Music Piracy and the RIAA

[Ritzter]

I wanted to see what opinions you have about the most recent RIAA lawsuit.

If you're not familiar with the case, Jammie Thomas was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for sharing 24 songs online and found guilty. Barring any appeals, she now owes a $222,000 fine.

I have my own ideas, of course, but would like to hear others first.

[93crawler]

I'll put in my two cents. Here I go--about 6 years ago every one of my cd's were stolen, over 150 of them. Now it was my fault that I didn't lock my trucks door, but we were in the midwest, it's supposed to be safe there right? This collection was everything that I ever had, from about the time I was ten years old. Of course nothing could be done, so I didn't know what to do. This is when is stumbled upon Kazaa, and started downloading music I wanted for free. This was all fine and good, until the RIAA started threatening lawsuits against illegal downloaders. Being that it was my mom's computer, and internet address, I reluctantly stopped.
I began to buy music again, but not to the extent I had originally done. About two years ago, I started using Limewire, and started downloading again, and about a year and a half ago I discovered the fantabulousness of torrents. So I haven't bought many cd's since then. I would buy cd's if they were worth buying, but for the most part they aren't.
When the artists actually put some effort into the albums, and not just ten, three minute songs, with a awesome (yeah right) bonus dvd, for the ridiculous price of almost twenty bucks, then maybe I'll start buying again. But when I can get the music off the internet for free, and just what I want, without all the extra shit, that's what I'll be doing for the foreseeable future. The RIAA, like most huge corporations needs to be taken down a little--I'm much happier giving money and buying albums from up and coming artists, or artists on smaller labels. I bought an album, from Gavin Mikhail, directly from his website for ten bucks, and it's pretty good. But paying almost twenty bucks for some piece of shit that has maybe 3 good songs on it is hardly worth the money.
As for the RIAA lawsuit, all the RIAA is doing is alienating actual and potential customers, and worsening their image in the eyes of the public. I see them as incredibly greedy, and not giving a damn about the people who actually buy their artists album's. Last time I checked, most of the successful artists are doing really well, and even the somewhat successful artists are doing good--better than me anyway.

[ddoubleez]

number bug proof...


220,000 is a bit exessive...... That is 10k per song...... How do these companies justify coming up with a loss of sales at this rate.........

In addition, many studies suggest that d/ling promoted sales of records..... Someone checks out a song, likes it wants the album for the rest of the content such as the cover, lyrics etc.....

IF YOU HAVE NOT NOTICED, CORPERATIONS ARE EATING THE HEART OUT OF THE US AND IT"S CULTURE........

[yellowfish]

Radiohead has decided to stick it to the man this fall.

Starting tomorrow, you can download their new album, In Rainbows, for whatever price you see fit.

This bold move effectively bars the album’s profits from suit-filled boardrooms and stuffy corner offices, and it’s another jarring blow to the music industry, which has been scrambling for ways to scrape its pennies off the Internet.

Especially as we live in an age where illegal downloading is more rampant than dysentery was on the Oregon Trail, shared music spreads like diseases on campuses, until everyone’s at least a little infected.

This has special significance for us, since the UW is going to sell us down the river to the RIAA if any of us happen to be subpoenaed for illegal downloading on campus.

It has to be the most fan-centric stunt an artist has pulled since Guns n’ Roses sent roadies into their audiences to handpick backstage harems, or least since Ozzy Osbourne gave out free headless bats at his concerts.

Radiohead’s record contract with Columbia expired upon their last release, Hail to the Thief, in 2003, making this their first LP in five years. Now they’re happily label-less.

On the band’s psychedelic sherbet-hued Web site, there are pre-order links for the downloadable album and a fixed-price box set that’s packed full of Radiohead goodies.

Buyers choose the price for their downloads, whether it’s 23 cents, nothing or a thousand dollars.

Buyers now have to ask, “What is Radiohead’s music worth to me?”

Maybe they savor the music like a nice glass of wine, in which case $7-10 would be fair.

Perhaps their music hits you in the gut like a burrito, garnering a price between $4 and $8.

Some listeners may fancy Radiohead’s tasteful and refined music like a bottle of Cristal, and decide to donate $500. Just don’t go filling bathtubs with Radiohead CDs.

Radiohead is confident enough in its fan base to rely on them for their sales, which could theoretically be nothing this time around. They aren’t showing signs of going back to the traditional route, except for a possible limited retail release of In Rainbows in early 2008.

Why would Radiohead give up virtually guaranteed sales in retail outlets and online stores?

They are known for their devoted fan base, so it’s conceivable that they trust the money will follow their leap of faith. They still enjoy massive residual sales from their past albums, since their music rules and new fans are born every year.

Many other bands couldn’t come close to this move.

Imagine Good Charlotte, 50 Cent or Rascal Flatts trying to release an album for an indeterminate price.

Imagine iTunes making the price column next to every song and album “up to you.” Chaos would ensue. The Internet would crash from cyber-looting traffic and the online riot would translate into a real one. Cars would be overturned, music stores set on fire and piles of CDs bulldozed in the streets.

The Internet as a whole has been hard on the music industry.

Indie recording artists and labels are continually eating their way into the big label’s market share, especially with online sales.

According to Nielsen Soundscan, digital music sales are up 65 percent from 2005 this year. In the online realm, many independent artists are on a somewhat equal footing with major label babies.

The prevalence of iTunes and networks like MySpace and PureVolume give a voice to acts with less funding and exposure, taking the glory away from bigger artists dependent on radio and TV.

If bands followed Radiohead’s example, the exposure they’d receive would be tremendous, and since there’s no record label to dip its claws into the profits, the artists would be able to keep more of their earnings.

Here’s a tip: If you want the Radiohead album, don’t just take it. If a thousand people in the dorms each pay one dollar for the album, that’s better than 2,000 people taking the album one person paid $12 for.

You’re not going to miss a single dollar. Unless, of course, you’re on your way to the Mug Club at the Irish Emigrant. But if you honor my suggestion, you’ll have some new Radiohead to pop in your iPod for your stumble back home.

http://thedaily.washington.edu/artic...sItUpToTheFans









08 October 2007:
Hello everyone. I've waited a LONG time to be able to make the
following announcement: as of right now Nine Inch Nails is a totally
free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have
been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the
business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very
different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a
direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate.
Look for some announcements in the near future regarding 2008.
Exciting times, indeed.

posted by Trent Reznor at 10:45 AM.


i think these 2 incidences prove the artists themselfs are getting sick of the RIAA
i make music as a hobby and know what goes into music
i do download but only when i realy dont have cash for it
i also DJed for about 5 or 6 years
during that time i bought about 80% of the music
so i dont feel to bad about the 10 to 15 albums i have downloaded
but downloading does put pressure on the smaller record co

[jabber]

I think the penalty was way too harsh and I for one have quit buying music,in protest

[dodgeit]

In general, I think that somehow the artists should be compensated, everybody has got to make a living.

[ltfan]

I agree the artists should be compensated, but we are getting ripped off when it comes to the price of CDs. The record companies have no one to blame but themselves for the predicament they are in. When downloading first started getting popular, they should have immediately found a way to take advantage of this market. Instead of doing that, they decide to hide behind copyright protections, lawsuits, and intimidation to keep the old ways alive. It was a stupid move on their part, and now they are paying for it. Sure they have music online to sell, but most of it is of piss poor quality. I'm not spending a buck a song that is only 128kbps on ITunes. Until they get their act together and put a music online that is of top quality, then they deserve what they are getting.

[shiiboi]

Music boss: we were wrong to go to war with consumers 1:50PM, Wednesday 14th November 2007

The boss of Warner Music has made a rare public confession that the music industry has to take some of the blame for the rise of p2p file sharing.
Speaking at the GSMA Mobile Asia Congress in Macau, Edgar Bronfman told mobile operators that they must not make the same mistake that the music industry made.

"We used to fool ourselves,' he said. "We used to think our content was perfect just exactly as it was. We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding. And of course we were wrong. How were we wrong? By standing still or moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find and as a result of course, consumers won."

Mobile operators risk the same, he said. Fewer than 10% of mobile owners buy music on their handset, the vast majority of which is ringtones.

"The sad truth is that most of what consumers are being offered today on the mobile platform is boring, banal and basic," he said. "People want a more interesting form of mobile music content. They want it to be easy to buy with a single click - yes, a single click, not a dozen. And they want access to it, quickly and easily, wherever they are. 24/7. Any player in the mobile value
chain who thinks they can provide less than a great experience for consumers and remain competitive is fooling themselves."

Bronfman suggested that mobile companies have much to learn from Apple, despite being critical of and iTunes in the past.

"For years now, Warner Music has been offering a choice to consumers at Apple's iTunes store the option to purchase something more than just single tracks, which constitute the mainstay of that store's sales," he explained. "By packaging a full album into a bundle of music with ringtones, videos and other combinations and variation we found products that consumers demonstrably valued and were willing to purchase at premium prices. And guess what? We've sold tons of them. And with Apple's co-operation to make discovering, accessing and purchasing these products even more seamless and intuitive, we'll be offering many, many more of these products going forward."

And the iPhone and iPod touch shows that approach can be made to work on mobile platforms, he said,

"You need to look no further than Apple's iPhone to see how fast brilliantly written software presented on a beautifully designed device with a spectacular user interface will throw all the accepted notions about pricing, billing platforms and brand loyalty right out the window. And let me remind you, the genesis of the iPhone is the iPod and iTunes - a music device and music service that consumers love."

CORRECTION: We mistakenly reported that Warner Music recently began selling DRM-free music through its Classics and Jazz digital music store. It is in fact Universal Music that operates Classics and Jazz. Apologies to Warner Music Group.

Simon Aughton

[mstad]

Originally Posted by dodgeit

In general, I think that somehow the artists should be compensated, everybody has got to make a living.

Artists don't make a whole lot off of record sales. Most of their money is made from touring through ticket prices and merch sales.

[facepeeler]

Originally Posted by mstad

Artists don't make a whole lot off of record sales. Most of their money is made from touring through ticket prices and merch sales.

and even then, they're not making all that much. Because of the overhead for paying the crew, paying for the venue, paying for the actual merch, paying the people to sell the merch, and all that other shit, they're not making a whole hell of a lot. And those elaborate stage sets they have, they have to pay for that themselves, unless they have a real good record company that pays for that for them.

Look at a lot of "big name" bands, they're not living the lavish lifestyle that most people think they are. Sure they might have a nice house and a couple of cars, but it's not shit compared to the money that professional athletes or movie stars are making. Only maybe 1 in 20 bands make it to the point where they're making a fuckload of money off what they're doing.

And even the ones that are making that much money is because they have at least 4 albums out.

Unless you're Linkin Park, who became gajillionaires thanks to MTV, and their songs being radio friendly. Don't get me wrong, I like me som LP, but the first album was the best one, and the only one I have bought.

[canu]

I say d/l all you want,burn all you want just don't sell them.

[BradleyNIN]

I do what Trent does... He is god.

[Lazer]

Here's how i see it.. The industry is so caught up in profit, they just sign cookie cutter bands. they put an album or two out with 2-3 singles and filler songs. they try to sell these albums on the 2-3 songs. after two albums or so.. the record companies get rid of these cookie cutter bands so they don't demand more of the cut.

now dealing with ascap really burns me. they want money every time a song is played anywhere but in private, Now if I was a carpenter, and built a set of stairs should i be paid to do the work, Then paid every time Someone uses the stairs?
and bands that say they don't support illegal downloading.. Please. We all know when these bands started they were happier than shit that their music was being spread around by copying.
Metallica"s No life till leather for instance.

[zo0t]

Here is my view summed up in one picture... Except for that Jesus comment at the end.. Thats about as ridiculous as music sharing being illegal.