Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Kazaa Agrees to Pay $100m to the Record Industry 288

Posted by samzenpus
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Kazaa Agrees to Pay $100m to the Record Industry

Comments Filter:
  • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:32AM (#15790350) Homepage Journal
    I know theres a lot of artists, but does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?

    I personally think they will still be hungry.
    • by Reverend528 (585549) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:39AM (#15790403) Homepage
      I know theres a lot of artists, but does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?

      Technically, the artists now owe the RIAA money.

    • by KokorHekkus (986906) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:40AM (#15790404)
      Who knows... but it doesn't look good for the smaller artists I guess.

      To quote Janis Ian:
      ...from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show.

      And she goes on to state her opinion on the downloads as:
      Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.

      Source: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml [janisian.com]
      • by Roody Blashes (975889) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:04AM (#15790576) Homepage Journal
        Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

        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.
        • by russ1337 (938915) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:17AM (#15790663)
          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.

          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.
          • Comparing the process of entering into a business partnership of your own volition with purchasing services that are largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life is a ridiculous analogy.
            • To use your own argument: nobody is guaranteed the right to a modern living. What about the destitute millions across the globe who live without electricity, clean water, and so on. Right here in the good ol' U.S. there are plenty of homeless people. Electricity is no more a necessity than a record contract.
          • by ronocdh (906309) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @11:14AM (#15791194)
            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.

            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
            • Promotions, advertising, and connections are what sells most albums, not ideals. You could be making the greatest music in the world, and if nobody knows about it, it doesn't matter. How do you think the Brittney Spears and Ashlee Simpsons and every boy band ever sells so many damn records? Is it the music? Hell no, its the first 3 things above...

              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
        • 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?"

          • by Roody Blashes (975889) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:33AM (#15790812) Homepage Journal
            It doesn't matter one bit. If the risks are large for a certain potential payout, they must weigh their goals against those risks and make an informed decision. This is called "business". Hundreds of thousands of regular people try it every year and lose everything, make a modest living, or in some cases strike it rich. If they want to be in the business of big time entertainment, they can make the decision to take the necessary risks.

            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.
        • Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

          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, who is at the opposite end of that scale. At one time, Elvis Presley's representatives called her and said that Elvis wanted to record one of her songs ("I Will Always Love You"), with the condition that he be able to purchase half the publishing rights t
          • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:37AM (#15790847)

            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.

        • The RIAA constantly tries to sucker people into thinking that they're helping the artists, that stealing is wrong because it takes money away from the artists and that they're doing all that suing simply to help the poor artists. For that reason, hearing from actual artists who get screwed by the recording companies is good and important, regardless of whether it's their own damn fault.

        • by vertinox (846076) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:49AM (#15790967)
          Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

          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.
        • That's Janis Ian's point. She's saying the business model that RIAA espouses is bad for the artist, and that the RIAA's policy of preventing free downloads is also bad for (most) artists. Her mentioning of owing the record labels money is just an example of why performers shouldn't blindly sign with major record labels, and assume that they and the RIAA is on their side. If I were ripped off by someone I wouldn't sit back quietly and think, "well, I should have looked over the paperwork more carefully. I s
        • by Znork (31774) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @11:04AM (#15791114)
          "Like it or lump it, these people aren't being mugged of their rights, they have to willingly sign them away"

          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.
        • by ThePhilips (752041) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @11:14AM (#15791195) Homepage Journal

          Then I guess she shouldn't have entered into a contract that was a bad business deal for her.

          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.

          Are artists under any obligation to sign contracts with them? Absolutely not.

          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

    • by gid13 (620803) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:41AM (#15790408)
      I think the ones that are hungry are the ones that WANT people to download their stuff. And I think that labels are a monument to mediocrity and mistreatment. Let's not forget the guy from Creedence Clearwater, who got sued for copyright infringement OF HIS OWN WORK because the record label owned the copyright. Or, much as I may hate them, the Backstreet Boys, who, after several hugely popular albums, testified that they hadn't ever received a royalty cheque. Or DMX, who compared the music business to legalized slavery. Let's not forget that the major labels were convicted of price-fixing, and got the tiniest penalty imaginable. This is a short beginning of a very long list, but I'm not going to type it all. The point is: pretty much anything that results in the major labels getting more money is bad. And this likely will.
      • I just happened to tag onto your post as an interjection to the thread. I agree with your statement.

        I'm trying to blend the "screw the record company offerings" and "family values" ideals together. Music instruments can be bought for little money these days. So can some music sequencing software for a PC. With the savings of several CD purchases, why not just learn to make your own music as a family? The trash being pumped out as Pop music these days proves that amateurs can make music.

        Besides, I don't need
      • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:14AM (#15790646)
        Or DMX, who compared the music business to legalized slavery.

        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.

      • the Backstreet Boys, who, after several hugely popular albums, testified that they hadn't ever received a royalty cheque

        The Backstreet Boys don't DESERVE any royalties. Like most "boy bands" they are NOT a band at all. They're actors who were hired for their look and dancing abilities. They were paid employees of some media mogul that created the "band" before these guys even appeared (there were probably even sketches of the band drawn up before the first audition was even held). These "band members" ju

      • Or, much as I may hate them, the Backstreet Boys, who, after several hugely popular albums, testified that they hadn't ever received a royalty cheque.

        Unless I'm mistaken about them, the Backstreet Boys haven't produced anything that would earn them a royalty cheque anyway. You get royalties on things like songs, which they conspicuously didn't write ...

    • by peragrin (659227) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:41AM (#15790409)
      Zero.

      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.
    • by giafly (926567) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:43AM (#15790429)
      does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?
      "While the award may seem like a vast pot of money, it will merely offset the millions we have invested - and will continue to invest - in fighting illegal pirate operations around the world" - EMI Music vice chairman David Munns [macworld.co.uk]
    • The music industry reminds me of the carebear crafters you find in MMORPGs. They spend all day making helmets but when they go to the NPC to sell them they find that he won't give them much for them. So they try to sell them to passers-by but they aint interested in helmets. Everyone's got a helmet already. So they start telling people how great their helmets are and claim all sorts of magical properties that they don't really have, just in the hope that someone will try one of their helmets and see how
    • Somwhere in the range of $0.00 I believe.
    • Most likely the artist will see none of these profits. Artist make very little on the sale of their music. Their money is made in concert venues and sales of merchandise. Why do you think they spend so much time on the road?
    • by dr_dank (472072) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:44AM (#15790441) Homepage Journal
      If the artists actually owned their music, they would see some decent money. After being pressured by the label, being told that there are a thousand more waiting in the wings to sign on the dotted line, lest they pass up the "chance of a lifetime", they'll sign anything, including the part about the label owning the copyright to their songs.

      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.
      • If the artists actually owned their music, they would see some decent money. After being pressured by the label, being told that there are a thousand more waiting in the wings to sign on the dotted line, lest they pass up the "chance of a lifetime", they'll sign anything, including the part about the label owning the copyright to their songs.

        And even when an artist tries to retain control of their songs, business interests get in the way [wikipedia.org].

    • After legal fees, administrative fees, and so forth are charged against the artists, the artists will OWE the labels money for this "protection." ;)
    • by Solomon Grundy (991428) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:28AM (#15790768)
      In the book "This Business of Music", by M. William Krasilovsky, there is a very poignant flowchart/diagram. In this diagram, it shows in a nutshell how music goes from the artist to the consumer/fan. The bottleneck within this diagram was, not surprisingly, the distribution channels - where the music goes from the manufacturer to the stores/wholesellers. The major distribution chains, at least within the US, are essentially owned and operated by the major music companies. That is the real reason the RIAA and record companies are so concerned, because a large portion of the markup between the artist to the consumer falls in the distribution chain. Therefore, whoever controls the distribution of music essentially controls the elasticity of supply/demand and, therefore, can potentially move pricing. In addition, and to paraphrase from memory, when Radio was first developed, the music industry was concerned that allowing people to listen to music for free would destroy the music publishing industry (i.e. the printing and selling of sheet music). Then, the creation of the recordable, blank cassette tape was supposed to destroy the music industry. And so on...There is no argument that either the RIAA or the recording industry can use that will disprove the simple fact that they are ultimately only concerned for their own pocketbooks, not those of the artists themselves.
    • THink of all the many poor starving lawyers who have spent their whole lives specializing in the file sharing extortion paradigm. This deal will put them out of work! Will they be compensated?
    • Nothing. Artists already are entitled to little from sales and royalties, after signing bad contracts with dishonest brokers. The labels and royalty agencies (BMI, ASCAP, a few tiny ones) just steal the income most of the time, while keeping the books, too. I expect that they will add a "bootlegger recovery fee" to their contracts and payments, so artists will wind up making less. And lawyers will make much more.

      The $100M from Kazaa will come from their new Skype income. But $100M goes fast in lawyerland. T
    • Hungry artists across the globe rejoice


      Hungry Lawyers are the only ones to profit here... All in three easy steps


      Step 1) go to law school
      Step 2a) buy a politician, oop's they're already bought
      Step 2a) join a law firm owned by politicians
      Step 2b) find a target to sue
      Step 3) Profit!

      Hillary Rodham-Clinton's brother earned US $1B from sueing tobacco companies.

    • How much will Kazaa actually pay? Do they even have $100 million? $1 million? They probably stripped any assets fropm the company months ago and will just let it go bankrupt.
    • "I know theres a lot of artists, but does anybody know just how many and just how much of this money will actually go to the artists?"

      Typically with a "big ticket" performer the artist can expect to see 8%-12% of the net profit. Anything over 10% and you are a superstar. Bands would see about the same and have to split it between all members. So if you have a record that has a profit of 5 million (profit, not gross - promotions, advertising, travel expenses, etc all must be paid before it is considered "p
    • Agreed. As this site shows [downhillbattle.org], artists may actually make slightly less per song on iTunes, the 'legal, moral' music download service, than if they sell a physical CD. Considering there's no CD case, physical disc, jacket art, or 'shrinkage' built into the price, it's pretty obvious that the big record companies (and Apple.. yes, beloved Apple) are trying to propagate the same rapacious terms forward into the new online music distribution model.

      Say no to 'legal' download services like iTunes, Napster and this n
  • by MECC (8478) * on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:32AM (#15790357)
    Now lets see how much they'll pay to all the people whose PCs have been crippled by all the malware kazaa dumps on their computers.

    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.

    • 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."

      Then Kennedy said "Ask not what the RIAA can do for you, but what you can do for the RIAA!".
  • the cost of music (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tehwebguy (860335) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:35AM (#15790372) Homepage
    $100,000,000.00 / 20,000,000,000 Songs = $0.005

    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..
    • Yes, but you see, the RIAA owns those songs (well, the artists do, but the RIAA is like a big strong pimp that keeps the artist-hoes in their place)... it is the principle of it... you see, the... it... ...VICTORY IS MINE *runs to secret RIAA-funded escape pod* You'll never catch us!
  • But.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zo1dberg (939135) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:35AM (#15790374)
    Why does the money go to "the record industry", and not these "hungry artists"?
    • If the hungry artists are fed, then the only thing they can complain about piracy hurting is their bottom line. Who is more likely to draw sympathy, a starving artist or "the man?"
  • Proper Settlement (Score:5, Interesting)

    by N8F8 (4562) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:36AM (#15790378)
    The record industry claimants should get a 20% discount on future Kazaa downloads.

    Like the rest of us ever get a real settlement from record indutry abuses.
  • 20 Billion Tracks? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stealie72 (246899) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:36AM (#15790380)
    Wow, 3+ tracks for every person on the planet?

    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?
    • Yes, now bend over. - RIAA spokesperson.
    • by 91degrees (207121)
      Did that get counted as an illegal download?

      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.
    • DL tracks from CDs I own all the time, because it's easier than finding the CD

      Wouldn't it be better to get all your CDs, rip them onto your computer in the format and bit rate you want, rather than downloading a version of P2P which is a heavily compressed casette tape recording of a song played on the radio?

      I used to use P2P to download, but gave up when the bit rate said 192kbs and it was obviously 64kbs re-encoded at 192kbs...
    • 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.

      Unfortnately it is, the illegal action you are commiting is distributing the material because as you download you are also uploading. If I am right what you will be sued for is copyright infringment which is illegal distribution of their intellectual works.

    • using the industry's method of counting, where *every* download = a "lost sale" (which anyone with common sense knows isn't true); they probably count a downloaded track split between 20 peers (sources) as *20* downloaded files, not one.
  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kripkenstein (913150) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:36AM (#15790383) Homepage
    In other news, use of Bittorrent and eDonkey networks is up.

    "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.
    • They would make excellent motivational speakers. Although personally, I'd rather use them in a zoo: "And if you look to your left, you'll see the RIAA-lawyer-sapien; a distant relative of man, the RIAA-laywer-sapien lives to feed maliciously and violently on the weak and wounded. Uh oh, hold on to your hats, it looks like a 13 year old girl just downloaded a Britney Spears song in the RIAA-layer-sapiens' pen... there they go folks... look at the way they swarm and strike with a spring in their step, it is
  • by grapeape (137008) <mpope7 AT kc DOT rr DOT com> on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:41AM (#15790412) Homepage
    And the hungry artists who were "damaged" by this get a $1 off coupon for their next recording session advance.

    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.
  • by Heir Of The Mess (939658) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:42AM (#15790417) Homepage
    Now instead of having a large range of MP3s to choose from I can choose from a limited range of music that is encumbered with DRM. Where do I send my money?...allofmp3.com I guess. I wonder if the music industry will eventually get it?
  • by KarmaOverDogma (681451) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:42AM (#15790422) Homepage Journal
    That's just as interesting a subject as their change of heart. Ideally there would be:

    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.
    • 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!

    • Why should the music industry make things *better* for the purchasing citizens? That's just crazy talk!

      Consider iTunes. It'd cost $23 to purchase Battlestar Galactica soundtrack. I can purchase it in stores for $13.

      The point isn't to make money, or create a new, better distribution system. It's to tighten control on the system they already have in place. Change will happen in spite of them, not because of them.

      It's time to support your independent music distributor.
      • http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ [magnetbox.com]

        I no longer buy music unless it's non-RIAA.

        The madness will not end until the money does.

        Every RIAA afiliate album you buy is money for another lawsuit.

        If, like I do, you disagree with the business' tactics, there is only one language they understand: money.

        Stop buying CRIA/RIAA tunes, but spend the same money on other (independant) albums.

  • by trawg (308495) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:43AM (#15790427) Homepage
    Cool - will the 'new Kazaa'...

    - 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.
  • by complete loony (663508) <Jeremy.Lakeman@g ... Tcom minus punct> on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:44AM (#15790442)
    That's not a war, that's a massacre.
  • Kazaa...? Oh, I remember. It was big back in the nineties, right?

    What, it still exists?! No way.
  • by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrotherNO@SPAMoptonline.net> on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:45AM (#15790448) Journal
    "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."

    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?

  • ...and countless others that then disappear without trace and become replaced by other filesharing networks and software. Brilliant. Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people... Minds like golfish some people...

    "The market is now fragmenting. Unless you are an ardent downloader it is becoming harder to know where to go," he said.

    Yer, I know. Everyone struggled when Napster ceased to be.
  • by zuki (845560) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:47AM (#15790464) Journal
    What the scariest thing is with this type of settlement is that no one,absolutely no one seems to really know - or care - about what will happen to such a huge pile of money, and further that it probably will only go to enrich those who have major chart successes, their lawyers, or the IFPI itself (claiming it needs more $$ to fight piracy), rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded.

    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.
    • rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded
      You're either forgetting that the CRIA/RIAA/IFPI types ARE the Labels (and so the "copyright holders" are effectively, if not actually, getting the money) or you're under the mistakened* impression that artists hold the copyright to the music they write...

      *excepting artists who never signed with a label...and well, they wouldn't be represented in this anyways, right?

    • rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded
      Don't confuse artist with copyright holder. In this case, the RIAA/IFPI is the copyright holder by contract, and the artist is just the workhorse. As such, the money is going to the copyright holder.
  • And with Kazaa's refocusing into a pay service, it clearly shows that the RIAA is finally realizing the power that peer to peer networks have and will be able to mold it into a high quality distribution method. Plus there's already a high installed userbase to give this new service a strong kickstart.

    What's that? Look at Napster? Didn't they get sued to oblivian?

    THAT'S a pay service now too?! We're doomed...
    • What's that? Look at Napster? Didn't they get sued to oblivian?

      THAT'S a pay service now too?! We're doomed...

      Not to mention , Napster stinks now. My wife tried using them to get music for her iRiver but had nothing but technical problems with the downloads not working, plus all sorts of extra fees for the songs she really wanted, as opposed to the general tripe they peddle. Kinda sad to see this happening.

  • Canada Number 2? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:49AM (#15790473)
    TFReport cites Canada as the second worst 'offender' in music downloads worldwide.
    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!!"
    • This is just marketing/FUD. It's important for them to keep stating that Downloading Is Illegal, despite the fact that this not universally true.
      (1) As you stated, downloading even copyright material is legal in Canada. (2) They noticably never state that (even elsewhere!) a lot of downloading is legal -- for example all the cc-license stuff.
      Copyright Law doesn't make Downloading illegal. And this sort of talk is not accidental. It's important for this issue to be black and white. By repeatedly stating t
  • by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:51AM (#15790484)
    "Hungry artists across the globe rejoice" isn't even in the article- probably because it's just wrong. And while I do not support illegal filesharing, I do have to agree with earlier posters that the starving artists won't see a dime of this settlement. In fact, I'd be suprised if any artists, even the 'big names', get some of the settlement. The artist's contract only gets them money under certain conditions- and I'll bet that 'settlements from lawsuits' are not one of those conditions. No, this is a victory for the RIAA, but not particularly helpful to anyone else.
    • "Hungry artists across the globe rejoice" isn't even in the article- probably because it's just wrong
      Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
      Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.
  • by ysaric (665140) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @09:57AM (#15790523)

    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)

    by xtracto (837672) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:11AM (#15790616) Journal
    Wee Mexico on the TOP 10 list!.

    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).

  • by ursabear (818651) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:43AM (#15790896) Homepage Journal
    I don't know if the settlement will change the way music/software/content is traded and shuffled via the internet.


    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.
  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @10:49AM (#15790963)
    the artists won't get a penny.

    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)

    by tinkerghost (944862) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @11:01AM (#15791081) Homepage
    OK 80% of Pirate CD stands (physical media) were closed in a Mexican city -> 25%+ increase in sales.
    .25/.8=.3125 = 31%+ of all sales in the city were pirate CD's - physicals not downloads - and not including impulse buys because they were cheap.
    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.
  • The more you tighten your grip, RIAA, the more P2P networks will slip through your fingers.
  • Come on people, who here really thinks that Kazaa is going to pay that kind of money to the RIAA?

    An even better question is, do they even have that kind of money in the first place?!

    More likely Kazaa will just divest themselves of all their assets, loot what they can from the cofers and then declare bankruptcy.
  • by delire (809063) on Thursday July 27, 2006 @12:11PM (#15791742)

    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..

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.

Working...