US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case

Vikingod · Jun 23, 2009, 03:29 PM

OK, now for some intellectual debate (and feel free to chime in, everyone). Sorry of the long post.

What does everyone think about this: instead of prosecuting individuals for piracy, which has done nothing to further the RIAA’s cause aside from ruining the lives of a handful of housewife’s and college students, why not try to adapt new business models to encourage people to support the music/bands they love? Why not come up with something that adds value to what is being purchased? People aren't buying tangible items anymore when it comes to music, which also makes piracy easier (think "tape dubbing", but on a much larger scale and with a network). Protecting the business model developed 50+ years ago makes very little sense. Look at what Radiohead, Trent Reznor, and the Smashing Pumpkins have done as an example of how new business models equal sales, but also encourage loyalty to a group. Also consider the growing number of "MySpace Artists" who are gaining listeners, and therefore money, by (gasp), giving their music away for free.

Does anyone agree that people having access to free music not only benefits the artists who creates it, but also the quality of music as a whole? I think of it this way, how many bands would I not have discovered had I needed to shell out $20 to purchase their album. And now that I like this particular band, am I more apt to purchase an album, shirt, concert ticket? Yes, of course. I talked to my dad about this one time when he commented that I know more about the bands he grew up with than he does (and these are really great bands). His take was simple; he didn't have access to it like I do. In his time the price was forbidding, it wasn't widely available, and there wasn't a network to really discuss the merits of the artists. People all pretty much listened to the same thing.

It could also be argued that what started with Napster is the greatest thing to happen to music, creatively, since vinyl. Having the ability to listen to, and be influenced by, so many different types of music has no doubt benefited the musicians themselves and the quality of their work. Being a musician and music lover myself, I see nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what art is about in the first place?

**Mousey** · Jun 23, 2009, 03:40 PM

Very interesting perspective Viking, I agree with you on the encourage instead of ruin approach. The main reason people continue to pirate is because they can, simply that. It's a firm statement of FU to the RIAA and other governing bodies against piracy, Because of them constantly ruining lives like you said they do nothing to help the anti piracy movement the simply infuriate people and henceforth just generate support for the piracy cause themselves.

Perhaps assigning them to marketing roles with incentives such as big discounts of legit download services, Or maybe trying to find them employment in a record store/movie store/game store ect. could help the cause.

With employment being in a massive slump at the minute every penny is a commodity that must be preserved, so employment or discounts could really be a good incentive during the recession.

**dj_stick** · Jun 23, 2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mousey

It's a firm statement of FU to the RIAA and other governing bodies against piracy

unfortunately that's not the case, they're really just hurting the artists, themselves and anyone who actually wants to buy the music....

Judas · Jun 23, 2009, 04:32 PM

Hurting the artists my ass in most cases considering that the artists are already gang raped by the record labels, the only thing getting hurt here is the multi billion dollar record labels ... and really they aren't hurt..

the only real possibility of a artist getting hurt, is if they publish it themselves or have setup a contract in which screws them out of money far more then before through sales percentages.

There are SEVERAL artists that presented with the option... would freely distribute their work.

Don't quit your day job...

Vikingod · Jun 23, 2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

Hurting the artists my ass in most cases considering that the artists are already gang raped by the record labels, the only thing getting hurt here is the multi billion dollar record labels ... and really they aren't hurt..

the only real possibility of a artist getting hurt, is if they publish it themselves or have setup a contract in which screws them out of money far more then before through sales percentages.

There are SEVERAL artists that presented with the option... would freely distribute their work.

Don't quit your day job...

I think that is what DJ was saying; that the RIAA is hurting the artists. I'm not quite sure what you are saying Judas.

BlueMak · Jun 23, 2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikingod

OK, now for some intellectual debate (and feel free to chime in, everyone). Sorry of the long post.

What does everyone think about this: instead of prosecuting individuals for piracy, which has done nothing to further the RIAA’s cause aside from ruining the lives of a handful of housewife’s and college students, why not try to adapt new business models to encourage people to support the music/bands they love? Why not come up with something that adds value to what is being purchased? People aren't buying tangible items anymore when it comes to music, which also makes piracy easier (think "tape dubbing", but on a much larger scale and with a network). Protecting the business model developed 50+ years ago makes very little sense. Look at what Radiohead, Trent Reznor, and the Smashing Pumpkins have done as an example of how new business models equal sales, but also encourage loyalty to a group. Also consider the growing number of "MySpace Artists" who are gaining listeners, and therefore money, by (gasp), giving their music away for free.

Does anyone agree that people having access to free music not only benefits the artists who creates it, but also the quality of music as a whole? I think of it this way, how many bands would I not have discovered had I needed to shell out $20 to purchase their album. And now that I like this particular band, am I more apt to purchase an album, shirt, concert ticket? Yes, of course. I talked to my dad about this one time when he commented that I know more about the bands he grew up with than he does (and these are really great bands). His take was simple; he didn't have access to it like I do. In his time the price was forbidding, it wasn't widely available, and there wasn't a network to really discuss the merits of the artists. People all pretty much listened to the same thing.

It could also be argued that what started with Napster is the greatest thing to happen to music, creatively, since vinyl. Having the ability to listen to, and be influenced by, so many different types of music has no doubt benefited the musicians themselves and the quality of their work. Being a musician and music lover myself, I see nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what art is about in the first place?

That would require for the companies to greatly reduce profits with their own initiative. Self preservation won't let them do it.

YAYitsAndrew · Jun 23, 2009, 08:25 PM

@Vikingod

I agree that your approach would be nice, but I question whether it's actually doable in the real world. My main issue with artists giving away their albums for free and just asking you to donate what you think it's worth is that it's a system that is doomed to fail as it becomes more widespread. In other words, the approach is a novelty. There's some commercial value to the approach itself, because it generates publicity. As more and more people adopt the approach, it will become less newsworthy and therefore lose value. The end state is that all music becomes a charity. Bands produce music, give it away for free, and wait for donations. Or at least, that's how the public will perceive it; the money becomes optional and an act of good will. What a far shot from the existing system. This isn't asking the music industry to change, this is asking them to give up on capitalism.

I think there are already lots of services available to help discover music in a legal way that doesn't require buying a CD just to give a listen. I feel your argument may have held water a decade ago but seems strawman now. There's pandora, which is free music discovery. If you want to have more direct control you can go to a subscription service such as Rhapsody. iTunes has genius now, which gives you recommendations on your existing library. Amazon can give you a similar style of recommendations.

The music industry has been inching closer to what people are expecting in this digital age, but because it isn't the sanctioned legal equivalent of piracy, their efforts are largely unnoticed or dismissed.

Judas · Jun 23, 2009, 09:14 PM

there are numerous systems that give stuff away freely and rely on donations only that are making a good living.... being able to feed their families and continue to produce better music/video down the road..

the system isn't doomed to fail if the product is good.... actually quite the opposite.... the very thought that it will puts you into that frame of mind and therefore will MAKE it fail..

It's kinda like driving and stareing at the ditch.... you have a high tendency to drive into it even though you'd like to avoid it, but it's going to happen.

If it's a good product/service.... people will pay for it...

I can attest to it simply because i've done work for free and have had customers FORCE feed me the money due to being extremely happy with the work done. I've gotten bonuses due to it... this clearly demonstrates that provided with honest work.... good work, a good product... and people that aren't lowlifes will pay for it if they honestly think it's worth something even when the product is given free.

There will always be the tightasses and the cheapscates, scapegoats and the like, the ones with money to pay but take it simply because it's free... the scrouges and the scoundrals. If doesn't matter if the product is terrible or not.... these people will take anything they can for free.

I listen to a wide variety of music.... watch a wide variety of movies..... so on and so forth.... most of it i listen for free.. but the REAL good stuff i've willlingly donated or purchased...

But the way the current alligations go.... blanket statements across the board about the bad and never anything about anything REALLY good.... If you can win over the people in your favor through lies... do it... and they are doing it.. and have always done it

Mac Daddy · Jun 24, 2009, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikingod

Does anyone agree that people having access to free music not only benefits the artists who creates it, but also the quality of music as a whole? I think of it this way, how many bands would I not have discovered had I needed to shell out $20 to purchase their album. And now that I like this particular band, am I more apt to purchase an album, shirt, concert ticket?

Nice post and I agree especially on the part I quoted here. Being a musician for 28 years and a recording artist I have been saying pretty much the same thing for the 7 years or so I have been posting on forums. Album royalties don't make the artist money promotion and concerts do. If in doubt ask Willie Nelson or Chuck Berry.

SaberZ · Jul 31, 2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YAYitsAndrew

@Vikingod

I agree that your approach would be nice, but I question whether it's actually doable in the real world. My main issue with artists giving away their albums for free and just asking you to donate what you think it's worth is that it's a system that is doomed to fail as it becomes more widespread. In other words, the approach is a novelty. There's some commercial value to the approach itself, because it generates publicity. As more and more people adopt the approach, it will become less newsworthy and therefore lose value. The end state is that all music becomes a charity. Bands produce music, give it away for free, and wait for donations. Or at least, that's how the public will perceive it; the money becomes optional and an act of good will. What a far shot from the existing system. This isn't asking the music industry to change, this is asking them to give up on capitalism.

I think there are already lots of services available to help discover music in a legal way that doesn't require buying a CD just to give a listen. I feel your argument may have held water a decade ago but seems strawman now. There's pandora, which is free music discovery. If you want to have more direct control you can go to a subscription service such as Rhapsody. iTunes has genius now, which gives you recommendations on your existing library. Amazon can give you a similar style of recommendations.

The music industry has been inching closer to what people are expecting in this digital age, but because it isn't the sanctioned legal equivalent of piracy, their efforts are largely unnoticed or dismissed.

Actually there were several bands(I think, think that NIN was one of them and Radiohead) where it was HUGELY successful. The numbers were way above expectations. I think people pirate not only because they can, but because they aren't supposed to and are also unable to afford most things.

Take for instance Photoshop. It's the premiere photo manipulation and creation app on the planet, retails for 599, Office 2007 Suite, 499-599. Games are 50-60 bucks, CD's are typically 17-20 for a cd that 90% of the time has 2 tracks that are worthwhile on it.

For music, the content is hit or miss, there are good tracks and bad tracks, but you pay for it all. A game fully is hit or miss, 50-60 bucks for a stud or a dud.

Piracy is wrong, but I do believe there are ways the good guys can minimize the impact it causes and even sway some pirates to pay for a cost of goods using a pay what you think approach or another means. I think to me, the biggest FU from the RIAA was "If I bought a CD, I paid $20 dollars, its my disc. If i want to, i should be able to poop on the CD, lend the CD out)." The RIAA says "Lending the CD to a friend is a violation". The CD itself is only being used in 1 instance, now if a COPY is made thats another thing, but the act of "lending". The content on the disc, even though the disc is fully paid for is not yours and never will be yours, its theirs. You are paying for the privilege of listening to it.

Hell for a short time even RIPPING YOUR CD's onto your MP3 player for your own use was considered illegal. So not only after buying a "hard copy" you need to re-purchase a digital copy(at the time).

I don't think anyone likes being told what they can and cannot due and that in turn will push people towards the dark side.

YAYitsAndrew · Aug 1, 2009, 01:54 PM

IvanV · Aug 1, 2009, 02:36 PM

A miraculous thread resurrection indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaberZ

...
Take for instance Photoshop. It's the premiere photo manipulation and creation app on the planet, retails for 599...

And we're all such pros that we all absolutely need to have Photoshop? If you're a pro, Photoshop will easily pay for itself, otherwise you might consider a career switch before you starve. And non-pros are 99% of the time just as well or even better off with some other, simpler and cheaper tool. Some, like GIMP and Paint .Net are even free. (Which does lead us to one of the bigger often repeated lies in the whole piracy story though, and that is that 1 pirated copy = 1 sold copy lost. Not even close, not even 10 to 1 I would think.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaberZ

...
Piracy is wrong, but I do believe there are ways the good guys can minimize the impact it causes and even sway some pirates to pay for a cost of goods using a pay what you think approach or another means. I think to me, the biggest FU from the RIAA was "If I bought a CD, I paid $20 dollars, its my disc. If i want to, i should be able to poop on the CD, lend the CD out)." The RIAA says "Lending the CD to a friend is a violation". The CD itself is only being used in 1 instance, now if a COPY is made thats another thing, but the act of "lending". The content on the disc, even though the disc is fully paid for is not yours and never will be yours, its theirs. You are paying for the privilege of listening to it.

Hell for a short time even RIPPING YOUR CD's onto your MP3 player for your own use was considered illegal. So not only after buying a "hard copy" you need to re-purchase a digital copy(at the time).

I don't think anyone likes being told what they can and cannot due and that in turn will push people towards the dark side.

There is some truth in this, the industry often plays very dirty to extract as much money as possible from the honest customers. I just stumbled upon this (taken from engadget, whole story on Ars Technica):

Quote:

... just a couple months after the MPAA tried to convince us that videotaping DVDs was an acceptable alternative to ripping, the RIAA's claiming that consumers shouldn't expect their DRM servers to stay online and allow them to play their music to play forever. No joke. The argument comes as the Copyright Office decides whether or not to allow a DMCA exemption for breaking DRM, and RIAA lawyer Steven Metalitz's position is that copyright owners shouldn't be required to "provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works," since "no other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards." Of course, that's only partially true, since properly maintained physical media and DRM-free content theoretically can be played forever, but why acknowledge reality when you can jack up your legal bills making completely absurd arguments that make your porcine, slowly-decaying clients seem even more doomed than before?

~~RE III - Frankie~~ · Aug 1, 2009, 04:35 PM

I just want to say that I think these people "must" know the risks involved. 1.92 million fine ain't no walk in the park. That's serious spending cash. To be fined that much you would have had to have had a large syndicate working for you.

Jun 23, 2009, 03:29 PM	#31
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,197 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case OK, now for some intellectual debate (and feel free to chime in, everyone). Sorry of the long post. What does everyone think about this: instead of prosecuting individuals for piracy, which has done nothing to further the RIAA’s cause aside from ruining the lives of a handful of housewife’s and college students, why not try to adapt new business models to encourage people to support the music/bands they love? Why not come up with something that adds value to what is being purchased? People aren't buying tangible items anymore when it comes to music, which also makes piracy easier (think "tape dubbing", but on a much larger scale and with a network). Protecting the business model developed 50+ years ago makes very little sense. Look at what Radiohead, Trent Reznor, and the Smashing Pumpkins have done as an example of how new business models equal sales, but also encourage loyalty to a group. Also consider the growing number of "MySpace Artists" who are gaining listeners, and therefore money, by (gasp), giving their music away for free. Does anyone agree that people having access to free music not only benefits the artists who creates it, but also the quality of music as a whole? I think of it this way, how many bands would I not have discovered had I needed to shell out $20 to purchase their album. And now that I like this particular band, am I more apt to purchase an album, shirt, concert ticket? Yes, of course. I talked to my dad about this one time when he commented that I know more about the bands he grew up with than he does (and these are really great bands). His take was simple; he didn't have access to it like I do. In his time the price was forbidding, it wasn't widely available, and there wasn't a network to really discuss the merits of the artists. People all pretty much listened to the same thing. It could also be argued that what started with Napster is the greatest thing to happen to music, creatively, since vinyl. Having the ability to listen to, and be influenced by, so many different types of music has no doubt benefited the musicians themselves and the quality of their work. Being a musician and music lover myself, I see nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what art is about in the first place?

Jun 23, 2009, 03:40 PM	#32
Mousey Synth's Long Lost Bro Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Web Design Hell Posts: 7,189 Rep Power: 245 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case Very interesting perspective Viking, I agree with you on the encourage instead of ruin approach. The main reason people continue to pirate is because they can, simply that. It's a firm statement of FU to the RIAA and other governing bodies against piracy, Because of them constantly ruining lives like you said they do nothing to help the anti piracy movement the simply infuriate people and henceforth just generate support for the piracy cause themselves. Perhaps assigning them to marketing roles with incentives such as big discounts of legit download services, Or maybe trying to find them employment in a record store/movie store/game store ect. could help the cause. With employment being in a massive slump at the minute every penny is a commodity that must be preserved, so employment or discounts could really be a good incentive during the recession. __________________

Jun 23, 2009, 08:25 PM	#37
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 79 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case @Vikingod I agree that your approach would be nice, but I question whether it's actually doable in the real world. My main issue with artists giving away their albums for free and just asking you to donate what you think it's worth is that it's a system that is doomed to fail as it becomes more widespread. In other words, the approach is a novelty. There's some commercial value to the approach itself, because it generates publicity. As more and more people adopt the approach, it will become less newsworthy and therefore lose value. The end state is that all music becomes a charity. Bands produce music, give it away for free, and wait for donations. Or at least, that's how the public will perceive it; the money becomes optional and an act of good will. What a far shot from the existing system. This isn't asking the music industry to change, this is asking them to give up on capitalism. I think there are already lots of services available to help discover music in a legal way that doesn't require buying a CD just to give a listen. I feel your argument may have held water a decade ago but seems strawman now. There's pandora, which is free music discovery. If you want to have more direct control you can go to a subscription service such as Rhapsody. iTunes has genius now, which gives you recommendations on your existing library. Amazon can give you a similar style of recommendations. The music industry has been inching closer to what people are expecting in this digital age, but because it isn't the sanctioned legal equivalent of piracy, their efforts are largely unnoticed or dismissed. __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com Last edited by YAYitsAndrew; Jun 23, 2009 at 08:31 PM.

Aug 1, 2009, 01:54 PM	#41
YAYitsAndrew Anti-Piracy Poster Boy Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 2,605 Rep Power: 79 System Specs	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case __________________ "It is because the resistance to paying for copyrighted material, although often characterized as arising from a supposed technical burden or principled concern for the public interest, arises rather from exactly the same segment of the brain that is dominant in shoplifters." - Mark Helprin, Digital Barbarism In other words, it's never okay to steal even if you think you have a good reason! www.yayitsandrew.com

Aug 1, 2009, 04:35 PM	#43
~~RE III - Frankie~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,754 Rep Power: 0	Re: US woman to pay 1.92 mln dlrs in music piracy case I just want to say that I think these people "must" know the risks involved. 1.92 million fine ain't no walk in the park. That's serious spending cash. To be fined that much you would have had to have had a large syndicate working for you.