Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa Agrees to Pay $100m to the Record Industry
siddesu writes "BBC has the following breaking story:
File-sharing site Kazaa will become a legal music download service following a series of high-profile legal battles. The peer-to-peer network has also agreed to pay $100m (£53m) in damages to the record industry. The announcement follows the release of a music industry report that says more than 20 billion music tracks have been downloaded illegally in the last year. Hungry artists across the globe rejoice."
Why does the money go to "the record industry", and not these "hungry artists"?
The record industry claimants should get a 20% discount on future Kazaa downloads.
Like the rest of us ever get a real settlement from record indutry abuses.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Technically, the artists now owe the RIAA money.
Badass Resumes
To quote Janis Ian:
And she goes on to state her opinion on the downloads as:
Source: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.
That's just as interesting a subject as their change of heart. Ideally there would be:
1) the option to purchase individual tracks cheap, like iTunes
2) with as little DRM as possible (preferably none)
3) the option to buy full albums that cost less than the physical version (say, Five Bucks)
4) the full albums would have the goodies like lyrics
5) there would be bonus materials not available in stores (just like with CDs that killed the LP)
6) Peer review of the tracks and/or albums would be permitted *by those who have bought them*, so we could know if the music was good or TeH sUcK.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Cool - will the 'new Kazaa'...
- have anywhere near the range of the old one?
- ship us DRMed files that aren't compatible with all our devices?
- cost less, the same or more than iTunes?
- be adware sponsored to keep costs of music down?
Unless there are favourable answers to all these questions (and more, no doubt), what possible incentive is there going to be to use this service.
I'd happily pay $50 a month (or whatever, some reasonable monthly fee / bandwidth even) to download whatever mp3s I wanted from Kazaa that anyone wanted to share. I'd happily let my downloads be tracked so it could go into a big database somewhere so royalties could be paid to artists and labels.
What the scariest thing is with this type of settlement is that no one,absolutely no one seems to really know - or care - about what will happen to such a huge pile of money, and further that it probably will only go to enrich those who have major chart successes, their lawyers, or the IFPI itself (claiming it needs more $$ to fight piracy), rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded.
Of course, as with a major news organization such as the BBC, no need to wax philosophic on the actual real-world meaning and consequences of such actions, and the possible windfall (or lack thereof) to those who created the content in question. Rethorical question if you ask me.
Sort of like the "War On Terror(TM)"... By now everyone forgot why we are fighting it, as we are too involved in the day-to-day fighting to remember what it was supposed to be about.
Carry on lads, carry on....
Z.
TFReport cites Canada as the second worst 'offender' in music downloads worldwide.
Perhaps that is due to our Blank Media levy that makes downloading essentially legal in this country.
Now whether those billions of tracks were subsequently uploaded is another question entirely (this is not covered by the levy), but i suppose that doesn't help the RIAA:
"Them there Canucks did 23 Braaziiiilion downloads. Invade Canada!!"
And even when an artist tries to retain control of their songs, business interests get in the way.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Did that get counted as an illegal download?
well, given that it's a dpownloadm and what you're doing is illegal, I'd say "yes".
Fair use and the AHRA allow you to copy from a CD you own. Not one that someone else owns. I know they're identical, but what differenct does that make? The law can still be illogical.
I agree with your sentiments. Thats all I do. All the junk on the P2P networks is mostly 128k-160 kbps crap. I'm a drummer and i hate hearing cymbols that sound like you hit one underwater (my interpertation at least). I always go for a real CD. Just incase there is some massive EMP that wipes out my legally ripped MP3 collection, I still have my harcopies that can still play on my CD player that i haven't used in some time. (I only get the CD then rip it to 320kbps MP3)
In the book "This Business of Music", by M. William Krasilovsky, there is a very poignant flowchart/diagram. In this diagram, it shows in a nutshell how music goes from the artist to the consumer/fan. The bottleneck within this diagram was, not surprisingly, the distribution channels - where the music goes from the manufacturer to the stores/wholesellers. The major distribution chains, at least within the US, are essentially owned and operated by the major music companies. That is the real reason the RIAA and record companies are so concerned, because a large portion of the markup between the artist to the consumer falls in the distribution chain. Therefore, whoever controls the distribution of music essentially controls the elasticity of supply/demand and, therefore, can potentially move pricing. In addition, and to paraphrase from memory, when Radio was first developed, the music industry was concerned that allowing people to listen to music for free would destroy the music publishing industry (i.e. the printing and selling of sheet music). Then, the creation of the recordable, blank cassette tape was supposed to destroy the music industry. And so on...There is no argument that either the RIAA or the recording industry can use that will disprove the simple fact that they are ultimately only concerned for their own pocketbooks, not those of the artists themselves.
That's the problem, most artists have no business sense and thus get fleeced. My wife was watching Biography a couple weeks ago and it talked about Dolly Parton...
Things have changed a lot since Dolly had no reputation and no audience. For one, basically all the radio stations weren't owned by a single corporation. Second, the RIAA members had not consolidated their stranglehold on all major distribution channels. Right now the normal artist's main goal is to be heard. They want everyone to hear their music because they are an artist first and a businessman second. Very few people go into music because they think it is a path to wealth. Given the choice between possibly reaching a large audience, or being specifically stopped from reaching a large audience by a large cartel repeatedly convicted of collaborating to abuse their consolidated position, many choose the former. If they don't they will never sell a CD in a major store or be heard on the radio and most people will never, ever hear of them.
Sure there are counter examples of those few independent artists that won out against all odds, but they are the rare exceptions. Copyright law was designed to benefit artists and encourage them to make more works. It has been abused and morphed by powerful corporations so that it instead is a tool to control art and make sure artists in general make no money off their art. If copyright was abolished entirely it would be a boon to the average recording artist, since the RIAA would have no motivation to stop their distribution and they could still make money the way almost all of them do now, concerts and merchandise.
I don't know if the settlement will change the way music/software/content is traded and shuffled via the internet.
But, here is my hope: I'd like to see the RIAA spend that $100m on the following:
*) Pay royalties/living wage/etc. to all those artists from the early days of recordings - the ones that got paid a pittance for performance, but never received any living from the subsequent profitability and ownership of those tunes/recordings. There are tons of older musicians out there that the public loves - musicians that are living in the "poor house" while corporations collect royalties.
*) Fund music education in the schools. Give good instruments to schools - particularly in areas where funding is scarce, and the kids can ill afford today's $1k+ instruments. Help pay music educators, particularly where budgets don't fund liberal arts.
*) Fund collaborations between experienced artists and up-and-coming artists. The beauty of music is that it is also meant to be shared between musicians, on top of being shared with its listeners. Fund collaborations with folks like B.B. King, Carlos Santana, Yoyo Ma, etc. and kids who are getting started out with music.
*) Fund and encourage labels to take risks with artists that are not necessarily the latest commercial success. If not funding the labels, fund the musicians themselves and give them access to qualified folks who can help spread their music.
*) Use the money to promote a broad spectrum of music from less-than-well-known artists. Give the listeners of the world music that comes from the soul, not the boardroom.
A Passionate Independent Musician
Until purchase or per use royalty is paid directly to the creators of original work, it will never be equitable. If royalty were paid directly to the creators of original work, it would then be up to them to pay for services (e.g., distribution, promotion, etc.) rendered (if the services were actually rendered satisfactorily).
Paying purchase or per use royalty to the creators of original work clearly was impractical/impossible before the advent of computers and computer networks. Nowadays, it should be a simple matter to pay purchase or per use royalty directly to the creators of original work and leave the present 'media companies' out of the royalty payment chain altogether. What are now the 'media companies' could continue to provide their 'services', but they would be paid at the discretion of the creators of original work -- for services actually rendered to the satisfaction of the creators of original work.
If the public and the creators of original works would together petition the (Federal) lawmakers, a 'direct' royalty payment system using the Internet could soon be put in place. The same legislation should also void all existing 'artists contracts' with the 'media companies' as they would have been made superfluous. Contracts with 'media companiees' have always been a bad idea, as demonstrated by the observable fact that they have gone so horribly wrong.
Remember the whole point of copyright and royalty payment is to encourage and reward the creators of original work. Funneling the royalty payment through a third party (e.g., the 'media companies', 'publishers', etc.) was always a bad idea, but it started when there was no other option. The Internet makes it possible to fix this mess rather easily.
Before you mod me troll, noob, or other, here is where I'm coming from:
.01% of those sales? No, but I don't know terms between him and label, label and MS. Is it his fault? Again, I don't know terms. In his opinion, he was not aware that such a thing was going to occur, and as such was not compensated for it.
- am currently in a band
- Drummer has 3 records out under diff. band, don't know label. Several tracks from one of thier albums, shipped on 40~ Mill. Windows cd's (YES. WINDOWS INSTALLATION CD's). Did he get a measly
- Guitarist was the former Road Manager for a band got pulled onto the current Family Values Tour. If I gave the name, odds are you've heard of them either on tour, radio, or TV. He knows fair amount about industry as he did their first tour after they got signed and released first album. Resigned from that as he wanted to back to school, start own band/music.
What I have learned from thier experiences is this. The MAJORITY of RECORD labels out thier have contracts to screw you. They are either subsidiaries of, or under contracts with the 3 or 4 Major Record labels, and as such, are bound by contracts are that heavily intwined with legal jargon and twisting terminology. Once you sign with them, regardless of whether you know the contract or not, YOU do not know the contract they have with the Top Label and as such, what terms you are actually signing to (see music on Windows CD's above). Independent labels, albeit on the rise, are better, but still hold the same business model as the Major Labels. They ALL view the CD as the end all product where they get paid. This is only starting to change slightly in the music industry with regard to Digital downloads and advertising online. Most bands will make money off of live shows, sponsors, and merch. THAT is where 99% of bands will make their fortune*, if that.
Now, this is just me/band speaking, but our goal is to
a: play music we enjoy, others enjoy
b: get paid for it
That is the order of OUR priorities with regard to getting signed. We've already spoken with label reps, and figure after the mastered demo, and a few live performance tweaks, we'll be getting label offers. As we have set music before money, when a contract will be offered to us, if the distribution and licensing rights to the songs aren't to our liking, we walk. We've decided on that up front. We all have plenty of other oppurtunities in place right now that we can go on making music as a hobby and travel here there to play and get paid. We'd PREFER to get paid more for traveling furthur and playing all over, but not at the cost of licensing and distribution of the music. As such, our options will probably limited as far as what labels might work with us.
Am I going to go cry over a beer about it if we don't get signed? No. I'm also not gonna bitch about and point out other peoples misfortunes with regard to being taken advantage of by the cartel that is the music industry. We're going to try and change it, if ever so little, on OUR TERMS!!!