Reply With Quote
Well once I finish this Allman Bros torrent I'll probably have all the music I could ever want.
By Lewis Krauskopf and Gavin Hay
Fri Oct 5, 8:46 AM ET
NEW YORK/LONDON (Reuters) - The recording industry has won a major fight in its effort to stop illegal music downloading with a U.S. jury decision to impose $222,000 damages against a Minnesota woman who used a Web service to share music.
Although industry commentators are divided over what impact the case will have on stemming illegal downloads globally, the size of the damages is significant -- nearly 80 times higher than the average European settlement figure in such a case.
The jury in the civil case in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota on Thursday found Jammie Thomas infringed copyrighted song recordings, and awarded damages of $9,250 for each of the 24 recordings cited.
The verdict marked the first jury trial in the U.S. industry's drive to combat piracy with lawsuits against an individual.
According to court do ents, the record companies sued Thomas in April 2006 after 1,702 music files involving artists such as Green Day, Aerosmith and Guns 'N' Roses were traced to a computer tied to her. A year earlier, investigators had located an individual with the screen name "tereastarr@KaZaA" using the Kazaa file-sharing software program.
"This individual was downloading copyrighted sound recordings from other users of the Kazaa network, and was distributing copyrighted sound recordings stored on her computer to other Kazaa users," the plaintiffs said.
Thomas, in do ents, denied the allegations of the complaint "that relate to any allegations that she ever used any (peer-to-peer) network, including Kazaa."
The record companies involved included EMI Group's Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records and UMG Recordings.
PIRACY BATTLE
According to data from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which represents the recording industry, there have been 50,000 cases in 18 countries against illegal filesharers with settlements averaging just over 2,000 euros ($2,822).
The biggest settlement in Europe was 13,000 euros for a case in Denmark. The vast majority of cases never get to court because they are settled before then.
The Thomas case underscores the battle record groups face amid falling CD sales and surging online music growth to stem the level of global piracy via filesharing networks.
Peer-to-peer file sharing is estimated to cost the industry billions of dollars each year in revenues it could have made from CD sales or paid-for downloads.
Figures from ScreenDigest show that physical music revenues in the United States have fallen from around 15.3 billion euros in 2001 to 4.1 billion euros last year. This covers music DVDs, vinyl and minidiscs, but the majority comes from CDs.
Anti-piracy groups have managed to cut the level of illegal downloads in Germany following a particularly concentrated campaign of enforcement. They also applauded a Belgian court's decision earlier this year that Internet service providers did have a legal responsibility to tackle piracy.
However, analysts say the fight is not helped by the surge in illegal filesharing and downloads occurring away from networks by the use of direct emails, instant messaging, Web forums and networks that can hide activity via encrypted data.
"Legal action against an individual is all about setting examples and that is why there is such a ridiculously high rate (of damages) set in this case," said Mark Mulligan, a research director at Jupiter Research.
He added: "Enforcement is very difficult and going to get more difficult."
"We have always made it clear we are reluctant litigators," said IFPI Chairman and Chief Executive John Kennedy.
"We do everything possible to persuade people not to leave themselves exposed to litigation. We educate, we warn, we even try and settle before a case gets to court. We derive no great satisfaction from this but hope it will prove a deterrent to others."
Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the British Phonographic Industry said: "This important court ruling serves as a strong reminder to illegal firesharers that digital shoplifting is against the law, is not anonymous and can lead to serious legal consequences."
Well once I finish this Allman Bros torrent I'll probably have all the music I could ever want.
That's why I do not share it. I just download it. Let the people outside the US share the music for you...
That sucks.
bravo.
Theft shouldn't be rewarded.
hahaa, man, all I can do is laugh at these people and say sucks to be you
Don't use Kazaa. It's both loaded with spyware and easily traceable if you're stupid enough to not use the default username, something like Kazaa++. Every time they catch someone, it's by tracing a Kazaa username to a PC system.
Bit torrent rules, both from a download speed POV and the fact that you are anonymous. Unlike the earlier file sharing systems, you gets bits of the file from multiple anonymous users. Oh, and you s who download, but don't share. I hope your next torrent dies a horrible death.
It was rumored that torrentspy was ruled to have to turn over their US clients, that may have something to do with them shutting out US users
Limewire FTW.
Torrentspy is a search website, not a bit torrent client. If you join, you take your chances on traceability. You don't need to join any of the torrent search sites to DL their torrents.
ing LOADED with spyware.
If the music industry would put out more quality music more people would buy it...don't just blame illegal down loaders for lackadaisical sales....most illegally downloaded music quality sucks, but people figure, hey, it's only a dollar on utunes, how much can the fine be if I get caught.....but remember that the big-brother music industry has much bigger lawyers than consumers and a much fatter wallet....
Nothing like justifying theft.If the music industry would put out more quality music more people would buy it...don't just blame illegal down loaders for lackadaisical sales....most illegally downloaded music quality sucks, but people figure, hey, it's only a dollar on utunes, how much can the fine be if I get caught.....but remember that the big-brother music industry has much bigger lawyers than consumers and a much fatter wallet
Nothing like a changing marketplace.
Because surely the consumer is the only one guilty of theft. Big corporations never cheat, lie, and steal to get their means. What a crock of .
It's a dog eat dog world and you do what you have to do to get what you need. Don't pull this ethics bull trip on people.
I know there's a thread for the new Radiohead release but this a good place for the update (while I listen to The Bends).
Radiohead album bets on fast release, open pricing
By Michael Erman
NEW YORK, Oct 6 (Reuters) - The release of popular rock group Radiohead's new album next week is the latest wake-up call for a music industry still struggling to deal with the advent of digital music, experts say.
Normally a Radiohead release generates huge buzz as fans and critics alike wait to hear the latest musical direction of a band that has produced such varied offerings as the radio hit "High and Dry" to the experimental musings of "Kid A."
But the English band's seventh studio album "In Rainbows" is being closely watched for business reasons; the album is being released digitally on Wednesday by the band itself, just 10 days after the completion of recording and mixing.
And the price? Fans can pay what they want. The price listed at radiohead.com says simply: "IT'S UP TO YOU."
"This has been a long-brewing issue with artists," said Ted Cohen of music consulting firm TAG Strategic. "In a digital world where you can create something relatively quickly and get it out there immediately, why wait? Is there any overwhelming need to sit on something for three or four months?"
Typically a band of Radiohead's stature would be signed to a major recording label, which would wait several months before releasing the music to allow time for buzz to develop and plan a tour and marketing campaign.
Tony Bongiovi, a record producer who has been in the music business since the 1960s, said the fast turnarounds could hurt a music business that he believes is losing money as it becomes more singles-driven, rather than album-driven, in the age of iTunes and Internet file-sharing.
Some bands wouldn't work to complete an album if they could put out a good single right away, he said.
LESS CASH FROM SINGLES?
According to Bongiovi, a singles-driven market would lead to less money for musicians and producers, and, ultimately, to fewer artists getting a shot at the big time.
"When you go into a record label now, its got to be such a sure thing. Otherwise, there's no money for you," he said.
Radiohead is releasing its latest recording alone after benefiting from label support for their first six albums, the last out in 2003. But fast releases might not be as worthwhile for newer bands.
"People know who Radiohead are -- there is a pent-up demand of people waiting for the next thing," said Gartner Vice President Mike McGuire. "Very few bands have that kind of loyal audience following."
Radiohead's quick release in some ways is evocative of the early days of rock 'n roll, when it was not uncommon to record a song in the morning, press it into a 45 in the afternoon and have it on store shelves the next day.
Radiohead is not alone in taking advantage of new technology, helping artists to stay ahead of fast-changing musical trends and reducing the risk of illegal downloading.
Stars, an indie Canadian rock band known for lush pop songs, made their album, "In Our Bedroom After the War," available for download on July 10, four days after completion.
The CD only became available in stores on September 25.
The band said the album would have inevitably leaked during the period usually marked for promotion, and it hoped fans would choose to support it by paying to download it.
It also said they believed that the widespread release would help build word-of-mouth about the release.
"We believe that the line between the media and the public is now completely gray," Stars said in a statement. "What differentiates a commercial radio station from someone adding a song to their Last.fm channel? Or their MySpace page?"
Brooklyn-based indie rockers Bishop Allen said they have benefited from putting out their music speedily. They wrote and recorded a four-song EP every month in 2006, making the record available for purchase or download the last day of each month.
"The idea that you could make something from what you're thinking at the moment, and that fans can immediately access those thoughts, makes it more like a dialogue," said Justin Rice, who plays guitar, piano, and sings in the band.
"They were hearing what we were saying without a weird lag. It's kind of beautiful," he said.
Uh, that's always been the case. If you read the radiohead article, you'd know that even the hottest repeat multi-platinum artists get only 30% of the sales take on music. If you've ever wanted to make money in the music business as a musician, you needed to be a road dog.oh my goodness! you mean if people can download music for free... that means bands have to *gasp* play concerts and sell tshirts to make money!!!????
Nothing like seeing the world in black and white.
IP law was originally intended to stop companies from stealing other companies' ideas and making money from them. In a case like this the person wasn't making a cent, and the damage done to the company was miniscule. $220K is an egregious penalty! It should've been under 10K, not a debt that is effectively going to SEND SOMEONE BANKRUPT FOR SHARING A FEW SONGS!!! That is certainly not the intent of IP law.
I'd go further and say that the legal system has been heavily skewed towards the interests of the rich, including corporations. If you can afford high-priced lawyers and appeal after appeal than you can quickly exhaust the resources of the average citizen, and that IS NOT the way the legal system was originally envisioned - IT WAS ENVISIONED AS A PROTECTION FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN! The entire sytem has been twisted to the interests of those with $$$$$$$, and that is messed up.
Screw these greedy music labels who barely pay a cent to the music (without which they wouldn't exist!). If they did their job better and didn't overcharge so egregiously music piracy wouldn't be a problem...
Remember that next time you sell some flour and water for 2.50 and call it funnel cake.
It must be nice to be rich, and sin free?
Ive never downloaded music. I dont care if others do, but I always thought if you actually liked a band, buying their CD helps them make a new one.
But, whatever.
That would be nice if that was the case. But actually anyone can make a CD relatively cheaply. What they can't do cheaply is market it under a label. So under the current system buying a CD only helps a band negotiate their next contract with the big labels.
I'm not going to attempt to justify downloading copyrighted music. But it is possible to have a business model which is so imbalanced that consumers and artists will stop supporting it.
Really? So despite the fact that I'm not actually removing a good or item from another person or company and taking it into my own possession for my exclusive use afterwards, it's called theft?
Huh. The more you know.
Good point(s). I did not/do not the know the inner-workings of a record contract. Im sure the labels rape the musician just as hard as they rape the consumer.
Again, I dont download music. But, IMO, the end of recording labels has been drawn on the wall for some time. At some point, a record company will start that digitally distributes its music with a profitable business model.
While the dinosaurs will follow their namesake.
I think under the current CBA's football and basketball players get ~55% of the revenues generated. And it's pretty easy to argue that football and basketball teams (getting a 45% cut) are a lot more important to players than record companies (70% of the cut) are to musicians.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
