Recording Industry takes action against 12 year old girl, forces settlement

The BBQ Pit
21

All I know is this…

The music business is fucked. Totally fucked. Beyond redemption.

The US Commercial Radio industry charges, per annum, 3 BILLION dollars to play new songs on their playlists. It’s instituionalised payola so irrevocably entrenched that never again, will DJ’s nationwide be able to choose which songs become hits based on merit alone.

Combine this with the incredibly incestuous relationships which MTV and Channel V have with the RIAA, and basically you’ve got a situation where popular music is now a corrupt, cynical exercise in raping every last cent from pubescent teenagers with a spare dime to spend.

I’ve told this story heaps of times before, but it bears telling once again. In 1972 Rod Stewart released a fairly mediocre single after leaving the Small Faces. The A side was pretty bland and the single started to die a natural death. Back in those days payola was totally banned, and FM stations decided their own playlists. Slowly, a few DJ’s started noticing that the B-side to Rod’s single was way better than the A-side and a ground swell movement started across the USA. DJ’s were free to pick their own songs back then, and unlikely as it seemed, Rod Stewart ended up with a totally legendary, timeless classic on his hands.

The song? Maggie Mae.

I ask you? Seriously, what chance is there today, regardless of file sharing, regardless of whether CD’s are halved in cost, regardless of whether SACD’s take off, or whether DVD Audio becomes king - seriously? What chance is there that a Maggie Mae could become a hit again around the world under today’s circumstances?

That’s what I’m pissed off about. None of us listen to communal music anymore - not communal music where the cream is allowed to rise to the top that is. Every single opportunity to dope the market, and manipulate the buying public has been implemented to the point where all that we (all of us) get to hear is just plain crap. Sure, in private some of us might find a classic, or some of us might listen to niche radio where a good tune gets airplay, but none of us collectively will ever hear the likes of The Kinks again, that’s for sure.

22

BTW. Boo Boo Foo
How to find The Kinks?
or
some other old ones. Sorry, I am completely ignorant in this.

Henry

23

You know, you COULD just stop distributing music through kazaa.

I read about this one before the settlement, the mother said that her daughter hadn’t done anything wrong. Obviously, her daughter DID break copyright law, I bet their lawyer set them straight on that pretty quick. Just like any kid who breaks a window, if you do something wrong you get in trouble.

I won’t mention that there are 260 OTHER lawsuits that nobody is talking about, because this one is just so horrible. As if a 12 year old would never commit a crime. :rolleyes: It’s $2,000 and they’ll have some sort of payment schedule most likely so the family doesn’t go bankrupt over it.

Even though the RIAA is stupid for not embracing online technology, they’re serious now about enforcing copyright, watch out.

24

I recommend going into a good record shop and asking them to play Waterloo Sunset for you. It’ll change the way you think about music, no doubts about that.

Also, have a listen to Ten Years Gone by Led Zeppelin off Physical Graffitti. Man, you’ll never be the same after that.

And while you’re at it, A Long Way To The Top (if ya wanna Rock and Roll) by AC/DC. Whoah.

Let alone the song “Allright Now”, by Free. Also, try “I feel like Making Love” by Bad Company too.

25

The same college students who live off Top Ramen because they can get 5 meals for a dollar? Hmm… eat for a month, or buy a piece of plastic with 11 songs on it, that’s a tough choice.

We can make some pretty good estimates. My favorite examples: Radiohead’s Kid A and Eminem’s The Eminem Show were available online for weeks before they were available in stores, yet they went on to set sales records.

Eminem’s target audience is the demographic most likely to use file sharing, and Radiohead has a very wide following on the internet. Yet file sharing didn’t harm either album one bit.

Sure, but if we’re talking about individuals, that’s a choice for him to make and to live with. He isn’t harming anyone by choosing not to buy a product when he can use it for free at no cost to anyone else. If his conscience doesn’t bother him, I’m content to call him a cheapskate and leave it at that.

26

Well, duh.

27

But the record companies would reply – not unreasonably – that the sales would likely have been even better if so many in the target audience hadn’t lifted the songs off the internet for free. Since we don’t know what the sales would have been like without file-sharing, we can’t say that file-sharing didn’t harm sales just because sales were good.

Clearly.

That’s not as clear. He’s not doing the same kind of overt, tangible harm that would come with stealing someones CD collection, but that doesn’t mean he’s not doing any harm. In our economic system, copyrights are extremely useful things, for obvious reasons. To the extent that they are disregarded, they are less useful.

More concretely, just compare the outcomes of these two situations. In the first situation, a person buys a CD. In the second, he downloads it for free because he can. The first situation results in the musicians and recording companies getting money in exchange for their work; the second situation results in no money for their work (from this particular consumer). That’s harm to the musicians and record companies. Moreover, since the record companies must now sustain this consumer (along with millions of others) as a free rider, the burden of that unpurchased CD is passed to the company’s stockholders, employees, and customers (in the form of higher prices). In short, the system is set up such that the music consumer is expected to make a monetary contribution in exchange for his consumption; his failure to do so harms everyone else involved in the system (except for the other free riders, of course).
On the other hand, there are also benefits to file sharing to counter-balance the harms. The $15 worth of harm done to the record company et al. means $15 worth of good for the file-sharer. The music obviously has value to its consumers, so more copying and distributon means more total value. Increased exposure to the arts is generally considered a good thing. Etc.

Like I said, file sharing doesn’t strike me as particularly unethical. I just want to point out that it’s not as simple as: “I’m not taking the song away from anyone, therefore it’s not stealing, therefore it’s not wrong.” There are other considerations.

28

But still…how many cases has the RIAA lost? And how many have been decided in 5-figure amounts without ever going to trial?

I posted this on the UnaBoard, so I’ll repost it here:

I know what I would do - get out the checkbook, write the check, and then reformat the hard drive. Wouldn’t you? I can afford to fight it out in court, but I sure as shit don’t want to spend the money on it when it’s outrageously unlikely I would ever get legal fees back on a countersuit. Plus going through a potentially lengthy civil trial and all the proceedings surrounding it would make your life hell.

The way I see it, the RIAA COULD send out letters like that to a few million people, and they might make a few billion in settlements. At least enough to pay for the legal costs in going to court for those very few who are bankrolled by an advocacy group (like the EFF).

Oh it is stealing, there’s no doubt about that. This has been argued ad nauseum, and the arguments against essentially come down to “I don’t care what the law or 200 years of intellectual property precedent or anyone says, it’s not”. The outrage should be directed to the disproportionality of the penalties, and the possible illegality of the tactics. I’d feel a lot better if we had a “loser pays” system, where you could defend yourself against the RIAA and at least hope to get your legal fees back.

Then of course there’s the whole RIAA “amnesty” program, which is essentially not only blackmail, but potentially very dangerous as well in that it could incriminate you with other copyright holders. Their “amnesty” program deserves some Congressional or Justice Department scrutiny, IMO.

29

It’s tricky ground, but when the RIAA starts estimating losses, they live in fantasy land. For one, just because a person downloaded a song doesn’t mean they would have paid for it otherwise. I’ve watched shows and listened to music that I would never had paid for simply because it’s free (If you had to pay for each song on the radio or show on TV, how much would it be on). Another point is that the music industry killed itself by raping the public with high prices and flooding the market with mediocre pablum, then they blame Kazaa for all their losses.

I also have issues about how much you can own art. If you create music for the masses, you have to recognize that you’ll lose some control over it. They’re my notes too! If I like what you have, I’ll buy the whole CD with all the neat artwork and lyrics and stuff. But, if I just feel like listening to one song a few times, I don’t think I should face $2000 fines. Hell, I’ll even mail the “artist” their cut, which would be what, a penny? After all, I’ve eliminated the need for the middleman!

30

lost4life, one thing to note is that they’re not, AFAIK, going after the downloaders, they’re going after the suppliers. If I’m wrong on that, I’d cheerfully accept hearing the straight dope on it.

What that means to me is that they’re not even trying to say you didn’t buy your copy legally, they’re saying you decided to provide free copies to people, violating the company’s copyright. That, IMHO, is a much stronger legal position since they can watch you giving away a copy.

31

True. I was speaking more generally. I think if they could figure out a way to go after the downloaders, they would in a second. I’m sure it’s on its way!

32

Well put, this point is lost on 99% of the populace.

33

Its my money and I choose to Boycott all music CD purchases until the lawsuits end.

34

This is moronic, especially in the case of Kid A. It was an extraordinarily uncommercial album, both in that it sounded nothing like any other mainstream music and it sounded nothing like their previous, more accessable hit record. There were no singles released off the album and there were no videos made in support of the album. EMI should be thankful that there was filesharing to get the word out.

And every time some idiot repeats this lie, I ask for a cite, but I never get it. Miller show me the legislation that says this is theft. The girl is a copyright violater, not a thief. Quit using inaccurate, emotionally loaded terms.

And I’ll justify file sharing the way I always do.

A sample of things… a friend of mine has downloaded recently:

The Roots - Rolling With Heat. My friend subsequently bought the CD. The Roots get money. My friend will see The Roots live in October. The Roots get more money.

Mya - My Love is Like Wo. My friend likes this song, but would never ever by this CD. He’s just not that in to Mya. Mya loses nothing, because she has only lost a sale she would not have made.

The Flaming Lips - Fight Test. My friend subsequently bought the CD. The Flaming Lips get money. Cat Stevens gets money.

So where’s the problem?

35

The problem is not everyone goes and spends $18 on a CD they already have. In fact I would say most don’t.

I have to admit I’m a bit confused here. Say I download the new Korn album in it’s entirety. Why the hell would I go buy it? For the art?

36

BOO BOO FOO, good point. Billy Joel was pretty much an unknown and credits WMMR in Philadelphia for helping him to become famous by playing “Captain Jack”. Now, from how I understand it, he will only play that song in concert IN Philadelphia.

When I was growing up I always had a blank tape in my radio and recorded the songs I liked most. I shared with my friends. Nobody complained.

This is the best part: Companies like Sony have a stake in both sides. They’re doing it to themselves. They put music out for sale and they also make CD burners primarily used to “steal” music. Gotta love that one.

37

gex:

File sharing to get the word out? Buddy, the word was about as out as it could be. Their last album was nominated for the Best Album Grammy, and had been lauded – strongly and repeatedly – by virtually every critic and newspaper in the country. I don’t know how much time you spend at the computer, but I don’t know of anyone who had to find out about Kid A from file sharing services.

File sharing? Try excellent previous work, a good album, word of mouth, a solid fan base (primarily made up of the most active music-purchasing demographic), “hipster caché”, and about a million critics cumming in their pants over the band. That sold the album, not the opportunity to download it for free.

“Moronic.” Very funny.

38

This, for me, is a key issue in the matter.

If the members of the RIAA had shown even the slightest inclination to respond to market demand with a reasonable system of purchasing music online, i would have much more sympathy for them.

But the sites where you can pay for individual downloads generally have such crappy selections, and such draconian policies, that i have no interest in using them.

If there were a site that had a really good selection of music, that allowed individual songs to be downloaded for a reasonable price (and here i mean <$1 per song), and did not use some ridiculous proprietary file format, then i would probably use it.

I admit to having downloaded music, but i have restricted it to individual songs that i wanted but was not willing to pay $14 for (i.e buy the whole album just for a single song). And this is my main gripe with the RIAA–its members have shown no real desire to cater to this type of buying pattern.

My actual CD-buying habits have not changed at all–they have simply fluctuated according to my current level of financial woes, as has always been the case. And, in the case of some artists, i have downloaded a few songs, and then decided to go out and buy the CD.

I know the RIAA is in a strong legal position here, but their problem is one they have helped to bring upon themselves by their greed and collusion.

I can only speak for myself here. I have never downloaded a whole album. In fact, i’ve never downloaded more than a few songs from any one album. And in cases where i want the whole album, i go out and buy it, because i do like to have the proper CD cover, etc. That’s just me.

39

Well, considering that CDs don’t have “B” sides, not much. :smiley:

40

Also, in a free economy prices are set corresponding to what the market will bear. Suddenly they’re now going to lower the price of CDs from aprox $20.00 down to $13.00

They were just greedy.