Single mother of 2 fined $220,000 for file-sharing Opeth

[soundave]

Why is everyone talking about money as if that's what music is about? I'd be in favour two steps: Killing the record industry and killing recorded music. History has shown it is the best music, not the most popular, that lasts. Let sheet music and public performances dominate what is thought of as music, then not only will advertising fail and the true and best artists thrive during their lifetimes and beyond, people will start once again celebrating music in a concert atmosphere instead of in their bedrooms with their trophied disc collections.

Sounds nice in a sort of utopian way, but you can't go home again, my friend. Recording is here to stay. We can't ever have things the way they used to be. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be able to go to concerts frequently enough to satisfy our love of music. I don't have that kind of time anymore. I can manage, if I'm lucky, 3 concerts a year at this point.

Recording is in and of itself an art form. I would hate for it to disappear. It's like wishing away movies so people would go to the theater more often.

We have to talk about money because in order for bands to tour or record music they have to be compensated so they don't starve any more than is truly necessary. It's a job, for christ's sake. It takes hard work, commitment, and long hours away from family. I mean, look at why Peter quit the band, right? Not because he no longer liked music or Mike or something. He quit, as far as I can see, because it was getting to be too much for him and his family.

I'm sure Mike enjoys what he does, but I'm pretty sure he appreciates being compensated for his time, effort, and sacrifice. Would he be able to devote his time to making music and traveling the world so we could hear the music if he wasn't compensated? I'm thinking he'd have to earn money somehow... Just guessing. Feel free to correct me, Mike.

 

[HoursOfDebt]

thats a damn good point.

 

[wandering_taco]

They mentioned this story in a news program our school watches called Channel 1 news. They didnt mention the bands she downloaded though.

 

[Shemsu'Hor]

I remember having to watch Channel 1 every morning in junior high school, I fucking hate that show.

 

[Death_To_False_Metal]

Blaming the "music industry" for everything is the new fascism.

And like any other fascism, it will come back right at your ass.

Hard.

Like yeah, every move the record industry made was an attack on the consummer and everybody understood what to do except the people at the helm.

Life is not black and white.

Shades of grey anyone ?

Did you know for example that in 2000, the five CEO's of the biggest record companies met secretly with Napster ( which was being brought down by a lawsuit) to centralize their complete catalogue on Napster.
The music fan would only have to pay a monthly fee to enjoy as much music as he wants legally.
But the CEO's panicked because they knew that if they did this, they would have killed the record retailer business overnight.

In retropspective, it would have been the good move, but who would have thought that things would change so fast ?

Its so easy to point fingers, but coming up a with a solution, now that requires people to think and be responsible.
And people hate that.

I am not saying record companies are not guilty as charged, but music listeners have their reponsability too.

How long this " I have seven 500 GB hard drive full of music, movies , tv shows therefore I am" culture can last ?

Reality check anyone ?

And people, remember that CD sales are not dropping, the business as a hole is dying.

Any other business that would suffered from such gross loss would have two years to live tops.

I don't have a solution but this shameless downloading culture on the long term is wrong.

And please, stop with the lame " bands now make their money on tour argument", it is getting extremly tired by the nano second ( besides being totally false most of the times)

 

[Sheckles14]

This isn't even about the musicians suing, though. It's not like the record compnay cares about the music, they just want their money. I mean 220k for 24 songs is just ridiculous.

 

[Pessimism]

One of the main reason metal took off to begin with was because of illegal sharing; be it by the internet or by older mediums (tape copying, cd burning, etc). It is unfortunate that some bands feel the effects of downloading, but for every loss there is still a gain - many lesser known bands actually become popular by these means.

I've always been told that the majority of money bands made was from touring & merchandise sold at shows (not includiong the percentage made from album sales...not sure what that is though), is this true for Opeth Mike? If that is the case, it would probably be best for many bands to let their albums be available for download, while physical copies could be sold by your own online distro or at your shows. Still though, everything depends on differing market vaiables, so I wouldn't know for sure.

 

[dcat]

some good points but wide of the mark

the music industry has a serious problem with money
it has too much control over it and the creative wealth
makers are steered tomuch towards commercial sucess

more megabucks for their grubby hands to inflict social distortion

 

[soundave]

some good points but wide of the mark

the music industry has a serious problem with money
it has too much control over it and the creative wealth
makers are steered tomuch towards commercial sucess

more megabucks for their grubby hands to inflict social distortion

Up until this point in history, though, sort of a necessary evil. It's had to be a compromise. Hell, popular fiction is subject to the publishers desires except in perhaps some exceptional cases. Maybe we're on the verge of a change in the music world. Or maybe we're on the verge of having a whole lot of shittily produced music by bands we've never heard of become available to us for free.

 

[dcat]

noooooooo

the music biz cannot compromise that is its essence

thats why i love it

 

[hibernal_dream]

Up until this point in history, though, sort of a necessary evil. It's had to be a compromise. Hell, popular fiction is subject to the publishers desires except in perhaps some exceptional cases. Maybe we're on the verge of a change in the music world. Or maybe we're on the verge of having a whole lot of shittily produced music by bands we've never heard of become available to us for free.

How long has the 'music biz' actually existed. Surely less than 100 years, and it has only really been important for half a century. It wasn't necessary in Bach's time, where the church and royal courts supported the artists.

I don't think the amount of money going to the musicians is the issue, it's the amount of money going to others - it's too much. Most people have posted objections to taking money from Opeth without realising the lawsuit is not about Opeth at all. With the various ways in which rights to music are distributed, we have the situation where people and companies 'own' certain legal interests in the music long after the band and musicians are dead. I don't like this, it encourages large companies to take advantage of poor musicians. Maybe the musicans should be allowed some opportunity to assign fruits of music and so on to their immediate family and children but I don't think anyone should be considered to own Opeth's music hundreds of years after the band members have died.

 

[dcat]

great reply and very accurrate

all them pluggers and whatnost with their snouts
in them troughs

 

[Don Corleone]

How long has the 'music biz' actually existed. Surely less than 100 years, and it has only really been important for half a century. It wasn't necessary in Bach's time, where the church and royal courts supported the artists.

I don't think the amount of money going to the musicians is the issue, it's the amount of money going to others - it's too much. Most people have posted objections to taking money from Opeth without realising the lawsuit is not about Opeth at all. With the various ways in which rights to music are distributed, we have the situation where people and companies 'own' certain legal interests in the music long after the band and musicians are dead. I don't like this, it encourages large companies to take advantage of poor musicians. Maybe the musicans should be allowed some opportunity to assign fruits of music and so on to their immediate family and children but I don't think anyone should be considered to own Opeth's music hundreds of years after the band members have died.

excellent post, that really bugs me too

 

[Black Session]

How long has the 'music biz' actually existed. Surely less than 100 years, and it has only really been important for half a century. It wasn't necessary in Bach's time, where the church and royal courts supported the artists.

I don't think the amount of money going to the musicians is the issue, it's the amount of money going to others - it's too much. Most people have posted objections to taking money from Opeth without realising the lawsuit is not about Opeth at all. With the various ways in which rights to music are distributed, we have the situation where people and companies 'own' certain legal interests in the music long after the band and musicians are dead. I don't like this, it encourages large companies to take advantage of poor musicians. Maybe the musicans should be allowed some opportunity to assign fruits of music and so on to their immediate family and children but I don't think anyone should be considered to own Opeth's music hundreds of years after the band members have died.

we don't live in Bach's time anymore ... our society and economy is totally different now.

totally agree though that most of the money shouldn't end up with some guy in an office who knows nothing about the music.

for the general discussion: it's too bad that myspace got launched so late in the history of the internet thusfar ... it's a great way to get to know a band a little bit to hear if you like it, without the illegal spread of music.
if music would only be distributed through the internet, thus only by paying for a stupid mp3, than I would stop buying new music, just relying on old cd's or LP's and going to concerts.
recorded music is great! it offers a lot, but only if it is a complete package of artwork and music, in my opinion. it's a whole ...

@hibernal dream on your previous post: with so many people and such a huge world nowadays, you would get little chance to actually go see bands in concert that you like. e.g. opeth would pass by your area like once every 2 years or something ... that's no fun :s

 

[hibernal_dream]

@hibernal dream on your previous post: with so many people and such a huge world nowadays, you would get little chance to actually go see bands in concert that you like. e.g. opeth would pass by your area like once every 2 years or something ... that's no fun :s

Ya, I thought about that. On second thoughts it will probably be good to retain recorded music. I just dislike collectors who seem to enjoy sweeping their eyes over their massive collection than listening to the stuff. And I dislike that people too poor to afford owning a CD don't get to hear what's on it.

This will bug a lot of people, but speaking for myself, I'd probably be just as happy seeing a cover band than the real thing, as long as they are good. The music of entities long gone and passed still gets played. We have bands playing tribute to the Beatles, Metallica and AC/DC, and orchestras playing the great classics and most of them are great. I'm not one of those people that thinks music has to be performed by the people that wrote it. Musicians die we can't change that, but music does not die and i'm not pissed that my great grandson won't get to see the real Opeth live.

 

[the opeth affinity]

Ya, I thought about that. On second thoughts it will probably be good to retain recorded music. I just dislike collectors who seem to enjoy sweeping their eyes over their massive collection than listening to the stuff. And I dislike that people too poor to afford owning a CD don't get to hear what's on it.

This will bug a lot of people, but speaking for myself, I'd probably be just as happy seeing a cover band than the real thing, as long as they are good. The music of entities long gone and passed still gets played. We have bands playing tribute to the Beatles, Metallica and AC/DC, and orchestras playing the great classics and most of them are great. I'm not one of those people that thinks music has to be performed by the people that wrote it. Musicians die we can't change that, but music does not die and i'm not pissed that my great grandson won't get to see the real Opeth live.

on a slightly different note, he will miss out on hearing mikes attempt at humour which imo is what makes opeth's gigs and makes there music soooooooooooooooooo great

 

[Don Corleone]

Ya, I thought about that. On second thoughts it will probably be good to retain recorded music. I just dislike collectors who seem to enjoy sweeping their eyes over their massive collection than listening to the stuff. And I dislike that people too poor to afford owning a CD don't get to hear what's on it.

This will bug a lot of people, but speaking for myself, I'd probably be just as happy seeing a cover band than the real thing, as long as they are good. The music of entities long gone and passed still gets played. We have bands playing tribute to the Beatles, Metallica and AC/DC, and orchestras playing the great classics and most of them are great. I'm not one of those people that thinks music has to be performed by the people that wrote it. Musicians die we can't change that, but music does not die and i'm not pissed that my great grandson won't get to see the real Opeth live.

true, but you know every band/orchestra plays a tune differently. you might not hear the differences, but some people actually do.

 

[jConsequences]

You don't get sued for downloading, you get sued for making the songs available for download by others.

 

[pyr0rrzzz]

Depends on the country you live in...

 

[Shemsu'Hor]

You don't get sued for downloading, you get sued for making the songs available for download by others.

No you actually can get sued for downloading, but it's VERY difficult for them to catch you if you're just downloading over your own connection(and not like a school connection). Sharing is how they catch you then they find out how much you've downloaded(and add some extra for good measure)and sue you for that too.