Merry Xmas: Music Industry to Stop Driftnet Lawsuits Against Individuals

[Lemur]

About freakin' time. Worst PR evar.

Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html)

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

[Lord Winter]

:logic:

Although the ISP cut offs could turn out to be a problem.

[CountArach]

This is just trading one bad method for another equally bad method.

[spmetla]

At least switching ISPs is easier than going through a major lawsuit.

[TB666]

At least switching ISPs is easier than going through a major lawsuit.
Some ISPs in Sweden has already stated that they will refuse to follow that law.
Mean what's the point of using a 100mb/sec broadband if not to download stuff, look at wiki ??
The ISPs know it hence won't follow it since well, it's bad for business.

[Husar]

It's even easier not to distribute music illegally on the internet but I guess that thought hasn't crossed anyone's mind... :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

Husar, you're quite right, if nobody ever violated copyright laws, no matter how broad and ill-defined, there would be no problem. And then man and beast could live together as one, and death would have no sway over mortals, and we would spend eternity dancing to heavenly choirs.

Short of that scenario, however, a large portion of people are going to engage in filesharing. How we deal with that is the question.

Does it make sense for the music labels to sue single mothers into permanent, crippling debt, as in the case of Jammie Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Thomas)? Does that strike you as a fair, just and equitable way to cope with worldwide filesharing? If not, why not? Consider the ill-will and horrible PR the labels reaped by suing computerless grandmothers, dead people, and two year olds. Consider how this behavior turned the public against the labels. Consider the millions of dollars they lost through this tactic.

If your position is that the labels should be able to do as they like to those who violate the law, where does that stop? Should we castrate filesharers? Should we kill them? Imprison them for the rest of their natural lives?

If your answer to any of those questions is "no," then maybe we need to consider proportional response to a crime. And once you've ceded that point, it's a short step to admitting that mass lawsuits against your own customers is madness.

[Ronin]

Some ISPs in Sweden has already stated that they will refuse to follow that law.
Mean what's the point of using a 100mb/sec broadband if not to download stuff, look at wiki ??
The ISPs know it hence won't follow it since well, it's bad for business.


ISPs over here in their advertisement openly admit that their download speeds and unlimited download capacity are "great for downloading movies and music" and I´m quoting directly...

so I have to agree...nothing will come of this....the ISPs aren´t gonna shoot their own business in the foot.

[KukriKhan]

Husar, you're quite right, if nobody ever violated copyright laws, no matter how broad and ill-defined, there would be no problem. And then man and beast could live together as one, and death would have no sway over mortals, and we would spend eternity dancing to heavenly choirs.

Short of that scenario, however, a large portion of people are going to engage in filesharing. How we deal with that is the question.

Does it make sense for the music labels to sue single mothers into permanent, crippling debt, as in the case of Jammie Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Thomas)? Does that strike you as a fair, just and equitable way to cope with worldwide filesharing? If not, why not? Consider the ill-will and horrible PR the labels reaped by suing computerless grandmothers, dead people, and two year olds. Consider how this behavior turned the public against the labels. Consider the millions of dollars they lost through this tactic.

If your position is that the labels should be able to do as they like to those who violate the law, where does that stop? Should we castrate filesharers? Should we kill them? Imprison them for the rest of their natural lives?

If your answer to any of those questions is "no," then maybe we need to consider proportional response to a crime. And once you've ceded that point, it's a short step to admitting that mass lawsuits against your own customers is madness.

So... to cut down on the Public-Relations disaster of collateral damage, the RIAA is eschewing the use of lawsuit carpet-bombing and city firestorms, in favor of locally-cooperative Cruise Missles and Bunker-Busters. A more surgical shock-and-awe tactic. Is that about it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Intellectual property is a crock of steaming garbage. One day, people will be rewarded based on the merit of their ideas and the patronage of others who believe in the continuance their work.

Finite property is real property. We need to re-evaluate our laws so that they both protect the author to an extent and make coherent sense based on the reality of the product in question.

The funniest thing is that the people suing those who sensibly use files didn't create the music/movie/game in question, but rather hijacked the ideas of others to make some money. These middle men are the problem and copyright protection only seems to cover them.

[Reverend Joe]

Finite property is real property. We need to re-evaluate our laws so that they both protect the author to an extent and make coherent sense based on the reality of the product in question.

Yeah, and I need an Italian girlfriend with big mammary glands and kickass cooking who won't also despise an Irishman like me.

:wideeyed: :2thumbsup:

Anyway.

In other words, what you're suggesting is fairly complicated and elusive, even without the interference of the record companies. I mean, sure, it MIGHT be possible, but it's not likely, because any law enforcing any free sharing will encourage exploitation by music pirates, and any law enforcing paid distribution will encourage exploitation by greedy artists. Not that that represents everyone; but people like them still cause all the problems.

And yeah, everyone exploits the laws, but you have to admit, it's a fairly common problem in the music industry, much moreso than the average exploitation of the law.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yeah, and I need an Italian girlfriend with big mammary glands and kickass cooking who won't also despise an Irishman like me.

:wideeyed: :2thumbsup:

Anyway.

In other words, what you're suggesting is fairly complicated and elusive, even without the interference of the record companies. I mean, sure, it MIGHT be possible, but it's not likely, because any law enforcing any free sharing will encourage exploitation by music pirates, and any law enforcing paid distribution will encourage exploitation by greedy artists. Not that that represents everyone; but people like them still cause all the problems.

And yeah, everyone exploits the laws, but you have to admit, it's a fairly common problem in the music industry, much moreso than the average exploitation of the law.

It is much simpler than people think. Laws should exist to protect artists from others stealing their ideas and selling them, but production and distribution have become so potentially cheap that they are almost a non-cost, unless you are one of those morons who goes to way to expensive producer studios.

The "pay whatever you want for our mp3" plan works for good bands. They can charge a set price for the finite things that they sell - If you want a special press of an album, memorabilia, shirts, tickets to a show, etc for a high price because they will become more rare to find for real fans. The noise itself shouldn't be protected except from the black market. For good bands there is a big market for this and they don't have to worry their pretty little heads about files on the web. People who really like you will give you money because they want you to continue to do what you do.

CD prices are way too low for real fans and way too high for casual listeners. The web should be a big positive for good bands - I can't tell you the amount of CD's I bought when I was a young guy based on the illegal songs that I took from the web - Or the amount of people I go to listen to those new, good bands.

The majority of the costs goes into marketing for all media mediums. I say screw the marketing - be good at what you do and the new age will reward you by marketing you for free.