# Recording Industry takes action against 12 year old girl, forces settlement **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 10, 2003, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697 "2003-09-10T05:40:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Backslider108](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f05b48/32.png) [@Backslider108](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Backslider108)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/201 "2003-09-15T19:11:42Z")
I download songs. I share them via the different programs what allows one to do that. I know it’s illegal and I’ve thought long and hard about it. Thus, my two cents… First and foremost, the RIAA could give less of a damn about the artists. The business side of the music business could give less of a damn about the artists. It’s always been like that. If you ever get the opportunity, ask Bo Diddley his opinions on how that game works. If you sign with a label - major certainly, minor most of the time - you are going to get hosed. Steve Albini wrote an interesting article for maximumrockandroll a few years back on the subject. Check it out here: [http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html#](http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html#) In any event, unless you are a pre-packaged product like Brittany or an out-of-nowhere phenom like Nirvana, you are gonna get a bad case of the red ass if you sign up with the big boys. As a fan of music, I download to satisfy curiosity. Maybe I download a song because I’m curious about the band. Maybe it’s the current hot product like White Stripes, or maybe it’s something a friend recommended like Tim Carroll. Maybe it’s an old country song from my youth that I want to hear again. Often, I buy the CD if I like it. I’d give you numbers on how many CD’s I’ve purchased because of downloading, but we don’t have the time or space. I have well over three thousand CD’s, and my brother has almost two thousand. We’re sick individuals. And furthermore, I go out of my way to buy CD’s in such a manner that will benefit the artist in question or at least an independent retailer as much as I can. I also buy a lot of band t-shirts. Yes, I’m that guy. I rarely keep much music on my computer. As I said, most of the time, if I like it, I go out and buy it. If I don’t, I get rid of it to save space. Between, I’m crashing my computer every time I turn around, thus rendering the whole thing moot. As a musician who plays in a working rock & roll band, I know all our profits from sold CD’s go to basically paying off the costs of making said CD. We make what little money we make via live shows and merchandise like t-shirts. We’re in the process of putting our stuff online and we’ll always do that. We know we’re never getting on Top 40 radio. We’re not pretty enough and, as Eddie Spaghetti from the awesome Supersuckers so succinctly put it recently, rock & roll records aren’t selling this year. Again, unless you’re product, success as a musician comes from hard work, sweat, broken relationships, lots of touring, playing for four people in Buttholeville, Alabama, and pure dumb luck. Word-of-mouth doesn’t exist anymore. Record labels aren’t your friends. Music journalism is a bad joke, and more limp-wristed PR than anything else. I download music and will continue to do so until I am forcibly prevented. The RIAA can bite me for various reasons. Hell, I ain’t got no money no how. But that’s just me, and I take full responsibility for my actions. Selah, Matt ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/202 "2003-09-15T19:42:50Z")
God, you’re a fucking little choad. > [@](#): > > \*\*\*Originally posted by gex gex \* > Why? Mya isn’t losing out by my _listening_ to the song. She’s losing out by my _not paying_ for the song. And I was _not paying_ for the song in the first place, file sharing or not. \*\* Somewhere a sperm whale and a giant squid are fighting it out in the depths of your stupidity. Buy the album, buy the single, or don’t buy it at all, I could give one less of a shit. Don’t give me your twisted obfuscated bullshit logic to justify an _ **ILLEGAL** _ act. Oh, whoops! Did I just say that it was against the law, as in you are breaking the fucking law? Whoops I wouldn’t want to beat that dead horse, lest it might start to sink into your dense skull _that you are doing something wrong_. CD prices need to come down, the RIAA thugs need to stop their Gestapo tactics, and _people like you_ need to pay for their goddamn music. \*\* > [@](#): > > At least this way, I get to listen to the song. \*\* And Mya doesn’t see a cent from that, sounds fair to me!! \*\* > [@](#): > > Now, before you reply, read that again. Very slowly. Do you understand, or do I have to dumb it down further to get it through your thick skull?\*\* Heh, _my_ thick skull. \*\* > [@](#): > > Hey, someone get this kid a Nobel prize! Of course I like it you moronic fucktard! Do you think I download music that I don’t like?\*\* Wait a minute, I thought you downloaded music to sample if you would like it. \*\* > [@](#): > > Do you think that I download music to torture myself with? Of course I fucking like it! \*\* So if you know in advance, why do you download it? You should just head straight to the store. \*\* > [@](#): > > That still doesn’t mean I like it enough to pay $30 for it! Do I have to explain value here, or can I rely on you to look it up in the dictionary?\*\* Well perhaps you should order it from Amazon or something. There are plenty of options other then paying $30 and illegally (whoops) downloading it. \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s why I don’t pay for 99% of music today!\*\* Hmmmmmmmm \*\* > [@](#): > > Are you going to buy a car that you’re not going to use in a years time? \*\* No, I’m going to buy a car I get years of use out of. Does this mean I get to use a car for free if I’m not happy with GM’s pricing? \*\* > [@](#): > > Then why buy a record that you won’t use in a years time?\*\* Normally people play an album they bought, get burnt on it, and listen to it sporadically over the years. Throwaway pop included. You have the right of course to simply not buy the album in the first place, and if you choose not to, that doesn’t entitle you to the free mp3. \*\* > [@](#): > > If the best argument you can make is by quibbling on my choice of words, you’re standing on very shaky footing. \*\* Oh yes, _I’m the one on shaky footing here_ :rolleyes: \*\* > [@](#): > > There are two sorts of music. There is music that will exist for the long term, that I will get much enjoyment out of for a substantial period of time. Then there is music that is completely of its particular time: the Macarena for instance. \*\* And both sorts of music have associated costs that need to be recouped and people trying to earn a living off of them, you know, the reason people charge for it instead of giving it away. \*\* > [@](#): > > I buy music that I will enjoy on a long-term basis. I download music I will enjoy on a short-term basis. I do not download the Macarena; it was only used as en example of pop with a short lifespan. \*\* So enjoy your long-term music, and don’t download the short-term music, because you don’t think it’s worth paying for. Is that such a tough concept to grasp? \*\* > [@](#): > > Well, I could download a few other songs off the album to check, but according to you, that’d destroy the music industry. Maybe now you understand why I download? \*\* Please point out where I said the music industry is being destroyed by file sharing. Pretty fucking please with icing and a cherry on top. \*\* > [@](#): > > No. She’s throwaway pop. From past experiences with throwaway pop, I can tell you that it’s extremely likely the album has very little else worth listening to.\*\* So go buy the single. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’d pay it if they offered it for a reasonable price. They don’t. That’s their fault, not mine. \*\* I think we are in the ignorance loop phase of this thread. DON’T BUY THE ALBUM THEN. DON’T DOWNLOAD IT EITHER! \*\* > [@](#): > > I’m not going to suffer because the music industry can’t pull its head out of its arse.\*\* Fine, so don’t buy their “shit”, but no matter how far its head is up it’s ass, you are still not entitled to get it for free. \*\* > [@](#): > > Are we talking about legality? Because I thought I made it abundantly clear that I’m perfectly aware of the illegality of my actions, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m right and the law’s wrong.\*\* Go fight the law then. \*\* > [@](#): > > I told you, _I_ won’t listen to an album if it has tracks that _I_ think are bad. _I’m_ the one doing the listening, so the only relevant opinion on the quality of the tracks is _mine_. If other people like the tracks, they can listen to the CD.\*\* And I think only listening to an album where every song is a Machiavellian masterpiece is somewhat insane and unrealistic to say the least. You then turn around and use this twisted logic to excuse you’re behavior with regards to file sharing which happens to be illegal (whoops) \*\* > [@](#): > > Sheesh, maybe you should just quit the board. You are obviously not capable of contributing to the fight against ignorance.\*\* Better then adding to it. \*\* > [@](#): > > Aren’t you a schmuck? Why should I be blamed because you’re not intelligent enough to become a smarter buyer? \*\* Yes, because filesharing is _the only_ way to be a smart buyer. :rolleyes: \*\* > [@](#): > > I download enough to make sure the artist has a consistency that will last for an album. Usually three to five songs. I like sampling a single or two, the opening track and a randomly chosen album track or two(chosen by seeing what stands out in reviews, what has a good title, etc.) It works well, and means I don’t buy junk.\*\* Then you erase them immediately and are off to the music store right? \*\* > [@](#): > > itunes doesn’t have everything, and more importantly, deprives me of my right to make copies for personal use. What if I want to burn a CD to listen to in the car? What if I want to put the song on a compilation I’m making (I like making comps)? itunes places unreasonable restrictions.\*\* To my knowledge, this is all possible. \*\* > [@](#): > > Also, itunes is useless for sampling music to determine whether the album is worth buying. \*\* Oh that’s right, “sampling”. Let me tell you about this sampling stuff. I think it’s a great idea, but it’s one of those things that sounds nice on paper, but doesn’t work in practicality. The main beef I have with it is people do more then sample the music. You want to see if you like something, you DL it, listen to it for a day, then delete it and go buy the album. You don’t have the money to buy it right now you say? Delete it and add the name to a albums to go buy list. People should be free to sample it, but should not have the luxury to listen to it until they decide to buy it or not buy it. The final point is, there is little reason for a person to go buy the album, because frankly, people don’t pay money to replace something when they don’t need to. \*\* > [@](#): > > If I download three songs from itunes, I’d have already payed about $5. If I then buy the album with those songs on it, I still have to pay the full amount for the album. That’s why I’d prefer a subscription service. \*\* Download the remaining songs. \*\* > [@](#): > > If itunes allowed me my rights as a consumer, I would use it in some cases. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to pay for a song twice if I like it enough to buy the album that it’s on. \*\* I think it’s unreasonable to expect you to pay for anything. \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s about $6 for me. 1/5 the price of an album for one song is a little excessive. \*\* Well we got the price of “the one” song down 80%, that’s a good start. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’d never end up listening to a CD single anyway. I’d have to change it three minutes later. Too much fiddling around.\*\* So because a single is 3 minutes short, you don’t own a disc changer, and have never heard of a remote, you feel you can just DL it for free? \*\* > [@](#): > > If you’re just going to accuse me of lying, then what’s the point in discussing this? What do you want? Scans of covers of CDs that I’ve bought? A scan of an actual receipt? How about a screenshot of music downloading from a flittering program, and then a photo of me holding the CD and waving a receipt in your moronic face?\*\* I don’t think I accused you of lying, just that I find some of your justifications laughable. \*\* > [@](#): > > Do you have to keep reminding yourself to breathe, or is your unbelievable stupidity restricted to matters musical?\*\* Yes my musical stupidity is based on, playing in a hardcore band, being a recording engineer, producing hip-hop, drum & bass, getting my trip hop band signed to a label, then getting a record deal, and touring. What’s your musical stupidity based on? \*\* > [@](#): > > Yeah, pretty much. I had less money than, so I didn’t buy as much music, anyway. I had to take my chances more, so I ended up with more shit. \*\* Then perhaps you aren’t the smart buyer you think you are. I’ve been buying music for years, and I haven’t had to rely on filesharing, nor did I get much shit. \*\* > [@](#): > > I didn’t buy as much music because when you don’t have a lot of money, it’s a big investment to blow $30 on something with one good song. \*\* That’s why the single is available. \*\* > [@](#): > > I have a burner. It would still take me a long time to download an entire album, the quality would still be dodgy and I still wouldn’t get any artwork. I’d still have to contend with dropouts and files that cut off two seconds before the end. And rather than using my time to expose myself to new music, I’d have my time taken up downloading something I could buy as a nice package.\*\* Well, you must be the only person that has this problem. I know plenty of people that trade, who get any album they want complete and no problem. \*\* > [@](#): > > Are you under some impression that your constant bleating that flittering is against the law is at all informative?\*\* No, it just amazes me that people think 2 wrongs make a right. \*\* > [@](#): > > I know it’s against the law. We all know that it’s against the law. Sometimes the law gets things wrong.\*\* Are you telling me an artist should not be compensated for their work? \*\* > [@](#): > > Morality and the law are not the same thing. \*\* Well illegal downloading is against the law, and morally it’s pretty shitty to do as well. No? \*\* > [@](#): > > I can’t believe I wasted so much time on your inanities. Especially considering my suspicion that you’re being deliberately dense. \*\* Right back at you. \*\* > [@](#): > > If you decide to reply to this post, please think very carefully about what you’re writing. Otherwise the :smack: smiley shall be asking to be paid overtime, with the amount of use it will be getting. \*\* I’ll say the same for you. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/203 "2003-09-15T20:12:01Z")
gex gex, you _can_ burn a CD from a song downloaded on iTunes. You can pretty much burn it indefinitely. Apple has a restriction of “10 CDs of the same _playlist_”, but you can change around the playlist in an infinite amount of ways and still keep buring that song onto CD. You can also share the song on three computers. You can “deactivate” from one computer and “activate” it on another computer. So it can always be on three computers. As for the rest of your argument, all I can say is that I am all amazement by your twisted, convoluted logic. ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/204 "2003-09-15T20:30:31Z")
For fucks sake, yes the RIAA isn’t fair to its artists. I think we are all in agreement about that. How that becomes a justification to screw the artists just a little bit more, makes no sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/205 "2003-09-15T20:34:51Z")
Fuck, I should have said what **musicman** said and saved myself a few weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/206 "2003-09-15T21:07:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by musicguy_ > **Great, now could you explain to me why you should be allowed to use the car for free for a year (that you aren’t planning on purchasing)?** One more time: A car can only be in one place at a time; a song can be everywhere. If you use a car for a year without paying for it, the dealer can’t sell that car, and another person can’t be driving that car elsewhere at the same time: you’ve deprived someone else of a car. Not so with music. If this were _Star Trek_ where cars and other physical products could be replicated like music, and everyone could have a free car without depriving anyone else of a car, then why _wouldn’t_ people be able to use them for free? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by World Eater_ > **Oh, whoops! Did I just say that it was against the law, as in you are breaking the fucking law? Whoops I wouldn’t want to beat that dead horse, lest it might start to sink into your dense skull that you are doing something wrong.** Hey, don’t stop there. Go ahead and explain how everything that’s illegal is “wrong” by definition… this will be good. Let’s hear your moral outrage for speeders, jaywalkers, and pot smokers while you’re at it. Surely _you’ve_ never broken any laws, right? Some people realize there’s a difference between legality and morality. Apparently you aren’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/207 "2003-09-15T21:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > **If this were _Star Trek_ where cars and other physical products could be replicated like music, and everyone could have a free car without depriving anyone else of a car, then why _wouldn’t_ people be able to use them for free?** Well for starters, making music isn’t free. \*\* > [@](#): > > Hey, don’t stop there. Go ahead and explain how everything that’s illegal is “wrong” by definition… this will be good. Let’s hear your moral outrage for speeders, jaywalkers, and pot smokers while you’re at it. Surely _you’ve_ never broken any laws, right?\*\* Oh, so I have to be equally outraged by everything or I’m not allowed to be pissed about something? \*\* > [@](#): > > Some people realize there’s a difference between legality and morality. Apparently you aren’t one of them. \*\* **Musicman** summed it up best, you greedy fucks are all screwing over the artists. And I suppose that getting something for free and not compensating the creator in any way shape or form is morally acceptable to you? ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/208 "2003-09-15T21:26:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > \*\*Fuck, I should have said what **musicman** said and saved myself a few weeks. \*\* Well, it’s **music_guy_** but thanks just the same. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/209 "2003-09-15T21:33:08Z")
My bad. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jweb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@jweb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jweb)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/210 "2003-09-16T02:05:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by musicguy \* > \*\*First off, sorry for not responding sooner. It was a busy weekend. > > **jweb** , > > I agree with much of what you have said. Yes, it can be beneficial for a band to have tracks available for free download for marketing purposes. Many bands even offer a few tunes or snippets of tunes so others can get an idea of what they sound like. I have nothing against an artist who wants to do this being able to do so. My problem is when the artist or their representation loses control of the content that is given out for free. > > There are few times in any business where someone gives out their entire product for free and then hopes that someone will pay for it later. As can be suggested by the popularity of file sharing, the chances of someone paying for it later are somewhat slim when they already have the entire thing for free. I find it very telling that people that are into filesharing would not be happy enough to have a few snippets or complete tunes to decide whether they want to purchase the CD or not. They also aren’t willing to accept files that can’t be copied to "determine whether or not they want to buy something. No, they have to have every single (complete) track available for free to make this determination. And they must be able to burn these files to a CD if they so choose. THEN, they will determine whether or not to buy the CD, after the whole album in it’s entirety is on their hard drive. > > Basically, if an artist wants to give everything away for free, I have no problem with that. Whatever works for you. The fact that most don’t however should be an indicator that this isn’t what the artist wants to do. They would like to make money from their work, just like you. But the artist has every right, legally and morally, to control how they distribute their work. If they make poor marketing decisions and nobody buys it, so be it. But they, rather than some college kid, should determine how and when to distribute their work. It should not be up to some filesharer to determine that their catalog should be available to millions for no charge. Filesharing takes that control away. \*\* Yeah, it was a busy weekend, but thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. It seems to me as if you accept the fact that filesharing/P2P is not inherantly evil. A sensible position, and I applaud your common sense in this regard. However, it seems to me that by releasing any kind of art, music, or writing, or any creative work into the world, you must inherantly accept the fact that you give up some amount of control over your work. Post a picture on the internet, someone may use it as their computer wallpaper. Write a book or a poem, someone may make a copy of it at Kinkos. Make a CD, someone may rip it to MP3 and place it on KaZaA. You may not be happy about this, but it’s a fact of life. The only way for you to retain complete control over your creation is to never share it with anyone else, and if you don’t release it to the world, what’s the point of creating it at all? Maybe it’s the tiny remains of my youthful idealism talking (I’m 25), but I tend to believe that most people will compensate an artist or author if they feel the asking price is fair and just. Of course, the realist in me says that no matter what you do, some people will never concieve of a “fair and just” price that is anything above $0.00. In my own personal experience, I have purchased 5 CDs in the last year, none of which I would have bought without being able to download tracks off of FILE\_SHARING\_SERVICE to listen to first. On the flip side of the coin, I can also think of about 5 albums that i had considered purchasing, until I downloaded tracks off of FILE\_SHARING\_SERVICE and realized that that album wasn’t good enough to spend my money on. If I buy the album, I will erase the downloaded tracks (because as soon as I purchase a CD I rip it to mp3 for my own use. I also make a backup copy immediately, put the original back in the case, and listen to the burned copy). If I don’t buy the album, I generally delete the tracks off of my computer, although sometimes I don’t get around to it until my drive is almost out of space. I guess at the end of the day, it all boils down to one simple fact: If it can be seen/heard, it can be copied. If it can be copied, there will be some people who will take the free version rather then paying the creator. Also, I can say I wouldn’t have a problem with buying CDs without dowloading tracks first, IF I was allowed to return for a refund albums that suck. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/211 "2003-09-16T03:10:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by World Eater_ > **Well for starters, making music isn’t free.** Quite right. Creating additional copies of music that has already been made, on the other hand, _is_ free. Creating additional cars is not, hence the difference. > [@](#): > > **Oh, so I have to be equally outraged by everything or I’m not allowed to be pissed about something?** If you’re going to say “it’s wrong because it’s illegal”, and you don’t want to be seen as a hypocrite, then I sure hope you’d say the same about jaywalking and speeding. They’re illegal too, you know. By your logic that makes them immoral. > [@](#): > > **Musicman summed it up best, you greedy fucks are all screwing over the artists.** Except for the artists whose CDs I’ve bought to the tune of $280, thanks to file sharing… and the artists whose music I’d never buy under any circumstances… and so on. > [@](#): > > **And I suppose that getting something for free and not compensating the creator in any way shape or form is morally acceptable to you?** I do it every day: I enjoy songs on the radio without paying the artists. I watch TV shows without paying the producers, or even watching the commercials. (_I_ don’t pay the creators for those. The radio and TV stations might, but they pay the same whether I turn on my radio/TV or not - I listen for free.) I look at artwork in museums, on the sides of buildings, and on T-shirts without paying the artists. I listen to music at friends’ houses without paying the bands. Getting something for free is only immoral IMO if it means depriving someone else, or if someone has to pay to replace the one you got for free. The latter doesn’t apply at all to copyright violation, and the former only applies in the specific cases where file sharing actually causes someone not to buy a product. ---
**Author:** ![Conservative\_Evolutionist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a8b319/32.png) [@Conservative\_Evolutionist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conservative_Evolutionist)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/212 "2003-09-16T04:00:49Z")
> [@](#): > > There is a SUBSTANTIAL loss of sound quality from a CD to an MP3 version of the track taken from the CD. > > Sure from some audiophile geek perspective, and you would be right, but if I encode an mp3 at 320k and play it for people, I bet 99% of them couldn’t tell the difference. Ah, so you’re familiar with the Audiophile Geek Perspective (AGP)! I suppose your assessment might be close but that would only be because your out-of-phase Realistic stereo system wouldn’t be able to reproduce all of the data. On a decent system, I would venture to guess about half would be able to tell the difference. Geek indeed. > [@](#): > > This is not to say that a CD is of great sound quality, because it isn’t. > > A lot more goes into a good sounding recording then the sampling frequency, and if properly done, 44khz is plenty. Again, plenty for a Radio Shack stereo, not near enough for something a little nicer. The CD medium is nearly unacceptable. Its only saving grace is portability and ease of use. > [@](#): > > The CD medium was force fed down consumers throats with the promise of a better medium. It IS a better medium than Cassette, and certainly more convenient than an album (and more durable) but it is LIGHTYEARS behind vinyl. > > Lightyears? That’s right…LIGHTYEARS. > [@](#): > > From a technical standpoint the sound quality is better, but that’s like saying 5 billion dollars is better then 1 billion. So if you had a choice between the two, you’d take the one billion? > [@](#): > > It was So far as the history of audio medium is concerned, vinyl reproduces the sound quality of the artists’ work much more accurately because it was a direct cut of the music to a medium, > NOT a digital representation of the music as expressed by a certain number of points on a wave as indicated with the use of an oscilloscope. > > [and you answered…] > > First of all let’s grasp the concept of how music is recorded. > > 1. The equipment is set up for recording, mic placement, line levels, and room acoustics all can have an impact on the sound. > 2. Once the music is being recorded, on the fly equalization, input levels, and the media being used can all have an impact on the sound > 3. The recording is finished, we enter mixdown, a critical stage of bringing the whole song together. Effects such as compression are added, levels are tweaked, and elements such as guitars or vocals enhanced. At every one of these junctures, the recording can change for the better or the worse. > 4. The final stage is mastering, in which a secondary mixdown occurs and overall song levels are uniformed. Heavy compression is added, and additional effects may be added as well. The way these tools are utilized will…wait here it comes…have and impact on the sound quality of the recording. > 5. Lastly the material is transferred to the media. > > What’s the point? You just made it for me. Items 1-4 on your list all occur with the artist PRESENT and approving or disapproving in the studio. Generally the artist has final cut on the sound of his recording up until the very moment it is pressed to the medium. Once it’s on disc, it’s out in the world for better or worse for mass consumption. > [@](#): > > There are a hundred factors that go into making a quality recordin[sic], the media is one of them, and its number 97. And also happens to be the one place where the artist is absent. It also happens to be the exact point where the damage is done. > [@](#): > > You bring any CD to me you want, and if I can find a vinyl version, I’ll sit you down in front of my Krell and B&W 802s and watch your stunned amazement as the vinyl WALKS ALL OVER YOUR CD in this Pepsi Challenge. > > Who cares? I do, and I am not the only one spending my hard earned money on equipment to get the best possible sound from an inferior medium. It frustrates us, you couldn’t happier. We are paying more for less. > [@](#): > > Magnetic tape wasn’t so bad except for additional noise and distortion that it introduced to the media. > > Well that and the media degraded over time because the tape would stretch, fast forwarding to the next song is a pain in the ass, and media would often jam in the player. I agree with you wholeheartedly. > [@](#): > > Which format up there has a transport that doesn’t physically touch the media, increasing its lifespan and maintaining the sound quality it had from day one? You mean day one after the music died in the pressing… > [@](#): > > Which format up there uses a player that is less then $50 and can be found at an electronics or retail store in the country? Not arguing that. > [@](#): > > Which format utilizes instant navigation features and can be programmed to play the songs in custom order? If degraded sound quality is worth this feature to you, then you must be one happy camper. > [@](#): > > Which format is most practical to use inside and outside of my house, in my car, or in my boombox while I go fishing on a lake? You take a boombox fishing on the lake? > [@](#): > > There is so much more then unperceived sound quality Unperceived by whom? Have you ever been present when a track is cut inside a studio? Are you aware of the frustrations that artists have regarding the final version of their collective music? There is no comparison to the sounds you hear in a studio and what you get finally from a CD player. It is a major compromise that leaves some established artists (those who have the clout to fight for it) insisting that vinyl is still pressed of their music. Did you know that albums are still being pressed for many bands? > [@](#): > > Really? I want a name of someone that sold millions of albums and has not made a penny of it. Losing it all later doesn’t disqualify you. This one’s going right out of the park, so don’t even bother fielding it… Under California labor laws, no one can be forced to sign a personal service contract for a period longer than seven years. Yet, the standard record contract promises one or two records, and has options for up to seven - which can last up to fifteen years or more. And, after seven years, the statute of limitations runs out for the artist to file a lawsuit. Convenient, right? The RIAA got an amendment to the Section 2855 of the California Labor Code, so they can break the seven year rule with recording artists. And, record labels can sue their artists for “future lost earnings” if the artist breaks the contract. This is the law that resulted in the GooGoo Dolls being sued by their label. The Dolls ended up owing the company over $1million, AFTER A WORLD TOUR AND A PLATINUM RECORD!!!. The members of the GooGoo Dolls launched an investigation only to find that the label had been “intentionally concealing royalty dollar amounts from several other artists’ accounts as well”. Let’s look at the sides:Clinging to the status quo are the world’s five major record conglomerates: Universal, Sony, Time Warner, EMI/Virgin and Bertelsmann, represented by a powerful trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). They face challenges from increasingly vocal performers supporting the Recording Artists’ Coalition (RAC), whose diverse roster of 150 members includes Bruce Springsteen, Sting, R.E.M., Bonnie Raitt, Madonna, Eric Clapton, Dave Matthews, Billy Joel, Elton John, Linkin Park, Aimee Mann, No Doubt, Puddle of Mudd, Staind and Static-X. Key concerns from the broad range of byzantine conflicts: Caps on contract lengths. Most major-label agreements require a commitment of six to eight albums, an obligation that can entail an indefinite term of indentured servitude. California state Sen. Kevin Murray, a Democrat, wrote a bill to repeal an amendment that exempts recording artists from a state law limiting contracts to seven years. After RAC and the RIAA failed to reach a compromise, the bill was pulled Aug. 15. Murray plans to resubmit it next year as part of a larger package also addressing accounting practices, pension plans and health benefits. Accounting practices. Audits routinely detect unpaid royalties. Music industry lawyer Don Engel, who estimates that labels misreport and underpay artist royalties by 10% to 40%, has said in the past that industry accounting practices are “intentionally fraudulent.” Music writer Dave Marsh describes the process as “an entrenched system whose prowess and conniving makes Enron look like amateur hour.” Royalties, based on complex and antiquated formulas that favor labels, are disbursed only after artists pay back advances, recording costs and other expenses. Greg Hessinger, director of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), a union representing 80,000 actors, musicians and other entertainment workers, says this recoupment method “is so replete with ambiguity, complexity and subjectivity that the only true long-term solution is a complete overhaul. Until we can bury the recoupment system, changes must be implemented that provide for greater transparency and a fuller duty to account so that artists can at least be certain that they are being paid correctly.” Producer Steve Albini, trashing label practices in The Baffler magazine, outlines a hypothetical but typical record deal that bestows a $250,000 advance on a young band. The album sells 250,000 copies, earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties. A California Senate hearing on accounting practices is set for Sept. 24 in Los Angeles. Health and pension benefits. Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore’s music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits. The union, negotiating with labels since May, hopes to secure increased access to health insurance and improvements in pension participation when talks resume in October. Among 200 artists who signed a letter supporting the union’s proposal are Steve Earle, John Hiatt, Johnny Cash, Marilyn Horne, Carole King, Billy Bob Thornton and Coolio. Copyright and ownership. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid. Artists are demanding copyright reform and a reasonable means of reacquiring their master recordings. Payola reforms. Labels sidestep payola laws by hiring independent promoters to lobby and compensate radio stations for playing certain records. Opponents say this quasi-legal system stifles creativity and limits diversity. The drumbeat of war has been building in recent years as artists wrestle for self-empowerment and vow to amend a system that let soul greats Otis Blackwell, Jackie Wilson and Mary Wells die destitute. Before she died, Peggy Lee was part of a class-action settlement that won unpaid royalties. Courtney Love filed suit to break her Geffen contract. Prince fled the corporate structure and pitched camp on the Internet, where he sells directly to fans. Tom Petty’s upcoming album, The Last D.J., slams industry greed. > [@](#): > > Well I suspect the problem will outlive the RIAA, because some people will always want something for free. Whatever the motivation, it seems this was the only thing that could have destroyed the monster, and I for one am glad for it. Who really gives a fuck if it’s illegal, really? I mean, it’s illegal for you to go retrieve mail from your mailbox after you have already placed it in there to be delivered, because once you place the mail in there it is the property of the Postmaster General. It’s illegal to get a blowjob in Georgia, even from your wife! Shit, no wonder Sherman hustled through here. It seems to me if we knew more about your life we would find a few illegal things in your past as well, and then call you a hypocrite. A holier than thou mentality like yours… Fuck it, pass the blank CDs… ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/213 "2003-09-16T06:33:13Z")
Hey wait a minute! I think Reason To Believe is at least as good a song as Maggie May. But that’s IMO. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racinchikki \* > "they said they mistakenly believed they were entitled to download music over the Internet because they had paid $29.99 for software that gives them access to online file-sharing services. " > > I can believe that. You pay a fee for something, you logically assume you’re allowed to use it. After all, there ARE legal programs with which you pay a fee and get to download things. \*\* Actually that may be true in the everyday world but it won’t hold up in court. A friend of mine 😉 told me that the license agreement for Kazaa informs the user that the program is illegal. So while nobody ever reads those damn things, the lawyers can still slap 12- and 71-year-olds with them. Many of you have almost touched on something, and that is all of the most frequently downloaded songs will eventually be played on the radio. The courts have ruled that it is legal to tape songs off the radio. And the technology now exists to transfer the songs onto a computer. So these songs are already available for free, the only difference with file sharing is that it is not subject to FCC rules. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/214 "2003-09-16T16:42:00Z")
**aryk29** , I have been under the impression that, to date, no click-through license has _ever_ been recognized in court. (This is just something I picked up in conversation with a fellow who’s a developer at ActiveState-- maybe one of our lawyerly Dopers has more detail either way?) ---
**Author:** ![cheesepickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/57b2e6/32.png) [@cheesepickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheesepickles)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/215 "2003-09-17T02:50:45Z")
Not sure where this fits on this enormous heap, but here is my little tidbit. Some of you claim that downloading does not hurt business, but it seems to me it does. Nearby there is a small record shop, a real rinky-dink little joint. Thsi guy has been selling music for years but has since been forced to close shop. He claims it is because of downloading and I believe him. Was it just coincidence that this man must now close down? And there really haven’t been any huge music stores that have recently opened up that could be blamed. I mean, when Blockbuster came rolling into town they shut down basically every independant video store in town. I don’t think that can be argued here. Well, it’s just a small stupid store you might say, but my point is: downloading is most certainly having an effect on music sales. Those of you who happen to buy cds because of new exposure to artists you like and hitherto didn’t know about are in a minority. Can’t you realize that. Your noble efforts are not balancing out the millions who are not buying all of the free stuff they’re downloading. Do you think some fifteen year old cares about being true to the musicians? Most of them are giggling their asses off that they can download so much shit for free. Kids in a candy store, all of 'em ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/216 "2003-09-17T03:16:34Z")
Despite all the debate etc, there’s one analogy which strikes me as having merit. If someone worked out a way that when a new blockbuster movie came along, that they could replicate the cinema experience on your home loungeroom wall without you having to even go to the cinema or have to pay for the price of admission - certainly, without doubt, millions of people would watch the film from home and never pay to go to the cinema again. I’m pretty sure that an awful lot of people in movie making would freaked out by such a technological revolution. It doesn’t matter if the system only created a “copy” of the cinema experience on your loungeroom wall by copying the actual cinema screen in the movie theatre - what would count is that a truckload of people would watch the film for free and they’d do so with a clear consience too I dare say. So ultimately, the problem here is that the modern PC has provided a technology to disseminate copies of music (above and beyond) the technological reach of the “music business” to make sure that listener’s pay their “admission price” as it were. It seems to me that the real court case which the RIAA should be fighting is with Microsoft, and the inventors of the mp3 standard. Also, the RIAA should consider forthwith the notion of ceasing to release albums in a digital format. They should go back to vinyl. Or to another format which can’t be hacked by a PC. That way, by extension, any and all mp3’s of a future album would, by definition be illegal. To sue people for being human is a lost cause it seems to me. Sure, it’s illegal to make unauthorised copies of copyrighted material. The problem is when 60 million people in one country alone start to do it. At that point the law is a moot point. Hence, the RIAA needs to change their business model, and they need to seriously consider releasing music in an analogue only format I rather think. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/217 "2003-09-17T03:19:43Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by cheesepickles_ > **Some of you claim that downloading does not hurt business, but it seems to me it does. Nearby there is a small record shop, a real rinky-dink little joint. Thsi guy has been selling music for years but has since been forced to close shop. He claims it is because of downloading and I believe him.** Oh really, you believe him? I guess that settles it! Call off the studies, folks; **cheesepickles** knows an unsuccessful music store owner who blames his shop’s failure on downloading. Does the shop owner know anything about the statistics of people downloading music instead of buying it? Has he done the research? Who cares! He used to own a record store so he must be an authority. > [@](#): > > **Was it just coincidence that this man must now close down?** Why _now_, when people have been trading music on the internet en masse for at least five years? I suspect it has a lot more to do with the recession than with file sharing. > [@](#): > > **Well, it’s just a small stupid store you might say, but my point is: downloading is most certainly having an effect on music sales.** “Most certainly” according to your sample of one single business shutting down, you mean? Color me unimpressed. > [@](#): > > **Those of you who happen to buy cds because of new exposure to artists you like and hitherto didn’t know about are in a minority. Can’t you realize that.** Anyone can post wild-ass guesses. Where’s your evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/218 "2003-09-17T04:54:20Z")
> [@](#): > > **Boo Boo Foo** : The RIAA needs to […] seriously consider releasing music in an analogue only format I rather think. I don’t see how that would change a thing, apart from requiring the person doing the ripping to invest the amount of time it takes to actually play the material at 1X. I have hundreds of .mp3 CDs, and I’d estimate that more than 80% of them are of (public domain) recordings from analog sources. (Hell, I have quite a few .mp3s that are taken from Edison cylinders, although by far _most_ of them are taken from reel-to-reel magnetic tape, followed by 78rpm discs.) As for your movie analogy, you can already download movies with near-broadcast video quality. I had _The Phantom Menace_ in VCD form before it was released in theatres, although I still paid to see it three times over the next couple of weeks, in spite of Jar-Jar. Comparing .mp3 vs CD to being able to perfectly duplicate a theatre experience for free without leaving your home is wide of the mark, too. An .mp3 might sound “just like” when they’re both piped through your desktop computer speakers, but, oh lordy, they ain’t the same when compare them on a middle-of-the-road stereo, unless you have a perforated eardrum, or something. Hey, the closest record store to me just shut down this year, too, after 20 years of being _the_ spot for collectors. Of course, most of their stock consisted of vinyl from the likes of Rush and Black Oak Arkansas, and the neighborhood that they were in has become mostly populated and frequented by Sikhs, whio’re not a demographic widely known for their devotion to 70’s hair-bands, but nevertheless, I’m sure file-sharing can be blamed for the failure of old Neptune, too. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/219 "2003-09-17T05:20:41Z")
This is the bottom line: Without file sharing, it is literally impossible for me to listen to the music I want. End of story. There is no other way for me to find the artists that later turn out to be my favorites. There is no other way to listen to such a wide variety of artists. There is no other way. NONE. As long as there is no other alternative, I will continue to download music. Music is too important to me to say “oh well, guess I won’t listen to music because there is no legal way.” And I have recently decided that as long as there is no alternative, and as long as people are sued for doing the only possible thing one can do to listen to music, I will not buy _any_ cd. And I have a collection of almost 500 cds - I’m not exactly the type of customer the RIAA should be willing to lose. But they did. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/220 "2003-09-17T05:41:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Larry Mudd \* > \*\*Hey, the closest record store to me just shut down this year, too, after 20 years of being _the_ spot for collectors. Of course, most of their stock consisted of vinyl from the likes of Rush and Black Oak Arkansas, and the neighborhood that they were in has become mostly populated and frequented by Sikhs, whio’re not a demographic widely known for their devotion to 70’s hair-bands, but nevertheless, I’m sure file-sharing can be blamed for the failure of old Neptune, too. \*\* Which store was that, **Larry**? Do you live in downtown Vancouver, or the 'burbs? You know, i really can’t imagine that file-sharing is responsible for the demise of a store that specializes in collectible vinyl. I mean, how many people buy this stuff _just_ to get the songs? Most vinyl collectors i know do it _for the vinyl_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=12)