Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music The Almighty Buck News Your Rights Online

IFPI 'First Wave' Sues 247 In Europe & Canada 304

Posted by timothy
from the litigious-society dept.
securitas writes "AP and many others report that the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry - IFPI - has sued 247 accused file-sharers in Germany, Denmark, Italy and Canada as part of an unprecedented, coordinated attack. The IFPI represents the global recording industry through its members - national associations like the IFPIG, DRIA, FIMI, CRIA and RIAA - and says it will launch more international lawsuits in the months ahead. You may also want to read the official IFPI 'first wave' press release/related documents and a statement by the IFPI's chairman and CEO. Lots of coverage at AP/AJC, USA Today, the New York Times, Reuters/CNN Money, ZDNet/CNet, Bloomberg , netimperative and the BBC. The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IFPI 'First Wave' Sues 247 In Europe & Canada

Comments Filter:
  • by Mick Ohrberg (744441) <(mick.ohrberg) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:14AM (#8724720) Homepage Journal
    On first read, I thought it said Pornographic! That has got to be the only media that's probably shared more than music...
  • by The I Shing (700142) * on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:15AM (#8724736) Journal
    Same thing happened to me! When I first looked at the summary of the post, I thought it said "International Federation of the PORNOgraphic Industry"!

    I was like, "Oh, no, they're suing people over sharing porn! What are we going to do?!"

    All kidding aside, I'd really like to see chart showing the so-called "decline" in CD sales displayed alongside the trends in other aspects of the young person's financial life, such as increases in college tuition and the price of textbooks, the price of gasoline at the pump, and sales of designer clothes, video games, and other luxury items. I bet there are correlations all over the place.

    Remember when Bart Simpson encounters the inventor of Spirograph, who glumly points out that there's a direct correlation between the decline in sales of Spirograph toys and the rise in violent crime in our nation's schools?

    I think that the RIAA is using the same kind of logic... CD sales went down as P2P usage went up, therefore P2P usage caused CD sales to go down. I have this cool program on my Mac called "Fallacy Tutorial," which was made by some logic professor, and it lists this type of argument as "Ignoring a Common Cause." The RIAA and its buddies are doing what politicians have been doing for centuries. Go back and look at how Prohibition came into being in 1920, and you'll see how spurious arguments can be used over and over again until a tiny group of overly-influential people (often very wealthy to begin with) get their way.
    • Go back and look at how Prohibition came into being in 1920, and you'll see how spurious arguments can be used over and over again until a tiny group of overly-influential people (often very wealthy to begin with) get their way.

      Prohibition came into being because the wealthy people wanted it? I'd of figured the wealthy would have been the most opposed to it. Ya know, like the CEOs of the beer/wine/liquor companies? Overly-influential people to be sure and probably a few wealthy ones to boot but I think

      • by The I Shing (700142) * on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:40AM (#8724962) Journal
        Prohibition came into being because the wealthy people wanted it?

        Well, of course not all the wealthy people wanted Prohibition, just the ones who were convinced that alcohol was the cause of (and not the solution to, as Homer points out) all of life's problems. I think Henry Ford is a good example.

        The late self-help author Peter McWilliams wrote a wonderful book called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, and it has a great chapter on the Prohibition movement [mcwilliams.com], which the author posted online in its entirety before he died, along with all of his other books. Check it out... it's a cautionary tale whose lessons we would do well to review in our present age.
    • The point is not whether the copyright infringements cause loss of sales. The point is that copyright infringement is a crime, and the recording industry associations have the duty to find and prosecute those who commit it.
      • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:49AM (#8725044) Journal
        The point is that copyright infringement is a crime, and the recording industry associations have the duty to find and prosecute those who commit it. (emphasis mine)

        Why? The recording industry association don't create music, the recording industry association aren't needed to get the music out to the public anymore, the recording industry don't give the settlements to the artists and finally the recording industry lobby the fines up to rediculous amounts that would bankrupt any normal person and then offer to settle displaying that they don't need the fines to be as high as they are (the average settlement is just a few percent of the original charge, if they can afford to carry on this way then the fines are disporportionate) and that they are purely extorting money since nobody can afford to risk the full fine.

        If the artists submitted the songs straight to ITMS [apple.com], Magnatune [magnatune.com], Napster [napster.com] or a similar system they could sell them at half the price and still make a greater amount since the middlemen who take most of the profit are gone. In the past artists couldn't set up CD presses or advertise themselves, but now they just need some studio time and a website - the RIAA and co. are redundant. With this system the artists could also, quite fairly, sue copyright infringers for the value that they deprived the artist of (say $50 per song to account for repeated uploads, and force them to pay legal fees if they loose).

        If there's a gaping hole in this argument feel free to point it out, but I don't see anything that the artists can't do themselves/pay for independently rather than signing their rights to the RIAA's companies.
        • ``Why? The recording industry association don't create music, the recording industry association aren't needed to get the music out to the public''

          Not _needed_, but it's convenient to have someone to do distribution, marketing, etc. for you. Also, it's practically impossible for artists to detect, not to mention prosecute, every case where their music is illegally performed, distributed, etc. This is why the RIAA and its ilk exist.

          The flaw in the system is that, at least in some countries, the RIAA-equiva
          • it's convenient to have someone to do distribution, marketing, etc. for you

            But for the sake of that convenience to some, who get multi-million dollar contracts, the others are essentially shut out and if they do get signed they get miniscule royalties. It'd be easy enough to do something like combine the iTunes store with audioscrobbler thus handling advertising and distribution, with the added bonus of lowering prices and increasing profits to the artists.

            I didn't think of how hard the legal issues w
    • That's also how the US government "justifies" their argument that marijuana is bad. They say that most criminals tend to smoke pot. What they fail to mention is that most people smoke pot, so it's inevitable that most criminals smoke pot, too. Also, that thing about pot being a "gateway drug" because hard core drug users smoke pot. Again, complete and utter bullshit (I mean, I'm sure it's true, but the "logic" is bullshit)
      • I mentioned this elsewhere... if you haven't seen Peter McWilliams' book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, it's a great read, and available to read online for free, in its entirety, at his website [mcwilliams.com]. There are chapters upon chapters about gambling, drugs, and other consensual crimes, and how they came to be crimes. I read the book way, way back when it came out in print ten years ago, and I've never been the same since.
  • by oldosadmin (759103) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:17AM (#8724754) Homepage
    How can they sue file sharers in Canada? I thought they had a media tax to make it legal to share files?
    • I think the tax only applies to copying onto CD for personal use.

      Disclaimer: not Canadian, not a resident of Canada.

    • Nononono!

      They have a media tax to fuck people over. All it really does is puts money in the pockets of a corporation.
    • It is illegal to distribute copyrighted materials. You Can download an mp3, you cannot share an mp3 (Distribution).

      You can make a personal copy of a CD, you cannot make a copy for someone else (Distribution)

      Assume that when they say they are suing file sharers, that they are after those who make the files available...

    • They can't, yet [theglobeandmail.com].

      It's an older story - for recent updates, hit google or check www.canfli.org [canfli.org] which seems to be keeping on top of things.
  • File stealing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kryptkpr (180196) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:20AM (#8724786) Homepage
    "This is our first co-ordinated effort to take this campaign over the range of countries where file stealing is a problem," said Allen Dixon, IFPI's general counsel and executive director.

    Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

    These cartels have had it too good for too long.. they're trying to sell us both media, and a license, then claim the license is non-transferrable and the media is non-replaceable.

    In effect, you're being sold a hunk of plastic along with a very limited set of rights as to what you can do with your hunk of plastic. This business model is now crumbling thanks to the Internet, and I say good riddance to them and their Executive Directors.. go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.. they've have no trouble embracing the 'net as a distribution mechanism.
    • Re:File stealing? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shakrai (717556)
      Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

      It's the same reason Fox News and the Israelis call Palestinian bombers "homicide bombers" instead of the more accepted term "suicide bomber". It's the same reason SCO releases all of their crap. FUD. It's all about the FUD and the marketing with these people. If they can change the mind of John Q. Public they've won -- it doesn't really matter what us geeks think.

      Of course I don't know how you win over the

    • go back to the dirty holes you crawled out from, and make room for real musicians, that make music for the love of it.

      Just stop buying from the big evil labels... but don't download their music either. It's not like there's a lot of worthwhile stuff there ;-) There's plenty of independently-distributed and affordable music around, that earn the musicians a reasonable cut off the sales price, instead of the pittance they would have gotten from the big labels.

      By the way, I have no problem with musician

    • Re:File stealing? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dana P'Simer (530866) *

      "This is our first co-ordinated effort to take this campaign over the range of countries where file stealing is a problem," said Allen Dixon, IFPI's general counsel and executive director.

      Maybe I was asleep, but since when did copyright infringements become known as "file stealing"!?

      Based on the current copyright laws any "copy" that you make, not matter what form it takes, is still covered under the copyright and therefore the property of the copyright holder. You might have a license to make a copy fo

      • Based on the current copyright laws any "copy" that you make, not matter what form it takes, is still covered under the copyright and therefore the property of the copyright holder. You might have a license to make a copy for personal use but you do not own the file that you copied it into. Therefore it is "file stealing".

        OK, your logic doesn't follow. If the copy that you make is still covered by the copyright and therefore property of the copyright holder then all you are doing by making copies is incr

  • by Tom (822) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:21AM (#8724788) Homepage Journal
    In reaction, the german Chaos Computer Club (CCC) has called for a boycott: German Page [www.ccc.de]

    This banner [www.ccc.de] with the motto "Industry kills Music" is especially nice. The german text at the bottom translates to "And you are surprised that things are going badly?" and was part of a recent speech at a german music price ceremony where except for one indie band only badly casted, out-of-TV and largely joke-"stars" were on stage.
    Oh, and the big bosses of the german music industry were present. According to news articles, they didn't exactly like being told the truth so bluntly and on live television...
  • I wonder how many sales are being lost because of the negative PR all these lawsuits must bring.

    Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA member companies for years now, and I have no intention of dropping it any time soon. Music is one of those things that if you don't know the band, you don't desire it. When you get exposed to it, you want more and more of it.
    • by Maestro4k (707634) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:45AM (#8725003) Journal
      • I wonder how many sales are being lost because of the negative PR all these lawsuits must bring.
      Even if it could be proven the lawsuits are having a larger negative effect than the perceived downloading has on sales, I doubt the RIAA would stop. They ignore studies which show CD sales have not been majorly effected by downloading (we had a post about that yesterday, and the RIAA just tossed it aside claiming all these studies that had shown a direct-link. The only problem is I believe the RIAA or someone in the recording industry funded the research of all the researchers who found that there was a correlation.)

      It's not like the RIAA is even trying to hide that it's just sue-happy right now. Even people who haven't heard about the whole downloading bruhaha are starting to notice and think the RIAA is a bunch of idiots. That has to be effecting the industry, but does the RIAA even seem to consider the possibility? If they have, they sure don't act like it.

    • Maybe a dumb question, but how do I tell if a company is an RIAA member or not? It'd be nice to have a page I can just type a label into and see if they're RIAA or not :-)
  • by BoomerSooner (308737) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:22AM (#8724801) Homepage Journal
    I generally use warez groups to find out about new software or software I didn't know existed. I try it, if it's good I buy it. As a software developer I find it extraordinarily hypocritical that people will steal (illegally copy) software but want others to pay for their offering.

    I would have never purchased the Adobe Design Collection if I hadn't been able to learn to use Photoshop, InDesign and Acrobat Forms first. I have yet to use Illustrator but Freehand is easier for me, and I'm too busy to pick up that old book I bought.

    I have a policy at my company that if you use a piece of software to enhance your productivity and contribute to your job, you will get it. Hell, I've even bought WinRAR, Textpad and VuePrint (which readily have keygen's available).

    This is why I think the "stealing music" slant is bullshit. How are you supposed to hear new music when Clear Channel owns 1/2 the radio stations and someone else owns the other 1/2? File Sharing. I buy every CD I have an mp3 for because honestly I make too much money to waste my time trying to decrypt the slang used to name songs. Not to mention my bandwidth, etc. A $11.99 CD is well worth the time savings.

    The RIAA, etc need to pull their heads out of their asses and learn that people like to test drive a product before they buy. I cannot imagine buying a car without trying it out. Why should music be any different?
    • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:37AM (#8724931) Journal
      I cannot imagine buying a car without trying it out

      Expect you have permission from the car dealer to take the car for a test drive first. If not I'm sure you'll be hearing from the police in short order.

      Point being there is nothing that says they have to let you test drive a car. Of course they wouldn't sell many cars if they didn't but there is no law on the books that says they have to.

      I'd like to see iTunes let me hear the full version of the song before I buy it -- not just a random 30 second clip. Do you know how many songs I've bought only to find out it was a different friggen version then the one I know and like? If they are worried about piracy they could broadcast these demos in really low-quality (mono-only perhaps?). If someone really likes it he is going to pay the $0.99 anyway -- why waste your time stealing a lower quality copy?

      Ditto for the little Kisoks at Barnes and Noble. WTF is the reason to limit them to 30 seconds? Do they think people are going to tape record them with a hidden microphone or something?

      • I agree. Permission is important in law as well as in life. Permission is what separate a guess from a trespasser, a consensual encounter from rape, an authorised distributor from a file sharer. If one is unhappy with the current law, one come up with a thoughtful alternative and convince enough people to change it. The current system is built on top of laws and rationalizations way more thoughtful and workable than anything I have read so far.
    • "I would have never purchased the Adobe Design Collection if I hadn't been able to learn to use Photoshop, InDesign and Acrobat Forms first. I have yet to use Illustrator but Freehand is easier for me, and I'm too busy to pick up that old book I bought."

      This is the oldest excuse in the book. As for your example of Adobe software, Adobe offers trial versions of their software that work for 30 days with ABSOLUTELY NO limitations to their use. This is more than enough time to become familiar with the softw
      • Wrong. A kid in college generally cannot afford the design collection. Hell I couldn't afford college, hence the massive student loans I owe. However, I learned by using it over a couple of years. When I started my own company I purchased everything I use. Adobe had a net gain because I was using their software without license for the time I was in college. Since I have purchased it. 30 Days is not nearly enough to learn photoshop or anything that can be considered a professional tool. AutoCAD is a perfect
        • Ahhh, the ol' "poor college student" excuse. This one is just about as old as your other one. Many companies, Adobe included, offer their software to students a much lower prices. Rolling the student version into your student loans would not be a stretch at all and you'd have a legit, full version. Also, Adobe allows student users to purchase future upgrades at the normal upgrade cost, there is no need to purchase a non-student version before doing so. Some Universities also purchase licenses so their
          • Black and White is not how the world operates, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn it into your view.

            Copying isn't stealing, it's copying. I don't download warez because I think it's "cool" I do it to evaluate and learn (warez groups are more concise than most marketing and sales brochures I've seen).

            I like the fact that you bought J++ to get WinNT 4.0. However, did you read the agreement when you purchased that software? You cannot transfer ownership ever, so you are a pirate in violation of the agree
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:23AM (#8724811)
    It's not interesting that they are suing at all. If filesharing helped music sales increase 1000% they still would be suing filesharers. They care about control of the media not sales. Filesharing is a threat to their business because filesharing makes their class of middleman obsolete. If artists release their music over kazaa what purpose would RIAA members serve?
  • fud (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GillBates0 (664202) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:26AM (#8724828) Homepage Journal
    "The message is the same," Dixon says. "You cannot put someone's music on the Internet without permission. That's theft."... Microsoft, Coca-Cola and British retailer HMV operate online European music services with limited selection and arcane usage rules.

    *sigh* some people never learn...or they knowingly choose to use stronger language to frighten (or terrorize in today's overused parlance) the masses into submission.

    And I don't want to fuckin' have to think twice every time I want to listen to the same music in my car, on my computer or on my living room. Is it that difficult to understand?

  • no science (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HarveyBirdman (627248) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:31AM (#8724866) Journal
    The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales."

    I share music with wild abandon, and think the lawsuits are BS, but you're basing this on one NON peer reviewed study that, if you read the PDF file linked from yesterday's story, makes some rather dubious assumptions.

    • "I share music with wild abandon, and think the lawsuits are BS, but you're basing this on one NON peer reviewed study that, if you read the PDF file linked from yesterday's story, makes some rather dubious assumptions."

      ...and there have been dozens of studies and analysts' reports which have had unique takes on the situation. It is yet one more study, but watch as it becomes Holy Writ for many Slashdotters, along with:

      1. "copyright violation is a civil offense, not a criminal one" (I think this one is
  • by Cooper_007 (688308) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:31AM (#8724874)
    asking them to stop illegal file-sharing and pay compensation - or face legal action.

    I wonder if the IFPI will be asking equally ludicrous amounts as the RIAA has.

    The chairman's quote seems rather funny in this context though:
    "People are at real risk of being sued or prosecuted if they continue to rip off those who make music."
    Pot. Kettle. Black. I guess he's got a good lawyer...

    Cooper
    --
    This truth probably doesn't come as shocking news to any of you,
    and if it does then you're stupid and I hate you.
    - Everything Can Be Beaten -

  • a bit off-topic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PYves (449297) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:35AM (#8724913)
    I was wondering if there were any statistics between RIAA's drop in sales and independant labels' increase in sales.

    Not ever record label in the states is an RIAA member, and to be honest, since I started downloading mp3s, I've bought more cds but nearly all of them were from non-RIAA members (not as protest, but because that's the music I like!)

    I don't think the RIAA could even come after me for trading these files, since it's not even their intellectual property :P
  • by eddy (18759)

    Sue the world if you will, I still won't buy from the people you represent. Also, I saw a Swedish IFPI-representative on the news this morning and she said that they (Swedish branch) wouldn't get involved in litigation just yet.

    On a positive note (for music-distribution-done-right lovers), the forthcoming album of Machinae Supremacy [machinaesupremacy.com] (1:st of May release date) will open for pre-orders tomorrow at distributor MBD Records [mbdrecords.com].

  • by morzel (62033) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:38AM (#8724937)
    Repeat after me: just because the study proved that filesharing does not have a noticeable impact on CD sales does not make it legal!

    Copyright law in many countries prevents you from distributing somebody elses work, plain and simple. These people are not being sued because they had some kind of tangible impact on sales, but because they were distributing copyrighted material to anybody (ie: nothing to do with fair use rights here).

    These are the people that are making it bloody hard for the rest of us to get non-crippled CDs, because the recording industry thinks this is the way to fight them (which it incidentally is not, but that's a whole different story).

    I'm glad the record industry is suing, because this is the way copyright conflicts should be dealt with: in court. Not with half-assed technological countermeasures that are making it a pain for the rest of us, and certainly not with lobbying legislation that will obliterate 'fair use' for their works.

    • And suppose all illegal file sharing instantly stopped this second. What makes you think that CDs would be released without copy protection? What makes you think that online distribution channels would suddenly become DRM-free? The RIAA has absolutely ZERO interest in stopping P2P because it hurts their profits. They only want control of distribution. If I felt so inclined I could be recording everything off of the radio. But they already make their tax on cassettes, and the only thing that gets radio
      • And suppose all illegal file sharing instantly stopped this second. What makes you think that CDs would be released without copy protection?

        Because that will take all wind out of the sails of their lobbying efforts regarding the legal enforcing of DRM (ie: DMCA et al.).

        Their main argument for lobbying the introduction of DRM legislation is that their copyright needs extra protection from illegal distribution (ie: on-line filesharing). From that point of view, the restriction of fair-use rights is jus

    • Repeat after me: just because the study proved that filesharing does not have a noticeable impact on CD sales does not make it legal

      And the converse - if filesharing does adversely impact CD sales, or even lead to the demise of the RIAA, then that, in itself, does not make it illegal. It's the filesharing of copyrighted material thus infringing the bought-and-paid-for laws that does that.

      I will feel no pain if all boy bands suffer the same fate as buggywhip makers.
  • by Underholdning (758194) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:38AM (#8724943) Homepage Journal
    Damnit - I need to get this off my chest. If this much effort was put into catching the real criminals of the internet (spammers, child pornographers etc) the net would be a much better and safer place. All this is just due to a huge lobby and a horde of overpaid lawyers. I refuse to recognize this as problem worthy of this many ressources.
    Ok - I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry for the rant.
    • Of course, you've already identified the reason that copyright infringment gets more resources than spamming and child porn. The parties that stand to benefit from the elimination of file sharing (the recording and software industries) have way more money and self-interest than any parties that are opposed to spamming and child porn.

      Trust me, if there were any big corporate interests out there that, for some reason, would benefit from eliminating junk email or seeing kiddie porn gone from the net, it woul
  • Thanks to Napster/Kazaa, I purchase more CDs

    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  • ...that downloading is legal in Canada.

    The article doesn't go into details, but I assume 'file sharing' means allowing upload of your files, which isn't covered in CA's copyright act as legal.

  • by victorvodka (597971) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:49AM (#8725041) Homepage
    Based on the co-ordinated nature of the attack, I have to suspect that Al Quaeda had something to do with this.
  • The media giants own our government. Boycotting and file sharing are two ways that the unrepresented masses can fight back. Also, anyone who really cares will support Downhill Battle [downhillbattle.org].
  • Representing who? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gr8_phk (621180) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @10:52AM (#8725069)
    The artists are represented by their recording company. The companies are represented by the RIAA, and the RIAA is represented the IFPI? I think the artists are far enough removed at this point that the IFPI is a purely political organization only interested in money / power / self.
  • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @11:06AM (#8725181) Homepage Journal
    I know that in the US at least, there are more people sharing files on peer-to-peer networks than voted for George Bush in 2000. I suspect the numbers are proportional in other countries.

    If you work to reform the copyright laws, you can make the sharing of any file legal.

    Here are some steps you can take to do this:

    In the US anyway, copyright is not a Constitutional right. I suspect that it's not a fundamental right in most countries.

    The reason I ask you to googlebomb my article in my signature here is that I'm trying to educate the peer-to-peer network users. I attract the readers by offerring links to lots of free, legal downloads, but give them a political education while I've got their attention.

    • You left out Downhill Battle [downhillbattle.org].
    • Either the US would have to remove itself as a signatory to certain international treaties, or it would have to put a lot of pressure on other countries to get the treaties changed. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS
      • Wikipedia:TRIPS [wikipedia.org]
      • A while back George Bush announced that the US was withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, so that the US could deploy the Star Wars missile defense system.

        Previously, it was forbidden for the U.S. or Russia to deploy a defense against incoming nuclear missiles, except that one city in each country could be so protected (Washington and Moscow).

        Back in the early 60's, the US had Nike missiles deployed as interceptors, that were themselves nuclear-armed.

        If the US can withdraw from the ABM tr

    • Michael, on your page, you write:

      "When compact discs first appeared, they were much more expensive than vinyl LPs because there were only a couple of factories in the world that could manufacture them. The equipment to make CDs was very expensive, and the factories' production was very limited, so the cost was justified. But years later, although the cost of pressing a "glass master" compact disc has dropped to a few cents, the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all."

      This is entirely false. First

      • I hadn't been aware of the effects of inflation, so yes I need to address that in my article.

        Still, artists get very little of the money that one pays to purchase a CD, and I suspect those who are benefitting the most are the execs at the major record labels.

        I don't have a reference handy for my claim that there are sixty million p2p users in the US, but I have seen credible statements about this, and expect I can find one and link to it once I get a chance to look for it.

        Consider that the Lycos Top 5

  • by piquadratCH (749309) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @11:07AM (#8725191)
    IFPI Switzerland seems to go down the same road according to this article [ebund.ch] (german).
    As in Canada, only uploading copyrighted music is illegal here, not downloading. As Switzerland is not member of the EU, the laws between the EU and Switzerland are quite different in some points. Cracking copy protection for instance isn't illegal (yet) AFAIK.
  • So many settlements
    so little time.
    Whats the difference between a lawyer and
    a whore?
    A whore stops screwing you once you are dead.
    Perpetual copyright extensions anyone?
  • Accoriding to an article I read:

    "On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the ame
  • that I pay fees to the GEMA (www.gema.de) for every CD-R, CD recorder and IMHO also computers I buy nowadays in germany.

    This GEMA was once invented to get the 'missing' money from the music listeners who (of course) shared the music with their friends etc.

    IMHO a good thing in principle. Should be extended to consumer software as well.
    This prevents the *massive* invasion of privacy and the enactment of cruel laws deterring people from sharing music but pays the artists for their work. Yes, it *is* somewhat
  • I call for a global boycott of non-indie music for a month.

    We shall call it, the "Buy No Music Month".

    Lets show them this agression will not stand. This will not stand, man.
  • by nagora (177841)
    The music companies see the net as a way to distribute without having to share the cover price with the retailers. They want to keep the cover price the same or even higher (eg iTunes' 99c per track gouging) and thereby increase their turnover by about a third at a stroke.

    That's what this is about: control of the distribution channel, not sales. Effectivly this is a huge cartel actiion to make it illegal to use the 'net as a distribution method for music unless the price is fixed at the cartel's approved l

  • and small releases (like those from small labels) are still hurt. According to the same study releases that sell post on the above mentioned thread.

    So if you want to help the majors sell more Hot Topic mall "punk" bands, share files - it's all free p.r. apparently.
    And if you want to hurt indie labels, that generally share their meagre profits equally with the artists, share files.

    The broad generalization that all swaping is ok, is a falsehood.

    Already small indie labels are shut out of most sales channel
  • by Luscious868 (679143) on Wednesday March 31, 2004 @11:45AM (#8725528)
    The timing of the international legal attacks is especially interesting in light of the recent study that indicates file-sharing has a negligible impact on music sales

    Oh please! The study was just released a few days ago. I'm no fan of any of these organizations or their tactics but come on. These lawsuite take a little time to prepare you know. It's not like they saw the study and decided, ok, now we'll sue some people. This has all been in the works for some time.

  • Imagine this:

    The RIAA etc has succeded in stopping every possible way of sharing information.
    Carrying information storage objects is as unlawful as spreading antrax on the White House lawn.

    Not a damn difference in sales of music, who the f*ck are they blaming then? The artists? Will we see RIAA sue their own artists for not making enough dough?

    How can you own thaughts and arts? We live in a society made up of the selling and buying of invisable, made up objects called rights. Its pretty insane if you thi
  • I know most of us are probably familiar with this argument, but its been a long time since I've heard it said, so I thought I would explain it...

    Popularity of music grows mostly socially, that is: if I own a CD my friends have never heard of, but they like it, they will probably buy it.

    Our current only "legal" way to sample new music is the radio. Sure, our friends can expose us to some new stuff, but they just heard it on a different radio station than we listen to probably.

    So I say, any song that is on
  • From the BBC:

    In Italy, 30 people have already been charged with copyright infringement, while computers and files have been seized as evidence.

    There seems to have been almost no comment on this disturbing aspect. Who performed the raid and seizure - police? If so, is uploading songs now not only a matter for civil action, but a criminal activity? Were the people raided counterfeiters, or simply your average garden-variety music uploaders?

    Considering the fuss in the USA over people being sued, I would

  • looks like the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has turned out to be just like (if not worse) than the mob that u see only on TV and in movies.

    wonder if ppl who were extorted...^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsett l ed with the RIAA are vulnerable to the same actions by the international version of the RIAA.

    Of course, I still stand by my thoughts that threatening individuals who don't necessarily have access to nor the finances to fund an army of lawyers with a big lawsuit with an a

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...