Is Peer-To-Peer Music Sharing In Danger?

by OrbitingTheSun 18 Replies latest social entertainment

  • OrbitingTheSun
    OrbitingTheSun

    Labels to sue users sharing songs online

    TED BRIDIS ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON—The embattled music industry disclosed aggressive plans today for an unprecedented escalation in its fight against Internet piracy, threatening to sue hundreds of individual computer users who illegally share music files online.

    The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin to search Internet file-sharing networks tomorrow to identify users who offer "substantial" collections of mp3 music files for downloading.

    It expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within eight to 10 weeks.

    Executives for the RIAA, the Washington-based lobbying group that represents major labels, would not say how many songs on a user's computer will qualify for a lawsuit. The new campaign comes just weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings requiring Internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally sharing music and movie files.

    The RIAA's president, Carey Sherman, said tens of millions of Internet users of popular file-sharing software after tomorrow will expose themselves to "the real risk of having to face the music."

    "It's stealing. It's both wrong and illegal," Sherman said. Alluding to the court decisions, Sherman said Internet users who believe they can hide behind an alias online were mistaken. "You are not anonymous," Sherman said. "We're going to begin taking names."

    Country songwriter Hugh Prestwood, who has worked with Randy Travis, Tricia Yearwood and Jimmy Buffett, likened the effort to a roadside police officer on a busy highway.

    "It doesn't take too many tickets to get everybody to obey the speed limit," Prestwood said.

    Critics accused the RIAA of resorting to heavy-handed tactics likely to alienate millions of Internet file-sharers.

    "This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely," said Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer."

    Sherman disputed that consumers, who are gradually turning to legitimate Web sites to buy music legally, will object to the industry's latest efforts against pirates.

    "You have to look at exactly who are your customers," he said. "You could say the same thing about shoplifters. Are you worried about alienating them? All sorts of industries and retailers have come to the conclusion that they need to be able to protect their rights. We have come to the same conclusion."

    Mike Godwin of Public Knowledge, a consumer group that has challenged broad crackdowns on file-sharing networks, said today's announcement was appropriate because it targeted users illegally sharing copyrighted files.

    "I'm sure it's going to freak them out," Godwin said. "The free ride is over." He added: "I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people engaged in file-trading decide to resist and try to find ways to thwart the litigation strategy."

    The entertainment industry has gradually escalated its fight against piracy. The RIAA has previously sued four college students it accused of making thousands of songs available for illegal downloading on campus networks. But today's announcement was the first effort to target users who offer music on broadly accessible public networks.

    The Motion Picture Association of America said it supported the efforts, but notably did not indicate it plans to file large numbers of civil lawsuits against Internet users who trade movies online.

    MPAA Chief Jack Valenti said in a statement it was "our most sincere desire" to find technology solutions to protect digital copies of movies.

    California democratic Representative Howard Berman, who has proposed giving the entertainment industry new powers to disrupt downloads of pirated music and movies, said the RIAA's actions were overdue. "It's about time," Berman said in a statement. "For too long ... file-traffickers have robbed copyright creators with impunity."

    The RIAA said its lawyers will file lawsuits initially against people with the largest collections of music files they can find online. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but Sherman said the RIAA will be open to settlement proposals from defendants.

    "We have no hard and fast rule on how many files you have to be distributing ... to come within our radar screen," Sherman said. ``We will go after the worst offenders first."

    The RIAA declined to estimate how much it expects to spend on the lawsuits.

    http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1056537488497&call_pageid=968350072197&col=968705923364

  • wednesday
    wednesday

    i use kazalite, and i read on aol today that they are going to now go after the individual users. I think it is a bluff, but, just the smae, it does give me pause.

  • bigboi
    bigboi

    They're just gonna make it worse, for themselves. The industry really needs to stop charging so much for it's friggin music. I could care less about a corporation's profits.

  • OrbitingTheSun
    OrbitingTheSun

    I agree BigBoi. If music weren’t so outrageously priced people would still be buying it in stores. Think about it. You can get a pack of 50 CD-Rs for less than the price of 1 average CD. If record companies are producing in bulk, their resources are probably even cheaper than what we pay for CD-Rs. They could make considerable profit from charging just $5 a CD because a number of customers would pay about that much just to have the real deal. But they are greedy, so they get nothing...and now they want to sue the little people for not buying into it anymore.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    Bigboi, that was exactly my first thought. If they wouldn't charge so much, my teenage daughters might be more inclined to use their allowance to buy cd's rather than burn them.

    Another thought is that I don't really have a budget for buying music. Our budget is pretty much strapped so I wouldn't buy the cd's anyway so they're not really losing any money here.

  • hippikon
    hippikon

    I only download when I want to hear something new - then if I like it I buy it. I won't buy an album if I'm not sure what it's like unless it comes with strong recomendation - they loose my bucks if I can't try it first.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    I think it is a mistake for you to consider the hard cost of the CD into your valuation of purchased music. The fact that you can spend 50cents per burnable CD is not really relevant to any part of the "cost-of-music" discussion. It is only relevant to a discussion about the cost of writeable CD plastic. Another industry altogether, one which I suspect no one here has any real interest in.

    I do wonder why the industry has been so stupid, so slow to respond, and so insular. They could have blown Kazzaa, gnutela, et al out of the water 4 years ago, simply by providing reasonably priced individual songs for download. For that matter, they could make money selling individual songs on CD at stores for 99 cents, though they'd probably be able to jack that up to 2 bucks or more, and still sell. Apples music service is proof. Perhaps they're afraid of all that dud music that clutters most albums lying around unwanted and unreimbursed.

    I have a feeling that the timing of this litigation is a not so gentle reminder to the consumer that "now we have reasonable ways for you to pay, so get busy paying".

    Six~dread pirate who'd rather heist/hoist Orbiting than songs

  • OrbitingTheSun
    OrbitingTheSun
    The fact that you can spend 50cents per burnable CD is not really relevant to any part of the "cost-of-music" discussion. It is only relevant to a discussion about the cost of writeable CD plastic.

    I don't understand what you mean, Six...Ultimately it is about the music (not the medium listeners copy it to) but I think the price of CD-Rs does matter. People want their music to be portable and, if CD-Rs (or memory cards, or whatever) cost $20 each, most people would still buy CDs and skip around to whatever songs they like just to be able to listen in their cars or while they are exercising, etc. It is a difficult issue to resolve, and whatever the resolution is someone is going to be unsatisfied.

    Orbit ~ The Dread Pirate's Wench...With A Dog That Prefers Peg Legs Over Snausages

  • rem
    rem

    Normally when people stop buying your product you lower your prices, not make lawyers richer. Supply and demand 101.

    rem

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    I guess I don't see the direct relevance of the cost of the recording media. I don't think it is any mystery that the actual physical cost to the big boys is very, very low per cd. I suppose the technology is driving the industry, you can't argue with that. But the value of an album, has to be something other than the mark-up on the plastic used to deliver that album. I agree with you, Orbiting, that we (the consumer) demand and will accept nothing less than portablility.

    My bigger point is that, while I hate (and don't do it very often) paying 18 bucks for a cd, I'm totally ignorant of the true cost it takes the record label to put that musician in front of me. I don't imagine anyone else except industry insiders know either.

    I know the industry has to change; the market is forcing it to. I suspect that change will come from selling music on the net, and I think it will be cheaper, maybe much cheaper. Maybe some big record labels will go out of business. It wouldn't hurt my feelings... one can find great music just going to local clubs, or head down to Austin for the weekend. Still, you can't blame them for putting up a fight; it just seems they could have put up a much more intelligent fight a few years ago, simply by accessing the new technology and the needs and wants of their customer.

    But in the long run, do any of us really want the changes that would come if music is left totally free?

    Six~ say g'night rufus

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit