Brittany Chan Being Sued By RIAA

[doe-sun]

Brittany is around 14 years old.
The RIAA tried to sue her mother for downloading/sharing music, but they failed because the mother said the internet username used on the filesharing software was the daughter's.
So now the RIAA is suing the daughter (Brittany).
The article below is from here:
http://p2pnet.net/story/6485 but visit the site to read the other links about this case.

p2p news / p2pnet:- Having already failed once to nail Brittany Chan through her mother, Candy, the Big Music cartel is now going after Britanny again, this time by herself.
She was 13 when this all started, but she's now 14 and in their latest move, the Big Four are using Matthew E. Krichbaum of Ann Arbour to demand that the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan appoint a Guardian ad Litem, in other words, an official legal guardian ---- which she'll definitely need with the venal and unscrupulous labels trying to get her.
“Plaintiffs [read EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big Music record label cartel] initial investigation revealed that a computer in the Chan home was used to download (reproduce) and offer 829 digital music files for distribution," says the complaint. "Plaintiffs initially filed an action against Brittany Chan’s mother, Candy Chan.
“Candy Chan ultimately testified that she had a conversation with Brittany Chan in which Britanny Chan admitted to using the ‘Spicybrnweyedgirl’ name associated with the copyright infringement.
“Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative.”

[tvbdude]

man, fuck them up right now

[bluemonq]

what? she refused to take responsibility for her daughter? short of legally disowning her, can her mother do that?

[Leinad]

LOL I like to scare my friends by sending them fake, but official looking letters about them having to pay a fine, or appear in court, for illegil music dwnloading (and movies)... it scares the HELL OUT OF THEM:biggrin:

but poor Brittany, it's happening for real; now THAT must SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK (repetition gets the idea across easily:smile: ); the fear of all illegal downloaders:redface:

[LaiSteve66]

I wish someone would just walk into the RIAA offices and just start blasting away. Like in the Terminator.

[Banana]

This just encourages me to download more.

There is a simple procedure you can use to avoid getting tracked by the RIAA/MPAA. As soon as you download it, remove it off your hard drive. You can either burn it onto a CD or buy one of those external hard drives so you can disconnect them.

[deez nuts]

lol her mom sold her out.

[Paradox]

lol her mom sold her out.
Haha it may appear that way but it's a pretty shrewd move on the family's part. Because Brittany is only 14 there's limited liability there. In a civil case I don't think they'd seriously fine a barely teenage juvenile a bunch of money over some mp3s that were allegedly downloaded. Plus it gives the RIAA a ton of negative press.

The RIAA pisses me off more than anything though. To celebrate I will now go download some more songs.

[TB4000]

As good a move as it was, it still seems kinda heartless. "We're suing your daughther, ma'am." "Go ahead, who's stopping you?"

[AltimaGTR]

I'm all for downloading illegal mp3s and stuff, but if you get caught, well, you don't get any sympathy from me.

[ahsingjai]

LOL I like to scare my friends by sending them fake, but official looking letters about them having to pay a fine, or appear in court, for illegil music dwnloading (and movies)... it scares the HELL OUT OF THEM:biggrin:

but poor Brittany, it's happening for real; now THAT must SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK (repetition gets the idea across easily:smile: ); the fear of all illegal downloaders:redface:

Let me get that doc file.

[Faithless]

Was she downloading music illegally?

Or downloading from an illegal music site?

What the Chan's need to do is countersue:

Then Brittany needs to dis-own her mother.

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Oct/gee20051006032603.htm

RIAA countersued by mother: Getting a taste of its own medicine

posted 3:39pm EST Thu Oct 06 2005 - submitted by Matthew

42-year-old Tanya Andersen, a disabled Oregon mother, has hit back at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) after it sued her for file-sharing activities. The RIAA alleges that Anderson downloaded and shared more than 1,000 music files illegally, and Ms. Andersen responded by countersuing the RIAA on a slew of charges, including fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the "tort of outrage," deceptive business practices, and racketeering.

As part of a long chain of events that started with one of the RIAA's "John Doe" lawsuits (see our coverage from July 2005, August 2004, and February 2004), Ms. Andersen claims that in conversations with Settlement Support Center (SSC), a "Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country," SSC representatives admitted that access to her PC had been gained illegally, and that she was probably innocent of the charges. After she offered her PC to SSC for examination, she was removed from the anonymous lawsuit ... but sued by "another group of large record companies in federal district court in Oregon."

The RIAA has offered no comment.

Read more at PCPro and the Recording Industry vs. The People blog (which has links to PDFs of Ms. Andersen's legal documents).

MATTHEW OPINION
If Ms. Andersen's claims are found to be true then the RIAA is pursuing money without reason and using "litigation as a tool to coerce Ms Anderson [sic] to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe".

I think Ms. Andersen has a pretty good case and a very good lawyer. Andersen's countersuit makes many allegations, many of which are quite detailed and specific, and I'd be surprised if the RIAA can fight them all.

The entire case revolves around the use of John Doe lawsuits, which seem to be examples of information farming by the RIAA. Rather than rooting out the file sharers who post hundreds of gigabytes of illegal data on a regular basis, the RIAA seems to have taken the big business approach and targeted anyone it finds regardless of whether the information it is using is correct or not.

If Andersen is successful in this case, it could set a precedent for other people accused of file-sharing, and the RIAA could find its court costs escalating as everyone accused will start to fight the lawsuits.

I wish Ms. Andersen good luck, as she seems to have a strong case against the labels.

[haplesshobo]

Was she downloading music illegally?

Or downloading from an illegal music site?



Is there any difference?

What she did was obviously illegal, and hurts both the record industry and the different musical groups assembled under those labels. Everytime we download a song, that's basically stealing money away that would have gone to the company, to the musicians, to the people working in the studio, etc...
It doesn't matter if its tangible or not. If we wouldn't go into a record store and steal a CD, I don't see why its then okay to illegally download music especially when you have Itunes where you can download that same song for 99 cents.

Although, I wonder how much she was downloading. I would think the RIAA wouldn't go after somebody unless they were downloading way too many songs.

[Faithless]

Sure, she could have been doing what she thought was a perfectly legal download from an illegal site.

Sure it hurts. Damn CD's are way overpriced in the first place.

[Faithless]

http://nosleep.ca/blog/article/199/record-label-cd-cost-breakdown
Price War: Does a CD have to cost $15.99?

Major labels insist that the low prices mass retailers such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy demand are impossible for them to achieve. But Best Buy senior vice president Gary Arnold counters, “The record industry needs to refine their business models, because the consumer is the ultimate arbitrator. And the consumer feels music isn’t properly priced.” Labels point to roster cuts and layoffs as evidence that they can’t sell CDs cheaper.

This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.

$0.17 Musicians’ unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists’ royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead

Interesting stuff. At a glance, it looks like they need to cut down on overhead. Also bear in mind that these prices are in USD, so it’s more like $22.00 per CD here in Canada.

[ahsingjai]

Wait, can't minors get off easy? Since she obtain a illegal file, she can simply give the file back to RIAA without getting penalized.

[haplesshobo]

Sure, she could have been doing what she thought was a perfectly legal download from an illegal site.

Well, I just don't think that the RIAA is going to go after a 14 year old girl for making legal downloads from an illegal site. Instead, they would have gone after the illegal site, and probably warned the girl not to use that site again. I just have a gut feeling that this girl isn't as innocent as the article is portraying her to be, and that she probably abused file sharing by downloading lots and lots of songs. Is RIAA really going to go after her for downloading 5 or 10 songs?

[haplesshobo]

Sure it hurts. Damn CD's are way overpriced in the first place.

Overpriced? I don't really find 99 cents to download a song from ITunes to be really overpriced, yet people still illegally download songs instead of paying that one dollar. So, I find the reasoning that CDs are too expensive simply an excuse for a lot of people, especially since they have the money to buy a computer and internet service. Do they also complain about how expensive a car is, and then steal a car?

If you look at the profits, its not like those record companies are really gouging the consumer. They have high overhead, which is reflected in the price of the product. You can't just look at the manufacturing costs, but also all the intellectual capital and investment that takes place that gives value to the product. We're not just talking about the cost to produce the CD. You also need to factor in the cost to support and develop a band: the engineers, songwriters, etc..

Keep in mind that companies lose money or break even on most of their band, and so the profits from that $15 CD is being used to subsidize all the other CDs and bands that don't really make any money. By chipping away from the profits that the succesful bands provide, you're also hurting the struggling bands as well.

I agree that under a different business model with lower costs, then music wouldn't need to be as expensive. Yet, isn't that what ITunes does? But, people still want to illegally download songs, no matter what the price is.

[Paradox]

I really have my doubts about the validity of how the CD cost is broken down. Read the book Stiffed: A True Story of McA, the Music Business, and the Mafia sometime and you get a good understanding of all the stuff that goes on in the music industry. Big labels make a SHITLOAD of money under the table. I really doubt that the overall profit for a big label is only a couple bucks per CD. Most of the time it's the artists getting the shaft. Brick and Mortar stores often have deals with certain distributors to carry their music at a discounted rate as long as they get first releases. A lot of it is rigged, that's why even junior executives in the industry drive ferraris.

[ahsingjai]

dudeeeeeeeeee, one dollar is 1/3 of a gallon of gas. That's money to me.

[haplesshobo]

I really doubt that the overall profit for a big label is only a couple bucks per CD. Most of the time it's the artists getting the shaft.

While I agree that there are a lot of groups that don't get their fair share, I still don't see how illegally downloading songs is helping those artists. We're doing nothing more than further screwing over those artists by illegally downloading songs. Under the current business model, you might argue that artists aren't getting enough points. But, at least, they're getting a piece of the pie whereas if people continue to illegally download their songs, they don't get anything at all.

[maegashira]

downloading songs helps spread that artist's name and product. it would be heard by hardcore fan's friends, random people, follow-the-crowd people, and just a lot more people than normally would via radio. so the more people that have heard your product, the more people would buy something later on. i bought the infernal affairs trilogy after i downloaded all three off of bittorrent, for instance.

[ahsingjai]

IRC has been around for more then a decade. Even if torrents/ARES, Limewire die, IRC will always still be there.

There will always be quick mass storage like YOUSENDIT, MEGAUPLOAD, etc.

Free email can hold 2GB+ now. RIAA can't stop it.

[Paradox]

IRC has been around for more then a decade. Even if torrents/ARES, Limewire die, IRC will always still be there.

There will always be quick mass storage like YOUSENDIT, MEGAUPLOAD, etc.

Free email can hold 2GB+ now. RIAA can't stop it.
Even if they totally kill all the p2p programs and manage to somehow put a stranglehold on IRC the cheap writeable media these days ensures there will be a thriving underground for pirated music/movies and whatever else. By some miracle if they somehow sued the makers of disc media into nonexistance the piracy scene would just revert back to the independent (bbs) node type courier system just like in the old days. Nothing will change. The RIAA is fighting a losing battle and pissing off thousands of consumers while doing it.

[haplesshobo]

downloading songs helps spread that artist's name and product. it would be heard by hardcore fan's friends, random people, follow-the-crowd people, and just a lot more people than normally would via radio. so the more people that have heard your product, the more people would buy something later on. i bought the infernal affairs trilogy after i downloaded all three off of bittorrent, for instance.

Well, I can see how file sharing might help small independent bands who would have never otherwise had the money from the big corporate labels to promote and distribute them. However, these small indie bands probably release their songs on the internet as a promotion anyways, and so that wouldn't be a case of illegally downloading songs if they allow this. There are plenty of free sites where new songs can be sampled and downloaded to promote these bands. We're not arguing about legal downloads, but illegal ones without the permission of the artist or label.

And even under the current system, with extra layers and costs from distribution channels like the music store, these same aforementioned stores played an important role in introducing new bands and music to its customers.
So, while illegal downloading might introduce new bands, its also destroying the same store that once served to popularize those bands as well.

I would just feel more sympathetic to the illegal downloaders if ITunes didn't exist.

[bluemonq]

Sure, she could have been doing what she thought was a perfectly legal download from an illegal site.

Sure it hurts. Damn CD's are way overpriced in the first place.
yep. i know how you feel. by the way, i'll be back in a few days; planning a stakeout at the nearest mercedes-benz dealer. cuz....you know. those clks are too damned expensive :rolleyes:

if you can't afford it, then don't download it. if you're going to download it, then don't get caught. if you get caught - well, no sympathy from me. not that you care :rolleyes:

oh, excuse me. i just realized that someone out there is going to give the usual bs about, "oh, but that clk, that's a physical object, the dealer loses stock! i'm just making a copy; nothing's being destroyed." ok, here's a little experiment for you that i devised but haven't tried out.

materials required:
1 digital camera
1 campus bookstore
yourself

1) walk into the bookstore with your camera out.
2) find the textbook section, preferably chemistry or biology; any section with the thick, hardcover $100 books will work.
3) open the book and begin taking a picture of each page.
4) when an employee comes by to ask you what you're doing, explain to him that the books are too expensive, so you decided that taking copies would be appropriate. also, explain to him or her that the bookstore hasn't lost any revenue because none of the merchandise was destoyed.
5) record the response.

[ahsingjai]

yep. i know how you feel. by the way, i'll be back in a few days; planning a stakeout at the nearest mercedes-benz dealer. cuz....you know. those clks are too damned expensive :rolleyes:

if you can't afford it, then don't download it. if you're going to download it, then don't get caught. if you get caught - well, no sympathy from me. not that you care :rolleyes:

oh, excuse me. i just realized that someone out there is going to give the usual bs about, "oh, but that clk, that's a physical object, the dealer loses stock! i'm just making a copy; nothing's being destroyed." ok, here's a little experiment for you that i devised but haven't tried out.

materials required:
1 digital camera
1 campus bookstore
yourself

1) walk into the bookstore with your camera out.
2) find the textbook section, preferably chemistry or biology; any section with the thick, hardcover $100 books will work.
3) open the book and begin taking a picture of each page.
4) when an employee comes by to ask you what you're doing, explain to him that the books are too expensive, so you decided that taking copies would be appropriate. also, explain to him or her that the bookstore hasn't lost any revenue because none of the merchandise was destoyed.
5) record the response.

Or, Buy the book, scanner printer, refund.

[bluemonq]

no, that's slightly different. unless you bring in one of those portable scanner. the point is to see what the response is. and also to challenge those people who say that music downloading isn't stealing because the retailer isn't losing anything. what irks me most is not the fact that people are illegally downloading music, but rather those people who refuse to pay for the stuff and won't admit that what they're doing is, in fact, illegal.

[Faithless]

I think CD's are still overpriced, but back in early 2004, there was a lawsuit to have some big music companies payback some of the costs of their overcharging.

The following web site, Compact Disc MAP Antitrust Litigation Administrator, was created by the plaintiffs, taking issue with an overcharging scam.

http://www.musiccdsettlement.com/english/default.htm

One of the many articles on the subject:

Students get $14 checks from record companies: Class action settlement gives many consumers compensation for CDs (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/paper410/news/2004/02/27/University/Students.Get.14.Checks.From.Record.Companies-620969.shtml)

University | 2/27/2004 * By Bree Bernwanger

On Feb. 20, the 3.5 million claimants in a 2003 anti-trust lawsuit against major record distribution companies began to finally get their due: $13.86.

Checks are in the mail for anyone who purchased a compact disc between Jan. 1, 1995, and Dec. 31, 2000, and chose to participate in a settlement between music distributors and the governments of 43 states.

Interested music buyers were required to sign up on the settlement's Web site by March 3, 2003.

The suit began in October 2000 when the attorneys general of 43 states, including Texas, consolidated numerous class action complaints against major music distributors including Virgin Records America, Sony Music Entertainment, BMG Music and Tower Music.

The lawsuit alleged that the companies illegally fixed and controlled prices of music products and used "minimum advertising price" programs. Companies were charged with overpricing CDs by amounts between 20 and 25 cents.

"It is a conspiracy of the companies to get together and fix prices in such a way that stores at the retail level would have to participate in that scheme, or [the companies] would pull the product," said Tom Kelley, spokesman for the Texas Office of the Attorney General.

Rather than face the high costs of litigation, both parties agreed on a settlement in the summer of 2003. Companies were required to pay a total of $143 million to settle claims.

"The unit price overcharged per CD averaged between 20 and 25 cents, which is not a lot on one CD," Kelley said. "But if you add it up over years of time, and if you buy CDs regularly, it comes out to a lot more. We calculated a price of $14 for the average."

Due to this calculation, almost half of the settlement money will go to claimants in the form of checks in the amount of about $14 each. The rest will go to distributing CDs and other recorded music products to each participating state.

"It's not a huge amount, but if anything, it's nice that its there. The thing with it is is that CD companies have been overcharging for CDs for years, so it's nice to get a little bit of that back," said Jeff Corbett, an economics senior who received his check this week. "Most of the time, if I buy CDs they are gifts - they're not even for myself - but with the downloading status the way it is now, I'm buying a few more. In the past five years, which is the time you could have to file for the claim, I probably bought maybe five-to-10 CDs, max."

The trust-busting settlement has not had a large impact on local music vendors, who say pricing concerns are in the hands of the record labels.

"Nothing has really been changed here, it's all just business as usual," said David Olvera, manager of the Tower Records store on Guadalupe. "We just deal with our vendors and deal with our customers and try to please them as much as possible. We try to offer the greatest customer service that we can, but the pricing is really out of our hands."

[Faithless]

Overpriced? I don't really find 99 cents to download a song from ITunes to be really overpriced, yet people still illegally download songs instead of paying that one dollar. So, I find the reasoning that CDs are too expensive simply an excuse for a lot of people, especially since they have the money to buy a computer and internet service. Do they also complain about how expensive a car is, and then steal a car?

If you look at the profits, its not like those record companies are really gouging the consumer. They have high overhead, which is reflected in the price of the product. You can't just look at the manufacturing costs, but also all the intellectual capital and investment that takes place that gives value to the product. We're not just talking about the cost to produce the CD. You also need to factor in the cost to support and develop a band: the engineers, songwriters, etc..

Keep in mind that companies lose money or break even on most of their band, and so the profits from that $15 CD is being used to subsidize all the other CDs and bands that don't really make any money. By chipping away from the profits that the succesful bands provide, you're also hurting the struggling bands as well.

I agree that under a different business model with lower costs, then music wouldn't need to be as expensive. Yet, isn't that what ITunes does? But, people still want to illegally download songs, no matter what the price is.

Did Steve Jobs ever recant on his statement in this story?

Apple's Jobs warns on music pricing (http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=9702299&src=rss/technologyNews)

Tue Sep 20, 2005 08:24 AM ET * By Astrid Wendlandt

PARIS (Reuters) - Apple boss Steve Jobs, the man behind the popular iPod digital music player, called the music industry greedy for considering a hike in the price of digital downloads, warning such a move would drive users back to piracy.

Record companies have begun rethinking how to price songs sold over Apple's iTunes Internet shop -- 99 cents each in the United States and 79 pence in Britain -- before new contract negotiations come up with the California-based company.

"If they want to raise the prices, it means that they are getting greedy," said Jobs, chief executive of Apple (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) , at a news conference in Paris on Tuesday.

"If the price goes up, they (consumers) will go back to piracy and everybody loses," he said.

Hit hard over the past five years by the rapid spread of illegal song copying over the Internet, music companies are struggling to revamp their business models as sales shift to more legal digital downloads from the CD format.

Vivendi's (EAUG.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) Universal Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (BERT.UL: Quote, Profile, Research) (6758.T: Quote, Profile, Research) , EMI Group (EMI.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and Warner Music (WMG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) are responsible for three out of every four albums sold around the world.

Apple, which Jobs said had more than 80 percent of the U.S. digital music market, unveiled this month a pencil-thin "iPod nano" digital music player aimed at securing its lead.

Jon Rubinstein, senior vice president of the iPod division, told journalists the company was not planning to add radio features on to its digital player because there was not enough demand for it.

WIRELESS MUSIC SCEPTICISM

Jobs also cast a skeptical eye on the future of the market for downloading music on mobile handsets.

"It is not clear that buying songs over the air makes economic sense," Jobs said. "I am skeptical because of the cost ... but we will see."

Jobs said it was cheaper for consumers to download songs onto their computer than directly onto their mobile phones.

Mobile phone operators, however, expect music downloads to be a significant driver of revenue growth after having invested heavily in technology and infrastructure to support the service.

Jobs declined to say whether Apple was planning to launch an all Apple-made iPod phone after having introduced two weeks ago a music playing handset developed with Motorola (MOT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) .

"We do not say anything about future products," Jobs said. "We work on them in secret, then we announce them."

On a separate matter, Jobs said Apple was on track to ship computers fitted with Intel (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) chips by June as targeted.

"We are on track to do that," Jobs said referring to the plan announced earlier this year.

Apple had publicly expressed frustration with International Business Machines Corp. (IBM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) prior to severing its relationship with the company this year to adopt Intel chips.

Apple is now aiming to have all its computers fitted with Intel chips by the end of 2007.

Jobs said the company had a 4.5 percent share of the PC market in the United States and a 3 percent share globally.

(Additional reporting by Jeffrey Goldfarb in London)

[Banana]

Overpriced? I don't really find 99 cents to download a song from ITunes to be really overpriced, yet people still illegally download songs instead of paying that one dollar.

But then I would be paying a dollar. You can see the bind I'm in. I know friends that currently have over 30,000 songs downloaded onto DVD and I can't imagine them even thinking about paying 30,000 dollars for it.

[Faithless]

But then I would be paying a dollar. You can see the bind I'm in. I know friends that currently have over 30,000 songs downloaded onto DVD and I can't imagine them even thinking about paying 30,000 dollars for it.
And that's 99 cents, whether the song is 9 minutes long or 45 seconds long. :rolleyes:

[Paradox]

The average CD has something like 12 songs. So would you pay $12 for a CD these days? Not to mention you are only getting a digital copy of that song and not any kind of physical album with art, case, etc.. I think 99 cents is way too expensive.

[Faithless]

The average CD has something like 12 songs. So would you pay $12 for a CD these days? Not to mention you are only getting a digital copy of that song and not any kind of physical album with art, case, etc.. I think 99 cents is way too expensive.
That's the drag about CD's these days.

All that artwork and documentation is suuuuch a little space.

The damn lyrics are so farting small.

[haplesshobo]

The average CD has something like 12 songs. So would you pay $12 for a CD these days? Not to mention you are only getting a digital copy of that song and not any kind of physical album with art, case, etc.. I think 99 cents is way too expensive.

Well, the argument that CDs were too expensive went something like this: there were only two or three good songs on 1 CD, and the rest were crap. So, why should somebody basically pay $15 for a CD when they only wanted three songs.

And, that's why Itunes is such a good deal in comparison. You get to choose what songs you want on a CD, from mulitple different sources. Instead of having to buy 5 or 6 CDS for a total sum of over $60, you get all those songs on 1 CD for just $12.

Of course, there's not going to be any artwork or case with the downloaded CD. If they're were, that would be reflected in the price and you're already complaining about paying a dollar for a song. And, what type of artwork would one expect that would be able to tie in all those different songs from different artists together when the artwork's purpose is to shows the individual album's name and artist?

Keep in mind, even at 99 cents, its already putting enormous pressure on the music industry. The music industry depends on two sources of profits: from the classics in its cataloug like the Beatles and megabest sellers like Alicia Keys. Those two sources prop up the rest of the music the industry puts out, since the other music breaks even or ends up losing money. Now, instead of getting $15 from the last Alicia Keys album, they're only getting $2. Its great for Apple, but not so great for the music industry which had become dependent on the other money to help support the rest of the bands. And, if anything, its going to put even more pressure on churning out singles instead of developing a really good album with lots of good songs on that one album.

Everybody is arguing that 99 cents is too much for a song. Well, then what would be the right price and justify why it should be that price? Should it be 50 cents a song? Or, how about 25 cents a song? Heck, why not for free then?

I don't have much sympathy for the argument that 99 cents is too expensive when you also have the money to buy a computer and the high speed service to download all those songs. Or, think of it this way, 99 cents is less than what it costs to buy a softdrink at McD. Yet, you could buy 2L of the same softdrink if you only stopped at a supermarket.

[Faithless]

In one of the strangest moves in this legal vs. illegal downloading battle, Sony BMG have, instead of just getting rid of their anti-piracy program, decided to tell their consumers how to get around their copy protection. Consumers who complain about not being able to get their music onto their iPod are directed to a special site that explains how to beat the system.

Although Sony BMG might have a change of heart, EMI won't. Reuters says that EMI won't tell their frustrated listeners how to burn their music.

Legal Downloads And Frustrated Music Buyers On The Rise (http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/10/0602.cfm)

Thursday October 06, 2005 @ 04:30 PM * By: ChartAttack.com Staff

Record companies are like an ungrateful sibling, they just complain and complain even when things are going their way.

After letting Apple's Steve Jobs create a way to curb illegal downloading and bring in millions of dollars to the big labels at the same time, you'd think they'd embrace the legal downloading market instead of continually fighting with their customers.

According to the Associated Press, the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry estimated that legal downloaders paid a total of $760 million U.S. in the first half of this year, compared to $220 million during the same period last year — that's six per cent of all industry sales.

Even though more people are buying iPods and downloading songs legally, EMI and Sony BMG still find it necessary to copy protect their CDs so people who only listen to music on their iPods can't enjoy their legally store bought record.

Could EMI and Sony BMG be a little overzealous? Well, some artists think so. According to Reuters, high profile rock stars like Dave Matthews, Foo Fighters and Switchfoot are speaking out against copy protection.

"We were horrified when we first heard about the new copy-protection policy," Switchfoot guitarist Tim Forman wrote on their website. "It is heartbreaking to see our blood, sweat and tears over the past two years blurred by the confusion and frustration surrounding the new technology."

Switchfoot were so angry that they even posted a link to CDEX, a CD burning program that often circumvents the copy protection technology.

In one of the strangest moves in this legal vs. illegal downloading battle, Sony BMG have, instead of just getting rid of their anti-piracy program, decided to tell their consumers how to get around their copy protection. Consumers who complain about not being able to get their music onto their iPod are directed to a special site that explains how to beat the system.

Although Sony BMG might have a change of heart, EMI won't. Reuters says that EMI won't tell their frustrated listeners how to burn their music.

Now back to those downloading stats that the IFPI released. Possibly as a result of the increased downloading (and yes, illegal downloading), recorded music sales fell 1.9 per cent to a retail value of $13.2 billion — that's a $0.2 billion drop from this time last year. So in case you were worried, record companies are still making billions of dollars (Steve Jobs thinks the labels, whose products he sells at 99 cents a pop, are greedy).

But even with legal downloads beginning to offset the damage caused by illegal ones, the IFPI still want to make discs harder to copy.

"Our industry's priorities are to further grow this emerging digital music business while stepping up our efforts to protect it from copyright theft," said John Kennedy, CEO of IFPI.

That could result in more copy protection (Universal and Warner are waiting to see how this whole thing turns out before they protect their discs), which, says Jason Brown, president of Philadelphonic, a management company that represents Tristan Prettyman (who's on Virgin/EMI), "The bad thing is that you are almost promoting what you are trying to protect against. You are upsetting the fan that went out and purchased the record."

Wow, finally a comment that makes sense.

[haplesshobo]

Chottomatte,

I don't understand why you keep on bringing up articles that Jobs is making, when you disagree with Job's business model as well about Itunes. Jobs is arguing in favor of people paying money for making downloads, yet you seem to be against that as well. Of course, Jobs is going to say that increasing prices is greedy. Its in his self interest and would only hurt his business, even though at those prices the music industry might not really make a profit. Besides, you could just as easily accuse of him being greedy for keeping Apple computer prices so high.

And, really, the articles you bring are always really biased and distorted. To suggest that the music industry has only lost .2B from downloading is to really manipulate the data. You're looking at data after downloading became popular so of course the dropoff from downloading wouldn't seem that big. Instead, you need to compare the data before downloading became popular and after it became popular. I remember reading an Economist article that menitoned the drop off was somewhere between 20-25%. Now, I don't think it was too high, as there were other external market forces at bear such as a weakening economy during that same time. But, even when you factor in a recession for the plunging CD sales, you still realize the effect illegal downloading has been for the music industry. Its in the countries where broadband internet access is growing the most rapidly that you've seen the steepest drops in CD sales.

Nor, do I understand the argument that since the music industry still turns a profits, that this is somehow acceptable. If it didn't turn a profit, it wouldn't still be in business. Then, who would develop those bands and pay for songwriters or recording sessions? By this logic, since SUVs are the most profitable cars for the car industry, then we should start breaking into SUVs and stealing them. After all, we could steal a lot of cars from the car industry, and they'd still make a profit.

[Faithless]

More about the greed of the music industry.

Selling Songs for a Song: Record labels want a bigger cut of digital music profits. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9629461/site/newsweek/)

By Johnnie L. Roberts * Newsweek

Oct. 17, 2005 issue - The music industry is filled with creative types, and many seem to be wearing suits these days. Consider the latest idea from the business suite at Warner Music Group, which is rummaging like the rest of the industry for new sources of revenue: when search engines like Google formally launch their new video-search sites, Warner Music wants a cut of the cash the sites would reap from selling ads next to search results. So if you type in "Madonna''—a Warner act—at the Google Video site (now in its test phase), and the results are accompanied by ads, Warner wants a share of those ad dollars as well as payment for any Madonna videos that are streamed or sold, according to a senior Warner insider who wasn't authorized to speak on the record, adding that the label has approached Google about the idea. Warner Music declined official comment. A Google spokesman wouldn't comment on any talks with record labels, but did say the company believes music companies should profit from their content. Generally, "that's what we are working on,'' the spokesman said. "We are in the early stages now."

Who can blame music execs for wanting to play offense? The era of digital downloads has upended the industry's business model, and the labels are scrambling as others answer a basic question: what's the value of a song, video or even an artist's name in the age of broadband? It's a matter of heated debate. Last week Microsoft ended talks with music companies, reportedly over what it would pay them in royalties to offer an Internet music subscription service. Universal Music Group has clashed with Yahoo over compensation for videos. A war of words has erupted even between labels and Steve Jobs over whether 99 cents is too cheap for the most popular songs.

The industry doesn't want to repeat a history of undervaluing itself. In the days when its business plan was simply to promote and peddle music, it footed the bill for producing videos, and initially was only too happy to give them to MTV to help build buzz. For the Viacom-owned network, the videos drew huge audiences, building MTV into a multibillion-dollar asset. "We watched people make fortunes and create valuable assets off of our music," says a former top exec who feared risking his role, if he were identified by name, as an industry consultant.

The industry considers Steve Jobs the latest incarnation of this problem. He used songs to sell iPods, and Apple's iTunes site now sells 80 percent of all downloaded songs. The labels get 60 to 70 cents of each 99 cent iTunes download (the same songs digital pirates often stole, which is why the industry initially saw Jobs as its savior). But now labels have started agitating for a more creative approach to pricing, in which new releases would cost more than 99 cents, oldies as little as 60 cents and recent hits somewhere in between. Jobs disagrees and publicly labeled the industry "greedy" last month, arguing that it's pushing for price hikes in a still-developing market. Record executives expressed shock, noting his dominance in the MP3-player business. The dispute has gone beyond name-calling. Two major labels, SonyBMG and Warner Music, have refused to license their music for iTunes in Japan. The stakes are much higher in the United States, where the two parties have to negotiate a new license by next year.

Labels scored a victory in music videos, however, after a battle that was sparked by the grandson of Doug Morris, Universal Music's CEO. Early this year Morris noticed his grandson repeatedly watching a video of 50 Cent, a Universal artist, for free. Morris investigated and discovered his labels were supplying the videos free of charge to promote record sales. Yet Yahoo, AOL and other sites were awash in ad revenue because of the huge audiences the videos helped draw (recently Yahoo CEO Terry Semel revealed that Yahoo expects to stream 5 billion videos this year.) Morris demanded payments—a fee for each time a Universal Music video was played and a cut of the ad money. Yahoo balked, and Morris pulled Universal's videos. After weeks of declining traffic, Yahoo capitulated. One Universal Music exec estimates revenue from the new agreement to be worth $10 million or more to the company. Warner Music is now trying to extend the concept to the emerging video-search business.

Another battle is looming with satellite radio. So far, music companies have collected only perfunctory licensing fees from these services. But music execs are grousing that some satellite-radio companies are morphing into subscription downloading services by offering the ability to digitally record songs onto devices for replay later. And now the industry will likely seek much larger payments when negotiations begin next year. "They're not start-up radio companies anymore," said one top-label executive. And that's the problem—lots of companies are making money from music, just not music companies.

[haplesshobo]

More about the greed of the music industry.


Well, the last article wasn't baised or have a pro-downloading agenda.
That's why I'm still perplexed why you still insist on describing it as greed, when the article doesn't seem to share that same tone.

If anything, it all seemed pretty reasonable.

1) Other companies are using music industry's intellectual property to make money without compensating the music companies. That sounds fair to me. Why should somebody else who didn't have to invest in those musical groups then reap the benefits of their music later on, without compensating the record company and thus the musician.

2) Music companies want to vary the price of ITunes. Wasn't that your criticism that all songs cost the same despite the length of the song? I don't see anything with their proposal that the price should vary depending on how new the song is. For some older songs, it would be 60 cents and for the newer ones, it would be even more expensive. That makes sense, since you would imagine that for older songs, earlier sales covered the initial investment so you don't need the same prices to turn a profit on the sales of those songs. I'm a little surprised Jobs calls it greedy for proposing that for most of the songs out there should now be even cheaper to download. I just don't understand why that would be called greedy.

[Faithless]

Alright, so I have been posting articles and anti-RIAA pieces out there, and they seem to be all over the place. Granted.

In doing so, I've actually only begun to formulate my opinion on RIAA. And what I've been reading about RIAA worries me.

Their tactics. I think what they are doing raises constitutional issues, which may or may not have already been addressed at a supreme court level. They seem to be able to "invade" the homes of others in situations that would normally take cops with warrants and such. But that seems to be alright by some because they feel the RIAA has the righteousness to do so. The courts may have addressed this, but I'm not aware of it.

Their market control. The RIAA is nothing more than the legal arm of five, I believe, large music organizations through which consumers' music buying power is tunneled. Sort of in the same vain with the other segments of the entertainment news/media being in the hands of a few powerful, big companies. It appears that at an institutional level, groups have recognized that the RIAA price fixing tactics have been enough to warrant multi-million dollar lawsuits in which the RIAA was ordered to make good on.

It seems that this was a one-time deal. I personally think the price fixing thing should be revisited regularly. The pricing schemes don't make sense, and I don't believe, even though you'd think that the costs don't seem all that big, that music CD's should cost that much. Granted, we're only talking a few dollars here and there for different terms of overhead, but still, those costs add up and there seems to be a principle at stake with those costs that need to be addressed.

The 99 cent download has been a god send. Not too sure of the psychology of the 99-cent pricing, but you see there, where even that pricing level has been threatened a few times. Jobs is trying to hold too it. Bless his sole/soul. It appears that the RIAA takes a big chunk of that 99-cents, too, though. Maybe, Apple could go the 88-cent route of Walmart (or was it target) and take less profit themselves?

There are other things about the RIAA that seem just as disconcerting, too, and I think some music artists have been pointing them out, as well as, the independent labels.

Anyway, that's my ramble. :frown:

[haplesshobo]

^Fair enough. You bring up some concerns I share as well.

I thought you were trying to argue that since CDs were so expensive, that it was therefore okay to illegally download music and bypass more affordable options like ITunes.

I understand that people are going to make illegal downloads.
However, for me, there's a difference between illegal downloads and admitting that this is still wrong and hurts the music companies vs. making the illegal downloads and trying to justify that behavior by saying that companies are greedy or make enough money as it is.

[Jenny]

That's a messed up mom... I thought parents were automatically held responsible for whatever their children did if they're minors?

[haplesshobo]

More about the greed of the music industry.

Selling Songs for a Song: Record labels want a bigger cut of digital music profits. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9629461/site/newsweek/)

To me, what the music companies are attempting to do is no different than craiglist's decision to ban what oodle was doing, where oodle was scraping content from craiglist and using it for its own profit. I think a business has every legitimate right to be concerned when another separate business is utilizing the former's content for the latter's own use and profit. Do you really think craigslist is greedy for doing this, especially given its folksy pretensnions? Its really no different than what the music companies are doing. If somebody is going to use your content to make money off it, then it seems only fair that they pay something for that.

[Faithless]

Is this the final word on young Brittany? Has her case been dismissed (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/04/riaa-case-against-14-year-old-brittany.html)?

[haplesshobo]

I finally read the documents regarding this case, and it turns out that Brittany Chan illegally downloaded 829 songs, which she then proceeded to share illegally in peer-to-peer sharing which would have further illegally distributed those songs to more and more people. I don't think it was necessairly the crime of downloading the songs that got her in trobule, but that she then putting all those songs out there so a lot more people could illegally download those songs. Its kind of like how we punish drug dealers more than we do the drug users.

And, I read the judge's dismissal, but it was basically because the record companies couldn't come up with an adequate solution within two weeks to finding a guardian for Brittany since the court had already ruled against all the other alternatives the record companies had proposed.

It should also be noted that it was Brittany's mother who first brought up the idea of having a guardian for Brittany, not the record companies.
I don't know why all the onus to finding a solution for finding a guardian was placed on the record companies, and not on the courts or brittany's own parents.

And, it seems a little bit too much to be asking the record companies to basically pay for Brittany Chan's guardian fees.

[SunWuKong]

I finally read the documents regarding this case, and it turns out that Brittany Chan illegally downloaded 829 songs, which she then proceeded to share illegally in peer-to-peer sharing which would have further illegally distributed those songs to more and more people. I don't think it was necessairly the crime of downloading the songs that got her in trobule, but that she then putting all those songs out there so a lot more people could illegally download those songs. Its kind of like how we punish drug dealers more than we do the drug users.

And, I read the judge's dismissal, but it was basically because the record companies couldn't come up with an adequate solution within two weeks to finding a guardian for Brittany since the court had already ruled against all the other alternatives the record companies had proposed.

It should also be noted that it was Brittany's mother who first brought up the idea of having a guardian for Brittany, not the record companies.
I don't know why all the onus to finding a solution for finding a guardian was placed on the record companies, and not on the courts or brittany's own parents.

And, it seems a little bit too much to be asking the record companies to basically pay for Brittany Chan's guardian fees.


i know it wouldn't be the "kosher" justification, but maybe the court just had the common sense to realise that it's dumb of the RIAA to try to make an example out of a 14-year old, and so basically put the case down.

[shane]

I finally read the documents regarding this case, and it turns out that Brittany Chan illegally downloaded 829 songs, which she then proceeded to share illegally in peer-to-peer sharing which would have further illegally distributed those songs to more and more people. I don't think it was necessairly the crime of downloading the songs that got her in trobule, but that she then putting all those songs out there so a lot more people could illegally download those songs. Its kind of like how we punish drug dealers more than we do the drug users.

Well, the problem I have with RIAA's tactics is that they are often unable to prove that the person they are suing downloaded anything. Usually the only evidence they claim to have is a few screen shots of ip addresses and user names, which are hardly evidence of actual infringement. Ask the people who have been sued for allegedly sharing files despite not owning computers. At the very least, RIAA should be able to produce copies of the files allegedly shared by these users. Also, the inconvenience and cost of defending a baseless lawsuit is often less attractive than a few thousand dollars' hush money. This is a profitable extortion scheme (very little if any of these profits go to the artist) which serves to finance further suits.

And, I read the judge's dismissal, but it was basically because the record companies couldn't come up with an adequate solution within two weeks to finding a guardian for Brittany since the court had already ruled against all the other alternatives the record companies had proposed.

It should also be noted that it was Brittany's mother who first brought up the idea of having a guardian for Brittany, not the record companies.
I don't know why all the onus to finding a solution for finding a guardian was placed on the record companies, and not on the courts or brittany's own parents.

And, it seems a little bit too much to be asking the record companies to basically pay for Brittany Chan's guardian fees.

At the end of the day, though, it's unreasonable to severely punish a girl for allegedly illegal actions conducted when she was 13 years old, when it isn't common knowledge for people of her age group that leaving the default settings on limewire or ares opens you up to criminal liability. Nor do I think the parents should be fully liable for the actions of their 13 year old daughter on the internet - plenty of middle aged people don't know enough about the internet to prevent something like that happening.

These suits make me uncomfortable because I have a wifi connection shared between around 6 users on my floor. I don't really care what they do on the internet, but I don't want to have to lose my computer for a month while RIAA conducts some forensic analysis on my hard drive just so I can come out clean. Also, I have plenty of sensitive information on my hard drive that I'd rather other people not touch. I think as people find out more about these suits, the more they will balk at the RIAA and MPAA.

I'm all for paying money for music/movies, but so long as the labels and studios are using predatory tactics like these, I will continue donating money to organizations like the EFF who oppose the cartels.

Background information on the general procedures RIAA follows in these suits:
How the RIAA Litigation Process Works (http://info.riaalawsuits.us/howriaa.htm)

[haplesshobo]

Going back to Steve Jobs and his criticism of the music industry, we also need to remember that he's getting two different revenue streams- around 33 cents from downloaded songs off Itunes and Ipods. If you think about it, Apple is really making its money off selling Ipods, not from Itunes. Its actually better for Apple in the long run to promote lower prices on Itunes because that means more Ipods get sold, and that's where it makes its money. As prices for Itunes rise, that means they'll be less Ipods sold. However, what's good for Steve Jobs is not necessairly good for the rest of the music industry which is providing this content.

Well, the problem I have with RIAA's tactics is that they are often unable to prove that the person they are suing downloaded anything. Usually the only evidence they claim to have is a few screen shots of ip addresses and user names, which are hardly evidence of actual infringement. Ask the people who have been sued for allegedly sharing files despite not owning computers. At the very least, RIAA should be able to produce copies of the files allegedly shared by these users.

Well, I think there's no question that its Brittany Chan that was behind all this. From what I remember reading, her own mother threw Brittany under the bus and said it was her daughter that did it.


At the end of the day, though, it's unreasonable to severely punish a girl for allegedly illegal actions conducted when she was 13 years old, when it isn't common knowledge for people of her age group that leaving the default settings on limewire or ares opens you up to criminal liability. Nor do I think the parents should be fully liable for the actions of their 13 year old daughter on the internet - plenty of middle aged people don't know enough about the internet to prevent something like that happening.

I'm all for paying money for music/movies, but so long as the labels and studios are using predatory tactics like these, I will continue donating money to organizations like the EFF who oppose the cartels.


Look, I'm not saying that Brittany Chan should be thrown into jail or anything like that. But, at the same time, I don't think she should get a free pass just because she's 14 either. If she went into a record store, and stole over 800 singles, we wouldn't be saying 'since she's just 14, nothing should happen to her.' We wouldn't punish her as harshly if she was an adult, but there would be still be consequences.

If you're under 18, and you do something serious, then you're parents are often liable. I don't see why that shouldn't be the case here, just because we're talking about her illegally downloading songs off the internet vs. physically stealing something. The value of these intellectual products lies in their content, so it doesn't matter if we're talking about physical hardcopy or electronic version.

To install a policy where you'd let under 18 olds get away with that would set a bad precedent for the music industry. I would guess that the college kids are probably the worst offenders, but that under 18 year olds also make a lot of illegal downloads. If you're not going to hold those kids responsible or their parents responsible, then what's going to stop them from illegally downloading songs. I would even say it would make prosecutions of those over 18 even harder as well, where those 18+ would probably just shift responsibility to their younger siblings or children, knowing that those younger siblings couldn't be held liable for doing that.

[shane]

Well, I think there's no question that its Brittany Chan that was behind all this. From what I remember reading, her own mother threw Brittany under the bus and said it was her daughter that did it.

Sure, but RIAA doesn't know this until after they sue. And there are plenty of documented cases of RIAA suing the wrong person (for example, people who are dead, people who don't own computers). Often, a court/judge without the appropriate technical background will just rule against the person being sued without appropriate evidence. These are all civil cases, not criminal. DOJ doesn't waste its time with small time downloaders, and even if they used such tactics (suing people without notifying them so they can get a default judgment to gather more evidence), people would be rightfully furious at the prosecutors.


Look, I'm not saying that Brittany Chan should be thrown into jail or anything like that. But, at the same time, I don't think she should get a free pass just because she's 14 either. If she went into a record store, and stole over 800 singles, we wouldn't be saying 'since she's just 14, nothing should happen to her.' We wouldn't punish her as harshly if she was an adult, but there would be still be consequences.

If you're under 18, and you do something serious, then you're parents are often liable. I don't see why that shouldn't be the case here, just because we're talking about her illegally downloading songs off the internet vs. physically stealing something. The value of these intellectual products lies in their content, so it doesn't matter if we're talking about physical hardcopy or electronic version.

Well again, the civil/criminal distinction is important. Even if Brittany Chan stole 800 singles from a brick and mortar store, I would be pretty pissed if the store owner said to her "Give me $4000 or I'll sue you for $500k." Extortion is extortion, even when the victim is guilty of something.

Another thing - intellectual property is not the same as physical property. Just because I copied the blueprints to your house and built one just like yours does not mean that you cannot still enjoy your own house. You cannot reasonably believe that EVERY downloaded album is $20 lost by the music industry. People download songs they wouldn't otherwise buy anyway, and people download songs they've already bought. Also, there are plenty of people who try before they buy. It's the principle on which the radio industry operates. People taping FM broadcasts (which is still 100% legal, by the way) and listening to the songs have never hurt album sales in a significant way. In the same way, I have admittedly downloaded television shows and movies that I already own the DVDs for because I don't want to carry around dozens of DVDs, and it's faster to download than to encrypt it myself. Besides, decrypting a DVD is illegal under the DMCA anyway, so if I'm going to break the law, I might as well do it the easiest way possible.

I'd love to see a blanket license come out where users of p2p networks could pay $10 a month to RIAA for immunity from these lawsuits. Gootube is doing something similar, where they are just paying the content owners some share of their profits on copyrighted material and that way do not have to individually request a license to broadcast the material. It's also how the radio and audio cassette industries got their start. We could've done the same for p2p, but RIAA has just been trying to kill the industry instead (and failing, if you consider success as reducing p2p downloads). Blanket licenses presented as a fair and easy way to compensate artists and copyright holders. (http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php)

Intellectual property reform is kind of my pet issue that I feel very strongly about, so I got a little carried away with the length of this post. Oops.

[haplesshobo]

Sure, but RIAA doesn't know this until after they sue. And there are plenty of documented cases of RIAA suing the wrong person (for example, people who are dead, people who don't own computers).

Sure, there have been a few high profile documented cases where the RIAA went after the wrong person but I disagree that this means the RIAA should stop prosecuting those who illegally download songs. I mean, the police makes mistakes and charges innocent people as well. That doesn't mean the police should stop doing their jobs because they mistakenly charge an innocent person every once in awhile.


Well again, the civil/criminal distinction is important. Even if Brittany Chan stole 800 singles from a brick and mortar store, I would be pretty pissed if the store owner said to her "Give me $4000 or I'll sue you for $500k." Extortion is extortion, even when the victim is guilty of something.

But, by that same logic, every plea deal we see in the court room would be considered to be extortion. People all the time plead guilty to a lesser crime and punishment to avoid the possibility of much greater punishment. I think such a system has its place because we would otherwise face gridlock in the sytem if most cases were settled. The way I look at it, the same thing is happening here where the RIAA feels that a certain monetary damage occured, but its willing to accept less to avoid the hassles of litigating the case. If the RIAA didn't threaten that lawsuit, why would people willing pay for those damages?

I happen to disagree with the RIAA's ultimate numbers, but I kinda agree with their logic- its not as if Brittany just stole 800 singles and that's the total sum of the monetary damage. Instead, by downloading those songs onto the internet, it would be as if she stole those singles from a brick and mortar store and then proceeded to make copies of that and sold them outside the store so people who might have bought the singles ended up buying from her instead. And, so the RIAA is calculating the total momentary damages to include not only the 800 stolen singles, but all the potential other sales they might have made.


You cannot reasonably believe that EVERY downloaded album is $20 lost by the music industry. People download songs they wouldn't otherwise buy anyway, and people download songs they've already bought. In the same way, I have admittedly downloaded television shows and movies that I already own the DVDs for because I don't want to carry around dozens of DVDs, and it's faster to download than to encrypt it myself. Besides, decrypting a DVD is illegal under the DMCA anyway, so if I'm going to break the law, I might as well do it the easiest way possible.


I agree, and that's why I stated that I thought the RIAA's numbers about the total financial loss have been inflated. But, even the total numbers were not as large as RIAA claimed, around 20-25%, I still think the music industry took a signifigant hit from illegal downloading.


Another thing - intellectual property is not the same as physical property. Just because I copied the blueprints to your house and built one just like yours does not mean that you cannot still enjoy your own house. Also, there are plenty of people who try before they buy. It's the principle on which the radio industry operates. People taping FM broadcasts (which is still 100% legal, by the way) and listening to the songs have never hurt album sales in a significant way.


I don't buy that Pareto effieciency model. I think it would lessen my enjoyment if I knew that I was the only sucker around who was paying for it, and everybody else was getting it for free. That's just human nature. I would be much less likely to buy those blueprints if I knew others didn't have to pay for theirs.

With intellectual property, you cannot just look at the manufacturing costs of what it takes to produce it. Instead, you also need to also consider the research and development that went into developing that product.

As for radio and why its free, I would argue that radio is a completely different business model. There are commercials that you have to sit through that subsidize the 'free' music you hear on the radio. And, people will still buy the CD even though they can hear the song on the radio. They will be sitting at home, and want to hear the song. However, they have no control when and if the song gets played on the radio so they end up buying it to listein to the song when they feel like it and to get a higher audio quality than that of the radio. Illegally downloading songs takes away the raison d'etre of buying the CD. You can listein to a higher audio quality than the radio, and control when you want to. Taping songs from FM radio has always been incredibly inconvienent because you had no control when the song would play, and it would be random when it would come on. And, the tape you got from it was always inferior in quality to what you could buy.

[shane]

Sure, there have been a few high profile documented cases where the RIAA went after the wrong person but I disagree that this means the RIAA should stop prosecuting those who illegally download songs. I mean, the police makes mistakes and charges innocent people as well. That doesn't mean the police should stop doing their jobs because they mistakenly charge an innocent person every once in awhile.

But, by that same logic, every plea deal we see in the court room would be considered to be extortion. People all the time plead guilty to a lesser crime and punishment to avoid the possibility of much greater punishment. I think such a system has its place because we would otherwise face gridlock in the sytem if most cases were settled. The way I look at it, the same thing is happening here where the RIAA feels that a certain monetary damage occured, but its willing to accept less to avoid the hassles of litigating the case. If the RIAA didn't threaten that lawsuit, why would people willing pay for those damages?


I think there is an important distinction between civil and criminal cases. If a criminal prosecutor used the RIAA's tactics it would pretty much be considered by most legal experts to be in violation of 4th amendment principles. In case you didn't read the link I gave earlier on how the RIAA lawsuits work, RIAA first sues a John Doe and doesn't give John Doe notice that he's facing a lawsuit. Then when the judge enters the default judgment against the person who didn't show (because they didn't receive notice), RIAA takes the evidence gathered in the first case, drops the case (so those steps cannot be challenged by the defendant after he finds out he's being sued) and then files a brand new lawsuit against the named defendant. My problem is not that RIAA is suing file sharers. My problem is that by the time someone knows they are being sued, the legal process is more than halfway over, and the RIAA just got a huge head start.

The criminal plea deal analogy doesn't apply, either. When winning a case is less attractive than settling beforehand ($2000 settlement looks better than thousands in legal fees even if you win), even in the event that the defendant is totally innocent, I think it should rightly be called extortion. Not to mention that the artists, writers, producers, etc. get little to no compensation for the money RIAA gets in this way, even though RIAA does it in the name of the poor artist.



As for radio and why its free, I would argue that radio is a completely different business model. There are commercials that you have to sit through that subsidize the 'free' music you hear on the radio. And, people will still buy the CD even though they can hear the song on the radio. They will be sitting at home, and want to hear the song. However, they have no control when and if the song gets played on the radio so they end up buying it to listein to the song when they feel like it and to get a higher audio quality than that of the radio. Illegally downloading songs takes away the raison d'etre of buying the CD. You can listein to a higher audio quality than the radio, and control when you want to. Taping songs from FM radio has always been incredibly inconvienent because you had no control when the song would play, and it would be random when it would come on. And, the tape you got from it was always inferior in quality to what you could buy.

I think we can mostly agree that the typical mp3 isn't nearly as good in quality as the CD. In addition, downloading from p2p generally gives you crappy metadata (artist or track name often misspelled or mislabeled) as well as no guarantee of quality - whether it be a noisy recording/rip or whether there's some DJ talking over the song, or whether the relative volumes of the different recording channels are correct. The audio quality is roughly equivalent to an audiocassette anyway, which is good enough for most purposes, but not the same. Like I said before, plenty of people buy CDs of mp3s they've downloaded, and download mp3s of CDs they already own.

Let us not forget that recording companies tried to sue radio out of existence in the early days, too. Because RIAA refuses to grant blanket licenses for p2p sharing, it remains a gray market industry. Since the recording industry was legally compelled to license radio, radio became a profitable industry for the recording companies. All I'm saying is that compulsory licenses for p2p would be far better for the artist, producer, consumer, p2p companies, and even RIAA itself.

And let me be perfectly clear - I don't download major label music on p2p, nor do I condone it. It is illegal now and I perfectly understand this and why it is. I just think that a compulsory license would be better, and that these RIAA lawsuits are counterproductive, immoral, and borderline illegal (for the predatory practices outlined above).

[haplesshobo]

EMI has just announced it will fire about a quarter of its employees. After these latest cuts, EMI will now only employ about 4500 employees. 15 years ago, before illegal downloading, EMI was employing 15,000 employees. Oh well, illegal downloading is a victimless crime and a strike against greedy record companies.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-fi-emi15jan15,1,7291774.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar



n a dramatic demonstration of the economic toll of digital piracy on the music industry, EMI Group is expected to fire more than a quarter of the London-based company's employees and radically alter the way it does business to further cut costs.

Guy Hands, who was installed as chief executive of the world's fourth-largest record company after it was bought last year by investment company Terra Firma, is expected to announce cuts of at least 1,500 employees today as part of a major restructuring, two EMI executives said.

EMI also will become the first major label to eliminate the large advances that customarily are paid in the industry to proven artists. For instance, British pop singer Robbie Williams reportedly got an advance worth $150 million when he signed with EMI in 2002. His future advances could be in jeopardy because of his disappointing sales.

EMI instead will pay retroactive compensation based on how well a recording sells, one of the executives said.

The approach will probably take the record company out of the running for top acts, which can negotiate bigger advances from Universal Music Group, Sony-BMG or Warner Music Group, the executives said. A severe cutback in advances means that "you're not competitive anymore for A-list talent. You're asking to be outbid," the executive said.

The company is home to acts such as Coldplay and Kylie Minogue. Last year, it lost one of its biggest bands, Radiohead, which now handles its own distribution.

The record industry has been steadily shrinking over the last decade to respond to a 15% annual decline in music sales. EMI's downsizing has been among the most extreme. EMI will have about 4,500 employees after the cuts, down from more than 15,000 15 years ago, according to industry executives.

Terra Firma spent more than $4 billion to acquire EMI last summer, not counting debt, but the company lost money in the last year.

Hands will decrease marketing spending but invest more in artist development, the two executives said. Striking deals with smaller bands that sell fewer albums could be more practical today, at a time when well established bands are less dependent on the marketing muscle of a major label.

"The status quo hasn't exactly worked," the other executive said. "We can put the emphasis on a good-quality record that doesn't sell a million, but a profitable quarter of a million."

That is a radical departure for an industry that historically has survived on the profits generated by artists with major hits.

To Hands, that is evidently part of the problem. He might cut from the roster EMI bands that don't earn back what they cost, the executives said. EMI also intends to save money by consolidating such functions as sales and marketing at Capitol and other labels, except for the profitable division that owns the publishing rights to songs. "Their catalog is second to none," said Jay Samit, a former senior executive at EMI, Sony and Universal. "They can monetize that."

He said EMI and the other traditional record labels had been slow to change with consumer habits.

"Every day, entrepreneurs are coming up with new ways of doing things," Samit said. "Yet they're still finding it difficult to work with some of the labels in a timely fashion."

[Faithless]

That's a shame for EMI, but is the problem with that company their marketing and their poor choice of money making artists (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0a7b43c-c241-11dc-8fba-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)?

Mr Hands hinted at a clear-out of EMI Music's roster of 14,000 artists, saying just 200 of them made most of its revenues each year. About 85 per cent of artists lost money for their labels, he said, and EMI spent £70m a year subsidising the 15 per cent who would never produce an album. The group had exceeded marketing budgets by about £60m a year, he added, and wasted £25m a year on scrapping unsold CDs.

By the way, there's squat available for free download these days.

So, my money's been going to beatport.com (https://www.beatport.com/) and djdownload.com (http://www.djdownload.com/). Suckers charge more than iTunes, but you can't get the really good shit at iTunes.

[haplesshobo]

That's a shame for EMI, but is the problem with that company their marketing and their poor choice of money making artists?

As I've pointed out before in this thread, that's true for all the record companies- most releases lose money or break even. The record companies rely on their biggest hits to subsidize and make up for those losses. And, if people are illegally downloading the biggest hits, then that hurts everybody and not just the artists who aren't being paid. It means less money and support for developing bands and those that aren't moneymakers.

And, I don't see how slashing marketing will really help. If anything, you'd think that make matters worse as it alienates your moneymaker bands. Seems like EMI is in a potential deathspiral. If it alienates its succesful bands with these new policies, then it means less money from those bands and thus has less money to go out and try to turn the company around, and so on. I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years, after further layoffs, EMI ends up getting swallowed by another company and of course, another round of layoffs with any merger.


By the way, there's squat available for free download these days.

So, my money's been going to beatport.com (https://www.beatport.com/) and djdownload.com (http://www.djdownload.com/). Suckers charge more than iTunes, but you can't get the really good shit at iTunes.

I think all those people illegally downloading would disagree. Last I looked, the numbers were pretty staggering.

As to iTunes competitors, its cause other companies hate to partner up with Steve Jobs because they dislike him that much on a personal level.

[haplesshobo]

Interesting take by U2's manager, who argues that the record companies should be targeting the internet service providers instead of the consumer.


U2's manager says Internet service providers aren't doing enough to stop illegal downloading.
By Randy Lewis, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 29, 2008
CANNES, France -- U2's manager, Paul McGuinness, came out swinging Monday at the opening of the annual MIDEM international music conference here, targeting Internet service providers as both the primary culprits and potential healers of the worldwide record industry's ongoing ills.

In a keynote address to several hundred convention delegates, McGuinness, who has managed U2 since the band started, directly attacked the creators and operators of ISPs, saying, "I think the failure of ISPs to engage in the fight against piracy, to date, has been the single biggest failure in the digital music market.

"They are the gatekeepers with the technical means to make a far greater impact on mass copyright violation than the tens of thousands of lawsuits taken out against individual file sharers," he said. "To me, prosecuting the customer is counterintuitive, though I recognize that these prosecutions have an educational and propaganda effect, however small, in showing that stealing music is wrong."

McGuinness likened ISPs' relationship to illegal downloading to a magazine filled with ads for stolen cars, one that also helped deliver them to anyone interested in having one.

"I've met a lot of today's heroes of Silicon Valley," he said. "Most of them don't really think of themselves as makers of burglary kits. . . . [But] kids don't pay $25 a month for broadband just to share their photos, do their homework and e-mail their pals."

While also chiding record companies for not treating musicians equitably, McGuinness reserved his harshest words for ISPs. At the same time, he challenged them to step up to the plate to acknowledge that they have "a moral obligation to be true, trustworthy partners of the music sector. To respect and take responsibility for protecting music."

After his talk, which McGuinness said has been posted on U2's official website, the manager said that musicians have "too little power" to force such actions and suggested that if "ISPs won't do so voluntarily, legislation may require them to do so."

He said this was primarily his cause, not U2's, although he prefaced his remarks by noting that "U2 always understood that it would be pathetic to be good at the music and bad at the business and [has] always been prepared to invest in their own future.

"We were never interested in joining that long, humiliating list of miserable artists who made lousy deals, got exploited and ended up broke and with no control over how their life's work was used, and no say in how their names and likenesses were bought and sold."

He also said he thinks a key change in the attitude of technology companies may come from Apple founder Steve Jobs' new role with the Walt Disney Co., ABC-TV and Hollywood Records.

"His point of view may be changing now that he owns content as well as selling those beautiful machines that have changed our world."

The MIDEM conference runs through Thursday and is expected to draw nearly 9,500 participants from 91 countries.