RIAA Demands $75 Trillion from LimeWire

[Cynovolans]

To me, the music industry has been bad enough lately spewing out generic, uninteresting music for almost 15 years now, always pushing the next talentless group or singer who sounds just like all the others to squeeze a few more bucks out of people. These ridiculous lawsuits just prove to me that the music industry is now a giant souless machine concerned entirely with money and not with music.

Old people complaining about new music, now that is unoriginal.

 

[danjuno]

Sometimes I can tell the difference, other times I can't. Don't know why.

The RIAA is succeeding in making martyrs of these companies. It's self defeating. The biggest music consumer demographic is also the most likely to side with companies like Limewire and other small guys getting hit with ridiculous claims. The little guys are looking more and more like the victims to the RIAA's bullying. Doesn't matter how true or how legal it is, it's the perception that matters.

To me, the music industry has been bad enough lately spewing out generic, uninteresting music for almost 15 years now, always pushing the next talentless group or singer who sounds just like all the others to squeeze a few more bucks out of people. These ridiculous lawsuits just prove to me that the music industry is now a giant souless machine concerned entirely with money and not with music.

Indeed. the RIAA frequently oversteps it's boundries, with comes back to bite it in the @$$.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Once again it doesn't matter. They are suing to destroy the company. That is all. And get everything out of it they can. They don't expect that kind of judgement.

You virtually ALWAYS sue as many people as possible for as much money as possible. I have had judges stress that fact always.

Actually the trend in libel law in the UK and here is to sue the author of the presumed libel alone.
The reasoning behind it is twofold:
1) The publication carrying the presumed libel will usually have the money and gumption to defend itself, but will not usually go to the bother of defending their contrbutors if they are sole defendants.
2) The actual author will not usuall have the money or the backing (e.g. from a science council) to be able to defend the case, even when in reality there is not a case to defend or the case is egregious.

This coupled with the stupid way libel law is here, it's the only branch where the defendant has the burden of proof, means that there are a lot of libel cases won, even when the presumed libel is clearly proven to be truthful and not malicious (e.g. in a case recently over a doctor publishing in Lancet a while back about false claims made by a manufacturer over the safety of their artificial heart valves, or the Ukrainian language internet news service {with about 12 readers in the UK}being sued for libel by an oligarch over reporting his criminal record, which is a matter of public record).

 

[SuperJay]

As I recall, musicians make their cash from concerts, not record sales.

This is a common misconception, likely propagated by people who want to believe that they're not stealing those 8 albums from their favorite musicians as long as they buy a single concert ticket or a t-shirt. The proportion of a musician's income that comes from touring versus album sales varies tremendously; you can't blithely claim that you aren't hurting artists when you steal their albums because "they make their money off touring." Plus, album sales for musicians translates into a lot of gains that aren't strictly cash profits off those sales.

In other words, the era of music producers is waning. We're going to enter an era where music is mostly-free and you're encouraged to buy it to show support, but it won't be required.

Interesting. How, in this "new era," do you expect musicians to feed themselves, pay a mortgage, or raise a family? Let alone purchase equipment, book studio time, or finance concert tours? Somehow this nebulous "fan support" is going to magically tranform into hard currency, I presume?

Listen - pirating music is stealing from musicians, period. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can make all the excuses you want to rationalize why you should be allowed to take something for free without paying that musician any money, but that doesn't change the fact that you are stealing. Claiming "they don't make money off albums!" or "I'm only screwing the labels!" is just a complete BS excuse to be selfish and rip off the artists you claim to love.

 

[choxorn]

Interesting. How, in this "new era," do you expect musicians to feed themselves, pay a mortgage, or raise a family? Let alone purchase equipment, book studio time, or finance concert tours? Somehow this nebulous "fan support" is going to magically tranform into hard currency, I presume?

Well, see, they make millions of dollars a year from the combination of album sales, touring, and things like selling t-shirts, I don't think they have much of a problem with that.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think the riaa should be dissolved.

And the issue of album prices... I think sometimes the sales will increase if they drop it to $8.98

 

[carmen510]

I think the riaa should be dissolved.

And the issue of album prices... I think sometimes the sales will increase if they drop it to $8.98

That's assuming that music producers can actually comprehend the laws of economics.

 

[GamezRule]

I wonder how many famous musicians use P2P clients.

 

[Hygro]

This is a common misconception, likely propagated by people who want to believe that they're not stealing those 8 albums from their favorite musicians as long as they buy a single concert ticket or a t-shirt. The proportion of a musician's income that comes from touring versus album sales varies tremendously; you can't blithely claim that you aren't hurting artists when you steal their albums because "they make their money off touring." Plus, album sales for musicians translates into a lot of gains that aren't strictly cash profits off those sales.



Interesting. How, in this "new era," do you expect musicians to feed themselves, pay a mortgage, or raise a family? Let alone purchase equipment, book studio time, or finance concert tours? Somehow this nebulous "fan support" is going to magically tranform into hard currency, I presume?

Listen - pirating music is stealing from musicians, period. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can make all the excuses you want to rationalize why you should be allowed to take something for free without paying that musician any money, but that doesn't change the fact that you are stealing. Claiming "they don't make money off albums!" or "I'm only screwing the labels!" is just a complete BS excuse to be selfish and rip off the artists you claim to love.

As a musician I can say with absolute certainty I would rather have one million people have my song illegally than 1000 people pay for my song.

That said, record labels are important enterprises and tend to be the force that helps get those million to download your work illegally. More record labels understand this and are now offering to, in exchange for record deals take cuts of concert, merchandise, product endorsement, modeling, etc gigs since they know they are effectively your advertisers and they can't recoup losses without dipping into artists' other revenue sources.

 

[negZero]

The RIAA is succeeding in making martyrs of these companies. It's self defeating. The biggest music consumer demographic is also the most likely to side with companies like Limewire and other small guys getting hit with ridiculous claims. The little guys are looking more and more like the victims to the RIAA's bullying. Doesn't matter how true or how legal it is, it's the perception that matters.

To me, the music industry has been bad enough lately spewing out generic, uninteresting music for almost 15 years now, always pushing the next talentless group or singer who sounds just like all the others to squeeze a few more bucks out of people. These ridiculous lawsuits just prove to me that the music industry is now a giant souless machine concerned entirely with money and not with music.

It must suck earning recorded profits like the record companies are making today.

This is a common misconception, likely propagated by people who want to believe that they're not stealing those 8 albums from their favorite musicians as long as they buy a single concert ticket or a t-shirt. The proportion of a musician's income that comes from touring versus album sales varies tremendously; you can't blithely claim that you aren't hurting artists when you steal their albums because "they make their money off touring." Plus, album sales for musicians translates into a lot of gains that aren't strictly cash profits off those sales.

5 or so years ago I want to lecture with one of the top Canadian record industry execs, and he talked about how internet piracy is effecting the industry. He then described where every penny from CD album went to, the ones with the smallest slice of the pie were the actually performers making at best 5 cents a CD (and that only goes to the big names that write there own music, with the average being couple pennies). Biggest slice went to the record label. Where do the artists now a days make there money? From concerts and other merchandise. The ones you hurt are the record labels who continue to screw over the artists they sign. Which I and many others are fine with.

 

[JollyRoger]

So is it ok to steal bread the the store makes most of its money selling milk? If I get caught, should I merely have to pay back the store since jail time excessively punitive in relation to the damage I did?

 

[Theige]

I get your point about the difference between assets and mere cash/bank deposits, but I still doubt that there is enough cash to pay for all this money that the RIAA wants.

Large sums of money are not paid in cash.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

So is it ok to steal bread the the store makes most of its money selling milk? If I get caught, should I merely have to pay back the store since jail time excessively punitive in relation to the damage I did?

You shouldnt have to spend 200 years in prison for stealing a lofe of bread.

 

[azzaman333]

This is a common misconception, likely propagated by people who want to believe that they're not stealing those 8 albums from their favorite musicians as long as they buy a single concert ticket or a t-shirt. The proportion of a musician's income that comes from touring versus album sales varies tremendously; you can't blithely claim that you aren't hurting artists when you steal their albums because "they make their money off touring." Plus, album sales for musicians translates into a lot of gains that aren't strictly cash profits off those sales.



Interesting. How, in this "new era," do you expect musicians to feed themselves, pay a mortgage, or raise a family? Let alone purchase equipment, book studio time, or finance concert tours? Somehow this nebulous "fan support" is going to magically tranform into hard currency, I presume?

Listen - pirating music is stealing from musicians, period. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can make all the excuses you want to rationalize why you should be allowed to take something for free without paying that musician any money, but that doesn't change the fact that you are stealing. Claiming "they don't make money off albums!" or "I'm only screwing the labels!" is just a complete BS excuse to be selfish and rip off the artists you claim to love.

Except it's not stealing, it's piracy.

 

[Arakhor]

Now you're chopping hairs based purely on semantics, Azzaman. Piracy is theft as much as stealing in the physical world is.

 

[JollyRoger]

Piracy has historically been punished more harshly than your run-of-the-mill theft.

Cue, "Well it's not really piracy"

 

[negZero]

Now you're chopping hairs based purely on semantics, Azzaman. Piracy is theft as much as stealing in the physical world is.

No it isn't actually. I can get fined if I steal a CD from a store but the police can't do anything if download that CD for my own personal use, not even a civil suit can touch me.

 

[amadeus]

One time I heard an outtake I knew nothing about. I estimated it to 1982. I later found out it was actually from 1981.

Are you actually suggesting then that you can hear time?

 

[GamezRule]

Technically you haven't stolen anything since you just made a copy, you never actually took something, you just copied it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Are you actually suggesting then that you can hear time?

Not time, but clues about the time ... like how the instruments are arranged and how the song itself is written (this doesnt help much with covers though). I cant go into a lot of detail here but I have my ways.