RIAA hits major setbacks in two P2P cases

[ckramer]

Source: tn

the Recording Industry Association of America was ordered to pay $107,834 as a result of a failed lawsuit against Tanya Andersen that accused her of illegal file sharing. The ruling marks what it is said to be the highest awarded compensation against the RIAA in terms of legal fees.

But the RIAA’s woes did not end there. In fact, the much bigger news concerns the infamous Jammie Thomas case, in which the jury found Thomas liable for infringement merely for “making available” 24 songs – even though there was no proof of distribution – and awarded the music industry $222,000. Well, as it turns out, the act of making music available online may not be a copyright violation after all.

The judge is now saying that he may have committed a “manifest error of law” in his jury instructions by overlooking controlling Eighth Circuit authority, the case of National Car Rental v. Computer Associates, which held that there can’t be a violation of the ‘distribution right’ without an actual dissemination of copies. Apparently, the judge is now considering granting a new trial.

This is a major setback for the RIAA which has been holding up the Thomas case over and over again as proof that “making available” is infringement. If the judge does decide to order a retrial, more proof may be needed in future lawsuits to establish a violation of copyright law by users of peer-to-peer file sharing

Read more: http://www.techspot.com/news/30069-riaa-hits-major-setbacks-in-two-p2p-cases.html

---

Fa Kin Su Pah!

[no limit]

1. That would make it impossible for them to go after people

there is absolutely no way they can prove people downloaded anything without the cooperation of whoever owns the filesharing servers (cooperation that is unlikely to happen).

I personally don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand I don't think downloading music online is any different from walking in the store and stealing it but then again I don't think big multimillion dollar corporations suing kids for thousands of dollars is a good thing.

[ryanmuegge]

3. It has been devastating for the record industry and the artists.

It's tough to feel bad for the industry, of course. The artists, however, is another story. They have to sell a shitload of records to recoup the costs of making the album. That's getting harder and harder to do with so much piracy. With the cost of oil being so high, it is also getting harder for them to make money from touring, which is where the money is at.

[raystorm7]

4. The record industry has been raping its consumers for 40+ yrs. PayBack is a Bitch!

[jonnyra]

10. Exactly raystorm

When the record companies started charging 17, 18 and even 19 and 20 dollars for new releases in the early nineties they were writing there own death warrant. When Napster hit it was a hit because of the ridiculous prices the record companies were charging. I am a musician and have thought about this alot. The record companies stuck it to the buyers for years. The artists should have spoken up at the time. Now its time to change he business model and remove the sleaze record companies from the equation.

[msongs]

26. ummmm NOBODY forced you to have any dealing with the record industry nt

[FarCenter]

9. Hasn't it been good for the artists?

I thought that low-cost or free distribution over the Internet had allowed more musicians to be heard and to develop a following. They can develop a local fan base which attends their performances and buys their CDs.

True, there are fewer megahits by the big recording companies and major artists.

But overall, more diversity of taste and better opportunity for more musicians producing a wider range of material is an improvement over a "top 40" monoculture dictated by one of the sleaziest industries there is.

[cstanleytech]

11. But how many more artists are "suffering"?

Is it a large % in the total industry or is it mainly the ones the big record labels were pushing all these years?
How is it for all the artists involved in the industry now compared to say 1985?

[raystorm7]

12. None! Its the Big record Exec. pockets that are suffering now that the playing field is evened out.

There are countless artist that I guarantee today I would have never heard of or have bought their albums if it were not for P2P sharing.
I like most got a taste new/unknown in the States artist through Napster back in the early days, and have never looked back to what the big bullshit record industries have been shoveling in my face for so long.

Some artist of note:
4hero
AIM
Stereolab
Seelenluft
Dj Krush
Funki Porcini
Wagon Christ
and finally Anything Drum'n'Bass :0

Thank me later,

[jaybeat]

15. But artists who are struggling aren't the ones suing

We're talking the three, THREE, corporate record labels who sell us endless Brittany clones but turn up their noses at indie artists who "only" sell a few hundred thousand copies. Indie artists and artists who control their own masters (e.g. Radiohead) are embracing the new technologies and looking to rework their business model. Heck, after all the nickel and dime-ing from the labels, record sales don't make artists much anyway. But they make plenty for the labels, which is why the RIAA thinks it is good business to sue their customers!

:rofl:

In a perfect world, every copy of every artwork would be paid for, but the fact is, the more people hear you, the more fans you get, and the more fans you get, the more money you make. Period.

[Psephos]

27. Then perhaps they can find other work like the rest of us

I say that as someone who makes his living from writing, btw.

Times have changed. For all of human history music was not a career choice with gigantic economic potential. It was chosen by people with exceptional talent and a desire to share the fruits of that talent, rather than a desire to top the charts. Then, less than a hundred years ago advances in mass technology and marketing produced an interregnum in which a tiny percentage of musicians could make amazing amounts of money while most lived in poverty. That interregnum is over. Net technology removes the mass market and replaces it with the "long tail" market of a thousand niches. We don't all listen to the Top 40 en masse now. We listen to a thousand new sources of music, and choose only those that suit our tastes rather than the tastes of a hitmaker record-company executive.

When you think about it, the idea that a few famous musicians make huge cash while the huge majority don't is a lot like the CEO salary situation. I rather like the new landscape. More musicians will have access to smaller, but more numerous, markets where they can be king of their own little hill. They won't make millions, but they'll have a far better chance at modest prosperity while enjoying strong loyalty from their niche.

Touring, meanwhile, remains far more profitable to artists than selling records. Most bands look at CDs as marketing for their tours these days. We'll only see more of that.

The recording industry is selling one-horse shays, and it's 1910. I'm sure the one-horse shay workers a hundred years ago were discomfited by changing times, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Old_One_Horse_Shay.jpg

[NashVegas]

29. There Was One Good Thing About the 1970s Model

The money coming in from Springsteen & Boston was helping to sustain bands whose albums didn't sell.

Otherwise, I'm totally with you.

Other industries have been decimated by job losses across the board and those of us who haven't been consolidated out of our careers of preference have had to adapt and compete. The latter is the worst part of it, for people on the talent end in the A & E industry; as Nick Cave put it, "my muse does not compete."

[harmonicon]

5. You don't see the difference?

Between downloading and buying, I mean. I think it's a bit more like, to use a store analogy, going to a bookstore and reading part of a book, but not buying it. As far as I'm concerned (and in actual fact), digital music files are nothing but information, where as a cd or a record is a product.

I'm a musician, and have released cds. I've seen some stuff of mine one file sharing programs, and on websites that offer free downloads (usually in Russia), and it does make me feel a little funny, but not at all like if someone stole a cd from me. In fact, I think I've probably sold more cds because people first found out about this stuff via friends giving them copies, internet radio, and file sharing programs. Maybe I would feel differently about it if I'd ever made a substantial amount of money from cd sales, but I don't actual know of any musician who does. Even relatively famous and successful musicians make far more money from performing than from cd sales, especially if the cds are released by record labels, as opposed to being self released.

[ryanmuegge]

8. Yeah, I guess the point is that there's an even bigger hole for the artists to climb out of.

What about the effect of downloading two or three tracks for 99 cents than getting royalties for an entire album? I don't know, but isn't there a significant difference in return on that? I know that royalties for records sales are pretty minimal anyway.

[Regret My New Name]

17. Even though I'm on the side of the downloaders...

hehe, for my own evil reasons... :P (I'm not even gonna try to justify my actions) I think it would be more accurate to say "going to a bookstore and making photo copies of the book Peer-2-Peer File Sharing For Dummies & *cough* C# Programmers *cough*"...

[FarCenter]

22. You don't need a copier

Save the trees. Use a digital camera.

[silverojo]

25. Barnes and Noble would differ with you on this

Their stores cater to people who want to hang around for hours, reading books. They know that, by letting people sample the product, they sell more of that product. It's a technique that has worked very well for B&N over the years.

Letting people listen to music, and make an informed decision before buying, isn't wrong. What's wrong is stopping the sale of singles and forcing people to buy entire CD's, when the album has only one or two songs they actually like.

Aside from that, I totally agree with you. :)

[PunkinPi]

14. Wouldn't be more like using a tape to record a song from the radio, rather than

walking in the store and stealing it? :shrug:

[Occulus]

18. Your subject line would be absolutely fabulous n/t

[Feron]

24. Filesharing isn't the same as shoplifting.

I download lots of music, but I also buy the music that I like. Most of the artists I listen to now I discovered via filesharing. It's the best free promotional tool out there.

The music industry seems to do everything to alienate their customers and if filesharing ever ceases I'm willing to bet they lose even more money. I know that aside from a few favorite artists, I'll divert my disposable income elsewhere if that happens.

The Radiohead and NIN model is the wave of the future.

More examples of music industry madness:
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/04/microsoft-pulli.html

Back in the day it was easy to sell lots of copies of a bad album based on one-three strong singles. Now with filesharing audiophiles can determine if an album is worth their money before shelling out the cash. Both parties win in that scenario.

[rocktivity]

2. This deserves a one hundred headbang salute!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
rocknation

[truedelphi]

6. Let me quote a happy sound engineer here:

From the TechSpot website:



Posted by ejemmons on May 15, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Hello, Hooray! There is much in need of clarification. Let me merely remind us all of the ubiquitous cassettes of our favorite tunes that we used to pass out to our friends.
In MY case, the net effect was on the side of profit for the "biz": If I liked the work, I'd go out and buy the record. There is an ineffable pleasure in HOLDING a work of art whilst enjoying the content. At all events, MP3 files are NOT direct copies as the vast majority of data is lost in the process.

I know this is "off subject", but hey RIAA, how about fostering higher standards of musicianship at the suffering labels? Less than breeds less than. If the cultural ATTITUDE towards the Musical Art Form were one of respect for accomplishment in art, aspiration to perfection of the art, and respect for the artists, as opposed to the horrid "I can do this, too" mindset that we now have, I suspect the dissemination of it would be viewed in a much more respectful light.

Look at the fate of the full-service recording studio: they are few and fewer as more and more wannaabes cut their shit on a G4 in the corner of their bedroom. As a result, the inevitable LEARNING PROCESS that neccesarily accompanies a foray to a decent studio, is lost. As an engineer, I and my colleages took pride in revealing our techniques to our clients, for the sake of a better record, which helped us AND them. Example, in 1973 as a newbie producer, I had the great good fortune to have Stevie Wonder's producer "take over" one of my sessions. Result? One HELLUVA better sound in all my work, at once, and technique seeds that still serve me to this day.
Better yet, 30 years later, I got to tell him so. Did he smile, or what?

But, to me, the Studio is Church... and music is primarily collaborative. As a 20 something, it was much more fun to do a record than party - the atmosphere I fostered was party to be sure, but we got stuff done, and had a wonderful time doing it!

Isolation sucks.

In closing (I heard that Thank God!), I must say that there is a groundswell that I feel sure will one day bring us all more together as artists and audience.

RIAA take notice!!!! Make dem suckas PLAY they axes!!!!!

[Yavin4]

7. The Music Industry Has Only Itself To Blame

When file sharing technology came online in the later 1990s, all they had to do was buy the source code from Napster and initiate their own file sharing system. Instead, they tried to sue the technology out of existence. They invested in lawyers instead of technology, and they lost billions of dollars because of it.

What makes corporations successful is vision. Seeing the big picture, seeing new technology. What made you money in the past probably won't make you money in the future. American corporations don't see this. They're more interested in short term, quarter by quarter thinking. Executives are more concerned about their compensation than the long term health of their corporations.

[TroubleMan]

13. Great news.

This huge victory for the little guys.

[jeff30997]

16. Great News!

K&R

[and-justice-for-all]

19. Fuck the RIAA!!

[onager]

20. Need a job? The RIAA needs a new web designer.

The damn site is nearly unreadable with that transpartent grey font.

Like any American worried about the fate of my good ol' corporate American recording industry...wholly owned by those good ol' American firms EMI, Vivendi and Sony...I naturally clicked right on this link:

Top 5 Reasons To Not Download Illegally

Response: There is a problem with this website's security certificate...Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.

:rofl:

I did find some good advice at the RIAA site:

Watch for Compilations that are “Too Good to Be True": Many pirates make illegal "dream compilation" CDs, comprised of songs by numerous artists on different record labels.

Trust your ear: The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent.

Really?

From the webiste of Rolling Stone mag, 08 May 2008:

The Beatles' albums came out on CD in 1987, but fans have long complained that the early digital technology used to remaster the recordings left them sounding hollow and thin — and that the official remasters are way overdue.

That's where Purple Chick comes in — a secretive fan (or group of fans) who has been quietly remastering classic discs like Revolver and A Hard Day's Night, and releasing the digital files for free online.

How is this possible? The Beatles' CDs sound so bad that carefully digitized tracks from pristine vinyl copies are noticeably better — with crisper highs, a fuller soundstage, and more realistic reproduction of instruments and voices.

And the Purple Chick editions are superior to the originals in other ways, too: The Sgt. Pepper collection contains the original record in mono and stereo, and four discs' worth of studio outtakes; the White Album comes in a whopping twelve-disc version, including alternate takes, studio chatter, demos and fascinating jams. So how do you get this stuff? Google is your friend: Try searching "purple chick and megaupload" to get started. ANDY GREENE

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/20200609/page/20

And as a special Bonus Feature for you:

http://www.bootlegzone.com/files.php?section=1&pub=163

[angrycarpenter]

21. go to the internet archive

http://www.archive.org/index.php


They have thousands of live concerts free for all. They are unsorted so it is like a treasure hunt. If you like the dead this is the place for you. They have thousands of dead concerts.

There are no ads, no spyware, no hassle. It is my second favorite place on the net, after DU of course.

[Systematic Chaos]

23. Even better - I just discovered that demonoid.com is back up and fully intact!!

My favorite .torrent site!

[Psephos]

28. None better! n/t