Minnesota woman fined 1.9 million dollars for downloading 24 songs

[The Audacity Works]

 

"Art takes money to create" You talking to us or to the RIAA?

{censored} the RIAA. What they do doesn't really affect you or I, as consumers or musicians. They're used as yet another scapegoat for people pirating music. Hell, there are independent musicians not signed to any label, and people will infringe upon their intellectual property and use the RIAA as an excuse. I think I'll punch an old lady tonight and blame the RIAA.

 

All I know is that if I spend $$$ on gear, $$$ on studio time, $$$ on mastering, and countless hours making music, if I want to be compensated for my craft, it should be up to me, the intellectual property holder, not the end user. If you don't think my intellectual property is worth what I ask for it, don't use it. If you do, pay for it.

 

I've personally been in a situation where someone in a Jaquar convertible admitted they loved my music (but didn't pay for it) the same day I rolled pennies for a Subway sandwich. My cut of the CD would've paid for lunch. Yeah, yeah, I picked the job, I take the beating, but c'mon.

[soundwave106]

 

Maybe there's a business model we haven't discovered yet (corporate sponsorship, ad revenue, patronage, etc.), but soon, it's going to be very difficult to make a living doing what you love if that thing involves art, ideas, design, concept, or media of any sort.

 

 

I disagree, but the paycheck in these fields will come down to providing a service for something that does "make money", or some music service most people either can't or won't do. It's all a supply versus demand thing.

 

MP3s did seriously disrupt the value of the CD as a business model, but cheap studio electronics and the like *also* disrupted the value of the pop musician. I do not forsee music as having *no* value in the future.

 

 

And here's the trick: As technology advances, that simply means more professions will be undermined. Musicians were first, then the movie industry, then authors... If the intrinsic value of intellectual property declines enough, what everyone else offers society may be next.

 

 

Software's doing better than music even with similar IP piracy issues. They're able to better provide alternate revenue models, however, than music does (such as subscription services or support).

 

I was actually pondering what would happen to society if something like a replicator was made. It would seriously change a lot of what society perceives as "value", even more so than the Internet has. (I mean, 3D printers are on the horizon, and even with the limited current ability, a cheapish home 3D printer would be an interesting technology disruption on its own.)

[McHale]

[The Audacity Works]

 

I was actually pondering what would happen to society if something like a replicator was made. It would seriously change a lot of what society perceives as "value", even more so than the Internet has. (I mean, 3D printers are on the horizon, and even with the limited current ability, a cheapish home 3D printer would be an interesting technology disruption on its own.)

Yeah, that's an example I occasionally use. I'm not a Trekkie, but I've always wondered what people did for a living when they're not operating a starship. You know, because anything can be replicated.

 

A new model needs to surface, because people are inherently self-serving, and if monetary gain is eliminated from the equation, there's a lot of great stuff that'll go unrealized.

[AnCap]

There are plenty of ways to make money as a musician aside from selling your music. Bands are leaving tons of money on the table by not selling t-shirts, posters, and other tangible goods that can't be downloaded. Have you ever tried to find a band T-shirt or poster that wasn't awful? Gigging seems to pay as well.

 

There is a model out there, but what I find too often is that musicians don't give a {censored} what consumers want. Or just don't know how to find out.

[Yoozer]

 

Even if you listen exclusively to decidedly anti-establishment artists, I can 100% guarantee you that the vast majority of your favorite records simply wouldn't have been made if the artist didn't get a paycheck. Like most people, artists aren't exclusively philanthropic, and if they have to work a day-job to pay for food and rent, they're certainly not focusing on making or playing music. And forget about touring.

 

I'm aware of this this. It's exactly what makes electronic music producers {censored}ty mixers and mastering engineers - because they've got to wear so many hats in such a short time, it's obvious that those disciplines are going to suffer, and instead of spending time on honing one specific talent they've got to do a good enough job for 10.

 

 

There are many kids who simply can't comprehend that if an artist wants to be compensated for his or her craft, the option should be forgoing the service, not forgoing the compensation.

 

What works in such a case is when those kids are trying their hand at music themselves. Luckily, with the lower prices of music software and gear, that is possible.

 

Of course, according to their logic, you're entitled to duplicating their album all over the place. It's a lesson that literally puts them in the other guy's shoes.

[The Severalist]

 

Even if you listen exclusively to decidedly anti-establishment artists, I can 100% guarantee you that the vast majority of your favorite records simply wouldn't have been made if the artist didn't get a paycheck.

 

 

Probably. But those albums we're and have been made and most new music is God awful anyway. The limited amount of new bands I personally enjoy would likely be making music in some way shape or form even if it wasn't the greatest living money wise. And if they didn't or wouldn't, then screw em. I dig what they do but it's not my job to secure and or worry about a living for them, nor is it their job to worry about me in that regard. If they decided one day to deny the world their genius and get a job as a systems analyst or elephant insulter that's their business and there's plenty of fish in the sea to watch flop around the stage or experiment with high frequency sound shapes and misguided electro rock operas. Some people just have a spiritual, genetic need to put on a silly costume, buy their own BS, get all messianic, get down and generally make an amusing and or touching spectacle of themselves, monetary profit or no. We'll always have the freaks, and if it's not twenty thousand dollar guitars in their hands, I have faith they'll do amazing things with milk carton ukuleles if they have to.

 

As far as a lot of the more main stream dupes and dupettes who would probably recoil from a mic or an instrument if there wasn't undue fame and respect or a big fat pay check swinging in their face involved, well, the not particularly bright teenage girls who actually buy this dreck, instead of, for instance, supporting some lousy little third world orphan with their big fat American swill stacks, will probably never be sophisticated enough to figure out how to get that dreadful crap they love so dearly for free anyways, and even if they did there's always the glorious, mostly lead based products for the whole merchandising aspect, which really has more to do with the music these days then say, music. And yes, maybe a great overwhelming majority of peoples favorite albums would not be made, if somehow, the file sharing thing got bigger then any rational person would consider likely, but even if those thoughtless, unsupportive people would have loved that theoretical, doomed, quasi album, from which the fate of all humanity seems to hang, it would probably be an embarrassment to said humanity anyway. And besides, they'll never know either, so there's nothing to miss. On the flip side, who knows how many great albums would have been made if it wasn't for poorly constructed man made duck ponds?

 

If I saw great artists, GREAT contemporary artists saying "Well, we have this completely awesome album good to go but there's just no money in it and as far as working on it, well, I'm just to tired after double shifts at the red lobster." or something to that effect, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument. I need that kind of obvious indicator, because I'm slow and skeptical. But as it is, I'll pass on Timberlake

[The Audacity Works]

 

There are plenty of ways to make money as a musician aside from selling your music. Bands are leaving tons of money on the table by not selling t-shirts, posters, and other tangible goods that can't be downloaded. Have you ever tried to find a band T-shirt or poster that wasn't awful? Gigging seems to pay as well.

Of course, that assumes you're a performing musician. I live in LA and have seen some amazing bands in tiny clubs with ten people. I guess it's their job to market themselves too, but now they're practicing, dealing with band drama, designing shirts, booking gigs...

 

What about those who can't afford to tour? What about those who just want to make recorded music for a living?

There is a model out there, but what I find too often is that musicians don't give a {censored} what consumers want. Or just don't know how to find out.

Sure, there's certainly truth in that. The problem is now that consumers have had a taste of "all music, movies, software, and books are free

[The Audacity Works]

 

Humanity wouldn't be losing a cancer cure with these acts, folks, and maybe it'd be worth losing a couple of great albums to rid ourselves of thousands of terrible ones.

Interestingly enough, three separate label employees have mentioned how piracy directly causes terrible music. The final bastion of people who pay for music are soccer moms, little kids (with their soccer moms), urban youth, and those in red states. Hence, we have awful 808 screamo-krunk, pop country, and The Jonas Brothers. Thought the first guy was just bitter, but two others mentioned the same thing.

 

"I pirate because music sucks!"

"Music sucks because you pirate!"

"I pirate because music sucks!"

"Music sucks because you pirate!"

"I pirate because music sucks!"

"Music sucks because... wait. Why are you pirating things that suck?"

And isn't it supposed to be hard to make it in music anyways? Isn't that the plot of all those damned movies where Dolly Parton ends up at the grand ole opry after years of struggle and determination? They should remake one of those movies as a fifteen minute feature film, where the brilliant artist with the heart felt songs is told that due to downloading there probably won't be that much money in it, at which point the character says "Well {censored} this {censored}, then!", smashes the guitar on a homeless guy and goes to business school. Roll credits.

I learned long ago to avoid IP discussions with those who profess "professional musicians? Eh... {censored} 'em". Point taken, and entertaining post.

[AnCap]

 

Of course, that assumes you're a performing musician. I live in LA and have seen some amazing bands in tiny clubs with ten people. I guess it's their job to market themselves too, but now they're practicing, dealing with band drama, designing shirts, booking gigs...

 

 

Not everyone is cut out for every job. I wish I didn't have to market myself either. But that is part of a lot of jobs.

 

 

What about those who can't afford to tour? What about those who just want to make recorded music for a living?

 

 

What about those who want to juggle in the dark?

 

 

 

Sure, there's certainly truth in that. The problem is now that consumers have had a taste of "all music, movies, software, and books are free

[The Audacity Works]

 

I think selling something that isn't scarce and can be replicated for free just isn't a good business. Neither is making buggy whips. The world moves on, and old business models die.

Except when buggy whips disappeared, the world didn't care. When good music disappears, they will.

 

Okay, okay, so good music will never die. But a new model will have to surface, otherwise the majority of the best musicians/songwriters simply can't afford to make and market their music. It'll be out there, but it'll be far and few between, and you won't know about it, because you're swimming through a sea of worthless dreck, searching for tiny flecks of gold.

 

And when what you offer society can be undermined by technology and deemed valueless by the masses (chances are it can sooner than you expect), I hope you've invested in something else.

[AnCap]

 

Except when buggy whips disappeared, the world didn't care. When good music disappears, they will.

 

 

When Britney disappears, some might cheer.

 

 

Okay, okay, so good music will never die. But a new model will have to surface, otherwise the majority of the best musicians/songwriters simply can't afford to make and market their music. It'll be out there, but it'll be far and few between, and you won't know about it, because you're swimming through a sea of worthless dreck, searching for tiny flecks of gold.

 

 

I think just the opposite. You will not have to wade through {censored}ty top 40, and your friends will tell you about awesome new bands. Or you will find out over the interweb (the same way you probably do now). Most popular musicians aren't all that talented.

 

 

And when what you offer society can be undermined by technology and deemed valueless by the masses (chances are it can sooner than you expect), I hope you've invested in something else.

 

 

Music is empowered by technology. Anyone can make high quality recordings at their house for little money. It is extremely valuable, and those with talent will be sought after. They just need to find a better business model.

[midi]

Remember Napster?

[Yoozer]

 

It'll be out there, but it'll be far and few between, and you won't know about it, because you're swimming through a sea of worthless dreck, searching for tiny flecks of gold.

 

 

The thing is that the gold is currently being fished out of the dreck by people who's monthly wage depends on getting out enough "gold".

 

The fact that they are paid for it also means that they'll err on the side of caution.

[soundwave106]

 

Interestingly enough, three separate label employees have mentioned how piracy directly causes terrible music. The final bastion of people who pay for music are soccer moms, little kids (with their soccer moms), urban youth, and those in red states. Hence, we have awful 808 screamo-krunk, pop country, and The Jonas Brothers. Thought the first guy was just bitter, but two others mentioned the same thing.

 

 

I would agree. The problem is, I don't see much evidence that the old business model produced great music either. For every brilliant band that rose to the top, there are hundreds of brilliant bands that get royally screwed over in the old style music biz, causing them to retire out of the biz altogether (until they were "rediscovered", if then). Meanwhile, producers in studios were happy to crank out mediocre manufactured pop to fill the airwaves. I know of *no* era without {censored}ty pop that everyone now forgets (unless they are on a "nostalgia" kick).

 

If anything, the current "model" actually encourages great musicians to continue longer. For fan support, at least, and a little side cash. I've noticed that in the indie circuit, bands can chug on for a long time; the lifespan seems way longer than say the garage bands of the 1960s. The Internet has also encouraged some older bands to come out of retirement, it seems -- especially those older bands which lost mainstream support, but still maintain a cult following. (Judging from my conversations, many or even most indie circuit bands cannot make their band a primary career. But there's something for a hobby that can make you a little side cash.)

 

I do think that the rampant piracy discourages professionalism in pop music. For instance, the amount of time people spent on crafting pop music production has gone *way* down. This is probably where pop music has been hurt the most due to piracy -- there is no financial motivation for packaging, marketing, and production. The DIY musician all of a sudden has to wear many hats, not all of which he or she may be good at.

[The Severalist]

 

I learned long ago to avoid IP discussions with those who profess "professional musicians? Eh... {censored} 'em". Point taken, and entertaining post.

 

 

Didn't mean to say {censored} professional musicians. Some of my favorite professional musicians are professional musicians. I was saying that if, hypothetically, some of my favorite, current bands decided to stop making music big deal and that's their decision, chances are I haven't fully appreciated the work they've already created and I could find new things in that, even more so if I cut down my CD collection and paid attention to a few, good works. Maybe less would be more.

 

Personally, I'm not really aching for new bands, or even so much new material anymore. Most of the better music - or at least music that really connects with me personally in whatever way - that I come across is by guys from past eras I'd never heard of until that moment. I think there's always a place for young, hungry people forming bands and doing wild things and doing it for themselves, but really, much like we probably have just about enough A bombs at this point, I think maybe we have enough music as well, in general. There's more good stuff out there, or stuff that an individual would find interesting, to last any person a life time of musical discovery without exhausting their options. If something needs to be said in/through music at some specific time, now or in the future, it will be said regardless if the artists or elephants or whatever they prefer to call themselves would be making the king kong big bucks or a pay check equivalent to what a janitor would get. Most musicians are types of janitors anyways, in so many obvious ways that I won't bother to list a single one.

 

I meant to clarify my perhaps murky original point, but I think I might have belched up another puddle of fog and caramel in the process. But, then again, that's why we have waiters.

 

Everything said - and I don't mean this in a condascending way at all but it will probably come out like that - thinking about it, I'm sorry, for whatever thats worth, if music piracy is directly hurting your quality of life and job security. Regardless of whatever points could be made about piracy, the music industry, contemporary music scenes, the artistic process or whatever, that sucks.

[The Audacity Works]

 

I do think that the rampant piracy discourages professionalism in pop music. For instance, the amount of time people spent on crafting pop music production has gone *way* down. This is probably where pop music has been hurt the most due to piracy -- there is no financial motivation for packaging, marketing, and production. The DIY musician all of a sudden has to wear many hats, not all of which he or she may be good at.

Oh definitely. There will be some who maintain that "a great song is a great song", but a great song poorly produced, recorded, arranged, mixed, and/or mastered (let's L2 it to hell!) isn't going to bubble up to the surface and make many love it, much less support it enough to let the artist make more.

 

For most genres of music, it still takes time and people to create great recordings. That means money. Even though gear prices have plummeted, recouping on the cost to produce a real record is getting more difficult.

 

Interesting times for sure.

[The Audacity Works]

 

Everything said - and I don't mean this in a condascending way at all but it will probably come out like that - thinking about it, I'm sorry, for whatever thats worth, if music piracy is directly hurting your quality of life and job security. Regardless of whatever points could be made about piracy, the music industry, contemporary music scenes, the artistic process or whatever, that sucks.

Thanks, brother. Your post was actually really entertaining, and I don't necessarily disagree with any of it. We're just talking here.

 

Actually, this thread has been one of the more civil and educated discussions on IP in a long while. There hasn't been too much of the "OMG! LOL! RIAA FAIL!!!1!"

[turretg]

Just my guess, RIAA probably won't see a dime of the multi- million verdict. They will eventually settle for $1000 over time payments.

[augerinn]

 

Candy store Rock and roll Corporation jellyroll Play the singles it ain't me It's programmed insanity You ascap If BMI Could ever make a mountain fly If Japanese can boil teas Then where the {censored}'s my royalties

 

 

 

We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell-out. You gotta get an album out. You owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count. Everybody else is just green, Have you seen the chart? It's a hell of a start, It could be made into a monster If we all pull together as a team.

 

 

People have been writing about corporate greed for a while....

 

That siad, what she did was wrong. The way she reacted to getting caught was wrong. And the award was ridicoulous.

 

IMO

[-rawrr-]

Piracy has been around for decades, while the internet has made it easier to pirate I also think its helped the music industry. Myspace, Soundcloud, P2P sharing etc has helped alot of people including myself find new or upcoming bands which I would of never heard about due to the amount of {censored} thats on the Top 40 charts.

 

I personally think that the musicans, labels and RIAA/BPI etc should get their fingers out of their asses for once and find other ways of getting revenue. If the music industry isn't going to use the internet to its advantage then of course its going to slowly die.

[The Severalist]

 

Actually, this thread has been one of the more civil and educated discussions on IP in a long while. There hasn't been too much of the "OMG! LOL! RIAA FAIL!!!1!"

 

 

From my experience, I gotta agree. It's actually been pretty interesting overall.

[The Real MC]

 

Myspace, Soundcloud, P2P sharing etc has helped alot of people including myself find new or upcoming non-RIAA bands which I would of never heard about due to the amount of {censored} thats on the Top 40 charts.

 

 

fixed

[xpander]

i would bet it'll be successfully appealed, the punishment certainly does not fit the crime as it's been described in this thread.

 

 

all music is free.

 

that statement is getting less controversial every day.

[Dubhe]

Good. Stealing music is wrong. Copy right is very important. If you steal music, you should be fined heavily. If you host stolen music, it should be jail time. This is one of the laws I heavily agree with. In fact, I think they are too lax. It is no different than breaking into someone's house and stealing jewerly.

 

give me a break

most ppl host songs with out even knowing it --

jail time? same as stealing jewelry? why not just give them the chair or cut their hand off those thieving bastards!! Its a war you wont ever win, and you just hurt more ppl man.