| Author |
Topic: Record Companies Win File Sharing Suit |
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 4 Oct 2007 4:47 pm |
|
| Quote: |
DULUTH, Minn. - The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her.
The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.
Thomas and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined comment as they left the courthouse. Jurors also left without commenting.
"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," said Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies.
In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account. |
|
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 2:51 am
|
|
the thing about PC's ,Internet , EMAILS , Screen Names and FILE sharing is this.
There is an ELECTRONIC trail.
You may think you are hiding out there on the Internet but the fact is , you are NOT, if someone wants to figure out WHO you are and they have the means, they can find you pretty dang quick.
They didn't find this gal by ACCIDENT..
they found her because thats where the TRAIL led them...
I saw this on Law and Order  |
|
|
|
Ray Minich
From:
Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 6:05 am
|
|
Our "Legal Environment of Business" professor called it "unjust enrichment", or, getting something you don't have coming...
If the recording media had still been limited to gramaphone cylinders, then there would be a lot less "sharing".
Just because it's easy don't mean it's free or legal... |
|
|
|
Mike Perlowin
From:
Los Angeles CA
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 8:47 am
|
|
People who copy and share recordings are ripping off artists. Period.
Moreover, if an artist's recordings don;t sell enough copies, the record company w9n;t give him/her a chance to do another, so the people who copy and share their re4cordings are not just stealing money (admittedly not very much) from the artist, they are hurting their chances of continuing to make more recordings in the future.
These "fans" are like the guy who killed the goose that laid golden eggs.
_________________
Please visit my web site and Soundcloud page and listen to the music posted there.
http://www.mikeperlowin.com http://soundcloud.com/mike-perlowin |
|
|
|
Marc Jenkins
From:
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 9:41 am
|
|
I disagree!
Recent market analysis has shown that while CD sales are down, electronic sales from websites like ITunes are way UP. Overall, sales of music are still RISING, not falling, despite what the majors say. They only talk about how CD sales are down!! This is akin to a government silently pulling funding from a social program, then putting half of it back with great fanfare. Wow, thanks!
Illegal downloading has shown no real damage to anyone other than people sued by the record companies. This woman is being made to pay $9250 PER SONG!! I'm sure the artists she 'stole' from are going to benefit from this greatly. Especially since a typical artist's share of a CD sale is around $1.50! If your average CD has, say 12 songs, they would receive 12.5 cents. It's concert ticket sales that really benefit the artist, unless of course they can't actually play or sing for real, and no one would pay to see them pretend.
While I don't like stealing, I have to admit to 'borrowing' things once in a while, which I don't see as theft. I often download an album before it's released, or to give something I've never heard a chance, or if something is out of print (ahh, the internet...), and if I like it, I buy it. If I don't, it goes in the trash. I see this as totally reasonable. It's much like listening to something on the radio, but at my convenience, and without having to stomach DJ's (yuck!) and advertisements (double yuck!)
I think artists like Radiohead are leading the way here, by rewarding their loyal fans by treating them as LOYAL FANS, not criminals or lowly consumers. See BBC's story on their latest release for details. I hope other high-profile artists get on board with this new mentality. I mean, the record companies act as if they created music, and they license people to record it and buy it. Yeesh!! |
|
|
|
Barry Blackwood
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 11:01 am
|
|
| Marc, since borrowing, as opposed to stealing, implies returning the borrowed goods, at what point does one decide to return the music they "borrowed?" |
|
|
|
Marc Jenkins
From:
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 11:04 am
|
|
| Barry, if dispose of the copy I've made, I see that as 'returning' it. If I buy the music, that's good enough! |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 12:12 pm
|
|
Marc, you are confusing two very different types of copying. I just saw a spokesman from one of the winning companies on CNN. According to him, they don't care if you buy a CD or download and make a copy for your car. And even though it is illegal, they are not going after anyone for making a copy and giving it to a friend. But the file sharing is different. When you file share, you make it possible for thousands of people all over the world to get a free copy from your file. This is distribution on a wholesale scale, and even though the file sharer gets no money, it definitely cuts into sales and hurts the artists and the companies.
The record companies have finally wised up that single-song downloading is the future of sales in recorded music. So it seems legitimate that they try to stop unauthorized free downloading. But it does bother me that they are going after the individual file sharers, who make no money, rather than the companies who make money selling the software and maintaining the networks. But maybe that's impossible when the networks are international.
I have no problem with copying and filesharing out-of-print stuff. I also have no problem with musicians sharing copies so they can learn a cover. Supposedly payments are made by the clubs where the covers are played. |
|
|
|
Marc Jenkins
From:
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 12:33 pm
|
|
David,
I was actually being very loose with the term 'borrowing'. I am certainly speaking of file-sharing.
I totally agree with you that the attacks on the file sharers are misguided. |
|
|
|
Leslie Ehrlich
From:
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 2:12 pm
|
|
| I don't feel the least bit sorry for the recording industry. After years of 'playing it safe' by marketing formulaic music and 'superstar' artists, they got what they deserved through 'illegal' downloading. |
|
|
|
Henry Nagle
From:
Santa Rosa, California
|
Posted 5 Oct 2007 10:10 pm
|
|
It's not going away. The record industry would be far better off adapting than prosecuting.
I get stuff for free from friends sometimes. My personal policy is, if I like it and listen to it more than a few times, I'll buy it. If I don't like it, I won't listen to it, and eventually I will probably delete it.
Right now I need to buy a couple Calexico albums to redeem myself.
There's an example. I doubt I ever would have bought their music based on my limited exposure to them (NPR features). When a friend burned me a cd I listened to it now and again for a few months and finally I came to love it. Now I intend to buy their albums and see them live.
I'm not saying that stealing is ok. There are people who steal s***loads of music (and probably never listen to most of it) without any regard for who's being stiffed. I'm just trying to illustrate that this is not a black and white issue.
I think the drawbacks and benefits for the artist and the industry have not yet been fully realized. Capitalism will survive. And so will recorded music.
If huge record labels become obsolete and disappear, so be it. They've been sucking the life blood out of popular music for quite awhile now.
I suppose my main concern is for older artists who are not wealthy and depend on royalties they've earned. It seems that folks like that, who are no longer trying to build a career, could have the most to lose. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 4:30 am
|
|
If the recording companies were really concerned about the artists, they'd be doing a 50-50 split on all the profits.
If the recording companies were really concerned about the artists, they give that $222,000 settlement to some artists, instead of buying some exec a new BMW with it.
"We're just protecting the artists."
Oh bullhockey. You've been screwing the artists out of their fair share for decades - and you still are! And...most of them are still too stupid to realize it.
Business as usual.
Disgusting, really.
Nothing's changed. A few get scandalously rich while the vast majority get little or nothing for their talent and efforts.  |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 6:27 am
|
|
do we actually know that there are not ARTISTS involved behind the scenes ?
I would like to know what the scoop is...
We really do not have enough information, we don't know what the CONTRACTS are between Atists and labels.
Who takes the biggest risk in this business , the Artist ?
I don't think so.
Did Rascall Flatts put up a few million $$ for recording / production/distibution? no, someone else did.
Did Cary Underwood or Kellie Pickler put up all the cash up front ? no, someone else did.
Sure, some of these folks wrote some fine MUSIC but they didn't become an overnight sensation without some assistance..some very BIG $$$ assistance.
We cannot overlook the business aspect of the INVESTORS and the return they are expecting. |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 6:36 am
|
|
| Donny Hinson wrote: |
| You've been screwing the artists out of their fair share for decades - and you still are! And...most of them are still too stupid to realize it...Business as usual. Disgusting, really. Nothing's changed. A few get scandalously rich while the vast majority get little or nothing for their talent and efforts. |
Don't hold back, Donny. Tell us how you really feel. 
. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 9:18 am
|
|
Tony, you should be a record promoter or producer.
You'd fit right in.
Really, you would. 
Maybe we've forgotten this...
(or maybe you didn't even hear about it?)
| Quote: |
...The Chicks fired back a month later with their own suit, charging Sony engaged in "systematic thievery" by underpaying $4 million in royalties owed the trio for their first two multiplatinum releases from Sony's Monument Records imprint.
Those two LPs, "Wide Open Spaces" in 1998 and "Fly" in 1999, sold a combined 19 million copies in the United States and earned the group back-to-back Grammys for country album of the year. "Fly" spent over 30 weeks atop the country charts.
The trio's suit counted 30 separate instances in which Sony allegedly failed to properly account for or pay the group what they were owed. They said Sony's contract was structured in such a way as to virtually enslave its talent, "obligating its artists to continue to record for Sony no matter how repeatedly and blatantly Sony breaches its payment obligations." |
|
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 10:53 am
|
|
| This is a good example Donny and quite true. |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 11:35 am
|
|
Donny, the post you added referring to the CHICKS appears to be contract related, which in that case they had every right to claim foul, as does anyone else under terms of contracts.
Thats the problem here , we don't have enough information to just make a blanket assumption on this threads conversation.
And Yes, our family has been involved, not me directly but members, with production and executive production of a few R+B artists thru the 80's..Lots of up front cash required and contracts with labels. Artists were behind the scenes drinking Wine,enjoying the girls and driving fancy cars on $$$ ADVANCES while the producers ( family) were working the streets with Labels 8 days a week and 30 hours a day.
The Prod. Co. made it all the way to # 5 National Charts with one tune.
You Must be a Special Lady..
You Got me Sittin' on top of the World...
Sittin' on top of the World..
One shoe does not fit all...thats all I am saying... |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 1:44 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Donny, the post you added referring to the CHICKS appears to be contract related, which in that case they had every right to claim foul, as does anyone else under terms of contracts. |
The devil with the contract!  Whatever happened to plain ol' morality?!
| Quote: |
| One shoe does not fit all...thats all I am saying... |
No argument there, Tony. I'm sure there are honest producers and labels out there...most of them quite small. |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 6 Oct 2007 3:13 pm
|
|
Morality left when Alan Freed died !
and yeh, I sure hope there are a few with scruples out there, here...wherever... |
|
|
|
