Slashdot Mirror


Suing Your Customers a Good Idea?

VB writes "Boycott-RIAA is running Fred von Lohmann's article which looks like the ideal answer to solving the P2P problem. He suggests setting up a payment system similar to SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI, collecting organizations for songwriters. This seems such an obvious solution and a great way to get artists paid and give listeners the right to listen to their favorite songs cheaply and keep them out of jail. Why wouldn't this work?"

8 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by spikestabber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this all about money?

    1. Re:Why? by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The RIAA exists to serve the artists. . .

      Where on earth did you ever get that idea? The RIAA is the trade association of the record labels.

      Can they do anything without the RIAA's blessings?

      If 'their' recordings are the 'intellectual property' of an RIAA member, no.

      What they can do, in future, is not allow themselves to be bought into the system. The system, however, has created a very powerful, but false, impression that it is a necessary componant to record, release and sell music.

      It may still be a necessary componant to achieve fame in the music business, but I might also argue that those in the business for fame aren't people I would call artists.

      Go it alone. Raise your own money, take your own risks and make your own art. Own yourself. It gets cheaper and easier every day. Be happy with this whatever it brings in terms of money and fame.It's what the RIAA fears most.

      Fuck the 'industry' and the horse it rode in on. Music is about people.

      KFG

  2. Just like an added tax to blanks by Datagod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sounds too much like what happens in Canada, where an extra fee is included in the price of most blank media. This fee is SUPPOSED to be re-distributed to the artists, but it rarely is. It is just another case of assuming people are only interested in copying music, never anything else like actual backups, or even recording your own music. Bunch of bozos.

  3. we'll sue the pants off of them! by knowles420 · · Score: 5, Funny

    then we'll sell them pants!

    --
    -knowles
  4. My solution by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, I think the solution would be to simply make it a misdemeanor to upload or download music to or from the general public without permission of the copyright holder. Make a small but unpleasant fine (say $100), and make it easy to actually find and charge the file sharers, and very easy to fight if you're wrongly accused.

    My problem with the lawsuits, is that it all seems so unfair. Even if people are costing the record industry money, it's highly unlikely that anybody is costing them several thousand dollars. I seriosuly doubt that most of these people charged innocent, and I don't agree that this is fair use, but the response is wrong.

    Firstly, in much the same way as I don't approve of the death penalty for pickpockets, I also don't agree that these lawsuits are an appropriate response for file sharers.

    Secondly, if the crime is really bad enough to justify a punitive fine, it should be considered a criminal offence. I have never agreed that the civil courts should be able to charge punitive damages. If someone is to be punished, then they should have the rights of all criminals, and be sentenced based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not a mere balance of probabilities.

  5. Re:Screw the corporate pigopolists. by Performaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought part of the US legal system was "Innocent untill proven guilty."
    Now I guess it's "Innocent untill proven broke."

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
  6. Re:Why wouldn't it work? by Apreche · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think you've got it wrong. It's not that I'm used to getting music for free. I actually believe that music must and should be free. In fact, all information should be free. Recorded music is just that, information. I care about artists though, they are people and I care about people. What people have to understand is this. In a world where all recorded music was free, and nobody expected it to cost money, people who love music will still make music. If those people want to make a living from music they will set up a very economical system by which they will profit from live performances and merchandise. And maybe someone will think up a new way to make money from music besides selling recordings. *gasp*

    The best thing is that in a world such as this, which I am pushing for, there will be no super wealthy musicians. I don't know why people have this expecations that artists deserve to be super rich. What's wrong with being a middle class musician? You'r not going hungry.

    Music will never die. Musicians will always be around and people will support them. Only the corporate recording studio structure, the super rich megastars with no talent and all image, the giant stadium concerts filled with lights and pyrotechnics. These are the things that will go away. But people will still make music, if only for their own happiness and the happiness of others. Just like programmers will continue to make software for nothing. This is the world we are heading towards. There is no stopping it as long as we keep pushing.

    Do not pay for recorded music. Do not pay for software. Do not pay for information. Eventually the corporate structure will either crumble or change. This event will truly lead us to a freer society.

    In short. Fuck those people at the record companies who make money and aren't even the people playing the music. And fuck those people with no musical talent riding MTV to fortunes of cash. Hooray for the people making music because they love to. Let those people develop a new business model whereby they can sustain themselves doing something they love.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  7. Because they'll never pay the artists by JimmyJava · · Score: 5, Informative

    ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI (of which I am an affiliate) don't pay most of their artists. Their collection scheme is somewhat misleading. For the most part, they only pay artists that gross over a certain amount, that make a certain amount of money on tour, sell a certain number of records, and have a significant amount of airplay. So basically only Britney Spears gets paid, and the millions of artists that are touring and sell a small number of records through distribution often never see the money. I know I never have.
    The Performers Rights Organizations (PRO's) are in bed with the RIAA and the record labels. If anyone is ripping the artists off, it's the labels and the PRO's, not the filetraders. I refer you to a brilliant article at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html written by Steve Albini, producer of Nirvana's "In Utero" and mastermind behind the band Big Black.