Ignoring RIAA lawsuits cheaper than going to trial

The same federal judge who oversaw the Joel Tenenbaum file-sharing trial earlier this year passed out default judgments this week against other file-swappers who never bothered to show up—and they now owe far less than Tenenbaum.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/ignoring-riaa-lawsuits-cheaper-than-going-to-trial.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He wasn't even allowed to assert his defense. It was rejected a few hours before the trial began. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Indeed, because his "defense" wasn't a defense against the action he was accused of doing. Much like he also wouldn't have been allowed to present a "self-defense" defense. The Judge has every right and obligation to toss out defenses that the law doesn't allow. To do otherwise would have gotten the case tossed on appeal.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I loath to see when a criminal trail goes wrong and ruins an innocent person's life, but when we have a system that allows a corporation to financially rape a private citizen I expect them to be 100% sure, not some bulk fishing expedition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I'm sure you realize this, but I'm going to restate how insane your stance on this issue is. In a civil lawsuit the burden of proof you have to meet in order to get an award in your favor as a plaintiff isn't 100%.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The RIAA's tactics (even if used by a DA) would not have a snowballs chance in hell in a criminal court when the burden of proof is 100% rather than "more than likely". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100%.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now I know the burden of proof in civil trails is different, what I don't understand is why. The financial penalties that are being tossed out are in most cases worse than a crime of equal severity in terms of how damaging it is to your life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Just because you don't value your liberty, doesn't mean that the legal system agrees with you. Going to jail or prison is considered more harsh then having to pay a bill.<BR><BR>Of course the main difference in the two types of trials is that in criminal trials it's the state vrs somebody, in a civil trial is between two parties.<BR><BR>Changing the civil standard of proof would hurt far more people then just the RIAA.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would also help quite a few people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>In general I believe that it would hurt more people then it would harm, even more so in how it would make it almost impossible for the "little guy" to sue big corporations.<BR><BR>That said the chance of the law changing at this point is so small when it comes to burden of proof we might as well argue about what effect the sun exploading would have on legal theory.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the amount of time I would spend in jail for stealing less than 50 bucks worth of stuff would be preferable to a several hundred thousand to several million dollar settlement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Who's had to settle for that in these cases? The settlement amounts have been in the low thousands.. with 10 thousand being the largest I've heard of.<BR><BR>Add on: In the state I'm from Felony theft is theft of over $1,000. If you are settling for hundreds of thousands or millions in plea bargin as being the amount you stole from somebody you are getting a felony conviction. This means no voting, limited job rights, several other limits on your rights, and no gun ownership. I'd far rather pay a fine and declare bankruptcy then lose my right to vote and the other penalties.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You may have a point, but as a side note, tobacco companies are a horrid example. If you smoke yourself to death, or illness you should NOT be allowed to sue the tobacco companies. I mean is there any mystery that it is bad for you at this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Except when many people got hooked on cigs the tobacco industry was telling people that smoking was perfectly healthy. That's really what screwed them over, they refused to admit their product was dangerous... found out that it was dangerous, then attempted to hide the evidence that it was dangerous.<BR><BR>They deserved to be spanked and spanked hard for that. <BR><BR>Now? Not so much. Back then, yeah...

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure if someone starts smoking today I don't see how they have any right to make a claim. But for those born in previous generations, I definatly think they had a right after being lied to their whole lives. I even wonder about my generation, having grown up in smokey homes and dealing with asthma my whole life because when I was a child second-hand smoke was not understood to be generally dangerous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I have no problem with the cig companies being taken to the cleaners for their past sins. However, at some point you have to say they have paid enough and that anybody starting after X date should have known. This point must be no earlier then the date that the cig companies finally admitted that smoking caused harm.. it can be much later as people who were already hooked on it need to be able to sue.<BR><BR>However somebody who starts smoking now? I feel the same for them as somebody who chooses to eat a supersized big mac meal for breakfast lunch and dinner and then wants to sue McDonald's for making them fat.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is untrue. A juror has "veto power:" the right to decide how to vote regardless of the law. A juror is under no obligation to uphold the law. A juror that feels the law is unjust is well within their rights to vote not guilty even if they do, in fact, believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime which they are accused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>You are talking about Jury Nullifcation. A couple of points.<BR><BR>1. It's never been used in a civil case before.<BR><BR>2. It doesn't prevent a judge from ruling that a certain defense is legally not a defense for what the person is accused of in the case ie "wrong" and as such will not be heard by the jury.<BR><BR>3. Judges are well within their rights to prevent the lawyers from even talking about it.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Judges are well within their rights to prevent the lawyers from even talking about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I have to admit this does feel wrong. If it's such a bonehead defense that the judge feels it's not worth arguing, why shouldn't the accused be allowed to see if the jury agrees, the same as with any other asinine "defense"? After all, it's not the first time we've seen some of the most preposterous tripe gobbled up by juries, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Lawyers are not allowed to tell a jury that X is a legal defense for the charge of Y when it's not.<BR><BR><BR>Example: <BR><BR>A Lawyer can't stand up before a jury and say that according to the law, their client is not guilty of murder because the law says that if you kill a man who is walking away with your property it's legal to do so. <BR><BR>Now that sounds like it could be a legal defense and in fact in some states it is indeed a legal defense. You can shoot people who are taking your property even if they don't pose a danger to you. However, for the purpose of this example let's say that you live in a state where that is NOT a legal defense.<BR><BR>Now what is the other lawyer going to say? No that's wrong, that's not the law in this state.<BR><BR>Now you have screwed up the legal system because the jury has no way of telling what is the truth and what isn't. Sure they can later go and ask the judge, but it makes MORE sense to not allow a lawyer to lie to the jury in the first place.<BR><BR>Who gets to decide? The Judge.. that's what they are there for. They make sure that both lawyers are playing by the "rules". If your think the judge is wrong, you can appeal. A jury is not there to create law, it's there to determine how the facts of the case fit into existing law.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">^^Seems like that should be the process rather than one man, with whatever fallibility he brings to the table, deciding what is and isn't valid. IOW, having a poor defense doesn't sound (to the layman) like it's against the rules (I accept a lawyer's explanation, though). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>There is a difference in having a poor defense, and having an illegal defense.<BR><BR>The Knicks have a poor defense in basketball, punching the other team's point guard in the face every time they came down the court would not be a poor defense, it would be an illegal defense.<BR><BR>The entire purpose of the judge is to determine what is and isn't legal. The good news is that if you think the judge got it wrong you can appeal their ruling. I can't imagine the wierdness that would result if you suddenly took a judges ability to say "no that's not the law, stop pretending it is".<BR><BR>Add on: No what would happen in your case is that you would have a parade of witnesses on each side, each claiming the law said completely different things.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess I don't see why the other lawyer shouldn't be required to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Because it's not the jury's job to figure out what the law is, it's the jury's job to figure out how the facts of the case fit into the law.<BR><BR>I guess that's the easiest way to answer your question/wondering.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I questioned whether or not those criminal penalties have had any effect on file sharing. To my knowledge, the existence of (AFAIK, largely unused) criminal penalties hasn't done anything at all to reduce the number of people sharing files they don't have rights to, nor to reduce the volume of files shared. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>One could make the same arguement about murder and pretty much any other crime. I mean if making it a crime hasn't stopped people from killing each other, why bother making it illegal?

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now then, if a taking hasn't occurred, copyright infringement seems more like trespassing than theft, to me at least. If a taking has occurred, ruddy's moral position (claimed to be that of the founding fathers, except perhaps that slave-owner Jefferson) seems inconsistent with the US constitution. No doubt I've gotten it all wrong here though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Unless you feel that the claiming of copyright is a sort of contract with the government. IE: They will support your claim for X number of years but there is a price, at the end of the contract the work goes to everybody.<BR><BR>Clearly you can opt out of said contract by never claiming copyright ((and if you do your work becomes free to everybody)) or you can opt in, in which case in exchange for the protection you agree to the price.<BR><BR>Many services the government performs have a direct cost to those who take advantage of that service.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By US Law, as amended in 1976, all works are copyrighted when first fixed, automatically. I am aware of no non-revokable procedure for releasing a work from copyright protection (that is, a copyright holder may declare a work to be in the public domain, but it's not at all clear what legal status such a declaration might have, since there is no legislation on the matter, nor have any cases come to trial on the matter, so far as I'm aware). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Then change the opt out part and the point remains the same. The government often charges for services. Part of the charge for protecting your copyrighted work is the fact that eventually it will become public domain.<BR><BR>The point doesn't change.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is a difference in having a poor defense, and having an illegal defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Erroneously claiming a law is applicable is illegal?? I had no idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's why the judge didn't allow it. By the "rules" of court it most certainly is.<BR><BR>Add on: In the case involving Joel it wsn't erroneously claiming a law was applicable it was planning on telling the jury that the law said something it clearly did not because it would really help his client if the law was completely different.<BR><BR>More because of your edit...<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, in this case, it wasn't a cut-and-dry distinction, was it? They wanted to portray his actions, at least some of them(?), as fair use, but the judge decided it wasn't fair use. Doesn't that sound like something a jury should decide? What made it so cut-and-dry that it shouldn't even be allowed to be argued? Maybe I missed that (sorry if so). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Fair use and how it applies is actually written into the law. Joel's team wanted to tell the jury that the legal definition of fair use included things that were not written in the law, ie making up things that they wished the law had said because it would really be good for their client if it was written totally differently.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems that "fair use" is such a nebulous term, the precise definition of which everyone seems to be fighting over, and if I'm doing something that *I* think falls under fair use, then the *AAs disagree and come after me, and I'm going to fight them in front of a jury, I sure as h3ll don't want a judge usurping my right to have a jury hear my argument based on his assessment unless his ruling is black and white (which, to be fair, this case may have been, but I don't remember it being that). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>If only it was listed in the law as to what in the USA fair use is. Again, it doesn't matter what the RIAA thinks or Joel thinks, if the law legally defines fair use as X Y and Z, telling the jury that the law also says it's A B and C when it doesn't isn't going to be allowed.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By US Law, as amended in 1976, all works are copyrighted when first fixed, automatically. I am aware of no non-revokable procedure for releasing a work from copyright protection (that is, a copyright holder may declare a work to be in the public domain, but it's not at all clear what legal status such a declaration might have, since there is no legislation on the matter, nor have any cases come to trial on the matter, so far as I'm aware). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Then change the opt out part and the point remains the same. The government often charges for services. Part of the charge for protecting your copyrighted work is the fact that eventually it will become public domain.<BR><BR>The point doesn't change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>fwiw, and particularly since my writing appears to be easily misinterpreted in this thread, I understand your point, and agree that if you view copyright as a contract entered into with the government, then the limited terms make sense. When I wrote that I see lots of ways of making those limits make sense, I didn't mean that as a dismissal of your point, but rather as agreement with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's fine, I'm probably a bit more defensive about things because I tend to take alot of flack on this issue because I tend to be more pro-copyright then most. <BR><BR>It's not that I like the RIAA, and it's not that I think the current laws are great. I think they need to be adjusted.<BR><BR>However...<BR><BR>1. I don't believe that the best place to alter laws that I think need to be scaled back is in the courtroom. Certainly not about this issue. My disagreement is one of scale not that the entire law needs to be tossed.<BR><BR>2. I think pirates like Joel are scum and deserve to be financially punished, the scale is an issue however.<BR><BR>3. I think the court cases as the law is written now were tried fairly and the outcome was how the Jury followed the law.<BR><BR>4. As somebody who makes IP ((Computer Programs)) the idea that anybody who wants my IP without giving me something in return for it pisses me off.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If only it was listed in the law as to what in the USA fair use is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If it's not, then how was the judge qualified to decide so easily that it wasn't applicable?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I was being sarcastic. Section 107 ((the copyright law)) lists 4 conditions of fair use. Joel's lawyer wanted to claim several others that aren't part of the law.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes <BR>2. The nature of the copyrighted work <BR>3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole <BR>4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>A fair use defense can make use of any or all 4 of those factors. Had Joel's team wanted to do just that, it would have been fine. Here is the write up on arstechnica about it.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Tenenbaum's only real defense, then, was a plea that downloading a host of songs for his personal use qualified for a "fair use" exemption to US copyright law. Tenenbaum and his lawyer, Harvard Law's Charles Nesson, hoped to argue this case in front of a jury. Not content with discussing the statutory "four factors" laid out in the statute, they also hoped to add a few new factors of their own to the mix.<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>IE they weren't going to argue Fair Use as it appears in the law, but instead what they wished the law had said. You can't do that.<BR><BR>Again from Arstechnica...<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> other judges have ruled that wholesale copying of songs using P2P networks isn't a fair use </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xanxer82:<BR>I saw a comment saying to "Just buy the CD".<BR>I remember a few years ago that there was an issue with the recording industry being charged with price fixing of CDs and a class action lawsuit.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not sure what those two data points have to do with each other.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Sometimes I like to try before I buy. If I like more than one song on a CD, and if the CD is reasonably priced, I'll go buy it.<BR>But if I only like one or two songs on an entire album, it's off to itunes for a few cents or whatever service is available at the time.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The RIAA gets money from sales from iTunes.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I'm pretty sure that the RIAA isn't going to see a penny of those judgements.<BR>Those people simply won't ever have the money to pay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Probably true.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Plus how do you know the RIAA evidence is genuine and unaltered? The investigator they used got into trouble for not having the proper credentials to investigate in most states anyway. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They had every right to challenge the evidence in court, and well to be fair Joel admitted to everything. So the results of the investigation ended up matching the results of the admission. Seems like it worked just fine.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>What's next from the RIAA? Are the going to send spies into your attics looking for all the mix tapes recorded from the radio back in the 80's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Any evidence that this is even being considered? Of course not. It's a crazy question with no basis in facts. Weeee.....<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I fully believe people should get paid for thier work. IF you download a song to listen to and you like it, pay the artist buy getting thier CD at a fair value or download it through an itunes like service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would be nice, and Joel and the people in the article wouldn't have been in trouble if they had done that.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WRT your point #4: as someone who has made a living doing skilled labor and construction, I had to be content with the knowledge that other people would be benefiting economically from my labor for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't see any additional return. As an educator, I faced precisely the same issue: some of my students would use the instruction I provided to go on to make quite a bit more money than I ever will. If that pissed me off, I'd probably have had a heart attack by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I see what you are doing much like if Company X hired me to develop a program that they made money on for a long time but I only got a certain amount of money up front for. Seeing as I agreed to enter into that sort of arangement that wouldn't bother me either.<BR><BR>When somebody violates my copyright, they aren't entering into any sort of contract with me it's just them deciding that they don't want to pay for my work and I get nothing for it.<BR><BR>A much more similar situation would be if you entered into a contract to teach 10 students, and 30 more students showed up, refused to pay and convinced 3-4 of your paying students to cancel their checks, drop you class and then show up for free for the rest of the class.<BR><BR>It wouldn't matter to me that the 30 might never have paid for the class, I still would get them kicked them if I could, and if I couldn't it would certainly factor into my choice if I would teach another class.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Side note: If your in it for the art side more however, it couldn't be a better time to be a musician, with the amount of and efficiency of the tools at hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Somebody from ars actually went to the trouble to put out a CD, let's just say it was crazy to how much it cost her. She even had help in the fact that many of the people were willing to help her as they knew her so she didn't have to pay as much.<BR><BR>That said it's always easier to tell people to "work harder" when people decide they want to get the benifit of their work without paying for it.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Classic strawman. You know some unknown person, who made some unknown CD for some unknown amount, none of which you provide. What does that have to do with the fact that there are so many tools (a lot free or very cheap) to make and distribute music and it is a great time to be creating music. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>It's not a strawman, it was pretty famous here on Arstechnica. I could maybe see your point if I was talking about somebody from my personal life.<BR><BR>Add on: Modern tech makes it easy to spy on people as well, that doesn't mean that we should just accept that peeping tom's will be able to peep and change the laws to be fine with it.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And your next big strawman retort is comparing people spying to creating music using modern tools. This point has nothing to do with anything said. I think your simply trying to disagree because it doesn't fit into your view. Your grasping at straws here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No I'm not. You clearly stated that modern tech had made things like violating copyright easier. You further suggested that any attempt to fight such tech would fail, so they might as well accept it as the new reality and change their way of doing things.<BR><BR>It's very much like the example of the spy equipment or virus writing programs or any number of ways tech makes breaking a law or somebodies else rights easier.<BR><BR>The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a strawman. Of course if I remember correctly you have a habit of making false logic claims.. so that doesn't surprise me.<BR><BR><BR><BR>As to the person who made the CD on ars, I honestly can't remember her name ((I want to hoppers but I could be completely mistaken)) and I think she said the total was close to 30 grand but that could be off as well. It certainly wasn't cheap or easy.<BR><BR>That said you haven't backed up any of your claims of why it's such a great time, but again, that is pretty typical for you as well.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedGhost:<BR>RDeVoe: wow serendipidous. Couldn't be more perfectly timed. Check out the following ars story just added:<BR><BR>http://meincmagazine.com/media/n...erhaul-to-thrive.ars<BR><BR>This goes over it all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree with the first part of suggestions, but not the second. From the article he doesn't really make much use of facts instead it sounds like he's claiming they need to do this for something to happen.. without providing any proof.<BR><BR>I like the idea of having a great deal of flexibility with the music you buy and DL and the like, as well as getting lots of goodies. I don't think the free sharing is going to fly, but if those who control CR want to try it more power to them. <BR><BR>I honestly think the first parts would be enough without free sharing. Tech does change things, it rarely changes things completely.<BR><BR>For example....<BR><BR>Planes didn't kill off cars.<BR><BR>Even though 50 or so years ago people were claiming we'd all have flying cars by now.

 

[StarSeeker]

I wonder if Forrester ((the producer of the report)) is willing to hold themselves to the same standard as they wish to hold the music industry. Considering they charge $499 for the report, it's sort of amusing.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's painfully obvious to any but the most biased that this is one of those cases where it *has* changed things (almost) completely, though. Their model is almost completely obsolete now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Except that it's not. The RIAA provides artists with several functions.<BR><BR>1. Equipment to record their music. Sure there are cheaper means but just because I can buy a home computer for $400 doesn't mean it's as good as the $50,000 worth of servers. This is an example, the home stuff you record isn't as good as what the the "big boys" have nor does it include sounding rooms and the like.<BR><BR>2. Distribution/Marketing. Marketing is and will be a big deal. Let's say you have 10,000 people all who want to become famous rock stars all flooding the internet with their music. That's going to be REALLY hard to make yourself known out of all of that noise.<BR><BR>3. Ties to places to perform, radio to play your music, access to people that make the neat add ins like high quality cover art and the like.<BR><BR>4. CD's aren't completely gone, some people like having physical media. Is this on the way out? Maybe, maybe not.<BR><BR><BR>Of course I find it funny that when we have trials the people who hate the RIAA are quick to claim that filesharing and the like can't be proven to have damaged the RIAA at all... and when we get into talks like this... the claim is anything but.

 

[StarSeeker]

I did some hunting and I found it. <BR><BR>The person who recorded was Hopers.<BR><BR><BR>It cost them almost $10,000 for a mostly internet only release and they called in a bunch of favors, got discounts most people wouldn't and the like.<BR><BR>Link.<BR><BR>Making music even today for distribution isn't cheap.<BR><BR><BR>The album probably won't break even.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is not hard to see how an individual had little overall effect, while the phenomenon in general would. One person trading 1000 files is a small percentage ,considering tens of millions of people are sharing billions of files. It is all about scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I agree with this actually. It's clear to me that filesharing as a whole has really hurt the RIAA. On a per person basis, it's impossible to tell and probably is very small.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It is when the model is focused on selling CDs as their main source of revenue. That is literally the main revenue for the recording industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I guess we have some disagreements on what the model is. I feel the model is more "Selling music". The media is less important then what's on it.<BR><BR>I don't consider the switch from 8-tracks to for example CDs ((and the steps between)) as the RIAA chaning their model each time the media that the music was on changed.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The big labels are not the only sound recording studios. There are tons of smaller ones as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are and they cost money. Somebody will have to pay it.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any real and successful business model requires a source of revenue at its core, that is created as a value proposition. The labels main source of revenue is CD unit sales by far. That is why it is important. If this was the 80's, it would be selling tapes. If if was 60/70's it would be vinyl. Every time the element you sell changes (value proposition), your model has to change as well. Without limited scarcity of the past, their model will have to change again.<BR><BR>You can't just "sell music". I think this is a major misconception. Music is a nebulous thing. The labels sell discs, not music and they have received most of their money from that. They market those disks using the music (it sounds weird but follow me). Rephrased, they sell disks by artificially limiting the music to those disks (which is the marketing). People won't buy the physical copy without the music obviously. <BR><BR>However, if people can get the music elsewhere (whether legal or not) easier, cheaper, and the way they want, why buy the disk. You have just lost the potency of your marketing, and you are left only with the benefits of selling physical media. The musical copy was the marketing for the disk sale, but if you remove the artificial limitation of the copy, there is little reason to buy the disk. That is why they are so focused on copyrights, and the "selling music" misconception. They believe they can get the laws to force people to buy again, by increasing their rights and forcing the artificial limitations. <BR><BR>But people increasingly don't want to purchase disks, because the marketing for the disk can be had for free, which is why they were in it in the first place. Especially when the music itself, once created, can be freely and easily distributed. The limitations of artificial copies seem dumb. And the labels are slowly finding it out now that it doesn't work, and is not a business model. The have lost the incentive for customers to purchase disks, which is why it is a failing business model. They were never selling music. The law cannot get people to buy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>You have an interesting view on what the music industry is selling, but I have to disagree. The Disk is the medium by which the music gets to you. The music is the product that's being sold. Same thing when they sell via a download via itunes and the like. No media but somebody is paying for the music.<BR><BR>I do think the source of money will change in some part ((maybe a large part)) from CD's to iTune like sales, but they are still selling music not a physical media as iTunes sells a rather large amount of product while offering no physical media.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Of course. You will have to buy a musical instrument. You will have to buy the mics. You will have to buy a mac book if you don't want use another studio. Any artist will of course have the buy the scarcities. No different from painters still have to buy art supplies. That doesn't mean there aren't many free alternatives that artists have never had access to that technology has created that can reach an unheard of number of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There is a difference in the cost ((by a huge amount)) between the instrument and what you need to do to distribute.<BR><BR>One can make music without distribution. It's pretty common in most business's/transactions for the consumer to pay for the distribution of the item ((in some way)).

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedGhost:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR>I did some hunting and I found it. <BR><BR>The person who recorded was Hopers.<BR><BR><BR>It cost them almost $10,000 for a mostly internet only release and they called in a bunch of favors, got discounts most people wouldn't and the like.<BR><BR>Link.<BR><BR>Making music even today for distribution isn't cheap.<BR><BR><BR>The album probably won't break even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are a lot of problems with her statements. First, she recorded her EP 9 years ago! Things have changed greatly. She is claiming that spending the money to produce a record is a lot (in 2000), and the album might not break even. But as if she is in it for the art, would close to breaking even be great? And your saying distribution, but what she really is doing printing CDs. But at the same time, if she has no business plan to make that money back, why should we expect people to pay, or her to get the money back? What value would they find in the music to make it valuable and get people to pay. How do you get new people (grow audience) to listen to her music outside the few that go to her live shows? Is she even good? Why did she bother to spend the money and complain it was expensive? <BR><BR>I would recommend she read this: <BR>http://www.techdirt.com/articl...929/0315336348.shtml And<BR>http://www.topspinmedia.com/20...=bookmarklet-twitter<BR><BR>Her quotes:<BR>"I think that you misunderstood what I wrote. I'm saying that, if people could circulate my music for free, I wouldn't bother recording it." Well, sorry but that is too bad because people already can do it for free, and nothing can change it. If you want to create music you will have square with this fact yourself. It is a reality of today, whether or not it sucks.<BR><BR>"I was trying to not be so black and white, which is why I said that it is somewhat a labor of love. Music is not a business to me, it's part of who I am." Cool, she is into creating music as art. But wouldn't an artist, who is not into it for the money, want as many people to see their art if they are releasing it? Why would she complain she spent $10K recording her music if she is an artist, when any artist must pay to get their supplies. And If she is going to be close to breaking even, an artist who is in it for the art would love to break even on their supplies.<BR><BR>"But, there's no incentive to record anything if you're just going to be losing massive amounts of money on it."<BR>But if that is your concern, isn't it hypocritical. If she has no plan to get the money back, why should we care she is complaining spent 10K? You can't say your in it for the art, and complain you spent a ton doing your art a certain way. There are many other ways to record music then pressing CDs if your in it for the art.<BR><BR>"Recording is expensive. I worked on the cheap, got lots of discounts, called in some favors and I still spent almost $10k putting my album together."<BR><BR>In 2000! (From her website - Discography: Orange EP recorded at Zippah in February, 2000.) As well creating anything physical will incur costs. If she wants to create a printed CD professionally it will cost her. But there are many free tools today, and others quite cheap, to avoid the large costs of recording music the old school way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think you misunderstood what you were reading.<BR><BR>From this thread...<BR><BR>The Album wasn't mastered until 2008.<BR><BR>This wasn't something that was done in 2000, as in 2008 we pretty much got several posts from her as it all came together.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the distribution can also be free! P2P, Youtube, Facebook etc for the artists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Only if you ignore what it takes to get the product into a form that you can distrube and make money off of. Nobody pays for Youtube quality videos.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I can accept that.

 

[StarSeeker]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Okay cool. So here is something else. Since their current model is continually losing revenue year after year, what do you think is way forward using your view of "selling the music" when artificial scarcity no longer exists? How do you foresee this view being viable? What I am looking to gauge is how you think labels can sell the music successfully in this era when file sharing is heavily used. How will they compete? </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>It depends. I'm not sure exactly. If I had the answer to that I'd be selling my views for $499 a pop like the forrester group. <br><br>That said, I've gone into it more on the other thread, so instead of repeating myself we should probably continue this line there where it more fits into the topic. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedGhost:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BR>I think you misunderstood what you were reading.<BR><BR>From this thread...<BR><BR>The Album wasn't mastered until 2008.<BR><BR>This wasn't something that was done in 2000, as in 2008 we pretty much got several posts from her as it all came together. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Weird that was not in her discography from her website. But that only highlights more the lack of interest she has in actually promoting her art, and how little I think of her claims of it being expensive. Here is the quote directly:<BR><BR>"Discography: Orange EP recorded at Zippah in February, 2000. Engineered by Pete Weiss. Featuring Blake Girndt on guitar, James Apt on Bass and Matt Burke on Drums. "<BR><BR>That is all there is, I didn't misread. If she has more it would be nice to actually put it on her home page. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well by misunderstanding I didn't mean just misreading. IE you may have had the understanding that the website had all of it. Or she may have a different website promoting the album. I think there was a thread later that she got her music on one of the for pay download sites but I'd have to go back and look.

 

[StarSeeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So please, don't give me that garbage about there being no people who are completely innocent with what looks like an open and shut case against them. I know for a fact that there are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>It's true that the raw number is not 0, however compared to the volume of cases, it's such a tiny fraction as be near 0. If that makes sense.<BR><BR>Does that make it ok? No. However, as long as the justice system is run by humans you'll never get a perfect record. It doesn't mean you don't try, but there are checks and balances to help those wrongly convicted.