Project EquillibRIAA: Putting Joel Tenenbaum In Touch With The Musicians In Question

from the good-idea? dept

Not sure what I think of this, but Michael Scott points out a project being set up to try to put Joel Tenenbaum in touch with the musicians whose music he downloaded and shared. The idea is to find out what the musicians think of the RIAA's lawsuit and the $675,000 fine. After the Jammie Thomas ruling, for example, Richard Marx, one of the musicians whose music was involved, came out and condemned the RIAA's action. Considering that the RIAA is out there claiming this is all for the artists, it would be worthwhile to find out what those artists have to say.

I have to admit that I hadn't looked at the actual list of 30 songs that were a part of the trial, but I'm pretty surprised to see some of the names on the list. For example, it includes Nine Inch Nails -- and we've already had plenty of blog posts about Trent Reznor's new business models which succeed by encouraging file sharing, recognizing that with more people listening to the music, there are many other creative ways to make more money. In fact, Reznor famously has told fans at concerts that they should download the music that was released under his (former) major record label. I'd love to see the RIAA let us know how much of the $675,000 will get to Reznor. The spreadsheet on the Project EquillibRIAA also lists Radiohead (who has spoken out against the RIAA tactics) and Courtney Love (who has been very explicit in condemning the RIAA's actions since way back in the Napster days), though I don't see either of them actually listed on Joel's list.

Either way, I agree it would be interesting to see what the musicians have to say -- whether they agree with the RIAA's strategy or not... and if they expect to see a dime of the $675,000.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 5:44pm

    Yet another piece of irrelevant tripe from Harvard. Personally, I believe the one setting up the site would be far better served by placing Tenenbaum's counsel in contact with trial lawyers who can help them understand where the Tenenbaum Team went awry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 5:59pm

    It is entirely irrelevant, as the artists have signed away many of their rights (including those things that Joel was sued under).

    It would sort of like putting a dairy farmer in touch with a kid who stole milk posters at school. The relationship isn't relevant.

    "Either way, I agree it would be interesting to see what the musicians have to say -- whether they agree with the RIAA's strategy or not... and if they expect to see a dime of the $675,000."

    Mike,how much did the RIAA pay out to artists in the last year posted? Would you care to remind us? How much does the RIAA send to artists every year? You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Tek'a R (profile), Aug 7th, 2009 @ 6:10pm

      Re: You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.

      Hey, that's a good point.

      How about you just tell your boss to keep half your paycheck. I mean, they are still paying you, right?

      They can call the part they keep "Administrative Overhead and Market Research" charges, then use it to research new sports cars and coffee machines. That shouldn't be a problem, right AC?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 6:28pm

        Re: Re: You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.

        heh-heh. Since I don't have a boss, I don't worry - but if I did, I wouldn't object to those charges if they fronted me a million up front to play with. It's all in the balance.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          eclecticdave (profile), Aug 8th, 2009 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.

          > heh-heh. Since I don't have a boss, I don't worry - but if I did, I wouldn't object to those charges if they fronted me a million up front to play with. It's all in the balance.

          And if you had to spend all that money to create, promote and distribute the album (using the labels facilities sure, but with your money), leaving about 40k to share among your band, while the label takes their 4 million share of the proceeds and runs straight to the bank with it?

          Would you still be going 'heh-heh' then, or would you have a bad taste in your mouth?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      bigpicture, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 6:51pm

      Re: Irrelevant??

      It may be legally irrelevant, but it certainly is not socially or culturally irrelevant. And is that not what the whole issue is about???, and even how the case was attempted to be presented. As THE BIG DISCONNECT, between the people, society, the constitution, and the current systems of law and government.

      But of course the LEGAL SYSTEM is not INTROSPECTIVE and neither is the government, which is the principle cause of revolutions. These can either be slow and almost imperceptible, or sudden and violent.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 6:04pm

    Based on the Trial, all the money is based on 30 Songs. 30 Songs, in which the artists are known. It should only be fair to pay the amount to the artists, since they were equally or harmed more. However, the money is not coming in on license, thus, they have no legal responsibility to pay it, and likely wont.

    They do not even always pay when they DO have a legal requirement. (I think there were quite a few lawsuits over that, with both popular bands, and studio musicians.) That may have changed due to negative press.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Endi Rodriguez (profile), Aug 7th, 2009 @ 6:06pm

    Something interesting to follow nonetheless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Aug 7th, 2009 @ 6:08pm

    "The relationship isn't relevant."

    Well, that just about says it all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    James G. Witte (profile), Aug 7th, 2009 @ 7:05pm

    equilibria sounds like a good idea

    I am very curious which artists are contacted and their responses. Yes, NIN has already spoken against the RIAA, but what about the others. Speaking of which, I don't remember hearing anything about the Tenenbaum team contacting NIN to get their input during the trial. I personally feel that attacking the RIAA's position of "defending the artists" would have been beneficial, whther he planned to plead guilty or not. I am also curious to see what of the $650,000 goes to who. Personally, I am not a fan of the RIAA, and only expect them to serve the labels and not the artists, but it would still be nice to see where all that money goes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 7:18pm

      Re: equilibria sounds like a good idea

      I suspect you will get "wanna be cool party line" stuff, as each artist will dump a little crap on the RIAA, and then quietly cash the checks they keep getting.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Doctor Strange, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 11:16pm

        Re: Re: equilibria sounds like a good idea

        I suspect you will get "wanna be cool party line" stuff, as each artist will dump a little crap on the RIAA, and then quietly cash the checks they keep getting.

        Let's not forget that these artists are not only compensated by their labels in cash, but in fame. Which, in the absence of a so-called (and much decried on Techdirt) "360 deal" they get to exploit mostly on their own and for their own benefit.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 7:18pm

    Yeah seriously, they should have marched Trent Reznor up on the stand and let him tell the RIAA to fuck off, LOL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 9:58pm

    This blog recently took issue with conflating the artist's rights with the abstract dictates of copyright law. Yet, we suddenly have an about-face and should care what the artist thinks. Civil suits such as copyright infringement can only be filed by the owner of those rights. The artists don't have any rights. I don't care what the former owners of my car think about whether I've been maintaining it well or not and I don't care what the creator of a song who assigned the rights to someone else is now having cold feet about taking money from a record company. Bought, paid for, gone. Moral rights are a part of copyright law in Europe but not here in the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Aug 8th, 2009 @ 12:26am

      Re:

      "The artists don't have any rights."

      Yep, that's the point actually.

      Whenever you hear a pronouncement from the RIAA, it's always about "protecting the artists" and "the future of music". In reality, it's about their profit margins and selling products.

      There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's fundamentally dishonest for them to pretend that victories like this are about the artists when it's really not. The post simply reinforces that, and reinforces why the major labels are their own worst enemies and will become irrelevant.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 7:17am

      Re:

      Mike only cares about what the artist thinks when the artists support the "FREE!" economy. Otherwise, they are mindless droids of the horrible machine of "the industry" and RIAA puppets who just don't know better.

      Please, follow along. It's important.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        JEDIDIAH, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 1:54pm

        Re: Re:

        > Mike only cares about what the artist thinks when the artists support the "FREE!" economy.

        Your not-necessarily-accurate assessment of Mike's views on the matter is a useless red herring. The RIAA position is frequently justified by the claim that they are acting in the interest of artists. Do the artists in question agree with any of this?

        This isn't about what Mike says, this is about what the RIAA says and the commonplace notion that the RIAA only gives lip service to the interests of artists.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ervserver (profile), Aug 7th, 2009 @ 10:28pm

    RIAA is selfcentered

    The RIAA doesn't care about the artists or what they may have to say

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ..., Aug 8th, 2009 @ 6:25am

    RIAA business plan

    1) steal from artists
    2) sell plastic
    3) screw fans
    4) ???
    5) profit !

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michial Thompson, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 7:00am

    Does it really matter what the Artists think???

    What the Artists think doesn't mean crap. They all signed the distribution rights over to the record labels, and they are the ones that were wronged.

    I could care less if the artist stood on stage and told everyone to download their music, if they signed the distribution rights away, they are equally guilty of copyright infringement by telling people to download the music too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      CleverName, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 9:09am

      Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

      "They all signed the distribution rights over to the record labels"

      I take issue with your use of the term "all". Independant artists have not signed or agreed to anything with the labels, hence the title "Independant". Get it?

      I find it puzzling why the labels (and yourself) refer to all music as being under their purview. In addition, the royalty collection agencies seem to think that they have a right to collect on behalf of all artists regardless of whether the artist wants them to or not.

      So - Michial, what (some) artists think does matter. It is you who have a narrow field of view.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 9:31am

        Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

        I believe you miunderstood the post upon which you commented. The individual was referring to the artists associated with the specific music at issue in the Tenenbaum trial. As to each copyright is in the name of various labels, and it is the labels who are entitled to receive the proceeds of any award finally determined by the court.

        As for the artists you may feel are missing out, I daresay the contracts they signed with their labels governs matters pertaining to compensation.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          CleverName, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 12:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

          AC -> "The individual was referring to the artists associated with the specific music at issue in the Tenenbaum trial."

          Granted, that may be the case. However the following exerpt could imply that all artists are being addressed.

          Mike -> "Considering that the RIAA is out there claiming this is all for the artists, it would be worthwhile to find out what those artists have to say."

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 1:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

            that doe simply all of the artists involved. Honestly, asking Amanda Facepalm Palmer to come down and make a comment would be really very, very, useless.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Michial Thompson, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 2:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

            Mike -> "Considering that the RIAA is out there claiming this is all for the artists, it would be worthwhile to find out what those artists have to say."

            Technically the RIAA's claims of it being for the artist are somewhat accurate (though misleading). If you define the "artist" as the owner of the rights, and not as the creator of the art.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              CleverName, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 8:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

              Now the RIAA are artists, what is their artform - deceit, greed, bribery?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Vic, Aug 10th, 2009 @ 5:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

              Right! "Artists", "owners" - it's all in the definition, nothing else. Just define an artist as "the owner of the rights".

              You can also define an "ass" as a "head" (shape is about the same, it distributes/owns whatever the head eats) - you'll get us all very confused!...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Michial Thompson, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 2:38pm

        Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

        I was not refering to ALL Artists, only those that the RIAA are using in their cases...

        The RIAA would not be representing any artist not a part of the big labels, and if they did lump them in, then the courts should at least seperate thos artists out of the list when it is pointed out.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 8:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

          MT -> "I was not refering to ALL Artists, only those that the RIAA are using in their cases.."

          You used the word "all" in your first post, that must have been in error.

          MT -> "The RIAA would not be representing any artist not a part of the big labels, and if they did lump them in, then the courts should at least seperate thos artists out of the list when it is pointed out."

          That's nice, since they are not authorized to do so. And why is it up to the courts to sort out RIAA screw ups?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Luci, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 11:57pm

      Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???

      I whole-heartedly disagree. The artists are the creators. While they may not have the rights to their own creations, any longer, things like this will impact what they create, next. And don't give me any automobile crap responses, either. They are meaningless, since the creators of those vehicles expect people to modify and personalize them. How much music have I bought in the last three years? Five CDs. None from RIAA artists.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    James G. Witte (profile), Aug 8th, 2009 @ 11:38am

    question on distrobution rights

    @Michial Thompson I would agree with you that the labels in/under the RIAA were sold distribution rights, but my question is, if I sign with a label today, make 3 songs and then decide I don't want to work with them anymore--for what ever reason. Do they have exclusive distribution rights to the 3 songs that I wrote? for all time? So, if I play that song at a concert, after I have left them, and let the fans record it live and then send the mp3 around, have I encouraged criminal activity? Have my fans committed a crime? And if that is true, do I own those 3 songs? Are they my songs or do those songs belong to the RIAA? Do I have to change my band/group/stage name because the RIAA owns that? I remember when the artist Prince didn't use his name for a time and he was called, "the artist formally known as Prince" because the media didn't know what to call him?

    To sum up, What does distribution rights entail? Can I terminate your rights to distribute my voice singing a particular song?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michial Thompson, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 2:48pm

      Re: question on distrobution rights

      @Michial Thompson I would agree with you that the labels in/under the RIAA were sold distribution rights, but my question is, if I sign with a label today, make 3 songs and then decide I don't want to work with them anymore--

      The contract you signed would dictate the answer to what you are saying. MY guess would be that the distribution contract would be heavily slanted in favor of the Distributor rather than the creator.

      In a lot of big label cases the label licenses use of the music from the writer, then hires a band to promote it. I would guess that most of the big label music on the radio and most of the top 40 artists fall under work for hire contracts to the studios rather than them being actual copyright holders or song writers.

      At one time a few years ago I did a little research of the top like 20 songs at the time and more than half of them were written by someone other than the person singing the song on the radio....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 4:56pm

        Re: Re: question on distrobution rights

        "At one time a few years ago I did a little research of the top like 20 songs at the time and more than half of them were written by someone other than the person singing the song on the radio...."

        It is another one of the things that people around here often miss - that music isn't a uni dimensional "guy with a guitar and a tape recorder" sort of thing. There are plenty of people in the process, some "stars" write their own music, but more often than not, it is a collaborative effort or songs are even brought in from the outside.

        So those writers never have a chance to "take it on the road". Nor do many of the producers that often lend their particular style or sound to music. In Mike's world, producers would work for minimum wage, or for FREE, with no hope of making a living until they start schlocking t-shirts of going out to the Malibu GP with lucky buyers (pronounced sheep). The song writers, the arrangers, and all those other people are all in the same boat, they should work for nothing, or hope that maybe the artist will pay them later, perhaps. Maybe not.

        So in those 30 songs, there are likely twice or three times as many writing credits, and some production credits that also get paid through residuals. But that doesn't matter, it's only the bands that matter.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          ..., Aug 8th, 2009 @ 8:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights

          "more than half of them were written by someone other than the person singing the song on the radio....""

          and a large percentage of the musical groups these days can not play a single instrument - and lip syncing is much more prevalent - oh and did I mention, they suck.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Richard, Aug 9th, 2009 @ 2:24am

          Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights

          And this structure has been created because the copyright business model had enough "fat" to support it.

          30 years ago every high street here in the UK had at least one - maybe two or three "HiFi Shops". You could go in, sit in a nice plush room, be served coffee and then listen to various different combinations of record deck, amplifier, speakers etc. The business model worked because a complete set of equipment then cost approximately 1/5 annual income so with a 10-20% profit margin for the shop the overhead could easily be covered.

          Since then the price of the equipment has dropped dramatically and so these shops are almost completely gone (I did see one in Norway a couple of months ago but then Norway is a strange and expensive place).

          The premium they would have to charge now against the basic cost of the equipment would be more than 200%. No one will pay that premium and so the shops died.

          The music industry's problem is that their business model was based on charging a premium on the marginal cost of the music distribution medium. When that marginal cost was a pound or so ($2) then there was room to fund lots of hangers on at 1-2% each - typically the artists got 2%. The problem no is that the marginal cost has dropped to essentially zero and there is no way you can charge a million percent margin on something and get away with it.

          It is like Canute trying to hold back the tide by decree - with all the lawyers and DRM technicians scuttling around making little dams out of sand to try and hold back the inevitable advance of the sea.

          Whether you think it is good or bad, fair or unfair, moral or immoral doesn't really matter here - it is just a fact of economics. There is no law of nature that says that there has to be a professional music industry at all - let alone one that works on a luxury model like the old HiFi shops.

          For the first couple of thousand years of human civilisation there was no music industry - just people singing in church (temple, synagogue, mosque etc) and a few buskers.

          It is up to artists and the rest of the industry to find new business models - not so much because the old ones are immoral or unfair - but just because in the future they simply won't work.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 9th, 2009 @ 7:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights

            Richard, basically you are right, except you are making one mistake (the one Mike wants you to make).

            The marginal cost of distribution is lower now. But the fixed costs (which ends up being broken down in a "cost per unit") doesn't change. No matter is you have the "infinite" distribution or you push "shiny plastic disc" there is still costs per unit to produce.

            Mike has everyone concentrating on marginal costs, when those marginal costs often represent only a small part of the true cost of the product. So it is often misleading to say that music has no cost because you can distribute it digitally.

            Let's say there are $100,000 of costs involved in making an album. If you sell 100,000 units, the costs are $1 per unit. But if Joel gives away your music and you only sell 50,000 units, the cost per unit just went back up to $2, and the profits per unit probably disappeared.

            Let's say you are selling a single through itunes. It cost you $25,000 to produce the single. You sell 50,000 units on itunes, and you about break even. Now, if Joel gives away the music and you only sell 25,000 units, you just lost money.

            Marginal costs didn't even come into the discussion. I didn't even consider them here.

            As for you hifi shops discussion, it's cute but misleading - they work on margin (straight markup), with no benefits for volume. The music business is entirely based on volume, the higher the volume, the higher the profit per unit. Two very different businesses, just in the same way you can't compare stealing music with stealing pizza, or deciding not to buy pizza. They are unrelated business models.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Cipher-0, Aug 9th, 2009 @ 5:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights

              Let's say you are selling a single through itunes. It cost you $25,000 to produce the single. You sell 50,000 units on itunes, and you about break even. Now, if Joel gives away the music and you only sell 25,000 units, you just lost money.

              There's a slight problem with what you're proposing: There's no evidence at all that online sharing of music is having any impact on the music industry as a whole.

              It looks good on paper, but you simply can't prove it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Richard, Aug 10th, 2009 @ 3:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights - fixed costs

              No I didn't make the mistake of ignoring fixed costs - I was perfectly well aware of them - and my HiFi shop model DOES work - you obviously didn't properly understand what I said. In fact it's precisely the relationship between fixed and marginal costs that it illustrates. The fixed costs for the HiFi shop were the building, the demo equipment, the staff the cups of coffee etc etc. That was the whole point of the analogy.

              When they were dying the HiFi shop owners complained that people would come in - take their coffee, listen to their equipment, say "yes , very nice - I'll think about it" and then go and buy the stuff from a discount mail order house - but that wasn't really what killed them -it was the low marginal cost.

              High fixed costs are sustainable when the marginal cost of the product is high enough that a moderate "tax" on it will cover the fixed costs.

              When the marginal cost drops to almost nothing then the public perceives that tax as too high - esp when they know that they can do the copying themselves very cheaply. (Not for nothing - because it costs some time.)

              What the RIAA are trying to do with DRM and lawsuits is to artificially inflate the marginal cost in order to maintain their high fixed costs. Unfortunately this strategy requires a police state in order to get anywhere near working and even if it does so will create an enormous business opportunity for (offshore) criminals.

              "Let's say you are selling a single through itunes. It cost you $25,000 to produce the single. You sell 50,000 units on itunes, and you about break even. Now, if Joel gives away the music and you only sell 25,000 units, you just lost money."

              Let's say your running a railway. It costs $25000 per week to run so you need to sell 1000 tickets at $5 each day to break even. Now 250xJoel use their cars and give 500 people a lift. You lose money. You close the railway - tough.

              So economics is telling you it's no longer viable to spend $25000 dollars making a single.

              If you don't want to lose money don't do it. There is no divine right to make a living in a particular way - no matter how good you are.

              When Pete Waterman was growing up he wanted to be a steam train driver - but the railways changed and there were no more steam trains - so he became a record producer instead and now uses the income from that to run steam trains as a hobby.

              Someone growing up now might want to be a record producer - but maybe that isn't profitable anymore - so earn your money somewhere else and produce records as a hobby.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Saint, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 5:41pm

    Joel Tenenbaum torrent

    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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 8:02pm

      Re: Joel Tenenbaum torrent

      My form of protest is the same as it's been for the past 5 years. I only buy used music CDs. The RIAA and the music companies haven't yet discovered any way to squeeze profits out of the secondhand music business.

      The problem with downloading and hosting torrents is that you are putting yourself into the same ridiculous legal situation as the poor schmucks that have been sued by the RIAA.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 9:19pm

      Re: Joel Tenenbaum torrent

      Go for it - in part, you are contributing to why Joel is in line to pay $675,000. Share it some more, maybe that number will go UP on appeal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 8th, 2009 @ 7:35pm

    "The Saint"

    Somehow it seems an inappropriate name for a total tool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michial Thompson, Aug 9th, 2009 @ 3:57am

    The only way to fight the RIAA

    Guys simply put there is only one way to fight the RIAA, and that's to prove to the member labels that there is no demand for their music (no matter who the artist is).

    If you buy a CD, download a song, or even go to a concert for an artist that is signed with a member label you demonstrate that there is a demand for their product, and give them ammo in court, and incentive to stick with their current way of doing things.

    As long as there is a demonstrated demand then they will continue to try to keep their current way of doing things, and all that's going to do is give this blog owner something to whine, cry and bitch about.

    For the idiots that get on here and brag that they will never buy the music, but keep downloading it for free, all you are doing is making the problem worse. Go listen to these "indie" groups your always talking about for a few years and give the market time to fix it's self. Quit downloading the RIAA music as well as quit listening to it.

    You cannot tell them there is no demand, then come along and download it. Mixed messages are going to just make this go on and on an on.

    I am far from a fan of the RIAA or MPAA as far as that goes, but I do respect the position of protecting what is theirs to protect. If the want to stay with the sinking ship that's their business, but I am not going to be pooring water into the boat, or even helping to bail them out. I am just going to sit back and watch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      R. Miles (profile), Aug 10th, 2009 @ 3:53am

      Re: The only way to fight the RIAA

      If the want to stay with the sinking ship that's their business
      Therein lies the problem with your ran, er, position, Michial.

      This industry is ruining other industries and making it harder for them to succeed. Case in point: WKRP in Cincinnati DVD release.

      That's a problem. No matter how you look at it, this "demand" you're against seems to apply everywhere even when the artificial demand doesn't really exist.

      Now this idiocy is attacking the internet. No, not the download sites of songs, but everywhere else. Want to play a snippet of a song of an artist you like? Can't do it. It's infringement. Want to show off a video with background music playing? Can't do it. It's infringement.

      Yet none of these pertain directly to the music or recording industry. So why is it they're making it their business?

      Telling people not to buy RIAA-backed music is like telling them not to breathe. It's not going to happen and this leaves it up to the rest of us to "fight back", rant, or do whatever else we need to do to wake the industry up to their damn problem.

      I should be allowed, despite what people may think there, to list every mp3 I legally purchased on my website. I am breaking no laws by doing this.

      I did not reproduce, copy, or infringe on my copies whatsoever by doing this.

      Yet this industry states that doing so is wrong.

      If you can't see a problem with that, then maybe you shouldn't post in comments regarding RIAA.

      Because the line "respect the position of protecting what is theirs to protect" means you also respect their decision to screw others.

      Which makes you more part of the problem than those who buy RIAA-backed music.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    refe, Aug 10th, 2009 @ 8:04am

    Where the money is going

    Someone may already have pointed this out, but the money awarded to the RIAA in the Tenebaum case (and probably the Thomas case as well) will be going back into the 'fight against piracy.' None of it will go to the artists (big surprise.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This