YOUR COMMENTS

Janis Ian (the folk singer) pretty much debunks everything the RIAA says on her site (http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html). The record comapnies abuse artists at every turn and give them a pittance in exchange for making serious coin off of their material.
- David, Hudson

i was going to respond to zizzy and a couple others about their responses to my earlier post. but i got distracted by steve's post.

"Poor Wal-Mart told its customers it was shutting down the servers..."

Poor Wal-Mart?

did you actually just say Poor Wal-Mart? tell me that's a mistake.
- Mark, Bow

The problem here is not that music can be traded freely on the internet, which has become the most powerful delivery system for content that the world has ever known; it's that the old delivery system, which has a lot of hungry mouths to feed, hasn't been quick to embrace it. Since that is how they earn their livings, it should be expected that they don't like it and will try to kill it, but this genie is a MONSTER and WILL NEVER go back into the bottle. There are curreny success stories out right now about artists who have made free downloads work for them. Some, including a few that have never contracted to a major label are millionaires just the same. People pay for the concerts they perfom and yes, even with free downloads available legally still manage to sell tons of music on iTunes. Who is NOT making money here? That's right, the labels.
- MJones, Mechanicsville, MD

"The lawsuits helped give young people a greater "understanding that owners and creators of intellectual property are entitled to compensation, in some form, for their work," he wrote.

Supreme irony in this statement from Mitch Bainwol, since I'm not aware a single cent of any money collected has made its way into the pockets of the creators - the music artists themselves. It's been pretty clear to me that the only people really profiting from these lawsuits is not the artists or even the labels, but the RIAA's lawyers.
- TimD, Stuart, FL

1. Excellent article.

2. The RIAA has never won a fully contested case. The one victory that they did have in such a case, the one in Duluth, has been set aside and a new trial has been ordered.

3. The RIAA's 'investigative' techniques are completely bogus, and probably more than half of the cases produce false positives of the type in the Roy case.

4. You should be proud of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. What they are doing is in the finest tradition of the legal profession, and I can assure you the law students working on this are the envy of law students everywhere.
- Ray Beckerman, Forest Hills, NY

The RIA is losing money because of technology advances. For example, before the age on internet I use to go to Newbury comics, Tower Records, or just about any other music store to buy a CD. But whats the biggest problem with buying music? You purchase CD for 2 or 3 songs for $15-20 and the rest of the songs on the CD basically suck.

Now fastforward a few years. Record stores are losing business. I haven't walked into a store in years. Everyone has many options these days such as the following:
1. Download legal or not any song you want.
2. Listen to it on Youtube when ever you want.
3. Ask a friend, coworker, family member if you can burn in a copy of a CD they might have. Which is what I do all the time.

And no sooner does someone create a cryptic code to prevent copying you have some kid cracking the code so you can copy the cd.
- Frank, Londonderry

Mike - Are you serious or seriously misguided? ..."The RIAA represents distribution companies and they provide next to nothing to the artist themselves." As an artist who relies on a "distribution company". ie Performing Rights Organization, (ASCAP, BMI, etc,) to collect ROYALTIES = COMPENSATION for copywrittten work, I find it appalling that you would sneer at the opportunity for an artist to be PAID for their talent. There is a driving force to eradicate all our copyright protections . Would you tell Microsoft not to expect to be paid for their intellectual property? Uninformed snobs who twist and constrain such matters as out-of-date is the ROOT CAUSE of the erosion of all our freedoms. Thanks alot - this inspires me to write a new song.
- Dee, Manchester

Metallica can come to my house any day and eat my food whenever they want!!! Artists should be happy that there are ways to download their musical, if they are good, they will only get more popular. The only artists complaining are the ones that missed their quadruple platnium by 1,000 copies and not getting their bonus multi millions of dollars. Internet pirates will never die!!!
- Stephen, Bedford

It doesn't matter how much the companies are or aren't losing. "Sharing" music is stealing it. All you really own when you buy a CD is the physical material it's made out of. You can't copy the imagery or words or music and give those copies away..it's called stealing. If you don't think so, then you must not mind if Metallica comes over to your place and "shares" the contents of your fridge with their friends? I mean their friends MIGHT offer you some compensation someday since they had the privilege of being exposed to you.
- DM, Hampton

Copyright laws are outdated and really need to be rewritten. The RIAA represents distribution companies and they provide next to nothing to the artist themselves. Most artist...especially those starting their careers WANT their music to be download.

Rather then fighting people who download, whether legal or illegal, why not come up with a model that endorses it? It can be done and money can be made, but old world thinking needs to change first.
- Mike, Epping

Rick Olson cites Canadian precedent for this issue. As a gun owner Rick, do you wish to also follow Canadian precedent on that issue?

Or, perhaps, we could just pretend that Canadian law has absolutely nothing to do with American law?
- Bob, Bedford

PS--This case seems to be UMG Recordings Inc. et al vs. Roy, 1:2008cv00090 in the US District Court for the District of NH, filed 11-Mar-08 by Shaheen Phinney Bass + Green of Manchester.

The complaint says Ms. Roy was running Bearshare through Gnutella and shared (uploaded and downloaded) 218 recordings at a specified time, and that the labels believe she is still doing so.

You say Ms. Roy's defense team says she did not have a computer in the house at the time. This can't be disproven, nor does it clear her. One would think the team would offer a real denial, if there were one.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Professor Lembree is someone I have worked with in the past. Although I am not a huge fan of her law firm, she herself is a wonderful woman and a hard-working attorney.

I hope her students find this experience to be valuable-the chance to be a part of a real case while still in law school is very exciting.
- Shelby, Hanover

As far as I know, there have been very few trials that have gone forward that have ended in a ruling against the downloader. If you subscribe to Napster or Zune or one of those, aren't you still get screwed because you are basically just renting the songs? You pay the monthly fee for 12 months, and "buy" 1000 songs but as soon as you cancel you lose every one of them. You know what will happen with Mavis Roy? She will put a spirited defense, like most people don't because of $$ and several months down the road the record company will just drop it all. Because its too expensive to pursue it.
- Carroll, Manchester

As far as I know, there have been very few trials that have gone forward that have ended in a ruling against the downloader. If you subscribe to Napster or Zune or one of those, aren't you still gett screwed because you are basically just renting the songs? You pay the monthly fee for 12 months, and "buy" 1000 songs but as soon as you cancel you lose every one of them.
- Carroll, Manchester

The Internet Service provider must have been subpoenaed and her name must have come up as the person who logged on or it was someone who logged on under her user name and password. Just because she didn't have a computer at home does not necessarily mean she could not have done it on another machine or as I said, someone else using her logon info.

It is impossible technically to log on anonymously. For them to file the suit they must have some proof that it was her. Unfortunately their trying to make an example of her when millions of people are doing it on a daily basis via file sharing sites.

As well, a popular technique is for people to drive through a large apartment complex or condo development and search for unsecure wireless networks. Upon finding one it could have been done that way by someone else without her logon information.
- Bob Ahern, Derry

Our discussion of an industry acting foolishly has attracted its first moonbat, Michael Houst, who simply wants bad things to happen to corporations on any pretense. Neither stupidity nor working for a company is a crime and the combination isn't a crime either. If this lawsuit is frivolous and harassing, Mavis Roy should be compensated, but it is not "acceptable, proportional, and just" to manufacture a fine by distorting the text of a law that punishes something else. Bottom line, Michael, the reason you have so little money is not because a recording label or its managers have so much.

Now, however, can we get some facts? All we know of this case, from either side, is that Mavis Roy claims not to have a computer (which doesn't mean she didn't do it). How did the labels pick her for a charge of downloading AND DISTRIBUTING music among all the other potential defendants who don't own computers? How widely is it claimed she distributed the music? If we knew some facts, Michael would be less able to treat the case as nothing more than big-guy-versus-little-guy. Although he probably would anyway.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

The penalties in cases like this are absurd. A song costs 99 cents on itunes. If I steal a 99 cent candy bar, do I get slapped with a 5 or 6 figure fine? Lobbyists for the RIAA practically hand-wrote these laws as their way of making up for years of short-sightedness and complete mismanagement. They are losing billions because their product stinks. They completely stopped nurturing talent, requiring platinum records right off the bat or artists got dropped. They emphasized hit singles instead of quality albums. And they over-charged on CDs, up to $19.99 in many cases, to pay for the millions in mass marketing it took to convince you to buy the latest Britany album in the first place. Music doesn't need marketing, good music markets itself. Thankfully the RIAA's days are numbered as the internet is leveling the playing field as artists no longer require the distribution machinery of the major labels to get their product noticed. That day can't come soon enough...
- Mike, Hampstead, nh

I can say for certain that the music industry is DEFINITELY losing money on music sales to me! I stopped buying albums when they started prosecuting people for file sharing. I only listen to the radio, now.

When file sharing first started, I used it to find out if I wanted to buy the album, and I did buy quite a few after listening to them online. That all stopped when they started being jerks about it.

I won't even LISTEN to a Metallica song, since they're ones that started screaming the loudest & started this whole mess about "losing money." Did you know they used to give away their songs to get people to listen to their stuff, before they were successful?
- Donna S, Manchester

In Duluth, Minn., on 22 Jan 08, a federal jury convicted Jammie Thomas for copyright infringement for sharing music online. Thomas is to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs involved in the case.

Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful."

Now since this lawsuit being brought againgst Mavis Roy of Hudson appears to be totally frivilous and unfounded, seeing that she didn't even have a computer to download with, I think it only appropriate that damages be paid her to the amount of 218 times $150,000 times 4 (one each for UMG Recordings, Interscope Records, Motown Record Co., and BMG Music for harrassment, deframation of character, and sheer stupidity (yes, corporate stupidity should be a crime.)

Let's see, that would mean the music industry would owe her $130,800,000 U.S. That sounds perfectly acceptable, proportional, and just to me.
- Michael D. Houst, Barrington, NH

Mark, you correctly object to a dollar amount on the "losses" from music piracy. No retailer tallies the costs of his "loss-leaders," the marked-down goods in the picture window. You don't lose sleep over how much you could have made if you had sold them at full price; you compare them to the situation if no one enters the store at all.

The industry has wisely walked away from Digital Rights Management. Poor Wal-Mart told its customers it was shutting down the servers that decided, on each occasion, whether to let you listen to the song on that WMA file you bought. Customers about to be stranded howled and Wal-Mart reversed. Many labels have embraced sharable MP3s for music distribution. I'd like to hear the behind-the-scenes intrigue that convinced them they could not drop the penny-ante lawsuits.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Marc from Bow-When you have your own record label, give away as much music as you want. It should be up to the people that actually own the music to decide whether or not it may be downloaded for free, not some fratboy.
- Zizzy, Manchester

The music industry prima donnas should be grateful for all of the free exposure and broader audiences that they receive from music sharing. They quote $12.5 billion in losses, but where is the other side of the ledger that represents all of the business gained from on-line music sharing. They need to get with the information age and quit being so selfish and greedy.
- Mark L, Manchester, NH

In response to Mark, you're 100% correct - I've downloaded songs in the past which have in turn became full on purchases, if not by myself, but by others. The thing is though, now days you don't need to illegally download what you want to hear - I pay $15/mo to d/l all the music I want through Microsoft's Zune. Napster offers a similar unlimited download service which keeps the music "free" as long as you pay the monthly contract.

Everything about peer to peer networks is technically legal, the network doesn't host the files, it has ntohing to do with them except for providing a means to distribute files without prejudice of its copyright. It also provides a means for users to search for these files. Because it can be used for legal material (hardly ever though!), it IS a legal machine. Its like the VCR that the TV industry wanted banned because you could record copyrighted material on it. Now the focus is on whether or not you're distributing the material, not whether or not you're recording it - technically, thats illegal for some broadcasts as well. Eventually it'll come down to that, or something similar ... but there are plenty of alternatives out there to having to purchase albums song by song or having the need to d/l music illegally. I haven't looked at a music sharing site in well over a year simly because I have full legal access for my zune and 2 others to Microsoft's full library of music - maybe they should sue apple for not having a similar feature available thus causing the illegal downloads due to the high cost of purchasing music by the album!
- James Jones, Amherst, NH

The industry is on firm ground but acting unwisely. Adults don't want to slog through the crap on broadcast radio, nor fish through albums and find the one good cut for three minutes of pleasure. But small-scale file sharing has gotten many of us back into large-scale purchases.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

falsehood: "Music piracy causes $12.5 billion in losses each year, according to the association, citing a study by the Institute for Policy Innovation."

people download tons of stuff they would never in a million years buy. and then they like it, play it for their friends and their friends go buy it.

there are several new articles about this happening and i don't have time to go find them again and post them. but it has been proven again and again that bands who GIVE AWAY their music sell more of it.
- Mark, Bow

Few people realize that this issue has been litigated in Canada. Canadian Courts have rules that file-sharing of copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal...well, partly, anyway.

The Canadian debate over file swapping came to a head in 2004 when the Canada's Copyright Board, the agency that regulates intellectual property issues, opined that downloading songs from a peer-to-peer network for personal use, but not necessarily uploading, appeared to be legal.

I am curious what the periphery of fallout will be with all these ipods.
- Rick Olson, Manchester