You know, if we’re talking about you paying triple the actual damage you inflicted on me, so as to also cover my legal fees, then I’d probably be fine with that.
But you shouldn’t have to pay hundreds of times the actual damages you inflicted, just because I spent way more on a lawyer than was actually worth it.
Let’s review the post I originally replied to:
Spending $500 an hour over many hours to recoup a $100 loss (recall the other $300 were suggested as punitive damages) is absurd overspending in my book.
It’s worth nothing, for those arguing about the status of the RIAA, that my OP was actually imprecise in identifying the RIAA as the plaintiffs in this case. I used the term as a sort of generic umbrella term for the music industry, mainly because the RIAA has been, to a considerable extent, the public relations face of the industry in the debates over file sharing.
The proper name for this particular case is:
SONY BMG MUSIC
ENTERTAINMENT; WARNER BROS.
RECORDS INC.; ATLANTIC
RECORDING CORP.; ARISTA
RECORDS LLC; and UMG
RECORDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
Certainly we would care and I imagine we would probably sue them. But our business model (as I described above) is such that for them to get our software without paying for it would require them hacking into our system, or else one of our own employees egregiously violating the terms of his contract.
If we were distributing copies of the software, we’d have to expect that some level of piracy would occur, and would need to find a way to be profitable in spite of that fact. Or, we could change to using a “software as a service” type of model where, as I said, that sort of thing isn’t such a big problem.
[Disclaimer: I can’t actually say with any authority what my company would do in any scenario. I’m just a software developer, not an exec. But it’s not like I identified us by name anyhow.]
It’s not the same at all. There’s no money in poetry because very few people want it. It’s an incredibly small market. Even at that if you stopped into a Borders to hear a particular poet do some readings it would be incredibly insulting and morally wrong to enjoy their reading and their work, but download a free copy from some illegal file sharing site rather than buy a copy from the bookstore that brought them in for you to enjoy.
Music is incredibly competative but it is something the average person still wants. If they want what someone else has worked to create then they should expect to pay. The attitude of "my friends all do it. or they don’t pay so why should I? is BS justification.
I own several books of poetry and I expected to pay for them precisely because I wanted them in my library.
Sure, but the end result is the same. If it’s an artform people aren’t willing to pay for, either because they don’t want it at all (poetry) or because they can find a way to get it without paying (music) the end result is the same for the creators of the art. At some point, people might have to start saying “There is no money in this artform. That sucks, but it’s true.”
I don’t think the technology really matters. What matters is what the end result is for the artists. And tech is having the same or similar effects on other arts, like acting and writing (TV or movie writers, journalists), and even things like graphic design where sites like crowdSPRING makes it possible to get work done for pennies compared to what was paid just a few years ago.
I mean, small comfort to these artists, I know, but I’m just saying that there’s nothing that guarantees that you get paid for creating. There has been a lot of money in music, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the market for music is going to come back to earth at some point.
So, I’m not addressing the explicit issue of what should happen to filesharers, just the bigger issue of what the future is of digitizable media.
As I said, I agree that a business has to react to changing technology including technolgy that allows people to get thier product for free. I suppose it’s realsiitc to say, that’s part of the business model, but it doesn’t make illegal copies less of a crime.
It’s fine to react by giving music lovers more choices and making those choices attractive financially but it’s also thier rightful choice to seek to pursue and punish the crime itself rather than shrug and say “Oh well, those crazy kids”
I serve Lord Jesus, and the Father provides my needs, It’s really that simple and available to anyone. It’s God that can provide any opportunity for you, and He has proven Himself to me. What basically happens is I get a opportunity to go somewhere, where there is either something to learn or someone to meet, allow the Love of God to flow through me to them.
I do believe if a artist follows this they also will have all their needs met. It does not make sense, but it works.
I believe that the current model may benefit a few, and the expense of many many more who would love to do music but are so discouraged by the current system that their God given gift is wasted, which is a sad loss to humanity.
I do disagree strongly with the economist and feel that the amount of music in the world is less and of vastly lower quality due to the current system.
Why say “consumer preference” when what you mean is “rampant thievery by people with no respect for other people’s rights”?
If gangs of car thieves were so widespread that car dealerships couldn’t make any money selling cars, would your answer be that nobody should sell cars? It’s “consumer preference” and “technology” at fault because cars are easy to hotwire? Would kanicbird think cars should be a “gift to humanity” that no one should be able to earn a living off of?
In both cases we know the demand for the items are there. Capitalism is supposed to work by people putting things up for sale and others buying them. If you take something that costs money just because you want it and don’t feel like you should have to pay for it, you are a leech on society and an outright criminal whose actions need to be punished.
No, be realistic: Who pays for your bills? Do you have a real job? If you do, God isn’t signing the paycheck. If you are someone who has never worked a day in her life I could understand why your ideas on how the world should work are so skewed.
Even if the end result is the same it’s not a valid comparison in the way you’ve presented it. It’s an ongoing reality of every business that things change and you have to react and adapt to those changes. Still, there’s a pretty major difference between having a product few people want and having one they want but can easily steal so you’re not getting paid.
I doubt there will ever come a time where musicians don’t get paid. I just think how you get paid will continue to change. I just don’t want to encourage the concept that free downloads and copying music for your friends is a cool thing to do. I think one way to do that is to continue to prosecute what is in reality, a crime.
The business model is fine, it’s the thieves who are the problem.
Congrats on you being all proud of the fact that your company doesn’t release software to customers. There are lots of business models for products that people want that cannot work any other way. They can make good money, and there are people stealing from them. Do you think they all ought to go out of business? Who will make the product that all those people want but can’t be released any other way?
And what if someone broke into your company and got the software your company charges people to have use of and then put it on the Internet for free? You’d be out of a job. But maybe you should have been in a business with a business model not open to any sort of criminal acts.
News flash: there are no companies that are immune to criminals doing something to pull the rug out from underneath them. A civilized society catches the criminals instead of chastising the victims.
I wish I had saved the URL of the site that had figures that showed increased sales & profit from filesharing of artist’s tunes. Many (or most?) of the illegal downloaders would not have purchased what they downloaded anyways, so not a loss to anyone. A number of artists had increased sales due to highly increased visibility, and wanted the RIAA to back off or stop representing them. The RIAA was hurting them by doing what it was.
I am not a fan of ‘illegal downloading’, but I do not think the industry is being harmed anywhere near what is stated by RIAA. Nowhere close to it. But attorneys being what they are, of course the suggested damages will be far beyond reality. And looks like the US Courts are seeing the light finally.
I get a few very lucrative gigs, again all are the work of the Lord, regardless of the ‘real world’ reason for me being there. I have my own home fully paid, never been on any form of state assistance, the only debt is perhaps $6000 in student loans.
I do believe musicians can do this also, there is always a demand for live music and they can make quite a lot if the Lord is with them even with freely distributing recordings.
Simple, because the recording industry didn’t respond to the preferences of their customers. The only choice consumers were given was to purchase an entire album, containing multiple songs (songs that the consumer may or may not have wanted, but had no way of sampling beforehand) and superfluous packaging, and at artificially high prices (the music distributors and retailers settled a class action lawsuit in 2003 for conspiring to fix prices). The recording industry liked this setup because it forced consumers to buy more product than they actually wanted. Since the industry refused to respond to changing consumer preferences, the consumers found a way to bypass them to get the product they wanted.
Today it’s easy to sample music because artists create Myspace pages or upload songs to internet radio sites, and artists have begun experimenting with releasing singles directly to the people or letting them pay whatever price they want for an entire album. Really, the only purpose of the record companies is marketing, but it’s so easy for consumers to find artists online themselves that even that role is becoming obsolete.
I seriously doubt that. What we’ll probably see is less control and less profits by a few huge labels. But less won’t equal zero or even to little to bother with.
Even though technology makes it much easier for artists to produce thier own music there are still select people with gifts for producing , arranging, and a host of other details that make a decent idea a great piece of music. {or even a popular piece that isn’t really so great}
I think recording music could be one of those things where technology giveth and technology taketh away. Previous to the ability to record music, musicians made money through individual performance or specific commission, not mass reproduction of their product. Those things aren’t threatened by the tech.