The 30 Songs
Many people have asked to know exactly what songs are worth $22,500 a piece for Joel Tenenbaum. Here are the two court documents that identify the songs for which Tenenbaum was sued.
This entry was posted
on Monday, August 3rd, 2009 and is filed under Joel's Case, featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Can someone please explain why Joel just didn’t spend $30 for these songs on iTunes?he could be saved himself a lot of trouble.
HAHAHAHA!!! The smug little thief should have been hit for the whole $150k per song based on his musical tastes! Are you kidding me, Mr. PhD? Limp Bizkit? Really?
Wow. LMFAO
Takeing someone to court over music they downloaded, doesn’t matter how they obtained it..this is for private use.. and well within the means of the agreement to not pirate or copy the music for monetary means.. which is what these companies are doing that sell the music.. but don’t have permission or lisenceing..
It’s like saying the guy blasting his stereo in the middle of traffic or at some event is distributeing music illegally…just cause other people can hear it.. and that is absurd..
songs available for d/l are much lower quality then cd’s or digital SSd’s sold with music on them.. so would then only serve as advertisieng for the music industry.. free advertisieng.. they arent loseing money.. people still buy the cd’s dvd’s and all kinds of merchendice to support their bands..
someone should make a torrent of all these songs
I doubt Trent Reznor gives a shit about who “steals” his music.
Yeah… I’m sure Trent Reznor wouldn’t be very happy to know that UMG was suing people for pirating music he wrote.
dude … picking 3 titles which define your situation pretty well
Incubus - Pardon me
Beastie Boys - You gotta fight for your right
Outkast - Rosa Parks
No, dude. This is the song that defines his situation:
Limp Bizkit — Leech
Arthur Johnson: maybe because iTunes didn’t exist then? The fact that people like Joel downloaded music was one of the main factors in digital music stores even coming to fruition. There was, simply, demand for digital music and methods of buying individual album tracks that WEREN’T singles, and the industry didn’t provide until it was too late, and piracy had practically become the norm.
The CDs for every one of these songs are available to check out for free at public libraries. How does downloading them represent a loss of income to anybody?
$15 for a CD that cost $0.22 to make?
When the music industry stops ripping people off, people will stop ripping off the music industry.
If you don’t like the price, don’t buy it, don’t download it, don’t listen to it. Wait for it to come on the radio. Simple as that. You have no more intrinsic “right” to distribute copies of this music than I have to photocopy $100 bills for all my friends, using the excuse that it only costs the U.S. Treasury $0.15 to print each bill.
@getrealbubba: I don’t want to make excuses for the greedy music industry, but if indeed it costs only $0.22 to make one CD, that is the MARGINAL cost, after the industry has invested many, many thousands of dollars signing the musicians and recording, mixing, & mastering the CDs or tracks. Also, they spend lots of $$ on marketing to convince you that you simply must have the latest song by Limp Jesuit or whoever.
The great irony of the piracy cultists is that they have been willingly brainwashed by the recording industry itself, which persuades you to lust after their brand-name musicians. Pirating this music only confirms that you accept the judgement of these taste-making, trend-setting product-peddlers. If you really wanted to make a statement, you would decline to buy, download and distribute their products and would instead seek out truly independent musicians.
Someone did a study once that found that it takes 5,000 free downloads/shares of one song to knock an entire CD off the shelf, so for the RIAA to complain about losing money is absurd. This is just plain greed. It probably cost the music companies more than $675K to take you to court.
As far as I’m concerned, once you buy something, you own it and you should be able to do whatever you please with it.
@Brooke: And once you download it from Kazaa, what should you be able to do with it? Upload it to PirateBay? Burn 500 copies and sell it from your table in the subway station? I’m really eager to know.
Sorry, I have to take issue with modern day artist’s saying they “own” their music or work as if what they did was completely totally 100% original. Since Walt Disney came around modern day artists have been “steeling” and profiting from those that came before them. Nothing is completely original anymore. Case in point:
Disney’s new Christmas Carol movie coming out with Jim Carry. Dicken’s original classic is public domain, as in you can use it, download it, and distribute it even for profit, like most other art, music, and literature created before 1930. Yet somehow Disney’s new animated movie is now copyrighted and they can charge whatever for it, when all the real hard work was done by Dickens. Disney even completely omits Dickens from the title, while they take ownership for themselves in “Disney’s Christmas Carol.”
The problem with current copyright law is that is grossly slanted towards modern day artists. Sure artists deserve to get compensated, but should they be allowed to build a multi-billion dollar company by stealing previous artists work then lobbying congress to pass laws that allow them to ruthlessly sue people that are only doing the exact same time they did? The irony is that copyright law is protecting the biggest pirate of them all: Walt Disney. The other massive irony is that the greatest lull in creativity has come during a time when artists are unbelievably protected. All the biggest leaps in art, music, and literature came when virtually no copyright law existed: The Renaissance.
“… the greatest lull in creativity has come during a time when artists are unbelievably protected… All the biggest leaps in art, music, and literature came when virtually no copyright law existed: The Renaissance.”
Ah, that would explain all those Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina music files that Joel was sharing.
“Yet somehow Disney’s new animated movie is now copyrighted and they can charge whatever for it, when all the real hard work was done by Dickens.”
Disney adapted a public domain work and invested in it their own creativity and originality, which clearly allows them to have a copyright over their particular adaptation. Nothing affects the accessibility of the underlying work, and you are more than free to attempt to make a movie version of it yourself without liability, so long as it doesn’t substantially copy or resemble Disney’s version.
““… the greatest lull in creativity has come during a time when artists are unbelievably protected… All the biggest leaps in art, music, and literature came when virtually no copyright law existed: The Renaissance.””
Ahhh yes, the Renaissance is always used as an argument that artists just wanted to create art for art’s sake. Yet those who argue that point completely fail to realize that patronage provided the vast majority of support for Renaissance artists (indeed, Leonardo, Raphael, and Michaleangelo worked most of their lives under patronage) who were more than willing to relinquish their works to the control of others in exchange for money. Sure, some patrons allowed for the public display of works, but others fiercly guarded theirs. So to somehow argue that is was a mystical confluence of sharing and caring is just wrong, not to mention dumb.
I gotta agree with TR, it is kinda funny that one of the songs on the list is Fight for Your Right (To Party)
Even funnier that one of the songs is titled “Leech”.
No dis-respect to you Joel, but you and the other 39,999 people who distributed songs across p2p networks are extremely foolish. I though it was common knowlegde for people to understand that uploading, “sharing”, a file is exactly the same as distributing. If you don’t have a distribution license, then you’re breaking the law.
My question is, why would anyone take it upon themselves to distribute or “share” songs across these p2p networks? It’s extremely foolish!
I disagree with the amount you are being sued for, but look at it from the RIAA’s perspective; There’s 40,000 people who have infringed copyright laws. These can all be sued. Just think how much money they could win from these cases…
It’s your own fault for been a fool. Lesson learnt. But if i was you, i’d declare myself bankrupt, and offer them $1 a week untill the settlement was reached. The fuckers can wait for their money and they’ll be kept busy with the other 39,999 cases!
I wish you all the luck with this case!
“So to somehow argue that is was a mystical confluence of sharing and caring is just wrong, not to mention dumb.”
That wasn’t my point. My point was that the premise of copyright law is to spur innovation among artists because they are protected and can make money from it, and actually the opposite has happened. Walt Disney himself lobbied congress hard about how he need protection. Essentially he didn’t want anyone doing to him what he did to the Brother’s Grimm. My point was that there is no confluence among protection and creativity - and to argue otherwise is extremely blind and ignorant.
And most classical artists that we so cherish today (with a few exceptions) died paupers, and yet they still created the greatest works of their time, so even patronage had nothing to do with it. Yet I think one could make a convincing argument that today’s bests artists suffer the same fate at the hands of corporate marketing that uses today’s copyright law as a bludgeon. Especially when you the differences between Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music (and the advances made in instrumentation and music theory) make the differences in today’s music seems minuscule in comparison. Sure quantity of music is at an all time high, but experimentation is at an all time low. Not to mention artists today are still under a system of patronage - how many of them had to give up the rights to their work to a wealthy patron, or modify their work to a patron’s desire (only this time it’s a corporation, not a noble) in order to make any real money off of it? The connectivity and social networking provided by the internet, and the low cost of entry provided by today’s new digital technologies allow for artists to finally break free of any resemblance of a patronage system. They or their fans can promote themselves on social networks, and they can create their art with smaller and smaller amounts of capitol investment. And yet it’s yesterday’s corporations doing whatever they can to keep themselves artificially relevant in a new world.
Regarding Disney’s Dickens adaptation - you also seem to miss my point. Everything Disney has done is at least a 60-70% ripoff from another artist that didn’t have the luxury of a copyright that extends to the life of the author +70 years. Even Mickey Mouse was lifted from an animation done just a few years before. How much of Disney’s work on the Christmas Carol is in the public domain when Dickens created all the characters, sets, plot, etc - and described them in great detail. You think for one second Disney wouldn’t sue the pants off of anyone else that tries to animate a Christmas Carol trying to claim it as their own? Is Dickens’ family receiving any money over this?
No artist has ever created anything without being heavily influenced by previous artists, society, and the culture around them. We are all human and we are all in a lot of ways products of our environment. Why is it that today’s copyright law is so ridiculously slanted towards the copyright holder when society and prior art has given them so much? I don’t stand for the abolishing of copyright law. I just would like reason and ration and a balance of interests among big, small, old, and new artists and the cultures and societies that helped produce them: and $25,000/per song rewards on songs written decades ago in which the artist has been more than handsomely compensated (more than they would’ve ever received from a noble patron in the Renaissance) most certainly is not a balance of interests.
When listening to a piece of music, it’s is really just airwaves moved in certain frequencies. To move air doesn’t cost much, and it’s not even the copyright holder that is doing it when his piece of music is played, it’s the amplifier owned by the listener. The copyright holder has no cost involved with illegal file-sharing and does not loose one single cent by this “uncontrolled” distribution.
If the copyright holder produce a CD for $0.22 and someone steals that, the copyright holder has lost $0.22. That should be the price, and for fairness sake, they could even 10-double or 100-double that should you get caught stealing, but the numbers mentioned here are just absurd. Are the BIG4 that close to be legal drugbarons? The fact is that musicians should stop using the stinking mafia of the BIG4 and just use P2P as a free marketing tool to distribute their music.
The days of one-hit-barbie-living-on-royalties-for-the-reast-of-her-life is over, and thank’ you for that. Perhaps we can finally get some music of quality in the pool.
What makes a copyrighted piece of music worth something, is that an audience has chosen to make it to a symbol for something. The value of the work is added by the amount of listeners, not the performer. To sue members of the group of people that ensures a piece of music continues to live is just illogical and counterproductive for the survival of that specific piece of culture.
“How much of Disney’s work on the Christmas Carol is in the public domain when Dickens created all the characters, sets, plot, etc - and described them in great detail. You think for one second Disney wouldn’t sue the pants off of anyone else that tries to animate a Christmas Carol trying to claim it as their own?”
In this what Disney would own is called a thin copyright. Because the underlying work on which it is based is public domain, the copyright would only cover Disney’s particular expression of it. This is because plots, characters, and general facts and ideas are not copyrightable subject matter. So you’re free to make a movie about Scrooge and Christmas ghosts and its ilk. And Disney is free to try to sue you for it. But as long as you don’t misappropriate specific elements of their film, the law is on your side.
“The copyright holder has no cost involved with illegal file-sharing and does not loose one single cent by this “uncontrolled” distribution.”
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Because when a person can obtain a perfect digital copy that completely supplants the need for a paid original, it defies reason that no sales are lost from such activity.
“If the copyright holder produce a CD for $0.22 and someone steals that, the copyright holder has lost $0.22. ”
Wrong again. 17 U.S.C. § 202 states quite clearly that “Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object.” This is a concept that gets lost on the unwashed masses. When you purchase a cd, you own that round piece of plastic. You can do whatever you like with it - shred it, use it as a coaster, play frisbee with it, give it away, whatever. But the music, software, or movie on that disc is merely licensed to you. And if you choose to breach that license by making illicit copies, making unauthorized distributions, or otherwise, then that triggers a different set of damages, those which were deliberately enacted by Congress to, in the words of the Constitution, “secur[e] … to Authors … the exclusive Right to their respective Writings….”
“You think for one second Disney wouldn’t sue the pants off of anyone else that tries to animate a Christmas Carol trying to claim it as their own?”
If so, Disney must have sued the producers of these films…
A Flintstone Christmas Carol
The Muppets Christmas Carol
Barbie in a Christmas Carol
Mr. Magoo Christmas Carol
Christmas Carol - The Movie
An All Dogs Christmas Carol
A Christmas Carol (voices by Whoopi Goldberg et al.)
Adventures from the Book of Virtues: A Christmas Carol for Annie
A Christmas Carol (Jetlag Productions) (1994)
Brer Rabbit’s Christmas Carol
A Christmas Carol - Children’s Animated Christmas
… and several others, all based on the Dickens original.
“Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Because when a person can obtain a perfect digital copy that completely supplants the need for a paid original, it defies reason that no sales are lost from such activity.”
What makes you think that the tilesharer actually would have bought it? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? People can obtain perfect digital copy of friends CD’s or from recordind streams, I don’t see anyone arguing against radio stations, libraries or CD’s? Just because I hear a tune on the radio doesn’t mean that copyright holder lost a sale, so I wonder how you would substantiate this claim?
You quote 17 U.S.C. § 202. You use someones else’s writing by quoting it. You therefore make a copy of someone else’s work. The purpose with a law is that it is shared and adhered to by all citizens and to copyright it would make little sense, just like it makes little sense to copyright the moving of certain airwaves in a certain way..
However, your quoted law is not universal and not shared by everyone. It has no jurisdiction for millions and millions of people, so please use a more convincing argument than just referring to authority, that does little to persuade.
It would be difficult not to participate in the debate about copyright without using other people’s thought’s and ideas. To copyright your opinion would little sense as the purpose of debating is to spread opinions.
Why is it any different with music?.
“What makes you think that the tilesharer actually would have bought it? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?”
The filesharer obviously wants the item, otherwise they wouldn’t still have it. Therefore, the filehsharer perceives some value in having it. Would it not be for the fact that it was free, the only alternative would be to forgo it entirely or purchase it. You can’t deny that some would purchase it.
“I don’t see anyone arguing against radio stations, libraries or CD’s? ”
Libraries are not making rampant copies of the items in their libraries. And those items in their catalogs have been purchased at some time, guaranteeing revenue to the copyright holder. Additionally, radio stations pay blanket licensing fees to the performing arts societies so artists get money from the on-air play. The difference here is, when you infringe a copyright, none of that happens. So they’re not even remotely similar.
“The purpose with a law is that it is shared and adhered to by all citizens and to copyright it would make little sense,”
Thus reads 17 U.S.C. § 105: “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government….” So I may quote freely from it.
“just like it makes little sense to copyright the moving of certain airwaves in a certain way.”
There is a huge difference between precluding copyright in work paid for by taxpayer dollars, and granting protection to the works of individuals to protect their investment and incentivize them to release the works to the public.
“It would be difficult not to participate in the debate about copyright without using other people’s thought’s and ideas”
Again, thoughts and ideas are not copyrightable subject matter, so they may be freely used. The only thing you cannot use is a person’s particular expression of their thoughts and ideas.
“your quoted law is not universal and not shared by everyone”
The basic concepts are indeed pretty universal, and have been since the invention of the printing press. To argue otherwise showed a profound ignorance of history, economics, and human behavior.
The 30 songs are already available on torrent. Just search for “Joel Tenenbaum torrent”, download them, seed them and make this an online protest against the verdict and against harassing ordinary filesharing people…
You know, I was just gonna pass on by. Not say anything. Not point out flaws in the arguments of either side and start a fight with someone.
Then I read:
[“your quoted law is not universal and not shared by everyone”
The basic concepts are indeed pretty universal, and have been since the invention of the printing press. To argue otherwise showed a profound ignorance of history, economics, and human behavior.]
And accidentally got upset. I’m not taking a side, don’t get defensive- but you’re an asshole. I’m not going to call you stupid, I didn’t read enough of what you wrote to determine that, but you’re definitely an asshole. “The basic concepts” which you call “universal” are not the law, you dick. You removed his point from his statement to imply that the person you were quoting is highly ignorant, which is, without question, fucking annoying. Here, I’ll make it a little more obvious in case you didn’t get it: China does not share a constitution with the United States.
In conclusion, you’re a prick.
Anonymous 3:06am:
“Here, I’ll make it a little more obvious in case you didn’t get it: China does not share a constitution with the United States.”
And yet China is a signatory to all the major international IP & Copyright treaties, including the Berne Convention, WIPO, the Paris Convention, and a specific memorandum of understanding with the United States to provide copyright protection for all American works. In addition, China possesses an extremely thorough set of laws and social policies regarding trade identities and patents. So while China may not share the Constitution with the United States, it certainly shares a regard for the fundamental ideas embodied in the Patent & Copyright Clause that any responsible country needs to provide a framework to protect the work of others.
Alot of realists have already said what i wanted to say…and piracy is the answer to the horrible prices of cd…riaa go take it in the ass and smile…we wouldn’t pirate these things if they were actually a fair price…like mabye half…or a quarter…like…clearance prices…
besides…the real reason i pirate…is cause the artist gets about as much as it costs to make the cd…usually less…its pitiful…i’ll stop stealing when the recording industrys stop stealing…
The RIAA and the artists involved here need a head check….
Oh the times they are a changing
I guess they would try and sue me for copyright on lyrics for saying this
Karma will have it’s way
the only theft here is the via the records labels, distributors and skanky lawyers who have no morals or conscience
RIAA has an iron fist (they’re lawyers) and because of this, they will harass, and threaten anyone they choose. The more anti-piracy crap they put on music, the more we’re gonna pirate simple as that.
No question that CDs and even I-tunes songs are overpriced. But does that justify pirating? The last few posters clearly think so. Tell me, folks: why don’t you just ignore the music that you don’t want to pay for? Why MUST you have it? Are you simply entitled to take something that you feel is overpriced? If all CDs were sold for $5.00 or less, won’t some of you feel they are still overpriced and therefore should be pirated? How about $2.00 CDs? 10-cent-per-song downloads? What is a fair price?
Ironically, you pirates have bought into the corporate mindset that you can’t live without commercial music. You just don’t want to pay for it.
@screwtheriaa: “Karma will have it’s [sic] way”. Remember this when someone steals your car.
Seriously, you don’t break the law because you disagree with something, you try and change the law.
Yeah, its fucked up he’s being sued an exorbitant amount, its also fucked up that people steal the music in the first place.
The lesson here isn’t to steal music, it’s to change the laws and sentencing guidelines to something that makes more sense.
Your playlist is on thepiratebay.org and is currently being downloaded by 100 people…
Actually it’s now more than 500 and counting…
Pretty good playlist really, apart from Limp Bizkit of course.
The RIAA doesn’t seem to realise how most people are for supporting the artists, but not the massive companies profiting from them. They can go fuck themselves.
“most people are for supporting the artists…”
Mike, exactly HOW are you supporting the artists?
Or are you just “for” it, in principle, without actually doing it?
BTW im not saying to download them, just saying there available (just incase the RIAA is watching) =)
The reason he is being sued for so much is because the RIAA cant catch enough of the pirates to make a difference, so they hit one guy for a half million bucks and hope it scares people away. That being said i don’t think its fair to the poor guy who gets caught, it would kinda be like getting a five hundred thousand dollar ticket for doing 10 over the speed limit.
lololol that list of songs is now being downloaded on several torrent sites by several thousand people and rising fast ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
way to go riaa you just spent more in lawyers fees than the defendant was fined and in the process caused the outdated copyright laws to be violated thousands more times than they would of been ha ha ha ha ha
TIME TO GIVE IT UP I THINK!
Still waiting for answers to these questions:
Why don’t you just ignore the music that you don’t want to pay for? Why MUST you have it? Are you simply entitled to take something that you feel is overpriced?
Exactly how are pirates supporting the artists?
Really, i mean this whole thing is ridiculous.
I find it all really hard to believe that the people on this page that are against DL have never pirated anything. Its pretty much a daily thing and you probably do it on a daily basis with out even knowing it. As stated above, (car radio, maybe a meeting with a power point show, showing movies at a party or playing any song to more then a few people). Everyone is a pirate and if you think about it having less CD’s and plastic wrapping/packaging would do way more for the environment then anyone who is trying to make a buck from prosecuting them would. It also stops car thieves from steeling your collection of 10,000 CD you keep in your car, ha ha or used too. It even stops insurance fraud because people no longer claim there CD’s stolen. Well thats more because everyone DL’s and most people have MP3 players now, so no CD’s ha ha.
Has anyone been to asia. WOW is all i can say. The pirate moves there have fancier covers then the real ones plus if they don’t work you just return it and get another one. No need for a receipt! they will remember you. Customer satisfaction 100%
IT ALL COME DOWN TO:
THIER IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN STOP PIRATES…….. THE END
GO TO S.E. ASIA, Its great…..
horse badorties, stealing a car has nothing to do with DL music…..
Actually if you have CD’s in your car i would say you are more likely to get your car stolen.
Back in tape days did you not ever wait until you heard the one song you wanted then rec it from the radio to tape?
DL music is like a free buffet. You can try everything but you don’t have to. It might make you sick (virus) but its worth it before you spend your money on what your really after. You might need that free buffet to rule out what you don’t like or maybe what you want is just not there.
The problem the RIAA faces is that they have disillusioned the masses with their over-inflated prices and ridiculous profit margins, and the masses have turned away from them. Pirating, at least from my point of view, has become a social norm, and this is solely down to the corporations who, for want of a better word, steal our hard earned money by charging too much for an artists work. This has driven thousands to piracy, indeed, the big corporations basically created an environment where piracy could thrive.
Twenty years ago, at the dawn of the age of the personal computer, the large music companies laughed at the thought of piracy, they totally underestimated the technological advances in internet infrastructure and file compression, and they continued to treat the average person like a fool. Now they have to deal with a situation that they have made for themselves, and somehow eradicate the piracy attitude that has taken grip amongst many teenagers and young adults all over the world. A potentially, and I suspect probable, irreversible attitude.
I’m not for piracy, however, I am also not for large corporations making money from a musicians work. Whilst I am in no way a communist, I would like to point out that this is capitalism gone bad, and if people stopped pandering to the music industry and their demands, then they would be forced to change their methods.
The last few posts are very entertaining, but they all say the same thing: Everyone is doing it, so why not me?
Still, they come nowhere close to answering my questions:
Why don’t you just ignore the music that you don’t want to pay for? Why MUST you have it? Are you simply entitled to take something that you feel is overpriced?
Exactly how are pirates supporting the artists?
yeah i get what your saying. I guess to answer some of your questions, i have found that when people DL music and they like it they will go buy the CD. When you pay for music its nice that it comes with a case and cover. You don’t get that with itunes and its hard copy. The pirates don’t support the artist but they help distribute and allow people to hear more varieties of music and find what they want, then they can buy that CD or format. So its not that they support them its more the access and easy of listening leads to more music that would not normally be bought, be bought. Therefore if you look at it in a different way they are supporting the artists, but of course that is not there goal. I think they just like giving stuff to people.
I love hooking my friends up with deals or trying to get them in free to places. It is the same concept. Kind of…
Why must you have it all? I think there is a satisfaction in having large music libraries, its almost bragging rights with younger people. People like to have the most or the newest or what ever to say that they do.
People who know what they want ignore the music they don’t want but most people dont know what they want so they just go go go. it is so easy to DL everything from an artist, all for free. Almost easier then trying to find the one specific song you wanted. Its not that its over priced its just more convenient to have a disposable library.
If you start a DL and then go out leaving your computer on it is pretty exciting to check out your new stuff when its done. Its like getting presents. You have to wait for the DL then you open it and you can watch the first ever video of some new movie, even though its crap quality or audio or what ever.
you are generalizing a bit, not everyone has to have it all. If you consider how much stuff there is to DL no one has it all, that is for sure.
@US has…
Thank you for the thoughtful answers. They are very helpful.
I guess I’ve been trying to understand the logic and principles behind pirating, but I’ve overlooked how much fun it is. Basically, everyone gets pleasure out of DLing and sharing files. The pirates, as you said, like giving stuff to people. Some DLers get a kick out of having more, or newer, or cooler, songs than their friends. Some enjoy the thrill of the hunt, discovering which songs show up after a download session. And then there’s the spiteful fun of striking a blow against the RIAA and the sell-out bands. In fact, I imagine that most DLers enjoy all of these thrills.
I really do get it now: it’s fun getting something for nothing. No question about it. Everyone loves free stuff. Especially when it is being given freely. But in the case of music pirating and DLing, the creators of this music aren’t giving it away. And that really should give you pause to think that maybe sharing files isn’t the right thing to do. I would be sad to hear that DLers and pirates have completely clear consciences about their actions. Yeah, the music business is greedy and its “product” is overpriced, but does that really justify what you’re doing?
I really can’t see any principled justification for piracy or even DLing pirated material. But considering how much fun it is, I can understand why people gloss over the morality and fairness of piracy. I’m not such an idealist that I can’t appreciate how cool it must be to get a huge, diverse music collection, basically for free. It just bugs me when pirates and DLers rationalize their actions with some flimsy arguments about how they aren’t hurting the musicians.
Thanks again.
how can you be condemned for 30 songs if you have as the documents say :” 816 songs” . did you really bought the rest of them or what xD?
( sorry for my bad english.. i’m just a kid from Holland)
iridial -
“The problem the RIAA faces is that they have disillusioned the masses with their over-inflated prices and ridiculous profit margins”
Because you clearly have a PhD in economics and business, why don’t you enlighten us on what the prices of music should be? While we’re at it, why don’t you tell us specifically about the profit margins each label, and why they are considered ridiculous?
“I’m not for piracy, however, I am also not for large corporations making money from a musicians work.”
So, in your world, if the music companies are precluded from making money from music, what praytell are they supposed to make money from?
Guys in the end all the arguing and getting upset with each other does not matter.Record companies will ovber price there product so piracy will continue. What the record companies seem to forgwet is that piracy launched a little station called radio one. Would it not be better to all get on and work together. In a perfect world yes but unfortunaetly too many people particuarly lawyers get paid too much, and probably back handers or bribes to senators, judges etc that grease the wheel of so called justice all over the world not just in the USA.
Finnaly one person on this site said that you cant break the law to get what you want, is that not how the USA came about?
Im currently an ex pat in the Philippines and the current president is trying to make her own rules so that she can stay in House for an even longer term then she is meant to be. Thats just an example of law breaking. While i don’t really know the half of it, that is what i have been told is happening so if im wrong, i’m just the messenger….
Horse: Another thing is that while DL “does” effect the artist in the grand scheme of things its not like they are suffering. It just means they can’t buy that 3rd ferrari they wanted and instead they have to settle with a M5 or something. Going to court is all about what they are used to getting. The artist needs to sit back and relise that there way of live is changing (for the better) and they are just going to have to live with it. I guess the thing is they don’t want to face that.
The best thing about the whole situation is that the artists can’t put out a CD and take in the revenue just like that any more (i think someone said that before), They now have to work harder in a more competitive market which means more and more bands are going to have to get back into concert scene and promote there own music by playing for people all around the world on stage, in front of their fans and/or customers (for Cd’s). Thats how you really promote your music and thats how it should be really.
i have an income of about 1200$ a month
My rent is about 650$
I pay to my ex-wife 300$ every month
Electricity per month about 80/100$
Others taxes about 100$ a month
I’m working about 200 hours a month and sometime more, up 220/230
With this i haven’t start to buy food, clear water cos you better not drink what is coming
out of the “robinet”, health care if i have, bus when i have o pick my daughter, clothes cos you can’t go naked around the streets you will be arrested and else things you can’t go around in life.
So yes, i pay for an internet connection a little bit less than 20$ a month and let’s roll !
Ask Madona and others singers and bands to low a little bit their income, Ask to the all-stars actors and others to buy only 2 cars a year and to have only 3 house instead of 5 and specially ask all the greedy movies-musics producers to think about it also.
Fair enough ?
For mypart i will fight against my real-estate agency who rent me my appartement to low the price, i’ll go also to the electric co to ask the same and i’ll give a visit to all the others blood-suckers and pray for a positive answer from them.
Fair enough ?
Knowing some bands that were signed to recording labels (one in particular has been on MTV and such), they are lucky to see 10-15% of their CD sales. Most artists make their money on tours, where they get a good 50%-60% of the ticket sales, after paying for the venue and equipment and security and the people to run the show… record labels pay everyone once, then just print off CDs like the US Government prints money.
When you see an artist with cars and houses and VIP parties and shit, think about the fact that, if their last CD went gold (500,000 copies sold) at $20 a CD ($100,000,000), they only see AT MOST 20% ($500,000). so where does the other $99,500,000 dollars go?
Now tell me who’s stealing from whom?
Pirates support musicians the same as everyone else–they go to their concerts. We’ve all admitted the musicians make almost nothing from their CD sales–especially new musicians.
But here’s how the pirates-support-musicians cycle runs:
They download the music. They find out they like it. They share it with their friends. They buy tickets to go to the concert with their friends. The musicians profit handsomely from both ticket sales and non-CD product sales at the concert. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
And it does repeat–the experience of a concert cannot be “stolen” or downloaded, so people will pay for it. Until the record companies can figure out (just like the beverage companies did with bottled water) how to get people to pay for something they can already get for free, they are fighting a losing battle. As long as the music gets out, however, I think the musicians still win.
Ah… the “it´s the law” argument…
Well, Nuremberg Laws were law as well… and buggery was a serious criminal offense…
I am completely against piracy for profit. This was not the case… Why isn´t RIIA sueing people in China where piracy for profit is rampant?
Did any major label went bankrupt on the account of filesharing? Aren´t DVDs selling like hot bread? Aren´t concerts packed?
Why is it that I have to hack my equipment to use legally purchased media, because labels tought that region locks were a good thing?
Finnaly, the incredible BS spin that downloads hurt sales… they just assume that every download is a lost sale, wich its not…
And last, as a judge myself, I feel appaling that american judges have no sense of legal proportionality.
@jamale: You’re right: the “1 download = 1 lost sale” assumption is bogus. Would you argue that no CD or I-Tune sales are lost when 1,000 people download a piece of music? How many downloads are equivalent to one lost sale?
And why do you favor piracy for fun but not for profit? If the latter is theft, what is the first?
Finally, jamale, I don’t think you really want to conflate music and film piracy. For one thing, it would be hard for you to claim that film piracy increases attendance at live events.
Speaking of live events, “How Pirates Support Musicians” is correct that live performance is an important revenue stream for musicians … those who are actively touring, that is. How does piracy help musicians who have stopped touring, or might never tour in your part of the world? How does it benefit the estate of a deceased musician? And how do musicians benefit from piracy by individuals who don’t go to concerts, for reasons of distance, disability, or affordability?
SenselessNoise -
“When you see an artist with cars and houses and VIP parties and shit, think about the fact that, if their last CD went gold (500,000 copies sold) at $20 a CD ($100,000,000), they only see AT MOST 20% ($500,000). so where does the other $99,500,000 dollars go? Now tell me who’s stealing from whom?”
First, that $20 figure of yours would be a retail figure, which differs from the wholesale cost between the distributor and the retailer. Unless you know what the wholesale price of music is, or the details of a particular artist’s contract, then you can’t have an intelligent conversation on how the revenue is split.
Secondly, just how many artists do you think ever make it to the point where they can afford those things you so clearly rage against? Very few. So what about all those other artists that only see modest success or fail miserably and get dropped? Don’t you think the record labels have a right to recoup their costs for investing in X number of failed ventures before coming up with Y successes, however small? I don’t think anybody here realizes the amount of money it takes to scout, sign, and develop an artist. To say that a label shouldn’t be able to be compensated for that is simply ignorant.
How Pirates Support Musicians -
“Pirates support musicians the same as everyone else–they go to their concerts.”
So let me get this straight. You want us to believe that pirating music doesn’t equate to lost sales, but instead guarantees ticket sales? Really? Explain to me how it’s offensive to pay a couple of bucks for a few tracks that you allege that you like, but not more offensive to pay significantly more money for a show, a good portion of which goes to companies that are truly wicked — the ticket companies like Ticketmaster.
In the end, all you’re doing is penalizing the artists - you’re just too short-sighted and self-entitled to recognize it. If sales continue to decline because of the wholesale infringement of music, the record companies are simply going to change their contracts to get a bigger piece of the pie. In fact, we’re already seeing them starting to take a piece of the touring revenue, and even going further to invest in ticketing, venue, and artist management firms, thus controling a stake in all aspects of the talent’s revenue.
And you have yet to explain how your reasoning benefits artists who don’t tour, which is most of them.
To Senseless noise
Wait 20% of 100 000 000$ equals 500 000$ ?
Does my calculator goes wrong ?
Even at MOST.
average price for a ticket for a big star concert 150$, then multiply by 15 000 (also average) then i get 2 250 000$, i take out let’s say 60% of it for the big sharks
still 900 000$ per show, ok it’s just an average estimation, some shows make less sales and others artists don’t ask for 150$ for entrance.
Then maybe the artist or star will make an average of 40/50 shows on a world tour ?
Damn, life sucks for them…..
Just kidding, the real greedy is the big shark over their heads (the artists)
Oops. Came back to this website.
“Anonymous 3:06am:
“Here, I’ll make it a little more obvious in case you didn’t get it: China does not share a constitution with the United States.”
And yet China is a signatory to all the major international IP & Copyright treaties, including the Berne Convention, WIPO, the Paris Convention, and a specific memorandum of understanding with the United States to provide copyright protection for all American works. In addition, China possesses an extremely thorough set of laws and social policies regarding trade identities and patents. So while China may not share the Constitution with the United States, it certainly shares a regard for the fundamental ideas embodied in the Patent & Copyright Clause that any responsible country needs to provide a framework to protect the work of others.”
Alright, detective dipshit, one last try: instead of refuting what is said, you refute a point that the other person was not trying to make. Unless you find laws with equal parameters and punishments in every country in the world, you are wasting your time arguing a moot point.
You’re not as smart as you think you are.
“So let me get this straight. You want us to believe that pirating music doesn’t equate to lost sales, but instead guarantees ticket sales? Really? Explain to me how it’s offensive to pay a couple of bucks for a few tracks that you allege that you like, but not more offensive to pay significantly more money for a show, a good portion of which goes to companies that are truly wicked — the ticket companies like Ticketmaster.
In the end, all you’re doing is penalizing the artists - you’re just too short-sighted and self-entitled to recognize it. If sales continue to decline because of the wholesale infringement of music, the record companies are simply going to change their contracts to get a bigger piece of the pie. In fact, we’re already seeing them starting to take a piece of the touring revenue, and even going further to invest in ticketing, venue, and artist management firms, thus controling [sic] a stake in all aspects of the talent’s revenue.
And you have yet to explain how your reasoning benefits artists who don’t tour, which is most of them.”
Most of this can be answered by Roger Wallis.
Also, you’re clearly not factoring the fact that many “pirates” use the “piracy” to sample music quality before buying it, and are supportive of those artists who aren’t millionaires.
Please site a source showing how Ticketmaster “ticket companies like” it are wicked.
Please site a reference for you final claim.
Back in the days of the original Napster, every 14-16 year old had an Ipod.
My parents gave me about $15 a week when I was fourteen. Forgetting how long you’d have to save-up to even buy an Ipod; let alone to legally fill up a 20gb at $1 a song for 4,000 songs is beyond the means of most teenagers, and their parents.
Apple made a killing out of something that could only realistically be used to break the law and they profited greatly on others’ copyright infringements.
They marketed their product to everybody insecure enough to want to be in the young-hip-IN crowd (teenagers), just like the tabacco and drink companies used to do before it became illegal.
Conventional wisdom implies that teenagers are susceptible to all forms of aggressive advertising from the big faceless corporations (fast-food, smoking, alcohol, fashion, silver-ring-thing) and are merely victims of a greedy stategy to rid them of their parents hard-earned cash. While we lost many teens along the way (fatties, preppies, etc.) who continue to indulge in their respective vices well into their twenties; protections are now in place for this vulnerable demographic.
All I’m trying to say is that if the Ipod box came with a warning: USING THIS PRODUCT TO IT’S FULL POTENTIAL WILL LEAD TO A +$500,000 LAWSUIT! then maybe this whole piracy thing wouldn’t have taken off and I hesitate to think what could have become of my life had I chosen the path of virtue over the sleazy world of internet downloading.
“When you see an artist with cars and houses and VIP parties and shit, think about the fact that, if their last CD went gold (500,000 copies sold) at $20 a CD ($100,000,000), they only see AT MOST 20% ($500,000). so where does the other $99,500,000 dollars go? Now tell me who’s stealing from whom?”
Maths is not your strong point.
Not one calculation in this makes any sense.
500,000 x $20 = $10,000,000.
20% of this is $2,000,000. - How ever an artist is more likely to see 7-8% of sales. Unless you’re Radiohead where you 100% as they have no Label (Clever).
Where did the other $8,000,000 go - Advertising, signing the artist, massive administation costs in developing.
Just one quote:
“Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Our estimates are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the decline in music sales during our study period.”
from: Oberholzer‐Gee F., Strumpf K. The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis, 2007, DOI: 10.1086/511995
I’m not a person who thinks that theft is a funny matter. I don’t condone piracy or infringment. However, i’m also a person who thinks there should be a certain amount of fairness to the law and the penalties it hands out. In the two most recent cases, Jamie Thomas and now Joel, if I were on the jury I would have come to the conclusion that they did share some music but I would not have come to the conclusion they actually infringed by doing so.
The act of downloading or sharing a piece of music, in and by its self, does not automatically mean a loss in revenue for the rights holder. To me at least, there has to be be something else, a missing piece of the puzzle, that ties everything together to show a dedicated attempt or act which would indeed cause a loss of some sort. It seems to me that the loss is the missing piece of the puzzle. Neither of these cases were tried as criminal, they were civil.
If you or I were to take anyone to court in a civil suit there would need to be some basis for that action. The court would expect us to show some form of loss of some type eiother monetary or other type. Sure, there is a “grievable matter” aspect, but even in this aspect there would need to be something to show the court why we “grieve”. To date, from what I can tell or read, neither the MPAA or the RIAA have shown the courts one piece of verifiable information which shows an actual loss due to the sharing of their respective products. In fact one of the lable executives was placed on the stand in the Jamie Thomas case and was not able to give any amount lost as a result of the sharing by Jamie. None of the figures, anywhere, given by anyone, have ever been verified by independant unbiased third parties, and the studies conducted seem to even undermine these claims.
I recently read an article (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/2311106011.shtml) in which the MPAA is told they need to prove there was actually infringment (and thus a loss) that impacted their business. Although not exactly what the Jamie and Joel cases were about, I tend to think the concept introduced by the judge is something that challenges the “because we said so” prosecutorial tactics which both the MPAA and the RIAA use.
At the beginning of my comment I said that I didn’t think theft was a funny matter and I don’t condone piracy or infringment. In my view, although I think that sharing did in fact go on, I don’t see a theft or an infringment, and the reason I don’t is because I don’t see a loss and thus do not see a harm being done. I do not see where sharing in either the case for Jammie or Joel caused a harm or loss no matter how much is implied otherwise by the RIAA. Even though the copyright or infringment laws as they read today (as undefined, outdated, and confusing as they are) would on a simple reading seem to indicate both of these cases deserved what they got if the implication of the RIAA is given greater weight then it should have as has happend in both of these cases, I must disagree with the verdicts in both cases. Even after reading all the court documents, I can see no where that a loss occured or actual harm done.
The DOJ recently made statement that they supported the verdicts and that this was what the law was intended to do, I both agree and disagree with their support statement. I agree because there is a spirit, intent, and letter of the law and the cases were both tried in accordance with the spirit and intent, but the letter of the law was overlooked. Its only when all three (spirit, intent, and letter) of these come together that justice is served. Without all three present, or using any combination to justify the third, there is no justice and justice is not served.
I think the RIAA should need to prove an actual loss and harm to the court before even one more of their cases are accepted. I think the defense should have a chance to see the harm and loss and verify the claims. Failing the tests of these two opponents I believe the cases should not be allowed to proceed.
If I let a friend borrow a CD, is that copyright infringement? I’m not making any money off of the product.I really don’t think there are enough people downloading music, movies, etc. from the internet to make as big a dent in their profits as they lay claim to.
This is unbelievable. I knew the RIAA was all about greed and money but this truly takes it to another level. I bought some songs on Itunes, then forgot to back them up. Later my computer crashed and I lost them. I can’t seem to get in touch with anyone to see if I can download them again, does this mean I should pay for the same songs twice? It seems as though the MPAA and RIAA make all the rules up as they go, and can extort money out of anyone simply because most people can’t spend as much on lawyers as they can.
I think that it was wrong of him to steal, but its past that its now an issue of the ridiculous amount of money the RIAA thinks it deserves. He offered to settle with the RIAA for $500 that puts each song at 16.66 (for simplicities sake just say $17) that’s 17x their value, thats more then fair but instead the RIAA DEMANDED $12000, at $400 per song (400x their value) and now he has to pay 225000x their value, how is this fair or simple for the law? make it easy charge 3x whatever they pirated and that’s fair.
Hello, I thought I would post and inform you that your blogs layout is really screwed up on the Firefox browser. Seems to work good on Internet Explorer however. Anyhow keep up the good work.
As an electrician I expect payment for my work. How wonderful it would be if I could charge money every time that darn switch is thrown and the light comes on! A song can be a wonderful thing but how many times should you be able to sell it? Answer: As many times as some one will buy it? Answer: As many times as someone listens to it? Answer: As many times as the law allows it? What a wonderful conundrum. co·nun·drum Pronunciation: \kə-ˈnən-drəm\ Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown Date: 1645 1 : a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun 2 a : a question or problem having only a conjectural answer b : an intricate and difficult problem. I choose def. a.
Just thought i would comment and say neat design, did you code it yourself? Looks great. If you wishto swap the links with us please let me know.
Comfortabl y, the article is really the greatest on this deserving topic. I fit in with your conclusions and definitely will thirstily look forward to your coming updates. Simply just saying thanks definitely will not just be enough, for the awesome clarity in your writing. I can best away grab your rss feed to stay informed of any kind of updates. Genuine work and also much success in your business efforts!