Photo of the Day, November 20, 2009: Red Leaf
Bite Size News, November 19: Old Ironsides & Bunker Hill Edition
Bite Size News, November 20: Who Needs The Money? Edition
Boston Seventh Strangest City in U.S.
Boston Blotter: Gang Shooting in Dorchester
There are a few songs in history that might be worth $22,500 apiece. "Thriller," "Yesterday," "Layla," "Stairway to Heaven." "Come As You Are" might even make it into the group. But "The Perfect Drug," much as we love(d) NIN, does not. So it's extremely unfortunate that a jury recently ordered a BU doctoral student to pay $675,000 for downloading and sharing 30 specific songs, including the aforementioned Nirvana and Nine Inch Nails tunes.
The Globe reports that the student, Joel Tenenbaum, "unapologetically admitted from the witness stand that he had illegally downloaded and shared hundreds [of songs] from 1999 to at least 2007," raising the question of why he was fined specifically for those 30 songs. Music sharing isn't always great for artists, of course (except when it propels them to massive popularity), but it hits record companies hardest. And since record companies (not artists) are the institutions with the incredible financial resources, they end up going after file sharers: but not the owners or developers of the software and servers that make such sharing possible. No, record companies prey on the little guys—like Joel—who are just trying to sample new bands before shelling out big bucks on albums.
With artists getting as little as 12 percent of the revenue from online music sales through storefronts like iTunes, it's hard to see how actually paying to download music benefits anyone but the big corporations. We can't officially come out in favor of stealing music, of course, and we're not. But we can encourage you to support your favorite artists as directly as possible, get into local acts and labels, and think twice before giving Major Record Company another ten dollars toward its world takeover.
What's worst about cases like Tenenbaum's is the endemic unfairness: not just of the fines, but of the prosecution itself. Why is Joel forking over nearly three quarters of a million dollars that he doesn't have when almost everyone in America probably has at least 30 songs she or he didn't pay for? If you feel super self-righteous about never downloading music for free, we bet you still have a number of mix CDs that your friends made for you, or songs someone emailed you, or—our fave—songs you taped off the radio back in the day. In none of these situations did your money make its way to the artist or the record company. So why is burning discs okay, when downloading bits is not?
Getting music for free is not new. Technology that allows millions of people to do so very easily is (relatively speaking). It's this technology (not individual music fans) that must be regulated addressed, not the users. Big bad music companies need to use their mad scrilla—like that oh-so-necessary $675,000 windfall from Joel—to come up with ways to protect their product. The record companies' failure to innovate in response to technology is not the music fans' fault, and music fans should not be penalized for it, whether that penalty is in dozens of cents or millions of dollars.
Lawsuits against individuals will never end music sharing. An affordable new way to acquire music that's fair to artists and fans alike might. But don't count on seeing that from major labels any time soon.
For more information on the case and what action you can take (if any), check Joel's Twitter or read the #jfb Tweets.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Technology that allows millions of people to do so very easily is (relatively speaking). It's this technology (not individual music fans) that must be regulated.
I can't disagree more strongly. Regulating file sharing technology and peer-to-peer file sharing platforms is a species of prior restraint--which is a fundamental violation of our rights to free speech and due process. P2P and other file sharing technology has a plethora of legitimate uses, and to regulate companies that provide these services because users can use them for copyright infringement is basically the same thing as regulating Memorex, back in the day, because people could use cassette tapes for copyright infringement.
In fact, back then the Supreme Court ruled that copyright holders could not hold manufacturers of videocassettes liable for copyright infringement that happened using their product. That's the right holding, and it should be--and has been--applied to P2P and other file sharing technology.
At the core of this case is a Harvard law professor who wanted to make a Big Statement by counseling his client to bring the matter to court and to admit to all the charges that the copyright holders brought against him. That was dumb lawyering because the dude did commit a freaking crime, and the dude should have left his attorney in his Cambridge office.
I think these record company lawsuits are by-and-large ridiculous, and I am no blind acolyte of intellectual property rights. By the same token, I am a fan of the civil liberties that we have here in the United States, and I'm not willing to give them up just because a few people are stupid enough to litigate hopeless cases over antiquated law.
okay, regulated is definitely the wrong word to use, particularly in a legal context. but to me, the larger issue really lies with the companies' inability to control the distribution of their product, not with users' desire to obtain that product. it's on the companies to figure out a better way to get music out there, not on the music fans to not take advantage of the tools available to them. i think we ultimately agree, i just worded it rather poorly.
and by companies i mean record companies, not companies that provide file sharing services.
http://armyoftoys.bandcamp.com/
This is why bands of our size are going with deals with management companies rather then labels - recently we got offered a deal with a real=life major label that would have given us $.09 for every dollar we earned. Granted, there were a large number of benefits that came with that deal from the major label - BUT they could only guarantee us $30k a year for the entire band... we make more then that EACH with what we do now with our music, touring and shows - see the link above - support art DIRECTLY.
I say we hold a benefit concert for this poor person's fine! Ahh the irony!
I think the benefit should have a few bands each covering a few of the 30 songs he got prosecuted for!!! I talked to the manager at TTs last night - he loved the idea. Come on Bostonist - sponsor the show!