People that play BDM don't throw a fit when someone downloads their music. In fact, they encourage it mostly.

what does kinky sex have to do with any of this?

What doesn't have something to do with kinky sex?

straight, bent, or curved?

When the record industry does it for profit, it's smart business. When a college kid does it in his dorm for fun, it's a serious threat that must be stopped.

"Chet Baker was a leading jazz musician in the 1950s, playing trumpet and providing vocals. Baker died in 1988, yet he is about to add a new claim to fame as the lead plaintiff in possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history. His estate, which still owns the copyright in more than 50 of his works, is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that has been underway for the past year.

The infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $60 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.

The CRIA members were hit with the lawsuit in October 2008 after artists decided to turn to the courts following decades of frustration with the rampant infringement (I am adviser to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which is co-counsel, but have had no involvement in the case).

The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences.

Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list," which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee.

Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing more than 300,000 songs.

From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment.

It is difficult to understand why the industry has been so reluctant to pay its bills. Some works may be in the public domain or belong to a copyright owner difficult to ascertain or locate, yet the likes of Sarah McLachlan, Bruce Cockburn, Sloan, or the Watchmen are not hidden from view.

The more likely reason is that the record labels have had little motivation to pay up. As the balance has grown, David Basskin, the president and CEO of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd., notes in his affidavit that "the record labels have devoted insufficient resources for identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the pending lists." The CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability.

The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement, potential liability exceeds $60 billion.

These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages.

After years of claiming Canadian consumers disrespect copyright, the irony of having the recording industry face a massive lawsuit will not be lost on anyone, least of all the artists still waiting to be paid. Indeed, they are also seeking punitive damages, arguing "the conduct of the defendant record companies is aggravated by their strict and unremitting approach to the enforcement of their copyright interests against consumers.""

http://www.thestar.com/business/article ... fringement

The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems you'll find slipping through your fingers.

The Price of Stealing Music (When Caught) Is Coming Down

Thursday, March 18, 2010

By Jerry Del Colliano
InsideMusicMedia.com


I’ve been saying for a long time now that the record labels through its lobby group RIAA should back off of trying to win lawsuits against consumers for stealing music.

I’ve even said that maybe the labels should pay consumers to steal it, spread it virally for them without any further expense to the labels and make them money.

After all, much of the credible research on music piracy shows that filesharing does not have the deleterious effect on selling music that the labels claim.

Actually, the labels are the main reason they are losing money.

Their misguided mergers, denial regarding the digital age and penchant for maintaining the status quo by suing the pants off of everyone they can.

So, we know there are many cases out there in the court systems of this country in which the RIAA is trying to win or uphold large penalties for stealing even a little bit of music.

That will set a good example for filesharers, they argue.

Keep in mind that the music industry has had no reliable way of battening down the Internet to prevent illegal filesharing.

The most recent outrage has occurred in Texas.

And while 22-year old Whitney Harper of San Antonio was ordered to pay $27,750 to five labels for stealing 37 songs, the good news is that the RIAA’s war on teenagers, kids, parents and dead people is actually blowing up in their faces.

In the Harper case, that means each stolen song was only worth $750 per song – a lot for a young lady just graduating from college, but not the mega sums that the labels have been going after.

And each appeal that follows – and they always do – sets the labels up for reducing the penalty for theft even further.

The argument is being made in other cases now before the courts that the real penalty should be the price of the stolen digital file – 99 cents on the iTunes store or less elsewhere.

Whether that happens or not, the labels are caught in their own quicksand.

The RIAA announced it would not file any further lawsuits but that they wanted to clean up the cases that were out there -- again, with the obvious purpose of setting an example.

They just couldn’t pull up stakes, retreat and declare victory like every losing army in the world does when they discover that conflict doesn’t pay.

Because winning lawsuits in music piracy trials apparently doesn’t pay.

The Jammie Thomas-Rasset case and another one in Boston are high profile David vs. Goliath suits that are on appeal.

Whitney Harper, who downloaded the music as a teenager off of Kazaa, isn’t being cut a break because of her youthful indiscretion. The labels want blood. After all, she is their prime target – a young consumer.

So Harper’s lawyers are arguing that the total cost of paying for her mistake could exceed $40,000 and force a young person just starting out to declare bankruptcy out of the box. They even say she can’t get a job because of the publicity.

And that’s where Whitney Harper has so much in common with her enemies – the labels.

They, too, are on the brink of bankruptcy.

Self-inflicted wounds that were not necessary and that will continue to cause bleeding at a time when the labels have yet to figure out a digital strategy.

No, I’m wrong.

The labels have a digital strategy.

Sue file sharers who tend to be young people.

Try to get more royalties from the radio stations that publicize their music for free at no cost to the labels whatsoever.

Holding back the growth of Internet streamers by waging a senseless war to saddle this young industry with royalty rates so high streamers cannot afford to be in business.

In all of this, record labels insist they are trying to teach music pirates who rob starving artists of royalties a lesson.

What’s missed is that the labels are apparently not learning an even more important lesson.

Keep making a federal case out of how much every stolen download is worth and you may discover for legal purposes at least music is worth less than a dollar -- at the most -- the cost of a digital download.

And for everybody else, it's free.

The RIAA royalty lawsuits haven't stopped filesharing. Hasn't even made a dent in piracy. And now adhering to a tactic of retribution is forcing courts to decide what is a stolen song actually worth.

Labels shouldn't go there.

Jerry's bio:
Advisor to Broadcasting & New Media
Professor, University of Southern California
TV & Radio Broadcaster
Major Market Radio Program Director
Founder of Inside Radio

I wish there was that clapping emoticon on this site. That's the best thing I've read on the subject ever!

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... 0-or-less/



Looks like universal took an economics lesson, and now understand when demand goes down, so should prices.

It's not at all 10 years too late.

Big deal. They're already only $12 at best buy. Oh well

it may be fixing the plumbing on a crashing plane. but at least the plumbings fixed.

feck

Major Labels Win Court Decision Over LimeWire

May 13, 2010

A federal court ruled this week that LimeWire is guilty of copyright infringement, giving the RIAA and the major labels a big victory in the battle over illegal file sharing. CNet reports that U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood ruled in favor of the labels' claim that LimeWire parent owner Lime Group and founder Mark Gorton committed copyright infringement, engaged in unfair competition and induced copyright infringement.

"The evidence demonstrates that [Lime Wire] optimized LimeWire's features to ensure that users can download digital recordings, the majority of which are protected by copyright," Wood said in her 59-page decision, according to CNet. "And that [Lime Wire] assisted users in committing infringement."

RIAA Chairman/CEO Mitch Bainwol commented on the ruling, saying, "This definitive ruling is an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community. The court made clear that LimeWire was liable for inducing widespread copyright theft."

He added, "LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services. Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court's decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators. The court's decision is an important milestone in the creative community's fight to reclaim the Internet as a platform for legitimate commerce. By finding LimeWire's CEO personally liable, in addition to his company, the court has sent a clear signal to those who think they can devise and profit from a piracy scheme that will escape accountability. We are gratified by the court's careful and thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law."

It is expected that the RIAA will ask for an injunction to shut down LimeWire. LimeWire commented on the ruling in a statement, saying, "LimeWire remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission."

people in 2005 aren't going to be able to download anymore.