p2pnet - rss feed: Evelyn and the RIAA
p2pnet.net News View:- The Texas Daily carries a story describing how the Big Music cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) ‘persuades’ people accused of the wicked crime of sharing music with each other to ’settle’; rather than go to court.
So far, almost 8,500 people have been sued. Not one of the cases has seen the light of day.
Is file sharing legal? Is it fare use?
Cherry Lane Digital ceo Jim Griffin has some thoughts on the subject.
Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think it’s about legal or illegal.
It’s more clearly about licensed versus unlicensed.
And that raises the question: Why is no license available for this activity?
We license all manner of uncontrolled use of music, but not this.
We license the bar owner, the broadcaster, the hotel lobby, the satellite operator, the webcaster. None need ask permission, none need fear prosecution for their unfettered use of music.
The proprietors of these new services seek licenses, are asking to pay.
Why not license them? Why not admit it’s impractical and inefficient to control these songs one by one? Why not acknowledge the $20,000 iPod is not a business model?
Licensed or unlicensed is the question, and if not, why not?
Sound recording companies are paid nothing by radio broadcasters. They’ve built multi-billion-dollar businesses without paying those whose sound recordings they use. Are they they pursued by record companies? Of course not. Legal, no license necessary. Is anyone beating the hallways of Congress seeking to make them pay? Is anyone litigating this case through the courts? Of course not. Why pick on the powerful and wealthy?
There was a time the stink was about copying discs, but that was before Sony and Universal took Roxio ownership and leadership. After that, it was all about peered sharing, even though disc copying delivered the recipient of the process a perfect copy of that available for sale.
Better to chase teen-agers, better to sue old women, better to berate the individual user, all of whom are paying far more today for media through multiple flat-fee, all-you-can-eat buffets than they ever paid before.
Only the sound recording companies cling to their pursuit of this notion of control, calling those who do not comply thieves.
And in doing so they leave billions on the table that should be divided fairly amongst creators and rights holders.
Yes, there is definitely something wrong going on here, that’s for sure …
Jim Griffin - Cherry Lane Digital
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
===================
See:-
‘persuades’ people - Silenced by Big Music, p2pnet, February 5, 2005
February 6th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
The battle of corporate profit margins vs common sense. The industry is not losing money, the fear is losing out on potential profits. For this, common sense shows that this industry acts like a monopoly. The lawsuits are in civil courts when the industry should be on trial for violation of anti trust laws.
New technology evolved before the industry could catch up. Now with the lawsuits and trials to hold back p2p developer adavnces are aimed for the industry to copy the technology and try to generate a profit.
Again, the industry never really lost money. They lost out on being the first to develop the technology, hence they lost out on potential profits. How can one be sued for damages unknown???
ln_solitude
February 7th, 2005 at 1:30 am
The most contrary thing is the RIAA keeps complaining about p2p filesharing loses them money and HOW THEIR HEART JUSTS BLEEDS FOR ALL OF THAT LOST ROYALTY COMPENSATION FOR THE ARTISTS THAT ARE SIGNED TO THEIR RECORD LABELS.
OH PLEASE……………….
Does anybody who are recording artists ever remember the time when they started in the music business and went door to door to every music label they could find with their music catalogue and they COULD NOT EVEN GIVE THEIR FUCKING WORTHLESS MUSIC AWAY JUST TO GET THE EXPOSURE ?
DO THEY EVER REMEMBER PLAYING IN SLEAZY NIGHTCLUBS OR OTHER DIVES YEAR AFTER YEAR TILL GOT THEIR ” BIG BREAK ” ?
Or all of the times they literally or otherwise got fucked by their record agents or by their greedy record labels.
It’s about maximum greed in the record industry BABY !!!!!!!
February 7th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
How can anyone take these articles seriously when “fair use” isn’t even spelled correctly?