BUSTED!
Posted on 02/06/2007 9:17:22 AM PST by dbehsman
It is sort of slipped in, but he is being sued for making the songs available to others. That is the key. If one does not allow uploading of songs, they can't touch you, because you are not breaking the law.
Downloading songs for personl use is the legal equivalent of copying songs from a friends CD or recording off the radio. It is ignored.
Allowing others to download from you is where the problem lies. And if you are on an unsecured wi-fi network, well, with the right attorney you are pretty much immune.
For most songs. Yes.
If they're stealing it, how can they be customers?
I do my best to go into the local schools on their CAREER DAYS and educate the jr. high kids about the music publishing industry. I give them a handout with a FAQ about copyright. Education should start early, but I'm here to tell you as a personal example that one can get all the way through music school and not be educated - exc. "backhandedly" - about copyright and its implications and how to deal with it.
I'm in a band. I like to watch other bands. But paying for pre-recorded music is Soooooo 20th century. We are back to the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc. century models. Musicians get paid for performing.
Pre-recorded music is something you listen to on the radio, on a bus or in an elevator. It's a free commodity.
Bzzzt. That is an imcomplete answer. Please explain/elaborate ;-).
For starters.....
Do you have a full understanding of how much it costs to produce a song from start to finish? Artwork design, labeling, print up, duplication (even if you did it yourself, isn't YOUR time worth something?), paying the musicians for their recording time..... I could go on... but as I said above, I need to get gainfully working here ;-).
The RIAA doesn't acknowledge this fact yet. It's done....game over.
People want unlimited music for free and they will get it. It's up to the music industry to figure out how to make money from this new paradigm.
Copyright is dead. The issue is control of access.
I have my own studio, albeit computer based. My time is most definitely worth something. That is why I have a day job.
The days of making vast sums of money off a few songs have ended. Technology brought the ability to perform a song once and sell it to millions. Technology has removed the word "sell" from the equation and we musicians are back to the old days - we play and record for fun (like others play softball) or we PERFORM for money. The rest is gravy.
Also, music is just not as valuable as it was when rock was coming of age in the 1960's. Ask any old timer who was playing the bar scene in the 1960's what they paid then compared to now. It has been DEFLATING. If CD's matched the "Non-mega band" performance price model, CD's would cost between $1 and $1.50 today, AFTER inflation. As it is, they cost as much as movies, which are considerably more costly to produce.
Music just is not that valuable to the public any more. Producing music is not where one goes to make money. It is where one goes to have fun.
On a side note, I LOVE playing my vinyl more than ever.
>>The more they sue, the deeper they're driving people underground and they create more inventive ways to pirate.
The RIAA doesn't acknowledge this fact yet. It's done....game over.
People want unlimited music for free and they will get it. It's up to the music industry to figure out how to make money from this new paradigm.<<
Yup. Reminds me of prohibition.
Consumers who don't pay for what they consume don't do me any good.
>>Consumers who don't pay for what they consume don't do me any good<<
Yeah, I haven't bought a CD since 1997. Interestingly though, I have bought a LOT of concerts on DVD.
It's copyright violation, so yes, in effect, it's stealing from the person who wrote the song, the publisher who published it, and the record label that distributed it. By the way, you know what it's called when you take a song off a CD and make an mp3 right? It's called ripping. Nuff said.
The RIAA has every right to sue him. It may not be a good idea to sue your customers, but bad PR moves aren't necessarily illegal or unethical.
My only problem with the RIAA enforcing its rights is that the methods it uses prior to the real lawsuit amount to an extortion racket. The RIAA should be criminally charged and its lawyers disbarred for participating in this abuse of the judicial system.
It's an unauthorized copy. It's a copyright violation. If you want yer buddy to have the album so bad, you should buy him his own copy.
You're in a band but you're pretty clueless. Musicians get paid for playing these thingies called songs. It's the songs that get copyrighted, and the songwriters/copyright holders who are being infringed, not the wing nut bass player at the neighborhood bar. Down at the bar, if it's being done legally, the bar OWNER is responsible for paying a fee that goes to paying royalties to songwriters thru ASCAP/BMI. Musicians are the low men on the totem pole.
They don't really need to. The RIAA is going for statutory damages, and $750 is the low-end of statutory damage awards for non-willful infringement (it goes up to $30,000).
Sounds to me like your rationalizing to justify a)your stealing from those more successful than you and b) your own failure as a musician.
BUSTED!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.