Music Industry suing file sharers
Wednesday, June 25, 2003 by The DJ | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
WASHINGTON -- The embattled music industry disclosed plans today for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.
The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin today to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 song files for downloading.
It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.
Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer might qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.
The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music."
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. "It's about time," Berman said in a statement. "For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity."
The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
"We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen," Sherman said. "We will go after the worst offenders first."
The RIAA said it expected to file "at least several hundred lawsuits" within eight to 10 weeks but will continue to file lawsuits afterward on a regular basis.
For the whole story:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20030625_1212.html
[Message Edited]
The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin today to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 song files for downloading.
It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.
Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer might qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.
The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after Thursday will expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music."
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. "It's about time," Berman said in a statement. "For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity."
The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.
"We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen," Sherman said. "We will go after the worst offenders first."
The RIAA said it expected to file "at least several hundred lawsuits" within eight to 10 weeks but will continue to file lawsuits afterward on a regular basis.
For the whole story:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20030625_1212.html
[Message Edited]
 |
|
Page 4 of 5 | |
|
|---|
joetheblow
Reply #62 Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:01 PM
and it keeps going and going...
Clearly the indrustry can revamp there sales format and sell more records. As with most businesses, they do not want to change from a known money maker to an unknown money making format even though studies show it will work. As much money the RIAA has they can be ealiely pushed to the brink if they lose any more in sales.
Same case with the auto indrustry on 1970 - 80
As for the downloaders, once again, no matter how it is explained, most do not buy any of the singles or the album they download... and boast about it.
I do feel the music indrustry should allow free music downloads of new artists and indi-label in some way rely on free distubution.
A classic example of how to revamp the indrustry is DJ's, pushing the word out on the street, and clubs... mostly what Hip Hop Indrustry does. Sales were strong way into the Napster craze.
There are allot of factors that into into the loss of sales. It is not mostly downloads, but it has potetial to be.
Reply #62 Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:01 PM
and it keeps going and going...
Clearly the indrustry can revamp there sales format and sell more records. As with most businesses, they do not want to change from a known money maker to an unknown money making format even though studies show it will work. As much money the RIAA has they can be ealiely pushed to the brink if they lose any more in sales.
Same case with the auto indrustry on 1970 - 80
As for the downloaders, once again, no matter how it is explained, most do not buy any of the singles or the album they download... and boast about it.
I do feel the music indrustry should allow free music downloads of new artists and indi-label in some way rely on free distubution.
A classic example of how to revamp the indrustry is DJ's, pushing the word out on the street, and clubs... mostly what Hip Hop Indrustry does. Sales were strong way into the Napster craze.
There are allot of factors that into into the loss of sales. It is not mostly downloads, but it has potetial to be.
joetheblow
Reply #63 Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:01 PM
and it keeps going and going...
Clearly the indrustry can revamp there sales format and sell more records. As with most businesses, they do not want to change from a known money maker to an unknown money making format even though studies show it will work. As much money the RIAA has they can be ealiely pushed to the brink if they lose any more in sales.
Same case with the auto indrustry on 1970 - 80
As for the downloaders, once again, no matter how it is explained, most do not buy any of the singles or the album they download... and boast about it.
I do feel the music indrustry should allow free music downloads of new artists and indi-label in some way rely on free distubution.
A classic example of how to revamp the indrustry is DJ's, pushing the word out on the street, and clubs... mostly what Hip Hop Indrustry does. Sales were strong way into the Napster craze.
There are allot of factors that into into the loss of sales. It is not mostly downloads, but it has potetial to be.
Reply #63 Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:01 PM
and it keeps going and going...
Clearly the indrustry can revamp there sales format and sell more records. As with most businesses, they do not want to change from a known money maker to an unknown money making format even though studies show it will work. As much money the RIAA has they can be ealiely pushed to the brink if they lose any more in sales.
Same case with the auto indrustry on 1970 - 80
As for the downloaders, once again, no matter how it is explained, most do not buy any of the singles or the album they download... and boast about it.
I do feel the music indrustry should allow free music downloads of new artists and indi-label in some way rely on free distubution.
A classic example of how to revamp the indrustry is DJ's, pushing the word out on the street, and clubs... mostly what Hip Hop Indrustry does. Sales were strong way into the Napster craze.
There are allot of factors that into into the loss of sales. It is not mostly downloads, but it has potetial to be.
CognitoToo
Reply #64 Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:40 PM
Reply #64 Sunday, June 29, 2003 3:40 PM
In response to Kona0197 "you can order any CD ever made from your local record store". This just isn't true. Many CD's are off the market and many old vinyl records were never made into the CD format. One such example is Rod Stewarts "Foolish Behavior" album. I couldn't get that one and I had to polish my vinyl album. The same was true for a couple of Pat Travers old albums. Try getting an old Temptations album that was only available on vinyl in the CD format. If you are lucky you might find a few of the popular songs on a compliation CD.
In response to #61, that is a ridiculous statement. It is not logical. If the artists only get one percent, how much difference is it going to make to them? It is mainly going to hurt the record industries if people stop going to the record stores. Most informed people know that the major revenue for the artist comes from their tours. Therefore, one can still support the artist by going to their live concerts. And, one can boycott the RIAA by not buying CD's in the record stores.
In response to #61, that is a ridiculous statement. It is not logical. If the artists only get one percent, how much difference is it going to make to them? It is mainly going to hurt the record industries if people stop going to the record stores. Most informed people know that the major revenue for the artist comes from their tours. Therefore, one can still support the artist by going to their live concerts. And, one can boycott the RIAA by not buying CD's in the record stores.
paxx
Reply #65 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:09 PM
Reply #65 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:09 PM
| Most informed people know that the major revenue for the artist comes from their tours. |
Unfortunately, it's only true for the big names. The ones that charge 200$+ for their concert tickets. The smaller bands that can't hope to charge more than 30$ or 50$ at the most, actually operate at loss during their tours. For them, the tour serves to promote the album, in hopes that the recors sales are going to pay for the tour losses.
CognitoToo
Reply #66 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:18 PM
Reply #66 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:18 PM
There are a lot of fallacies here about speakers, MP3 technology and 128 bitrates.
About the 128 bitrate theory. Again, it doesn't matter what bitrate you record at if your original CD has sound errors in it. It mainly depends on the quality on ones soundcard, and not the software.
About the speaker quality theory. I use a 5.1 high quality cambridge speaker system and a soundblaster live 5.1 Platinum card. I have listened to the same songs on a pair of Yamaha speakers as well as my studio speaker monitors and car stereo speakers. I find that my quality is most accurate on my average Yahama speakers than my great sounding 5.1 speakers when I play a CD that I made on my computer in my car or my pocket CD player. If I'm listening, I prefer my 5.1 system, but if I'm recording, I prefer my mediocre Yahama speakers.
MP3 is a standard compression technology. It basically doesn't matter whether you use Musicmatch or Windows media player to compress a song. Now, if you want to compress with a different technology, like WMA, then there may be differences. But, most people prefer MP3 because it basically sounds the better than WMA.
Speaker quality does not change what is recorded. This quality(recorded quality) is better determined by the quality of ones soundcard. Better speakers only add better frequency separation in comparison to cheap speakers. If one gets a decent set of speakers, say $30 US, and a good soundcard(soundblaster), this is the best way. If one gets a $500.00 set of computer speakers and try to get the same quality from a car stereo, likely they will be disappointed. Unless, their car stereo has the same frequency range and as good frequency separation. Most car speaker boxes contain one speaker. This doesn't provide the same separation as a separate, mid, high and bass speaker like in home stereos or great computer speaker set ups with a bass box and tweeters. But, if you have average computer speakers, the sound can only get better provided you used a good soundcard. Remember, the recorded quality is not defined by the speakers. This is why most studios prefer real life sounding studio monitors over the ultra expensive ones. Because, most people have real life(average) stereo systems and the quality is preferred to match them.
About the 128 bitrate theory. Again, it doesn't matter what bitrate you record at if your original CD has sound errors in it. It mainly depends on the quality on ones soundcard, and not the software.
About the speaker quality theory. I use a 5.1 high quality cambridge speaker system and a soundblaster live 5.1 Platinum card. I have listened to the same songs on a pair of Yamaha speakers as well as my studio speaker monitors and car stereo speakers. I find that my quality is most accurate on my average Yahama speakers than my great sounding 5.1 speakers when I play a CD that I made on my computer in my car or my pocket CD player. If I'm listening, I prefer my 5.1 system, but if I'm recording, I prefer my mediocre Yahama speakers.
MP3 is a standard compression technology. It basically doesn't matter whether you use Musicmatch or Windows media player to compress a song. Now, if you want to compress with a different technology, like WMA, then there may be differences. But, most people prefer MP3 because it basically sounds the better than WMA.
Speaker quality does not change what is recorded. This quality(recorded quality) is better determined by the quality of ones soundcard. Better speakers only add better frequency separation in comparison to cheap speakers. If one gets a decent set of speakers, say $30 US, and a good soundcard(soundblaster), this is the best way. If one gets a $500.00 set of computer speakers and try to get the same quality from a car stereo, likely they will be disappointed. Unless, their car stereo has the same frequency range and as good frequency separation. Most car speaker boxes contain one speaker. This doesn't provide the same separation as a separate, mid, high and bass speaker like in home stereos or great computer speaker set ups with a bass box and tweeters. But, if you have average computer speakers, the sound can only get better provided you used a good soundcard. Remember, the recorded quality is not defined by the speakers. This is why most studios prefer real life sounding studio monitors over the ultra expensive ones. Because, most people have real life(average) stereo systems and the quality is preferred to match them.
CognitoToo
Reply #67 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:34 PM
Reply #67 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:34 PM
PAxx, this isn't true. Artists get 30% of the revenue for a concert. And anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000+ seats in a arena. At $30-$50 dollars a seat, this is a good profit. Then, if you multiply this by 60-120+ yearly engagements, one has a good profit. I would love to put 3,000 US in my pocket for one night. It is true that I have seen $1-3 million dollar checks for record sales to an artist, but that is excessive and rare. I feel the same about multi-million dollar sport contracts while other people are starving. Therefore, I believe that people like Madonna and Metallica are as greedy as the record industry. But, then you have artists who are starving while their music is still being sold and royalties are still being made by selling rights to record their songs to other artists. Little Richard is an example. Elvis made millions on his songs and Little Richard got nothing. And while dead, Elvis is still making money on Little Richards songs and Little Richard gets nothing. Prince and Metallica were smarter in their contracts. But, this problem took awhile for the artist to figure out. I therefore have little respect for the greedy RIAA. At least the artist should have the rights to their songs. And, they do not.
kona0197
Reply #68 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:39 PM
I DO NOT know if it is against copyright but you can hookup your phono to your PC and rip a CD with your burner ....
Anyone seen how much it costs for a LOW end ticket for a rolling stones concert?
Reply #68 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:39 PM
| In response to Kona0197 "you can order any CD ever made from your local record store". This just isn't true. Many CD's are off the market and many old vinyl records were never made into the CD format. One such example is Rod Stewarts "Foolish Behavior" album. I couldn't get that one and I had to polish my vinyl album. The same was true for a couple of Pat Travers old albums. Try getting an old Temptations album that was only available on vinyl in the CD format. If you are lucky you might find a few of the popular songs on a compliation CD. |
I DO NOT know if it is against copyright but you can hookup your phono to your PC and rip a CD with your burner ....
| Unfortunately, it's only true for the big names. The ones that charge 200$+ for their concert tickets. The smaller bands that can't hope to charge more than 30$ or 50$ at the most, actually operate at loss during their tours. For them, the tour serves to promote the album, in hopes that the recors sales are going to pay for the tour losses. |
Anyone seen how much it costs for a LOW end ticket for a rolling stones concert?
The DJ
Reply #69 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:53 PM
Reply #69 Sunday, June 29, 2003 4:53 PM
CognitoToo, how much do you think studio monitors go for? Not cheap. Still, about under/amost a grand a piece which isn't that expensive when takin high end, but expensive for the average person.
You are again mentioning errors. I never said anything about errors.
The fact is, listen to something @ 128 bitrate on any average system and then on a high/higher end system. And again, depending on the quality of the encoding software, the 128 bit track will fall short in any case.
True, but you said it yourself: shitty speakers will produce shitty sound. Let's not forget about the quality of your amp/receiver, cables, speaker cable and whatnot. You're only as good as your weakest link.
I have a sound system improver in which the music reproduced is reproduced the way it was MEANT to be heard. Music from whatever source can sound muddy by proper order being lost with say higher frequencies being delayed and the sound being reproduced differs significantly from the sound produced from the original source. Envelope distortion. A sound system improver works to correct this while providing cleaner, more intelligent and detailed highs with deeper and fuller bass while proving a fuller, more natural and all around better sound.
The slightest difference becomes very apparent.
Having a good ear also helps
.
You are again mentioning errors. I never said anything about errors.
The fact is, listen to something @ 128 bitrate on any average system and then on a high/higher end system. And again, depending on the quality of the encoding software, the 128 bit track will fall short in any case.
| Remember, the recorded quality is not defined by the speakers. |
True, but you said it yourself: shitty speakers will produce shitty sound. Let's not forget about the quality of your amp/receiver, cables, speaker cable and whatnot. You're only as good as your weakest link.
I have a sound system improver in which the music reproduced is reproduced the way it was MEANT to be heard. Music from whatever source can sound muddy by proper order being lost with say higher frequencies being delayed and the sound being reproduced differs significantly from the sound produced from the original source. Envelope distortion. A sound system improver works to correct this while providing cleaner, more intelligent and detailed highs with deeper and fuller bass while proving a fuller, more natural and all around better sound.
The slightest difference becomes very apparent.
Having a good ear also helps
.
Doomgaze
Reply #70 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:06 PM
my Events cost me around $500 and those are considered "pro audio"
You'd be pretty hard pressed unless you're being ripped off to find a set of studio monitors that are over $1000 retail.
The fact still remains.
The RIAA sucks.
Reply #70 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:06 PM
| how much do you think studio monitors go for? Not cheap. Still, about under/amost a grand a piece which isn't that expensive when takin high end, but expensive for the average person. |
my Events cost me around $500 and those are considered "pro audio"
You'd be pretty hard pressed unless you're being ripped off to find a set of studio monitors that are over $1000 retail.
The fact still remains.
The RIAA sucks.
kona0197
Reply #71 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:12 PM
I think that is sokmething we all agree on...
I mean if I can pick up 50 CDr's for 10 bucks why does a frickin CD cost 20? >
Reply #71 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:12 PM
| The RIAA sucks. |
I think that is sokmething we all agree on...
I mean if I can pick up 50 CDr's for 10 bucks why does a frickin CD cost 20? >
The DJ
Reply #73 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:14 PM
Reply #73 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:14 PM
Doomgaze, you get what you paid for, unless of course it's Bose. You wouldn't use these studio monitors for average use either.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
paxx
Reply #74 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:29 PM
Reply #74 Sunday, June 29, 2003 5:29 PM
Cognito, I watched a show on TV about local Canadian artists (not the rare ones who make it big in the USA like Celine Dion, but the other ones), who still have to give what the fans expect (laser and all the special effects), but who will never sell enough tickets to pay for it. For them, a concert is lost money.
Doomgaze
Reply #75 Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:09 PM
Reply #75 Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:09 PM
the dj: of course unless its Bose, and if they actually did make studio monitors (2 of the biggest sellers are JBL and Event... both pumping out sub $1000 sets) but there is better than Bose for home entertainment, and I digress....
a few hours + file sharing softare x 50 blank cds = happy people
| I mean if I can pick up 50 CDr's for 10 bucks why does a frickin CD cost 20? |
a few hours + file sharing softare x 50 blank cds = happy people
kona0197
Reply #76 Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:40 PM
I never said I DL with kazaa... I don't. I did in the past when Napster was around but lately I just buy the CD from the CD store cuz even if I like 1 song I find others i like to. I was just trying to figure out why the CD from the CD store costs so much.
Reply #76 Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:40 PM
| a few hours + file sharing softare x 50 blank cds = happy people |
I never said I DL with kazaa... I don't. I did in the past when Napster was around but lately I just buy the CD from the CD store cuz even if I like 1 song I find others i like to. I was just trying to figure out why the CD from the CD store costs so much.
joetheblow
Reply #77 Sunday, June 29, 2003 7:04 PM
That is a good theory but if the artist are not well known then why would most of the poeple go? Record sales, whether in thier home country or abroad, helps with popularity, knowning songs lirics, fan clubs, and other type stuff.
By following your theory, artist wouldn't make no where near what they could make. It wouldn't be world tours, or 20 state tours or 20 city tours.
Who is that? DeBarge? Never heard of them. Yo-Yo Ma?? Green Eye Peas? Destiniy's Child? Never seen them.
Reply #77 Sunday, June 29, 2003 7:04 PM
| #67 by CognitoToo - 6/29/2003 4:34:42 PM PAxx, this isn't true. Artists get 30% of the revenue for a concert. And anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000+ seats in a arena. At $30-$50 dollars a seat, this is a good profit. Then, if you multiply this by 60-120+ yearly engagements, one has a good profit. I would love to put 3,000 US in my pocket for one night. It is true that I have seen $1-3 million dollar checks for record sales to an artist, but that is excessive and rare. I feel the same about multi-million dollar sport contracts while other people are starving. Therefore, I believe that people like Madonna and Metallica are as greedy as the record industry. But, then you have artists who are starving while their music is still being sold and royalties are still being made by selling rights to record their songs to other artists. |
That is a good theory but if the artist are not well known then why would most of the poeple go? Record sales, whether in thier home country or abroad, helps with popularity, knowning songs lirics, fan clubs, and other type stuff.
By following your theory, artist wouldn't make no where near what they could make. It wouldn't be world tours, or 20 state tours or 20 city tours.
Who is that? DeBarge? Never heard of them. Yo-Yo Ma?? Green Eye Peas? Destiniy's Child? Never seen them.
Doomgaze
Reply #78 Sunday, June 29, 2003 8:15 PM
Reply #78 Sunday, June 29, 2003 8:15 PM
kona: i wasn't reffering to you.
i was reffering to people in general
[Message Edited]
i was reffering to people in general
[Message Edited]
Cavanaugh
Reply #80 Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:34 PM
Reply #80 Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:34 PM
nothing to see here - move along
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:57 PM
I agree! Let's support the artists and not buy their albums! That'll certainly show the RIAA and the artists will receive like 100% of the profit rather than only 1%.