Teen Pulls BB Gun On Cops, Gets Shot In The Face
Yankees, Fans Revel In Ticker Tape Parade Frenzy
After Girardi's Help, Crash Victim Now A Yankees Fan-For-Life
Google Maps Upgrade NYC Subway Line Integration
Adding In "Discouraged Workers," Jobless Rate Is 17.5%
Nice work, RIAA. Your attempt to escalate the war on music piracy by filing lawsuits against 261 civilian file swappers has met its match: The New York tabloid news media. The Daily News and Post both feature one of the sued file-swappers - 12 year old Brianna LaHara. There is nothing the tabloids love more than stories about sweet, unassuming, "curly-haired," Catholic-school-attending girls who download "If You're Happy and You Know It" being bullied by annoying, out-of-touch industry organizations, especially ones who tell them, "Oh, my God, what's going to happen now? My stomach is all in knots."
RIAA's president Carey Sherman says, "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action," but Gothamist will side with LaHara's mother, who told the Daily News (after a reporter and photographer went to their apartment to inform them of the suit), "For crying out loud, she's just a child. This isn't like those people who say, 'My son is a good boy,' and he's holding a bloody knife. All we did was use a service." Blaming file swappers for the 30% downturn in the music industry is bull. Maybe they could stop making such crappy music.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Down 30% ignores demographic shifts, new mediums of entertainment, and of course the fact that most of the new music is rather crappy and poorly packaged . . . but it easier to blame downloaders for the drop than explain why yet another popstar/grunge god wannabe just signed a multi-million dollar deal that will go south in a hurry.
Can't forget the 71 year old Texan that has been named in the suit...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3092854.stm
What's the deal with the Daily News caption on the photo?
"Brianna LaHara, 12, sits at home computer, where she uses $29.95 service to download music from Internet. Yesterday, music industry group sued her."
I think they forget a few obscure words, like "a" and "the."
Jen, the RIAA is simply going by the rules that exist and protecting their business interests. Since the courts have determiend Kazaa is legal because it can be used for legal purposes, the RIAA is going after those who use it for illegal purposes. Makes sense, right?
Karru, the industry knows downloading is just one of the many problems. Refer to today's NY Times analysis and you'll see many music executives with a good perspective on the issue.
P.S. How can anybody say new music is crappy? In my opinion, there's no shortage of good music. C'mon, folks, we live in the music capital of the world. Get out and discover it. I could easily pick three or four good concerts every night of the week. If anything, New York has too much good music.
Coolfer, points taken. When I think about the music industry, much like the movie industry, pushing mainstream, mediocre fare (yes, there are some good mainstream acts or non-mainstream being pushed by big labels out there) upon the public, assuming the public will bite. I totally believe in more grassroots efforts, that the music industry needs to really grow fans that care about an artist's music, but I suspect a lot of the most-downloaded songs are of Top 40 ilk anyway.
The RIAA is like Zack from Paradise Island. Totally annoying, misguided and desperate.
This wouldn't be an issue if the "Big 5" got together 5 years ago and agreed on a pay per download system that they can all use and profit from. They would be rolling in profits right now. The iTunes store works folks.
50 Cent has to be one of the most heavily bootlegged and downloaded artists and his record seems to be selling just fine.
Coolfer, I do agree that there is good music out there but, to make over-reaching blanket statements, it does not form the vast majority of what is on the radio, on the video channels, nor is it what the firms put their marketing dollars behind. There is plenty of great music that I listen to that I cannot find in stores here and I certainly haven't heard on the radio. Though I do hear it from time to time in ads . . . like when Dodge took Timo Maas' song for a truck ad.
Blaming file swappers instead of improving quality? That's crazy talk!
There was a recent item about Hollywood execs blaming text messaging teens for the lackluster summer box office. That's right: it's the teens fault for warning their friends not to see the crappy movies they happened to watching. Not the film industry for making the crappy films.
Plus they have those trailers before the movies now, with hardworking crew members talking about how downloading movies steals the bread out of their babies mouths.
okay - note, though, that even hardworking and genuinely talented indie rock bands are hurting through a downturn. I think what the music industry is ignoring, though, is that this whole file-swapping thing is about TWO issues:
(1) yeah, we like getting music for free.
(2) we like being able to get single songs, quickly making mixes, moving music rapidly between media (cd, computer, ipod, etc). what the music industry is ignoring is that MP3s are popular for reasons other than their free-ness.
Solve #2 (and I don't mean some half-assed $2.50-per-song catalogue of top-40 artists, downloaded in some unburnable and proprietary format)... and then I won't give a rat's ass if #1 is dealt with harshly.
I'm going to let everybody in on the main reason CDs cost what they do: Commercial radio promotion, videos and marketing costs a lot of money. People buy what is presented to them on TV and radio. Period. Anybody who wants better music needs to search it out. It's no different from books or movies. Look beneath the surface and you'll find a neverending supply of great music, priced less usually because the budget is smaller. Independent labels, for example, rarely charge what the majors charge, and generally speaking the music is much better. I cannot emphasize this enough: the good music is out there. Plenty of it, waiting to be found. Go to Stern's Music, Mondo Kim's, Rebel Rebel or Other Music. Or even Virgin. It's all there. Just don't count on radio or TV to help you find it.
And about this 12-year-old girl...don't let the story tug on your heartstrings too much. Ignorance is not an excuse. The courts have spoken: If you're going to download, proceed at your own risk.
I agree in principle that popular CDs bundle in promotional costs but considering that the industry settled a price fixing case a while back and one of the majors just dropped their prices by over a third would seem to indicate that there wasn't a clear economic reason for the pricing architecture on CDs. I'm always searching for good music, thanks for the tips.
coolfer, you seem to be implying that these laws were carved in stone with god's fingernail on a desert mountaintop and given to the RIAA to enforce upon the evil, lawless hordes. these laws are created through highly financed pressure from the big entertainment companies and groups like the RIAA itself. the laws are misguided and wrong -- i hope this all backfires and is exposed for the act of desperate hubris it obviously is.
Property rights need to be honored and enforced. Not just in music, but in all industries. If they're not paid, the music won't get made. Imagine that scenario. But thanks for the "highly financed pressure" and "evil lawless hordes" fire-and-brimstone rhetoric.
the rhetoric is all yours. downloading does not, and will not, stop music from being made (gosh tho, imagine if it did!! i suspect you'd be out of your music industry job!!)
obviously if the music industry just got together and put out a legal, affordable way to download and store music, and trade in some limited way for less common stuff, they'd be reaping huge benefits right now. i suggest this:
1. all companies immediately digitize and put their entire catalog online- average price per song should be about $0.25. downloading should be in a common format, like mp3. users should be able to burn songs to disk, move them between computers (this could be limited to some reasonable number, like 5 computers), and move them between devices.
2. For less common songs, and for songs that are just out there, the music industry should collect a fee every time songs are traded. Since this is impractical, a fee should be levied on service subscribers to pay for the music being downloaded by everyone, or some other way should be developed to track and reimburse costs.
3. for people that insist on illegally distributing music outside the bounds of a reasonable system like this, large penalties and fines should be in place, and a regulatory agency should be created and funded to police the system- perhaps funded half by the industry and half by the consumers.
You're right, Greateshits. Downloading will never prevent music from being made. It won't help better music to get made, but it will certainly never be an obstacle to the creation of all music. And you're right again, in a worst case scenario I would be out of my music industry job. So as you can see, I'm not as flippant about this topic as those less affected.
Jake, thoughtful suggestions. Outside of iTunes, the download services are far too restrictive, and this will need to be fixed. And I think an enforcement agency will be a necessity. But your pricing structure would put all but bedroom musicians out of business. For a quarter the labels might as well give it away--which would mean no artist royalties--and save themselves the hassle and expense of accounting for the income. Remember, the physical cost of a CD is tiny. Just because the music is zeroes and ones doen't mean there aren't expenses involved.
For those who want free music, I don't think we're too far away from corporate-sponsored singles and albums. McDonalds will pay for a rock band to record an album, then give it away. Pepsi will sponser a single by a popular rapper and make it available for download.
the RIAA should be helping the industry deal with the 'problem', not hopelessly trying to prosecute it away. it's time for the industry to step up, compete, restructure, adapt, think outside the box or whatever else they're saying around the boardroom table these days.
jake's right, apple should be commended for moving quickly and effectively with it's music store (granted, mac users don't enjoy the same ease of filesharing as pc users) -- it's proved alternatives can exist -- while the music industry is still stuck in it's lp/ep/single-pricepoints-moving-units blah blah and the RIAA is prosecuting 12 yo's and grandmothers.
look at it this way -- let's say jen wants to buy "crazy in love" cos it's mad catchy. but she has the feeling the rest of beyonce album could blow (luther vandross? uh, okaay...)
the industry offers her only one alternative, and that is to buy the single. it costs $7! and no, she's not interested in the included remixes, outtake album tracks, or the sticker. she either orders the single online (waits a few days and pays even more for shipping), or gets her transit on and actually visits a store.
or, she downloads it instantly from apple store for $0.99
or, she downloads it for free from a filesharing network (not that she would ever do that, of course), and contributes to coolfer's worst case scenario... "mcdonald rock" or whatever he's so scared of (like it doesn't already exist).
1) If anyone in the music industry had half a brain they would be spending their money on developing a global iTunes inspired music store online (it obviously works) as opposed to spending however much on legal fees.
2) All this is going to accomplish is a redesign in file-sharing software that prevents individual users from being tracked.
3) I really don't think someone like Britney Spears should be worth tens of millions of dollars -- do you? Maybe the industry needs to rethink how much money they are wasting on some of these 'artists'.
some thoughts...
remember how apesh*t execs went when "blank tapes" came out? people were dubbing their cassettes for friends! outrageous! record execs were convinced it would ruin the industry.
so, i ask this... which is really a threat to the RIAA? people downloading song by song (which can take forever given that you first have to figure out which songs are from what ablum... and then weed through all the crap/fake files that are really just 5 seconds looped around 50 times)? ... OR, say, one person buying an album in the store and then copying it for her brother who copies it for his friend who copies it for his cousin who copies is for her boyfriend,etc?
if downloading is truly a threat to the industry it's because, as greateshits said, jen could download "crazy in love" instead of spending $18 on an entire CD that only has one good song on it. (because she probably wouldn't even be able to pay $7 for the single because, ever since billboard changed the rule that singles don't have to be released commerically in order to chart, record companies refuse to pay to have singles released -- this is why you might see some crapass fake singles like "crazy in love" by Bonita, or "Miss Independent" by Kellie Klerkson).
so, the choices are download a song for a buck, take it from other file sharers... or spend $18 and listen to only one song.
i totally agree with coolfer in that there's a ton of amazing music out there! and you just have to find it. but what this all means is that record companies (and more importantly, ARTISTS) can no longer fill an entire CD with ubercrap. otherwise, they need to expect that consumers are going to find altnerative ways to get that one, sole, good song. and we have.
Does anyone here think that any money generated from these lawsuits will actually end up in the artists pockets?
I don't.
The RIAA seems like they are trying to litigate the industry back up to their Britney Spears/nSYNC past sales glories.
Quite simply, downloading is a boycott of the music industry and their high CD prices. It's not going away.
Reading these comments makes one thing very clear, and it's been an obvious problem with the music industry for years: individual songs are marketed to the public, not albums. Every time I hear somebody complain about two decent songs and ten tracks of filler, I can't help but think these people are talking about the shit that's on the radio and video channels. Those artists are not making albums. They're making a CD filled with a bunch of songs made by different producers in different studios. There's a big difference. I personally don't make mixes and pick bands song by song. I'm old fasioned--I listen to albums, front to back. We may come full circle and return to the days of the '50s and '60s when cheap singles were put out one after another. For many pop and hip-hop artists, the album may be a thing of the past.
Downloading has hurt the perceived value of music, just as the low price of a DVD has hurt it. The cost of an album just isn't what it used to be, partly because people got a taste for free music and got hooked. (Jake, is music only really worth $0.25 to you? That's sad, dude.) Why pay when you can get it for free, right? For an iTunes model to work, illegal file-sharing cannot take place simultaneously at its current volume. We'll see soon enough--when Napster comes back, I think it's gonna be more of a revolution than iTunes has been.
Leafblower, downloading may be a boycott, but it's a boycott that hurts the industry and ulimately the consumer (fewer new artists means less diversity, fewer retail stores means less choice, lawsuits, etc.) The music industry doesn't get gov't subsidies, so what are struggling labels and artists supposed to do? Throw a Farm Aid-style concert?
The RIAA has said that the money from settlements will fund the "education and enforcement" campaign. In other words, more lawsuits.
Of course boycotting is hurting the industry!
That's the point of boycotting it.
Labels that have their spending under contol and shit together, esecially indies, will continue to sign, promote and find a way to profit from good artists that make good music. If people are downloading this many songs it tells me they want more music and aren't happy with what Clear Channel and Viacom are force feeding them.
This doesn't answer the question about why the industry doesn't want to change. Does anyone else think it funny that Apple, A COMPUTER COMPANY(!!!!!!), is the only one out there trying to change the music industry and take advantage of the distribution opportunities that the internet provides?
As other authors have pointed out, there are three main reasons for the decline in CD sales:
1. Simple CD piracy (reburning of CDs) is now nearly a larger market worldwide than real CD sales.
2. The tape to CD replacement cycle is over and people are buying mostly new albums only. The same trend happened to tapes a few years after general acceptance over LPs.
3. The number of titles released annually by the record companies has dropped something like 25%. So it's not surprising that sales have dropped.
If the RIAA entirely stopped file sharing today, it would not see a 33% increase in sales.... first of all, many downloaders would not be buying those songs if they weren't available free.
The main issue is that the record companies need a scapegoat to blame declining sales on, or they'll have to admit that fundamentally their industry is in contraction. File sharing is a "fixable" obstacle, whereas the issues above aren't. To admit the problem is not file sharing would have dire consequences for the market valuations of these companies, because it would mean admitting that their growth years are over.
I doubt file sharing has hurt the industry or consumers.
Most of the people who download songs would just turn on the radio if it weren't for file sharing networks. It's not like people are going to start flocking back to their local tower records because kazaa get's shut down. Let's face it, for a lot of people music is just something to play in the background at work or in the car.
File sharing probably increases sales amongst hard core music fans. I personally spend more on music than I ever have. Have you noticed how many indie bands have mp3 files on their sites? I think they understand that more people listening their music means more people buying their CDs and going to their shows.
At any rate, we'll all have 100GB watches in a year or two, and we can just swap songs with our coworkers and friends w/o getting on the internet.
Check out emusic.com. Ten bucks a month, unlimited transportable downloads. Limited to indie labels, but definitely worth the money. I've downloaded multiple albums from Pavement, Pixies, Donnas, Bauhaus, Apples in Stereo, Guided by Voices, Interpol, CCR, Cat Power, NOFX, Rancid, Pennywise, Cocteau Twins, etc. Discovered a lot of great new music too. Probably downloaded at least 200-300 albums in the last five months. Also: I haven't bought a retail CD in ages. Amazon.com Marketplace has some great deals - I can almost always find what I want used and in decent condition, and usually costs about $5-$6 a CD including shipping charges.
File sharing is the new radio.
don't you lose all of your emusic content when you end your membership there? Meaning it dissapears from your computer.
Leafblower: No, on Emusic the MP3 files you download are fully transportable, burnable, keepable.
Call for Boycott:
The smart thing for the consumer to do would be to boycott the recording industry until it ceases dehumanizing its lifeblood--the consumer.
Burn CDs if you can, copy tapes, join a music club, trade with friends--but DO NOT buy full-price music. This just gives the recording industry the smug satisfaction that they have won.
Seriously, I have a problem with this suit because while most of these people are downloading someone else's "talent", I don't think they are profiting from it. It would be like copying graphics or copy from one website to your non-commercial site. So, how are you profiting from it?
Cooler, you say "law is law", but unless you're Dr. Evil and just climbed out of your underground lair, you know that's a syllogism that's not likely to hold. Copyright law is a problematic and, many times, shady area of law. There is a lot of wiggle room here, and no reason in hell for the RIAA to get involved to this extent. They are essentially trying to "muscle" the little guy around. If they sued the services, well, that's a different story. They are the ones making some profit from this.
I did like one comment I heard the other day: "The industry is loaded and just plain greedy. They make enough $$. Just get over it!"
And btw, I've never downloaded a song in my life. I work for a publisher and one of the perks is free or cheap CDs. So unlike "Cooler" there's no bias here.
Agreed, it is doubtful that file sharing has seriously injured the music industry. If that were the case, you wouldn't see things like that punk Lil' Bow Wow playing cards with his other little friend and an anti of $160 on the table without batting an eyelash! (Say that in one breath.)
People have to understand that artists (and I use the term loosely) make a great majority of their money through concerts and the sales of paraphernalia. CD sales are really only a minuscule part of there income. Take into account also that just about all of them do commercials and movies, and get paid big that way, as well. The industry as a whole has a broad range of moneymaking tactics that are not likely to run out any time soon. They are a multi-tasking industry!
My story:
Having, at one time, been a big fan of Metalli-something I purchased quite a bit of their albums. Remember tapes - you played them until they were so warn that not even Dolby sound and Bose speakers could fix them? Well, I purchased the same tape three times because of that, and then I purchased the CD, which promptly got stolen. A few years later and I'm on Napster. My thought path was that I already bought the albums several times over, and there fore, was entitled to maintain copies of music I already owned or had owned at one point. How betrayed did I feel when my account was revoked because the group I loved decided they no longer wanted my patronage. After all, who downloads the music? The fans of that artist.
Yes, I understand that even their newest releases were being traded, and that I don't think is fair to them, but when long-time supporters are denied 15-year-old music that they most likely already owned, it is equally un-fair to the consumer.
Anyway, I no longer listen to that particular group, and even turn off the radio if it comes on. Besides, I found a metal group that kills them... Iced Earth! (... and I've purchased every single one of their CD's!)
This is what I think will happen; weather the cases against the people who downloaded music "illigaly" are won or lost there are several things you are forgeting.
1. Their privacy, was invaded litteraly someone went into their computer as if they broke into the house and checked out information under a false pretext: example: I put on a uniform of a cop and go into your house... get the picture.
(this in my view is a bigger thing then some song being ripped off)
2. Weather the girl and the old man loose or win against RIAA doesn't matter what matters is if they will win on their countersuit and trust me it will come on #1...