Monster Fine For Pirating

[feldkeen4]

You tube has constantly been forced to take music and videos down for copy right issues. So why no fines for those issues.

 

In the 70's I taped hundreds of albums, everything I could get my hands on. After about 10 years the cassette tapes seemed to have degraded in sound quality, and got tossed one by one.

[ChanMan]

Poor analogy.

 

The artist, publishing company, nor retail outlet placed the product out there for free.

 

A more accurate analagy would be someone who came along and placed a "Free" sign over the shop owner's stack of canned corn, then was fined over a million dollars for the x number of cans that were taken.

 

 

Notice I haven't mentioned the fine, just the legality of the fining.

[Rocky4]

Poor analogy.

 

The artist, publishing company, nor retail outlet placed the product out there for free.

 

A more accurate analagy would be someone who came along and placed a "Free" sign over the shop owner's stack of canned corn, then was fined over a million dollars for the x number of cans that were taken.

 

 

Notice I haven't mentioned the fine, just the legality of the fining.

 

But you're putting a third party in the mix. File sharing is between the party making it available, and the party stealing.

 

....and I understand M's point. The relationship between the music makers and the music industry is one sided from the get-go

[Riffster]

The $1.5M fine is so these news make it to the headlines and serve as a warning.

 

If they gave her a $0.99 fine for each of the 24 songs well people would laugh and think they can download for free and only pay when and if they are caught.

 

With the new technology and availability of downloading individual songs there are no more excuses to pirate songs.

 

If you do, don't get caught.

 

I think there is a lesson in this for everybody.

[Riverside]

 

 

I think there is a lesson in this for everybody.

 

Nope, just thieves.

[Rocky4]

The $1.5M fine is so these news make it to the headlines and serve as a warning.

 

If they gave her a $0.99 fine for each of the 24 songs well people woul laugh and think they can download for free and only pay when and if they are caught.

 

With the new technology and availability of downloading individual somgs there are no more excuses to pirate songs.

 

If you do, don't get caught.

 

I think there is a lesson in this for everybody.

 

People are going to steal whether it's big fine or small. If the death penalty or life in prison doesn't stop you, nothing will.

 

In 2009, it was estimated that up to 55% of the nets traffic was due to P2P usage.

[ChanMan]

I'm not adding a 3rd party... you're omitting one. The Artist and all the folks who are being ripped off when someone gives away their work.

 

It's not like these songs just fell from the sky and she put them up for DLing.

[milod]

Sorry...

 

I come back to my newspaper and magazine analogy...

 

If a restaurant plays music on a radio, ASCAP and/or BMI come after them under a batch of laws that functionally date back before any of us were born.

 

If a newspaper or magazine is on the counter to read in a cafe or a doctor's office, it's okay for others to read something I might have written (I've written for both), but not to listen to a song I may have written and performed on the radio - which I've also done.

 

Frankly I think it's time artists start to realize the business version of "bureaucrats" win and the artist loses, and start hitting their U.S. Congressional delegation and - apparently, their own nation's equivalent of the U.S. Congress.

 

I want my name on anything I've written, for credit at least; and "we" whether we write books or music, need a way to ensure we are paid for our work and copyrights. But the era in which the current mode was probably beneficial to the creators is long, long past.

 

In music, "we" need to start thinking for ourselves, too, longer term if we're writing our own material and/or performing it. The BMI/ASCAP folks are sampling performance in such a way that only a few artists ever see a nickel. Their staff people on the other hand...

 

m

[Rocky4]

I'm not adding a 3rd party... you're omitting one. The Artist and all the folks who are being ripped off when someone gives away their work.

 

It's not like these songs just fell from the sky and she put them up for DLing.

 

I wonder why she would knowingly do that. What benefit does she get from it?

[ChanMan]

That, Rocky, IS the real question, sir.

 

Milo... it doesn't make sense to me either, and I'm glad YOU brought up the parallel to print media. I guess it really comes down to, no matter how onerous the victim, they are still a victim.

 

If you want to see how REALLY screwed up things can get... take a look at computer software licensing.

 

1. Once you break the shrinkwrap, the product is yours, and you can only trade it in for another copy of the same software or in-store credit.

 

2. The agreement that tells you this is located INSIDE the shrinkwrapped box.

 

3. It is OK for the software company to release and sell a product that does not function, and your only options are listed in #1 above.

 

Here's the kicker.... if you borrow a friend's copy to run on your PC to see if it works, you can be arrested and fined for piracy. If they just put a blank CD in the box and sell it, it's perfectly legal and you have no legal recourse, except to return it for another blank cd, or in-store credit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Might should keep an eye out for them to lobby for similar IP rights for other industries.

[Riverside]

Diners don't attract eaters of breakfast with photocopies of newspapers.

 

Dentists don't attract root-canal customers with five year old photocopies of Field & Stream.

 

If they did, it would be stealing.

[milod]

Well...

 

I don't get a nickel from a magazine or newspaper piece that's in a library or "reading room" either. Nor from pieces I've had used in various books. If I'm lucky, I'm literally a footnote in a book somebody else sells.

 

Yeah, people don't go into a cafe because of the music - so why zap the owner if they have on a radio station at least as much for weather "news" as music? They don't come in for the newspaper or magazine either, but it's part of the "experience" of eating out. That's as good an argument as there is for BMI forcing them to cough up a batch of cash "or else."

 

Sorry... I very much dislike it when I see small coffeehouse and saloon operators bullied while folks playing in small venues and even in relatively big venues don't see a nickel from those guys. Meanwhile a lotta little places are closed down as live music venues. I find that objectionable.

 

Before defending either ASCAP or BMI, look at how they sample for royalties. If you're not with a "big" recording firm, good luck, 'cuz if you get even a buck royalty you're just plain lucky. Some sort of a change in this stuff is very badly needed and has been needed for over 30 years, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Oh - the cash from the small venue for the band or singer/songwriter or true folkie? Where does it go? Think about that one, 'cuz it ain't the little guys.

 

m

[retrosurfer1959]

The fine is ridicules but the woman will never pay that amount if anything, but she just became the most recent poster child for music theft which is why they do it. How many of us would be talking about this fine if she would have been fined $800 dollars or something more reasonable. They know they are not going to get the money so they go for the huge fine for publicity.

 

Musicians get ripped off all the time and some handle it very differently, some fight it all the time and won't allow any music even on itunes because they feel it makes it to easy to steal (stupid since it's as easy to burn a cd as download) they get ridiculous themselves when they send threatening letters anytime a song is used on a you tube video or anywhere else.

 

Others just let it go and figure live performances are given away. some like Government mule don't care if you record or film unless it's pro equipment but they also record every concert and sell them on the web themselves probably making allot more money than those that use lawyers to fight anything of theirs on the web.

 

Cassette recorders changed the world when cheap and portable recording could be done and instead of a few music fanatics recording mix tapes on reel to reel for their own use cassettes were cheap and everywhere and music piracy was born now the fight is about sheet music and tab, books movies and everything else created digitally. and the losses can be huge look at the twilight book that was released on the web they determined that the value lost on that book getting away from the author was 20 million dollars.

 

Who knows what's going to happen in the long run - I was stupid and posted a song for some feedback a few years back and it was almost instantly stolen and used and I got nothing other than a harsh lesson and you'll never see me posting my music on the web again even on a site like this forum, unless it's a finished retail release. I was told in court that if I shared it I couldn't un-share it and it was no longer under my control once I had released it.

[milod]

REtro...

 

What you say you were told is... interesting.

 

Technically you own the music once it's created, just as something I write is "mine" with a copyright as soon as it's created.

 

The problem as I see it is that you apparently don't have a high-powered enough lawyer.

 

I just went through a similar deal on a photo I did. Since it wasn't specifically registered, I couldn't technically get cash, but I could have the other entity stop using "my" photo "or else." They knew it so I didn't even need a lawyer.

 

Yeah, I think we need to rethink the whole copyright thing, and right now. Period. The problem is that ASCAP and BMI can spend hundreds of thousands on lobbying and "we" haven't a chance unless "we" start to pony up and realize that writers and photographers, musicians other "creators" need to look at what today's world is like and craft laws that reflect the realities.

 

"We" as creators need also to figure how we can make a living as creators, too. We're not in a 1950 world. We're not in the 1920 world of ASCAP and BMI and they're trying to keep both musicians and their audiences there.

 

Photographers and writers have been past that stuff for ages, but still are trying to figure out how to make a living once something is "uploaded" anywhere.

 

Given "digital," I really think that all "arts" need to work together for change in copyright law. "We" are certainly not the beneficiaries.

 

m

[jaxson50]

I feel so much safer knowing that this woman has been dealt justice..maybe we should ASCAP & BMI go after bin Ladin and his co-horts....