| Posted by GSMOT(tm) ® , Sep 09,2003,17:14 | MetroBlab |
Sued for a song
By SONI SANGHA and PHYLLIS FURMAN
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
A shy Manhattan schoolgirl who gets a kick out of nursery songs and TV themes was among 261 people sued yesterday for downloading music from the Internet.
Brianna LaHara, a curly-haired 12-year-old honor student who started seventh grade yesterday at St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on W. 90th St., couldn't believe she's one of the "major offenders" the music moguls are after.
"Oh, my God, what's going to happen now?" she asked after hearing of the suit. "My stomach is all in knots."
Told she may have to go to court, Brianna's eyes widened behind wire-rimmed glasses and she said, "I'm just shocked that of all the people that do this, I'm on the list."
The Recording Industry Association of America said the suits filed yesterday included about 60 that targeted suspects in New York who downloaded more than 1,000 songs.
The group blames computer users such as Brianna, who use software programs to trade music with others on the Internet, for a 30% drop in music sales.
Each person sued yesterday could be liable for fines up to $150,000 for each poached track.
'Appropriate action'
Experts had predicted a large number of the suits likely would name youngsters.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action," said Carey Sherman, president of the recording association.
Sherman warned that the group may file thousands more lawsuits against people who use programs like KaZaA, Grokster, Gnutella (news - web sites), Blubster and iMesh.
Brianna's mother, Sylvia, 40, director of a nurse placement agency, said her daughter was helping her 9-year-old brother with his homework when the Daily News arrived at their apartment on W. 84th St. with word about the suit.
"For crying out loud, she's just a child," the mother said. "This isn't like those people who say, 'My son is a good boy,' and he's holding a bloody knife. All we did was use a service."
The mother said she signed up for KaZaA, paying a $29.95 fee. "If you're paying for it, you're not stealing it, so what is this all about?" she asked.
She said Brianna downloaded music by Christina Aguilera and Mariah Carey, along with the themes to television shows like "Family Matters" and "Full House" - and even the nursery song, "If You're Happy and You Know It."
"That's really threatening to the music industry," she scoffed.
"If this was something we were profiting from, that's one thing. But we were just listening and sometimes dancing to the music," said the mother.
She vowed to get a lawyer to fight the suit, which she termed "ridiculous."
| Posted by Lolitas Loser Lover ® , Sep 10,2003,13:13 | MetroBlab |
| Posted by Michael ® , Sep 10,2003,11:53 | MetroBlab |
| Posted by fluffy ® , Sep 10,2003,10:40 | MetroBlab |
| Posted by Gro��tanz ® , Sep 09,2003,23:24 | MetroBlab |
By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer
WASHINGTON - A 12-year-old girl in New York who was among the first to be sued by the record industry for sharing music over the Internet is off the hook after her mother agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000 to settle the lawsuit, apologizing and admitting that her daughter's actions violated U.S. copyright laws.
| Posted by GSMOT(tm) ® , Sep 10,2003,10:42 | MetroBlab |
| Posted by Sony of America ® , Sep 09,2003,19:49 | MetroBlab |
I like how the RIAA claims an across-the-board drop in music sales, when the actual fact is that only major labels are seeing sales drops - many independant labels are moving up to 100% more units than they ever have before.
I don't know why they can't figure out it's just because they sign huge numbers of shit bands, rather than only signing bands of actual lasting quality.
Perhaps it's just because music moguls actually are so old and/or soulless that they really can't tell the difference between well-done music and utter shit.
| Posted by mte ® , Sep 09,2003,20:29 | MetroBlab |
You are right that they're too old and soulless. They don't know their market anymore -- they don't understand that albums are fading in popularity, that singles are (or might be -- lucky for me, I'm not a record executive) the way to go, that the 13-year-olds who loved Britney and the Backstreet Boys are getting older and want something else now. They have no idea what that "else" is. (And, much like the guys running Knoxville these days, they're looking for one super Destination Attraction act to do it, instead of signing, like you say, bands and artists that will make them money over the long haul.) They also don't understand that digitized music has already been here for 20 years, and it's not going anywhere -- except onto CDRs and iPods.
Label execs don't just have bad taste. They're bad businessmen. I never liked boy bands and teen pop (Justin Timberlake solo is a whole different thing), but man, you just had to see that that was going to dry up.
| Posted by fluffy ® , Sep 10,2003,10:58 | MetroBlab |
its not so much that they dont know what they are doing, but they only think in the short term sense of finances. what will sell this year, in the next 6 months, etc. who cares if the band-in-question's 2nd album sinks like a stone on the charts? by the time that happens the label is holding all the cards(as well as all the band's profits). the band is indebted up to their eyeballs with the label, as if the label were a collective credit card that sooner or later has to be paid back for those shiny new Les Pauls and all that studio time. and lets face, its easier(and cheaper) to sign a bunch of newbies who will put their ol John Hancock on the dotted line and do it for peanuts then to have to deal with established acts like Madonna who have learned how to renegotiate their contracts each time an album is due. somewhere the labels bought the tale of "A.D.D-riddled youth" hook line and sinker and are now catering to that thought process by getting bands in, and chucking bands out, as quickly as possible. the labels can bitch all the want about album sales going down-i dont see them cutting any overhead to fix it. and this case isnt helping their image one bit.
| Posted by mte ® , Sep 10,2003,11:41 | MetroBlab |
Maybe the labels just got lucky with the teen pop phenomeneon. But those decisions at least paid off in the short run. Now, the labels are even more focused on the next-big-thing-right-now, but they're not even getting paid for it. It's because of their refusal (or inability) to recognize how much technology has changed the way people listen to music that makes me say they're bad businessmen.
And it's not like any of this is new. I mean, if the Internet has really changed anything in a fundamental way, it's how people get and listen to music. The promises were made almost 10 years ago. They've had plenty of time to adjust and get ready for this. They just didn't.
And, like AC says up top, CDs are just too fucking expensive. Gouging your customers for 20 years isn't good business, unless you can maintain that monopoly. And obviously they haven't been able to. It's hypocrisy for the industry to sue consumers, when consumers should have taken legal action against the monopoly of the industry years ago.
| Posted by fluffy ® , Sep 10,2003,13:42 | MetroBlab |
bands like radiohead, pearl jam, sonic youth and bjork are flukes that are just anomilies in the musical landscape. they have a built-in audience that no matter what they put out on a major label, they will have fans that will buy the album. in the 70's there were a lot of these bands. no more. but the labels keep these guys around because they mean solid sales, so why dump them? they are still making a profit, though obviously not the immediate spend-and-dump sellers you see on MTV, but profitable nonetheless. they may not be big sellers, but they are consistent sellers.
"And, like AC says up top, CDs are just too fucking expensive."
retailers are too blame too. i recently was looking for an indie band, but the local small record store didnt have it in stock, and i really wanted the disc, so i went over to the Virgin Megastore near Berklee. what should have been about a $12 disc they were trying to sell for $18. needless to say, i just ordered it from Insound instead($12.50, thank you very much). also, if you havent used Half.com yet, try it out; ive gotten a ton of discs this way. its just a mega yard sale really.
| Posted by fluffy ® , Sep 11,2003,07:11 | MetroBlab |
| Posted by Sony of America ® , Sep 10,2003,12:11 | MetroBlab |
In my entire CD collection of over 500 albums, less than 15 of them are burned copies, and all of those were gifts from friends, not albums I deliberately chose to steal.
Call me old-fashioned, but I like to own the album - the artwork and all. A copy just seems somehow cheap to me.
And in the case of really small bands who are lucky to sell 50,000 copies, let alone 100,000, I genuinely feel bad about not buying the CD and supporting them.
And when you consider that ordering CDs online or direct through the distributor is so much cheaper... maybe the "decline in album sales" is not a decline in number of albums sold, but merely a reflection of the popularity of used-CD stores and online direct ordering.
I mean, Christ, Constellation records is in Canada, and it's still only $10 for all their new CDs, even taking into account the fact that they have well-done, elaborate packaging half the time!
| Posted by annieO ® , Sep 10,2003,13:11 | MetroBlab |
It used to be that our main source for new music ideas was internet radio, but many stations like 3WK and others have been forced to either charge a monthly fee or go under because of the RIAA and litigation that they shoved through congress. What is so pathetic is that they shut down a free advertising outlet. I went out and BOUGHT CDs BECAUSE I heard them on the internet. Just like the masses do when they hear something on the radio.
These guys are just behind the times. They refuse to realize that the world and the way we access information (be it new music or world news) has changed.
| Posted by Dr. Autonomo ® , Sep 11,2003,04:52 | MetroBlab |
--modified at Thu, Sep 11, 2003, 05:03:23
| Posted by JOHN ALRICH, ESQ. ® , Sep 09,2003,19:32 | MetroBlab |
Judge McAfee would load her up on the next bus to Southern Hills, where she could learn some REAL WILD THANGS!
Be careful around the Net!
| Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 09,2003,17:57 | MetroBlab |
| Posted by Julias Jaded Jester ® , Sep 09,2003,21:15 | MetroBlab |
I listened to a few, and I'd just rather BUY the music that I like,
than download and burn. It's a better quality product. I looked at one album, and it was one freakin' file. Wanna hear song 6? Gotta back up to the beginning of the file.
I decline to think that the FORMAT of MP3 is decent enough to truly affect these big mogul companies. Ya know I'm sure there are folks who will download files, and PERHAPS it might be a little detrimental to these media companies. But the real demon is all that mass illegal copying that is going on overseas. China is going OFF on us big time. They and many others are stealing folks blind. I read where they think it's like 4 billion dollars in lost revenue due to illegal mass duplications.
They need to work on that mess.
Forget these small time users. Most of them can't afford to buy CDs in the first place.
| Posted by JOHN ALRICH, ESQ, ® , Sep 09,2003,18:34 | MetroBlab |
The RIAA IS RIGHT ON! YOU WANT THE MUSIC, YOU PAY FOR THE CD!
| Posted by hard69rock ® , Sep 10,2003,00:59 | MetroBlab |
| Posted by JOHN ALRICH, ESQ. ® , Sep 09,2003,19:37 | MetroBlab |
You humour me.
| Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 09,2003,20:59 | MetroBlab |
I applaud the lawsuits against the thieves. If the downloaders win, we all lose.
| Posted by hard69rock ® , Sep 10,2003,01:01 | MetroBlab |