JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum COURT JUDGMENT

Hi Folks...

Ray, estimated Millionaires in US is Google-able...&...it's now on the Rise! "9.8 MILLION Millionaires in US in 2010..and 11.2 Million Millionaires in 2011/With an estimated 20.6 Mil Mil-aires by 2020."

Think the US spent $3.5 Billion last year for DEA Efforts to "Win" the Drug War. Just from an Economic Standpoint, it's for-sure "Vanishing Returns" for the Taxpayers' Dollars. There are still PLENTY of Illegal Drugs still for-sale, daily.

From a Legal Standpoint, that "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" clause means as long as you're harming No One Else Doing-So...Ya SHOULD be able to Do What Ya WANT here without Gov't Interference. Pure & Simple, yet it's sure gotten Complicated over the last Century...with Do-Gooders first focusing on Alcohol..(Dismal Failure)..and now just about anything ELSE that makes a user Euphoric.

Tobacco was America's First Cash Crop. Ever. Got the Colonies started and helped finance 'em. Still pays its fair share of taxes..(& Penalties for misleading Ads in earlier days.) Yeah, Ignorant People die every year from its Sinister Effects..but so do folks in car crashes. (Gonna take away Cars?) 'Course not...
There ARE safer ways to smoke than Cigarettes..Do So..& enjoy.

I'm in-favor of legalizing Pot and Cocaine. (Tho you CAN get MOST of the effects of Coke by just drinking 4-5 Cups of Coffee at a time...& save a LOT of money.) But Yeah, why not make it Available at your local Tax-Paying Liquor Store & end this Idiotic Period of our History where we had this Second Prohibition that ALSO didn't WORK worth a Hoot.

Tax it enough to warehouse the Addicts & Crazies from it, and let the REST of the US's Mostly Law-Abiding Citizens be MORE Law-Abiding. I'm not in-favor of going TOO-far in the Legalizing Sweep..(Tho I think LSD ought not to be Criminalized, too..)...but frankly the DUI Laws are in-place & plenty severe-enough to maintain Law & Order. (A first DUI in Florida'll run ya $10K & Up.)

High Fines and Draconian Sentences have YET to stop people from "Doing It" (Whatever Item Ya might wanna Mention). Should Taxpayers have to foot the Bill to Imprison & Apprehend these Boozers and Users...Or..should we let "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" actually MEAN Something?

As for the $675K fine (for downloads on 30 songs) that's again WAYYY-Overkill. Fine the Miscreant 5X the normal $1 Cost on the 30 Songs..$150..add in Court & Lawyer Fees for the Plaintiff, & there ya have Justice. Right now, ya have the Message-Out that Greedy Bastards with Big Lawyers can take ya to the Cleaner. (& that They're Too-Lazy to Prosecute ALL the Offenders, so they'll pick on a Few & Make Examples of 'Em.) (One was an Elderly Grannie, best I recollect. Fabulous PR for the Labels, heh!)

The 300 Millonaires was from the figure of people that filed tax returns. BUT, I am against me not making no money an Big *** becoming a conservative! Anybody need a good song, cheap!

I said it earlier and I'll say it again;

IF IT WAS YOUR SONG BEING STOLEN AND YOUR COPYRIGHT BEING VIOLATED YOU WOULD BE SINGING A VERY DIFFERENT TUNE. The only reason anyone here is objecting to the fine is it was the BIG GREEDY LABELS getting the money.
I'd bet anything if someone broke into your house and stole something from you you would be putting there ass in jail.
If it was your music, you would be screaming for the maximum punishment under the law and here is the law.

Sorry Bill, that is a bunch of bullcrap.

I have had intellectual property stolen and I found out that unless you have a lot of money to begin with it is near impossible to get anything. ... and then if you do win, it is impossible to collect.

The only reason those RIAA folks got a judgement like this is that they are rich to begin with.

The only way I would ever even consider suing someone for copyright infringement is if I heard my song being played on the radio by a star making lots of money. Would I win -- those things are hard to predict. Not only do I have to prove copyright infringement, I have to prove access.

The bottom line -- we really don't have any protection under the copyright laws. The record companies might, but we don't.

"The only way I would ever even consider suing someone for copyright infringement is if I heard my song being played on the radio by a star making lots of money" - Kevin

Exactly. I have a track playing on Canadian TV. Actually found the production company and emailed them. Never got a reply. No sense in going any further. The lawyer would cost me 10 times what I'd make with the licensing.

These online infringement cases are creating a situation where the lawyers become the big winners. And they wouldn't know a G chord from a C chord.

John

The narrow scope of the uneducated, you asscoiate addiction with alcohol and drugs only, when the truth is addiction is acually an obsessive compulsive disorder. Learn the subject Jim, dont just spout off. I have an education in the field of substance abuse and other behavioral disorders.

Cheers
Paul

Paul you assume a lot.......Whilst some people are predispositioned to obsessive behaviour and some have an OCD illness...the vast majority of alcoholics, drug addicts and folk suffering from some other addiction do not....It is physical craving and dependency rather than an OCD. I suggest you improve your own education....cause you have your facts wrong. Whilst a lot of addicts do have psychotic and psychiatric problems it is mostly due to the drug or drink scrambling their brain.....NOT as you seem to think that their brains were not working properly before they started taking the stuff.
JFI I have more experience in this field than you seem to think. I have found that a lot of folk with addiction problems blame anything and everything rather than themselves. I stand by what I said.....Most people who are content, have a job and decent living standards and a high self esteem will NOT turn to addictive substances and use them to block out the real world. As John said folk turn to these things because they are unhappy with their life.....a lot succumb to peer pressure...sorting out the unhappiness before the addiction starts is the only way to prevent it. It is also true that most addicts do not recover and even after rehab treatment around 90% relapse. The addiction rate is on the increase as is the casual or recreational use so there are no easy answers. Condoning it has proven to not work.....lets try zero tolerance. Making getting drunk or getting high uncool might have the desired effect.

Like I said, the only reason anyone is bitching is because the Big Labels are winning the suit.
The fact that you were not successful in recovering any damages has nothing to do with it.
Kevin, were hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in your case? Or was it such a small amount it wasn't worth the fight?

If it was hundreds of thousands and you were told to forget it I think you need to find a better lawyer.

And you are saying you would sue if you heard one of your songs on the radio by a big star?
What if you were the star and you were watching your song being downloaded and shared by thousands of users? What then? You would just say Oh well that's the breaks?
I doubt it.
But then you would be one of the big guys.

I doubt if John had a hit single that he was expecting to make Hundreds of thousands of dollars off of and suddenly it was on a file sharing network for free, and he was losing Hundreds of thousands, he would be on the phone to a lawyer.

Theft is theft and the law is the law. It should be punished.

"the only reason anyone is bitching is because the Big Labels are winning the suit."


Actually that just puts in on the radar screen for folks because the media likes the story.

But the reactions of people is all over the map, and when I get to thinking about it, the ONLY conclusion that MAKES SENSE TO ME is that the punishment is out of proportion to the crime, but understandable because the copyright owners, well funded and well supported by teams of lawyers and lobbyists, influenced the legislation.


Like the others, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PUNISHING THOSE WHO FILESHARE, but make it just and fair. IMO, this is not

I couldn't agree more John. Make the fines affordable. What good is it going to do ruining this guys life? If the record companies want a war then a war is what they'll get. A good part of me hopes these bloodsuckers go bankrupt.

You commit the crime knowing what the fine could be, then don't cry when caught and asked to pay the fine. These people rob from the small indie artist and label as well as the large labels.

Actually the fines have been all over the place. This person isn't going to pay a penny of it because all they have to do is claim bankruptcy. If the fines were affordable at least someone would get money.

If the fines were "affordable" then we wouldn't have heard of this. It is so easy to do, and the crime is so minimal...just pennies, that it is easy to minimize its effect on our culture. I know of some instances, personally, where illegal downloading drove good musicians/songwriters out of the business.

In a way, it is like counterfeiting. Someone makes a copy of something of value and in doing so reduces the value of any existing copies. That's why the U.S. government can fine someone and imprison them for up to 15 years for copying anything more than a nickel. It would be so easy to do. It's not much money. But if it were rampant it would destroy our monetary system, so they give it a high penalty to discourage so called "good" people from just copying dollar bills on their home printer.

Here's the law:

http://www.secretservice.gov/money_law.shtml

Mike says

In a way, it is like counterfeiting. Someone makes a copy of something of value and in doing so reduces the value of any existing copies

Aaron says

That isn't true with music. 1 million people could ilegally download Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen but it would still cost $1.29 on iTunes.

A thief is a thief regardless of the value he steals. Stealing is taking someone elses property without their permission or without paying the asking price. If someone can steal music from a billion dollar music label, they can steal a car from General Motors, all they need is the opportunity. Stealing music is easier because of the net and is less noticeable than stealing a car,therefore less chance of being caught, therefore the large fine as a deterrent.

Aaron,

There is a difference between value and price. If someone counterfiets a million dollars, a dollar is still a dollar, but the value of a dollar, with those million extra dollars floating around, is reduced.

If I price my house at $150,000 but no one wants to buy it, then $150,000 is the price...but not the value.

When a million people steal a copy of a song, some percentage of those thefts are perpetrated by people who might have bought the song originally. Every one of those potential sales that do not occur are what reduces the value of the song, even though the price may, for a while, remain the same.

But that's ok, we're only songwriters and musicians, we can't expect to be paid for doing this. We're not supplying a necessity, like beer or potato chips.

MMMMM Potato chip

On the flip side it can be said that the value of said dowmloads has been raised falsely by the record companies who charge extortionate rip off prices for their products. So there is also a case for saying that they are actually thieves as well. Over the years they have made zillions selling sub standard stuff to us at way above what it is worth. Now I am not defending anything illegal......That said sometimes the law protects businesses and allows them to rip of the consumer. It is time the workings of the whole industry were looked at and the consumer was charged a fair price and the artist paid a fair price...maybe then people would gladly pay the true value of these downloads rather than pirating them. Yes we are only musicians who cannot expect to get paid......but some do get paid and the gap between them and us is too wide....also the gap between them and the promoters and record companies is a huge ravine.

Stealing music is not treated the same as stealing a car. Technically its not really illegal yet to fileshare/download files in Canada hence the reason why no one is losing lawsuits.

Nice post Jim. I agree with all of it.

Aaron, it might be a good idea to get associated with your country's situation before stating things like that.

A simple internet search yields the Canadian Copyright Act. Where the unauthorized copying - uploading - of complete copyrighted works is illegal.

There is a provision for music to make a personal copy, but it's illegal to upload that file for distribution on the internet.

Is that going to stop people? Not likely. You're right in that the Canadian government has been stymied attempting to enforcing the Act or even getting a law passed. That doesn't make it morally right to take someone's hard work without compensation, especially when that artist is expecting to be paid what they're pricing their music at.

I have a friend in Alberta who has had to quit his livelihood in music due to getting ripped off. He's miserable because he could no longer sustain living with people stealing his work.

My question is: Are you a part-timer with outside income? Or are you a full time musician?

Theft is theft......just because some countries do not have laws against downloads or copyright or some do not enforce the existing laws they do have it does not make it morally acceptable to file share copyright material.
If you found a wallet that someone has dropped it does not give you the right to open it and spend the money....it is still theft and just as bad as pickpocketing or mugging the owner....even if his wallet is full of stolen money or cash he has gained immorally.

JFI making a single backup copy of a cd for your own personal use is legal. IMO copying or transferring material into different multiple formats for your own use is NOT wrong. Jody is correct in what he says. That however does not mean you can make a copy to distribute to others. That is what all the fuss is about and is highly illegal.

Jody, your friend can still make music as a hobby. He was fortunate to have made a living off of music for as long as he did. Times are tough everywhere. A musicians situation is no different than a fishermans, automobile factory labourers. It's not fair but neither is life. Workers rights are under attack all over the world. He's not suffering alone.

I disagree with your morality argument. I'm not religious. I don't care to judge people. I don't put things in columns of what is "moral" and what is "immoral".
What is "immoral" to you may be "moral" to me. I'd prefer it if religion were left out of this discussion. Please.

"A thief is a thief regardless of the value he steals. Stealing is taking someone elses property without their permission" - Everett

That's what I've been telling Uncle Sam for decades. Uncle Sam moralizes stealing in the mindset of its serfs, i.e., stealing isn’t really stealing with a justifiable motive. Or something like that...

John

I don't download anymore and I believe people who do should be fined an affordable amount. I have nothing more to say on the subject. You all may continue spouting your moral righteousness.

Aaron religion never entered this discussion except when you mentioned it. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality is simply knowing right from wrong regardless of religion or the law of the land....I am not religious in the least in fact I am anti religion for obvious moral reasons. We still however have to have laws, ethics and a code of conduct for the good of all. Some folk will do things that are corrupt or ethically questionable but technically legal. Others will make and obey laws that are unfair, immoral or are unethical. We must decide which is right and which is wrong.
Putting things in columns may be a good start.

I don't worry about making money off my songs. If someone wants my stuff, they can download it from my site free.

At no point did I mention religion. I'm not religious either. Morality is not exclusive to religion. It's a concept of right and wrong. Some people might be perfectly happy having their hard work stolen. Others are not. I fall on the side of - I'm not cool with people stealing my work. I bust my ass to create well written and recorded music. I expect to be compensated fairly for it.

Has my music been stolen? Yes. When I find out, I usually ask why that person felt the need to not compensate me. Usually the answer is: "I don't know."

There is a growing trend of professional musicians who have had enough of the b.s. about not being compensated and being asked to do things on spec or, my fav, "for the promotion of your career." Which is a crock.

Today there's an article going around about the Olympics in London. Where they are asking artists and bands to perform for free: "For the exposure." Here's the link: http://www.publicemilie.com/post/21442779576 Mind you the UKOC paid MUSE £400,000 for a really lame song as the official song (I've heard it and I like MUSE, but that song is terrible, certainly not Olympic worthy). Yet they can't pay performers at the event? C'mon.

does anyone know the name of the site or sites he got them from?

I agree with Jody however I have not heard about musicians being asked to perform for free at the Olympics. It is a fact that musicians are often asked to do freebies for charity or to "promote" their career. Common sense must prevail and musicians must choose for themselves which if any gigs they will do for no payment. I do a lot for charity and will gladly give my services however I would never perform for free where money is being made from me and it is not going to a good cause. As for the Queen's jubilee well they would need to pay me a huge amount of money if they wanted me. The royals and their entourage of hangers on have enough money without relying on getting freebies for their entertainment or amusement. I am against royalty in principle.
Just as a thought if the Olympic song is half as bad as the official logo whci resembles the missing jigsaw piece I have been looking for for years then it is indeed total crap.

Performing at the Olympics would give you a world of exposure
one would be a fool to turn it down just cause they won't pay you

Not sure, if I had to guess it would be Limewire or Kazza.

Just had a listen to the Muse Olympic song...nothing there that is in any way inspiring....1.30 minute intro is one of the most boring and longest intros I have ever heard. The song itself is pretty dull and cheesy it is too teenage pop like to be an olympic anthem....the simplistic lyrics are full of contrived rhymes of convenience and were almost certainly written in less time than the 5.20 min the song itself lasts on a cigarette packet by a drunk teenager as his first attempt at songwriting. All in all whoever picked this as an Olympic anthem wants their head examined. As for payment..... well Muse do not deserve any.... Instead they should pay us for having to suffer this abomination all the way through the games.

heres the theme song from the 2010 Winter Olympics in Canada

is that a good song in your opinions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N2tLfGUPwU&sns=em

I don't like that Muse song either, like their Uprising song the most

Not entirely true. It's not mentioned to be a featured televised spot. It's also not a charity event. I'm guessing you didn't read the article.

BTW - your video link doesn't work outside your country.

Post deleted by AaronAuthier

I've seen documentaries on Tragically Hip, Foo Fighters, Chili Peppers.. and the stories were the same starting out. They did the bar scene.. sometimes they didn't get paid. They entertained for free, for the exposure, for food, for the practice. They would have killed to perform at the olympics for free back when no one knew much about them. Someone whos serious about making a name for themselves wouldn't pass the Olympics up whether or not they get paid.

There are many talents in this world,acting,singing, writing,playing music,sports etc.etc.etc. There are different degrees of abilities in these talents,some are great at their talents, some are average, some are not so good. Talents extend beyond the arts into the trades and professions. There are carpenters with different degrees of skills,as there are plummers,mechanics, and any trade you can mention. There are Doctors with different degrees of abilities,as there are lawyers,accountants,teachers,etc.etc.etc.

Now all there people working in their chosen fields expect to be paid and should be paid.It is their livelihood. Those with extra skills will likely be in greater demand and better paid than those that are square pegs in round holes. If we have need for their services, we expect to have to pay them the asking price. But not so if you are skilled in the arts.Though most people need and desire the arts for their entertainment and most people WILL pay to be entertained, but there is a percentage that want it but don't want to pay a fair price for it. Because music is one of the entertainments that is so easily stolen off the net, even though it can be bought at a fair and cheap price, it will be stolen. If I like someone's music I will pay for it,if I don't like it I won't, but I will not steal it. Just as I would not refuse to pay my mechanic for fixing my car.I appreciate his talent and I would hope he would appreciate mine and pay me for the use of my talent and investment if he was to use it. It all comes down to what is fair and just. Thank God most people are fair and just, but there is that small percentage that don't know the meaning of the words. Some of them go on to be criminals but most of them are content to be petty thieves, I guess we can be thankful for that. But the ones that are victims of the petty thefts are still hurt.

If the industry sued more people for less money, there would be a whole lot less illegal filesharing. Infringers would feel as if they might actually get caught. But it costs too much to take on so many cases, so they concentrate their legal efforts on a show-trial or two. Big headlines get generated, some unlucky fool gets ruined, a point is made, and not much changes.

That about sums it up Mark.

John

I'd like to see a statistical study before I'd be inclined to believe that a few highly publicized fines don't have a dampening effect on illegal downloading. Until then, my intuition tells me that it is as I said, similar to counterfeiting. And if jail time were included, as in counterfeiting and other theft, the effect would be greater.

45 years in the music business, including work with some very famous people, has led me to the conclusion that when you work for free you get exposure...exposure that helps you develop a reputation as someone who will work for free. In other words, your value goes down. Of course I'm speaking about applying free market principals to the music business, in which I believe and which I prefer. People who do not believe in or prefer the idea of a free market may disagree on those grounds. But it would, again, take serious proof to make me believe that within the free market it is ever a good idea for anyone other than a green beginner to work for free. Except, of course, when one is doing work for a charity.

Remember, pickers, you can die of exposure.

If you put it that way then anyone who listens to music on youtube owes that artist and songwriters money. I have a feeling the ones here who scream the loudest about illegally downloading have taken part in listening to a song on youtube.

The link does not work. I googled and found several songs that claim to be the 2012 winter Olympic song. I had a quick listen to them. Now IMO an Olympic song amongst other things should be memorable, uplifting, arousing, inspiring, relate to the country where the event is being held and must cross all genres and cater for all ages. These songs did not meet any of that criteria.
When it comes to exposure Mike hit it on the head. Yes exposure is great but the industry is selling itself short beacuse too many people are delusional enough to think that it is worth playing for nothing to get exposure. We are in the position where if a performer refuses an unpaid gig a dozen or more others will jump in thinking that the exposure will help them. It does not. I have been singing as my sole profession for well over forty years and have found that the only one who benefits from a freebie is the promoter or the booking agent....or the charity. Whilst I will give my time free to charity I will not do it for an agent or booker.
There is however one exception and that is a showcase that we do annually in Scotland where top agents get a whole host of their best acts together over a weekend and arrange for them to perform excusively for various bookers and pub/club owners whom they invite along. It is unpaid but we view it as an audition and a chance for exposure to people who count. At the end of the night the bookers fill their diaries with the acts they want for the coming year. Miss out on the showcase and you can kiss a lot of work goodbye. The showcase is the first entry in most acts diary.....and both bookers and acts can easily fill their diaries up on one night.

Jim, I wouldn't be surprised if music label scouts show up at the Olympics to watch these performers. They might never know that they are there unless the scouts like what they see.

Sorry, can't post the 2010 Winter Olympics song. I would be posting an illegally shared version of it and that is bad, right? If you would like to violate your personal ethics then be my guest. You can youtube Nikki Yanofsky - I Believe.

This was one of the songs I listened to. As far as slushy love songs go it is OK..... nothing special or groundbreaking. It is however IMO totally inappropriate for an Olympic anthem for the reasons stated in my last post.

Not sure about the legality of Youtube. Interesting POV. I was under the impression that they had to gain permission from the legit owner before a thing could be posted. I am however sure that any offence is committed by the person posting the illegal material and Youtube for allowing it to be on their site...no offence can be brought against people who simply in good faith view it.

what should an Olympics song sound like? Throw a few songs out there