RIAA needs to be disbanded, says Moby

Finally, the artists are speaking up as well and not just the consumers. I agree 100% with Moby's statements. His voice will at least get heard as compared to the average person.

President Obama has hired 5 members of the RIAA legal department to run the US. Justice Department.

Good luck disbanding the RIAA, it's only gotten stronger.

And think for a minute, do you really think a jury would award damages of $80,000 per song to someone who made a petty mistake if they were not either threatened or bribed?

i still don't quite get the thinking they can gat $80,000 for a song that costs $1-2 depending on where purchased or say $20 for the cd! i have heard of a candy bar being stolen & the store $ being fined $250-$500 but $80000 is silly! Even if i sold that candy bar for $1 i still just cant justify it! u bet if you stole a car you wouldn't get that big of a settlement!

honesty

Not long ago we found Sony had placed spyware on audio CDs in an attempt to control music piracy. In that act, they opened up millions of innocent people's computers to computer criminals. I wonder what that would be worth to this same jury? In this RIAA trial, the plaintiffs didn't need to prove anyone actually accessed any of the 24 songs on the hard drive, even once! And they didn't have to prove she intended to steal anything. Using that same logic, Sony should be held liable for several billion dollars.

Lets not complain to each other

Recording Industry Association of America

1025 F Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
United States

Administrative Contact:
Association of America, Recording Industry dns@riaa.com
1025 F Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
United States
2027750101

Technical Contact:
Association of America, Recording Industry dns@riaa.com
1025 F Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
United States
2027750101

Real music and any other form of art is about passion not money.
If there weren't billions of dollars in the industry (despite the piracy) We'd still have music and performance from passionate and artistic people who just want to express themselves and be heard. Fame and fortune is an added bonus that comes from the consumers who appreciate art enough to pay for the real thing. These people are always going to make money.
The talentless middle men are the biggest thieves of all.

The following link is on RIAA's website to report piracy. I think it's also a good link to speak your opinion about this absurd lawsuit.

http://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php


The following is what I wrote at that link. Feel free to copy and paste, or use your own words. Remove the quotes if you C&P.

"The consumer ALWAYS has the last word, since without his/her dollar, you, and the companies you represent, have no way to survive.

Congratulations on winning the most ludicrous lawsuit I have ever heard of. You can be assured, MY money will STAY in MY pocket, and I will now boycott Capitol/EMI recordings, and whenever I have the opportunity to tell others to do so, I will. Maybe, I will even illegally download a few songs, which I've never done before. Catch me if you can....

Your days are numbered RIAA. You're sick! You're truly twisted."


Of course, as for your personal contact info, give them anything but. May I suggest EMI's phone number (parent company of Capitol Records, who was the plantiff)? That number is +44 (0)20 7795 7000.

The "guilty" website for illegal downloads could perhaps be found here: http://www.emigroup.com/Financial/Other/Default.htm

YOU ARE THE CONSUMER, and YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE LAST WORD!!!

Moby and you commenters have this all backwards.

You shouldn't be complaining to RIAA. You should be complaining to artists like Moby, who talks a big game, but if he really feels sorry for people (like the defendant) who "just want to listen to music", then Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.

Why aren't they doing that?

@latendres

And what are we exactly supposed to do with that information latendres?

Write them a nice letter and ask a bunch of powerful crooks to play nice?

Or did you have something sinister in mind?

Illegal behavior will only make them even more powerful.

What you do is cut off their money supply, their precious profits is why they got so powerful and paid to get Obama and the rest of the cronies in Congress in the first place.

It's the oil companies (R) against the media companies (D) for control of our government. I can live without paying for media, can't live without oil to heat my furnace.

Choice is easy.

Mike Kurt states, "It's the oil companies (R) against the media companies (D) for control of our government. I can live without paying for media, can't live without oil to heat my furnace.
" Thank you for stating that there is an unseen power struggle happening. We are so far from doing right by the people it's ludicrous.

Fgoodwin states, "Moby and you commenters have this all backwards.

You shouldn't be complaining to RIAA. You should be complaining to artists like Moby, who talks a big game, but if he really feels sorry for people (like the defendant) who "just want to listen to music", then Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.

Why aren't they doing that?"

I don't know Moby's contract, but it is common practice in the recording industry to sell your rights to songs you created to the label. He probably doesn't own his music and cannot legally upload content without himself being prosecuted. Big brew ha ha years ago with Weird Al using "Gangsters Paradise" by Coolio. Coolio wouldn't agree to it but had no legal recourse as he didn't own it. Weird Al had obtained permission from the label.

Run4two, yes indeed, what you say is true for music already recorded.

But nothing is stopping Moby & other artists from posting new songs on the web and giving them away for free (again, to the extent the new stuff isn't also covered under a contract). I see so many folks complaining about RIAA heavy-handed tactics, but so far, I've seen just about ZERO artists giving away their new stuff for free, and instead they keep signing recording contracts.

If RIAA is so bad, why do artists keep signing contracts?

Originally posted by fgoodwin:

---

Moby and you commenters have this all backwards.

You shouldn't be complaining to RIAA. You should be complaining to artists like Moby, who talks a big game, but if he really feels sorry for people (like the defendant) who "just want to listen to music", then Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.

Why aren't they doing that?

---

Wow. What a genius you are? I can download all of Moby's songs for free anyway. Why does he need to do the work? Oh yeah, by the way, artists are giving away their music for free. Nine Inch Nails, Radio Head, Saul Williams. Furthermore, you don't even know what you are talking about. The lawsuit is not about downloading illegally: it is about making content available to be downloaded. You can download as much music as you want and the RIAA can't do anything about it owing to privacy laws. In other words, it is illegal and punishable to give music away.

Originally posted by fgoodwin:

---

Run4two, yes indeed, what you say is true for music already recorded.

But nothing is stopping Moby & other artists from posting new songs on the web and giving them away for free (again, to the extent the new stuff isn't also covered under a contract). I see so many folks complaining about RIAA heavy-handed tactics, but so far, I've seen just about ZERO artists giving away their new stuff for free, and instead they keep signing recording contracts.

If RIAA is so bad, why do artists keep signing contracts?

---

Yeah, well said...all artists are happy with their contracts: prince, radiohead, coutney love, nsync,nine in nails, to name a few. Why do they sign contracts: oh yeah, the record labels have the money and the power to decide who becomes famous or not. Funny how you forget about the payolla scams that all of the major labels were involved in. Why don't you do some reading before you open your prodigiously ignorant trap.

First, we have to get rid of our archaic notion that anyone can put a piece of music on OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES and then try to make money with the same music over and over again.

Real artists don't care about money...businessmen do. These pigs want to make money on the same product over and over again. If I pay for something, I own it and should have full rights to it. These pigmeisters really want us to "rent" their music.

There are no "real" artists complaining. Their business model is obsolete, so they want the courts to back their piggish scheme to make money on music again and again for years.

I say...if you want to use MY AIRWAVES...then that music is free for me to use any way I want. If you want to make money with live music, go ahead. If your piggish greed makes you stop recording music, find a real job.

Kitsch1 writes that it isn't about downloading illegally. Maybe you should tell that to Moby, since he writes (and I quote): "The riaa have sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset of minnesota for $2,000,000 for illegally downloading music".

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your second post; my point is, if recording artists aren't happy with the record labels and their contracts, there are other ways to distribute their music. Instead of blaming RIAA, they should find ways to distribute their music w/o a middle man.

OTOH, if they need the labels to market them, then they need to stop complaining, or find a better way themselves. But of course, the truth is, as fans, most of you could care less how music is distributed as long as you can download it for free.

Found this thread while reading google news this morning and just had to add my 2 cents:
As an independent artist who actively sells and promotes my music, having a major distribution deal is part of my model. All of my tours and records have been self-financed, from studio musicians to promotion/advertising, etc. As a band, we travel as inexpensively as possible - 2 vehicles on a 1,000 mile tour adds up in gas not to mention cost of living on the road (while paying bills back home). The lifestyle isn't glamorous but we do what we love to do - make music and grow our fan base.

@toncuz: "Real artists don't care about money...businessmen do"
I agree that it should be about the art - yet self-financing our 'passion' gets very expensive.

There are no "real" artists complaining. Their business model is obsolete...
Our model is very realistic - we give away music, cd's and merch to promote and advertise. Where we make our money is at the shows where we take the time to meet our new friends/fans. Generally, we sell a good amount of merch at the shows too.

@Kitch1: it is illegal and punishable to give music away.
You're unfortunately correct - but it's only enforceable if the label owns the underlying composition to your work (or other specific rights/licenses). Prince had to change his name in order to get out of his multi-year contract - but it worked for him.

@fgoodwin: Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.
Depending on our copyrights, we may be able to do that. Lots of big stars (not me) are good artists but (imho) cr4ppy businessmen. Too many have 'signed on the dotted line', giving away the rights to their songs to the powerful labels.

@kiwi1: If there weren't billions of dollars in the industry (despite the piracy) We'd still have music and performance from passionate and artistic people who just want to express themselves and be heard.
Yeah, it's tough b/c technology has made it so easy for anyone to produce a cd, etc and the market's so saturated with talented (and not so much) people who can be heard. Instead of artists complaining about all this, they should get creative and find ways to promote their music. Just look at Ani DiFranco sometime and you'll see that indie musicians like me have some excellent business models to learn from.

Thanks guys - just wanted to vent a bit. It's a tough market and I feel for the poor woman who's getting sued. I think it's too dramatic and not useful nor helpful for artists or the industry. I strongly support free downloads/filesharing and, if the media industry weren't so archaic, they would see the benefits too. What a great way for unsigned artists to be heard as well as a great promotional tool for the big name stars.

It happens anyway so why fight it?

Simone
Download my music here
Be my friend

Originally posted by fgoodwin:

---

Kitsch1 writes that it isn't about downloading illegally. Maybe you should tell that to Moby, since he writes (and I quote): "The riaa have sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset of minnesota for $2,000,000 for illegally downloading music".

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your second post; my point is, if recording artists aren't happy with the record labels and their contracts, there are other ways to distribute their music. Instead of blaming RIAA, they should find ways to distribute their music w/o a middle man.

OTOH, if they need the labels to market them, then they need to stop complaining, or find a better way themselves. But of course, the truth is, as fans, most of you could care less how music is distributed as long as you can download it for free.

---

Firstly, it was your claim that JTR was sued for downloading music. She was sued for distributing copyrighted material. RIAA agents downloaded the music from her, which is the only way that one can legally prove that the transaction took place. The RIAA can not go willy-nilly looking through people's computers looking for copyrighted material.I think that the judges made a reversible error: I don't see how a person can be held responsible for keeping their front door unlocked or his or her hard drive assessable. The crime is distribution of copyrighted material, not the ability to distribute copyrighted material.

Secondly, my post was a response to your obvious question: why are artists signing contracts if the RIAA is so bad. I answered the question as to why and you have no comment about it. Instead you want to tell us how artists that are unhappy with their label should distribute their music. To make things clearer, record labels control the industry: if you want your music heard on the airwaves, you sign a contract. You don't sign a contract because you think the RIAA is good or the record label is good.


Just for the record, Radiohead's In Rainbows made way more money than all of their record label crap. In other words, you will continue to see other artists distribute their music freely.

Absurd legal awards will not help the RIAA to sustain their members’ stranglehold on distribution. They might as well be selling typewriters. Their desperate action against Thomas-Rasset, like those of a cornered (paper) tiger, was a tacit acknowledgement of their future. Their “mission” to promote their member’s “creative and financial vitality” is a red herring. Their real mission is to protect the financial interests of distributors. Anybody want to buy a typewriter? And where is it written that a recording artist should make 100 times that of a teacher? Artistic creativity will survive the demise of RIAA. To the RIAA, if you are looking for people who share music files I stand up and say: “I am Spartigus.”

Simone, thanks for your perspective on this question. It is a rare thing to hear from someone who is actually in the business.

I personally think $80,000 per song should be considered cruel and unusual punishment, but what she did was wrong and she should be punished at some level. Keep in mind that she is not being "charged" any money per song. She is a thief and she is distributing stolen merchandise, and she is being fined for what she chose to do.

If you are angry at the RIAA and record labels, then the courageous and morally defensible way to protest is to simply live without what they are selling. Write letters to the labels and tell them that you are not willing to buy their product until they live up to your standards, and then follow through by living without their product until they change. We have public boycotts of products all the time and it is a very effective way to change how corporations behave. You don't need a celebrity to do this. You just need a lot of normal people.

If you feel so strongly about it that you think it is morally justifiable to break the law, then you should follow Martin Luther King Jr.'s and Ghandi's example and accept the consequences of your actions. Willingly go to jail and pay the fine. People will be a lot more willing to listen if you show that you are really willing to stand up for what you believe.

There is no honor or respect in stealing, and you cannot build up a widespread public movement by acting like a shoplifting child. The ugly and frustrating fact is that the record labels do own the song, based on the contracts the artists signed. The record companies are willing to sell you access to that song for a fairly low price. If you are not willing to pay that price, then have the courage to live without it! If enough people genuinely say no, then the record companies will have to change to stay in business. If you have to steal, then you are acting like a bully and are no better than the record labels.

Everyone who believes the music industry is ripping us off should boycott them completely until they charge 10 cents per download. When that happens, then we should support their efforts. Can someone explain to me why anyone is still downloading or distributing music on P2P sites anyway...when anyone can "capture" any tune from video sites?

As ive said before the recording companies just are like big babies that have lost their market share and now cry because they are not needed anymore in this technological constant changing world. They are the middle man that are not needed anymore to get the artists music heard.

Originally posted by thesimone:

---

Found this thread while reading google news this morning and just had to add my 2 cents:
As an independent artist who actively sells and promotes my music, having a major distribution deal is part of my model. All of my tours and records have been self-financed, from studio musicians to promotion/advertising, etc. As a band, we travel as inexpensively as possible - 2 vehicles on a 1,000 mile tour adds up in gas not to mention cost of living on the road (while paying bills back home). The lifestyle isn't glamorous but we do what we love to do - make music and grow our fan base.

@toncuz: "Real artists don't care about money...businessmen do"
I agree that it should be about the art - yet self-financing our 'passion' gets very expensive.

There are no "real" artists complaining. Their business model is obsolete...
Our model is very realistic - we give away music, cd's and merch to promote and advertise. Where we make our money is at the shows where we take the time to meet our new friends/fans. Generally, we sell a good amount of merch at the shows too.

@Kitch1: it is illegal and punishable to give music away.
You're unfortunately correct - but it's only enforceable if the label owns the underlying composition to your work (or other specific rights/licenses). Prince had to change his name in order to get out of his multi-year contract - but it worked for him.

@fgoodwin: Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.
Depending on our copyrights, we may be able to do that. Lots of big stars (not me) are good artists but (imho) cr4ppy businessmen. Too many have 'signed on the dotted line', giving away the rights to their songs to the powerful labels.

@kiwi1: If there weren't billions of dollars in the industry (despite the piracy) We'd still have music and performance from passionate and artistic people who just want to express themselves and be heard.
Yeah, it's tough b/c technology has made it so easy for anyone to produce a cd, etc and the market's so saturated with talented (and not so much) people who can be heard. Instead of artists complaining about all this, they should get creative and find ways to promote their music. Just look at Ani DiFranco sometime and you'll see that indie musicians like me have some excellent business models to learn from.

Thanks guys - just wanted to vent a bit. It's a tough market and I feel for the poor woman who's getting sued. I think it's too dramatic and not useful nor helpful for artists or the industry. I strongly support free downloads/filesharing and, if the media industry weren't so archaic, they would see the benefits too. What a great way for unsigned artists to be heard as well as a great promotional tool for the big name stars.

It happens anyway so why fight it?

Simone
Download my music here
Be my friend

---

Well said, I have been able to speak to a few artists who agree but at the same time have signed the contracts, yet do showcase the music legit as you have done on Soundclick (new site to me by the way thanks for that)

At the end of the day most recording artists agree the waty they make their money is by way of tours etc, as you will be forced down one path with a label, but it is necessary to some degree within any business model as they still have control over the industry.

I think they should be boycotted by both sides, artists and consumers. I can listen via the website, if I like I will buy. I will come and see you in concert if I like you, I will buy your merchandise and promote you that way to. The first gig I went to in years was Shinedown's UK Headliner (OH what a night that was) previously I hadn't bought their albums. Bought a signed copy of Leave a Whisper for only £12 GBP whilst there!!!!! Bargain. have bought their other albums since but next time they are playing and I can go, I'll be there spending more money on merchandise and signed albums.

On a personal note to Simone, I think I'm impressed (normally takes a couple of tracks to let me know though. So far though, come over to the UK and give us a tour I think I'll go :) Good luck!!!

Originally posted by Jeff_Jenn:

---

Simone, thanks for your perspective on this question. It is a rare thing to hear from someone who is actually in the business.

There is no honor or respect in stealing, and you cannot build up a widespread public movement by acting like a shoplifting child.

---

Well put - it's too bad that this happens so often. As an artist, sales via my music/performances/merch is the only way I can finance my career while supporting a modest lifestyle. I don't have the benefit of a bank (read: record label) funneling investment dollars/loans my way - so stealing my music is literally like taking the PB&J off of my proverbial table :) Regardless of the stature of the artist and how much money they may appear to have, stealing is a crime no matter how you slice it.

Originally posted by Serialluv:

---

On a personal note to Simone, I think I'm impressed (normally takes a couple of tracks to let me know though. So far though, come over to the UK and give us a tour I think I'll go :) Good luck!!!

---

Right on and thanks for the kind words! Would love to cross the pond again - toured Europe in the past and love the country/people :)

Quote:

---

Right on and thanks for the kind words! Would love to cross the pond again - toured Europe in the past and love the country/people :)

---

Look forward to it, note on your site it says possibly in the Midlands, looking forward to it.

I grew up in the 60's when musicians stood together, fought, and wrote songs against injustices in government policies and against big business greed and graft. It is good to see a few musicians stand up for the poor, weak victims being preyed upon by their own representative group, the RIAA. But, by and large, most musicians are keeping quiet and, even worse, supporting the RIAA tactics. Granted you don't want to deficate in your own nest, but you also shouldn't shovel the fecal matter on the heads of your consumer base. If there is one thing needed to quit the "sue the weak to make a point" mentality of the RIAA is to get the musicians to put pressure on their reps, stop the madness, and come up with a more viable solution to the file sharing problem. But as I see it now, today's musicians have become whores and slaves to their owners.

Hey numscull, when you work hard to produce something, and see it stolen and given away illegally, how would you react?

Originally posted by fgoodwin:

---

Hey numscull, when you work hard to produce something, and see it stolen and given away illegally, how would you react?

---

Anyway, learn how to spell numskull before you call someone that. By the way, good to know that subtlety isn't lost on you: the issue is black and white. I think that people should have to pay every time a song is played. If a dj plays a song, everybody should have to pay royalty fees. If you play a song and someone hears it, the person listening should have to pay as well. That buddy sitting next to you in the car when you slide in a cd should have to pay. Essentially, what you are saying is that hearing a song that you did not pay for constitutes theft. Now who is the numskull? That would be you.

Originally posted by numscull:

---

It is good to see a few musicians stand up for the poor, weak victims being preyed upon by their own representative group, the RIAA. But, by and large, most musicians are keeping quiet and, even worse, supporting the RIAA tactics.

---

It's a tough subject, true. I've found that artists who have trustworthy management (I'm one of the lucky ones) generally don't get trapped into making bad decisions.

However, IMHO, it's the artists who don't have the benefit of a business-minded partner/team who fail to realize the economics and financial side of things. They seem to be the ones who aren't articulate enough to speak out for or against these issues.

Originally posted by numscull:

---

...put pressure on their reps, stop the madness, and come up with a more viable solution to the file sharing problem.

---

Right on - however, most artists are too one-sided and wrapped up in their 'art' to even consider the magnitude of this topic. It's unfortunate when I meet some of the bands we perform/tour with who still believe that all they need to do is to 'play' and be 'discovered' while thinking that the label will have their 'best interests' in mind.

It's a business and most bands don't really get that. /soapbox

Originally posted by numscull:

---

But as I see it now, today's musicians have become whores and slaves to their owners.

---

My management team (Miramar)comes from the 60's and has told me time and again that things are different now. Back then, everything was fresh and new.

There wasn't the type of competition in music nor the immediate delivery of communication like there is now. There's so much great talent - you can see it in any town, any night of the week - but that doesn't mean there's an increase in strategic development or business strategy.

I feel that it's the technology that has allowed just about everyone the ability to produce content- quickly, and with good results.
I think that speaks to your comments about being slaves to their owners. One of the owners has been Technology

The technology has exploded, there's more talent than there are customers and the labels expect lots more from their artists. As a result, I've seen bands who say that it's 'too difficult' to handle the business side of things and would rather focus all their efforts on their writing or performance.

MySpace has become a 'Super Center' of art without filtering the good from the tripe. Customers/Fans don't have the focus or loyalty to 'discover bands' on their own anymore because of all the spam and headaches that result from simply connecting to the net.

As a result, the bands appear to be more driven to agree to label terms (that they don't fully understand) simply because it's taken so much effort for them to get noticed.

Bands used to stand for something. We stand for the environment.
Our mission is to recycle at least one compact disc for every 'Simone' disc that goes out the door. We encourage our fans to bring in unused or unloved (even broken) cd's to our shows that we trade for our discs. We partnered up with a recycling center who specializes in plastic recycling and we just ship them off to them.

This has been a great thread and I've enjoyed being a part of it. It's new to me (being here) but it's so cool getting everyone's perspective on this major issue.

Thanks guys-
Simone

edited by moderator to remove advertising from signature

@ thesimone: +1 fan in the UK... :)

If you pop over for a gig at any point consider it +2 tickets sold too, plus trade-in cd... just do me a favour though and do at least one gig outside London, preferably near Manchester! ;)

As for the article - I'm sure any sane person would realise that being charged a few million for just over 20 songs is a tad extreme, who's fault that is depends on your perspective.

Personally, I think think we need to clear out the dinosaurs in the "organised" music industry and stop trying to control the uncontrollable - music distribution... it wont happen though, the corporate giants are full of bloat, bloat financed by a brief stint at being able to control and often exploit artists/listeners for every penny possible because they had the means to distribute their content beyond what they could themselves - giving up all that control means they will have to start slimming down a bit, and nobody likes to diet! :)

Originally posted by fgoodwin:

---

Hey numscull, when you work hard to produce something, and see it stolen and given away illegally, how would you react?

---

Let's put that broad question in perspective of digitally reproduced music. Yes, musicians, song writers, producers, etc. put a lot of effort into making commercial music in which their livelihood depends. Copyrighted material is protected by law for a very good reason. But in the digital age it is way too easy for anyone with half of a brain to take a CD, rip it to wma, mp3, etc. and distribute it to anyone they want to, illegal as that may be. Anyone can purchase one DRM-free song, copy it, and send it to anyone free or even sell it. Millions do it every day. So the six million dollar question is: how can copyright holders prevent, or slow down dramatically, the mass distribution of free music? Anything short of shutting down the internet, outlawing computers, or going back to the days of vinyl, I can't think of any. But I can say that picking on ordinary, hard working people is not the answer. The RIAA does not issue a cease and desist letter first to suspected infringers which it should. They simply send a settlement offer paper and then play litigation hardball with anyone, innocent or not, who dares to stand against them. And these suspected infringers are mostly, if not all, people of very limited resources unable to sufficiently fight the RIAA monster. So to answer your question of how I would react to writing a song, performing it in a studio, recording it, marketing it, and promoting it only to be freely distributed to millions and losing incalcuable royalties? I would be furious, heart broken, frustrated, and I may even go home and kick the cat. But in retaliation I would not, nor would I support, the intimidation and financial ruin of a few, randomly selected defenseless people to hopelessly think I could stop or slow the raging sea of shared music. In closing I will apologize to those musicians I have called names in my last post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fgoodwin:

---

Hey numscull, when you work hard to produce something, and see it stolen and given away illegally, how would you react?

---

Anything short of shutting down the internet, outlawing computers, or going back to the days of vinyl, I can't think of any.

---

Right on - I have a fan who, at 66y/o, freely trades/shares music. I asked if they thought what they were doing was wrong. They said that 'the record company owed them' for all the different formats they were 'forced' to buy over the years (vinyl/tape/cd/etc).

That type of animosity toward the artists and labels plants seeds of resentment each time the consumer is 'forced' to 're-buy' the same body of work over and over again.

My general market of fans, 18-29, has pretty much grown up with broadband p2p nets promising instant gratification. The older fans have grown up with significant format shifts.

To me, it just doesn't seem like there's a viable 'one size fits all' solution that would solve the overall problem and I think that's what the industry is focused on. If they (RIAA, et.al.) would spend a bit more time looking at the big picture and all of the dynamics that play a part in it all, (rather than being heavy handed and severely punishing the few) perhaps they would find a range of solutions that are more individualized to the offender(s) based on income/consumption/geographic region/historical sales data per artist/etc.

No, it's not simple, but at least they should try to solve the problem rather than to hand down fear-inducing, absurdly out-of-proportion judgments.

Originally posted by EvilDeeds:

---

@ thesimone: +1 fan in the UK... :)

If you pop over for a gig at any point consider it +2 tickets sold too, plus trade-in cd... just do me a favour though and do at least one gig outside London, preferably near Manchester! ;)

---

Thanks a lot! I've been working on details to get over there for a 2 or 3 week pub tour. Perhaps this September if all falls into place :)

This whole thing boggles my mind, years back I always recorded many tunes from my amp to my cassete recorder and listened at home as well as in the car, why the beef now.

I'm not totally up to par with this ladies case, but did a jury award this, if so I have not heard one word about these nitwits if thats the case, what were they smoking, or should I say what they were not smoking, the smokers would have laughted themselves off the courtroom just listening to this nonsense.

The real problem is big labels. Frank Zappa recognized this early on.

Big artists like Moby don't need them. They should drop them, and start a movement for artists co-ops to replace them.

Originally posted by FredBun:

---

This whole thing boggles my mind, years back I always recorded many tunes from my amp to my cassete recorder and listened at home as well as in the car, why the beef now.

I'm not totally up to par with this ladies case, but did a jury award this, if so I have not heard one word about these nitwits if thats the case, what were they smoking, or should I say what they were not smoking, the smokers would have laughted themselves off the courtroom just listening to this nonsense.

---

Yes it was a jury award, shocking as it seems, not being a US citizen I may be out of date but I though you had some great laws over there, such as "one must be judged by a jury of your peers" I wonder if there were any single mums involved I doubt it? And it has been mentioned, alebit legal as it would it seem in the constiution "against cruel and unusual punishments" surely she can fight on this and win by way of appeal, how can they justify the monetary value of those 24 tracks being worth that amount, the sheer upload for each song is plain wrong.

I am in the target market grou for lots of musicians as well as many other industries 18-35 and have also grown up, as Simone puts it with the p2p instant gratification, I was using telnet back when I was younger and message boards to share media in the early 90's! I do however still buy media, if it's worth buying, ie if I 've enjoyed it I'll buy it!! I spend over £200 on DVD's and CD's last month probably will again this month, but I will still utilise the "try before I buy policy" by way of the net.

Serialluv, I agree, you know I also download music, I listen to it and whatever strikes my fancy I buy it, christ I have tons of CD's I buy, I have bought way more CD's since I was able to listen to music and make my decision, when before I hardly bought any cause was always paraniod I would only get one or two songs to my liking, you think these guys would learn a little something here.

And yes it really suprises me how this particular subject which has been on the news all over the place, everybody mostly anyway is outraged, everybody is bitching about the RIAA, the laws, the record companies, hey, these guys do what they do, it's the way they do things, they get paid to do it that way, but the jury, I hear nothing about them, there the ones I would be angry at, where did they get these people from, somebody didn't do there homework picking them nitwits.