Slashdot Log In
Kazaa Agrees to Pay $100m to the Record Industry
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Jul 27, 2006 08:30 AM
from the pay-up dept.
from the pay-up dept.
siddesu writes "BBC has the following breaking story:
File-sharing site Kazaa will become a legal music download service following a series of high-profile legal battles. The peer-to-peer network has also agreed to pay $100m (£53m) in damages to the record industry. The announcement follows the release of a music industry report that says more than 20 billion music tracks have been downloaded illegally in the last year. Hungry artists across the globe rejoice."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think they will still be hungry.
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically, the artists now owe the RIAA money.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Interesting)
To quote Janis Ian:
And she goes on to state her opinion on the downloads as:
Source: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away. If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.
And, of course, the argument that there's no other way to make it big is pointless too. Nobody is guaranteed the right to make money, only the freedom to attempt it. If they want to make money, and they can't do it through cartel members under teh RIAA, they should make an attempt on their own. If they don't make it, and fail, then they can go sit and cry in a beer with the other 90% of businesses that don't make it either (of course, we all know that because freedom provided by p2p and such is this huge legit business model rather than a place where 99.99% of all traffic is copyright infringement and/or porn or viruses, indy artists are all just going to be rolling in dough without the marketing muscle of the RIAA studios, right?).
Is the RIAA and its members abusive to artists and consumers? Absolutely.
Are artists under any obligation to sign contracts with them? Absolutely not.
Are consumers obligated to buy music from them? Absolutely not.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever managed to change the terms and conditions of your power bill, your phone contract, the EULA on your XP installation? When you are small fry you have the choice of signing what the record company offer, or nothing. Sure you can go somewhere else, but that other label is just has harsh.
The record companies have all the power; They have nothing to lose and will tell you that they'll 'just sign someone else'. You might get room to move a little within your 'negotiation', but until you make it big you have nothing to negotiate with.
That said, I'm glad you recognize that the RIAA is abusing its powers. Massive Props to you.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you say "or nothing"? I'm pretty sure that I can record a CD, burn it, and sell it, all without involving any major corporation. Hell, why even burn it? Why not just post it on my own webspace? I'm not sure about Apple distribution agreements, but perhaps you could get it posted on the iTunes Music Store, at minimal cost to you (we've all heard Apple makes about a penny or two profit per song, and most of the rest goes to the label, which in this case would be you).
Or maybe it's time for a whole new economic model. Let's be honest: why do artists want to get signed? They want to do it because it feels like a finish line. Get signed, get money, done. Of course the labels are ruthless, because their job is to tantamount to panhandling: they are trying to take the consumer's money by selling something on good faith. Who knows whether the CD you're about to buy in Tower sucks? You sure as hell can't download it for free to decide for yourself--you must do the honorable thing and take the plunge, because that's what keeps our culturemachine rolling, right?
Let's just consider a different way of doing things. What if I were to post my self-recorded, self-produced CD online, and charge nothing for it? I have a dayjob--I'm not throwing my life out the window or putting myself in financial jeopardy, doing what I love in my free time and sharing it. I could put a PayPal link on my site, and people who really enjoyed my work would pay me. Honestly, I've heard songs that I would pay never to hear again (an insurance policy of some kind). I also own CDs for which I'd've paid the artist upwards of $100, if I had had a way to do it directly.
In our ardently capitalistic market, money is no longer used to promote future growth. Money is a throwaway commodity, and we buy things that are designed not to last. Record companies want their artists to be forgettable--no one's looking to sign the next Beatles, because such a phenomenon has become unthinkable to our market, meaning the bar is low. So how about a system where the consumer and the artist are actively considering the allocation of money toward the future. "I want more of this. Yes. I'll pour money into this, because this guy understands." The artist has to earn my money, rather than the label.
We aren't liberal enough with our money in this culture. Why is it impolite, nay, taboo, to pay someone a quarter for a really funny joke? A dollar? Twenty? We aren't paying for satisfaction any longer, we're paying out of guilt because we don't feel like understanding. We'd rather pay than think.
Maybe I should start putting a PayPal link in my sig. =D
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've also advocated the Paypal links directly to artists before and think it is a great idea. Then everyone could basically download music guilt-free - give dire
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away.
Ever considered that it could be the only way to be published big time? For them it's the choice between "A chance to make it big time" and "Would you like fries with that?"
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is entirely on them if they choose to take on huge risks in the pursuit of huge payouts, and it is nobody else's fault if those payouts do not materialize. Nobody is guaranteed the right to become rich, only the freedom to try. They under no obligation to take this path in their lives.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sick of this stupid hivemind attitude where the artists are so downtrodden and abused. Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away. If they don't understand what they're signing, they should get a lawyer.
You are correct, but you forgot to mention one thing...
American musicians have no real alternatives to the RIAA!
Sure there are many Indie labels out there (such as my own), but we don't have the ability to put our CDs in walmart, put music videos on TV, and send our musicans on tours that cost ten's of thousands of dollars (have you ever looked into the logistics of having a road crew and a tour bus... it ain't cheap)
I will have to admit, if it weren't for the internet I wouldn't be able to do what I do today with promotion, sales, and distribution but we aren't making enough money to quit our day jobs.
So unless you have enough money to make your own label, an underground musician won't be able to compete with the RIAA's music.... Unless of course you don't mind doing it for free and the love of the music (which many do).
On the other hand... European major labels tend to be a bit more diverse and fair to their musicians.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, bull, the entire structure of IP legislation is aimed squarely at protecting publishers from competition. Those 'rights' are monopoly protection laws that in themselves create the market failure. The effect being, the rights creating the media concentration which effectively marginalizes any non-signer.
The artists are effectively mugged of their right to compete on a fair market; the inequality of resources are an effect of legislation, not an inherent nature in the market.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then probably I guess you never tried to record, publish and promote your own album. You can pick lots of funny information by yourself.
There is no other word for that business but "mafia". They are middle man, standing between creators and fans. They rob artists of what they create - under guise of helping them with all the bureaucracy and formalities (All the bureaucracy and formalities help nobody else but recording companies - and quite questionable why it is there in first place). Then they force DRMs on consumers and restrictive contracts on broadcasters makeing sure that you get the work of artist only from them and only on condition they have set.
FYI.
Have you ever wondered by some crap like "Britney Spears"/etc make so high in hit lists? I asked that question to DJ of one german FM radio I met in pub. (Well, Okay, I asked why they have for every hour of good new music they 12 hours of old trash. Do you start guessing how the questions relate?) Right, RIAA (or its german face Sony BMG) sets in (very long) contract conditions on programming of FM stations with restriction like: "two new promoted songs cannot be aired in the same hour", "new promoted song has to be separated at least by 5(?) minutes from any other song", "you can't air more than 4 news songs per hour", "you can't air new or promoted song next to another promoted or new song respectively." I can't tell the restrictions precisely. But I hope you get the spirit of the conditions boradcaster have to deal with.
The goal of such silly conditions to make sure that some stupid talentless voiceless signer(in) would catch your attention. No way you would get away from that promoted song: first they assault your brain with 100 times repeated hit of 80s and then BA-BAM! new song. No way human brain (exhausted by the commercials and old crap before) would manage to reject the new song. The content of the song is irrelevant - it just has to be new/different.
Conditions in the contract make sure that song would stand out on the dull background. And here you have it: some talentless voiceless macho gets on top of hit lists, while probaly having only sex appeal.
Often, they just approach young performer with offer "Do you wanna us to make you the star???" Who of beginners in his/her right ming would turn down such offer.
Step by step.
1. Renting recording studio is very expensive. Very.
2. Hiring professional sound editor is very very expensive. You can edit by yourself - but quality would be not sufficient for most broadcasters.
3. Okay, we pulled the bills for recording the album. What's next? Right, "Music" == "CD". Publishing. (Oh, crap, we forgot covers! - the work of cover designed is very expensive.) How mush CDs do you want? 100'000 - that would be 0.25 per disk. You can't pull that? - Okay you can make 1000 disks for $1-2.50 each.
4. Suppose we made it. Now we want to sell it. How would we do that? We contact the retailers. What they say us? - "Pay us money. People do not know you. The sales would be very slow. Etc." Right, to start selling we have to pay the bills of retailers so they would manage to keep your album on the shelfs.
5. How would we make people buy it? We need FM promotion. We come to FM stations: they wanna money since the only way they would accept your work as if it was commercial. (That's right, airing songs (which help promote radio) on behalf of commercials. That's why you need one good catching song - and short song in your album.)
I can go on, but I hope you got the spirit. I intentionally omitted steps like buying musical equipment and finding/renting room for trainings. But you can imaging that all that requires time and money. Lots of them.
And now enter recording compani
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the problem, most artists have no business sense and thus get fleeced. My wife was watching Biography a couple weeks ago and it talked about Dolly Parton...
Things have changed a lot since Dolly had no reputation and no audience. For one, basically all the radio stations weren't owned by a single corporation. Second, the RIAA members had not consolidated their stranglehold on all major distribution channels. Right now the normal artist's main goal is to be heard. They want everyone to hear their music because they are an artist first and a businessman second. Very few people go into music because they think it is a path to wealth. Given the choice between possibly reaching a large audience, or being specifically stopped from reaching a large audience by a large cartel repeatedly convicted of collaborating to abuse their consolidated position, many choose the former. If they don't they will never sell a CD in a major store or be heard on the radio and most people will never, ever hear of them.
Sure there are counter examples of those few independent artists that won out against all odds, but they are the rare exceptions. Copyright law was designed to benefit artists and encourage them to make more works. It has been abused and morphed by powerful corporations so that it instead is a tool to control art and make sure artists in general make no money off their art. If copyright was abolished entirely it would be a boon to the average recording artist, since the RIAA would have no motivation to stop their distribution and they could still make money the way almost all of them do now, concerts and merchandise.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just wanted to add that a couple of years ago, some US Congressman (sadly, I don't remember who it was) said that the music business was like a bank that owned a mortgage on a house and after the mortgage was paid off, the bank still owned the house. I thought that was probably the most perceptive view of how the music business works that I have ever heard.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:4, Insightful)
the RIAA isn't affilated with any artist. Just the lawyers athorized by their labels.
So the RIAA lawyers, and the riaa org. gets their cut, then the label's lawyers and the labels.
The artists themselves aren't worthy enough to recieve any moeny after those people take their cut.
it's really not that surprising. If the rumours are true for every download on itunes an artist recieves less than Apple's share. It's time for a music revolution.
Parent
None. This just offsets Record Industry costs (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Unreal.
Re:None. This just offsets Record Industry costs (Score:4, Insightful)
So that leaves one wondering - what do they really want? And there's only one answer left.
Power and control.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why you don't see a lot of mainstream artists endorsing the trading of their music. It usually isn't theirs to trade anymore.
Parent
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:3, Interesting)
And even when an artist tries to retain control of their songs, business interests get in the way [wikipedia.org].
Re:just how much will each artist make? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Next in line to pay up (Score:4, Funny)
FTFA: We have won another battle in an ongoing war," said John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI). "We move forward with a spring in our step."
All they have to do now is get all those undead [betanews.com] offenders to pay up.
the cost of music (Score:5, Insightful)
seems rather hypocritical that the RIAA won't allow AllofMP3 to sell songs for $0.05 when they are selling them for 10 times less..
Re:the cost of music (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
But.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Proper Settlement (Score:5, Interesting)
Like the rest of us ever get a real settlement from record indutry abuses.
20 Billion Tracks? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do they know those are all illegal? My CD collection is in my attic. My p2p software is on my desktop. I DL tracks from CDs I own all the time, because it's easier than finding the CD.
Did that get counted as an illegal download?
Re:20 Billion Tracks? (Score:3, Interesting)
well, given that it's a dpownloadm and what you're doing is illegal, I'd say "yes".
Fair use and the AHRA allow you to copy from a CD you own. Not one that someone else owns. I know they're identical, but what differenct does that make? The law can still be illogical.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have won another battle in an ongoing war [...] We move forward with a spring in our step."
I have to hand it to these guys, they can sure convince themselves of what they want to believe in.
And the artists get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kazaa would be better off throwing in the towel, a keyword search is too broad to block only protected works and will result in the service being mostly unusable for either legit or non legit uses.
OMG this is totally awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of Download Service will they Become? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) the option to purchase individual tracks cheap, like iTunes
2) with as little DRM as possible (preferably none)
3) the option to buy full albums that cost less than the physical version (say, Five Bucks)
4) the full albums would have the goodies like lyrics
5) there would be bonus materials not available in stores (just like with CDs that killed the LP)
6) Peer review of the tracks and/or albums would be permitted *by those who have bought them*, so we could know if the music was good or TeH sUcK.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
How about 4 out of 6, today? (Score:3, Informative)
1) $0.22/track - Check
2) None - Check
3) See 1) - Check
4) Nope, sorry.
5) Maybe, I've seen extra tracks available for some albums...
6) Check [emusic.com]
Check it out!
All New DRMed service coming soon? (Score:3, Interesting)
- have anywhere near the range of the old one?
- ship us DRMed files that aren't compatible with all our devices?
- cost less, the same or more than iTunes?
- be adware sponsored to keep costs of music down?
Unless there are favourable answers to all these questions (and more, no doubt), what possible incentive is there going to be to use this service.
I'd happily pay $50 a month (or whatever, some reasonable monthly fee / bandwidth even) to download whatever mp3s I wanted from Kazaa that anyone wanted to share. I'd happily let my downloads be tracked so it could go into a big database somewhere so royalties could be paid to artists and labels.
20 billion downloads? (Score:3, Insightful)
Behind the Times (Score:5, Funny)
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries? Ok guys, it's the 21st Century, so you may want to update the name a little. Although, I have to admit, the new USB turntable I installed on my multi-media PC is smokin'!
I wonder if they ever get confused with the International Federation of the Pornographic Industries?
Please, pretty please, once and for all (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, as with a major news organization such as the BBC, no need to wax philosophic on the actual real-world meaning and consequences of such actions, and the possible windfall (or lack thereof) to those who created the content in question. Rethorical question if you ask me.
Sort of like the "War On Terror(TM)"... By now everyone forgot why we are fighting it, as we are too involved in the day-to-day fighting to remember what it was supposed to be about.
Carry on lads, carry on....
Z.
Canada Number 2? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps that is due to our Blank Media levy [wikipedia.org] that makes downloading essentially legal in this country.
Now whether those billions of tracks were subsequently uploaded is another question entirely (this is not covered by the levy), but i suppose that doesn't help the RIAA:
"Them there Canucks did 23 Braaziiiilion downloads. Invade Canada!!"
RIAA wins! No one else does... (Score:5, Insightful)
100M will fund plenty RIAA prosecutions, and . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
This money could be used for attorney fees for going after the next P2P company, or to go after individuals downloaders/sharers, or to R&D for the next DRM scheme, or for lobbying governments for laws that benefit them and/or make it easier for them to target the above groups.
One thing it will likely not be used for is to work to further integrate musicians and their music into quality, legal digital distribution channels that allow broad consumer rights.
Go Mexico Go! (Score:3, Informative)
On a serious note, instead of "fragmenting" and making harder to see where to go, what they are doing is homogenizing (spell??) it. All those kazaa users will go ([to bittorrent+emule+X]-1) P2P software that is available. That is great from my point of view because that way you will have to hunt less places to get what you need.
I remember once I downloaded winmx and could found the GAMEDEV magazine ISO disks, unfortunately I could not download it because my connction was still a modem. In those days you had edonkey, kazaa, imesh, napster, and I dont remember how many others.
The more of those netwoks they close, the better another network will become (in anonymity, content and users).
Perhaps the money could go... (Score:3, Interesting)
But, here is my hope: I'd like to see the RIAA spend that $100m on the following:
*) Pay royalties/living wage/etc. to all those artists from the early days of recordings - the ones that got paid a pittance for performance, but never received any living from the subsequent profitability and ownership of those tunes/recordings. There are tons of older musicians out there that the public loves - musicians that are living in the "poor house" while corporations collect royalties.
*) Fund music education in the schools. Give good instruments to schools - particularly in areas where funding is scarce, and the kids can ill afford today's $1k+ instruments. Help pay music educators, particularly where budgets don't fund liberal arts.
*) Fund collaborations between experienced artists and up-and-coming artists. The beauty of music is that it is also meant to be shared between musicians, on top of being shared with its listeners. Fund collaborations with folks like B.B. King, Carlos Santana, Yoyo Ma, etc. and kids who are getting started out with music.
*) Fund and encourage labels to take risks with artists that are not necessarily the latest commercial success. If not funding the labels, fund the musicians themselves and give them access to qualified folks who can help spread their music.
*) Use the money to promote a broad spectrum of music from less-than-well-known artists. Give the listeners of the world music that comes from the soul, not the boardroom.
the money will be used for MORE lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
what will happen is the riaa's lawyers will get a new house, car and maybe some other toys, too.
riaa: "another day, another lawsuit"
Um funny numbers. (Score:4, Insightful)
I really think that the record companies might want to redirect their efforts from the P2P users & back to the sources. 30%+ of the CD's were not being cranked out in somebody's basement. This is & always has been big business.
Kaazzaa was stupid, IIRC they offered tracks for sale, but they also encouraged trading.
Personnally, I'm not certain how a P2P company can effectively filter files. Most titles contain common words. Filtering out audio files titled 'Stupid Boy Band #1' is also going to filter any podcast review of it. MD5 checking on the file? Rip w/ a different bitrate & it changes - hell you can rip a random watermark into the file & no 2 source copies of the song would have the same MD5.
The only effective thing is to respond to requests to remove specific indexes. But any bets on **AA surfing & submitting a request to every search engine every day? P2P has a lot of legitimate uses, some that distributers are starting to recognize, and it's not going away. So somewhere/sometime there has to be a compromise. So far the **AA isn't willing to see that. But as long as they are going to keep dumping restrictions people don't like onto how people can use thier media, they are going to see people pirating things en masse.
P2P is the enemy of Marketeers, not Artists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Files might be being downloaded 'illegally' but here in Europe the recording industry is doing better than it ever was. These n-billion files that are being downloaded cannot be counted as a loss, as they wouldn't be bought anyway. They are being downloaded precisely because they are free; an argument for damage here is absurd.
P2P is best thought of as an advanced try-before-you-buy network. For this reason the people that are losing money from P2P are not recording artists, but Marketing Execs that would like to steer our consumption interests and habits, in short to push crap on us we don't want. P2P lifts the standards of consumer choice.
"Artists around the world rejoice", my llama..
Re:Hungry artists... (Score:2)
Re:Hungry artists... (Score:3, Funny)