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

The BBQ Pit
61

  1. The RIAA is evil and despicable, for a whole long list of reasons.

  2. I don’t care whether ‘theft’ is the right term for filesharing. It’s still not morally acceptable, and it’s certainly against the law.

Let’s try this analogy: you own a nice house with a game room, a hot tub, and other nice stuff. While you’re on vacation, a neighbor figures out how to jimmy a window and get into your house; he then invites his friends over to shoot pool and soak in the hot tub with him. He cleans up before you get back, so there’s no damage.

After a couple of vacations where this happens, you become suspicious and hook up security cameras. When you return after the next vacation, you have the guy and his friends on videotape, enjoying your house as if it was theirs.

Do you have any reason to bust them? I sure think so.

Yet you haven’t lost anything; your house is still as it is. But your friend has enjoyed your house without your permission, and made it available to his friends to use without your permission too. In this respect, this trespass is closely analogous to file-sharing.

So call it what you will. The scumminess of the RIAA doesn’t justify descending to their level.

62

Matt, you have set up a system so that single copies of your copyrighted works are distributed to anyone who clicks your link. Therefore, the assumption is that you approve of them getting THAT individual copy.

Should they take that copy and distribute other copies, then they are violating your copyright. I think, in my non-laywer way, that you have created the first copy that was sent via the link, therefore it is OK. Once they create a copy on their own, that is not OK.

63

In the middle 1970s, I bought copies of Pink Floyd’s DSOTM, Zeppelin 4 (“Zoso”), Yes’s Fragile, Kraftwerk’s Autobahn, and Kansas’s Leftoverture (among others), in the form 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. (Actually, the best solution was to buy vinyl albums and immediately record to cassette tape and then play the cassette tape, although the purists would point out that you’d get some sound quality deterioration any time you make an analog copy like that). 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.

And then CDs came out. Did the recording companies accept my possession of cassette tape or vinyl album as indication that I’d already paid for the music and just charge me the cost of the CD media when I went in to re-buy these albums yet again in the form of CDs? Nope. Guess what? I just stuck with my old cassette-tape library, I just wasn’t all that interested in repurchasing everything all over again.

A few years later, when I acquired a CD burner, I began the slow process of digitizing the analog sound from the cassette tapes that were in the best condition and burning my own audio CDs. I figured when I was done I’d start buying new CDs, but at that rate it would be 2009 before that happened.

So one fine day someone figures out that you can take a 28 MB AIFF file and compress it to a 3 MB .mp3 file that sounds just as good, and that means the music of a whole audio CD fits easily on your hard drive and is practical to download and upload over the internet, and there are no media costs involved. Having already paid for DSOTM, Fragile, Zoso, Leftoverture, etc., many times over, I lost no time acquiring for myself digital versions, believe me!

And what do you expect? Gee whiz, the recording companies are now very upset. “But you haven’t paid for this music, you evil pirates! We know there is no transfer of media involved, but it’s the music that counts”. Uh huh.

Dear Music Industry:

a) You greedy bastards owe us big-time for all the times we had to buy and rebuy our favorite music at full price when the only way to reacquire the music was to buy it on media. What you did then may have been legal and what you’re doing now may be legal, but this is a big part of why you don’t see many hearts bleeding for you over your revenue-losses to file sharing.

b) Your credibility would increase 90-fold if you made every song in your song vaults available for individual, by-the-song download at a reasonable price. You do that, and I’ll nod and embrace the new world where music is purchased by the music. The Apple Store model isn’t bad but I don’t want proprietary formats and time-limited copies that won’t play when I’m older; and it hasn’t escaped my notice that it’s a computer company that’s doing this and not the recording industry itself. You’re still selling music on media and clinging to that business model with great determination. Can I log into your corporate site right now and pay for and download a copy of the Stones’ “It’s Only Rock and Roll (but I like it)”? Nope. Do I want to go into the music store and buy a whole CD to get that one song, just so I can convert it to .mp3 and put it with the rest in my compilation? Nope. Do I want to buy and install Jaguar to get iTunes and Apple Music Store connectivity to download a copy of the tune in that weird proprietary format that won’t play in my preferred audio player and which has some kind of expiration date built into it, and burn a CD of it so I can convert it from CD to .mp3? Nope.

In short, y’all got a point, but it’s kind of dull and blunt and doesn’t pierce much. You aren’t making any of this easy on us or yourselves.

64

I agree with Ahunter3 in as much as I have albums as well. I believe that I am perfectly within my rights to download any song that I have previously purchased in album format. The end-user license has not been violated. (If you’re going to play by Bill Gates Software rules, you need to know that the knife cuts both ways).

65

By Worldeater

Yes, I realize that. My point was that it’s pretty much the same thing only reversed. Back then millions of kids were doing the same as me. It never stopped me from buying casettes of bands I liked.

What about all the albums I bought from listening to singles on the radio only to find out every other song was garbage? Or when I come home with software that’s packaged beautifully but the software itself is horrible? I’m the one stuck for the money. It evens out.

I don’t even put downloaded music on cds. It’s too tedious. I just like to see greed collapse in on itself.

66

I think that AHunter3 has an extremely interesting point regarding “upgrading” of media.

The recording industry argues that file-sharing is wrong because it deprives artists of income that is due to them under contract and under copyright law. This is correct. They also argue that the main cost of the music we purchase is not in the media itself (making a CD costs next to nothing), but in all the time and effort invested in producing and recording the music in the first place.

Given that this is the case, why can’t the music industry do what the software industry does–charge full price to someone purchasing the music for the first time, but charge a lesser fee for those who are “upgrading” from vinyl or cassettes?

I realize that this is more of a question of principle than of practice, because such a system would be very difficult to implement. For example, what’s to stop AHunter from taking his vinyl copy of DSOTM to the record store and getting a cheaper CD, and then lending his vinyl copy to me so that i can do the same thing?

67

Do I download music? You bet your sweet banana I do.

Why? It depends. Sometimes (read: often) it’s a song from a CD that I own or used to own, but the CD’s been damaged/destroyed/lent out/lost in any one of my numerous moves.

That’s the most frequent reason.

Second most frequent is when I hear a song somwhere that I fall in love with. It runs through my head for a day, so I decide to find it. I download it…then I download a few other songs by the same artist…then, if I like those as well, I’ll buy a CD.

And then if I don’t want to buy $15 worth of CD (it’s hard enough to pay rent as it is…) for one song, then I’ll download the one song.

I’d be overjoyed if the record companies would actually use the new technology to market their own music instead of fighting against it. Fighting technology does not tend to work…either you use it to your best advantage, or it mows you over.

68

$2,000.00 settlement for filesharing “music” from Christine Aguilera and Mariah Carey :smack: :eek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51698-2003Sep9_2.html

That said, the punishment should fit the crime. A $15,000 settlement for a single song that one can legally download from the Apple Music Store for 99¢ is ridiculous.

AHunter3 makes a good point, we weren’t licensing vinyl LPs and cassette tapes, we were buying the music itself.

69

Oh yes. This is the first time I’ve ever seen this articulated (and awfully well articulated, if I may say so). I got no dog fighting here; I’ve never pirated music or even downloaded any, legally or otherwise, and I rarely buy CDs. But this is a fundamental hypocrisy on the industry’s part. Clinging to it is not doing the industry any good, as far as I can see.

Hear, hear. Actually, if I was the boss of the world, the artists would make their pieces available to the public directly in whatever formats or groupings they wished (song by song or as an album), and the promotion industry would not also be in charge of distribution.

70

I have, but if you went through and commandeered the ISP logs from when I lived in New York you’d see that I did at one point distribute music. If they felt like it they could get me on that, as far as I’m aware. I doubt they will, of course, but they could, even though I’m not longer doing it. (And I’ve never used kazaa, anyway.)
I was discussing copyright with Gunslinger last night; it’s an issue we both care about, as he’s a professional photographer. I noted that people tend to disregard copyright laws because they perceive the one who owns the law as “The Man.” The Music Industry, or The Portrait Studio. People try to do color photocopies of wallet photos they had done by a professional portrait photographer, because they say the whole package with the 8x10 would cost so much money. They don’t ever stop to think that what they’re doing is effectively denying the photographer the money that he needs to buy food and pay rent and replace the darkroom supplies in his studio. The difference is that with that sort of situation, I can generally stop them from making the copy (I work at the copying place) and put a face on the issue by explaining things to them. But you can’t put a face on the issue of music piracy, because in this case it really IS “The Music Industry” who’s losing money, and people have little to no respect for abstracts like that.

71

I love all this, “I download a few songs then go buy the album”, stuff. You know you motherfuckers ain’t buying shit. I don’t know a single person that DLs an album, and then deletes it and goes and pays $18 or whatever bucks for it.

I’m sure there are a few people doing that but believe me, they are the exception, not the norm.

**

What about the albums where there are some hidden gems?

**

You buy things by the shiny package?

**

Ever heard of a “returning” something?

**

Greed rarely collapses on itself, it usually falls over like a great redwood onto someone else.

72

You can’t return any kind of intellectual property that I know of. period. Why is that? They’ve assumed you coppied it already.

How come blockbuster video was always able to protect their rentals from being coppied? As far back as I can remember there’s been some type of scrambler thingy that wouldn’t allow it.

Playstation games can be coppied but the unit itself has to be modified.

Why doesn’t the music industry have any responsibilty for the protection of their own products? There’s no technology available they could utilize to prevent CDs from being ripped?

73

Another thing:

I’ve always been of the opinion that if you protect something from being stolen, it probably won’t be.

Walmart, Kmart and Home Depot (to name a few) leave unattended merchandise outside of the store (some even overnight). I would never steal it but if someone else does I can’t say I’d feel sorry for the store. On the same token, if the thief got caught I wouldn’t feel bad for them either. What pisses me off about the whole idea is that ultimately it’s me who pays in both instances. I’m paying higher prices to make up for lost merchandise and I’m paying the salary of a police force for babysitting goods that have no business being outside.

My point is, protect your shit.

Cable tv and satellite dish companies battle thieves everyday without crying like little sissies. They use technology to fight technology.

74

Technically, you cannot prevent the ripping of CDs.

75

I’m not sure I understand this line of reasoning. Let’s say I have a book that I am very fond of. I have read it numerous times and it is now old and beaten up, pages falling out, etc. I would like to have a new copy of the book. Should the publisher only charge me for the paper that it is printed on?

And why are the record companies responsible for the fact that you damaged your product. I know people that have albums that are over 50 years old and they are in pristine condition. The record company didn’t scratch your album, you did. If I buy a product and damage it, the manufaturer is under no obligation to replace it at a reduced fee.

Besides, these are all rants toward the RIAA, many of which are quite valid. I think they are scummy too. But if your beef is with them and not the artist, why would you do something to deprive the artist what is legally theirs, just to get back at the industry? The artist did nothing wrong. I can fully support boycotting the RIAA. I cannot support screwing the artist in the process.

Also, you do understand fair usage, right? You are allowed to make a copy of your media for your own use, as in making a backup copy of your CD. But saying that your cassette tape wore out and therefore you should be able to get a CD, while only paying for the cost of the media, is a little far-fetched. They are not the same product as one is (argueably) of a much higher quality.

Finally to those that swear up and down that they buy everything that they download and like, I hope you realize that you are in a very small minority. IRL, many people, download stuff because it is free. They will never purchase this material because they already own an acceptable copy of it. I have seen to many people with gigs of music on their hard drive and yet they purchase maybe 3 or 4 CD’s a year. This is far more common than the person who uses file-sharing for the sole purpose of making informed decisions of what they will purchase. I appreciate the testimony of those that supposedly do this and hats off to you. But to even for a moment consider this the norm is living in a dream world.

76

They sure as don’t in Brooklyn, and to be honest, I’ve never heard of a store that uses the sidewalk outside for a warehouse.

**

Because of thieves.

**

[quote]
…and I’m paying the salary of a police force for babysitting goods that have no business being outside. **

Again because of thieves.

**

Or put it inside.

**

The problem is different with music. The only music that you could protect is the sound of silence, otherwise I can record it with a mic, or into the analog input of my MD, onto a tape, etc., and then turn right around and rip it into mp3.

Video tends to be safer, what am I going to do videotape the TV and turn around and rip that into a mpeg?

77

Well, the motion picture industry is starting to take a very close look at video downloads now, especially after quite a few movies have shown up on the internet prior to release. So video may not be that much safer.

It will be interesting to see if the same outcry occurs when this industry starts going after the people that are illegally obtaining their product.

78

I disagree - there is something like a “Coalition of Concerned Broadcasters” (read: “cable companies crying like sissies”) putting out commercials on how signal theft is as bad as any other kind of theft. Stealing a car = stealing a little old lady’s purse = stealing satellite signals.

They do have a good point but I still say they’re crying like sissies.

79

You could do exactly that without too much in the way of sophisticated equipment.

And if you own a copy of the movie or show on DVD, then it’s even easier. Freeware media players and encoding devices can be found all over the net, not to mention more advanced programs that can be purchased at the store or online. How else do you think they get all those downloadable movies onto the porn websites?

80

Feh. I wish the RIAA would try to sue me.

Yes, I use file-sharing programs. Yes, if the RIAA is monitoring my IP address, they will see copyrighted materials finding their way onto my hard drive.

Their hypothetical argument that I owe them damages would be unsubstantiated.

My file-sharing sessions usually go like this:
[ul][li]Search for artists that I like. (Hey, whaddya know, I also buy CD’s by artists that I like.)[]Download anything I haven’t heard.[]Browse users who have large quantities of music by artists that I know I like, and sample what ever artists they like.[/ul]Nevermind all the format-shifting downloads I’ve done. (Much easier than ripping my own vinyl collection.)[/li]
I have .mp3’s of music I haven’t had the opportunity to buy yet. The main thing is, file-sharing makes it possible for me to be exposed to artists that might not be very heavily promoted. My last CD purchases were 2 by a fella named Chuck E. Weiss, who’s name kept coming up when I was browsing Tom Waits fans’ stuff. I would probably never have heard of him, otherwise. So peer-to-peer trading created revenue. This is the way it usually goes, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Having an album in .mp3 form is not the same thing as having the CD. I think the sort of people who have traditionally supported the music industry are unlikely to settle for anything less than the real deal. Back in the pre-napster days, it was real common for me to have cassette tapes with borrowed music on them – until I got around to making the upgrade expenditure.

The RIAA currently counts each download of a single song as “costing” them the price of an entire CD. After all, a person should have to buy the CD before they hear anything off it. The way I see it, exposure to the music makes the person more likely to purchase it. This is why airplay has been so highly valued for the last sixty years.

The RIAA likes to evoke the image of the poor artist being cheated of their due reward.

What they’re really threatened by is the loss of power that they have over their contractees. Promotion is their main bargaining chip. Peer-to-peer trading makes it possible for musicians to make a name for themselves based on their talent alone, rather than some greasy promoter’s estimation that they sound enough like what everyone is already buying to be profitable.

People aren’t stupid – they know that if they want the musicians they like to succeed, they have to pony up to buy their music or go to their shows.

I’d like to know what the real cost of file-sharing is to the industry.

I know that they would argue that my media-obsessed who has hundreds of CDs burned from downloaded .mp3s, has “cost” them plenty. The thing is, he still buys an average of four brand new CD’s every two weeks – more than anyone else I know.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not claiming I’ve never downloaded and kept music that I have absolutely no intention of paying for, ever. For instance, I think Dolly Parton’s cover of Stairway to Heaven is enough of an oddity to keep around on a disc full of Really Weird Shit. That doesn’t mean I’m about to spring $20 for Halos and Horns, though. Maybe I’ll fish it out of the delete bin next year for a buck. Anyway, if that song wasn’t available to me through P2P, I would have spent exactly $0.00 on it. It was, and I spent exactly $0.00. How much revenue has been witheld, exactly?