Posted on 06/20/2009 4:29:04 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Following the recent jury decision against alleged file sharer Jammie Thomas, in which the woman was fined $80,000 USD for each of the 24 songs she shared via P2P, the popular artist Moby has written a blog entry claiming the RIAA "should be disbanded" for using the wrong techniques against people who are just trying to listen to music.
His full post:
"The riaa have sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset of minnesota for $2,000,000 for illegally downloading music.
argh. what utter nonsense. this is how the record companies want to protect themselves? suing suburban moms for listening to music? charging $80,000 per song?
punishing people for listening to music is exactly the wrong way to protect the music business. maybe the record companies have adopted the 'it's better to be feared than respected' approach to dealing with music fans. i don't know, but 'it's better to be feared than respected' doesn't seem like such a sustainable business model when it comes to consumer choice. how about a new model of 'it's better to be loved for helping artists make good records and giving consumers great records at reasonable prices'?
i'm so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music.
the riaa needs to be disbanded."
I don't think anybody thinks that artists shouldn't be able to profit from their efforts, or that the other entities involved in the process shouldn't be able to profit from their efforts. See, for example, iTunes.
The broader point Moby and others are making is that the strategy of the RIAA does not seem at this point to be a good strategy, marketing wise, for the musicians. The million dollar judgments will be uncollectible, and will engender anger and ill will among the musician's customers.
Excessive punitive judgments also are a bad concept in general. Teaching the public that the way to "get back" at someone involved with an injustice is to have an extremely large punitive judgment undercuts our entire judicial system. It may seem amusing when some suburban housewife gets hit with a judgment for $80,000 per illegal copy since she can't pay it, but it won't be so amusing when another jury decides that some corporation has to pay $80,000 per illegal copy of some web content or applet that everybody who worked there downloaded as they did their jobs. In that case the defendant will, from the point of view of the jurors, have gotten what they deserved - just like the housewife. The only difference is that the corporation will either have to fork over 10 or 20 million dollars, or head for Chapter 11. And a lot of people may lose their jobs.
I've certainly seen plenty of conservatives speak out against excessive jury verdicts in, say, medical malpractice cases. By the standards of this case those malpractice awards are stingy by a factor of 1000 or more.
I'd advise against it until you (and grand kids) have gone to Amazon.com to sample some of Moby's music. I doubt they'll like his music.
He's a big-time liberal, hippie too. Read the last two paragrpahs here.
Moby is a little turd but I do agree with him on this.
Here's a picture of him.
Good point. If I’m a record company executive, I’m thinking about becoming an acts manager. Using the acts music to sell concert tickets, merchandise.
Fur Shur once you'd rendered the 3D images into a holographic image for stage production you could even hold very large discount priced "live concerts" that'd be packed!
Moby is a leftist twat, and an enemy of just about everything else we stand for on this forum.
Check out the animated "Napster Bad" videos on You Tube featuring Lars and James.
The record companies have been ripping off the recording artists for years so let's go ahead and join in to rip off the recording artists while we are simultaneously ripping off the record companies who have been ripping off all of us for years.
If you don't pay for the music you get off the Internet, nobody gets paid for their creative work. That is not a positive development for creative people. That record companies have been making a fortune off music for years is beside the point. They have been making a fortune off the music because people were buying the products.
I have been writing and recording songs for years. It costs good money to make master recordings and people think they have a right to a free copy of that valuable investment just because some smart guys came up with a way to steal the music quickly and conveniently off the Internet.
Copyrights are valuable and 40% of the GDP of the United States is derived from intellectual property. If it's OK to steal copyrighted material, why not steal patents and trademarks?
Aren't creative people here to serve us, the lazy who can't create a damn thing but demand a right to freely own anything those creative people come up with?
Why are these entertainment companies standing in the way of freeloaders like us who just want to grab some free original music with a couple of mouse clicks?
The money we won't spend on downloading music is more important to us than the money collected by record companies. Right?
We consumers have the moral high ground on this because we should not have to pay for entertainment from greedy entertainment companies who already have plenty of money. We need to keep our money to buy important things like beer and cigarettes.
Of course, our refusing to part with our money to buy music gives us moral superiority over the dirty rotten scoundrels who sell music....doesn't it?
Moby? Never heard of him. Moby Grape maybe.
I like his Spirit of God Hovering Over the Face of the Deep.
Nothing the RIAA does prevents that. Any performer or artist can simply NOT register their work with RIAA, and then work out their own deals for distribution and payment.
I agree with that narrow point, that these awards don’t help the cause.
The artist and all involved have gotten my money several times over. As for sharing? For profit NO. But for a family member wanting say one song I bought and it's for their private usage? Yes. Like I said just about all the music I have I've paid for several times in my life due to format and technology changes. Actually some mudic I have purchased several copies of in the same format. Now I'm converting all of it to CD's when I can find them that is. This way I can also place it on a back up hard drive I keep elsewhere besides my home. In event of fire or theft I still have the music. LIke I said some can't be replaced. Sad to say I have some vinyl gems I'll likely never hear on CD.
I guess my point is this most persons who are serious listeners in the long run won't settle long for an online copy when they can find a CD. A download to many is simply a better than nothing deal till they can find the product. I usually burn CD's for playing in the vehicle. I refuse to risk my investment leaving store bought originals there. My guess is RIAA thinks I have no right to do this either. I can see and understand RIAA going after for profit bootlegers. But there is a such thing as overkill and cutting ones nose off to spite their face.
I don’t download music period. Music today sucks to begin with, forgot about violating the law. Who would want to download today’s crappy stuff? My point is that the record companies are hypocrites. When Sony sues itself for manufacturing audio cassettes that were used to tape albums and songs for years, then maybe they’ll have the moral right to go after those that illegally download material. As an artist how much money have you lost from folks taping your music? The record companies sure as heck weren’t protecting you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.