Music industry sues European song swappers | iLounge News

News

Music industry sues European song swappers

“The piracy-battered music industry will for the first time sue British, French and Austrian music fans, including a French school teacher, as it intensifies its legal crackdown on Internet song-swappers. [...]

Trade group the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) said on Thursday it filed 459 criminal and civil lawsuits against some of the most prolific users of Internet file-sharing networks in the UK, France and Austria. The number includes a second wave of suits in Germany, Italy and Denmark.”

« DLO accepting pre-orders for iBoom

Vice Presidential debate available for free download »

Related Stories

Comments

21

Hey Mr ‘Knows’-it-all, you’re forgetting one major point: where does the money come from to pay all those other people for just ‘what they do’? Certainly not from file-sharing…
Just because you *didn’t* attend an arts school, or whatever, doesn’t make you a big shot either.

I agree with Michael

Posted by hates know-it-alls on October 8, 2004 at 8:23 AM (CDT)

22

They all get paid by the record company. They all get pain BEFORE the album is even released onto the market. They get paid just like a plumber gets paid - they do the job, they get paid.

Posted by Knows on October 8, 2004 at 2:47 PM (CDT)

23

According to Michael, every time someone flushes the toilet (after the plumber has done his job, is paid and gone), that plumber gets paid a small amount. Every time somebody uses a shower, or the kitchen sink that plumber gets paid. Also according to Michael, the Electrician gets paid every time you turn on your TV or computer. Every time you walk on your floors, the carpenters get paid. Every time you lock your doors, the locksmith gets paid. Et Al.

Filesharing only hurts one entity - The Record Company.

Posted by Knows on October 8, 2004 at 2:53 PM (CDT)

24

Michael never mentioned anything about all those people getting royalties from each song sale. To quote him exactly, he said “Here’s a quick list of people who it takes to make 1 song and get it to retail.” You’re wrong.
Your metaphor with the plumber is wrong too. The record company does pay each person once only for the work they do, but you’re forgetting where that money to pay them, even if only once, comes from. It comes from The Record Company, which you yourself even admitted is hurt by file-sharing.

Your statements are true, as far as they go, but you’re missing the wider picture :-).

Posted by still hates know-it-alls on October 8, 2004 at 8:19 PM (CDT)

25

how many of these know it alls are going to or graduated from MTSU

Posted by WIll on October 9, 2004 at 1:14 PM (CDT)

26

im for file sharing if you buy the single or c.d as well if not then you can rot in hell and be pecked for ever by giant mutant chickens called bill

Posted by EHR on October 9, 2004 at 6:49 PM (CDT)

27

The simplistic bottom line:
file sharing DOES put artists / record lables out of pocket
BUT….
as with any other company, they have to move with the times. Technology dictates that, as file sharing is easy, then it’s going to happen. People loose jobs, companies go under but they always have and always will do with social changes. It’s the same for every comapmy, no matter what the product.
Record companies can either attempt to scare us all by taking us to court (and probably fail) or they can change the way they work (something that most would agree was over-due)
Record companies ARE important because they give new bands a chance. they front money for recording, they publicise, the do a multitude of essential tasks. They’ll always make their money with their Britanys and Madonnas but again, technology lets artists make cd’s in their bedroom and technically bypass big industry. To many they are becoming surplus to requirements so it’s not JUST filesharing that’s the problem.
Small scale file sharing is not an ‘evil’ thing. It promotes music; it gets it heard which is what every artist wants.
Music is not an ‘object’ to be exclusively owned anyway. It never has been. people are gonna ‘steal’ it but that’s the nature of the business.
if you can’t accept it then you shouldn’t be in the music business. go get a job as a store detective instead.

Posted by arry on October 10, 2004 at 5:16 AM (CDT)

28

Just to clear up a few things.

I’m a professional dance music producer, ie I do it for a living, that’s my fulltime job, and I love it. I have a wife and a 2 month old little boy.

Being a professional musicain is hard work, you have to be ceative every day, writing music is mentally a very tiring job, I can tell you it ain’t like working in a bank, you’ve got to use the ceative part of your brain all day every day. Writers block is never far away.

I produce a music style that most of the people here would never even had heard of. Hardstyle/Hardcore. I’ve been a music producer / artist for about 12 years, producing rave music of different styles and have released well over 100 12” singles under various names during this time.

I release my music in 12” vinyl format on a number of small independant labels. I get an upfront fee for the songs, it takes about 4 day to get a song written from start to finish.
The fees barely cover my living expences. I also get money when tracks are pricked up for dance compilations, mostly these don’t sell a lot and I don’t get much money, sometimes they’re TV advertised comps and I get a substancial amount, that doesn’t happen very much and it can take a year or so to see any money from compilation tracks. Comp sales are down bigtime this has really hurt.

Small record companies are just the same as big ones, people work at them, these people are music freaks who truely love what they do, they ain’t doing it just for the money, because it ain’t that good.

When you download tracks you’re stealing from people like me, and my friends who work at the companies, their distributers, mastering people etc

I’m sure that a lot of the people here are kids who don’t have a morgage, wife and kids, to them music just magically arrears online. I think that they forget that it’s people who write it and this is these peoples jobs, if I can’t make enough money, and I barely do, to support myelf my wife and kids them I’ll have to go get a job that’s a bit more secure, I certainly wouldn’t get a job in a record company, those peoples job are even less secure than being an artist.

Posted by Michael on October 10, 2004 at 7:10 PM (CDT)

29

^^^
Was ‘know-it-all hater’ above.
And I’m one of those ‘kids who doesn’t have a morgage, wife, etc.’. But since I’m planning to go into music as a profession (as a classical pianist, to be precise), I should hope I would know *something* about how it works.
I actually took a class from one Dr. Knowles over the summer, who teaches this stuff at Julliard, and I’m very sure he knows what he’s talking about :-).
Admittedly, I don’t think classical music performances are as prone to piracy, if only because of the kind of people who listen so them, but it’s a universal problem.

Posted by aeromusek on October 10, 2004 at 7:56 PM (CDT)

30

Oh, and just one more thing, a lot of people here seem to talk about record companies as some sort of evil empire who make huge profits and just put all the money in there pockets and bleed the poor artist.

This couldn’t be further from the truth, I love it when the companies who release my music make money, it allows them to sign new artists and continue to put my music. All the companies I have delt with have been fantastic and the people in them I consider friends. Even the companies who have gone bust have usually not tried to rip me off, and I’ve usually got my money.

All the other artist I know feel the same way.

The only artist who don’t like record companies are the ones who can’t get signed, and it’s easy to see why people like this try to perpetuate the picture of the evil record company.

Posted by Michael on October 10, 2004 at 8:02 PM (CDT)

31

Classical music is totally different and doesn’t have piracy problems to the same degree. Who’d want a compressed version of classical music. You’d loose all the definition and subtlety in the music. As it is CD’s of classical music don’t do the music justice, I suggest to anyone who thinks CD is good quality as far the sound produced to go to a classical concert in a good hall, the detail you can hear in the in instruments is simply stunning.

Posted by Michael on October 10, 2004 at 8:13 PM (CDT)

32

mike, you realize that indie labels dont get the money from those lawsuits…

in addition, most indie artists(or the ones i have seen) like file-sharing, because you arent stealing from them, you are distributing their music, it makes them more and more popular, which means future cd sales… its like one of my favorite authors said ‘when people bring me a book and say ‘10 people have read this book’ i dont get angry that those 10 people read one book, i feel happy, because thats 10 more future fans and 10 more future book sales’.. after all, how else are you supposed to hear music that the radio doesnt play? especially when your cd store doesnt even sell the cds?

how am i supposed to tell this is an awesome band from 4 30 second poor quaulity samples?

and yes, MAJOR labels are evil corporations.. they are the ones who are represnted by the riaa, they are the ones getting this money, and the ones who pay radio stations not to play music from indie labels, and they are the ones who decide what people listen to, (until filesharing came around, i hadnt heard a quarter of the bands whose cds i *own* now… in fact, 7 of my 10 favorite bands i didnt know of until filesharing became popular)

but still, you said cd sales have been going down for the past 3 years.. like ive said, the rest of the economy has been going down as well, and thats AFTER the riaa shut down napster.. so maybe the economy sucks.. or people are just tired of being treated like criminals when they have done nothing wrong, unless you count creating more listeners to formerly unknown bands is wrong(which the riaa undoubtedly does)

Posted by once again on October 11, 2004 at 4:50 AM (CDT)

33

this is all just another stage of evolution in music. Do you think people have always had to go out and BUY music? This is a relatively new concept in terms of musical history on this planet. Music has evolved throughout the entire history of humanity - this is only another step. People use to play their music for a live audience - usually for free. Music was NEVER meant to be a means of income or survival. Music has always been a form of expression. The free trade of music is nearing - there is no way anyone can stop what has already begun. Years from now, music will once again become pure - something a musician does only because he wants to express, create and show it to the world - then people will look back at the avariciousness it has become and see us as greedy savages.

Posted by Future on October 11, 2004 at 5:13 AM (CDT)

34

Part 1

1) Copyright means RIGHT TO COPY. An artist license their creation to those who have the capital to mass market it to bring it to the attention of the average person. The capitalist then sells a limited right in the piece to the average person (check out the CD’s you own, they all likely say ‘all rights reserved’ which means you take NO RIGHTS (copying or otherwise). So when you forked over your money, you contracted to take limited possession.

2) As for ‘times changing’ and businesses/industries going under, they were typically forced out due to competition and changing tastes, not wholesale looting of their inventories. There is a big difference between losing market share in a competitive market place and having your goods stolen by parsimonious theives.

3) It never amazes me. The discussion here is the same every other time this subject comes up. “The music sucks!” - then why are millions of files criss-crossing the internet? “Only one song is good and the rest sucks” - every time a new Rush CD came out a buddy and I would get it - we were categorically opposed most of the time - the stuff I liked he didn’t and vice versa. “It should cost less” - the industry, like all others, makes less than 10% net profit. They return some of that to common investors and the rest goes back into new projects. Jumping media a bit, without Dumb and Dumber etc, we wouldn’t have the Lord of the Rings if New Line didn’t have perfect rights to their products. The ‘profit’ gives those who have met a market demand the resources to provide more of the same - that is unless the demand market decides it doesn’t like the price asked by those greedy bastards and steals it (though they AREN’T greedy when they can’t come up with the 99 cents for the song).

 

Posted by toolkien on October 25, 2004 at 1:35 PM (CDT)

35

Part II

This whole discussion strikes at the root of capitalism and property rights. It is the essence of labor rights as well. The law recognizes that people are entitled to their labor and dispose of it in a manner they see fit. If that is to lease the rights to those who would choose to invest in it, they are free to do so. If the lessee then has rights to distribute they are free to, and can put conditions on the transaction (limiting the action of copying). Those who like the song are free to buy it, paying the price asked, which covers costs and profits (again which enables the producer to produce more of the same, allocating resources efficiently to the best producers). But somewhere along the line, some people have convinced themselves that the price is too high (though somehow, in constant dollars, the price for a ‘single’ has dropped a 1000 % in the last 100 years, wax cylinders used to cost a least an average day’s pay if not more a hundred years ago.

At the end of the day, we live in a world of entitlement. People have been conditioned to believe that they are entitled to whatever they want. Technology has advanced to a point where they can take what they want without consideration. Something has to account for the attitude that “That’s too much! I’m just gonna take it!”.

Posted by toolkien on October 25, 2004 at 1:36 PM (CDT)

36

Part III

We need to honor other people’s rights, in their property and their labor. Just because, in a few instances, some people become very wealthy, that doesn’t mean all artist do. The people who put the money up to mass distribute the product are doing it to make a profit. If they market what people like, they are awarded the dollars to continue.

It’s not up to a single person to decide when someone else has been compensated enough. The value of a person’s labor is measured and defined by the demand their is for it. If a piece appeals to you, pay your incremental share, that is the operational definition of supply and demand, exchange of labor, exchange of goods.

If that’s not the case, how do you own anything you THINK you own? Who had rights to the resources? When is ownership established? Ownership of assets is based on a recognition of labor expended to create something. That, or the labor itself, is up for exchange on the open market. Those who provide labor and output that is in high demand are entitled to more than someone who doesn’t. The record industry provides the conduit to reach the most in the mass market.

Posted by toolkien on October 25, 2004 at 1:50 PM (CDT)

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy