15 albums a year right? Take a kid wholly invested in any number of flourishing indie scenes and I guarantee you he buys 10 albums a year even if he acquires 40 albums that year. All the while attending shows, buying shirts, etc. A lot of those bands he spent money on in another medium besides CD he wouldn't have found out about without the internet.

It is still my opinion that the major labels are refusing to reshape their business model. Either that or the customers of major pop music just aren't the kind that feel "connected" to the artists enough to worry about whether they buy their CD or merch.

Quote :

"You make a good point, but until we see if this can work for the industry as a whole, it's not a justification for piracy."

sorry i know I just rehashed myself with this post, but as I said I'm not condoning piracy, just stating that the way the RIAA is going about fixing their problem is completely lazy and ridiculous. I agree that anytime a business is losing money due to their customers doing something illegal, they shouldnt just say oh well we're going down. But at the same time, they shouldn't sit on their butts and do nothing but sue the customers. Most of the indie labels simply shifted their game and have come out of the better.

Quote :

"^i think that jibes with my observations and experiences as well (hence my saying that record stores have suffered the most)."

yea, agreed.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

6/22/2009 10:35:25 AM

while it's hard to prove that downloading put labels and artist out of business, it's pretty clear that illegal downloading led to the fast demise of many music retail stores. i remember before napster, record/CD stores on Hillsborough St. would be packed for big new releases...after Napster, they'd be empty as people had already downloaded the albums. while i'm pretty sure itunes and pay-per-download sites would have put most retail stores out of business eventually, illegal downloads DEFINITELY accelerated the process.

6/22/2009 10:38:13 AM