Music Industry Sends Warning to Song Swappers

jdelpi

Imported Killer
Okay, it took three tries to post this with the line breaks intact. argh.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030429/3/3akqc.html
Wednesday April 30, 09:45 AM

Music Industry Sends Warning to Song Swappers
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The record industry opened a new front in its war against online piracy on Tuesday by surprising hundreds of thousands of Internet song swappers with an instant message warning that they could be "easily" identified and face "legal penalties" for their actions.

About 200,000 users of the Grokster and Kazaa file-sharing services received the warning notice on Tuesday and millions more will get notices in coming weeks, said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the music companies.

The message said in part: "It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from your computer. ...When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC either by offering it to others to copy or downloading it on a 'file-sharing' system like this. When you offer music on these systems, you are not anonymous and you can easily be identified."
The mass messaging came after a federal judge on Friday delivered a setback to the music industry's efforts to shut down song-swapping services, and a day after Apple Computer Inc. unveiled an online music store aimed at wooing users from the free networks.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson on Friday ruled the Grokster and Morpheus services should not be shut down because they cannot control what is traded over their systems.

Trade groups for the movie studios and record labels said they would appeal the ruling, the first significant legal setback for the entertainment industry in its battle against the popular "peer-to-peer" services that allow users to download files for free.

The RIAA's Sherman said that while the messaging effort was planned long ago, the timing was fortunate since some song swappers might misinterpret Friday's ruling to mean that copyright infringement was legal.

The move immediately angered some Internet users.
"Way to go, RIAA. Sue and threaten the public, your customers. I think I'll go and download," one posting on Yahoo said.

Sharman Networks Ltd, the Australian firm that owns Kazaa, said in a statement, said that rather than cooperating with the file-sharing network "the RIAA continues to choose to attack some of its most loyal customers."
Sharman said it objected to any effort to enforce copyrights that violated the law, its own user agreements or that would "indiscriminately spam, mislead or confuse."

Meanwhile, Verizon Communications, embroiled in a separate copyright infringement suit with the recording industry, said the move undermined the RIAA's argument in that case.

Last week, Verizon suffered a setback when a U.S. court said the phone company must reveal the names of customers suspected of downloading copyrighted songs from the Internet without permission.

The RIAA argued that Verizon is obligated under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to help the music industry protect its copyrights. Verizon says it is willing to help, but argued that the law only applies to Web pages stored on its computers, not traffic on the "peer-to-peer" networks that merely travel across its wires.

Sarah Deutsch, an attorney for Verizon on Tuesday, said that the RIAA has said they could not contact users on their own.

"I think this undermines their case because now they are acknowledging they can contact the users on a massive scale," she said.

Its not the first time the recording industry has targeted individual users. In April, the RIAA sued four students who were operating networks on three college campuses where it claims the networks were being used to illegally trade copies of music files.

The warning on Tuesday was sent by the RIAA on behalf of the world's big record labels owned by AOL Time Warner, EMI Group Plc, Bertelsmann AG, Vivendi Universal and Sony Corp .

DON'T STEAL MUSIC
The RIAA said that by using song titles, it was identifying users who were posting copyrighted songs for others to download as targets for the messages, which were sent through the peer-to-peer networks' own systems.

Sherman said the trade group did not plan to take further action against the users it had contacted for now. "There is no next step. We are just letting them know it's illegal and they are not anonymous," said Sherman.

"We're not going to change behavior overnight. The only way we can measure this is to see if fewer people are offering files on Grokster and Kazaa," he said.

Some experts doubted the effectiveness of the campaign.

"I think a small number of users will be deterred by this effort. It's not going to come as a surprise to them the RIAA finds it unlawful," said Jonathan Band, a copyright lawyer for Morrison & Foerster.
 
there's a verse (or a sentence, I'm no grammar expert) that comes to mind concerning the Internet and the file sharing networks .... it goes a little something like: "You cannot kill what doesn't die".
 
that aint gonna deter me 1 little bit,they are the ones not coming to the table and meeting halfway,they want it all to themselves

by all means go after the drug gangs that are heavily into piracy to support there drug campaigns,they always try and go for the little bloke!

go get the people that are proffesionally copying top 40 cds and distrubuting them around the world,they are the ones that are hurting the industry.
 
Did anyone read todays Business section of the Post? Well, Apple introduced a new method of buying music over the internet. Supposedly 99 cents a song or 9.99 for the whole album. It took them 18 months to develop this and it's supposed to be downloaded onto an ipod.
 
RIAA or whatever comes to my house, I'll download a cap in their ass with a quickness. So fucking gay. Here's a genius move, price REAL albums at $9.99. Fuck pay per download, charge a SUBSCRIPTION service, infinity downloads for $9.99 a month. Fuck Apple, I hate them. If CDs were as cool as the WCFYA special edition then people would actually buy the product. Large, juicy format. You feel like you're getting something.
 
I have to refer to my idol Maddox for this one:


"Less than 8 years ago, cassette tapes were considered by most to be the best medium for music (until CD players were more affordable). How much did the average cassette tape cost? I figure approximately $8. For $8, you got the reel of tape, the molded plastic around the reel of tape, tape gears, screws to hold the tape together, the case, and all sorts of neat looking labels on the outside of the tape. All for $8. Now look at CDs. How much does the average CD cost? I figure $14. For $14, you get a case, a paper jacket depicting the artist, and a CD. Which of these two mediums are most likely to be more difficult to manufacture? How much does it cost for the plastic and coating of a CD? I've found that the plastic in a CD costs less than 3 cents to press. So how the hell is the extra $6 justified??? The CD jacket? Couldn't be, most CDs I have only have a single piece of paper on the inside and the back. The case couldn't be what's costing us all the money, since the plastic in a CD case costs little more than the plastic in a CD. Take a look at these figures: For 500 C40-49:59 "Ready for Retail" Cassette Tapes with J-card + 4 panels costs: $983.00 For 500 "Ready for Retail" Compact Discs with 4 panels and tray card costs: $1725.00 What justifies the difference in almost $800 in price? The truth is that the music industry is greedy. They can charge us anything they want for music because they have enough money to buy the rights to an artist. The price of CDs should have been drastically reduced by now, to at least the cost of a tape if not less, but it hasn't. That's why all the big shot executives shit a brick when people started distributing music in MP3 format over the internet. Finally, people could get out of their web of bullshit and only listen to music they wanted to listen to, at a user-established cost. Good I say, let them suffer. It's about time they got screwed like they've been screwing us for all these years."

http://maddox.xmission.com/musicindustry.html
 
What I don't get is how they can justify charging 15 + dollars for artists that are dead. Seriously. I was looking to pick up some blues and jazz and they wanted an absurd amount of money for some dead guys album. Bastards.
 
mentalmeltdown said:
I have to refer to my idol Maddox for this one:


"Less than 8 years ago, cassette tapes were considered by most to be the best medium for music (until CD players were more affordable). How much did the average cassette tape cost? I figure approximately $8. For $8, you got the reel of tape, the molded plastic around the reel of tape, tape gears, screws to hold the tape together, the case, and all sorts of neat looking labels on the outside of the tape. All for $8. Now look at CDs. How much does the average CD cost? I figure $14. For $14, you get a case, a paper jacket depicting the artist, and a CD. Which of these two mediums are most likely to be more difficult to manufacture? How much does it cost for the plastic and coating of a CD? I've found that the plastic in a CD costs less than 3 cents to press. So how the hell is the extra $6 justified??? The CD jacket? Couldn't be, most CDs I have only have a single piece of paper on the inside and the back. The case couldn't be what's costing us all the money, since the plastic in a CD case costs little more than the plastic in a CD. Take a look at these figures: For 500 C40-49:59 "Ready for Retail" Cassette Tapes with J-card + 4 panels costs: $983.00 For 500 "Ready for Retail" Compact Discs with 4 panels and tray card costs: $1725.00 What justifies the difference in almost $800 in price? The truth is that the music industry is greedy. They can charge us anything they want for music because they have enough money to buy the rights to an artist. The price of CDs should have been drastically reduced by now, to at least the cost of a tape if not less, but it hasn't. That's why all the big shot executives shit a brick when people started distributing music in MP3 format over the internet. Finally, people could get out of their web of bullshit and only listen to music they wanted to listen to, at a user-established cost. Good I say, let them suffer. It's about time they got screwed like they've been screwing us for all these years."

http://maddox.xmission.com/musicindustry.html

Ok, I am not an apologist for the RIAA but let us dispell some crap in here:

1. "The truth is that the music industry is greedy."
As I recall, no one actually charges the real average total cost of goods sold of their goods. In some fairy tale economic world of perfect competition, firms sells goods at their marginal cost, but in reality, nobody does. In addition to manufacturing the actual CD, case and liner notes you but, there is:
paying for the recording of the album, which for some artists can be very expensive
paying the people working at the record label, attorneys, managers, etc. (like it or not)
the marketing of the product, which, when you throw in a music video or two, can be very expensive
sending bands on tour, which might pay for itself in the end, but requires an initial flow of cash to get started
the shipping of the product
the additional charge by the record store to keep them in business
at least a minimal rate for labels and record stores of return so investors have the incentive to invest their money in a record label/store rather than some other business venture

Also, the music industry has a high number of artists who get pushed who are total failures and lose money for the label. Established artists end up subsidizing these new artists. Maybe it doesn't sound fair, but in all likelihood, they were in that young artist's position before.

Does anyone know these figures? I doubt it, so maybe Maddox should shut up.

s1.jpg


Mr. Spitz says "do the math!"

If the music industry is greedy, then you're "greedy" for not wanting to pay for it. And yeah, I'm greedy!

2. "They can charge us anything they want for music because they have enough money to buy the rights to an artist."
Well if that's the case, then why don't they charge a million dollars for a CD? Because they can't sell them. They can only charge a price at which people are willing to pay. Apparently the record labels have been having a hard time understanding this and hence their current problems.