Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury

[NasEscobar]

fmxda,

Chill out. Just because you're on the internet and someone can't punch you in the mouth for acting like a prick doesn't mean you should.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of music listeners would you guess pay for music because they're scared of breaking the law as opposed to artist loyalty or because it's easier or because ~$12 isn't a big deal to them or because they want the original, or because they don't have knowledge of torrents?


[/ QUOTE ]Yes, my anecdotes or shoot-from-the-hip guesses on the effect is exactly what this thread needs. Exactly.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very important detail. You are assuming legality is the only boundary from all out free downloading, when in reality there are tons of reasons besides an unenforced law to buy rather then download music.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is NO enforced deterrent against downloading. The RIAA is not going after the consumers of illegal sharing, only a small minority of those that upload. And the actions of the RIAA obviously isn't effective as there is still an abundance of people willing to upload.

[/ QUOTE ] I didn't say anything about the RIAA going after downloaders, I said sharers and that implies uploaders. Like someone said, crime still occurs despite the deterrents of jail. Or would you consider jail to not be a deterrent?


[/ QUOTE ]
Studies show that a good amount of people aren't deterred by jail. You and me are, and perhaps a lot of people are, but a good portion isn't. There is no deterrant for downloaders, and empirical data shows that very few are deterred into not uploading. In other words these fat quarter million dollar lawsuits are not an effective deterrent and only serve to make a small, small minority that hit the reverse lottery a living hell for them.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh I see what it is. We can't agree because you're delusional.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm delusional because I'm stating the fact that there are no legal reprecussions against downloading music? Really?
[ QUOTE ]
Ever take an introductory econ course?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes.
[ QUOTE ]
If you have, you should know that a price ceiling of zero, which you advocate by wanting free downloads of all music leads to a huge shortfall in supply and glut of demand. Which one of the basic tenets of microeconomics that lead to this simple conclusion do you disagree with?

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that the dystopia you're describing is occuring now and the sky hasn't fallen. And these laws are artificial.

Removal of a positive =/= inserting a negative

[RedRover]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no deterrant for downloaders, and empirical data shows that very few are deterred into not uploading. In other words these fat quarter million dollar lawsuits are not an effective deterrent and only serve to make a small, small minority that hit the reverse lottery a living hell for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that, in the past, the RIAA was letting people settle for a couple thousand bucks and wasn't getting TONS of news about it. Joe Sixpack in Bumfuck, Iowa didn't know about those settlements and Johnny Savy Computeruser was willing to gamble.

The RIAA has stated many times that they went for huge damagers here to deter people, and since this is the first time that any of these cases has come to a jury you can't really use past studies to talk about what's going to happen from here going forward in terms of deterrance.

[RedRover]

nasescobar, this is a long confusing thread. i know you said you wanted to not talk about uploading. is your position that a) current laws dont prohibit downloading or b) laws shouldn't prohibit downloading?

( by downloading i mean downloading an mp3 file from someone who does NOT have the permission of the copyright holder to provide a copy of that file [unless you think that is not a right the copyright holder has to give or not give, ie you believe copyright shouldn't exist at all])

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to nitpick, you've missed my point. Whether or not prison is a deterrent isnt actually relevant (though I do think it is). I was just saying for form of the statement was bad. Observing that a lot of people commit crimes or download doesnt show that efforts to deter those acts are failing. It just shows they arent wholly successful. Perhaps a better analogy: "seatbelts dont help save lives because people still die while wearing them." Sure, some people still die, but that doesnt mean even MORE people would die is no one wore them.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I'm just saying, how many people do you really think don't upload because they're scared of getting caught? There are no shortages of music to download. So I don't think it's an effective deterrent, all it does it cause more suffering (in the form of these outragous lawsuits).
[ QUOTE ]
If every p2p client had a button that you had to click before you could use it that said "I agree to not download copyrighted material, and know that, if I do, I may be found liable in a civil suit filed by RIAA/MPAA/etc" you would be OK with the woman in the OP being sued, yes? Since she would have breached a contact? (Or even if just using windows or macOS made you click a button saying you will not use their OS to download things that you dont have copyright to.)

I do believe that some p2p clients do force you to make such an agreement.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very good point. And if people were going to sue downloaders (this goes for uploaders too) they must get more realistic fining amounts. $9000 a song is ridiculous.
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, I would agrue that the social contract is enough ground to bring this lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what a social contract is in general, but how are you relating this to music? That it's agreed upon by society not to download/upload music? I don't think enough of society thinks that right now.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
But how do free downloads of all music ever made in the world lead to the promotion of the bolded part?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't remember what band this is...I believe it was the nine inch nails but I may be wrong, this is just something I heard from my business law teacher. They told all their fans to go out and download some of their work in the hopes that this would lead to more money in tours, and in the hopes that getting one album for free will lead to them liking them and buying more.

When 50 cent had no deal he flooded the east coast with free mixtapes and generated a lot of buzz leading to a $1M signing with Aftermath and Shady records. While mixtapes were around long before then this has set a trend for other unsigned artists.

On a hip hop board I visit people post free songs, acapellas (sp?), and beats in the hope of gaining more attention.

There are many famous DJ's that get paid by labels to create mixtapes for artists that thyey distribute for promotional use (wink wink, I'm sure they also make decent money off selling them too even though that's illegal, but the artist and label don't see that).

Soulja Boy (ugh I hate that guys music though) got a major deal by putting out free songs and getting tons of hits on his myspace and on Youtube.

Away from music we have literally hundreds of awesome strat posters that spend a lot of time giving away free advice that have helped tons of people make money.

Wikipedia is a completely free source of information that is easy to use that no one has ever been paid for (besides donations).

Just look at how 2p2 makes money on this site. They host boatloads of free information and make bank off of banners. Perhaps the solution is in-song advertising. We already see this in videos. TI was paid once by Chevy to have a video that features a bunch of chevy cars. Jay-Z's "Show me what ya got" video was completely bankrolled by advertisers.

There are many ways the labels and the RIAA could adjust, it's just that their old ways of operating are currently being protected by laws.

[demon102]

man I got like 100k songs in [censored], hope I dont gotta pay 9k for each one, would suck sooooooo bad lol

[RedRover]

[ QUOTE ]
When 50 cent had no deal he flooded the east coast with free mixtapes and generated a lot of buzz leading to a $1M signing with Aftermath and Shady records.

[/ QUOTE ]


You do realize why this wouldn't work if all music were free... right?

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
a) current laws dont prohibit downloading


[/ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine it's technically illegal to download off a torrent. What I'm saying is that it's an unenforced law. However this is just as a side note.
[ QUOTE ]
b) laws shouldn't prohibit downloading?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. However mainly that downloading=/=stealing.
[ QUOTE ]
( by downloading i mean downloading an mp3 file from someone who does NOT have the permission of the copyright holder to provide a copy of that file [unless you think that is not a right the copyright holder has to give or not give, ie you believe copyright shouldn't exist at all])

[/ QUOTE ]
If the copyright is contractual I'd agree that they should exist, I've conceded that uploaders could be breaking the laws of a contract (as well as the laws of court of course), provided they bought a cd and shared it. Otherwise I don't see a problem.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When 50 cent had no deal he flooded the east coast with free mixtapes and generated a lot of buzz leading to a $1M signing with Aftermath and Shady records.

[/ QUOTE ]


You do realize why this wouldn't work if all music were free... right?

[/ QUOTE ]
You can get any music you want for free now, and when 50 cent got his deal.

[CallMeIshmael]

nas,

basically, I think the contract stating that "I wont download things I dont have the right to" is implicitly signed in the social contract, given that I feel nearly all people know what they are doing is against the stated conditions under which the music was originally provided.

however, if you disagree with that, I really wouldnt see too much wrong with it. Making the person agree to not download things they dont have the right to (ie. changing up the EULAs from some programs) is a very reasonable change. (also, I def agree that 9k/song is excessive).


also, just as sort (hopefully) final remark in a v long thread, I'd like to note that, at least to me, whether or not music would be hurt/helped by having current IP laws changed, isnt, imo, all that relevant, even though its very easy to focus there. To me at least, the idea that a person can say "this is my product, here are the conditions under which you can use it, if you dont like them, dont use it" should trump any sort of utilitarian argument wrt to music itself.