LimeWire Settles For $105 Million

eldavojohn writes "LimeWire has settled its suit with the RIAA for $105 million. It's several orders of magnitude lower than the $1.5 trillion initially demanded by the RIAA, but it ends a nearly five-year legal battle. P2P networks take heed; the monster may start looking for other targets."

Comments

Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[improfane]

There is plenty of music that is free and legally free. Find small artists that release MP3s then buy an album from them if you like enough (Edgen). Use Spotify if you can.

Buy second hand, RIAA gets nothing. I can live without new music. If you can't control your impulses, RIAA will never die. I'm waiting for the most recent Duran Duran album to get cheaper.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[kvvbassboy]

I am all for this, actually. I feel that small time musicians should setup a "donation" page on their website through paypal or something, which allows their fans to pay them directly for music.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[mmcuh]

Doesn't RIAA, or at least some of its members, own Spotify?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Desler]

Yes. Have you heard about this new service called "iTunes"? I hear Apple thinks it'll be successful in a few years.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

This is the entire POINT of DRM -- they want to make it impossible to buy music second hand. muHAHAHAHAHAHA

/evil
//especially when you realize this means media can't be handed down from father to son, illuminating the ages for our future generations

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Hultis]

Not RIAA, but some of the large record companies do own a part of Spotify. However, they don't own even close to 51%, so they don't control it.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[improfane]

Don't buy premium.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[MoonBuggy]

Don't think so - they certainly give a decent chunk of cash to the big labels, and apparently independent artists get somewhat screwed in comparison to the big guys (I wouldn't be especially surprised if the RIAA members are getting paid even for non-RIAA song plays), but as far as I'm aware they're an independent company.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it be my mission on Earth to try and make the RIAA die?

I like small artists and I buy directly from the ones I know, but sometimes I open my wallet for mainstream artists. Do you seriously imagine that even a statistically significant number of people care about the RIAA, much less will actually alter their behavior to try and destroy them?

I'm no fan of the RIAA suing little old ladies and twelve-year-olds, but all the profess musicians I know are not OK with people getting their music for free and are quite comfortable having the RIAA or anyone else go after the people who are downloading it without paying for it. What they care about, and what I'm happy to oblige them on, is cutting out the increasingly unnecessary middlemen and providing a direct line of purchase to the artist.

When I was in college and downloading music was new, I (and everybody I knew) did it. Then we grew up and got jobs (well, most of us got jobs) and realized that it was, in fact, getting something for nothing, and that no matter how many window/front door/car analogies you make, that is usually ripping somebody else off, even if you don't call it 'stealing.'

The fruits of other people's labors has a price - whether or not you feel like paying it. But to answer your inane question, yes, just about everybody buys music these days.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Aquitaine]

Accidentally posted this AC before. Reposting...

Why should it be my mission on Earth to try and make the RIAA die?

I like small artists and I buy directly from the ones I know, but sometimes I open my wallet for mainstream artists. Do you seriously imagine that even a statistically significant number of people care about the RIAA, much less will actually alter their behavior to try and destroy them?

I'm no fan of the RIAA suing little old ladies and twelve-year-olds, but all the profess musicians I know are not OK with people getting their music for free and are quite comfortable having the RIAA or anyone else go after the people who are downloading it without paying for it. What they care about, and what I'm happy to oblige them on, is cutting out the increasingly unnecessary middlemen and providing a direct line of purchase to the artist.

When I was in college and downloading music was new, I (and everybody I knew) did it. Then we grew up and got jobs (well, most of us got jobs) and realized that it was, in fact, getting something for nothing, and that no matter how many window/front door/car analogies you make, that is usually ripping somebody else off, even if you don't call it 'stealing.'

The fruits of other people's labors has a price - whether or not you feel like paying it. But to answer your inane question, yes, just about everybody buys music these days.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[MozeeToby]

The problem is, and always has been, studio time and advertising. Those are the only real services that a record label produces in a world with modern technology, but without them it's almost impossible for a band to go mainstream; they'll be forever stuck in a small genre or geographical niche. I think a solution to this would be to enourage all bands of any popularity level to identify a half dozen or so bands that are less well known than they are and offer their support to them. That support would obviously vary based on how big the supporting band is.

A band that is widely established and popular might donate the studio time to a band that is regionally popular but not yet on in the national spotlight. A somewhat well known regional band might invite a local band to open a few shows for them and bundle a song on their next album. An established local band might help a brand new garage band line up gigs that the garage band wouldn't have a chance of getting without help. Imagine you're a band and you have a choice between siding with an RIAA label or the band that inspired you to play in the first place, which would you chose?

Without a way to replace advertising and capital there will always be new bands willing to sign any contract with a label to get their names bumped up to the national level. And with enough advertising their music will sell to the masses even if it's derivative crap, it's just a fact of human nature. Any plan to eliminate the major labels has to take into account that the record labels do serve a purpose, it's just that the purpose has nothing to do with making music and everything to do with advertising and providing capital. Those roles need to be filled, otherwise new bands will without a doubt be lured in by the promise of instant wealth and fame.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[improfane]

Most of my music has been passed down to me by my family who have purchased it. That's not pirating although the RIAA would want you to think it is.

What those artists don't realise is that the money RIAA wins never returns back to the artist.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they care about, and what I'm happy to oblige them on, is cutting out the increasingly unnecessary middlemen and providing a direct line of purchase to the artist.

Then you and them should be all for letting the RIAA die.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[improfane]

I replied to your AC comment.

Of course there is a price. I'm just saying I don't agree with the price as it currently is and so I refuse to purchase it. There is no analogy there, just logic.

I don't need new music, I am not an illogical consumer who has to buy the very next album when it comes out. A audio CD is a digital recording, it makes no difference if you buy a secondhand copy or get it passed down to you. The music is still the same. If you must have your 'mainstream music' when it comes out, fair enough but you are not rewarding the artists and you're probably missing out on smaller bands who are trying to make a breakthrough.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, and always has been, studio time and advertising.

It's getting easier and easier to record music on a shoe-string budget, and it's getting easier to promote it yourself thanks to social networking and such. If the RIAA isn't obsolete already, it's getting there fast.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[king neckbeard]

Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses, so their actions have if anything cost artists money and appear to have done very little to stop downloading, and musicians generally don't make money past their advance off of records anyway.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

A complete song, created entirely by one person, should be worth maybe two weeks of pay at 30 dollars per hour. If they need other people playing instruments, it should come out of that money. If you're spending more effort or money than can be recouped by those numbers, and there is no orchestra involved, you're doing something wrong.

The vast majority of expense that goes into making music goes to instruments, studio time. These costs should not exist. Cheap instruments exist, and sound fine. Plug them into a computer and it will sound fine. Sell the result online. Pay for your own advertising.

The idea of anything like the RIAA existing in an industry like music is absolute lunacy. Thirty years ago it made sense, but not now. Lowering the noise threshold on a piece of music is not worth spending $200,000, and does not make an otherwise mediocre piece of media worth $1,000,000 in royalties over the next 100 years.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice post, but I think there is something you don't realize... Most people, when given the opportunity to get something for nothing, will do just that. If they know they can get away with it without consequences, they will steal it.

I don't know anyone that buys music except those people that are not aware they can get it for free.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[mmcuh]

These days a recording studio isn't something that you need a big corporation for. Very decent studio equipment for recording rock-type music typically doesn't cost more than the instruments it records. The only thing that's really in short supply is mixing and production skill - and anyone who can write and play music can probably learn that too, it just takes time.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[spikenerd]

Downloaders are not the only ones "getting something for nothing". Content creators are granted rights far beyond those granted by nature to control copies of their works even after they distribute them. All of the laws and government-operated judicial system necessary to make this work are provided at the expense of tax-payers. In exchange for these expensive services, and for the people respecting their "rights", the content belongs to the public after a limited time ...except that those lyin' cheatin' thieves have stolen all the value from the rightful owners by lobbying to redefine "limited time" to extend so long that the public never gets anything worth value. Well, as a tax-paying citizen, I'm tired of being ripped off. I want all that content that rightfully belongs to the public domain! That's why we must fight the RIAA--they are exactly what they call us--pirates and thieves.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[khellendros1984]

RIAA *is* the middleman. And they're the ones indiscriminately attacking people without sufficient proof of their guilt. Copyright infringement is a crime, and it's immoral, true. But offers for cash settlements are nothing short of blackmail and extortion.

Regardless of anything else they do for an artist, the facts that matter to me as a consumer are: The RIAA believes that it deserves to make money on non-RIAA-members' music, they list non-member (seventh question down) labels as members, legally attack individuals without sufficient evidence, extort money from massive lists of people....basically, they're the mob.

There's nothing they can provide to me that makes it worth doing business with the mob.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[maxume]

The two biggest music stores and most CDs are all free of DRM, you appear to be flogging something that has already begun to rot.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Threni]

They probably control more than 51% of the music provided by it, however, so in that sense they DO control it.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[drb226]

Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses

[citation needed]

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Desler]

Of course there is a price. I'm just saying I don't agree with the price as it currently is and so I refuse to purchase it.

So you're fine with your boss deciding they don't agree with your salary and will refuse to pay you for your work?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[butalearner]

If everyone buys secondhand, then how will new music filter down into seconhand venues?

That's the point: RIAA artists stop making money so they leave RIAA labels and release their music directly. Everybody* wins.

* As the RIAA is made up of soulless automatons, I figure they don't count as people.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Desler]

Lots of people care about the RIAA, want it gone, and refuse to buy music.

And by "lots of people" you mean "lots of people in your niche group". How many average people in Best Buy who are buying CDs give a rats ass or even have likely ever heard of the RIAA?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Anthony Mouse]

If literally everyone only buys secondhand then the RIAA member companies go out of business and are replaced by some apparatus that it is not unconscionable to fund, so people can go back to buying new music. If not everyone gets in on the boycott, it deprives the RIAA of at least some money -- which is that much less money they have to lobby against your interests -- and there is still a supply of secondhand music from the people who don't have enough awareness or conscience to join the boycott.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

and WHY is it rotting? Flog On!

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[improfane]

You don't understand it? It's not a dilemma.
If you want new mainstream music, fair enough but don't kid yourself you're actually helping the artist which is what the OP was saying that musicians need to be supported but by buying new music owned by the media labels, you're helping nobody.

It's quite simple. The OP said that everything had a price and music has a price to produce it. That is true enough. However in case you have not noticed, an artist rarely makes an income based on sales, They often have a contracted amount they can earn. If you buy from an artist directly (which as it happens, you can only do through small artists.)

The buying small bands is what you should be doing if you actually want to help artists. How is that so hard to understand? Reading comprehension 101?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

This is an excellent point! Add that to the mickey-mouse act, and the desire to make it impossible to share culture freely to generations is being squashed, and the presumption of the grandparent, to presume it's a non issue because of some small, non-legally-binding voluntary participation, completely misses the point that DRM will be a recurring problem for the rest of human discourse. Not 10 years, or 20, but for the rest of our future we will have to be wary of those that would deny information, for in their hearts they imagine themselves our masters.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[improfane]

It's called voting with your wallet. I don't agree with the price of the music, especially given that none of it goes to the artist. It funds RIAA and the execs with big cars. So I don't buy it or listen to it.

If I really want it, I'll buy it secondhand. In your analogy, it's more like me deciding not to work there and work at a competitor :-)

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[cdrguru]

Sorry, but nearly everyone is downloading music for free these days. Hang around in a 5th grade schoolyard and you will hear them talking about the music they downloaded, not the music they bought.

Very few people "woke up" about getting something for nothing and it being somehow wrong. Most of the people I know are very happy about getting something for nothing - one less thing in their lives that costs money. A lot of people seem to feel that it goes along with paying for access to the Internet - free music and movies is included.

I think it is somewhat dated but I recall a study that said iTunes was wildly successful but got at most 2% of the music downloads out there. Everyone else charging was getting less. Added together the paid services represented maybe 7% of music downloads with the remaining 93% being free p2p downloads.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[bws111]

Yeah, it costs nothing. Because of course the songwriter worked for free, the musicians worked for free, any support people (management, etc) worked for free, all the people involved were housed and fed for free, the building they recorded in was built and maintained for free, all the equipment (instruments and recording) was free, the utilities for the building were provided for free, the product was marketed for free, the hosting for distribution was provided for free, there were no taxes paid on any of the above, etc.

If you truly think it is 'free', why don't you start your own label? Pay the artists a fair price (unlike what they get paid by the RIAA, according to slashdot). Give them equipment and studio time. Get them to create songs that the public wants. Market the songs for them. Then, give away the result for free, because that is what you believe the real cost is. Let us know how long you can sustain that.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[cdrguru]

You might not have heard about this, but some people don't have high-speed Internet connections. They really frown on using BitTorrent clients at the library.

It is all a question of the digital haves and have-nots. The haves get free music and movies, the have-nots don't and have to buy at BestBuy and WalMart.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[cdrguru]

Yeah, and just yesterday I saw an ad for the "Paint like Van Gogh" online course.

Mixing and production skills are not something you just pick up in a week or two.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[king neckbeard]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/riaa-music-download-illegal-mp3,10864.html

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[future assassin]

Don't buy any more media anymore unless its second hand or download from sites like http://www.ektoplazm.com/

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[The Dawn Of Time]

No. I like a lot of major label music, and I don't have any problem paying for it. It's not impulse, and I'm not a sheep.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Hultis]

Yea, but Spotify also controls a certain % of the market, which of course gives them something to put up against them. Granted, right now the record companies are most likely very much in charge, but one can always hope that will change (and Spotify won't turn all evil).

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[camperdave]

Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses

[citation needed]

Well consider the Limewire case itself.
Expected revenue: $1,500,000,000,000.00
Actual revenue: $105,000,000.00
Net Loss: $1,499,999,895,000,000.00

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[kevinmenzel]

How many songs have you recorded and released on line with your crappy instruments? How many of those sold well enough to support yourself?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[ifrag]

They really frown on using BitTorrent clients at the library.

Although my local library (which is actually rather small) has a fairly good size shelf of CD's. Maybe not the best selection but there was some stuff worth borrowing for an afternoon. And assuming the discs are not too scratched up, there is the benefit of lossless if so desired.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[improfane]

Do you buy it full price from the store, if so, why?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[kokojie]

This $100M payout from The Lime Group will probably more than cover their entire cost of all other lawsuits combined in the past 20 years.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[The Dawn Of Time]

I buy it where I buy it, many different sources. I'm not sure how to answer the why beyond "I want it."

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Joce640k]

Or buy through somebody like CDBaby ...

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

Yeah, and just yesterday I saw an ad for the "Paint like Van Gogh" online course.

Mixing and production skills are not something you just pick up in a week or two.

Actually...if you hire someone to teach you they can be. You need to learn the best practices and some tricks and that's about it. It is more like learning to be a good cook than another Van Gogh.

I know a guy who has been doing electronic music since the early 90's. He's a member of two internationally successful bands and he's the recording engineer / mixer / producer for both bands. He's been recording, mixing, and producing industrial and electronic music for about 15 years.

This guy does consulting. He will come to your home / studio and teach you all the tricks of the trade for $20 an hour. For electronic/industrial/dance music all you need to know are a few tricks / trade secrets and you're good to go. If you're reasonably competent he can have you cranking top notch production in a couple weeks.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[LordLimecat]

Yes, I do-- there are several songs on Pandora that I liked enough to purchase off of Amazon, and one or two not available on amazon that I bought from iTunes. Guess it makes me old fashioned, but I believe that the artists-- who willingly signed on to some of these labels-- should be compensated; and its not for me to decide whether they made the right or wrong decision in choosing a label. I support the artist, so I pay for their work.

None of that is intended to denigrate buying indy.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

That's BULLSHIT. You're hocking ring tones to children on locked down phones. THAT'S who you're cheering for. There is no damned reason a song deserves money when you get right down to it and it's draining money from things that would actually help the world:

it's so easily duplicated,
it's not a precious resource (there are decades of music, that the RIAA is obscuring)
it's easily created from scratch

You're saying some arbitrary imaginary dopamine rush needs to be protected with the same vigor as a piece of food that can actually feed and sustain life... oh wait, "stealing" music will get you MORE trouble then *actually* stealing food.

pure ego, man, pure ego. GO TEAM FOSS.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[LordLimecat]

What DRM are you referring to?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Aquitaine]

I absolutely agree that copyright should be limited far more than it is now. But that's a problem with our political system (one of many) - declaring that you don't agree with the law is well and good but it doesn't justify taking music you haven't paid for. Because you're exactly right - that would make us no better than them.

Any profit-making organization is going to do what it can to legally extend its profits as long as possible. It's rare to find one that will willingly sacrifice them to be 'good' (as Google tries to be) - as a company owner myself I think about this more than most people, but my business is small enough that it's not a decision I face anytime soon.

Our elected officials seem to have no problem seizing property or regulating all kinds of commerce in the name of the public good. Wonder why they don't cut down copyright as well? Oh yeah...doesn't win you any votes.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

I replied as well, reposting

That's BULLSHIT. You're hocking ring tones to children on locked down phones. THAT'S who you're cheering for. There is no damned reason a song deserves money when you get right down to it and it's draining money from things that would actually help the world:

it's so easily duplicated,
it's not a precious resource (there are decades of music, that the RIAA is obscuring)
it's easily created from scratch
You're saying some arbitrary imaginary dopamine rush needs to be protected with the same vigor as a piece of food that can actually feed and sustain life... oh wait, "stealing" music will get you MORE trouble then *actually* stealing food.

pure ego, man, pure ego. GO TEAM FOSS.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[fyoder]

You said it. Compared to the magnitude of the rip off that is copyright term extension, piracy is trivial. Copyright in its original form was a good deal for everyone, but that deal is now very much broken. Act according to your own conscience, keeping in mind that artists have to eat, and few are raking in what the top names get.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly? I don't care if the RIAA doesn't die. I can control my impulses but my impulses is to support artists I like. Yes, I'm very well aware of the fact that the artist doesn't get a big cut of the money. I probably knew this well before it was ever even an issue in your mind. I'm still going to go about it in the civilized fashion that I have for decades now. I don't believe companies making money is evil. I don't believe you have the right to decide how the owner of a copyrighted material should or should not be compensated. I do not see breaking the law as a valid form of protest.
 
Keep doing whatever works for you but if you take anything from this post take the understanding that not everyone is foaming at the mouth over the RIAA. Some of us even see their value in these kinds of cases. Just because we don't supprot your cause does not make us ignorant of the facts. We just have a different value system. At the same time don't go crying to us for help when you get caught. Simply the attitude displayed here is the reason I won't support the EFF.
 
I might be willing to back you over reformed copyright laws but it would depend on the terms. I believe in a 14 year (renewable with a fee) copyright law. But I also believe in criminal punishment for habitual offenders.
 
And off-topic? Duran Duran sucks.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Aquitaine]

And they're the ones indiscriminately attacking people without sufficient proof of their guilt.

Which is why they've lost most of their cases and flushed a lot of money down the toilet in the process.

But offers for cash settlements are nothing short of blackmail and extortion.

No, they're offers for cash settlements. It's very nice to think about the poor little old lady who has no idea what an mp3 is getting one of these and feeling bad for her, and yeah, in those cases, send 'em packing. But it's not 'doing business with the mob,' because the mob came by whether or not you'd done anything wrong for a protection racket. These guys are coming by because they have evidence that you have done something wrong. Maybe it's not correct, but what is their alternative? Everybody on Slashdot knows how widespread music piracy is, but then we're all shocked, SHOCKED that anybody is trying to do something about it. It's their job to protect their copyrights and their IP. I think they go too far sometimes, and that they don't really understand the market -- which is why I think the RIAA will eventually fall apart, because the day will come when we won't need big labels. But until that day, and for so long as bands are falling all over each other to get signed with a label, the labels are going to try and keep people from doing this stuff.

And you know what? Seems to me that it's working. The freewheeling days of downloading music are long gone. You can still do it but the risk is a lot higher. Everybody I know has been buying stuff off iTunes for years now.

I don't dispute that there are scumbags in the organization and that they've used some scumbag tactics. I just don't think it's because they're evil masterminds. I think it's because they're clumsy and they don't know better, and that's why our grandkids won't know what the RIAA is.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[synapse7]

Google's music store will be an option and has no ties to major labels.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Shippu]

Spotify doesn't really help artists http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Hang around in a 5th grade schoolyard and you will hear them talking about the music they downloaded, not the music they bought.

Yeah because before P2P downloads children in the 5th grade age range was the bellweather of healthy music sales...

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[netflusher]

Yea but you wont find anything free if you are into Mainstream music. Unless you want mixtapes http://www.datpiff.com/

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Threni]

It's got about 1 million paid users, a tiny fraction of the estimated 200,000,00 itunes users, for example. Spotify could vanish tomorrow and it would make next to no difference to anyone.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[mmcuh]

And most professional producers aren't van Goghs.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[sixsixtysix]

if they really wanted to protect their ip, the riaa & mpaa can come forward and say the following:
1. copyright is way too long and currently goes against its original intents of going to the public domain in a timely fashion. 5-20 years is more than sufficient. it was never meant to create dynasties or let someone milk one work for their entire life.
2. basic supply and demand has fucked us over. with a nearly infinite supply, the value of the product reaches near zero. if i can't use physical terms on the ip, then copyright infringement cannot ever be called theft.
if they did that and lobbied their well-paid congress critters to reform copyright as to benefit both sides, which was the original intent, i'd never pirate anything again. they never will. somehow, its okay to pervert the system for their own ends, but when anyone else does, they are thieves and pirates.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[nurb432]

I also prefer ( and support ) the little people. The RIAA is why small artists rarely see the light of day. They don't offer enough revenue stream to be worthy.

And god help them if they go independent, as the RIAA is out to kill that off too. Its part of why they are attacking the entire p2p concept.

Back to your question of why: if we can kill them off it will let ALL artists bloom on their own merits and talents, not just the big buck "manufactured" artists.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[drb226]

Thank you. People often say that the music industry needs a new business model. I usually roll my eyes at that, but if their business model is "pay lawyers $64m to earn $2m", then I definitely agree they need to adopt a business model with fewer lawyers.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[drb226]

Yes but...how many libraries of congress is that? ;)

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[hairyfeet]

In the case of music he is probably talking about the legal DRM bought by treasonous bribery that says you own NOTHING if it is digital, you are merely paying full price for a non transferable license that can be revoked at the whim of any record label at any time.

When the simple fact that Walt Disney has been dead for longer than many here have been alive, yet his works will continue to be protected forever (Because that was Valenti's whole plan, to make copyrights "forever minus a single day") then it doesn't matter what any one artist does, because by having nearly infinite back catalogs to choose from they are certain that any combination of notes you can put together on the western scale HAS been played by an artist they controlled at some point, so they can just sue!

Telling everyone to vote with their dollars at this point is simply a waste of time, because thanks to bribery just the money they make on back catalogs can keep them bribing congress and judges for the next century! It also gives them the power to control all the major broadcast outlets, and through them have so many ads telling the public any change to the status quo is their enemy, as well as to control and shape who will be the big money makers by making sure you can't escape hearing them on everything from movie soundtracks to commercials.

So while I don't listen to their pre-packaged bullshit I say if you do, please snatch that shit. It doesn't matter whether you snatch it or don't buy it on principle anymore, because they will whip out a PPT for congress showing a nice little graph where their sales have gone down so it MUST be those filthy pirates, so we need more draconian laws, and another boost to the copyright extensions while they are at it. To quote the late George Carlin "its never gonna get any better, its never gonna change" because they have too much money and power now for anything the public does to really matter much. Hell if things get too bad they'll just have themselves declared "too big to fail" and your tax money can pay for their bonuses and bribery.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[internettoughguy]

You just rip them first, then pass them on :).

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[cthulhu11]

There is plenty of music that is free and legally free. Too bad it mostly sucks so badly.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Aquitaine]

with a nearly infinite supply, the value of the product reaches near zero.

You flunk Economics 101. The value of the product is what the market will pay for it. You're talking about the cost to produce it, specifically the marginal cost to sell one extra album. That is indeed near zero, but that doesn't make the production cost zero - only the marginal cost, and that's got only a very small amount to do with the retail price.

1. copyright is way too long and currently goes against its original intents of going to the public domain in a timely fashion. 5-20 years is more than sufficient. it was never meant to create dynasties or let someone milk one work for their entire life.

They don't believe that this is true. Why would they argue in favor of this? It's not in their interests to do so. Do unions come forward and say 'wow, our pensions just cost way too much. We'll voluntarily give them up.' Does management come forward and say 'you know what, we should give people more paid vacation.'

What group of human beings behaves like this? Maybe conscientious individuals, but never groups of individuals, whether you're talking corporations or governments.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[sixsixtysix]

You flunk Economics 101. The value of the product is what the market will pay for it. You're talking about the cost to produce it, specifically the marginal cost to sell one extra album. That is indeed near zero, but that doesn't make the production cost zero - only the marginal cost, and that's got only a very small amount to do with the retail price.

after production costs are recouped without any hollywood accounting, of course, then it does come down to production. also, it would be unfair to say copyright doesn't skew what the market will pay.

They don't believe that this is true. Why would they argue in favor of this? It's not in their interests to do so. Do unions come forward and say 'wow, our pensions just cost way too much. We'll voluntarily give them up.' Does management come forward and say 'you know what, we should give people more paid vacation.'

of course they wouldn't be for it. who wouldn't turn down a government backed protection racket? it is one thing to have a limited time to try and make a profit, but it is something completely different to have a near lifelong monopoly. it'd be more like the management saying, "yeah, you get paid vacation, but not until you've worked here 30 years, and you still have to wait another 10 years into retirement to get it. if you're lucky, you may even be able to bequeath it to your grandchildren." besides, copyright is an agreement between the public-at-large and content creators, and it definitely needs an overhaul. a public discourse might be nice, if there would ever be a fair way to have one. with all the media being owned by content creators fud-ing it up about their need to have such long copyright and how it is in our best interests to keep it that way, it is highly unlikely to happen.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Aquitaine]

After production costs are recouped is when they make the profit, which is why most people get out of bed in the morning. If the only interest is to recoup production costs, the quality of the entire market will go down the toilet, because there is no reward for doing an excellent job - if you pay for the endeavor, you're done, right?

The point of selling music, of selling anything, is to sell a whole heck of a lot of it. The notion that it's somehow wrong or evil to continue selling it after you've recouped production costs is ... well, communist, really.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[sixsixtysix]

i guess my points are in conflict. my bad.
i only brought up supply and demand because some people equate copyright infringement with theft. if it is theft, then we have to use supply and demand to judge the value. you said value is what the market will pay, then why hasn't market adjusted to piracy by lowering prices? copyright skews the entire equation.
i just don't think that they should have their cake, which the public grants them limited sole ownership, and eat it too, without sharing with the people that let them have it in the first place. they can either be entitled to low profit margins (i said the value drops to near-zero, not zero) or short copyright protection, but not both.
the idea that limited sole ownership is granted by the public and eventually given back freely to the public could be seen as entirely communist. copyright is communism. freeways and fire departments are socialism. market segments that say media should be free is capitalism. the whole world is fucked i guess.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[Aquitaine]

The market does adjust to supply and demand by lowering prices. Prices came down when music went digital and they go down even further after an album has been out for a while -- just like the scenario you're describing. But this is market supply and demand, not piracy; one of the big questions about piracy is how many of these people would have otherwise bought the music legally if they couldn't pirate it (answer for most people I knew in school: not one of us, but that's not always going to hold up). Even so, the suggestion that the market should reduce prices because of piracy isn't logical or sensible -- if anything, it would raise prices, since the people who make and produce music now have to spend a lot of time and money chasing down pirates (or at least, they feel they have to).

'Sole ownership' is not granted by the public; it is granted to the creator of the piece. The issue of whether copyrights should be extended has really got very little to do with music piracy -- sure, there are people who pirate really old songs and movies and so on, but that's not where the action is. I'm not sure you understand planned economies versus capitalism. Freeways and fire departments are not socialism; they're government services and they're found in just about every type of government from the Roman Empire on. In the most basic sense, 'socialist' simply means a government that prioritizes the concept of social good over individual liberty; that's not to say that capitalism doesn't value social good, it simply finds that most socialist systems are so inefficient as to not be the best means of achieving any social good.

What you're really talking about is simply property rights -- specifically, intellectual property rights. These are all over the map in socialist countries, as basic socialism doesn't necessarily make any assumptions about property rights, even if collectivist or communist governments aren't going to respect them. There is no segment of 'the market' that says media should be free; the market is apolitical (outside of property rights and contract enforcement) and says that media should cost what people are willing to pay for it. I don't think that makes the whole world fucked. I think I'd rather live today than under any of the other government schemes mankind has devised, whether you put me in modern day Europe or in the US.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore?

[poetmatt]

those costs have zero to do with the cost of distribution. Artists don't even get their fair share back from the RIAA, so acting like tehy have a fair price is a misnomer.

The costs of creating the music are ZERO. It is creativity. The support to create music these days costs around $1000 maximum. I can record a high quality record in my basement at an equivalent quality to what people pay for instruments.

Wake up ya shill. These costs are not astronomical or magically expensive anymore.

question on streamers

[mapkinase]

Are they going after streaming website and streamers as well? Can somebody provide good info on this? Thanks

Re:question on streamers

[mapkinase]

Getting further off topic: I am more interested on MPAA action on this (not RIAA)

$1.5Trillion???

[senorpoco]

Are they looking to pay off the deficit?

Re:$1.5Trillion???

[Java Pimp]

No, but when they made that request they did so with a pinky to the corner of their mouth.

Re:$1.5Trillion???

[Beardydog]

If we all payed for our media, there would be no deficit. Revenue would increase as the big labels create new jobs. The millions of unemployed in the US would be hired to stand in studios, sticking their arms and legs out to act as human anacoustic paneling. Those of us with exceptional talent can try our hand at realtime vocal active noise cancellation. Hint: work on your latency...

Re:$1.5Trillion???

[zeroshade]

If we all payed[sic] for our media, there would be no deficit

Broken window fallacy plain and simple. The money that is not spent on media is instead spent on other things. Thus there would be no difference. The music industry as a whole is making more money than ever. Even the labels are making hefty billion dollar profits. Learn some economics. :)

Re:$1.5Trillion???

[rrohbeck]

Sarcasmometer fail, aka Whoosh.

If they can win hundred million buck settlements

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... they're not going to be starved out by people avoiding retail outlets and RIAA-affiliated publishers any time soon.

In other news....

[mcrbids]

Limewire has announced a strategic partnership with L1mew1re, wherein any assetts of value of Limewire will be transferred to L1mew1re, which will maintain said assets and lease their use to Limewire.

Limewire's company attorney, while available for comment, was unable to complete a sentence without screaming "bankruptcy, you bastards!!" randomly, mid sentence.

Question/Opinion I have about song value

[Huntr]

According to TFA:

Having facilitated the mass piracy of billions of songs

So, the RIAA settled for $105 million after determining that Limewire helped people pirate "billions" of songs. Shouldn't that, then, set the value of "a" song that is shared? A conservative estimate of 2 billion songs for $105 mill is, what, about a nickel a song? Should use that value when determining damages against Jammie Thomas and anyone else.

JM convoluted O, of course, but I'm not the one settling for relative peanuts.

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value

[mckorr]

Actually, that's kind of brilliant. I'm sure some bright lawyer for the defendant will do just that, and I wouldn't be surprised if he pulls it off.

Now, how do we start a class action against the RIAA for price gouging by charging us 99 cents a song? They set the value, let's make them stick to it!

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value

[GlassHeart]

No, the 5% ($105 million) means that's what the RIAA agrees is Limewire's share of the responsibility. It's not outrageous to claim that the person who actually downloaded those songs is 95% responsible.

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value

[Anthony Mouse]

OK, then the damages for Jammie Thomas should be $0.95/song, right?

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value

[cdrguru]

I suspect the figure was arrived at after looking at what was available and saying "OK, we'll take it all."

Anything that the CEO didn't spend in the last few months was fair game.

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value

[stms]

No I think Limewire got cut a good deal because they pirated in bulk (it's like the wal-mart model). So the moral of the story is if you're going to pirate pirate a shit load.

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value

[hacksoncode]

Volume discount.

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[MoonBuggy]

I'm wondering where the hell Limewire got $100m in the first place? What part of their model made them that kind of money?

Where did they get $105 Million

[slyborg]

What amazed me about this story was that Limewire had that kind of money in the first place...how did they get it?

Re:Where did they get $105 Million

[lennier1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Gorton

Nothing to do with music

[prodigyx]

This money get used to push internet censorship bills like COICA and Protect IP through congress, and into Obama's pocket in exchange for appointing their lawyers into powerful government regulatory positions. The RIAA has very little to do with music. It is an evil organization and currently one of the biggest threats freedom and privacy both in the US and around the globe.

Re:Nothing to do with music

[rrohbeck]

So the money gets recycled to pay our politicians so they don't need more money out of taxes. It's just reducing the deficit and government spending!

Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More

[eldavojohn]

The owner is allegedly worth way more than that. From the article:

During his damages hearing last week, RIAA lawyers suggested his net worth was larger than that. They noted he possessed $100 million in an IRA account. His Manhattan home is worth more than $4 million. In addition to Lime Wire, Gorton operates a hedge fund and a medical-software company. Gorton's lawyers claimed in court that he made little money from Lime Wire. Maybe, but records show the privately owned company generated $26 million in revenue in 2006 and sales climbed dramatically after that. During most of Lime Wire's 10-year history, Gorton was chairman, CEO, and only board member.

Disclaimer: I'm the submitter so I'm probably the only person that read the article which gives me an unfair advantage.

Re:Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More

[blair1q]

Doesn't matter what he's worth, American corporate law protects him from having to pay the company's debts. Look at Donald Trump. His company has gone bankrupt not once but three times (and he wants to run the country?). The only people he ever had to pay were the IRS.

Re:Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More

[tukang]

IANAL but how are they able to go after the owner's assets? Isn't the entire purpose of creating a company to protect the owner's assets by limiting the liability to the company?

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[Skarecrow77]

that's why the decision doesn't matter financially.

business folds in the face of a laughable settlement it'll never be able to play.

founders go on to found other, perhaps similar businesses. perhaps very similar. lemonwire, orangewire, or kiwiwire coming your way soon!

it's all about the RIAA getting the message out that they are serious and will dropkick you right in the wallet.

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[Danny Rathjens]

The "criticism" section of the wikipedia article divulges some likely income streams they had. e.g. last year when they bundled the ask.com toolbar and

Prior to April 2004, the free version of LimeWire was distributed with a bundled program called LimeShop (a variant of TopMoxie), which was spyware. Among other things, LimeShop monitored online purchases in order to redirect sales commissions to Lime Wire LLC. Uninstallation of LimeWire would not remove LimeShop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limewire#Criticism

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[gstoddart]

I'm wondering where the hell Limewire got $100m in the first place? What part of their model made them that kind of money?

Apparently, because it was a subscription service:

records show the privately owned company generated $26 million in revenue in 2006 and sales climbed dramatically after that. During most of Lime Wire's 10-year history, Gorton was chairman, CEO, and only board member

They also claim he's got over $100M in an IRA account.

I never used it, so I have no idea of what the revenue source was (ads + subscriptions?)... but he must have made a fair pile to have that much banked. And, apparently he made most of it selling someone else's stuff. I've no idea of what kind of business model he had ... but apparently it was lucrative, and somewhat illegal.

derp

[bmo]

>Where the settlement money will go is hard to tell. In similar cases in the past, the RIAA has split up big awards with the four member labels. How much of the money goes back to the artists is unclear

OH! CAN I MAKE A GUESS? HUH? CAN I? PLEASE? PLEASE LET ME TAKE A GUESS?

HOW ABOUT ZERO? DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? HOW DID I DO?

--
BMO

Great day for struggling artists!

[Ecuador]

This $105M recouped from piracy will come in handy!
Oh, wait...

Net result of this lawsuit: ZERO!

[DJ Particle]

Changes nothing though... Limewire was just a UI for Gnutella, which will continue on. The only change is that there will be no new Limewire versions in the future. All the more room for Frostwire, Cabos, etc....

And yes, my Cabos still works ;) i just don't use it much anymore.

A legal double standard

[roadsider]

I acquired more music using Maxell cassette tapes than I ever did with any p2p software. In any given college dorm pre-internet era, you spent a good chunk of your available time taping floor-mate's records. After all, why else would you buy a 90 minute chromium oxide cassette if not to record two 43-minute LPs? On the equipment I used at the time, you couldn't tell the difference in quality, so why doesn't/didn't the RIAA go after Maxell, TDK, Memorex and the other manufacturers of high quality cassettes?

Limewire didn't kill the music industry. The music industry killed the music industry.

Re:A legal double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

They already did, muppet, you paid a tax to cover your piracy when you bought the cassetes.

Re:A legal double standard

[Phrogman]

Precisely. I did the same thing when I was at university, plus of course I recorded songs off the radio prior to that.
Like it or not, music listeners have always wanted to shift their music (I buy an album and record it to tape for the car etc) into the most convenient formats for their needs, and a certain amount has always been shared. Honestly I doubt i ever taped someone else's copy of an album that I would have bought otherwise. Buying music has never been a big thing for me. I think I have a total of about 23 songs I have downloaded off the 'tubes on my HD. The music industry never lost many sales from me if any.
The modern industry, faced with a changing business paradigm for musicians that will see most of the music industry middlemen eliminated, is struggling to preserve their old business model by legal means, rather than acknowledging that times change and they need to adapt.
When I buy a CD, I can accept that it might have taken a few bucks to produce that, and I can see buying it for that plus a reasonable markup (of course no one actually sells them for that plus a reasonable markup, the markup is more likely about 500%), but when I can buy a song or album on the internet - and I am aware that the effective cost of producing that song is at best negligible (and that if my HD dies I may well lose my purchase etc), a few cents is all its worth to me.
I currently buy no music at all. I listen to almost no music that isn't on the radio. I seldom listen to the radio :P

Re:A legal double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

so why doesn't/didn't the RIAA go after Maxell, TDK, Memorex and the other manufacturers of high quality cassettes?

They did. Every retail sale of recordable media in the US, including blank CDs that are marketed specifically for use in recording audio, have a tariff levied on them that goes straight into the pockets of the RIAA. Not to the artists whose work is being infringed if the media is used to copy works in violation of the user's license, but 100% royalty free to the RIAA.

Re:A legal double standard

[DJ Particle]

Don't they do that with the internet in Canada?

Re:A legal double standard

[roadsider]

Perhaps, but the point remains that rampant "piracy" occurred in that period, and the music industry grew by leaps and bounds. Further proves that it ain't the piracy that's killing them. It's clearly their own mismanagement.

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like this was simply the "cost of doing business". The settlements seems like it would be little of a deterrent to someone starting another Limewire. This guy profited it sounds like from the settlement. Unless there is jail time and or forfeiture of assets (at least the profit) it sounds like we/he won. Not the RIAA. Yea- the RIAA made some money here. Unethical in how they did it (strong arming a legitimate business through the legal system despite its claimed use by those committing copyright infringement- but so are web browsers).

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[camperdave]

During most of Lime Wire's 10-year history, Gorton was chairman, CEO, and only board member

They also claim he's got over $100M in an IRA account.

So... Gorton is an Irish terrorist?

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[kokojie]

Limewire is owned by the Lime Group, which also owns hedge funds and other companies that worth billions of dollars. This is one of the reason RIAA went after Limewire, because the potential payout is huge. The $100m will be paid by Lime Group.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Quite a discount

[qmaqdk]

So they went from 1,500,000 million to 105 million USD, or 0.007% of the original demand. Why so generous, RIAA?

Re:Bankruptcy

[Lunix Nutcase]

No.

You can listen to whatever you want on youtube

[walterbyrd]

Not difficult to save the youtube videos into mp3s. Or just buy from gomusic.ru for $0.09 a song.

The RIAA is just an extortionist racket. They deserve to be punished.

Where did Limewire get all that money?

[Fallingwater]

Something smells fishy. A hundred million dollars is a fucking huge pile of money; many companies with far more market impact than Limewire would have trouble coming up with that kind of cash. Where the hell did Limewire get all of that, especially considering that the vast majority of people were using the free version?

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement

[Skarecrow77]

Ask Fred Goldman how much of the money OJ owes him has actually been paid.