I wonder how the payouts look on that chart for live shows.

It's even less than that. Unless you are selling above the 100,000 mark, you're probably never going to fully pay back the $3-5k advance from the label, so you basically just exist in a constant state of debt and make your living off the live shows.

The way this can hurt bands is when a group is living off touring and they get dropped by their label because, of the 90,000 people who heard their last album, only 35,000 actually bought it. Now, they no longer have the ability to get new music out to keep people involved and interested, and the touring numbers begin to drop off.

MPAA, RIAA: Lawsuits won't protect content
by Greg Sandoval


Trade groups representing the music and film sectors say copyright law offers too many excuses for ISPs to do nothing about protecting copyright.
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET) http://www.forums.theskyiscrape.com/posting.php?mode=reply&f=7&t=84567

Lawyers representing independent filmmakers, including the studio that produced Oscar-winner "The Hurt Locker," might learn something from a document filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce today by music, television, and film industry trade groups.

The Commerce Department recently sent out a request for information, known as a "Notice of Information," on "copyright policy, creativity, and innovation in the Internet economy." What the Commerce Department intends to do with the information it obtains was unclear this afternoon, but it did receive a response from nine trade groups representing the entertainment sector. In that report were a few notable points.

"The role of lawsuits in solving the online theft problem is clearly limited," wrote the coalition that included the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). "For instance, bringing clear-cut claims against major commercial infringers is not by itself a solution in the long run," the coalition wrote. "These cases take years to litigate and are an enormous resource drain."

As an example, the coalition cited the litigation against the company behind the LimeWire file-sharing network, which concluded this year with a federal district court ordering the company to shut down the network. The coalition wrote that though the four largest recording companies prevailed in the case, "the LimeWire defendants were able to drag out the litigation for four years. Such massive civil cases do not provide a scalable solution to the full scope of the problem."

In the case of Lime Wire, the company that operated the LimeWire software, the RIAA's antipiracy approach meant bringing suit against a company. That's different from the strategy adopted by Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (DGW), the law firm that has filed copyright complaints against thousands of individuals accused of illegally sharing movies made by indie studios. But what the two approaches appear to have in common is that they cost a lot.

DGW has seen considerable opposition from the accused and now many of the cases appear as if they will drag on in the courts for some time. That likely means higher costs for the plaintiffs. The top-four labels pursued a similar legal strategy against individuals for five years but ended the practice in 2008.

The plan now by the labels and big Hollywood studios is to seek more copyright protection from the government. Here is some of what the coalition wrote in its report to the Commerce Department about the state of online piracy:

• Peer-to-peer file sharing continues to account for at least 25 percent of all broadband traffic worldwide. A very high proportion of this traffic involves unauthorized copies of movies, TV programming, sound recordings, and other copyrighted works.


• A recent Princeton University study found that approximately 99 percent of 1,021 BitTorrent files reviewed violated copyright. It is true that P2P's percentage share of total traffic is down from previous years, but in large part this is attributable to increased use of streaming services and cyberlockers as means for making stolen copyrighted materials available.

• McAfee estimates that the number of "live, active sites delivering illegitimate content" has sextupled since 2007.


The coalition complained that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the law that offers Internet service providers a safe harbor from copyright liability, offers companies too many loopholes. They say that the way the law reads now, ISPs have too much of "an excuse to do nothing to combat pervasive and even blatant infringement."

Elsewhere in the report, the coalition used Google as an example of a company that once resisted requests for greater antipiracy efforts but is now moving in the right direction. Last week, Google announced it would stop doing business with members of AdSense, the advertising vehicle that pays sites for posting ads on its pages, if they were found to be trafficking in pirated content. Google also said it would be quicker to remove pirated links from its search results once notified by copyright owners.

The coalition noted, however, not every search engine is cooperating.

"Even though highly effective automated systems for matching online content to copyright reference databases are readily available and are currently in use by some service providers," the coalition wrote, "other providers feel no obligation to implement them."

I LIKE STEALING DONT TELL ME I CANT LIKE STEALING!

Mickey, I ask you to consider the story of the magic apple to understand why its okay.

LimeWire Attempting To Include Digital Retailers In RIAA Battle

January 4, 2011

Despite the court battles in 2010 to shut down file-sharing service LimeWire, its owners are still making noise. According to The Hollywood Reporter, LimeWire is asking the RIAA to prove just how much money the record industry has lost to illegal file-sharing. The labels are claiming over $1 billion in damages and will be able to argue exacly how much LimeWire pays out in front of a jury this April.

According to THR, LimeWire's lawyers have been asking for documentation from third-party licensees covering their relationship with the labels, including contracts and royalty payments. The attorneys are currently pushing for Amazon to turn over its documents on these matters, because LimeWire doesn't want the case to rely only on the labels' copies of such documents#

The attorneys are suggesting in further filings that documents on the labels' relationship with digital music vendors such as Amazon #and possibly Apple# "could illuminate Plaintiffs' views as to the true value of their works and how Plaintiffs acted towards Amazon and other online digital music providers." THR suggests that it will be up to the courts to decide whether this argument is relevant to the case or not.

Man, look at those vaginas who are unable to make progress, aka the RIAA.

Mickey, if that's the best post that you've got in you, you should probably go outside and play.

I'm stretched pretty thin right now, B. This is all I've got.

This is pretty cool.



http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... day-7.html

The music bubble?

feck.

Lime Wire Reaches $105 Million Settlement With Major Labels

May 13, 2011

Lime Wire and the major labels have reached a settlement, where the P2P file-sharing company and its founder Mark Gorton must pay out $105 million in compensation. Lime Wire's lawyers met with the labels' on Thursday to finalize an agreement, following a week of hearings in New York City#

RIAA Chairman/CEO Mitch Bainwol said in a statement, "We are pleased to have reached a large monetary settlement following the court’s finding that both LimeWire and its founder Mark Gorton personally liable for copyright infringement. As the court heard during the last two weeks, LimeWire wreaked enormous damage on the music community, helping contribute to thousands of lost jobs and fewer opportunities for aspiring artists."

He added, "The significant settlement underscores the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the Grokster case -- designing and operating services to profit from the theft of the world’s greatest music comes with a stiff price. The resolution of this case is another milestone in the continuing evolution of online music to a legitimate marketplace that appropriately rewards creators. This hard fought victory is reason for celebration by the entire music community, its fans and the legal services that play by the rules."

On the other side of the case, Gorton's lawyer Joseph Baio argued in his own statement that the final settlement was much lower than many had predicted. "In the recent past, the plaintiffs have pressed for a $75 trillion verdict. The Court labeled that claim 'absurd.' Plaintiffs then claimed that they suffered $40 to $50 billion of damages and that Lime Wire was responsible for it all. At other times they have claimed that the amount of damages exceeded $1.4 billion," Baio said.

CNet's Greg Sandoval notes that "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."

Ha! How about "next to none".

ISPs Agree To Anti-Piracy Plan

July 8, 2011

A new anti-piracy agreement between the music, TV and film industries and Internet service providers was announced Thursday, giving users a "Copyright Alert" warning that their accounts may be involved in illegal downloading. A statement from the parties involved describes the agreement as a "voluntary landmark collaboration will educate subscribers about content theft on their Internet accounts benefits consumers and copyright holders alike." The plan calls for a series of warnings that one's account is being used for illegal downloading, but does not include terminating an account or turning over anyone's information to copyright holders.

The announcement states that "The Copyright Alert System is based on a consumer’s 'right to know' when his or her Internet account may have been used improperly to download copyrighted content. Often, subscribers – particularly parents or caregivers – are not aware that their Internet accounts are being used for online content theft. Other subscribers may be unaware that downloading copyrighted content from illicit sources is illegal and violates their ISP’s Terms of Service or other published policies. Data suggest that, once informed about the alleged content theft and its possible consequences, most Internet subscribers will quickly take steps to ensure that the theft doesn’t happen again."

"The new Copyright Alert System addresses these problems with a series of early alerts -- up to six -- in electronic form, notifying the subscriber that his or her account may have been misused for online content theft of film, TV shows or music. It will also put in place a system of 'mitigation measures' intended to stop online content theft on those accounts that appear persistently to fail to respond to repeated Copyright Alerts. The system will also provide subscribers the opportunity for an independent review to determine whether a consumer’s online activity in question is lawful or if their account was identified in error. There are no new laws or regulations established as a part of this voluntary agreement. Termination of a subscriber’s account is not part of this agreement. ISPs will not provide their subscribers' names to rights’ holders under this agreement. The agreement also establishes a Center for Copyright Information to support implementation of the system and educate consumers about the importance of copyright."

"This groundbreaking agreement ushers in a new day and a fresh approach to addressing the digital theft of copyrighted works," said Cary Sherman, President of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). "We hope that it signals a new era in which all of us in the technology and entertainment value chain work collaboratively to make the Internet a more safe and legal experience for users. It is a significant step forward not only for the creative community, which invests in and brings great entertainment to the public, but for consumers and the legitimate online marketplace as well."

Rich Bengloff, President of American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) called it an "historic agreement that will reduce the financial distress being experienced by our independent music label community so that our members and their artists can continue to create and invest in the music they love and, in doing so, help protect thousands of musical artists and their musical compositions, across the United States."

The ISPs involved in the agreement are AT&T, Cablevision Systems Corp., Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

And the follow up...

RIAA: ISPs To Police Piracy By July 12

March 15, 2012

Last July, Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon and Time Warner Cable announced that they had agreed to adopt policies that would discourage customers from illegally downloading music, movies and software. But since then, the ISPs have been fairly quiet about their plans to enforce it. However, that is apparently about to change as RIAA CEO Cary Sherman says that most of the participating ISPs are on track to begin implementing their programs by July 12. Speaking at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting on Wednesday, Sherman told attendees that planners knew that setting up an antipiracy program such as this one could take a year. He also told CNET News following his panel discussion that the process isn't as simple as flipping a switch.

"Each ISP has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system," Sherman told CNET. They need this "for establishing the database so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice. Every ISP has to do it differently depending on the architecture of its particular network. Some are nearing completion and others are a little further from completion."

The program will work like this: ISPs will send out one or two educational notices to customers who are accused of illegally downloading copyrighted material. If the customer doesn't stop, the ISP will then send out "confirmation notices" asking that they confirm they have received the notice. At that time, the accused customers will also be informed of the risks they incur if they don't stop pirating. If the customer is flagged for pirating yet again, the ISP can then choose from a list of penalties, including lowering the customer's connection speed or suspending Web access until the subscriber agrees to stop the illegal behavior.

Many supporters feel that this could become the most effective antipiracy program ever, since Internet providers are in the best position to fight illegal file sharing. However, these measures have been strongly opposed by the tech sector, and it remains to be seen how they will react once the measures are officially put in place.

So does that mean I can go crazy stealing shit and then after a couple warnings, stop?

Then move to a different ISP and start all over again. Actually this could encourage more competition amongst ISPs.

RIAA: 2011 Revenue Increase First In Seven Years

March 27, 2012

New data from the RIAA shows that 2011 brought the music industry its first revenue increase in seven years. According to a New York Post article, music sales were up by 0.2 percent in 2011, bringing in just over $7 billion. The increase was partly attributed to digital downloads and music subscription services such as Spotify, Rhapsody, Rdio and MOG.

According to the RIAA, digital music now represents half of U.S. music sales. Digital music subscriber numbers grew by 19 percent last year, to 1.8 million people, generating $241 million in revenue. Sales of digital downloads were up, with a 13 percent increase in individual track sales to $1.49 billion. Digital album sales grew by 25 percent in 2011 to cross $1 billion for the first time.

I like how you bolded the 7 billion part, because revenue is exactly the same thing as profit

New copyright center ready to fire on pirates (exclusive)

The Center for Copyright Information will soon make its debut. The CCI will work with ISPs, music labels, and film studios to implement controversial graduated-response program.
by Greg Sandoval | April 2, 2012 8:01 AM PDT

Some of the nation's biggest ISPs and entertainment companies will soon unveil the Center for Copyright Information (CCI)
(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET)

The major film studios and music companies will soon unveil plans for a "copyright center," an organization designed to oversee the implementation of the controversial graduated-response program, CNET has learned.

Last July, when some of the country's top Internet service providers, including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, agreed to begin implementing a series of measures designed to discourage illegal file-sharing, the ISPs said they and the entertainment companies would establish a Center for Copyright Information (CCI) to "assist in the effort to combat online infringement."

The ISPs, major record labels, and Hollywood film studios are expected soon to name the person in charge of the CCI. CNET has learned that one of the leading candidates for the job is Jill Lesser, managing director of lobbying and public policy firm The Glover Park Group. She is also a member of the board at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit group that advocates for free speech on the Web.

According to her bio, Lesser has focused on "copyright, consumer protection, and telecommunications policy issues for clients in the media industry." She could not be immediately be reached for comment. Spokesmen for the MPAA and RIAA declined to comment.

Some of CCI's duties will include educating the public about copyright law and the potential consequences of violations. Administrators will help evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the ability of entertainment companies to accurately identify violators and pitching the graduate response program to non-participating ISPs.

Antipiracy experts at the studios and music labels say that the graduated-response program is vital to protecting movies and music. They believe that since ISPs are the gatekeepers of the Internet, they are in best position to thwart illegal file sharing. A graduated-response program is supposed to begin with the ISPs sending a series of letters to customers who are flagged for allegedly downloading pirated songs or films. The letters will endeavor to educate the accused that downloading unauthorized content is illegal. The ISPs will then gradually begin ratcheting up the pressure for those who are alleged to have committed multiple piracy infractions.

When the Motion Picture Association of America and Recording Industry Association of America announced the coming program last July, they said they would eventually create a "Center for Copyright Information," which would focus on educating subscribers on piracy and the legal ways to obtain movies and music online.

Sources in the entertainment industry say that the center will also try to work as a liaison between the ISPs and the entertainment companies. The ISPs have not come to antipiracy easily. They are wary of alienating customers, and a music-industry source said that people on the entertainment side are worried the ISPs don't have the stomach for a fight on graduated response.

Lesser, or whoever is hired to oversee CCI, likely faces many challenges in keeping the peace between the ISPs and entertainment companies. One thing that might help is that sources close to the planning say that CCI's advisory board will likely include some people from tech and organizations traditionally critical of the copyright stances taken by film studios and record labels.

Update 3:04 p.m. PT: The CCI has announced that it has indeed hired Lesser and announced the names of some interesting new advisory board members. Read the full story here.