It's hard to expect an appeal for someone who said they DID commit the action in question, did it willingly and makiciously.
Gertner warned the RIAA at the beginning of the Tenenbaum case that they were ruining peoples lives and "this has got to stop." She was obviously willing to give the kid the benefit of the doubt going into the trial.
Joel Tenenbaum wasted the time, effort and interest of far too many people by letting a large case take place, garnering national attention only to confess as soon as he hit the witness stand, allowing the RIAA to win without actually proving a damn thing.
As New York Country Lawyer points out, the case accomplished nothing legally; never dealt with any of the core issues.
don't companies that purchase their competitors have to at least pretend to be doing it for some reason other than simply to shut down and thereby get rid of a competitor?
The four major labels already have abandoned any pretense of competition through their joint ventures, like MySpace Music and Vevo.
Besides, it's just independent artists. Some of this music has been around the block several times, originating from the original mp3.com and GarageBand, through iLike and iMeem.
The RIAA can do whatever they want to us to keep us out of the market, or exploit our music for their own gain, whichever is most convenient for them. We have no voice and, even if we did, the DOJ is staffed by ex-RIAA attorneys, making it very unlikely that any action will be taken against the RIAA for anything at all, at least for the next 7 years.
That's exactly what's going on. By limiting the data to the SoundScan years (beginning in 1991), you're basically just looking at the end of the long tail. Add another decade and you can see how insignificant this is.
Lot of posts here assigning blame to the governments. Whether you're in the US, UK, EU, Japan or Australia, it's the cartel that should receive the credit for this. Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, Disney, Fox, etc.
It has nothing to do with civil liberties. It's about money.
Clearly, there are lots of people who do want this stuff, for free or not.
In the U.S., sales are down 67% since 2000. This means there are twice as many people who used to buy music from the RIAA but now don't than the "lots of people" who still do.
Another 35,000 lawsuits will not increase sales. If anything, it will just result in another 100,000 people or so that will never again buy product from the Big Four.
Assholes like you have screwed the rest of us honest folk. If losers like you weren't pirating media and using them as intended...
By waiting to see the movies for free on television? Closing the torrent site has no financial benefit for anyone. This guy is not going to pay to see a movie either way. He has no effect on the theoretical "honest folk." I have no idea who these people are, but I'm relatively certain that none of which work for either the RIAA or MPAA.
I hope every ISP turns over scum like you over to the RIAA lawyers. Its going to be fun watching rats like you squrim as RIAA cracks down on the torrent sites.
Really? He didn't sound like he was squirming. Believe it or not, most of us can live without RIAA music. The RIAA, however, cannot live if their music does not reach peoples' ears. Ironically, this appears to be their goal.
It'll be even more fun to see sales drop another 15-20% this year because the RIAA is still fucking with people who used to be music fans. I support every effort to filter them out, block their songs and erase them from the Internet in order to speed up the process.
Tweeting is the ONLY way to break up a riot of teenage girls!
The first idea was to tazer 50 or 60 of them. The second idea was to tazer this Justin kid. Both of those ideas would have set off a 3,000-strong sonic blast of teen screams, forcing them to reconsider.
They arrested the "record executive" for being "in charge," but not in control. They should have arrested him just for being a record executive pushing 12-year-olds./For those unable to tell, that was sarcasm.
I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection...
Right now, the artists (as opposed to the songwriters) have no copyright protection at all. The only area in which there is any collection of money to be doled out to artists is webcasting, and the record label takes half of it by default.
These are the sound recording copyrights. For the most part, the artists have never owned any of the recordings, so this isn't a continuation of anything, it's a new deal, and it is a HUGE change because 60s and 70s rock is still a catalog mainstay for the labels and it's all eligible to be taken away in the first year this goes into effect.
The status quo is the record label keeping 85% of all the income and the artist "earns" the other 15 percent, which is applied to their account at the label, which is always in the red because marketing and promotion is so, so, expensive, you know.
What we've had so far is contractural rape and pillaging for 100 years. This may signal the end of it, especially if enough artists reclaim their work.
New plan -- The artist gets 100% of the income and doesn't have to go through the label to get it. And really, how much do you have to spend to promote a 35-year-old album?
Some long-suppressed albums finally appear, too. Another benefit is that each artist who reclaims their work will be reducing the clout of the RIAA, as it will no longer represent the interests of the new owners of the recordings. And neither will the new laws the RIAA is working so fervently to have put together.
Best -- This is going to be a literal lifesaver for some acts, which the labels have left to starve as they approach old age, having already cheated them as much and as often as possible and are probably still sitting on a pile of cash that should have been paid out.
Whether you're talking software, DVDs, CDs or even data, it assumes today's formats remain unchanged for 1,000 years. I'd be happy with 100 years of rock-solid.
I have yet to find one that lasts longer than 5.
I've got 20-year-old CDs that still play fine. I've never had a "bad" CD that wasn't like that because it got scratched or left on a dashboard or something.
This doesn't have to open and close at the top like most domed stadiums. What about heating coils built into the support framework? It would also seem to help the snow problem if the shape were closer to a snow globe than a stadium roof.
So did I and it was because my grandmother taught me how to read the Sunday comics. I was successful in passing this extra advantage on to my own child by doing the same thing. Anything that makes kids want to read is a good thing. Once you start reading, spelling and vocabulary happen almost on their own.
I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic. If so, the judgments in favor of the record companies don't go to the artists. The artists are paid according to the terms of their contract. The lawsuits don't alter those contracts.
The whole "secret meetings" device is just to get everyone to miss the obvious.
What we really have is an agreement between the people in the U.S. who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Europe who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Japan who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, Australians who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, etc. that they fully expect will become international law.
They really want people to stop listening to their music. This is the total opposite of life in the 60s and 70s.
This will continue until we all do what they say and find something to listen to that the RIAA does not own. I haven't given them a dime in 10 years and I don't use p2p, but I've spent more than ever before on music, paying the artists directly.
If you cut the RIAA out of your life, this whole "secret treaty" nonsense is a non-issue.
To put it in a little more perspective, the industry, whoever is fighting digital distribution and any kind of piracy... make it easier and more appealing to purchase your product than pirate it. It really is that simple.
That works for the song you haven't heard in 10 years, but how do you find new music? Just buy songs at random?
A multi-year lawsuit campaign that effected 40,000 people has served to make RIAA product especially unappealing. Buying CDs from them at this point is so distasteful that I don't even consider it an option. I don't mind supporting musicians (through live shows), but the label execs are not going to get another dime from me. Their ignorance has not only ruined the music business, it hasn't done music much good either.
They'll keep blaming everything but their inability to identify and deliver new talent.
As a musician, I agree, sort of, only because anything under 256k isn't worth paying for and the industry acts like they're "perfect" copies.
The only problem is that there are now so many independent voices trying to be heard that it's really difficult to find the good ones. Then again, if anything out there was actually thrilling people, it should become popular anyway. The tweens are even revolting, railing against Miley Cyrus as the current "worst influence."
The majors have a few thousand acts, but their failure rate is up to 98.5 percent now; independent acts are releasing 10 times as much product into the marketplace, but most indie CDs are lucky to sell more than 10 copies. The gatekeepers are now almost totally incapable of recognizing what anyone wants, which they used to be able to do quite well before the emphasis went to money before music.
People think they're hurting the RIAA by sharing their music, but it's the only thing that is keeping them alive.
It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.
The U.S. government worked so hard to demonize rock and roll when it first appeared. Held Senate hearings on the evil influence and tried to ban it. If you go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a display on this subject is (was) the first visual element you encounter -- a giant Frank Zappa, in a suit, testifying in the Senate. The existence of the Hall of Fame is a tribute to the failure of the government to stop rock and roll.
It took the record labels to make music illegal. It'll take musicians with Doctorow's attitude to make it legal again.
The only reason it could take 40 years (although I think they'd be broke in another seven) is that after 9 years of this nonsense, I have yet to randomly meet anyone in real life, much less musicians (and I am one) that had a clue what the RIAA (BPI, in this case, but the same people) is, much less what it is doing. Maybe the Brits are better informed, but average American hasn't even noticed anything going on at all.
at least this means I'll be dead before this idiocy crops up again.
Just the Mayan variety. The Rapture delusion is like the Energizer bunny -- The appointed time comes and goes, they change the date and are more certain than ever that this time, it's gonna happen.
Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP collects for the songwriters and publishers.
RIAA represents the record labels.
No one represents the artists (performers).
Should the artist just not get anything for being played on the radio...?
The artists have never recived payment for radio airplay. Just the songwriters. The artists pay to get airplay.
I'm trying to figure how why the MPAA is in such dire need of protection. 2009 was the best box-office year of all time.
I wonder how many deaths are attributed to copyright infringement each year to warrant a special government interest.
Not that many really. Mostly just the older artists that starve to death when the royalty checks stop coming.
Problem now is, how does Tenenbaum get an appeal?
It's hard to expect an appeal for someone who said they DID commit the action in question, did it willingly and makiciously.
Gertner warned the RIAA at the beginning of the Tenenbaum case that they were ruining peoples lives and "this has got to stop." She was obviously willing to give the kid the benefit of the doubt going into the trial.
Joel Tenenbaum wasted the time, effort and interest of far too many people by letting a large case take place, garnering national attention only to confess as soon as he hit the witness stand, allowing the RIAA to win without actually proving a damn thing.
As New York Country Lawyer points out, the case accomplished nothing legally; never dealt with any of the core issues.
don't companies that purchase their competitors have to at least pretend to be doing it for some reason other than simply to shut down and thereby get rid of a competitor?
The four major labels already have abandoned any pretense of competition through their joint ventures, like MySpace Music and Vevo.
Besides, it's just independent artists. Some of this music has been around the block several times, originating from the original mp3.com and GarageBand, through iLike and iMeem.
The RIAA can do whatever they want to us to keep us out of the market, or exploit our music for their own gain, whichever is most convenient for them. We have no voice and, even if we did, the DOJ is staffed by ex-RIAA attorneys, making it very unlikely that any action will be taken against the RIAA for anything at all, at least for the next 7 years.
That's exactly what's going on. By limiting the data to the SoundScan years (beginning in 1991), you're basically just looking at the end of the long tail. Add another decade and you can see how insignificant this is.
http://www.azoz.com/topics/riaastats/vinyl.html
Lot of posts here assigning blame to the governments. Whether you're in the US, UK, EU, Japan or Australia, it's the cartel that should receive the credit for this. Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, Disney, Fox, etc.
It has nothing to do with civil liberties. It's about money.
Clearly, there are lots of people who do want this stuff, for free or not.
In the U.S., sales are down 67% since 2000. This means there are twice as many people who used to buy music from the RIAA but now don't than the "lots of people" who still do.
Another 35,000 lawsuits will not increase sales. If anything, it will just result in another 100,000 people or so that will never again buy product from the Big Four.
Assholes like you have screwed the rest of us honest folk. If losers like you weren't pirating media and using them as intended...
By waiting to see the movies for free on television? Closing the torrent site has no financial benefit for anyone. This guy is not going to pay to see a movie either way. He has no effect on the theoretical "honest folk." I have no idea who these people are, but I'm relatively certain that none of which work for either the RIAA or MPAA.
I hope every ISP turns over scum like you over to the RIAA lawyers. Its going to be fun watching rats like you squrim as RIAA cracks down on the torrent sites.
Really? He didn't sound like he was squirming. Believe it or not, most of us can live without RIAA music. The RIAA, however, cannot live if their music does not reach peoples' ears. Ironically, this appears to be their goal.
It'll be even more fun to see sales drop another 15-20% this year because the RIAA is still fucking with people who used to be music fans. I support every effort to filter them out, block their songs and erase them from the Internet in order to speed up the process.
Tweeting is the ONLY way to break up a riot of teenage girls!
The first idea was to tazer 50 or 60 of them. The second idea was to tazer this Justin kid. Both of those ideas would have set off a 3,000-strong sonic blast of teen screams, forcing them to reconsider.
They arrested the "record executive" for being "in charge," but not in control. They should have arrested him just for being a record executive pushing 12-year-olds. /For those unable to tell, that was sarcasm.
Audiophilia and music appreciation are two very different things.
Unless you're mixing a live concert, in which case you better have both.
As for the larger discussion, some people simply hear better than others.
I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection...
Right now, the artists (as opposed to the songwriters) have no copyright protection at all. The only area in which there is any collection of money to be doled out to artists is webcasting, and the record label takes half of it by default.
These are the sound recording copyrights. For the most part, the artists have never owned any of the recordings, so this isn't a continuation of anything, it's a new deal, and it is a HUGE change because 60s and 70s rock is still a catalog mainstay for the labels and it's all eligible to be taken away in the first year this goes into effect.
The status quo is the record label keeping 85% of all the income and the artist "earns" the other 15 percent, which is applied to their account at the label, which is always in the red because marketing and promotion is so, so, expensive, you know.
What we've had so far is contractural rape and pillaging for 100 years. This may signal the end of it, especially if enough artists reclaim their work.
New plan -- The artist gets 100% of the income and doesn't have to go through the label to get it. And really, how much do you have to spend to promote a 35-year-old album?
Some long-suppressed albums finally appear, too. Another benefit is that each artist who reclaims their work will be reducing the clout of the RIAA, as it will no longer represent the interests of the new owners of the recordings. And neither will the new laws the RIAA is working so fervently to have put together.
Best -- This is going to be a literal lifesaver for some acts, which the labels have left to starve as they approach old age, having already cheated them as much and as often as possible and are probably still sitting on a pile of cash that should have been paid out.
A scenario similar to this was the first thing that popped into my mind, too. Mine involved aliens going door-to-door with copies of the Watchtower.
Whether you're talking software, DVDs, CDs or even data, it assumes today's formats remain unchanged for 1,000 years. I'd be happy with 100 years of rock-solid.
I have yet to find one that lasts longer than 5.
I've got 20-year-old CDs that still play fine. I've never had a "bad" CD that wasn't like that because it got scratched or left on a dashboard or something.
If they want to make me stop renting DVDs completely, they're on the right track.
This doesn't have to open and close at the top like most domed stadiums. What about heating coils built into the support framework? It would also seem to help the snow problem if the shape were closer to a snow globe than a stadium roof.
I learned to read before I started school...
So did I and it was because my grandmother taught me how to read the Sunday comics. I was successful in passing this extra advantage on to my own child by doing the same thing. Anything that makes kids want to read is a good thing. Once you start reading, spelling and vocabulary happen almost on their own.
I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic. If so, the judgments in favor of the record companies don't go to the artists. The artists are paid according to the terms of their contract. The lawsuits don't alter those contracts.
So where is the leaked document so that I may judge for myself?
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_US,_Japan_and_EU_ACTA_trade_agreement_drafts,_2009
The whole "secret meetings" device is just to get everyone to miss the obvious.
What we really have is an agreement between the people in the U.S. who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Europe who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Japan who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, Australians who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, etc. that they fully expect will become international law.
They really want people to stop listening to their music. This is the total opposite of life in the 60s and 70s.
This will continue until we all do what they say and find something to listen to that the RIAA does not own. I haven't given them a dime in 10 years and I don't use p2p, but I've spent more than ever before on music, paying the artists directly.
If you cut the RIAA out of your life, this whole "secret treaty" nonsense is a non-issue.
To put it in a little more perspective, the industry, whoever is fighting digital distribution and any kind of piracy... make it easier and more appealing to purchase your product than pirate it. It really is that simple.
That works for the song you haven't heard in 10 years, but how do you find new music? Just buy songs at random?
A multi-year lawsuit campaign that effected 40,000 people has served to make RIAA product especially unappealing. Buying CDs from them at this point is so distasteful that I don't even consider it an option. I don't mind supporting musicians (through live shows), but the label execs are not going to get another dime from me. Their ignorance has not only ruined the music business, it hasn't done music much good either.
They'll keep blaming everything but their inability to identify and deliver new talent.
As a musician, I agree, sort of, only because anything under 256k isn't worth paying for and the industry acts like they're "perfect" copies.
The only problem is that there are now so many independent voices trying to be heard that it's really difficult to find the good ones. Then again, if anything out there was actually thrilling people, it should become popular anyway. The tweens are even revolting, railing against Miley Cyrus as the current "worst influence."
The majors have a few thousand acts, but their failure rate is up to 98.5 percent now; independent acts are releasing 10 times as much product into the marketplace, but most indie CDs are lucky to sell more than 10 copies. The gatekeepers are now almost totally incapable of recognizing what anyone wants, which they used to be able to do quite well before the emphasis went to money before music.
People think they're hurting the RIAA by sharing their music, but it's the only thing that is keeping them alive.
It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.
The U.S. government worked so hard to demonize rock and roll when it first appeared. Held Senate hearings on the evil influence and tried to ban it. If you go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a display on this subject is (was) the first visual element you encounter -- a giant Frank Zappa, in a suit, testifying in the Senate. The existence of the Hall of Fame is a tribute to the failure of the government to stop rock and roll.
It took the record labels to make music illegal. It'll take musicians with Doctorow's attitude to make it legal again.
The only reason it could take 40 years (although I think they'd be broke in another seven) is that after 9 years of this nonsense, I have yet to randomly meet anyone in real life, much less musicians (and I am one) that had a clue what the RIAA (BPI, in this case, but the same people) is, much less what it is doing. Maybe the Brits are better informed, but average American hasn't even noticed anything going on at all.
Voting? You mean like a "free" election?
at least this means I'll be dead before this idiocy crops up again.
Just the Mayan variety. The Rapture delusion is like the Energizer bunny -- The appointed time comes and goes, they change the date and are more certain than ever that this time, it's gonna happen.
http://home.flash.net/~evt/rapture.htm
Title of article should be: 2/3 of people CAN tell the difference...
The funny part is that everyone seems to be arguing about whether or not they are part of the 1/3 that doesn't hear as well as the rest of us.