Comments on: did ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS help sell Michael Jackson stuff

By: Troy Seyfang

Troy Seyfang — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:16:06 +0000

Good article, Mike. I often wondered myself why the music industry makes such a fuss about music downloading when there are so many different so called authorized sites on the net. Surely it can only serve to promote the musician’s music and therefore create more sales. Isn’t this what Radio does?
When UK band Radio Head released their latest album “In Rainbows” they first made the album available to the public via the internet. Instead of making it only down loadable by charging a fee, they left it up to the individual to decide if they would pay for it and even left it up to them as to how much they would pay. I bet they still made a healthy profit from this. Then after this they then released it to the music stores for sale. I believe that many other musicians and bands have followed suit.
They have proven to be a band not afraid of so called download theft, rarely make videos and aren’t played on mainstream radio yet make a bazillion dollars from their music each year.
The theft of music that needs to be halted is the bootlegger trade and the overseas CD and DVD Pirates. That to me hurts the music industry more than most internet download.

Troy Seyfang

By: Dean

Dean — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:34:20 +0000

Thanks for your custom and your good wishes. As you (I think) well know, it’s not easy breaking into the music scene, especially when you have a full time ‘responsible’ job and teenage kids and all. But it’s my passion. I’m glad you liked the songs.

A few links on the Jammie Thomas case with (I believe) more accurate information

Wikipedia is a bit ambiguous, but it does mention that ‘According to Billboard, Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online. The RIAA however focused on only 24 of these. In addition, the RIAA first warned Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter.[when?] Thomas refused and the case went to court.’
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Thomas]

From a report on the 2007 trial which fined her much less but was later overturned: ‘Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files.’
[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/]

From CIO Today ‘Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother from Minnesota, has been ordered to pay record companies $1.92 million for violating the copyrights on 24 songs. Thomas-Rasset was accused of distributing 1,702 copyrighted audio files on file-sharing network Kazaa in 2005.’
[http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13000G0C1JES]

Most of the major newspapers, as well as Rolling Stone, got it wrong. ‘Last week a judge ruled Minnesota mom Jammie Thomas-Rasset owes the RIAA a $1.92 million fine for illegally downloading 24 songs.’
But Richard Marx’s comments in this one are interesting and a little similar to my own slightly conflicted viewpoint on the issue. As a songwriter and musician I am conscious of the importance of licencing and royalties to artists as part of their livelihood; at the same time, the big record companies exploit the artists AND the public and limit the exposure of music (and exposure benefits artists irrespective of whether they receive their royalties) by inflated costs.
‘Richard Marx — one of the artists whose music Thomas-Rasset downloaded via P2P network Kazaa — is now speaking out against the court’s verdict, saying he’s “ashamed” to be associated with the massive fine.
“As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music. I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels,” Marx said in a statement. “These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets.”’
[http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/06/24/richard-marx-ashamed-hes-linked-to-192-million-riaa-fine-against-minnesota-mom/]

By: mseyfang

mseyfang — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:49:01 +0000

Thanks for clarifying the upload vs download issue for the woman from Minnesota. If you could link to more correct details I’d appreciate it.

p.s. On the bits vs atoms thing, I just used paypal to purchase a single track of yours, then sent you an e/mail with my request to purchase actual CD. When I went back to hit the ‘CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD SONGS’ button on the PayPal reciept I got the error ‘Sorry, We don’t know who you are.’ – Too funny, given the circumstances.

Good luck with your band, and good on ya for your cheeky tweet suggesting I spend my pre June 30 $ on you. ;-)

Fang

By: Dean

Dean — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:40:00 +0000

Good, thought provoking article. I do think that the desire to own the tangible CD is generationally defined though, with many of the younger generations regarding a digital file every bit as tangible as (and a lot more convenient than) an actual CD. This is a generalisation though. My 14 y.o. daughter, for example, insists on owning the actual CD for all her music.

The role of free music and ‘pirate’ copies in generating exposure and thus greater returns to the creators of the music is really important I think.

By the way, the woman in Minnesota was prosecuted for uploading, not downloading the songs. Most of the journalists got this wrong. That was how the record companies justified the size of the damages payment, it was supposed to represent sales foregone to all those who subsequently downloaded the files.

I like your style :)