# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/101 "2003-09-10T23:10:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*Incorrect: He doesn’t add any “burden” to anyone; there’s zero marginal cost to the record label for his illegal copy. The costs of recording the tracks, manufacturing the CD, and marketing the band have _already_ been paid. Whether he makes one digital copy or a thousand, no one has to pay a cent more. \*\* You do understand that the artist doesn’t see any money until the initial costs are recouped, right. In some cases, they may have to even pay that money back, although usually the label just eats the cost. (One of the reasons CD’s cost so much is because of the large number of artists that make a CD but the product just doesn’t sell) The record company made an investment. If it’s investment isn’t returned, the artist not only doesn’t see any money, they will most likely be dropped from the label. People don’t pay for the CD and the artist doesn’t get a chance to make another one. Sure, a million people may have downloaded it, but another label isn’t going to take a chance on losing their investment as well. > [@](#): > > The bottom line is, the library gives you nearly all the benefits of owning a book for free, and file sharing gives you nearly all the benefits of owning a CD for free. But in the case of the library, they get the book back. > [@](#): > > How about this: I download an album, like it, keep it, then go out and buy two more albums from the same band. That’s at least $140 I never would’ve spent if not for Napster and Kazaa. Maybe I’m misreading this. You bought 2 CD’s and the cost was $140? Wow, the prices are much higher in your area. 😉 > [@](#): > > Do you really think a high school kid with 1000 songs on his hard drive would spend over $1100 to buy all those CDs if not for file sharing? I don’t believe that he is planning on spending $1100 to buy any of those CD’s when he already has them on his computer. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/102 "2003-09-10T23:20:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > If CD sales drop, there are many factors other than file-sharing that might be to blame. Conversely, if CD sales rise, it does not automatically mean that file-sharing is having no effect. Correlation is not causation, true. But an OPPOSITE correlation to the one dictated by your theory, effectively disproves your theory, or at the very least relegates it to ‘interesting, but unsuppored by the facts’ status. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/103 "2003-09-10T23:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\*In the middle 1970s, I bought copies of…vinyl record albums. > > When they became scratched and acquired crackles and skips and pops, the record companies did not take the position that I had already bought the music and just needed the media replaced. > > Within a few years, I had switched to cassette tapes, in order to be able to play my music in my car, and because tapes lasted longer than vinyl albums… Not only did the companies not take the position that since I’d bought this music on vinyl I only needed to pay for the new media, they also made me re-buy cassette tapes at full price if the tape got eaten by the cassette player or got damaged by leaving it out in a hot car in the summer. > \*\* The great part is that if you used DAT[you also had to pay a “piracy fee” on the blank tapes,](http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/dat_tax.html)for the privilege of using the tapes to record albums you already owned. If the record industry had its way, you’d pay a similar fee on all blank media, not to mention all recording devices. ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/104 "2003-09-10T23:25:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SnoopyFan \* > \*\*Looking at the songs I have downloaded, there is not one that I like enough to go out and buy the CD in order to have it. Not one. I downloaded them because it was free. \*\* And this a perfect example of someone who admits that they have no intention of purchasing what they download. Points for honesty. Until someone can convince me that the majority of people who file share illegally are actually purchasing a good portion of what they are downloading, I will not be convinced that file sharing is helping CD sales and not harming the artist. I’m sorry, but every person I have ever seen with a substancial number of downloaded files on their computer, had no intention of purchasing any of it. Granted, that is only my personal experience, but I have never seen any unbiased proof that the opposite is true. ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/105 "2003-09-10T23:30:02Z")
As an aside: I cannot believe I got sucked into another file sharing thread. As it is an issue that hits close to home, it is better for my blood pressure if I stay away from these debates. 🙂 Just.can’t.resist. ---
**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 10, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/106 "2003-09-10T23:33:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*Correlation is not causation, true. > > But an OPPOSITE correlation to the one dictated by your theory, effectively disproves your theory, or at the very least relegates it to ‘interesting, but unsuppored by the facts’ status. \*\* I don’t think this is true. Say, for example, that my theory is: file-sharing does not harm CD sales. **Scenario 1: When the correlation is the one expected by the theory.** I can point to rising CD sales in a time of file-sharing as evidence supporting my theory. But these increased sales might the result of a booming economy, and it would be possible to argue that, but for file sharing, they would be even higher. Thus, i have not refuted the notion that file-sharing harms CD sales. **Scenario 2: When the correlation is opposite to the one dictated by the theory.** Someone else points to falling CD sales in a time of file-sharing, arguing that this disproves my theory. The problem here is that those decreased sales might be a result of something other than file-sharing, such as an economic downturn. Unless you can prove that the downturn is CD sales would have been less dramatic in the absence of file-sharing, you still can’t make any conclusive statements, even negative ones, about causation. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/107 "2003-09-10T23:54:59Z")
Sorry, when I said ‘your theory’ I didn’t mean you personally. ---
**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 11, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/108 "2003-09-11T00:31:23Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by musicguy_ > **But in the case of the library, they get the book back.** Which is fine with the borrower, since he doesn’t want the book anymore. Books are consumed differently from music. > [@](#): > > **Maybe I’m misreading this. You bought 2 CD’s and the cost was $140? Wow, the prices are much higher in your area.** I thought someone would say that. 😉 One or two CDs per band, times a few bands. Let’s see: Jamiroquai, 2 CDs. Bloodhound Gang, 2 CDs. Lo Fidelity Allstars, 1 CD. Daft Punk, 2 CDs. Garbage, 1 CD. Evanescence, 1 CD. Fatboy Slim, 1 CD. That’s ten CDs, somewhere between $150 and $200. > [@](#): > > **I don’t believe that he is planning on spending $1100 to buy any of those CD’s when he already has them on his computer.** If he wouldn’t spend $1100 with file sharing, and he wouldn’t spend $1100 without file sharing, then it doesn’t matter. The only difference is whether or not he listens to the music. > [@](#): > > **I’m sorry, but every person I have ever seen with a substancial number of downloaded files on their computer, had no intention of purchasing any of it.** The only relevant question is: What would they have done if they couldn’t download the files? ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/109 "2003-09-11T00:32:30Z")
The RIAA can have my mp3’s when they pry my harddrive from my cold dead hands. If those fucks want to sue me, i say bring it on. I’ll make sure it is the longest, costliest, most PR damaging trial in the history of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/110 "2003-09-11T00:33:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by musicguy \* > \*\*Again, this isn’t about the practices of the RIAA, which I do not agree with. They are obviously protecting their own business interests. But people aren’t downloading files just to get back at the RIAA, they are doing it because it is free and until recently, there wasn’t really any risk of getting caught. > > The bottom line is: > > Artist makes a product. People who like the product, purchase it, and the artist gets paid. > > or > > Artist makes a product. People who like the product,download it for free, and the artist doesn’t make a dime. \*\* Or People download a song, and they like it and they buy the CD and the record company under reports the number of sales and the artist gets paid, but not what they should be paid. [Cite (LA Times needs registration).](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-warner20mar20,1,6939893.story) > [@](#): > > The action comes as California lawmakers consider a bill to address questionable accounting practices in the music industry. Introduced by state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City), the proposal follows hearings last year in which Don Henley, the Dixie Chicks, Sam Moore and other stars testified that labels cheated them out of royalties by obfuscating earnings. And > [@](#): > > Despite promises to clean up its accounting, the industry remains embroiled in a bitter legal battle with some of the nation’s biggest soul stars, who have accused the Big Five of underpaying royalties for decades. > > Attorneys for Mary Wells, Jackie Wilson, Lester Chambers, Moore and others contend that the companies have failed to accurately report royalty earnings or to make required contributions to pension funds. In December, a federal judge in Atlanta sided with the artists and denied motions by the Big Five to dismiss their decade-old suit. So, companies are trying to change their accounting practices because of a pending bill in CA, (it was never presented, IIRC) and the courts have sided with artists in the past. Again I don’t think that protecting the artist is what the RIAA is doing, they are a PAC-like group that only seeks to line the pockets of ‘big music’ - if it is at the expense of computer users or artists, it makes no difference. If artists were smart, they would all dump the labels and make their music available on-line. The RIAA doesn’t want to be dragged into the 20th century, let alone the 21st. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/111 "2003-09-11T00:45:22Z")
Another thing just occured to me - has anybody given any thought to the notion that CD sales may have dropped due to the fact that one company - Clear Channel - controls an ungodly percentage of the nations radio stations? I’d like to see the sales of the artists that consistantly get Clear Channel play, I’d be willing to bet that they are doing just fine. I also assume that the sales drop off is in bands that aren’t commercial enough to earn corporate rock air-time. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/112 "2003-09-11T01:29:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jeevmon \* > **The $150,000 figure comes from the Copyright Act (17 USC 504 ©) as the maximum statutory damages for willful infringement. They don’t have to show $150,000 worth of damage to get that money because the whole point of statutory damages is that you don’t have to show actual damage.** Well, heck, I’m in the wrong business then, if you can get $150,000 damages per lifted song. I should spend the next few years making friends with lawyers and programming tape loops into techno tunes. Then if _one_ person tries to violate my copyrights–profit! And, I suppose, I would earn the hatred of just about all, even though I would be well within my rights. No different, then, from the RIAA. > [@](#): > > \*\*And if you shoplifted a CD, you are not infringing the copyright, just committing theft. As some here have pointed out, there is a technical difference. \*\* If copyright violation is worse than theft, why didn’t the big record companies spend more money on anti-copy technology rather than anti-theft measures like “the long box”? By their account, they are losing much more money through copying. ---
**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 11, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/113 "2003-09-11T01:31:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*Sorry, when I said ‘your theory’ I didn’t mean you personally. \*\* I know you didn’t. I only “my theory” as a hypothetical. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/114 "2003-09-11T01:51:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*And without evidence of harm, filesharing falls into the category of fair use, at least until some court comes up with a definitive theory of why it doesn’t. \*\* I believe the [Betamax case](http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/betamaxcase/betamaxcase.htm) already did so. “Fair use” covers making copies for yourself but you break the law the second you start distributing those copies (or keep the copy and pass the original onto someone else). That’s what the RIAA is using as a excuse. ---
**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 11, 2003, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/115 "2003-09-11T02:02:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adam yax \* > \*\*Another thing just occured to me - has anybody given any thought to the notion that CD sales may have dropped due to the fact that one company - Clear Channel - controls an ungodly percentage of the nations radio stations? I’d like to see the sales of the artists that consistantly get Clear Channel play, I’d be willing to bet that they are doing just fine. I also assume that the sales drop off is in bands that aren’t commercial enough to earn corporate rock air-time. \*\* Well ultimately Adam, that’s what I was on about in my Page One rant about the woeful general state of the music business. The RIAA can go on as much as they want about file sharing cutting into CD album sales. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. But what I take offence to is that RIAA won’t be honest about their shocking duplicitous payola relationships with company’s like Clear Channel. In short, the relationship works like this… the RIAA needs FM Radio exposure to make music “get inside people’s heads”. From there, album sales take off. The FM Radio industry needs music to fill the gaps between advertising bursts. But they are very wary of losing listeners. Any music which is too confrontational or too “edgy” - well that sort of music won’t ever make it on air. The FM Radio industry, in particular Clear Channel, charges billions of dollars annually to the RIAA to play “their music” on air, and the RIAA pays this money because it means exposure, which translates into album sales. However, the RIAA also knows that music which is edgy or risky won’t ever get on air, so they play it safe. As a result, we now have a firmly institutionalised cycle of lowest common denominator where only “safe” music becomes a hit, because only “safe” music is getting massive exposure. As I said, I have nothing but contempt for what the RIAA and the US Commercial Radio industry have allowed to happen to the music business. Talent means nothing anymore. Quality music means nothing anymore. It’s all about playing it as safe as possible to scare away as few listeners as possible between advertising bursts, and as a result, the music which is coming out of the USA is almost universally pure unadulterated dross. Even my beloved Foo Fighters ended up becoming just another watered down bland effort. Their 4th album was rejected by RCA. It was too edgy. The band had to go back and record it entirely a 2nd time before RCA would back it. The result was indistinguishable from Good Charlotte or Linkin Park. Pure dross. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/116 "2003-09-11T02:07:25Z")
**Mr2001:** > [@](#): > > Incorrect: He doesn’t add any “burden” to anyone; there’s zero marginal cost to the record label for his illegal copy. The costs of recording the tracks, manufacturing the CD, and marketing the band have already been paid. Whether he makes one digital copy or a thousand, no one has to pay a cent more. The lack of a benefit is a harm, and the lack of a harm is a benefit – the two are merely opposite ends of one process, in a manner of speaking. If a fan fails to purchase a CD he otherwise would have because of file sharing, then the record company and musicians have been harmed by file sharing (and the fan). Therein lies the burden. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/117 "2003-09-11T02:15:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > \*\*Well ultimately Adam, that’s what I was on about in my Page One rant about the woeful general state of the music business. The RIAA can go on as much as they want about file sharing cutting into CD album sales. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. > \*\* I’m sorry **Boo Boo Foo** , by the time I made it to the third page, I’d forgotten what I had read on page one and most of page two. ---
**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 11, 2003, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/118 "2003-09-11T02:29:23Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by VarlosZ_ > **The lack of a benefit is a harm, and the lack of a harm is a benefit – the two are merely opposite ends of one process, in a manner of speaking.** I suppose you could say that. But you must admit that a person who downloads a song and doesn’t buy the album is no more “harming” the artist or label than a person who _doesn’t_ download the song and doesn’t buy the album. > [@](#): > > **If a fan fails to purchase a CD he otherwise would have because of file sharing, then the record company and musicians have been harmed by file sharing (and the fan). Therein lies the burden.** The burden is to prove that file sharing actually prevented him from buying the CD. You can’t just jump from “he has 1000 songs on his computer” to “he would have bought 100 albums if not for file sharing”. Suppose a person is planning to buy the new Metallica album, but after reading a bad review online, he decides not to. That bad review has cost the band a sale, just like file sharing - the only difference being that the guy who reads the review isn’t going to listen to Metallica’s new music at all. If you say the review doesn’t harm the artist, but file sharing does, the only explanation is that the act of listening to an artist’s song somehow causes harm if you haven’t paid for it. **Boo Boo Foo** , on the subject of exposure, you might be interested in [this Wired article](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/fileshare.html). A company called BigChampagne filters P2P search statistics and sells the information to record labels, to get an idea of which bands are popular (as determined by P2P downloads) but not yet represented on the radio: > [@](#): > > According to on-the-record statements by many major labels, the scene [alerting a record exec to a hot new band whose music is downloaded far more than it’s played on the radio] I witnessed in Fleischer’s office couldn’t possibly have happened. But Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, says his firm is working with Maverick, Atlantic, Warner Bros., Interscope, DreamWorks, Elektra, and Disney’s Hollywood label. The labels are reticent to admit their relationship with BigChampagne for public relations reasons, but there’s a legal rationale, too. The record industry’s lawsuits against file-sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance. “We would definitely consider gleaning marketing wisdom from these networks a non-infringing use,” says Fred von Lohmann, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the San Francisco-based cyber liberties group that’s helping to defend Morpheus, Grokster, and Kazaa. ---
**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 11, 2003, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/119 "2003-09-11T03:08:23Z")
**Mr2001**? Thanks for the article. I remain unconvinced however that too much can be gleamed from P2P statistics - apart from being able to identify certain demographic trends. I take such a stand because, well, oddly enough P2P is actually a very private one-on-one transaction. It’s a different beast compared to what FM Radio can achieve. Think about your typical peak hour drive into work. Compare the music you hear at THAT time, and the number of ads you hear at that time, to say, 1am or even 12 midday. The music which is played during peak-hour is totally “safe bet” music, because the stations correctly identify those periods as maximum listener audience time, and it would be a reckless thing indeed to risk losing advertisers by losing listeners. The up side to FM Radio is that you can set up a nice little hi-fi system in the office and have all your co-workers listen to tunes during the course of the day. Radio stations recognise that this happens, and so do the RIAA. In my research thus far, it remains king - by a long, LONG way - in terms of planting a song inside your head. You know what I’m talking about - that syndrome where a tune plays enough times that it becomes familiar and it’s kind of etched into your melodic memory. The RIAA lives for that, as does Commerical Radio. Shit, something had to explain the meteoric rise of Avril Lavigne, and it was FM Radio. My point here I guess is this - truly huge record sales - and I mean MEGA sales - well they’re not easily achieved. We’re all familiar with the story of an artist who pumped out a great album which never took off - or for that matter, we Australians are quite familiar with some killer albums which have been released down here but could never get a foot in the door in the USA because they simply couldn’t pay the “playlist kickbacks” to get on air. I honestly believe that P2P remains a symptom of exposure, as averse to being a cause of exposure. In my considered opinion, that is. ---
**Author:** ![SnoopyFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d07c76/32.png) [@SnoopyFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnoopyFan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697/120 "2003-09-11T03:33:26Z")
**Until someone can convince me that the majority of people who file share illegally are actually purchasing a good portion of what they are downloading, I will not be convinced that file sharing is helping CD sales and not harming the artist.** Ok, confused here. Let’s say that Joe Blow likes Britney Spear’s new “song.” And let’s say that Joe works at Wendy’s making minimum wage. Joe doesn’t buy CD’s. Joe is more concerned with paying the rent. Joe is never going to buy Britney’s CD, computer downloading or no. But he likes that one particular song, so he downloads it. How has Britney lost money, considering he was never going to buy her CD anyway? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recording-industry-takes-action-against-12-year-old-girl-forces-settlement/200697.md?page=7)