Sued For Downloading?

Excellent article. I was reading the other day where they were suing someone and pulling in their employer, asking for every hard drive the person owned, asking to talk to anyone who had used the computer going back years. Scary stuff. :( And now they're even going after states (if I reads it on the internets, it must be true): RIAA To Sue Minnesota - http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=91200708004

A lot of the time independent record labels, independent musicians, and unsigned musicians (without a record contract with any record label) will allow sharing of their music on p2p as they see p2p as a good tool for promotion of their music (according to downhillbattle.org). This is probably the case with most of these labels and artists. There may be some indie labels that will sue you but I've never heard of it since TVT withdrew their suit. I'm not 100% sure about all of the artists. Like you said don't get a false sense of security, but according to EFF.org you have about as much of a chance of being sued as you have of being struck by lightning. If you want to be safe and still share files on p2p only share files with an Open Source license, a creative commons license, or public domain material. For creative commons files check out the list of free distributors of them at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Curators I hope this info helps/doesn't hurt anyone. Best Intentions.

Question...can and does the RIAA monitor downloads from Usenet? If so, how do they do this? Also, if someone has downloaded a song but the person owns the vinyl, cassette, or CD with the song, can RIAA still sue since we have aleady bought the music?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Some people suspect that the RIAA uses "honeypot" sites which they own. If you connect and download, they have your IP address. Most ISPs will roll over and give you up. And yes, downloading a digital copy of a song that you already own on physical media is "technically" illegal. Personally I have no qualms about downloading a replacement copy of a song on a damaged CD, but the record company would argue that you have to buy a new one.

I am a professional musician, independent songwriter and producer. I wonder how many people who defend the practice of "internet file sharing" would be willing to freely "share" their means of earning a living. Should accountants "share" their spreadsheets? Journalists their source files? Manufacturers their design specifications? Of course not, those products have implied and real value. But for products in my industry, that intrinsic value is undermined by a culture that devalues music to such an extent that people now argue, in effect, that it has no value at all. Remember folks, what you pay for something reflects what you think it’s worth. It’s a dismal truth that those of us who actually make music are grappling with, how can we expect music to be produced by professionals when the product has zero value to the consumer? The answer is, many of us have and continue to find other means to make a living outside the music industry. Arguing the finer points like you do here misses the big picture, the decline of our industry to amateur status. If you’re OK with that, fine, but the best and the brightest will continue to make their living elsewhere. Remember, you get what you pay for...

Well, as for me, I'm really mad at these goon squads. These goons are going after only the little guy, not the CD bootleggers that SELL forged CDs. Now I really don't do downloads like this, but these tactics are real overkill. In protest, I refuse to buy any new CDs--I just listen on the radio. Between the overpriced CDs and their twisted "copyright" interpretations, they won't get a dime of my money.

I recently downloaded a few torrent files. I would say about 5 max. After researching torrent files, I realize I am making a huge mistake. I dont want to be a pirate, and have removed all such software form my computer. In your experience have companies gone after small time users, or do they mostly gun for larger game?

EDITOR'S NOTE: In most cases, the first salvo is a warning from the media company to the ISP, whic is forwarded to the user. If you delete the offending materials, I'd say you should be fine.

To Jon E. I'm also a musician and I think internet file sharing is one of the best ideas to have been initiated. Think about the historical and cultural changes in music. Some of the greatest new genres (eg. Jazz, Hip-hop) have been created through a fusion of sounds only available because the influencing music was ACCESSIBLE. Music is now more accessible than ever before, and from a creativity point of view that is hugely useful.

It depends what your priority is as a musician: are you a musician because you want to make money, or are you a musician because you want to make music? If you want the money maybe you are better off working in some other industry? The best music is that which musicians have written from their heart with no incentive or motivation other than expression of emotion.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Says who? All of the great classical masters had patrons...

I had heard somewhere that artists make deals with record companies to distribute their music, but the artists themselves make the most money by doing tours and such. I can understand that most fans of (favorite artist) would much rather see a live performance than listen to the studio songs, and it is reflected in the balance of the free market.

{{ what you pay for something reflects what you think it’s worth }}

Nonsense. That is a false value of a pathetically materialistic dogma. The absurd monthly fee I pay to keep a slummy roof over my head, does NOT reflect what I think it's worth. What it DOES reflect is a greedy society that punishes you for not being uber-rich. More people than ever are losing their jobs and going homeless...do you really believe it's because they're too stingy to pay what they think keeping a roof over their head is worth?

Zeke - If you don't think your slummy dwelling is worth what you're paying for it, why not move out?

Isaac - Most big artists do indeed make most of their money from touring, this is because they now charge silly seat prices to make up for what they're losing in media sales. People further down the ladder of success don't have this option.

If you allow for inflation records are cheaper than they've ever been, and let's be honest, CDs sound much better than 78s (Unless you have a laser vinyl player, and if you do then you're probably stinking rich...). On the other hand live music prices are now considerably more expensive than they've ever been.

It's a rich man's world....

Ted - History says differently. In the 50s rock'n'roll took the world by storm, in the 60s it was The British Invasion, in the 70s along came punk, in the 80s along came cheap keyboards with preprogrammed sounds and rhythms on them, and that was the end of it. The rise of the internet has been mirrored by a total lack of any kind of innovation in the field of music. Not that I'm blaming the 'net, but it sure hasn't helped...

Have you watched 'here's my crib' on MTV recently? The real problem is that everyone in the entertainment industry wants to be a multi-millionaire, and so albums cost us 15 euros instead of the couple of euros that they *should* be.

Where the hell did 'artists' get the idea that their music is worth so much? You can barely call them artists these days - the rubbish we get pushed by the record companies is 95% lowest-denominator, transient trash.

Why should some idiot popstar with virtually no skill earn millions (and all their record company cronies), when the average hard working person earns 20,000€? I love music (I play a couple of instruments, learnt digital recording as a hobby, and have a large cd collection) - BUT IT ISN'T WORTH MAKING THESE BOZOS INTO HEROES AND PAYING THROUGH THE TEETH FOR A BIT OF ENTERTAINMENT.

That goes for sports people too. And actors. Until the situation rights itself, people will happily download because they have no loyalty to these bogus 'stars'.

I found this really great quote over the internet that applies:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." —Ayn Rand

I bet most of the people how have commented or are reading this article (including me) have watched videos and such on the internet. When you watch these videos, your computer downloads it temporarily, so does that make anyone an illegal downloader. If like Tal Hawkins said before me, "if they are after the money," the RIAA and MPAA sould go after the people who are "giving away" illegal copies to hundreds or thousands of people not the little guy who has downloaded only a dozen songs and/or movies. They would get a lot more money. (Sorry if it is a little long.)

Before I read this, I was thinking about downloading some animes that are no longer in circulation. I can't find the series in any stores and I do not trust online servicse like eBay. So question... Is it still illegal even though a regular consumer can't buy it anymore?

not sure how it breaks down for movies but the average musician get like 5 cents out of a $20 cd, the retailer gets like $3 the record company gets the rest. The RIAA says "We're suing this middle schooler on behalf of the the poor starving artist", yet the money goes to the label, not the artist... They also charge small club owners a fee for letting local bands perform cover tunes. If we could just figure out a way to bypass the labels and give the artist $5 for a cd we'd be able to buy music without going broke and te artists would actually make money for a change...

What's clear from a lot of the comments here is that this is an issue because of the sort of society we live in. There is a growing body of opinion that advocates free access to ALL goods and services. Also consider this: If financial gain is the motivation, what does that say about the integrity of Art?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Ummm... "free access to ALL goods and services"??? You really don't have to think very hard or very long to see how utterly stupid that idea is. How long do you think the producers of the goods and services would continue to produce them, if they were required to give them away for free?

I don't pirate because I'm not interested. However, I could care less about these industries who have ripped the people for years. Now the tables have turned and they have the audacity to be rabid?!?! What a joke!

My problem with this is that you are downloading something that doesn't exist, it has no mass, you cant hold it or touch it, its not a physical object so what are you stealing? I have got letters from my ISP asking me to stop downloading from p2p networks but I know they were just being polite following their policy. No reason to shoot the messenger. Anyways there is no way to prove that you downloaded a file, cause who is to say the file you are even downloading is the file that it claims to be. There are too many varibles.

The music industry loses NOTHING from people downloading free music... nothing at all. The
people doing the downloading would never spend money on music in the first place, so there isn't actually anything to lose. In fact it is a plus for the industry because those 'free downloads' are actually giving the artists exposure that they would not have otherwise. The real meat and potatoes should be in the LIVE PERFORMANCE; that is where the bulk of their income should stem from. Of course, away from all the post production editing magic, A LOT of 'artists' fall flat. Besides, how can you bust somone for accepting something offered for free? 100% of the 'guilt' belongs to the ones 'offering' the free stuff!