12-year-old settles music swap lawsuit

What heroes the RIAA are. They're suing, among others, a 12 yr old girl, and a 71 yr old computer-illiterate grandfather who only bought a computer so his grandkids could play on it when they visited.

I will never buy a new CD again. If it's not online, or not for sale via half.com, I don't need it. We need to boycott the RIAA for this outrageous behaviour.

Absolutely ridiculous. Suing a 12 year old??? How low are these snakes prepared to go? Do 12 year olds understand copyright law? Heck, most ADULTS don't fully understand copyright law!

RIAA is a bunch of money grubbing SOBs. If I could I would swear off buying music all together because of these types of actions. It's bad enough that they are invading people's privacy to scan their computers, but then they start suing kids? If I were that girl's parents I would have fought that to the Supreme Court! And then counter-sued RIAA for mental anguish that they put the little girl through.

And I still can't believe that people and the media are buying RIAA saying that song swapping is responsible for the decline in CD sales. Could it be that the music they put out is crap for the most part? At least in the past 3+ years it has been, with few exceptions. Gee, we aren't in a RECESSION or anything!!! But no, the fact the the unemployement rate has skyrocketed, that adults are taking the jobs from the teens who traditionally buy the most music, the fact that many families are struggling to just make ends meet - none of that has anything to do with the decline in CD sales.

I have to agree with you there. Of all the songs I've downloaded the lion's share have been from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Some stuff from the 90's, but the only recent stuff would be soundtracks from LOTR, Harry Potter, and Gods and Generals.

I don't like 90% of the music being released today. Makes me feel old...

Besides these reasons, what about the fact that the music industry colluded to fix the price of CDs at an artificially inflated price? No thanks, I'm not going to spend close to $20 on a CD. I'll wait until Blockbuster has a special and buy three previously-viewed DVDs. It's so hypocritical to do this on one hand and then turn around and sue customers when sales go down. Did they think maybe it had something to do with their actions?

What she said!!!

As for the quality of music available, a lot of the radio stations have been snapped up by large companies who air a very limited playlist of generic pop & rap. There may be good stuff out there, but I sure haven't heard much on the radio. If I don't hear it, there's nothing to inspire me to go spend $15-$20 on a CD when I'm out of work and scraping to get by! If I really like something, I'll try to find it used.

This is an interesting article: "The record industry blames piracy and downloading for sagging sales — here's the whole story."
http://soundandvisionmag.com/article...&page_number=1

got the link from this web page: "The History of the Music Industry vs The Future of Music"
http://www.futureofmusic.org/manifesto/

I don't understand this either. Don't you guys remember being kids and using your tape recorder to record songs off the radio? I know I did it all the time, I don't see how this is any different.

My question was about TIVO and video taping TV programs and movies. Especially since they are now packaging seasons of many TV programs. Earl (who works in the radio industry, so he has to keep up with this stuff) said that they actually had already gone after the TIVO idea, and the argument was that since it is for private use and people aren't making a profit from recording from TV it is OK. Which begs the question...aren't most people downloading songs for their personal use and not for profit? Somehow RIAA is arguing that everyone is profiting from downloading music.

I do remember that when the dual casette decks with dubbing came out they tried to go after those. How many dubbed tapes did you guys have? I know I had a lot.

I'm also waiting for the Used CD stores to come under fire, because I don't think that they pay additional fees to RIAA for selling the CDs a second time - and isn't that the same thing as downloading or sharing with a friend? Two people get the same music, but only one person paid for it.

If you want to hear good music without having to buy CDs or get it off the internet, get satellite radio. XM radio has 100 channels. They are VERY specific about what they play on the different stations. You don't have to listen any type of music you don't like. We got it in a car we bought, and liked it so much, we bought a unit for the house. My personal favorite is XM 12, Cross Country. It is kind of alternative country, and you never have to listen to the pop country junk they play on mainstream radio. No Dixie Chicks, no Toby Keith, good music is out there, and good bands are making it. You just don't hear a lot of it on mainstream radio.

Hello Everyone.

I listen to a programme on the radio at night called 2 ZB talk back and it's really interesting. Last night there was a debate type thing about this, and alot of good points were made, I'm one of the guilty people downloading music from Kazaa and burning it onto CD's- But someone said last night, What difference is this to somebody buying a book and then lending it to a friend??? I cracked up when I heard this, Record Companys are saying this is leaving Artists High N' Dry- and someone else said SHEESH how many mercedes does somebody need?? I thought this was great as well- , Another thing someone said was(more to do with the grand father thing) If Grandparents brought their Grandchildren a computer to go on the net with when they were at their house, Would they dob their grand children in or take the blame???, , Anyway This was a really good show last night-

Sam

RIAA saying that we are leaving the artists high and dry is a load of BS! THEY are leaving the artists high and dry! Did you know that on average out of the $20 they want us to pay for each CD, the artist gets MAYBE 10-20 CENTS?? But somehow we are the ones robbing the artists. (My husband Earl work in the music industry, so that's how I know a lot of this stuff. )

actually it's more like buying a book, making 500 copies of it and giving it away to people.

I'm torn on this issue because I work directly with record companies. The system is broken and noone really knows how to fix it. No doubt about it, cds are overpriced, and Heidi is right, it's not the artists getting rich. An artist needs to sell approximately over 1,000,000 albums before they see any significant return. And if it's a band and has to be divided 3, 4 or 5 ways, well then you have to sell even more to see much $$$.

I do believe though that general public doesn't grasp that downloading and file sharing is stealing. pure and simple. I guess because you can't touch it or feel it, it doesn't feel like a product. You are stealing someones work, their means of making a living. their livelyhood. if it's something that is for sale, and you take it for free, you are taking money our their pocket. I certainly don't think they should crack down hard on people who dabble a bit here and there, but there are a lot of people who have burned thousands of full length albums who doen't see anything wrong with it. I guess if you dont' make your living by creating something to sell to the public, it's hard to grasp that if you take that without paying, it's theft.

the RIAA is trying to make a point, they are making examples out of people. I think they are doing themselves more harm than good, but everyone hates them anyway so what to they have to lose? and if makes someone think twice before burning another 100 cds, then they accomplished their goal. They are trying to show that there are consequences to your actions, and that they are going to go after people, no matter what their age, race, economic status, is. Right now most people don't take downloading seriously and they are trying to change that. it's putting a bandaid on a gaping wound for sure, but they are desperate.

I'm really hoping that more music companies follow universals lead and lowers the price of cds.

As far as tivo goes, I don't think they should go after people who record programs, but my neighbor created his own twilight zone dvd, using his tivoed shows, with menus and all. if he were to mass produce it and sell it, that's where breaking the law comes in. or give away hundreds of copies.

Okay Colby.

I agree with Heidi it's a heck of'a lot'a BS! and it's just a RC scheme for more $$!

I download my music off Kazaa and then Burn it onto a CD, I don't understand how illegal this is???

Also another thing they said on that programme was that windows is trying to make a new "Windows" as to stop people doing anything illegal on the comp- Child Porn,Illegal downloading etc etc.. but people are just going to make a new format, Unless Kazaa and all the other music downloading places are shut down there is going to be no stop to it.

PATHETIC in my opinion!

I don't disagree that a lot of steps being taken are BS.

Trust me, 99% of artists out there don't get rich off of selling thier cds. Most are lucky if they make $1 off of every cd sold. If a typical artist sells 200,000 copies of a cd in a year then they MIGHT see $50,000. Then they've got to pay back the promotional money to the record label that was spent on getting them airplay as well as all money spent on them, IE limos to take them to award shows, dinners, hotels while on the road, etc, pay back the cost of a video (which usually cost in the 100's of thousands to make), if there was one made, pay all of their employees like accountants, personal assistants, publicists, hair & make up artists, etc. When it's all said and done, they would be lucky to pocket $50,000 a year. Not exactly living the rock and roll lifestyle. Typically what happens is the label takes a LOSS because the money generated from album sales won't cover the investment from the label on the artist. There was a very interesting article in the wall street journal about a year ago about how MCA spent over a million dollars on an artist named Carly Hennessy, and she ended up selling less then 5,000 albums. MCA bought it big time. Most labels have their marque artists who sell enough on their own, so that they can invest stupid money in new artists and hope that they are creating tomorrows superstars. They take a ton of losses, looking to make that connection.

Artists make their $$$ off of merchandising, concert tickets and endorsements. Unless you are selling 5-10 million albums a year, you aren't making any worthwhile money off of it. But of course you need the material out there, to solicitate all the other things. You could count the number of artists that sold 10 million albums last year on 2 hands. It's a very, very small amount, when you look at the big picture.

Shes not legal age how can they sue her?

If it works like anything else of this nature....the parent is financially and legally responsible for the acts of the underage minor.

Although I agree with many of the arguements on overpriced CDs, etc., I do believe that song swapping via the net is stealing. I think that taping off the radio, as in days gone by, pales in comparison. It's like buying a bootleg video of a movie shot in the theater.

A couple of months ago there was an uproar here because someone found pictures of their cat lifted off this site without permission. Everybody started watermarking their photos. As I recall, nobody was selling anything for profit, but members were nonetheless angry that their photos were being taken. See any parallel here?

So then it was actually parents breing sued not a 12 year old girl? Make sense.
I personally think that artists make millions off of their records and yes CD's are overpriced. I have over 100 downloaded songs and i will continue to download.

I was talking to a friend yesterday who works for a label. We had a lengthy discussion about this topic. He said that now days for an artist to BREAK EVEN on a putting out a cd, you have to sell 450,000 albums. So far this year, 3 artist have sold more than 2 million, those acts being Eminem, Norah Jones and Linkin Park.

Unless you are a superstar who sells in the millions (and so far there are only 3 who fit that bill this year) you are not making any substantial money. Many people here make more a year than most name artists.

My friend also made an interesting point, he said he wished it were possible for all the labels to take an ad out in all the major newspapers and show their financial numbers. His record company is currently hemmoraging money and it doesn't look like they will be in the black this year, and they have a couple artists who are selling a decent amount, it's just not enough to make up for all the other artists who aren't . The reason they can't take out ads showing their numbers is because stock holders would have a heart attack and bail if they saw how much trouble the labels are in. Every week hundreds of people are being laid off in the music industry. Labels are downsizing, with less people doing more work. I have many, many friends who have been let go and are now selling houses or cars. There are hardly any jobs available in the music business left.


Next week I will try to cut and paste a copy of soundscan, which is the list of the top 200 selling cds of the week. that will show the numbers, and few cds are sold each week. if you do the math on what an artist makes on each cd, it shows how little is actually coming in.

I have no problem believing that the music industry is in trouble, but to say that is it completely the fault of file swapping is one of the big things that I have a problem with. It isn't. I haven't bought a CD in years, and not because I download it instead. (I haven't downloaded since Napster was shut down, and even then it was mainly stuff I already owned or couldn't get in the US.) It's because I have not had extra money to spend on it, my stereo was stolen out of my car, and I watch TV when I'm at home or listen to (legal) streamed music on the computer. I used to buy a lot of CDs. Now I don't. This whole thing that RIAA is doing with blaming it all on Napster and Kazaa, and suing 12 year olds isn't doing much to draw me back into buying CDs now that I do have a little extra. Thanks anyway.

Heidi,

I'm not suggesting for a minute that the music business is in the toliet over file sharing. They turned their back on technology, instead of embracing the changes taking place and becoming fluid with the times. They should have rewritten their business model YEARS ago to ride the wave of the future. Now they are a day late and a dollar short and their actions are those of desperation.

I think that the general public is operating under the misconception that if you put out a cd, appear on mtv, have a song on the radio, you are rich. The only point I was trying to make is that the majority of music artists are not rich. A lot of people I talk to not in the business believe that the crack down on filesharing is simply a case of the rich (IE musicians and labels) wanting to get richer. I just want people to understand that most artists aren't 'rich'. I know a band who made an album on WB, got dropped, and then were told they had to buy their own album back if they wanted to release it on their own or to shop it to another label! They couldn't afford to do that, since they had sunk everything they had into making it in the first place. I don't think the general population realizes that kind of $hit goes on.

I think the same holds true with the record labels. people are not getting raises, in fact everyone is taking cutbacks to keep their job. The business isn't even a shadow of what it was 3-4 years ago.

Again, I re-iterate I'm not saying this is because of file-sharing. I'm just trying to give some insight on what it's like on the other side of the coin. There are no winners here.

Ok so they don't sell their 450000 records. Wow! Poor things..how much do they make off concerts and promos? They make plenty which is why they live in mansions drive expensive cars and live a life of luxury (MOST of them do anyway) so i can't feel bad for them sorry..

Colby, I know YOU weren't trying to say that, but RIAA has taken that line for years. And that's what the media tells us saps who don't really know what happens behind the scenes in the record industry.

Danielle, there are certainly some artists who live an extravagent life. They are the ones who can sell out arenas every time they tour, and can fart on an album and still go platinum. They are a small percentage of the artists out there.

I did a couple of concert promotions for Gothic bands when we were big into the scene. I dumped my personal savings into bringing these bands to town, and I lost big money on both. When we brough Faith and the Muse, who were one of the bigger acts within the scene, and did sell quite a few records, they had to insist on getting their fee in cash. Why? Because that's how they paid for gas and travel expenses to get to the next gig. They didn't make any money touring. That is what the majority of bands are doing...barely breaking even on the tour. They tour to promote the albums, in hopes of boosting album sales. Yes, the bands do make money on the merchandise they sell on the road, but the expenses of the travel, setup, roadcrew, etc. basically take all of the profits they make from ticket sales.

I don't know a whole lot about the music industry, but I know that much. I know a couple of people who were in bands signed to the big labels, and they didn't make any money. They didn't make it to superstardom, and that's the only artists who make the millions.

Val-Well the music i download is all by well known artists all of which flaunt their image of being filthy rich on tv.

So that justifies it in your head? Interesting..

I don't know about the music industry, but I know that artists, photographers and writers are fighting the exact same problem because of the internet. Having people lift off your creative work and pass it off to others, sometimes even making money at it, does tend to get a bit old after awhile. Many of my creative artist friends are now getting out of the business simply because the Internet is pushing them to do so, because folks are out there, taking their work and running with it.

Yes it justfies it...i would'nt care if i was filthy rich i'd be more then willing to share my music.

there are plenty of well known artists who are all over the place but can't tour on a massive level. Only a handful of artists can sell out arenas. Mariah Carey, the top selling female artist of our time can't sell out arenas. she just came through town and played a place that holds 6000 and it wasn't a sell out. don't get me wrong, she's not hurting for $$$ because world wide she's sold over 100 million albums, but people aren't flocking to see her these days. if she doesn't have a big enough base to sell out places that hold 20,000+ how can anyone except the biggest of the big, or the white hot (justin timerlake) hope to get exceedingly rich touring?

let's say your in a band, like good charlotte. they are all over the place, 4 videos on mtv, etc. big profile. you've sold 1,500,000 albums. the band gets $1 for every album sold, now you've got to divide that by 4, since there are 4 in the band. after you pay back the 4 videos and all the radio promotion, the travel costs for touring and what it cost to make the album, you've got 500,000. now you've got to pay your publisist who gets you on the covers of magazines and an agent who gets you gigs, your accountant and manager. you may have 250,000 left. divide that 4 ways. now you've cleared $62,500. If you're lucky you might break $100,000 because you made another $38,000 in merchandise (that's after the total amount is divided by 4, and good charlotte can't sell out arenas of 20,000). $100,000 is a lot of money to make in one year, but it's not what the public thinks of as rock star standards.

that is great, and that is your choice. but what about the bands who aren't willing to work for free? don't they have a choice?