Music industry threatens ISPs over piracy

From news.independent.co.uk:

The music industry opened up a new front in the war on online music piracy yesterday, threatening to sue internet service providers that allow customers to illegally share copyrighted tracks over their networks.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, or IFPI, said it would take action against internet companies that carry vast amounts of illegally shared files over their networks. It stressed that it would prefer not to pursue such a strategy and is keen to work in partnership with internet providers.

John Kennedy, the chairman of the IFPI, said he had been frustrated by internet companies that have not acted against customers involved in illegal activity. He warned that litigation against ISPs would be instigated "in weeks rather than months". Barney Wragg, the head of EMI's digital music division, said the industry had been left "with no other option" but to pursue ISPs in the courts.

The IFPI wants ISPs to disconnect users who refuse to stop exchanging music files illegally. Mr Kennedy said such activity is in breach of a customer's contract with the ISP and disconnecting offenders the IFPI had identified would significantly reduce illegal file sharing.

Please see source article for full story.

Of particular note to me were these remarks:

A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association said ISPs are "mere conduits of information" that can not be held liable for offences committed by customers. "ISPs cannot inspect every packet of data transmitted over their networks," he said.

Well, who's expecting you inspect every packet? But when an organization has done research, and has justifiable complaints against certain users, isn't it fair that the ISP's SHOULD be concerned and shut down these users? To me it seems like a reasonable request.

To those that would rather go to concerts to support artists, and be able to download songs illegally, I'd say please keep in mind that record sales, as well as performance royalites, are still sizeable sources of income for many artists. To suggest abolishing copyrights is standing diametrically opposed to artists being able to collect money from these and other means.

You know what.

People could put a stop to this insanity by ceasing to buy recorded music.

I know it would be hard at first, but if everyone just made do with the music collection they have and left the music industry to sue the socks off the whole world, sooner or later, they'd owe their lawyers so much money they'd have to shut down.

People with a severe music Jones could trade music in the privacy of their own homes, leaving the ISPs out of the equation.

Then the music industry might remember who pays the bills and lighten up just a smidgen.

I'm all for protecting the copyrights of artists, but the mercenary tactics of the music industry has really turned me off.

[edit on 2007/1/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm all for protecting the copyrights of artists, but the mercenary tactics of the music industry has really turned me off.

Yeah well, let's keep in mind that what you now perceive as mercenary tactics started out on a much less controversial foot. And I imagine at this point when artists see the amount of money that it costs them directly out of their pockets, regardless of what the recording industry makes, that much of the pressure being exerted is originating from the artists themselves.

Let's face it, it's like someone garnishing your wages by stealing from you. Except in this case, legal loopholes and inaction by entities such as ISPs present a wall of frustration rather than due justice for material that has been stolen- to the music industry as a whole, including the artists. In other words, they're just supposed to sit back and take it?

With Wal-Mart offering 88 cent downloads of nearly any popular song, bypassing the notorious need to have to buy a whole album, there is just no excuse anymore to not want to pay that. 88 cents. If you can't be bothered to afford that for a creation that will bring you many listens of joy for years, then why in the heck don't people just stop LISTENING to music. Eh, Grady?

I agree with Grady. I haven't purchased a CD in years because they are overpriced and most groups are low quality. The companies complain that illegal downloads are the reason for low sales, but I think it is because of the quality of music coming out. They think that any group that can make a noise is some super group that are going to make them millions. I just listen to my old stuff, it's better anyway.

Some how i really can't see how the record companies think that ISPs will able to stop music piracy. There is so much going around the p2p networks that the ISPs could never police it all. Plus if they tried to look into everyones file traffic people would be up in arms about the breach of privacy, or maybe not considering the recent and ongoing wiretapping scandal and lack of large scale outrage in response. But I digress, back to my original point. From my point of view the only way the the record companies could possibly stop piracy would be to force the shutdown of all p2p networks which seems like a highly unlikely situation this far into the internet age.

Stopping p2p file sharing is the first step in taking down the internet. I say everytime a outside group puts any kind of restriction on our freedom of speech and freedom to share files with eachother via the internet, we the people should boycott them and tell them to go to hell. I personally love burning music after I download it. I'm not going to spend my money buying their whole cd for one song, Id end up buying 21 differnet cd's. That's what they "really" want


Tell them to get off our back's and hit the drawing board for better marketing techniques if they really have cd selling problems

[edit on 1/18/2007 by atsrules]

I agree I never like a whole band, usually just a single song of the band, and Im not gonna buy the whole cd just for one song, it's pure BS.

Back in the day about 3 million yrs ago, it was legal to share music with each other..

Remember them things called cassettes.. You can find them in a museum somewhere now..

Anyway Remember a few yrs back that RIAA was going around suing everyone and their mother for DLing music. Then all of a sudden it stopped?

Reason Verizon put a big ass dent in their getting ISP's to hand over info on customers and won a case for it.. since then the RIAA and so on are pissed about it..

I think All ISPS should get together and sue them for trying to breach the contract of privacy with companies customers.

Then again places like Comcrap are in bed with the enemy so.. ohh well.. And yes they publicly stated they spy on their customers in what they upload and download.

On a Music DL related note..

Back when Napster was around I wanted to hear something that was on the radio for about 10 sex.. I found out it was Creed. DL'ed like 6 of their sounds at the time and ended up going out and buying 2 of their CD's... See downloading music in most cases help people get recognized.. Why you think these small crap bands like p2p they get recognized without going thru the record labels and so on to get noticed on MTV or something...

[edit on 1/18/2007 by ThichHeaded]

I used Napster when it was around and I use Limewire today. The record industry can kiss my sweet ass. Why do I feel this way you might ask; well here is why.

www.oligopolywatch.com...

It's called payback---pure and simple.

You ripped me off first and now its time for payback.

[edit on 1/18/2007 by Classified Info]

And by the way, did anybody take advantage of this. I missed out on it myself.

urbanlegends.about.com...

This issue not only brings up questions about rights to online privacy like i have stated before but also the legality of downloading music. Back in 1984 the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to tape television programs for personal use. The following link will lead you to the full case document. cyber.law.harvard.edu...
Many legal experts believe that this case sets precedent for the legality of downloading music as shown by this debate at Cornell www.news.cornell.edu...
Futhermore the recording industry has not sued individuals for simply downloading music yet. At this point the lawsuits have been against people who have shared more that 1000 songs
mp3.about.com...
showing that it is the distribution of copyrighted music without permission is illegal but not receiving such music.

It's sad that so many people will fight to the death for a free lunch, making every excuse they can imagine to try and get around having to pay for music. But why do you pick on music? Why not software? Or gasoline? Or stocks and bonds? You start trading bootleg stocks and bonds over peer to peer networks, I guarantee ya the ISPs wouldn't have much of a problem shutting those people down.

They need to make music files just like trial software: try a clip of a song for 14 days, and then either register it or lose it.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Why not software?

You mean Linux or Open Source? Well good thing people pay for Linux and Apache.. BTW How much do you pay to look at this site again?? Ti much I bet.. what?? 20 dollars a month to pay for the s/w they use? Ya thought so.. Next?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Or gasoline?

Last I checked a lot of people bitch about this.. Ironically the price hasn't changed in some time eh?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Or stocks and bonds?

What?? Worthless piece of papers?? Ya go ask the employees over at Enron how much their stocks and suck are worth today.

Point being a lot of people put their music in most cases out for free.. Notice they aren't bitching about people stealing their music. They actually embrace it for the fact they get noticed, people go to concerts, hence they make cash. and actually buy a CD.

Today music is just a bunch of crap. nothing worth buying.. I don't even listen to the radio anymore that's how cool music is.

But ya lets get on this paying for s/w thing tho.. if it wasn't for Open Source, your ass would be paying for this site.

And 90% of the Open Source s/w out there is way better than stuff you pay 2, 3, 500 bucks for.. Referring to windows and such.

Here is the thing that I don't understand - why are they so concerned about P2P on the Internet? Music fans Sharing music with other music fans - its been going on FOREVER! Remember that thing called RADIO? What about lending a friend a CD or Cassette? It is still a free country is it not? This is not Stealing - it is SHARING!! All of this stuff used to be called "Promotion" - it will expand the Performers Fan Base & lead to Profits in the Future. You see they want total control over the Distribution of the Product (as well as the fact that they usually Trick an Artist into signing away the ownership rights to their own music)! This has never been the case - once a product is released into the Market you can never tell were it will end up. Like I said people let their friends borrow stuff. The problem these days is with the Greed of these big Media Companies. They just want to get their hands on a "Hot Act" & sell a Zillion copies & make a Billion in Profits!! Heck if they could figure out a way to charge you every time you push the Play button they would (oh yeah theyt have already - the Jukebox - I almost forget). They don't care about "Art" (The same could be said for Major Movie Studios) - they have resorted to selling a "Music Product" solely via "Image" i.e. MTV & such. That is why Indy Music & Film are always so much better than their Corporate counterparts.

It's sad that so many people will fight to the death for a free lunch

Well Yes & No. OK first off I will grant you that there are people out there that will abuse anything. That being said - don't you usually want to know what you are buying before you buy it? Like say the Tomatoes in a Super-Market for Instance. How do you know that you like or want something if you have not Sampled it first? That is why most Big Music stores have those Listening stations & Website offer Streams on the Net. You see the problem is that people usually like only one or two songs off of any given album & they don't see why they should pay $15 for a CD (i.e. Entire Album) with Maybe three Tracks on it that they actually like. This is why the Potential for media on the Net is so Fantastic! People can find exactly what they are looking for, Sample it & buy just the right amount of Media they want - all right there in one place On-Line! In addition this is also Fantastic for people discovering new Genres of Music or discovering New Artists within a Genre they already enjoy! I think that "iTunes" is a GREAT example of this!!!

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Yep yep, just keep dreaming up reasons. Take your free lunch. Steal from them. Great.

Yeah a idiot named Doug Morris thought he knew everything about the world and is the one starting alot of these stupid lawsuits. He can't get his head out of his ass and realize that it's not 1990 and his "genius' stratagies weren't going to work.

Moron executives like him, all didn't see or didn't want to see the future of music and the internet. They thought they were more powerful than the internet cause well they're rich. But they didn't embrace the net and now have screwed their companies left and right by guiding them down the same old path they've always known and are left without the knowledge nor imagination of how to make money (which you can, and a lot of it too) on the internet.

Look up CBS Records. Not the old one but the one that just started up this month. They understand how the future is going to go with the music industry. Aside from them there are a few really good executives with dynamic minds able to harness the internet, or are at least beginning to figure it out.

The big labels and anyone dumb enough to follow their lead got themselves into trouble during the 90's and early 2000's. heres how they f***ed up the industry.

First they were locked into,comfortable with and set on selling albums/CD through the old school primary outlets-record stores. They got locked into this system of business because it was working fantastically for several years and becuase they had their team of lawer friends that they needed to keep employed who used the same damn contract everytime, everybody was set in their ways.

Along came the internet, TV became more important for starting acts etc... and they were too lazy and unknowledgable about these new mediums. Most of these diplo dunks couldn't even work their email so how would they understand what was really happening out in the real not so sheltered dog eat dog world of real life.

Record sales started slipping at this time although not concert sales or sales from 3rd parties (syncing for movies etc.) They really couldn't figure it out, the music was still decent at this time but sales were slipping. You and I could see what was going on but they couldn't. What do they pay these morons for anyways if not to spot this sort of stuff, but most execs were asleep at the wheel or were to busy partying in the back seat to see where the car was going off the road.

Sales were and still are for albums during this change to current only big during the first 2-3 weeks of an albums debut after that they were/are petering off real fast. So huge chunks of revenue weren't getting made. The only thing that was working was to focus on the next CD and getting it to be huge for a short time, find some gimmick to get the population interested long enough to make some sort of money. This lead to building the act and not the band. Bands became short lived and their music became formulaic to meek the marketing demands. Once the sales slowed, BAM! see ya on to the next act.

This was/is a scorched earth policy of marketing, unfortunantly it leads to overexposure which kills your product in the end. Ron Fair-president of A&M/Interscope/Geffen follows this doctrin. He puts out the Pussycat Dolls, Black Eyed Peas, and Fergi. You can find their products everywhere but they aren't any good, public interest eventually gets lost and suddenly too when it happens, better have another act in the wings ready to go to make your profits for the next business quarter.

Look at this-Pussycat Dolls huge then, now? so Black eyed peas got bumped up to fill their roll (even though they had been around), bam once thats milked out comes firgie and so on, do you think fergi is going to be around in 2 years? What about the pussycat dolls. i know each one of them is getting screwed on the record sales and only recieves a $1000 a week in preformance pay. In a year all of them will be back doing burlesque shows in santa monica and hollywood for no money talking about the days when they were Pussycat Dolls. Not so glamourus. Mean while Ron Fair will be back home in one of his many mansions going Black Eyed Who? Oh yeah those guys I made a lot of money off of them for a few months. Ask your self this, how many groups, artist that have come out since the 2000's do you think are going to have a box set in 20 or even 10 years.

So now we have corporate, trite, prefabricated crap, no real artists cause the big 4 label groups need to make their money to survive. These big labels are trying to legitamize the music that they are comming out with but so far are lost and confused in this brave new world of music marketing. But don't loose faith, some of these labels are fireing left and right and are bringing back real musicians and acts that they are trying to develop for the long haul. '07 will be a different year in the music industry.

Alot of labels will drop MTV/VH1/BET (like they havent already) as they hook up with music coordinators for the TV programs and shows to be the primary marketing exposure,advertising platform for the music industry.

THink of this, My Chemical Romance-Rob Cavallo produced it,he did a good job, but Rob is an executive over at Warner Bros Records. They are jsut now begining to figure out the new industry and are jsut beggining to give up thier old ways. But not with My Chemical Romances last album. The album was highly reviewed as one of the best produced albums of the year, but it tanked in sales, made lodes less than the first album by the band and sales have come to a practical halt. The reason-they were still marketing to MTV,big mistake cause who the hell watches MTV anymore? So only the fans heard the new album, they all baught it up and now thats it, no new demographic purchased the album. Sales were half of their first one. They will probably get one more chance to make fixy fixy even though it wasn't their fault on their next album or it get dropped by the label time for them.

So advertise on MTV/VH1 and 1.4 million people are exposed to your product...dumb. Or,have someone call PJ Bloom the music coordinator over at Neophonic (The Shield/ CSI/ Nip/Tuck)and have the same band do a guest appearence on CSI: Miami-14 million people become exposed...10X! Smart. So with this they can start making money again and start concentrating on developing long term acts that develop a fan base and a place in the publics heart.

Bottom line says that ISP's are a business. Not an enforcement agency.
Matters not, the morality of sharing copyrighted material.

The police, the FBI and any other domestic enforcement agency holds the burden of policing criminal activity. If the courts decide that sharing files illegaly warrants the banning of persons from using the internet, so be it. Then the courts parlay the sentence, the cops make sure the sentence is upheld, the ISP's continue on with providing access to the web.

Now, you can argue that the enforcement agencies should be able to track packets on these networks, but that's an old privacy argument still being hashed out now. Police don't have an carte blanche authority to pull over all the packets on the roads just to check things out, but they do occasionaly have check points for just such a thing. Maybe that philosophy should carry over to the web. The agencies can periodically have access to a percentage of the packets to investigate. Otherwise, they need to do it the old fashioned way. Wait for the crime to happen, then prosecute.

There's always libraries

If someone steals my car can I sue the government for providing the roads on which they drove it away?

The music industry giants are driven by nothing but greed. Most of the musicians / groups today are tied into contracts with the big companies to produce x number of albums in a contracted timeframe and are paid a lot to do this, often upfront. So, the artists are rarely out of pocket. If the recording companies were not so greedy and charged realistic prices for downloads then people would be less likely to pirate copies of CD's.

AllofMP3.com has a good catalogue and I can download a complete CD, with a choice of bitrates and formats for about $2. Although legal under Russian copyright laws, they are being hounded by the US recording companies and are even having WTO membership held up on this issue. They have offered royalties for each downloaded track to the recording companies but those companies say it's not enough, which just shows pure greed.