Jury Rules Against woman in Download case (lazily merged)

[Burgold]

Don't know about anybody else, but I wasn't raised to "share" things that weren't mine to begin with.

Well, it does make it easier.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

But I think it should be a matter of choice. If an artist wants exposure and wants to expose or give away his work for free that's totally cool. If you choose to do it for him or her, it's not.

I do agree that some artists may benefit greatly from downloading and accidental discovery esp. the small guys. However, if they only get notoriety and no cash... it will be very hard for them to continue producing quality work or paying for a studio to get a high quality product out.

Some artists do. But you know it's not even as easy as that. There are a ton of politics that get thrown into it, especially if you're an artist who's signed, and don't forget about those artists who get signed but buried on the bottom of the garbage heap at Big Ol' Music Pimp, Inc..

But let's be clear, I'm not saying that file sharing is a good, but I'm not saying it's bad. I think it has positive and negative values to it.

[Blackest Eyes]

I think this is a double edged sword argument though. Without file sharing, some artists would stay buried, and never get a following. There were a lot of artists who like that people download their stuff if it opens them up to a new demographic.

I'll give you my scenario in-fact. I wasn't a big fan of The Mars Volta, in-fact I hated on them. I thought they Cedric and Omar went soft after ATDI broke up, because I had heard one of their songs on the radio (The Widow) and wasn't too fond of it. After hearing from a few people that they were much different from that sound, I gave them another try, I dl'ed all their albums, and listened to them. I realized that I really, really liked this band, so I went and bought all those albums I've downloaded. I've even paid to see them in concert. So I don't think that it's completely true that pirating music is 100% bad.

I agree with you to some extent, but I think Burgold hits the nail on the head in the quote below. You are much more honest about your downloading though. By that, I mean that you actually buy the albums you download. Some people just download non-stop and that is the real problem. People just don't seem to get it in their heads that if you download an album it is just like stealing it from a store.

In my opinion, what needs to happen to prevent piracy is free preview service of sorts for albums. Bands that stream their tunes over myspace before their album hits are smart. They allow people ot hear the entire album to make a decision before buying...and its completely legal. Other services like Spotify need to come to the states as well. I wish Last.fm would stream entire albums free before they came out.

I completely see why people download things before buying because maybe they may have limited funds and might not want to sink $20 or so into something they end up hating. But at the same time, it isn't fair to the artist or the industry to steal it.

Weren't most of us raised to share? Anyways. I understand where the industry may see losses if everyone illegally downloads but if I buy a CD and my brothers want the songs on there computers I'll let them rip it. I don't ever feel guilty for that. Most artists make their money through endorsements and concerts. So this is all about the labels really.

You are missing the point. Labels give bands money to record albums. Without money, the bands struggle to pay for studio time. Have you ever looked into how much studio rates are? They aren't cheap. Not many bands can afford to record an album straight from their own pocket. Not to mention bands can get more money from labels if their albums sell well.

But I think it should be a matter of choice. If an artist wants exposure and wants to expose or give away his work for free that's totally cool. If you choose to do it for him or her, it's not.

I do agree that some artists may benefit greatly from downloading and accidental discovery esp. the small guys. However, if they only get notoriety and no cash... it will be very hard for them to continue producing quality work or paying for a studio to get a high quality product out.

Couldn't have said it better.

remember when CDs were like 20 bucks a pop?

concerts cost damn near 100 bucks a ticket unless you want nosebleed?

how much shirts are at those concerts?

they got greedy and people figured out how to sneak around them and not have to worry about being gouged.

A lot of CD's are still $20. If you look hard enough though you can find killer deals on CD's. I think people don't look. I recently bought 7 CD's for $60...

Concerts for huge bands cost a ton of money...and most of that money goes to the venue anyway.

And shirts at these concerts cost way too much. I saw Maiden last summer and a shirt was $45. :doh: No way did I buy one.

Don't know about anybody else, but I wasn't raised to "share" things that weren't mine to begin with.

That makes two of us. People seem to think that if it is on the Internet, they automatically own it.

[Burgold]

But let's be clear, I'm not saying that file sharing is a good, but I'm not saying it's bad. I think it has positive and negative values to it.

I don't really disagree with this too much. Sure, good can come out of it. There are a couple You-tube sensation who made a career and now are quite well off because of free downloading. However, as a copyright holder, it ought to be my decision if you can get my stuff for free. If I sell my copyright to Evil Corporate Record Company, it's their decision... even if that descision is the wrong decision.

The person who invested the time, effort creativity or the person/company who bought the rights needs to be the one having the say... not some random people who find your work and want to share it with 10 or 100 million people.

Again, it might be the wrong decision and the artist may lose out in the long run by making the wrong decision, but businesses lose money all the time by making bad choices. The important thing is that they are in control of their product.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

I don't really disagree with this too much. Sure, good can come out of it. There are a couple You-tube sensation who made a career and now are quite well off because of free downloading. However, as a copyright holder, it ought to be my decision if you can get my stuff for free. If I sell my copyright to Evil Corporate Record Company, it's their decision... even if that descision is the wrong decision.

The person who invested the time, effort creativity or the person/company who bought the rights needs to be the one having the say... not some random people who find your work and want to share it with 10 or 100 million people.

Again, it might be the wrong decision and the artist may lose out in the long run by making the wrong decision, but businesses lose money all the time by making bad choices. The important thing is that they are in control of their product.

Again, I don't think the solution is as simple as that. But we'll agree to disagree there. I think there's a necessary evil quality to the whole subject, and that if illegal downloading were to be completely done away with, some artists would feel a noticeable impact in other areas, such as ticket sales, even record sales.

I feel like the RIAA went after downloaders because they are the easy target, and much easier to blame on the decline in CD sales, as opposed to fixing the bigger issues (such as gouging customers, repeatedly putting out a below average product, while much better talent is being ignored). It's like blaming the ****tyness of your car on the fact that your rear window doesn't work anymore, whiule completely ignoring the engine that has never had an oil change and the slipping transmission.

[Warhead36]

Doesn't look like Lil Wayne or Jay-Z is hurting for money. Guess I'll keep on downloading.

[Blackest Eyes]

Doesn't look like Lil Wayne or Jay-Z is hurting for money. Guess I'll keep on downloading.

Great logic. :doh:

Completely ignorant point of view.

[Blackest Eyes]

I feel like the RIAA went after downloaders because they are the easy target, and much easier to blame on the decline in CD sales, as opposed to fixing the bigger issues (such as gouging customers, repeatedly putting out a below average product, while much better talent is being ignored).

I don't think that they went after downloaders because of that at all. They went after downloaders because they are the largest reason for the decline in CD sales. People steal more CD's than they buy so that is a total reason for a decline in CD sales. Though, I do agree that more talented artists need to be signed. When was the last time a band as awesome as Queen or Led Zeppelin was signed? I can't think of a modern day band with that much talent who is incredibly popular.

I get annoyed with crappy music on the radio (hence why I do not listen). Nickelback is a prime example. They are a pathetic band...yet people continue to buy their horrendous product for reasons that are beyond me. But people actually buy these albums so the companies continue to support these bands and shove their music through the airwaves into the ears of listeners.

Music listening is subjective though. I guarantee that my top bands would be shunned by others here for various reasons.

[Larry]

Great logic. :doh:

Completely ignorant point of view.

Oh, I wouldn't say "ignorant".

I suspect that "dishonest" fits better.

[Blackest Eyes]

Oh, I wouldn't say "ignorant".

I suspect that "dishonest" fits better.

Eh, probably more selfish than anything.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

I don't think that they went after downloaders because of that at all. They went after downloaders because they are the largest reason for the decline in CD sales. People steal more CD's than they buy so that is a total reason for a decline in CD sales. Though, I do agree that more talented artists need to be signed. When was the last time a band as awesome as Queen or Led Zeppelin was signed? I can't think of a modern day band with that much talent who is incredibly popular.

I get annoyed with crappy music on the radio (hence why I do not listen). Nickelback is a prime example. They are a pathetic band...yet people continue to buy their horrendous product for reasons that are beyond me. But people actually buy these albums so the companies continue to support these bands and shove their music through the airwaves into the ears of listeners.

Music listening is subjective though. I guarantee that my top bands would be shunned by others here for various reasons.

Illegal downloading, is part of a bigger picture is what I'm saying. $16/20 CDs, with 10 tracks, which span a total of 40 minutes and maybe 2 - 3 songs worth listening to from an artist that was rushed by the record execs to put out a below average album, because their single is hot + the ability to just download the song(s) you want, be it legally or illegally are the contributors to this. The fact that the industry fought the digital movement (latest studies show that digital downloads make up over 20% of music sales), then turned around and tried every way to gouge consumers when they finally did embrace it, has also hurt sales.

Seriously trying to tell people that taking CDs that they've purchased and Ripping them onto their computer is copyright infringement is a slap in the face to the very consumers they supposedly cater to.

Also the industry has helped create this monster that they are now trying to fight. They have made the single more important than the album, (as was stated earlier) we have artists that are pushed out there for one hit, and they'll focus on throwing together an album later with the idea that people will buy a CD on the strength of one, maybe two hits. If the industry has taken the integrity out of full albums, what makes you think the consumer is going to respect it as "art" when it's really just a generic junk farm we're supporting? People no longer have incentive to purchase full albums for $9.99 (from iTMS), nor do people have as much disposable income to throw $16 towards a physical CD, so they are doing just what the industry built.

[Leonard Washington]

No it's outrageous and ridiculous.

You wanna know what the penalty should be for downloading media or sharing it illegaly? You should have to buy the content you downloaded or shared. Simple as that.

$80,000 per song is absurd. How the hell is that even justifiable?

I agree. I think if they want to charge outrageous amounts, they have to prove the music was shared (and charge them as well).

[Larry]

Seriously trying to tell people that taking CDs that they've purchased and Ripping them onto their computer is copyright infringement is a slap in the face to the very consumers they supposedly cater to.

No, "taking CDs that they've purchased and Ripping them onto their computer" and then handing out 100,000 copies of it is copyright infringement.

Putting it on your computer, well, a bunch of lawyers could argue for a long time about whether it's illegal or not, but you'll never get caught at it unless they sieze your computer for some other reason.

Putting it on your computer, and then telling your computer to broadcast it to everybody in creation, gets you caught.

[Larry]

No it's outrageous and ridiculous.

You wanna know what the penalty should be for downloading media or sharing it illegaly? You should have to buy the content you downloaded or shared. Simple as that.

$80,000 per song is absurd. How the hell is that even justifiable?

How many people, you think, would rob banks, if the penalty for getting caught was that they made you give the money back?

[Blackest Eyes]

Illegal downloading, is part of a bigger picture is what I'm saying. $16/20 CDs, with 10 tracks, which span a total of 40 minutes and maybe 2 - 3 songs worth listening to from an artist that was rushed by the record execs to put out a below average album, because their single is hot + the ability to just download the song(s) you want, be it legally or illegally are the contributors to this. The fact that the industry fought the digital movement (latest studies show that digital downloads make up over 20% of music sales), then turned around and tried every way to gouge consumers when they finally did embrace it, has also hurt sales.

Seriously trying to tell people that taking CDs that they've purchased and Ripping them onto their computer is copyright infringement is a slap in the face to the very consumers they supposedly cater to.

Also the industry has helped create this monster that they are now trying to fight. They have made the single more important than the album, (as was stated earlier) we have artists that are pushed out there for one hit, and they'll focus on throwing together an album later with the idea that people will buy a CD on the strength of one, maybe two hits. If the industry has taken the integrity out of full albums, what makes you think the consumer is going to respect it as "art" when it's really just a generic junk farm we're supporting? People no longer have incentive to purchase full albums for $9.99 (from iTMS), nor do people have as much disposable income to throw $16 towards a physical CD, so they are doing just what the industry built.

I don't think companies are saying ripping a CD to your computer is illegal...just the "sharing" of the product that you purchased that belongs to you. I do not necessarily agree that the recording industry has taken the integrity out of full albums because in the past 20 albums I have purchased there is only one that doesn't really do it for me. And honestly, I haven't given it a fair chance to grow on me either.

Overall I completely agree with you though. The recording industry has created a monster that it is trying to tame.

I will say though that if you buy CD's of lesser known bands you generally end up getting a better product than a band who has hits on the radio and there are very few exceptions. Maybe I am just biased though

[Fergasun]

Larry,

See my example regarding a trespassing law and copyright infringement civil penalties. You thought it was a foolish example. I think it exactly sum's up the case we have here. I would like to see the statutory penalties challenged. I agree with what DjTj said about the law being behind technology; this type of massive infringement was never even thought about 20 years in the past. This should be scary for any rights-holder.

Regardless, in this specific case even my argument for a more limited copyright doesn't truly hold water, as I think most of the works she infringed upon are less than 20 years old. Here is the list: Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"; Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"; Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"; Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"; Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"; Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"; Sara McLachlan "Possession"; Building a Mystery"; Aerosmith "Cryin’"; Linkin Park "One Step Closer"; Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"; Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"; Bryan Adams "Somebody"; No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"; Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"; Richard Marx "Now and Forever"; Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"; Green Day "Basket Case".

Maybe there are 5 that would fall under the 20 year acceptable for non-commercial use that I would like to see; perhaps more if it were 14 or 7 years. Its also clear there are some people here who have no idea how a p2p network is (unfortunately those who understand whats going on would get kicked off of a jury).

To make it clear: seems doubtful she was the original source for the upload, so it wasn't like she was ripping and uploading. Additionally, there's no way to know how many copies she uploaded... but someone who does p2p would tell you, unless you are on a monster upload connection (I'm not sure they say what she had) you get pitiful upload bandwidth and if you are trying to upload to a swarm with a lot of interest there is a very high chance you'll upload more than 3-5 copies. The people with the most uploads are the ones who have blazing fast upload connections... they probably are the ones who commit the most infringement.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

I don't think companies are saying ripping a CD to your computer is illegal...just the "sharing" of the product that you purchased that belongs to you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages." ...

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

Not according to this, and while I understand what Larry is saying, I'm talking the black and white, short and tall of it. It's not about if you'll get caught, or how easy it is to prove, it's the fact that technically the music industry says it's illegal, and they can come after you if they'd like. Which is where my comment came from.

Again the RIAA decided to shun the digital music revolution, and got burned. Companies do that, they avoid trends and in the end they are losing because of it. Now they are clinging to an out-of-date business model because going to the new model will expose them for the cheats they are.

The 1990s saw a number of factors that allowed the major labels to push out independents and dominate the market with their own outrageously priced and poorly produced products: consolidation in the music industry, the whole “studio system” of pumping a few big stars to the exclusion of others, the consolidation in music outlets from mom-and-pop record stores to chains like Tower Records and retail giants like Wal-Mart that exclude indies and push the recordings promoted by major labels, and the consolidation of radio — which further killed indie exposure and allowed the labels to artificially pump their selected “hits” through payolla. All this created a cozy cartel that enjoyed monopoly profits. Now that the indie artists are starting to get more level playing field, in-terms of exposure, we've seen Indie CD sales go up over 30% last year (according to Derek Sivers of online music store "CD Baby", http://www.berklee.edu/bt/193/coverstory.html). We're also seeing more people purchasing vinyl as well, and wouldn't you know it, a good chunk of vinyl sales are for relatively unknown and Indie bands (http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.9298/title.vinyl-sales-continue-to-increase-in-2009). Indie labels got the point, which is why they sought to sever ties with the RIAA in 2003 because a lot of them saw the opportunity to turn music "piraters" into customers, and it seems it has work.

Aside from that, going to my full album integrity comment, I mean in the sense that there have been a number of artists that are put out on the radio simply to be a "singles" hit machine, but not to create completely full and worthwhile albums. Sure there are some bands out there that still respect the art of music, and I agree most lesser known bands tend to. But that goes right back to the Indie/underground artists that seems to be seeing an increase in sales. Don't get me wrong though, there are still a few artists in the mainstream who put out quality work, not all of it has to be lesser known but as you stated, the good stuff tends to be a bit more obscure.