p2pnet - rss feed: BPI says ‘Not yet’
p2pnet.net News:- “While the European music industry has begun to sue file swappers in Europe, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) insists that it has no plans to join in - yet,” says a Vnunet story here, going on:
“Following the lead of the Recording Industry Association of America, European members of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) have filed more than 200 suits in Germany, Denmark and Italy. Several hundred more are expected over the coming weeks.”
The quotes refer to the IFPI’s role in Big Music’s sue ‘em all campaign meant to terrify people who share music online into buying ‘product’ from the Big Five record labels.
The article gives the erroneous the impression that a number of different music industry groups in the US and Europe are separately going after file sharers.
The reality, of course, is that in one way or another, they’re all controlled by the entertainment industry of which the labels are components.
So if the BPI “insists that it has no plans to join in - yet” that’s only because Big Music hasn’t decided to turn it loose - yet.
For now, IFPI boss Jay Berman says Britain, France and Sweden could be next, and that Japan, “is also a strong candidate for lawsuits as recorded music sales there continue to slide”. Moreover, “The music industry has … announced more than 230 suits in Denmark, Germany, Italy and Canada” [our emphasis].
An IFPI spokeswoman is quoted as as saying litigation had also been launched in Canada but is currently “on hold because of legal wrangles”
Canada? Here’s yet another potent and glaring example of Big Music’s use of the media to distort the truth.
Far from being on hold, and far from suits being announced, Big Music’s CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) attempt to force five Canadian ISPs into revealing the identities of customers the CRIA claimed were sharing music online without their permission was tossed out of court.
Canada’s Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled that putting music into a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn’t constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
The decision is under appeal.
Struck by lightning
Individual file sharers stand about as much chance of being sued by Big Music as they do of being struck by lightning (ironically, a simile used by the RIAAto describe the effects of its legal onslaughts ; ) or winning the lottery.
Very conservative estimates put the number of people who share music (forget all the other kinds of files) online in the US alone at around 60,000,000. That’s sixty million. And that’s a lot of people.
Add in that around one BILLION files are uploaded, downloaded and shared every month, and that around four million users are logged on to p2p file sharing networks at any given moment (Big Champagne), and you begin to see Big Music’s assertions that it’s having a major and telling effect on file sharing are a load of old bollocks.
The days when disingenuous PR and messages repeated over and over again were sufficient to bring the public at large around to a very specific way of thinking - and buying - are over. These days, Jane and John Doe bypass the Corporate Message Machines. They - we - communicate instantly and directly with each other.
Big Music’s desperate claims that it’s succeeding in suing people around the world into submission are empty and hollow, and are seen to be so.
But the entertainment industry hasn’t figured it out yet. And from the look of things, it never will. That’s why it’ll be left choking in the dust while the rest of the world moves on.
June 9th, 2004 at 5:38 pm
While I have no love lost on Big Music - I wouldn’t mind the royalties for all of my sales, for example - I wonder what hue and cry would raise if the shoe were on the other foot.
File swiping/swapping, whatever you want to call it, is still depriving musicians of the few royalties most of them are ever going to see.
Some of my best friends are musicians. None of them are thieves, however.
Get the argument on target: Big Music is made up of lots of little guys practicing their craft. Trying to depersonalize it is an empty, fatuous gesture. The losers on file swiping include the artists - most of whom are far from rich.
Defend stealing all you like. If it were your work being ’shared’ I doubt you would feel so egalitarian.
Sincerely,
A guy who doesn’t dig Big Music and still sees through the bullshit of the file swappers.
June 9th, 2004 at 6:38 pm
I have been a musician for several years now, and although the file swapping has taken people from stores. It has also opened the doors to new music, and new customers. My music is far from being signed to a record label, but thanks to “file swapping” my music is hear around the world. Some would say theres no money to be made, but I beg the differ. I’m currently releasing a C.D. that people wish to buy, due to a sample they have down loaded. It’s all how you look at it. If anything it opens the doors for the “little guys practicing their craft.”
June 9th, 2004 at 6:50 pm
You know all this file sharing and law suits have made me really think about royalties and I’m beginning to think differently about them. I used to support the idea of royalties but I’ve come to change my mind. I build bridges and I don’t get a royalty every time someone drives over it. I’m sorry & I also would like to do one job and get paid for the rest of my life for it but the world doesn’t work that way for me. When I get done one job I have to do another or guess what I starve. If I can’t find work in my field I have to try something else so let the musicians continue to tour and make more music to get rich or find another job
June 9th, 2004 at 6:55 pm
You are absolutely right. I download music but I still buy music CDs because I am a fan of music. I aspire to be a musician and know people who are dying to get a record deal, but what for. If the label does not support you, you will be in debt to them for the rest of your musical career, with only live shows as an avenue to make money. The bottom line is you become the record label’s slave unless you have a mainstream hit.
So here are some questions we need to ask:
What does the RIAA do with all the money they collect from the settlements against filesharers? Does any of it go to the artists whose songs were downloaded?
Why won’t a case against a filesharer ever make it to court? Does the RIAA want a case to make it to court?
Do we really need the Record Industry? Is the RIAA protecting the artists with all these lawsuits? Are the record labels willing to give up the control that they already have?
Personally, I have not read anywhere that artists received money from an out of court settlement, so in all likelihood, the artists get absolutely nothing from all these lawsuits.
A case against a filesharer will obviously never make it to court because of the huge expense involved and that’s they way the RIAA wants it. They then proceed to call all filesharers criminals and call the act of filesharing criminal. They don’t want a case to make it to court because an outcome like the on in Canada may be the end result. (And now in Canada the CRIA is lobbying politicians to change copyright laws so that filesharing can be made illegal).
We don’t need the record industry as it exists today. The current record industry is just a monopoly shared by 5 major record labels. Distribution is controlled by them and they can dictate what music the masses will be able to buy. Throw ClearChannel into to mix and you have another monopoly dictating what music the masses are able to listen to on radio. And now ClearChannel is refusing to play songs by artists who are selling tickets through outlets other than Ticketmaster. (The greed is sickening.)
The RIAA is only protecting their monopoly. They are only pulling on the publics heartstrings every time they mention the poor artists. If they cares so much about their artists, why did they get them to sign a record deal that is so much in favor of the record label?
The record labels do not want to give up control of their monopoly because if they do their existence will quickly end. And that is what filesharing and P2P networks are threatening to do. Filesharing allows an artist to have a direct distribution link with their audience without the help of a major record label. That puts a lot of power in the artists hands. And that stands to affect the entire record business from the 5 major labels, to ClearChannel, to Ticketmaster.
That my $.02.
It’s been mentioned here at P2Pnet in a past article, but for more insight, visit www.pbs.org and watch a streaming video called “How The Music Died”.
June 9th, 2004 at 8:15 pm
Fuck off. You probably play in a garage band somewhere. Even if you don’t, theres always ways to dig up money for crack and herion. You’ll think of something, all junkies do. Most musicians are glad to have a song or two available for download, as it gives the consumer a taste of the music they may want to buy. It’s like trying on a sweater before you buy it just to make sure it fits. How many of us have gone to the record store, bought a CD, and played it only to find out there’s only one or two good songs on it? I say that downloading a few songs from each artist is nothing short of payback for charging 20 dollars for crap. As for this jackass that keeps posting in “favor” of the RIAA viewpoint, he probably has never personally had a song downloaded in his life. As far as I know only popular or “old” 60s, 70s, and 80s tunes are the ones being downloaded. Who would want to download todays shit music anyway? Kids? Screw the RIAA, screw this moron who keeps posting crap. If I feel like downloading a tune I’m going to do it. If the government wants to crucify me for it than get to it.
June 9th, 2004 at 9:12 pm
Hey I live in Canada… Other than Canadians Lying about how bad our weather is to keep out undesirables..We dont appreciate others lying about us…Woo hooo Canada will be the largest file sharing nation on the planet..Peace