EPTStudent fined $675K for 30 music track downloads - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
| ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:13 baubo wrote: I don't see that paper on the front page. I guess it was an old paper? Likely since napster was so long ago. Regardless, I'm guessing what the paper suggest is that relatively unknown musicians are able to get better sales from distribution sites like napster. But that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which really just deals with musicians that has already made it. i.e. If you're a Britney Spears fan, you're not going to more likely buy her CDs if you get if for free. But if you found an unknown band's music interesting, you may buy it to support them. Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free. Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way. Sorry. Here is the link: Fader's Paper Judge for yourself whether filesharing helps or hurts record labels/musicians. | ||
|
sidz
Finland31 Posts
| ||
|
n.DieDaga
Mexico31 Posts
| ||
|
B1nary
Canada1267 Posts
However, this type of exchange only exists because piracy is so widespread. For many of us, downloading illegally is the norm. However, suppose now that music piracy doesn't exist. In that scenario, the norm would probably be to buy off i-tunes for $0.99. I'm not an economics expert, but I do believe that if this were the case, musicians would make more money than they do now. Ultimately, I think it's a conflict between short-term gains and long-term benefits. If piracy is rampant, then more piracy is beneficial, but not as beneficial as the eradication of piracy would be. | ||
|
Sigh
Canada2433 Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html In my opinion, the fine is too ridiculous. Each song is what, 1 dollar? He should only be fined 30$. Seriously. They are just desperate. | ||
|
monkus
United States44 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:14 JeeJee wrote: the thing i don't understand is the perception that musicians have to do shit for free otherwise they're not true musicians. where else does this apply? I've yet to see anyone come up to my co-workers and say, "hey, you know what, you should really do your risk analysis for free, otherwise you're not a true investment banker" It's because music is considered more of an art and less of a career path. I have yet to meet anyone who does risk analysis as a hobby, but tons of people play and perform music for little to no fee, because it's what they WANT to do with their time. I think it sucks that technology is (debatably) screwing over the music industry, but it's just a consequence and they need to put up with it rather than attempting these absurd lawsuits. I do believe the downloading trend helps the new musicians gain popularity, and to be honest, the top top musicians will still probably perform and make music even if they're half as rich, or a quarter as rich, or even a tenth as rich as they are today. I think the music industry is slightly inflated past where it absolutely needs to be to produce the best possible music (i.e. we could reduce the music industry's income and still have equal quality music) Also, I think there needs to be more of an effort to make free, legal websites work. iTunes is a good idea because it charges a comparable amount to CDs but has the convenience of illegal downloading. However, while it addresses the convenience issue, it doesn't address the fact that people want thousands of songs for their iPods without paying thousands of dollars. To address this, we should try getting advertising-based websites up and running efficiently. Ruckus was a fantastic resource for college kids who wanted to listen to thousands of songs for free while not putting themselves at risk legally. It was advertising based, and the advertising was hardly a big deal. Musicians should just accept that technology has turned on them and work WITH it. Google has HOW much of a budget based on advertising alone? | ||
|
B1nary
Canada1267 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:14 JeeJee wrote: the thing i don't understand is the perception that musicians have to do shit for free otherwise they're not true musicians. where else does this apply? I've yet to see anyone come up to my co-workers and say, "hey, you know what, you should really do your risk analysis for free, otherwise you're not a true investment banker" I think it stems from the fact that musicians have to start off writing music for free. No one will pay to see you perform if they've never heard of you. This leads to the perception that musicians must always do it because "they love music" and that money is only a side-effect. However, I doubt there's any musician who tried to become pro without thinking about $$$. The perception is quite understandable since all we can physically see is the transition from doing it for the music to doing it for the money. | ||
|
ColdLava
Canada1673 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:13 baubo wrote: Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free. Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way. i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights. the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then). i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth. oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..) oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now. | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:23 Sigh wrote: This reminds me of the woman who got fined 1.9 million dollars for downloading 24 songs. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html In my opinion, the fine is too ridiculous. Each song is what, 1 dollar? He should only be fined 30$. Seriously. They are just desperate. Well, you have to look at the number of songs SHARED, not downloaded. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On August 03 2009 17:26 JohnColtrane wrote: you know what else gives musicians incentive to make music? passion Possibly the most ignorant and thoughtless comment in this thread. I don't even feel that I should state the reasons because there are so many. Do you think even for a second before you post? | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
The fine is way too high. Sure, the trial was expensive but did they really have to make an example out of this kid by ruining his life? The RIAA just makes the music industry look bad. | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
Poll: What damages should a music filesharer be responsible for? (Vote): No damages under any condition (Vote): Damages only to cover the record label's lost profit (Vote): Damages only to deter future filesharing (Vote): Damages for losses and deterrence (Vote): Damages for losses, deterrence, and extra damages for retribution against the thief | ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
| ||
|
ColdLava
Canada1673 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:47 iG.ClouD wrote: Well regardless of the lack of ethics or whatever behind downloading/sharing/refusing to buy music I hope everyone agrees about the fact that ruining a person life to set an example on such a trivial matter is a concept that shouldn't fit at all in a modern democracy. A normal thief would never pay that much if he had stolen stuff worth a thousand times more than those 30 songs. That guy's life is totally fucked just because american law support the greedy attitude of music companies, which resort to the fear of losing everything just to not make people messing with their products. It's plain barbaric. Yes, i agree 100% | ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:29 ColdLava wrote: i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights. the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then). i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth. oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..) oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now. Again, you're not saying anything related to the subject, which is: IT'S ILLEGAL. You can complain about the record companies all you like. Personally, I think they take on the risk, they should deserve the most money. But again, that's immaterial to the current argument. Because it's still ILLEGAL to download such musics. And the people who own the music are pissed off and wants to punish people who do. I don't see how that's hard to comprehend. You can say this is bad business practice. But that's just an opinion. The fact is America is a country where people are suppose to obey laws. And the law says downloading and sharing copyrighted music is illegal. That's all there is to it. On August 04 2009 04:19 Charlespeirce wrote: Sorry. Here is the link: Fader's Paper Judge for yourself whether filesharing helps or hurts record labels/musicians. I'll be sure to read it when I get the time. | ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:29 ColdLava wrote: i don't know how many times i have to explain this: when you steal a song, you're hurting the record company wayyy more than the artist. the artist's main revenue, except when they're major major artists (in which case they're fucking fine anyway and why would you feel sorry about their financial problem that is illegal downloading) are: 1.) live performances, and 2.) publishing rights. the record company takes 88% of your CD profit, and the producer takes another 3%, and then there's more taxes and bullshit that basically leaves you with 3% profit on every CD you sell. and before you make any money off of CD sales, you have to clear a deficit caused by the costs of MAKING your cd in the first place which is usually well into the hundreds of thousands (well, if you're independent, usually tens of thousands then). i could care less what the fucking law says, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, and in this case, it's not really wrong because you're fucking over record companies that generally fuck over their artists with retarded contracts that have unrealistic restrictions anyway. i know this last part was a weak argument but it's the truth. oh and by the way, it's not the artists decision on how much their CD costs, if they're okay with you downloading their shit, well that doesn't even matter. it's the label's decision. if anything, most artists WANT you to download their music because it means MORE LIVE REVENUE because of more exposure (hello?..) oh and another thing: you might then say "oh well why do artists sign the contracts with labels if they don't want to be controlled?".. because for the longest time until most recently (and this is very very slowly changing), labels were the only means of exposure. like i said though, there are more options now than ever and this is being utilized and imo labels will have way less power in 10 or 20 years than they do now. This is true if you just look at where the revenue is. However you're assuming that artists would earn the same amount of money without the producer, and that is ridiculous. It is important for both producers and artists to make money, imo. I am not saying I agree with some of the things producers do, but I just don't like this arguement. Also big fines like these are because when you download songs illegally, you are also sharing them to a wide spread audience. It is how torrents are set up to work, and it just happens to make it a large number of times more illegal than it already is. EDIT: I also want to point out that even a 1% cut on a record is good money. And also frankly your %s are complete bullshit. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:29 Charlespeirce wrote: Well, you have to look at the number of songs SHARED, not downloaded. But... but sharing is caring. | ||
|
ColdLava
Canada1673 Posts
On August 04 2009 04:57 Medzo wrote: This is true if you just look at where the revenue is. However you're assuming that artists would earn the same amount of money without the producer, and that is ridiculous. It is important for both producers and artists to make money, imo. I am not saying I agree with some of the things producers do, but I just don't like this arguement. Also big fines like these are because when you download songs illegally, you are also sharing them to a wide spread audience. It is how torrents are set up to work, and it just happens to make it a large number of times more illegal than it already is. EDIT: I also want to point out that even a 1% cut on a record is good money. And also frankly your %s are complete bullshit. Yah so lets just ruin the guys life and basically make his life worthless for the next 5 years. Why don't we kill his first born child too? The producers make money two ways (usually both ways), 1.) up front when they sign the contract to produce an album, and 2.) they make a percentage on the CD too (at the artists expense). They are much, much, much better paid than the artists. The artists are the ones who work the hardest and get paid the least, generally. I got my numbers from Confessions of a Record Producer (it was attached to a course I took at college), where it took a sample contract, and basically broke it down. But no, 1% cut on a record is not good money, at all. Basically, that 1% is going towards paying off the debts that the CD cost in the first place, and then after that it's profit for the artist. That's extremely hard to get though if you're not a band that's doing really really well. Sample contract: + Show Spoiler + contract here Open Door shall accrue to your account in accordance with the provisions of Article 7, the following royalties for the sale of Phonograph Records derived from Master Recordings hereunder: 7.01.(a) A royalty of thirteen percent (13%) of the Royalty Base for Net Sales of all Albums sold by Open Door for distribution through Normal Retail Channels in the United States (collectively "U.S.N.R.C.") derived from the Recording Obligations for all executed Option Periods. ok i was off by 1 percent All recoupable advances which will apply to all option periods will be charged against and recoupable from royalties accruing to your account hereunder, the following: ..... Recording Budget shall not be less than the minimum set forth below nor more than the maximum amounts set forth below with respect to each Album. Minimum Maximum ------- ------- First Option Period $20,000 $50,000 Second Option Period $25,000 $65,000 Third Option Period $60,000 $80,000 "Recording Costs": All costs including pre-production, production and post-production costs incurred for and with respect to the production and solicitation of Master Recordings, including Audio-Visual Recordings, Recording Costs include, without limitation, payments for musicians, vocalists, conductors, arrangers, orchestrators, copyists, etc.; producer's fees' studio charges; costs of tape, editing, mixing, mastering, reference discs, and engineering; expenses of travel, per diems and rehearsal halls; costs of non-studio facilities and equipment; dubbing; costs and transportation of instruments including cartage and rental fees; payments required by law or contract (including agreements with any labor organization); payments of third parties which Open Door is required by law or contract to pay in connection with the Recordings; costs of clearing so-called "samples" and other rights; and other costs which are customarily recognized as recording costs in the Record Industry or production costs in the audiovisual recording industry. 13.17"Advances": An "advance" shall be deemed a prepayment of royalties and shall be charged against and recoupable from all amounts otherwise payable to you hereunder or pursuant to any other agreement between Open Door and you. So no I'm not making up shit | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
| ||
| ||
