MP3.com is spanked

[AndrewR]

Did you hear about the ruling against MP3.com from the federal judge ruling in favor of the Universal Music Group? The judge has levied a penalty of $25,000 per compact disc, which could amount to $250 million.

Looks like the show is over for wholesale piracy of MP3's.

 

[Adul]

Paulson, are you trying o set yourself up for red to come in here and flame you?

 

[Stark]

The judge said he had other companies in mind when making his decision. Hopefully that will give mp3.com good grounds to appeal the ruling. :|


<< Looks like the show is over for wholesale piracy of MP3's. >>

If you looked at the case, mp3.com wasn't advocating piracy of music. Their service only let you access songs if you could prove you had the original cd's. They took measures against piracy, but the record companies still weren't happy. So they made deals with many of the labels, paying out millions. Now a judge has basically tried to put them out of business (and acknowledged as much).

Piracy is still available and flourishing. Soon a service paying royalties to the record company won't be. Nice job, Universal and moron Judge.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

MP3.COM BEING SHUT DOWN IS SUCK

But, then again, I've got Napster, www.scour.com, etc.

 

[stomp]

I'm still confused as to what was law was broken? you have gained license to hear that recording of a song by purchasing the CD, then you listen to it elsewhere... but you use someone else's backup, yet its essentially the same thing since both MP3.Com and you have made the purchase... what is wrong with that? I'm just not getting this picture correctly... why are they getting killed?

In the spirit of the Anti-Napster people, I'm going to purport that we shutdown the Internet so that no copyrights can ever be violated online... hell, why don't we just ban data transmission via telephone. I say we just ban computers altogether, that way people can't use digital mediums to break copyrights. Even better, we all live in caves and lick moss thus no copyrights will be broken.

Just out of curiosity, why arne't the big search engines killed for linking to sites that link to files? Isn't that indirect copyright infringement too?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

If you buy CD &quot;A&quot; and CD &quot;B&quot; you can custom make CD &quot;AB&quot;.

But, if you don't buy CD &quot;C&quot; and rip the songs off the net, you're getting something that you should have paid for. Most people consider that not cool.

Otherwise, just GO OUT AND BUY THE DAMN CD.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

good point, stomp.

But the thing is that the courts are too bias and to fvcking stubborn to listen to what the people have to say.

They also inturpret the law (and constitution) however they see fit --not trying to keep to what the law actually means.

Then, people try to get their products copyrighted in every possible form.

I like Napster; I like Scour; I like MP3.com. Music labels can KISS MY ASS because they charge too damn much to put out a record, then don't give enough to the bands.

For all I care, recording labels, managers, agents, etc., should all be disbanded. They're all just money grubbing bastards. People in the music industry should learn the tricks of the trade.
Hell, I'm only a drummer and I can give the sound board a kick ass mix.

 

[Psychoholic]

Downloading mp3's of a song you don't have a copy of is wrong. However I do it because I can, and I'm not alone. I don't make excuses for my actions nor do I try to justify them, I just do it plain and simple.

The legal system is going to be very ineffective in dealing with this matter. The RIAA is trying to stop a boulder rolling down a hill at 100 mph. Sure, they may prevent one company from operating but 5 others will spring up in it's place. It's a losing battle and will cost the RIAA dearly in the long run. The price of a CD has not fallen much at all since they were originally introduced in the mid to late 80's. Think about how cheap you can pick up CD-R media and then think about how cheap it is for a record company to buy it in bulk. Very little profit from a CD goes to the actual artist, most of it goes to the recording companies themselves. Until the recording industry decides to quit padding it's pockets and lowers CD prices to a reasonable fee mp3 piracy will continue to be commonplace.

Evidently mp3's aren't cutting into their profits too much, since they still spend money on attorneys instead of doing the one thing that would cut back on mp3 piracy. The only people who are winning in the lawsuits are the attorneys and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[BigToque]

they can ban napster, scour, cutemx, imesh, everything else that has to do with trading mp3's.

The people trying to stop these things are idiots. This will not stop trading of mp3's at all. What they forget is MP3's were being traded long before any of these file sharing programs were out, and will continue to increase even if they do ban it all.

I heard on the raido on some station &quot;MP3.com is gonna be shut down soon so you better get your mp3's, cause they wont exist when mp3.com goes down.&quot; I'm just sitting there thinking to myself &quot;WTF is this idiot talking about&quot;

And to the people who say mp3's are illegal go buy the cd's, yak yak yak... I dont care that they are illegal. I do not care to pay $20 for a cd when I can get it for free. I dont collect mp3's like some of you nuts that have like 60gb of songs... I have like 40 songs. But wether I have 40 or 40,000, it doesnt matter. I will never buy another music cd when I have the option to get it for free.

 

[AndrewR]

CD prices, as I can remember, haven't risen in years. I remember paying $12-18 for a CD several years ago, and that's still the price point today. That means that CD prices have fallen when inflation is taken into account.

As for this particular case, I was assuming that MP3.com operated in a somewhat similar way to Napster. Since I have never downloaded a song from the net, I was unfamiliar with the circumstances of this case (and it wasn't reported in the articles I read, nice journalism). Since you had to own the CD to download the song, there doesn't seem to be a problem to me on its face. However, that begs the question of why people are downloading songs when they have the CD instead of just encoding the MP3 themselves. Is it possible that someone borrowed a CD, downloaded the MP3, then returned the CD? That would account for lost sales, but it still doesn't answer the question of why they don't encode the file themselves when they borrow the CD.

I'm honestly confused -- what's the point? All of my MP3's come from my CDs so I know it's not terribly hard to do. ????

 

[BigToque]

Not everyone has a powerful computer. On a slow computer, encoding an mp3 can take a while.

its just easier to download an already encoded mp3

 

[Psychoholic]

<< CD prices, as I can remember, haven't risen in years. I remember paying $12-18 for a CD several years ago, and that's still the price point today. >>



If that statement is true then we aren't paying enough for a lot of items, better call the manufacturers and tell them they can raise their prices.

• RAM
• Hard Drives
• CD-R media
• DVD's
• CD Players
• VCR's

You get the idea.

Do you still want to think the price of CD's isn't over-inflated???

 

[Pepsi90919]

<< Not everyone has a powerful computer. On a slow computer, encoding an mp3 can take a while. >>



On my Athlon 650 it takes about 15 seconds to encode a song of about 4 minutes length. It can't take slower computers much longer than that...

 

[BigToque]

15 seconds? wow, that is fast

i've got a 300a @ 300, and I dont know how long it takes anymore. i guess they have really spruced up the encoders.

 

[AndrewR]

Psycholic: Perhaps I missed your point because I don't see the correlation. For the items you mention, new manufacturing processes allow the prices of goods to come down in price as they become easier to produce. Also, the obsolesence of computer parts makes the value of the older ones drop (and price is influenced by supply and demand, witness DRAM prices).

That has not been the issue with CDs since they are probably as efficient as they are going to get. If the price stays static while inflation decreases the cost in real terms, then we are seeing a savings though it's not reflected in the actual dollar figure we pay. Ditto for video games -- $50 has been the standard price for some time now for games, which means that they were more expensive 5 years ago than they are now.

Or, maybe work has just caused all cognitive function to cease right now, and I'm just missing something really obvious. That could very well be the case after this morning.

On the speed issue, if their computer is so slow that it can't encode an MP3 very quickly, what's the chance that they have a fast connection to download the MP3 quickly? Perhaps a college student would fit that profile, but then college students are more likely to have faster computers by virture of the timeframe in which they probably bought their latest system. I'm dubious about that claim. I don't think someone is going to say, &quot;I could encode this song on my system, but I think I'll sign on and download it instead.&quot; That just seems a little odd to me.

 

[FettsBabe]

I hardly think that is costs $18 to make a CD, granted they need to make a profit, but I doubt it even costs $2. I hardly think a markup like that is justified. I guess I'll be using MP3's. Its not going to stop them from being put on the internet. Where there is a demand---people will find a supply.

 

[Psychoholic]

AndrewR so you're saying that the recording industry hasn't made any new technological and manufacturing advances in the last 15 years??? Are you also saying that the material cost of the CD's, cases, and paper hasn't decreased due to the fact they have been no advances in that field either???

Obsolesce does play a part in price, as does technology. As technology becomes more commonplace the price of that particular technology drops.

So you're saying it makes perfect sense that the price of recordable cd media has dropped since it's introduction but the price of a music CD hasn't? The material is essentially the same, the reason record companies haven't reflected this in thier pricing is the fact they can get away with it.

Games are different. Current games are more complex, have more code and are more realistic than 10 years ago. So by that argument you're saying that I should be able to walk into Tower Records right now and buy a CD that has music on it that wasn't able to be put on the same CD 10-15 years ago. The musician may have a new technique, but the CD itself sure as hell doesn't.

 

[CyberSax]

Go buy the CD's you pirating sonsofbitches. Enough of this bullsh|t, &quot;I only use it for backups&quot;, cr@p. Whether or not it hurts record sales is irrelevant. You commit a crime, you do the time. Next up, time for that queer who wrote Napster to get what's coming to 'em (hopefully 10 - 20, and being forced to pay millions in damages).

The day the U.S. government stops defending an individual's rights to his own intellectual property, is the day that the U.S. government becomes a worthless POS.

 

[Russ]

<< Downloading mp3's of a song you don't have a copy of is wrong. However I do it because I can, and I'm not alone. I don't make excuses for my actions nor do I try to justify them, I just do it plain and simple. >>



I'll be damned, an honest thief.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Psychoholic]

<< Go buy the CD's you pirating sonsofbitches. Enough of this bullsh|t, &quot;I only use it for backups&quot;, cr@p. >>


I guess I should have expected you to pop in here CyberSax and enlighten us with some of your crass insults. Exactly how do you know if any of our mothers are bitches again CyberSax???

Where exactly did you see me say I only used it for backups. I said I did it, and it's wrong but I do it anyway. Do you see me trying to make excuses?? If they ever prevent them from being downloaded I'll stop, I won't shed any tears nor care if they do. However while they're available I'll download them. The only thing I have said is if the RIAA wants to stop mp3 piracy they're doing it the wrong way.



<< The day the U.S. government stops defending an individual's rights to his own intellectual property, is the day that the U.S. government becomes a worthless POS. >>


I guess even your senseless ramblings you have posted here under various other topics are also protected to an extent under that right. Oh well, gotta take the good with the bad.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< is the day that the U.S. government becomes a worthless POS. >>

You don't think it's that now? Open your eyes.

As for $18 CDs...these products are overpriced if you simply consider the costs of making the music, pressing the discs, assembling and packaging the product, shipping it out to stores and plopping it on the shelves. Factor in other costs like marketing, videos, kickbacks, incentives and...they're still overpriced. Heh but not as much.

What bites my behind is that of $18 only $.10 to $.60 goes to the artists (music writers, brush artists for album covers, etc.). Music company corporate fat cats take just about everything. This is a travesty and comes to close to slave labor, IMO. Is this enough to justify not paying for music? I can't say that but everytime I see a $17.99 CD I think about it.

 

[Psychoholic]

So Russ you want to tell me that during your entire life you never did anything that someone could call stealing?? You never worked at a fast food joint and poured yourself a free drink now and then?? Even in your youth?? You never worked for a place or organization (present place of employment excluded of course ) and used their copy machine once or twice for something personal. Walked off with a ballpoint pen from work?? Have you done anything similar in nature to any of those??

I don't know anyone who could make that claim.

 

[AndrewR]

<< So you're saying it makes perfect sense that the price of recordable cd media has dropped since it's introduction but the price of a music CD hasn't? >>


Yes, because look at what JellyBaby wrote above: The cost of a CD is not related to the technology underpinning it, it is related to the costs of producing, marketing, and distributing that CD. Certainly, there have been savings over the years, but if anything, marketing costs have INCREASED because of the proliferation of mediums, numbers of bands, musical tastes, etc. The savings that have occurred are reflected in the static price of the CD, which is a decrease in real terms over the years (you seem to be missing that part). Plus, record companies have to recoup their losses on failed bands and failed albums in order to stay in business. It's the successful artists that have to bear part of that burden. When they sucked or when they were starting out, someone else was doing the same for them. A CD-R disk becomes less expensive because the manufacturing process improves, new chemicals are used for the dyes, existing chemicals increase in supply because the market has expanded, etc. You don't have to market a CD-R disk to any real extent, not in the same terms as a band.

What I really don't understand is the concept that since the record companies only pay pennies on the CD to an artist, we might as well just steal the music so that NO money goes to the artist. That's like Robin Hood stealing from the poor.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< The cost of a CD is not related to the technology underpinning it, it is related to the costs of producing, marketing, and distributing that CD. >>


I don't know where you're from but around here I see no marketing when it comes to a new CD. Now they do make videos, but marketing, give me a break. The costs could very well be brought down, but why should they. People like you champion their money hungry cause. If you logic is right why didn't cassettes cost $15 10 years ago? Why don't they cost that much now?? It's because they know they can sell CD's at the price they ask and line their pockets.



<< What I really don't understand is the concept that since the record companies only pay pennies on the CD to an artist, we might as well just steal the music so that NO money goes to the artist. That's like Robin Hood stealing from the poor. >>


Once again, I will say that downloading mp3's of a song you don't have is wrong. I'm not trying to justify what I do to you or anyone. As in my first post in this thread I state again, until the recording industry decides to quit padding it's pockets and lowers CD prices to a reasonable fee mp3 piracy will continue to be commonplace. There is a cheap alternative and many people are tired of paying for overpriced CD's.

Just like in my post above in response to the comment from Russ, better make sure you have never done anything that someone could call stealing before you call me or anyone else anything. So until I'm told that I will be prosecuted from downloading another mp3, I'll continue to download them. Until then you'll have to pry them from my cold dead hands.

Excuse me now while I go listen to some Manowar!!!!

 

[AndrewR]

I'll be the first to admit that the record companies are hardly populated by angels. They are very often predatory and do take advantage of people, but that's the nature of any business connected with fame and fortune (ask actors).

Marketing of a band to radio stations and retailers is a huge cost which you never see. Radio stations are lobbied hard by record companies to get prime time air play for their music -- I dated a girl who worked in the industry in Nashville, and it's amazing to see what happens behind the scenes. Do you think that popular outcry causes CDs to be played? Very often it's the people behind an album that give it the initial airtime that makes it successful, not the popularity causing the airtime.

I do question the practice of pricing cassettes less than CDs -- I've always wondered about that. Since the material and manufacturing costs of cassettes are higher than CDs, you'd think they'd be priced higher. Obviously, there is some markup involved in CDs, but I don't believe it's as high as you believe it is.



<< As in my first post in this thread I state again, until the recording industry decides to quit padding it's pockets and lowers CD prices to a reasonable fee mp3 piracy will continue to be commonplace. >>


You're probably right. People say the same thing about software piracy, but there's a key difference. Software piracy is a little bit more difficult because you usually have to go to Usenet for it unless you happen upon a pirate FTP site (which I've never bothered to find). Usenet is not terribly complicated, true, but for most people who are only marginally &quot;Net savvy&quot; (I hate that phrase), Usenet can be intimidating especially since it requires another program to be used properly. MP3 piracy is amazingly easy thanks to sites like Napster and is therefore more widespread. I seriously doubt that the RIAA thinks it will eradicate music piracy since it has always been a problem, but if they manage to knock out the big places like Napster, they make piracy a little more difficult and less accessible to casual net users.