Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers have sued Sony over the method used to calculate the bands’ share of royalties for purchased Internet downloads:
Yeah, I understand it’s expensive to package and restock stuff in cyberspace, not to mention replacing all the broken 1s and 0s… :rolleyes:
Cheap Trick is hoping that Sony will surrender, surrender.
People download the Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick?
Someone should tell them that the reason their royalty checks are so low is because 30% of zero is, in fact, zero.
Hey, I’ve downloaded some Allman Brothers songs. So they’ve made at least $5.94.
So, they’re saying that Sony should be tied to the whipping post?
I think that a band like the Allmans can initiate something like this, because the majority of their income is from touring in the last 20 years or so, and album sales probably don’t amount to much. So what if Sony drops them? They’ll be back on another label in seconds. Cheap Trick on the other hand is probably just really bored.
Cheap Trick is still quite active on the tour circuit. These bands never die, they just play smaller arenas. And they need the money for their kids’ underfunded college plans, and their own underfunded 401(k) plans.
“…but don’t give yourself awaaaay…”
I’m sure the Dream Police are investigating.
mm
Ya know, it’s hard to feel guilty about downloading music illegally, when I read shit like this.
I mean…sorry about losing your 4.5% royalty guys, but…I sure as HELL ain’t giving any money to Sony!!!
Eliminate all record labels, disband the RIAA, and allow musicians to OWN THEIR MUSIC again, and sell directly to the consumer…then, I’ll actually pay for music again.
It’s hard to fade into oblivion. They just want us to want them.
I was going to see them open for Aerosmith a few weeks back before Tyler had to cancel the tour. Now they’re involved in a suit.
See how the boredome angle works? 
Oh, and fuck Sony. I don’t even buy their recordable media. In their way of thinking I’d probably just use the disks to burn pirated shit. :rolleyes:
Of course you will pay, you rebel you. Fighting for the rights of the musicians and thumbing your nose at the powerful music industry!!! You’re cutting edge man! Fight the Power!!!
You’re a fucking pathetic thief. You just so happen to steal more from Sony than you do from the artists, but your still a thief.
Oh, go fuck a pigeon, you wannabe corporate shrew. You’re not even getting paid by Sony to say that, are you? They’ve got you brainwashed.
I do not support any criminal organization, and that’s what Sony is. Remember that little malware gambit they surprised everyone with last year? And I wouldn’t be surprised if Sony was, in some way, behind the scenes during that tiny legal situation with Michael Jackson, just to destroy his career and force him to relinquish his rights to the Beatles catalog.
Heck, I’d refuse to support Exxon/Mobil, and steal gasoline if I could. Unfortunately, you can’t download gas.
(And for what it’s worth, I haven’t downloaded mp3s…or purchased music in any form…for years. This whole file-sharing brouhaha totally turned me off from buying new music, and I used to spend up to $300/month on CDs!)
Well, yeah, actually you can. And no I’m not e-mailing anyone about it. I might be ignorant, but I’m not a friggin idiot. 
I’m more amused by the ‘disband the RIAA’ thing as if it was some form of government agency or something.
The RIAA is nothing more than an industry association. And it’s just like the other (no fooling) 30,000+ industry associations in Washington. It’s their job to represent the needs and desires of their member companies. In this case it means trying to prevent illegal downloading of songs (most famously) and, I’m certain, other legislative objectives to maximize their members profits. My heart!
Now, get me, I do think that they’re on the wrong side of history here in that I think preventing the free distribution of music is a losing proposition. But calling for them to be ‘disbanded’ (by whom, incidentally?) is nonsense.
Cite?
I think one can agree that theft of luxury items is morally wrong.
But can you not also agree that there is an immorality about the royalty breakdown discussed in the OP? Or the Sony DRM malware which also, reputedly, violated the GNU license for some of its code? What of people who commit code copyright theft, or who push malware products built on stolen code?
One doesn’t excuse the other, of course not, but let’s not lose sight, in the context of this thread, of the fact that there’s more than one thief here.
I agree completely that Sony is in the wrong. The royalty breakdown is patently unfair, with Sony slimely trying to justify it with claims of costs they don’t have. And Sony, if it is true they themselves are violating copyrights with the computer code, should pay through the nose. I’ll note that the malware, like anti-copying software that violate “fair use”, were created in response to the theft of music and DVD’s, and not the other way around.
Yes, Sony is bad, evil, and unfair. Using that as a justification of theft is a great example of immature, dare I say teenaged angst, thinking.
Of course they do. It’d be impossible to call a thief a thief unless you’re a corporate shill or brainwashed.
Tell yourself whatever you need to to justify it to yourself, you’re still nothing but a little thief. Do it under the rubric of fighting evil corporatations. Pretend you’re a fucking modern day Robin Hood. Tell yourself and everyone else that the money you no longer spend on music has nothing to do with the fact your stealing it for free rather than buying it. None of that changes that you’re a delusional little thief.
I think we’re in agreement. The issue I think people are perhaps not conveying well is that given the distateful way Sony has handled things, it encourages people to disrespect them. Now, of what value is this “respect”? In terms of the law, really none. But in terms of Real People, who don’t really follow the law totally and completely (how many people, honestly, never speed, for example?), then it has a real impact. Sony could help its case and exert a market influence that might make some think twice about “punishing” them via downloading, if it were a respectable company. Again, not excusing things here, but just saying out loud people tend to disrespect disrespectful people.
Plus, people, in general, love to point out hypocricy, especially corporate greed-based hypocricy. Sony wants to save money by ripping people off, but goes to extreme lengths not to be ripped off itself. That rubs people the wrong way.
Of course, in conjunction with this is the fact that although Sony may only give an artist 4 cents on the dollar, the downloader who pays no royalty to punish Sony gives the artist 0 cents on the dollar as well. Unless they contribute to one of those virtual tip jar things that used to be around.