Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
12:39 AM on 08/02/2009
I wonder if he was using lime wire to download music?
01:34 AM on 08/02/2009
Probably, otherwise they'd _never_ have caught him. Or what difference does it maek?
12:01 AM on 08/02/2009
EdCoughlin I'm a Fan of EdCoughlin I'm a fan of this user permalink

"Why is a rough approximation of a painting or installation art (which certainly takes a lot of effort to create) different then a rough approximation of auditory art (an MP3 is not identical to live music just like a JPG isn't identical to a painting)?"


You're KIDDING with this, yes?

What if you have cheap speakers... what if your stereo system needs replacing.. what if your EARS are lousy.. should you be able ro steal the music?

The "reproductive quality " has NOTHING to do with the MATERIAL you are STEALING.

12:21 AM on 08/02/2009
What MATERIAL was STOLEN? A piece of PLASTIC? A piece of LINT? Some actual MONEY? A KANGAROO? What MATERIAL was STOLEN?
12:23 AM on 08/02/2009
The words "stealing" and "theft" are easily "misunderstandable".

The proper term is *copyright infringement*. Tell me how it's not copyright infringement.
11:53 PM on 08/01/2009

It's amazing to me the extent of RATIONALIZATION some here are willing to create to obfuscate the SIMPLE fact that this is THEFT.

"It's just words & sound" (as if intellectual property is somehow exempt... if it has no "physicality" then it 'doesn't exist')...

"The record companies make too much money anyway"... (as if that criteria has any moral basis.. that can be said of ANYONE making more than YOU are)

"Nobody cares about downloading"... (nobody cares about a LOT of things... that doesn't lend any moral exemption, either) BULL$#T.

"What if I'm 'humming the tunes at work"... (the most infantile rationale ever.. not worthy of a response)



The MUSICIANS.. the ones who put DECADES into developing their ART... the ones who spent DECADES living on NOTHING... the ones who CREATED the music & who DEPEND on the RESIDUALS to SURVIVE are being RIPPED OFF.


You can get all "touchy-feely" about how how it "belongs to us all" forever.. but it DOESN'T.

It BELONGS to those who CREATED IT.. & until YOU can PAY FOR IT, it does NOT belong to YOU.

12:10 AM on 08/02/2009
Interesting. Someone at HP likes (or fears) 50 Cents (or his lawyers).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:30 AM on 08/02/2009
Actually music has developed over much longer than a couple of decades,

What percentage of the music of any given song by any given artist, is actually the original concept of that artist, very very little. Who invented a tonic, subdominant, and dominant progression? How much do they deserve for the next top 40 song, or how much does it belong to all of us?

It is a shared culture and a shared inheritance.

You can extend the concept of ownership of physical property, and theft to something that has no intrinsic physical value, to ideas, to the reproduction of sounds, or anything else, but the analogy doesn't hold. You accuse others of rationalizing but your moralizing is not rational.

The concept of value and exchange is a two way street, what is the value of listening to a song once, that you don't like, that sounds like a thousand other songs you don't particularly care for, vs the value of a song that you love, and play every day for a year?

There is more to this marketplace than your misplaced 19th century morality tale.
12:44 AM on 08/02/2009
What is the "intrinsic value"of a REMBRANDT.. the canvas... the pigment.. the FRAME?

Sorry.. it's a BULL$#!T analogy...

There is MORE to MORALITY than your juvenile "19th Century" evasions.
primum non nocere.
01:50 AM on 08/02/2009
insert my cens0red response to you here.

don't even try to lecture a couple of professional musicians about their business.

it is NOT a shared culture and a shared inheritance because NOT every person in it was capable of MAKING music.

YOU are not beethoven.

i, on the other hand, can take the notes beethoven wrote on a page and bring them to life.

can you?
11:41 PM on 08/01/2009
The problem here, as it always is, doesn't have it's origins in the "how many angels on the head of a pin" type debates over what constitutes stealing of music. Rather,. the RIAA's actions have been so myopic (failure to adapt to evolving technology---even now, they still aren't sure how to handle internet distribution, seeing their customers as the enemy as well as sheep to be fleeced at will) and greed imbued that it has lost all sympathy from the public.

As is typical of our behemoth corporations, they are so big that they are slow on the uptick and the only thing to employ in any situation is brute force. In other words, they want to squash the consumers they look down on and, well, that gets folks exercised a bit, no? Consumers have long felt ripped off and deceived by the record industry and they are also apalled when they find out just how much artists get screwed by those same firms. Well, the time for when that behavior can viably continue is over. Either come up with a solution that consumers and bean counters as well as the artists can agree on or maintain the status quo where stealing from evil entities such as the RIAA membership is considered cool by the youth. That makes to much sense, though. So it will never happen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Praying for evolution of human species...
11:27 PM on 08/01/2009
So where are these musician-victims, these poor rappers with no bling, these poor pop-tarts with no money for tattoos, these poor folk singers who don't have to fake being poor folk singers anymore? Someone show me these victims, please.
11:48 PM on 08/01/2009
Try the SIDE MEN.. the drummers, bassists, guitarists & keyboardists.. the background singers, the percussionists.. violinists, horn players.. the WRITERS, ARRANGERS.

Are you KIDDING with this SCHIDT?
11:52 PM on 08/01/2009
Please take it easy, BSM. You're right, but ALLCAPS rarely helps getting the point across.
01:38 AM on 08/02/2009
what do you call a drummer who just broke up with his girl friend .. homeless "ca-ching" ..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Praying for evolution of human species...
11:18 PM on 08/01/2009
The proper way for the recording industry to deal with file sharing is to flood the file sharing sites and networks with promos - snippets of songs as advertising teasers with voiceover ads on top - so it becomes more than 99 cents worth of work for the average person to find a real song hidden amidst the promos.
11:19 PM on 08/01/2009
Several big torrent sites have a rating system that lets others know whether the file is "legit".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Praying for evolution of human species...
11:20 PM on 08/01/2009
So build a bot to rate the promos.
11:03 PM on 08/01/2009
If I download music into my ears from a Clear Channel station, am I stealing? After all, unlike internet radio, BIG RADIO pays no royalties. And if I hum that tune at work, is that a public performance like how the British record industry is raiding mechanics shops when they play music on their personal radios while they work, arguing that since those radios are being played in public (even if it is only other mechanics that can hear it) it is therefore a public performance and subject to dunning for royalties?

The problem for the RIAA, JASRAC and the other record industry spokesthieves across the world is that they lack a sense of proportion. Laws lose legitimacy when they are excessively applied and that is what the RIAA, etc are doing, losing any claim to the moral high road by trying to use the law to act like greedy pirates.
11:14 PM on 08/01/2009
Ok, I agree that the RIAA is a horrible extortion machine.

But the greed of those illegal filesharers parallels the greed of Big Content and is just as reprehensible.
11:31 PM on 08/01/2009
Just how much file sharing of pre-recorded music is occurring? The RIAA's numbers are complete fiction. What kind of music is being downloaded? For example, while I don't download music for security reasons, folks who do are often those looking for out of print material, bootleg footage not generally on the market, fans of the acts whose music they already bought but want everyone else to hear, people engaging in try before you buy (and downloaders, from surveys I have seen, are often active listeners who will buy the music after hearing it) or wanting records that aren't available in their country. In other words, this is all due to the past dishonest practices and continuing myopia of RIAA and other such organizations in not marketing to those kinds of audiences.

As someone who has a huge record collection and who has spent tens of thousands of dollars in my life on CDs, LPs, concert tickets and merchandise, I would love it if everyone bought music they heard. But that just is not going to happen for reasons ranging from it's too expensive to the decline in discretionary spending due to recession. And you never, ever attack your customers. There is a better way to handle this. But no, the RIAA, as it has done since radio was invented (yes, they didn't like radio when that first became available), runs lawyers at every technological innovation rather than adapting to it. Thus, they make it cool to steal music.
02:13 AM on 08/02/2009
When you purchase a recording you are purchasing a license that defines your legal use of the recording .. different types of licenses for the same recording can cost vastly different sums of money ..

just like two people can drive up in a Mercedes .. if one has bought the Mercedes and one is renting the Mercedes .. they both have a Mercedes .. but they have far different legal responsibilities in terms of the use of that Mercedes ..

Chances are if you upload the recording you purchased to the internet you have pretty clearly violated the license ... Chances are if you are hearing Clear Channel they are not violating their license ..

For better and for worse the RIAA could care less about the "moral high road" .. they care about setting some examples and making people give a second thought to violating the license of the recordings they (or others) have purchased.
primum non nocere.
02:28 AM on 08/02/2009
this is a great post.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:34 AM on 08/02/2009
That is a lot clearer than that nimrod "another fine mess" Yes, you are just violating the license of someone that purchased the rights to distribute. You are not really stealing, but you are violating the license agreements, downloading a piece of music is a far cry from going in the store and stealing a turkey. In any event the fines levied against this poor dude are rather outrageous. There should simply be a mandatory 5 days in jail for violating the license or something not some ridiculous we will ruin your life judgment. The fine definitely does not fit the crime.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:58 PM on 08/01/2009
Why are people still illegally down loading music?
11:01 PM on 08/01/2009
Beats me.
10:54 PM on 08/01/2009
Music is cheap. Individual songs on iTunes don't cost more than $1.29. It's much simpler to just pay for the music you want than to risk getting caught.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Praying for evolution of human species...
11:03 PM on 08/01/2009
How much is the ipod?
11:09 PM on 08/01/2009
And the fish. How much is the fish?
12:59 AM on 08/02/2009
much less than a Les Paul
10:12 PM on 08/01/2009
"The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case." I wonder what 30 songs were contested. $675,000 is way too much. and unconstitutional, way excessive. A song on itunes is 99 cents. The judgment should be 30 dollars to $3,000. I would like to know the songs he downloaded: 1) did he eventually buy the CD and 2) did he go see the musical act? If he answered yes to any of these questions, I see no problem. Artist receive most of their money from touring not from CD sells. The participants in this case are 4 recording studios (NOT artist) and Joel Tenenbaum. I would have more sympathy if the artist were suing. YouTube has a bunch of recordings of live concerts and a bunch people covering mainstream(and not mainstream) artist. Should these people pay royalties?
11:07 PM on 08/01/2009
I am surprised the recording industry apparently did not have to prove how much they were economically "hurt" by thirty song downloads... this is an outlandish, excessive, idiotic punishment. If the guy does eventually plead bancrupcy, do we taxpayers foot the bill of 675,000?
12:05 AM on 08/02/2009
It was the problem of how MUCH was stolen.. it's impossible to calculate.. but if you figure in just the cost of an iTunes download..

Let's say he downloaded just "30 songs" (BULL$#!T).. &sent them to 10 friends who sent them to 10 more who sent them to 10 more.

Right THERE it approached $40,000.00.
12:16 AM on 08/02/2009
In the event of bankruptcy, his creditors and others he owes money are the losers. "We taxpayers" are not out a penny.
01:07 AM on 08/02/2009
so if you see a Harry Potter Movie you should get a free book ....

the financial reward for copyright infringement varies widely based on whether the violation was "willful" .. If you do not violate willfully you are probably only out the actual cost .. if you do willfully violate ...

Recording engineers in most instances are very artistic professionals who put their stamp on a recording .. and in your vision of only paying for concert tickets .. not seen as very valuable ...

"Artists receive most of their money from touring" .. hmmm .. some artists perhaps. I wonder if you would have things like Sgt. Pepper's or Deep Listening ..
10:07 PM on 08/01/2009
I've seen much made about how what Joel Tenenbaum did was stealing and how good it is he got nailed. Some have said that the only regret is that they didn't stick it to him harder. Very well, let's look at these songs as just a brandx item. We're talking about the recording industry being compensated as much as $150,000 per track for a .99 cent item. So if a kid steals a candy bar should he or she have to pay a $150,000.00 fine? There's something to be said for letting the punishment fit the crime.
Another sentiment I have seen is that artists have a right to their intellectual property and that their interests have to be looked after. Perhaps, but the RIAA doesn't work for recording artists, doesn't exsit for recording artists, but the record companies ...those people who exploit the artist moreso than any internet music pirate ever could. Do you people have any idea how many artists get screwed by the record companies, sign away their rights just to be some label's tax write-off? Do you think that recording artists who make and pay for their own recordings should have to pay the RIAA to air their own music on internet radio platforms like Live365? The RIAA, in many ways is the worst thief of all.
Yes, we should reward the RIAA because of what this guy did ...certainly ...It all makes cents.
09:59 PM on 08/01/2009
Oh I wish we could argue over a few cold ones. That would probably work much better.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Praying for evolution of human species...
11:45 PM on 08/01/2009
OK, I'll go steal a six-pack and meet you at the record store.
11:49 PM on 08/01/2009
Let's do it. I'll bring the crowbar.
primum non nocere.
09:47 PM on 08/01/2009
(2 of 2)

until you are willing to work for free, don't dare to keep telling the creative segment of society that they should. you people are the very reason that artists and creators DON'T want to do it without the safety of a fortress of laws just so they can make enough money to put a roof over their heads and food on their tables.
09:56 PM on 08/01/2009
Wha? Music doesn't appear out of thin air?

Next thing you're going to tell me that electricity isn't produced by the wall plug?!

End sarcasm. Thank you for your postings, well said.

But although I wholeheartedly agree, it also needs to be said in all fairness that Big Record doesn't support a fruitful, pluralistic culture that is economically sustainable for independent artists.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Praying for evolution of human species...
11:02 PM on 08/01/2009
The recording industry treats licenses as a one-way street. When the consumer buys them, they suddenly have no value. I have lived long enough to have endured 8-track tapes that ceased playing after a few loops, cassettes that got eaten up by tape decks, LPs that skipped, CDs with scratches, and NEVER have I received ANY compensation for the licenses I have purchased on any of these media. If I want to replace the music, I have to buy the license all over again. But as soon as I buy it, it is worth nothing. So who's fault is it that the consumer feels like licenses have no value? If they had value, we would have been able to replace broken media at a reduced cost for the past 50 years.
11:12 PM on 08/01/2009
I also object to their price fixing and their gouging these last many many years.... talk about markup and collusion....
12:08 AM on 08/02/2009
The fact that you got a faulty product & wer too LAZY to return it for an exchange (happens all the time)... don't blame the ARTISTS for it.
primum non nocere.
09:39 PM on 08/01/2009
music doesn't appear out of thin air.

it starts as an idea in a composer's mind, who then translates it to paper. or in some cases, plays it for someone else to write down.

then a performer, or performer/composer brings it to life by making it audible.

i'm not a huge fan of record execs and never have been, because they take more money from a recording success than the artist gets.

but that does not give the public the right to help themselves.

MUSIC IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT BE FREE. not unless you make it yourself, FOR yourself.

a recording is NOT anyone's to steal if they choose. it's not theirs to take a pirated copy of. neither are movies.

if you purchase a recording for your own listening pleasure, listen to it with your friends, that's one thing. but to stick that disc in your computer, upload it so that anyone in the world can take a copy of it WITHOUT paying for it, is STEALING.

the music industry instituted the whole idea of LEGITIMATE subscription sites, where for a nominal fee, you download for yourself, anything you like. but even that seems to be too much for some people, who have a perverse idea that stealing another's labor is something they are entitled to. keep in mind, the theft of another's labor was the worst thing abraham lincoln could imagine, it's illegal, and the entitlement is a hallmark of an abusive personality.

(1 of 2)
09:43 PM on 08/01/2009
I don't like using the imho slightly inaccurate, or "misunderstandable" word "stealing" or "theft".

It's simply and straightforwardly *copyright infringement*. No need (again, imho) to translate that term to those who are unwilling to familiarize themselves with and appreciate the concept of it.
12:20 AM on 08/02/2009
It's like the use of the word murder. It should be called "life abridgement."
10:12 PM on 08/01/2009
Why is a rough approximation of a painting or installation art (which certainly takes a lot of effort to create) different then a rough approximation of auditory art (an MP3 is not identical to live music just like a JPG isn't identical to a painting)? In most art it is understood that a copy is free while the original costs money. You can look at a JPG of a Van Gogh painting for free, but if you want to buy the original, that is what costs 30 million dollars. Music copies should be free, and it should cost money to listen to the original (IE tickets to a limited capacity show in a theatre or bar). The copies for free, originals for a high fee model is used in almost every type of art, why not music?

Another good example is plays. Anyone can find Shakespeare plays for free, what costs money is the performance of those plays which people pay to see. I can see a picture of all the great paintings or sculptures for free, but owning the original is very expensive. I can visit many great works of architecture for free (or at the very least see a model or picture of them), but owning these great architectural works such as the palace of versailles is prohibitively expensive. It makes sense to use the same model with music. The copy should be free with the original costing money (MP3 free, performance for whatever price)
10:16 PM on 08/01/2009
"In most art it is understood that a copy is free while the original costs money."


A digital copy is 100% faithful to the original. Making the copy available is exactly the same as making the original available.

Also, you might be in for a rough awakening. You don't seem to know e.g. what the term "derivative work" means and entails.
12:48 AM on 08/02/2009
The concept that the results of a recording session are nothing more than a derivative copy or rough approximation of a live performance is completely false.

The difference between a live performance and a recording would be more analogous to the difference between a play and a movie ... do you think you can go see a movie for free since it is just a derivative form of a play?

Although the other arts have many similarities to music is true but there are also significant differences.
08:52 PM on 08/01/2009
You're library lends you property. If you copy and distribute it, that's illegal. These songs are intended for sale. That means they're made available to you and everyone else by an exchange of money. Just like your car, your DVD player, your computer. The creators of this music, who own the copyright to their songs, get paid for their work--it's how they make a living--and by law are entitled to receive a share of each sale of their property. Stealing copyrighted material is, and should be, a crime. People assume that because the internet makes so many things readily available, they're entitled to take whatever they can. It's no different than walking into a record store (if you can find one), stealing as many CD's as you can, and giving them out to your friends.
Says"play nice"
08:54 PM on 08/01/2009
but how is file sharing stealing something
09:02 PM on 08/01/2009
That doesn't even warrant a response is the only response your comment warrants.
09:52 PM on 08/01/2009
The idea is that file sharing == lost sale. This has been debunked many times over ( just as a single example). As our dear friend above me pointed out by example, many people are willing to accept this argument without question, regardless of the lack of loss of physical property to exclude the sales to others, as true theft does.

That being said, even if you accept the idea that it is theft (which would, for the sake of argument), does the THEFT of 30 $.99 cent songs really warrant this amount of compensation? The RIAA is basically attempting to make the theft of property online equivalent to the theft of intellectual property by a company for a product with which they intend to make profit. The copyright laws should never have been used against individuals like this.
primum non nocere.
08:55 PM on 08/01/2009
exactly. the library lends an individual the property for their personal enjoyment. it doesn't lend it out for worldwide free distribution.
08:58 PM on 08/01/2009
Forcing everything to stay the same won't work. The music industry is changing, whether you or music industry execs want it to or not.
Says"play nice"
09:03 PM on 08/01/2009
distribution is selling, sharing is sharing