One copyright infringement lawsuit that even Foz can cheer..

[SirFozzie]

Geist: Record industry faces liability over `infringement' - thestar.com

Nice to see the standards used to cook the various filesharers goose ("We're entitled to $150,000 per song!", is being used now to cook four record companies gander (Warner, Sony, EMI, Universal (or at least each of their Canadian operations)

When you total up the infringement from the various songs they sold without authorization, the class action suit has the Record Industry facing a maximum of $60 BILLION.

[gstelmack]

ALL thieves deserve to be punished, so yes I hope the record companies get their goose cooked. Of course if it goes for the full $60billion, then the filesharers could be in big trouble because it will validate the $150K per song.

[KWhit]

Awesome.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

ALL thieves deserve to be punished, so yes I hope the record companies get their goose cooked. Of course if it goes for the full $60billion, then the filesharers could be in big trouble because it will validate the $150K per song.

It's not $150K in this case, but $20K per song. The funny thing is that the full US standards (DMCA, no private sharing, 150K per song) is what the four companies are pushing for in Canada

[Samdari]

They had to know that setting such an absurdly high price per song in court documents was going to be used against them some day, didn't they?

[SirFozzie]

They don't need to follow rules, Samdari.. they're BUSINESSES! Rules are for other people!

[SportsDino]

This is why I keep arguing the copyright side... I hope these companies get hit hard for their bullshit. Their systematic abuse of copyright is why the laws exist and must not be eroded just because joe six pack wants to steal too.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

This is why I keep arguing the copyright side... I hope these companies get hit hard for their bullshit. Their systematic abuse of copyright is why the laws exist and must not be eroded just because joe six pack wants to steal too.

Again, seriously? The record companies will do whatever they want, damn the legalities. Damn the rules.

They submitted something in this case that said "It would take too much time and effort to track down everyone on our list" to get copyright approval.

Hermits like Bruce Springsteen, or Beyonce.. you know.. people who it's harder then Bin Laden to find, apparently

I know this is one of my pet peeves, but the abuse of copyright and the one-sidedness of the current climate (and I would extend that to much of the business world as well, they're playing in their own false reality.

Despite the $60 billion max liability the article above talks about, I'm sure they'll make it go away with a small settlement (that will go primarily to the lawyers), and coupons to buy albums that the record companies couldn't give away (like they did previously)

The average person now has no power in the equation.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What power should the average person have in this equation? It's easier and cheaper to buy music now than it was when I was growing up.

[SportsDino]

Well at least we will be on the same side of this one-sided fight... If we want to argue a state of lawlessness exists when it comes to corporate america I'd generally agree, but I'd say then the battle is not to download tunes off of whatever new variant of Napster is making the rounds these day... but to fight this abuse before it gets even further out of hand.

Sitting around thinking you are sticking it to the man with petty theft is how we end up in these situations (well that and massive political bribes, general apathy of the populace, and the easy money to be made/saved by ignoring copyright).

[SportsDino]

Besides, the victim for the most part is the ARTIST, the 'average man' stealing a luxury item and crying about harsh punishment (which I agree it is overly cruel and unusual) is not who I care about protecting.

[SirFozzie]

The average person should have the right to listen to the media they purchased how they want, when they want. Right now, the right to burn your own music CD's is under attack by the record companies. They want to try to say you're buying the music CD, not the music, therefore it's illegal to rip them to your machine, create your own mix of music on a CD to listen to.

It's the same thing for the movie companies, except apparently they have better lobbyists. They've succesfully bought out fair use. (If I buy a movie, I should have the right to rip it to my computer, back it up to a disc, whatever I want, as long as I don't infringe their copyright by then selling on the "Backup" copies, or distribute it.

They've demanded the right to point at an IP address and say to the ISP. "They've been infringing our copyright" and the ISP has to kick them off (the so-called three strikes rule.

Copyright has also been unreasonably extended multiple times, because businesses fear the loss of their cash cows. Copyright was intended to SPUR on creation by giving protection for a limited time, not monetize it forever and ever.

There was a reason that these things were intended to fall into the public domain. But nothing ever will now, because when these cash cows come due again, they will be extended, until the mere idea of a "limited duration" copyright is laughable (some say it's already there!)

[SportsDino]

I am very much for 'fair use' and 'limited duration' copyrights (and patents... despite my belief I'll probably profit very much off of my own someday, I'm for the protections being limited but STRONG).

If those are the problems, fight them directly... don't advocate that people should have unfettered and easy access to full copies of creative works with no payment of any sort to whoever owns the properties. You don't starve if you don't get your latest Miley Cyrus CD... show some willpower and boycott. Or better yet, develop and encourage your own distribution system, guess what this will be what really kills the RIAA if lawsuits don't... a more vicious and efficient business, not a bunch of backroom hackers and apathetic freeloaders.

[Passacaglia]

I'll just throw this here instead of starting a new thread:

Nashville Music - Used MP3s: Consumers try hawking 'old' digital music files through new website - page 1

Used MP3s: Consumers try hawking 'old' digital music files through new website
Share

By Eliot Van Buskirk
Published on June 17, 2009 at 8:30am
Steve Haruch

The work of art in the age of digital reproduction
Carting a crate of used CDs to your local record store so you can make rent is a rite of passage as ancient as it can be tearful. But what about those MP3s and iTunes songs you're ready to unload? Is there a way to sell those off, too, when you get tired of them or just need some extra scratch?

A new crop of consumer-facing music stores is focused on helping fans resell "used" digital music the way they do CDs. But the big conundrum with digital music is that there's no way to prove sellers legally own the songs on their computers. There's also nothing to stop them from keeping the songs they're hawking. Unlike CDs—physical products you hand over to a record store clerk—digital files can be replicated ad infinitum with negligible expense.

A physical piece of music is simple—sell it to someone, and you no longer have it. The digital marketplace is strikingly different from one where sellers exchange objects for dollars. The common analogy is that the digital file works like a candle: When you light someone else's candle, your own flame isn't extinguished. Figuring out a fair bartering system is one of many issues facing the new retail world of pre-owned digital media. But with traditional revenue streams drying up in the music business, enterprising companies are nonetheless banking on this uncharted industry.

Even though they're much dicier propositions than heading to Grimey's, several options are available for selling digital music to fellow fans. These range from the fully licensed to the probably illegal, and they offer benefits in both store credit and cash.

Bopaboo, a Washington, D.C.–based used digital music store set to launch later this year (possibly with a name change), is attempting to solve the online riddle without upsetting record labels. Their expected public debut comes after a somewhat aborted attempt to launch late last year using a different model, which asked sellers to delete music after they sold it.

Instead, Bopaboo—still in private beta—now allows you to keep the music files after someone else has purchased them, although you can sell each song only once. First, the service's spider figures out what music you have on your computer, and uploads the songs into an account. From there, you can sell your collection to the Bopaboo community at large, at prices determined by a demand-based algorithm, generally lower than what the same music costs on Amazon or iTunes.

The site pays out in credit on a one-to-one ratio. That means if someone buys a song from you for 43 cents, you'll get the same amount in credit to spend on Bopaboo's catalog of new music, which the company expects to be larger than its catalog of "used" songs. You can download purchased MP3s and do with them as you please. In order for other customers to buy from your pre-owned collection, however, they'll have to pay in dollars, which go to Bopaboo and the label and/or artist who owns the rights to the recording.

"We're providing consumers with the first marketplace where they can receive some monetary benefits for their previous [digital music] purchases," Bopaboo founder Alex Meshkin says.

He sees a vacuum in the digital music marketplace that's ignored by eBay, which dominates the market for used vinyl and CDs. "There's been a lot of talk about treating consumers like retailers. But at the end of the day, unless consumers receive more flexibility in reselling their digital media, you're not going to be able to effectively leverage them through a new distribution channel."

However, many remain unconvinced that the model will work—especially because it requires such strong industry support. Without some sort of proof of purchase from Amazon or iTunes, Bopaboo's formula could falter. "It's hard to imagine that the major labels would sign a deal with a company, [even] to get resale revenue from any type of digital music file, without some sort of verification of where it came from first," says Susan Kevorkian of the technology market intelligence firm IDC.

Record labels don't want people who have downloaded music illegally to be able to turn around and sell their holdings. And the establishment's buy-in is crucial because it controls so much of the music people want to hear. In order for Bopaboo to launch with all four majors (EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group), it will need each to agree to allow primary sales (where users redeem credits) as well as secondary sales (where users sell music to each other). In return, the labels would get a large chunk of the revenue generated by both types of transactions.

Meshkin believes the major labels are supportive of Bopaboo's plan, even though it will earn them less money per song than iTunes does, and the music will not be restricted by digital rights management (DRM) technology.

The labels might be willing to bet that Bopaboo users, by collating individual stores and promoting them via Facebook and other avenues, will be able to add to sales in ways that corporate stores like iTunes cannot. Bopaboo also hopes the major labels will see its service as a way to enter the secondary music market with an alternative to free, unlicensed P2P sites.

But unless lots of labels—and users—sign up, the service will be hamstrung to the point of near-uselessness.

Steve Haruch

The work of art in the age of digital reproduction
The short history of enabling consumers to sell digital music is marred by one disastrous example: a pyramid scheme-like operation called Burnlounge. Starting in 2004, that group raised the hackles of the online community by encouraging franchisees to use annoying marketing tactics like street teams to sell new music from a centralized catalog. Bopaboo's system differs in that it pays out in music, not money, while courting users interested in displaying their painstakingly curated collections rather than picking what they want to sell from a central list.

People's Music Store, which lets anyone become a Web retailer, has also been making waves by helping fans sell music. Unlike Bopaboo, it doesn't price tracks based on demand, and lets you sell music even if you don't own it. In addition, the site gives you only 10 percent of the purchase price to spend on new music. The selection of music you can put in a U.S.-based People's Music Store is fairly limited, although respected indie labels Warp, Ninja Tune, Rough Trade, Beggars Banquet, 4AD and kranky are included, as well as such luminary artists as Boards of Canada, Fischerspooner, Grizzly Bear, Jarvis Cocker and Yeah Yeah Yeahs. People's Music Store has one big advantage over Bopaboo, in that it has already launched.

What if you just want to leverage your encyclopedic MP3 collection into some cold, hard cash? Services exist where you can upload gigabytes of music (or seamier video content), and get paid when people access the files. Hong Kong–based MegaUpload, for instance, offers $1,500 for each million downloads your files generate throughout its network—even if you don't own any of the rights to the music you uploaded. You won't get rich this way, and of course the whole system is unscrupulous in that it doesn't compensate artists or labels. It instead requires the copyright holders to police the network to get their recordings removed.

Hawking digital music online is more complicated than it was to haul a pile of discs down to The Great Escape. But in an industry where CD sales are tanking as their digital counterparts fail to make up the gap, selling used MP3s might not be as crazy a business plan as it sounds.

Email [email protected].

[SirFozzie]

Very interesting as well, Apple announced the purchase of Lala (a site you may have seen me fanboy gush about) I HOPE this doesn't mean that Lala's model (songs through their website for a dime, upload your collection to listen through their website, full mp3's if you want them for $0.99) is going to change or be eliminated.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

What power should the average person have in this equation? It's easier and cheaper to buy music now than it was when I was growing up.

It's definitely easier, but I certainly don't think music is any cheaper than when I was growing up, at least not if you're buying through 'approved channels'. Anybody remember the halcyon days of 'the nice price' stickers, or two albums on one cassette? I used to buy a ton of music back in the '80s and '90s, but 90% of it was used vinyl for 50 cents-to-a dollar, purchased at one of many local used record stores that have long-since been driven out of business, and those were legal purchases that never had any hope of trickling down to the poor artist in question (or the record companies), but I never lost any sleep over it at the time.

I think it's safe to say that the average person's power in the purchase of music has definitely decreased over time, in terms of what you get for your dollar (price has increased or stayed steady, while the actual physical items have shrunk or disappeared altogether), whereas selection, availability and convenience have increased dramatically. Overall, I could see that as a wash from the consumer's perspective. The RIAA deserves nearly all the credit for keeping prices high (despite class-action lawsuits) and none of the credit for selection or availability, which mainly came about through third-party efforts, so I personally have very little sympathy for them, and hope they get burned by the ridiculous penalties they've been slapping on individuals up to this point.