Heavy fine for illegal music downloads

<p>Higherlead, I mean this in the nicest possible way: The 60s are over. The capitalists won.</p>

<p>

Like it or not we don’t get to define it each on our own terms so we have governments who determine it. I might feel justified in ‘taking’ a new BMW because I think the manufacturer is charging too much for it and just ripping off the public and hey, they don’t secure them that well anyway, but I don’t get to decide what ‘stealing’ is so if I don’t follow the law I’m liable to be prosecuted.</p>

<p>“And washdad, not one person on this thread has commented about illegally downloading music… so you do not need to be saying things like its not your business to be giving it to your friends as if you are talking to us directly… I’m kind of taking offense to that. (Maybe I shouldn’t be if you don’t mean it that way?)”</p>

<p>Exactly! Never, in any of my posts, did I advocate the illegal downloading of music—In fact, I said that I’ve never downloaded any music, legally or otherwise. What I said, is that I have little sympathy for the record companies, and I stand by that sentiment. </p>

<p>You ask why musicians are willing to sign such lopsided contracts. I believe it is because, until very recently, it was the only game in town. You either signed with a record company, or fame eluded you. Notice that in my prior posts, I also celebrated the fact that artists are increasingly managing to get their music heard, independent of record companies. I think the absolute power that record companies have wielded for so long is coming to an end, and well they know it (which is why they are so spitting mad)! My allegiance is with the artists. I would much rather buy a CD (at a reasonable cost) directly from the artist who made it, than to help line the pockets of recording company execs., while the artist pockets pennies. That’s all I’m saying.</p>

<p>Let’s add this to the discussion:</p>

<p>Many stores (fye for one) sell used CD’s. As I was told by a clerk, artist and record company get zero, store gets it all. Will record industry sue these stores for their cut of the action?</p>

<p>No, because no copying is occurring. A person is buying a physical object that represents intellectual property (songs), then divesting themselves of it in order to sell it. The difference between that and sharing is that when shared, the original owner does not divest themselves of the IP, and as a result that person is effectively creating a new copy of the company’s product without their consent.</p>

<p>“Higherlead, I mean this in the nicest possible way: The 60s are over. The capitalists won.”</p>

<p>I am mentally preparing myself for the next election cycle :slight_smile: I hear the Wobblies have a few Starbucks in NYC organized. Granted being a barrista hasn’t the grit and glamour of a miner or lumberjack but it is a start.</p>

<p>We bought three cd’s today. Costs 10, 8 and 8. Normal prices for a CD.</p>

<p>You can’t sell it for 25. If you try to sell it for 25, people will steal it. If you sell it for 8, people will buy it.</p>

<p>

I hope not. the way it’s supposed to work is they try to sell it for $25, nobody buys it (and hopefully don’t steal it), so they reduce the price to $8 at which point people buy it. This actually happens all the time for the less popular CDs/DVDs.</p>

<p>yeah, i know ucsd… i just was trying to say (hypothetically) that a big reason people download music because they charge so much for it… and if they would charge less in the first place more people would buy it rather than download it.</p>

<p>Although I do think that peer-2-peer file sharing networks aid copyright infringement, I do think $9200 per uploaded/shared songs is way too much. I know our system is not “eye-for-an-eye” but in this case, the fine should reflect how many times the file was shared. Say the shared file was downloaded less than fifty times (indie band or something accounts for low hit count). Should they really be charged $9200, when a famous pop or rap song is downloaded several hundred times and results in fines of the same magnitude? Personally, I don’t think so, but that’s just my opinion.</p>

<p>In what could either be described as “the opening salvo in the all-out war for the future of the music industry” or “the most bizarre marketing strategy of all time,” Radiohead will release their much-anticipated new album, In Rainbows, via their Web site on October 10, less than three months after they finished mixing and mastering it. And while a band fast-tracking its new record isn’t exactly breaking news these days (Montreal indie-poppers Stars did it earlier this year with In Our Bedroom After the War), what makes Radiohead’s release of Rainbows particularly amazing is that fans will get to determine how much the album will cost to download. Seriously!</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1570871/20071001/radiohead.jhtml[/url]”>http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1570871/20071001/radiohead.jhtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Looks like more really bad news for the RIAA.</p>

<p>Yeah, my boyfriend has been talking about that for a couple of days. He’s going to buy it after work today I guess.</p>

<p>There’s a music store on the internet that works like that too - you set your own price. I think they said they have just as many people buying for 15 dollars as they do for 5 dollars and it’s been very profitable. I’m not sure if the site is just for Indie music or what - I’ve never bought from it.</p>

<p>Radiohead might be the band that I was referencing where they saw one of their cd’s selling for a ton of money in a store, but I’m not exactly sure.</p>

<p>That was actually Trent Reznor the frontman for Nine Inch Nails. The reviews for Radiohead’s new album are excellent so far…Anyone who is curious to see the website it is radiohead.com.</p>

<p>ok, i knew it was one of those bands… Thanks Collegemom :)</p>

<p>You are welcome. :)</p>

<p>Here it is I found his comments on Wiki:</p>

<p>Reznor says that despite all his efforts to reimagine the album release in a post-Napster era, his label is conspiring against his fans. Reznor recently found out that Year Zero sells for $34.99 in Australian dollars, or $29.10 U.S. By comparison, Avril Lavigne’s new album sells for $21.99 AU ($18.21 US). The reason, as a label rep told Reznor: “We know you have a real core audience that will pay whatever it costs when you put something out - you know, true fans. It’s the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy.” And the record industry wonders why album sales are slumping?</p>

<p>On May 13, 2007 Reznor made a post on his blog on the official Nine Inch Nails website condemning Universal Music Group for their pricing and distribution plans for Year Zero.[94] He criticized the company’s retail pricing of Year Zero in Australia as “ABSURD”[sic] concluding “I guess as a reward for being a ‘true fan’ you get ripped off”. Reznor went on to say “As the climate grows more and more desperate for record labels, their answer to their mostly self-inflicted wounds seems to be to screw the consumer over even more.”[95] Reznor’s post, specifically his citing of the recording industry’s “self-inflicted wounds”, elicited considerable media attention.[96] </p>

<p>On September 16, 2007, Trent Reznor continued his attack on what he perceived as unfairly high CD prices at a concert in Australia, urging fans to “steal” his music online instead of purchasing it legally.[97] The text of Reznor’s speech was widely reported on Digg:[98] </p>

<p>“Last time I was here, I was doing a lot of complaining about the ridiculous prices of CDs down here. And that story got picked up and got carried all around the world and now my record label all around the world hates me, because I yelled at them, I called them out for being greedy **<em>. I didn’t get a chance to check, has the price come down at all? I see a no, a no, a no… Has anyone seen the price come down? Okay, well, you know what that means - STEAL IT. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin’. Because one way or another these *</em> will get it through their head that they’re ripping people off and that’s not right.”[99]</p>

<p>On October 8, 2007, Trent Reznor announced with “great pleasure” that Nine Inch Nails had fulfilled its contractual commitments to the recording industry and was now free to proceed as a “totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label”.</p>

<p>They are going the Radiohead route.</p>

<p>will be emulated by Oasis, The Charlatans and Jamiroquai.^ Additionally Radiohead have won the support of some huge indie legends. Former Stone Roses singer Ian Brown said it was a “fantastic idea”, adding: “Anything that can break the music industry up, I’m supporting it.” </p>

<p>Ex-Smiths guitarist Johnny Marr praised their trust in human nature. He said: “We’ll see if their good faith is going to be rewarded. I think it will work.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_RelishArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353066189&path=!entertainment!music!&s=1037645508978[/url]”>http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_RelishArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353066189&path=!entertainment!music!&s=1037645508978&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The consensus seems to be that it’s a risky move but a brilliant one nonetheless. …</p>

<p>“Anything that can break the music industry up, I’m supporting it.” </p>

<p>I suppose this means Ian has another job lined up.</p>

<p>The decline in sales is exactly timed to the rise of Napster. Free trumped pay. This idea that CDs are overpriced is just silly – Walmart, Target and Costco sell CDs at a discount and the late Tower Records (a moment of silence, this company’s death brought to you by “I want my music for free”) always discounted new releases. </p>

<p>I told my husband – full disclosure here, he led the legal fight against Napster and against individuals who illegally download – that we should start a drinking game. Take a shot whenever someone says people download illegally because CDs are overpriced. Take another whenever someone says that record companies take advantage of the talent (apparently, it’s real easy to break a new artist – anyone could do it). </p>

<p>Ten, twenty years from now, to the delight of Ian, there will be no music industry. Once it’s easier to illegally download movies, that industry will end as well. Everything will be free and available to all – but what will that “everything” be? If Trent Reznor had an issue with UMG, there were other record companies he could have signed with. He didn’t because he’s already a huge name and has enough money that he doesn’t need what a record company has to offer to new, untested acts. But what of the new acts, how will they get their songs on the radio, on tv – how will they make a living if their music is free? By touring? You have to be well known to make money that way. And, in any event, who makes all the money there, the band – or the ticket scalpers? Now, let’s talk about someone who makes a huge profit at the expense of the public and without sharing it with the artist. Fight the real enemy.</p>

<p>“apparently, it’s real easy to break a new artist – anyone could do it”</p>

<p>The notion that new artists need to “break” and become huge national names and go triple platinum in order to be considered successful is a record-company idea. Maybe in the future, the scene won’t be so dominated by a few acts playing in arenas, and instead there will be more club acts appealing to niche audiences. Back in the vaudeville era, singers did not get rich, but there was no shortage of amazing performances in small venues. If the artists are actually artists, they’ll be happy making a decent living playing to fans who love them. If the “artists” want to become kajillionaires, they should go work for hedge funds.</p>

<p>If there’s money to be made investing in the tours of new bands – and there surely will be, since fans get bored with old acts but they will always like going to shows – then people with money to invest will step into that market. They’ll just be promoters and PR firms, not record companies.</p>

<p>All this is aside from the fact that the whole controversy might have been averted if the recording industry had reacted differently back in the late 90’s. When they saw people downloading, they could have said, “Wow, our customers really like downloading song by song instead of buying whole albums in a store; let’s get in on the ground floor of this.” The culture was still being shaped at that point, and it might have developed very differently if there were a legal, inexpensive option at the beginning. Instead, the record companies started suing people, which led the country to think, “Those guys are jerks anyway, so it’s fine with me if they go under.” The nail in the coffin was the lawsuits by hypocritical kajillionaires like Metallica – who developed a fan base without record company help through the snail-mail sharing of bootleg cassettes – prompting college kids everywhere to decide that they’d rather light their money on fire than give it to those pricks. And here we are.</p>

<p>“All this is aside from the fact that the whole controversy might have been averted if the recording industry had reacted differently back in the late 90’s.”</p>

<p>That I agree with. The record companies never adapted and tried to figure out how to use new methods of distribution until it was too late. They are the victims of their own lack of foresight.</p>