Punknews.org

|
Sign In | create an account

Nettwerk Music Group takes on RIAA

Posted by aubin on Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 3:30 PM (EST)

Nettwerk Music Group, a Canadian management group and record label will be supporting an accused music downloader in a lawsuit against the RIAA. The suit, brought by the trade organization, argues that 15 year-old Elisa Greubel had 600 tracks shared on a family computer. The group has demanded that Greubel pay a $9,000 stipulated judgment as a penalty, though it will accept $4,500 should Greubel concede in a specific period of time.

Nettwerk became involved in the battle against the RIAA after Elisa contacted MC Lars, an artist represented by the company. She had this to say:

My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA. No fun. You can't fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions. The line 'they sue little kids downloading hit songs', basically sums a lot of the whole thing up. I'm not saying it is right to download but the whole lawsuit business is a tad bit outrageous.

Chicago-based Mudd Law Offices will take on the legal battle which is among thousands of so-called John Doe lawsuits where the RIAA issued subpoenas to various Internet Service Providers (ISPs). These ISPs include commercial, academic, and private providers of internet service.

Besides paying for the legal team, Nettwerk has also agreed to pay any fines should they lose the lawsuit.

In addition to MC Lars, Nettwerk represents artists including Gob, Sum 41, Men Women & Children, Pezz (Billy Talent) and Brand New.

Games and Technology (161 comments)

Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?

Share your opinion by posting comments on the stories that interest you
Rate music and bands and help shape the weekly top ten
Let Punknews.org use your ratings to help you find bands and albums you might like
Customize features on the site to get the news the way you want.

Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Seriously.

northdakotaKILLS (January 26, 2006)

good to see some people are fighting back. fuck the RIAA and fuck sum 41

5+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

why fuck sum 41?

Someone (January 26, 2006)

sum 41 has nothing to do with this, dickbag

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

Um, the story is not about Sum 41.

northdakotaKILLS (January 26, 2006)

uh and fuck you. i just threw that in there because they mentioned them in this post, take a joke dickbags.

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

Okay, dumbass. I wasn't some guy who insulted you, but you can fuck off anyway.

northdakotaKILLS (January 26, 2006)

calm down buddy! i wasnt talking to you in particular, it was just that you were the last one to reply so i replied to you. i'm sure you are a nice and friendly person.

Marlon (January 26, 2006)

Nah, he's an asshole.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Fuck you! -Chinatown

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

Wtf?

Marlon (January 26, 2006)

*shrug* I got bored. It's PN. Have a cookie and some warm milk. You're doing great.

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

ok, I love you.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

marlon, there is no other way of saying this, but, you suck.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

sum 41's not bad.

TheOneTrueBill (January 26, 2006)

That's why I usually only use Soulseek for bootlegs and shit.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Finally a reason to give two shits about anything Canadian.

6+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Don't worry, Canada doesn't give two shits about you either.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

we dont give two shits cause we're so much better. Stupid americans, go shoot someone

Someone (January 26, 2006)

You smell.

David_Arquette (January 26, 2006)

The Weakerthans.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

pure shit...

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Fuck you,

Someone (January 26, 2006)

....in your ass Dudley Dooright.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 27, 2006)

get a username dude, yer hilarious (to make fun of).

Aubin (January 26, 2006)

I don't think anyone comes off well in these lawsuits. At this point, there isn't much justification for downloading music; it does seem to have an effect on independent bands and labels, and it's not like you can't stream 50% or more of an album these days to decide if you'll like it. I don't think downloading music instead of buying is fair, but the RIAA is showing themselves to be as wrong, if not worse with these strongarm techniques. Throwing a thousand lawsuits at a wall and hoping something will stick is borderline unethical by itself, but what is seeming more and more like extortion seems equally distasteful. Nettwerk is doing a generous thing by supporting this girl against bullying, but that doesn't mean that downloading music is suddenly a nice thing to do.

11+ Replies

rkl (January 26, 2006)

there is a lot of justification to downloading music, even though piracy is theft, straight up. i have no problems with pirating large amounts of music, and i have no problems with theft. (1) its easier to download a lot of albums than it is to buy them, especially if the only other alternative is mail order (2) frankly, a lot of stuff is out of print, or vinyl-only. no record player/time machine means youre screwed on that front (3) the ability to check out lots of new bands without paying a price. without leeching, honestly, i dont know if i ever wouldve gotten into punk to the extent that i have but, as in any other case, if you are going to break the law, you have to be prepared to face the consequences. if i get arrested for smoking pot, im not going to curse the police, i put myself in the situation fully understanding what would happen if i were to be caught.

show rest of comment

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

Not that I want to get into a downloading debate, but you said: "i have no problems with pirating large amounts of music, and i have no problems with theft. (1) its easier to download a lot of albums than it is to buy them, especially if the only other alternative is mail order" Would the same logic not apply to: "i have no problems with stealing purses from old ladies, and i have no problems with theft. (1) its easier to steal a lot of purses than it is to work for a living, especially if work is hard and you live near an old age home" -adam :)

rkl (January 26, 2006)

yes, it would, and i wholly agree, but when you dont have a steady mailing address or access to credit cards, mail order is not an option.

Aubin (January 26, 2006)

(1) its easier to download a lot of albums than it is to buy them, especially if the only other alternative is mail order That's true; but the bands that sell their stuff only via mail order are the ones who are getting hurt the most by this. (2) frankly, a lot of stuff is out of print, or vinyl-only. no record player/time machine means youre screwed on that front No problem there; I think if something goes out-of-print, it's reasonable to get it by other means. (3) the ability to check out lots of new bands without paying a price. without leeching, honestly, i dont know if i ever wouldve gotten into punk to the extent that i have Sure; we used to trade mix CDs at one point, but the problem is people who download say, an Alkaline Trio album and burn it to a CD instead of buying it when you can find it everywhere. I think the situations you're talking about

show rest of comment

Someone (January 26, 2006)

You have to admit that buying lesser-known independant CDs in Canada is one hell of a hassle. -Chinatown

CrookedSuperhero (January 26, 2006)

Aubins gets CDs sent to him for free.

Kenjamin (January 26, 2006)

Downloading that stuff isn't going to get you sued though, it's more of an ethical thing which you are able to justify and some people can't.

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

Very true, but those tiny bands are the ones that are really going to hurt when nobody pays them them for their records, so it goes both ways. -adam

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Regardless, I find it difficult to side with anyone with bad taste in music. I just have zero sympathy for people like that. -Chinatown

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

yeah dude, same here. its kind of funny but, if shes just downloading radio singles, shes just a stupid bitch.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

You are so intellecually enlightened. douche.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

You want a good justification for downloading music? 25 bucks at FYE for a plastic disk with 2 overproduced songs with a catchy riff and some oddly enchanting refrain and 10 shitty overproduced songs with an annoying riff and some oddly mindnumbing refrain. The RIAA is suing to get solid hold of the marketplace. They're suing to gather back their product. What was stolen wasn't songs. It wasn't music. The music, really, the RIAA couldn't give a fuck about. They need the machine. You see, the music industry and the automotive industry sell their products very similarly. Think of a car ad. What info about the car can you gain from it? You see the car. You get the idea that it's swift, manueverable. Or maybe that it has a lot of trunk space. Or maybe that it can go off road. But you're not really getting info. You're just getting an projection of the i

show rest of commentYou want a good justification for downloading music? 25 bucks at FYE for a plastic disk with 2 overproduced songs with a catchy riff and some oddly enchanting refrain and 10 shitty overproduced songs with an annoying riff and some oddly mindnumbing refrain. The RIAA is suing to get solid hold of the marketplace. They're suing to gather back their product. What was stolen wasn't songs. It wasn't music. The music, really, the RIAA couldn't give a fuck about. They need the machine. You see, the music industry and the automotive industry sell their products very similarly. Think of a car ad. What info about the car can you gain from it? You see the car. You get the idea that it's swift, manueverable. Or maybe that it has a lot of trunk space. Or maybe that it can go off road. But you're not really getting info. You're just getting an projection of the image that car represents. You're told the SUV is rugged, outdoorsy; the minivan is a great family car; and the sports car can really take corners. But they're not selling you on the specs of the car. You don't get told the MPGs, the emisions report, the estimated amount of repairs you'll have to pay to keep the car running in 5 years, the parts and specs of the parts of the engine, or transmission or anything else. You're getting just an image. Now, let's look at marketing the RIAA's products. That's what Kelly Clarkson, Linkin Park, Wu-Tang Clan, etc are. Products. But what do you know about Kelly Clarkson from her "ads." (Really the ads for 'artists' are their public appearances, spots on TV/radio, even music videos or radio playtime) What info can we really get about her music? We see her, we can admire her form. She's pretty sexy in that video right (okay, bad example on the kelly clarkson, but we'll assume she is for the sake of argument). Or how about Linkin Park? They have randomly colored hair; they seem edgy; they have cool tattoos (arguably). Wu-Tang we get to see the bling, the "street" image. There's that word again. What're we getting from these "ads" again? The projection of an image. So what happens when you take the time to gather information about a car before buying it? When you scout it heavily, when you know the hard facts about the ins and outs of the car? Are you still going to buy the H2 with its massive MPGs adn terrible emissions? Are you still going to buy a jaguar despite its terrible record of maintenance? Does another car with a lesser image perform comparably (or even better) than the one with the great image? You're now buying informed and not seeking the same product. The machine broke down and you're not buying on image alone. That's what's happening with the RIAA here. They're suing random IPs for being informed of music before they bought the CD. C'mon, how many of us have those CDs from when we were 14 and bought something we heardon the radio but it turns out the album sucked? Everyone of us. We bought an image, and it didn't turn out to be so good. Even still, there are a lot of people who will buy a hummer, then buy the next 'cool' car. The same way that there are a ton of people who will buy a Kelly Clarkson CD, then by the next #1 artist. But when you download the music, you're exposing yourself to a whole new volley of information. You discover very quickly that the lyrical content of RIAA artists is shit. Then you discover that they aren't really very good at playing their instruments (if they play them at all). Then you discover those that really are good at playing their instruments, or really are lyrically sound, or maybe you just find that there's a local music scene that you're totally enchanted by. You stop buying on image, though. You start buying on content. You walk away from the machine. Want to see this in action? There's a clip floating around the web, it may be hard to find now, but it exists, in which Metallica is promoting their album, Kill Em All. I'm going to misquote this, but the clip is something like "Everyone go out and tape our new album, Kill Em All, for your friends." Umm, what? That's piracy. But what's the difference between Metallica in those days and Metallica Vs Napster? When you're a small overconfident act, you just want people to listen to your music. You're very sure that when they do, they'll love it. You know that you just need to be heard. It's confidence in the product. When the target hears your music, it'll be so good that they'll buy the album (even if they have a tape). Then they'll buy a T-shirt at the show they'll come to because it's so good. Then they'll tape the album for their friends and they'll buy T-shirts and come to the show too. That mechanic, however, is not what the RIAA uses. Remember, they sell image, so the musical content can be cut out in favor of making the shelf life short (and the buyer have to purchase more songs). The RIAA doesn't want you to buy a T-shirt or come to shows. It just wants you to buy a CD. But it wants you *all* to buy a CD. It really doesn't care if Linkin Park can put out five billboard #1 albums. It can make another five bands get to #1. It doesn't care that Linkin Park can sell out an arena. If they don't someone else surely will. All that the RIAA wants you to do is buy the image in the form of the album. They just want you to stay in the machine and buy the crap they throw at a wall to see if it sticks. You'll also note that small labels or independent labels aren't complaining about music downloading. Why is that? Do you think those labels are still trying to sell hype and image? No, these labels are getting bands that they're confident in. They're making music that they're sure, when the targets hear it, will be liked. They're not making artists to come out, have one hit song... maybe two, then disappear again. They're making artists that will create a fan base that knows the product. That knows what guitar is used, that learn the chords and the songs, that may correspond with the band in a real way. The smaller, independent labels are less interested in making a large number of people buy shitty albums, and are more interested in making a small number of people buy good albums. That, folks, is the cold hard difference. The RIAA is suing music downloaders, not over the songs, but over the machine. They never thought that the petty trading of tapes to friends or taping of songs off the radio could ever evolve into what the internet trading is today. They built a machine with an achiles heel that they never thought to cover. And it was hit. Now, they're scrambling to recover. It's not about the music. It's about sales. So, when you think of it as the RIAA suing a 15 year old girl over their sales being short, do you have the same sympathy for them? Or does it seem like the dinosaurs are dying to the new marketplace?

ILOVESCOTT (January 26, 2006)

brilliant

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Wow. I'm trying to decide if you typed that all up or you copy/pasted that from somewhere. Either way it's a pretty good read. Kudos.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

please get a username so i can worship you.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

good post. I hate Metallica!

thegetaway (January 26, 2006)

Some guy tried to pee on Lars Ulrich http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news. aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=47396

5+ Replies

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

that guy is cool. FUCK LARS ULRICH!!!

TheOneTrueBill (January 26, 2006)

Best picture ever - http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/BlabberPhotos/LARS/billvlar s.jpg

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

I can't quite tell what's going on. Is the dude in the hat holding his dick?

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

yes.

thegetaway (January 26, 2006)

uhhh not sure what the link is so I'm not going to click on it quiet yet because I'm at work but man, I really want to

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

its not anything overly perverted. click it. you'll laugh. especielly when you see his face.

thegetaway (January 26, 2006)

haha that dude in the hat is like a zombie. "Must pee on Lars Ulrich"

Someone (January 27, 2006)

Dude! They mention he's from the band Bickley. Some of you may have heard their stuff listening to the first 2 Punk Bites comps. on Fearless. Him of all people! God if only a more well known punk rock figure did that to a rockstar like that.

Marlon (January 26, 2006)

Your mom is in Broken Social Scene.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

anyone know where i can get that new loved ones album?

3+ Replies

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

Someone posted a download link in the thread. If you still can't get ahold of it there, give me your IM name and I'll send it.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

bullsrul924

Someone (January 26, 2006)

notheydont133t

BeaArthur (January 26, 2006)

In a store near you in a month funny guy.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

these guys are the fcc of 2006.

somegirl (January 26, 2006)

The RIAA is so full of shit-- "Hey, let's sue a bunch of 15 year olds!" rather than, you know, actually putting out good records.

4+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

The RIAA doesn't put out records.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Maybe they should create a sub-association that look out for labels who do put out good records.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

omg, fuck RIAA Records. they're like, such a shitty label and stuff.

Someone (February 25, 2006)

I have a 5 years old daughter.Their can't wait for 7 years to fuck her too.I like to see them try. FTRIAA

Anchors (January 26, 2006)

There are so many benefits to embracing music downloading, that at this point, the RIAA isn't just digging its own grave, they're sealing the coffin. I had a professor last semester who had a pretty well thought out idea about how to both supplement lost income, and promote buzz for bands in their new releases. The idea is to charge every person with internet acess an extra dollar a month on their bill. This is regardless of ISP, regardless of whether or not you download, or anything pertaining to that. So that's an extra $12 a year from each person with the internet, however many millions that is, and in return for this the RIAA would stop the lawsuits, and p2p sharing would be legalized. This way everyone wins. Now, there was some other intricacies to this idea that I'm leaving out simply because I can't remember them, but you get the idea. Now I'm sure somebody would c

show rest of comment

12+ Replies

TheOneTrueBill (January 26, 2006)

That solution is too reasonable, therefore it would never work.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

One problem... What about independant labels? What about those of us who are in bands that aren't going to get signed to majors and get a take in this bounty. In theory the idea of everyone paying a little for unlimited access is fine, but I hardly see the supplementing of income to anyone but the RIAA. Artists (especially independant ones) = losing out. -Painaxl

CoD (January 26, 2006)

That would be cool. Ask your professor if he's tried giving it to a representative for your state or something.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Most people on this site don't listen to bands on labels protected by the RIAA. I;m one of them, and I assume that you are too. -Chinatown

Aubin (January 26, 2006)

That's all well and good, except I like to buy CDs. I also have internet access. Why should I pay twice when I don't download music? There is a similar deal in Canada where a percentage of all blank CDs go to a trust which is supposed to pay artists. I mainly use burned CDs for our label and for backing stuff up; why should I subsidize Celine Dion at the expense of the bands on my label?

Scruffy (January 26, 2006)

I'm not sure if I think it's the best idea, either, but I'd rather pay an extra buck a month if it means that grandmothers and teenagers stop getting sued. Problem is, not everyone agress with that, so you can't legislate it.

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

That's a defeatist attitude. What the RIAA is doing is WRONG. We shouldn't have to all pay them to stop doing it. That's extortion. -adam

CrookedSuperhero (January 26, 2006)

What alternative is there? Write some angry e-mails?

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

burn the fucker down.

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

"What alternative is there" is THE question isn't it? However if "bend over and take it" seems like a good solution to you... -adam

CrookedSuperhero (January 26, 2006)

As guy said before, i'd rather "bend over and take" a raping of £12 a year instead of some kid getting sued, no matter how shitty her tastes are. I don't really think that system would work, but an extra pound for unlimited and safe downloading? Hell yeah.

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

See, I think the RIAA just needs the courts to step in and smash down their little racketeering project. The idea that they can act like this than be rewarded with FREE MONEY FOREVER is not the solution I want to see. -adam

Someone (January 27, 2006)

aint free money....thats the problem

Anchors (January 26, 2006)

You're absolutely right as to them being wong, but as Crooky said, what's the alternative? And in any event, this money wouldn't be going to the RIAA, but the record labels, to help them get out of the ridiculous debt they're in. In turn, this would likely lower the prices of records, and reinvigorate interest in both makjor and indie labels. It's a defeatist attitude, yeah, but what are you willing to let the price of pride be?

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

How would this money be distributed? Who would get it? What about international artists? What about independents? What qualifies them? Who will enforce this "internet tax"? What about the people who buy records, why should they get fucked because the kid down the hall steals all of his music? Sorry. Taxing EVERYONE just to make the RIAA stop suing is a stupid, stupid, stupid idea. I don't have all the answers, but I know that one is not it. Do you want to live in a world where you get your internet bill, and you see it's been hiked by $5 per month suddenly because the RIAA arbitrarily decided their internet tax income wasn't enough? By what measure will they decide they should be compensated? How will we know they're not just dipping into your pocket to offset a year of poor record sales due to genuinely shitty records? -adam

Anchors (January 26, 2006)

As I said, I don't remember all the intricacies of this idea, so I can't answer any of your questions regarding those issues. But to call this a stupid idea is selling it extremely short. You said it yourself, you don't have all the answers, but here is somebody taking the initiative to attempt that, and it seems to be a very sound plan. The last half of your argument is all presumption, all "what ifs.'' Maybe in this legislation, it would be stated that this tax is not one that will be raised for x amount of years. Where as an extra 5 bucks a month could make or break somebody, one dollar won't. If you have a computer, and you have the internet, you have an extra 12 dollars a year. And this isn't the RIAA dipping into anyone's pocket, this is the internet using public paying a small fee in exchange for the ability to download freely at will. How many people are

show rest of comment

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

I don't mean to sound reactionary, so maybe I'll explain my reasoning a bit. The major problem I see is that this is an international issue, and taxation is a intra-national solution. Let's say the RIAA forces a tax on Americans, how does that curb piracy elsewhere? Are Americans expected to make up for the sales lost to piracy in Canada, Great Britain, Europe, Russia etc? Furthermore, the actual financial effect of downloading is unknown. It's impossible to know, even if you could measure the downloading numbers, how many of those downloads would otherwise be a sale. Not all downloads come at the expense of a sale, as many are for curiosity's sake. How will the RIAA determine this number, and what power would we as consumers have when they start increasing it? The fact of the matter is that the internet has changed the world. If the major record labels can't find a way to

show rest of comment

Anchors (January 27, 2006)

I'll start from the bottom so I don't lose a coherent thought. I think you make an excellent point, in that these big companies are dying out because they're too inept to roll with the times, change business practices, and have the foresight to at least somewhat anticipate a future business climate. Do these companies deserve to even be companies any more? Probably not, but let's say they weren't, what happens from there? I mean, there's so many factors to take into a prediction like that, it's unreal, so I won't even attempt it. But say you approach it not so much from the standpoint of giving labels money, but making downloads legal. Now, it hasn't been an issue for long enough to really gauge the financial and social aspects of it in a full breadth, but what I take from it is that downloading has helped a lot of smaller bands and labels. The kinds of kids that download

show rest of commentI'll start from the bottom so I don't lose a coherent thought. I think you make an excellent point, in that these big companies are dying out because they're too inept to roll with the times, change business practices, and have the foresight to at least somewhat anticipate a future business climate. Do these companies deserve to even be companies any more? Probably not, but let's say they weren't, what happens from there? I mean, there's so many factors to take into a prediction like that, it's unreal, so I won't even attempt it. But say you approach it not so much from the standpoint of giving labels money, but making downloads legal. Now, it hasn't been an issue for long enough to really gauge the financial and social aspects of it in a full breadth, but what I take from it is that downloading has helped a lot of smaller bands and labels. The kinds of kids that download music from a Smoke or Fire, from a Bane are the kids that regardless of how much they download, will be more likely to go out and buy that record. They understand how the scene works, and that these bands live on nothing, and need their money to survive. And you'll have to depend on human nature to hope that these same kids will still support these small bands they love, knowing if they don't, they won't exist anymore. They don't have the luxury of a fat contract. Another aspect, is that since so many of these records are leaking, or just being heard early, is it forcing bands to write better music? Ten years ago, bands could make an awful, awful record, knowing kids will go out to buy it only because of the name of the band. They have no choice but to drop the 12 bucks to hear the album, there is no alternative. But now, you make a shitty album and it leaks, it IS going to hurt record sales. So maybe that's some incentive. I completely understand where you're coming from, but to be honest, I don't have any answers for you. I don't know how the international market would be affected, would labels have to work with foreign governments, or foreign label imprints? How would they be compensated, what if legislation overseas didn't pass to allow this type of thing to occur? I'm well aware of the faults that could potentially hamper this idea, but I think it's an avenue at very least worthy of exploring.

Scruffy (January 26, 2006)

Honestly, the best course of events would be to develop some situation like the book indsutry has done. Libraries have books for free, people are allowed to lend books to friends, and new hardcovers cost close to thirty bucks, and yet the book industry is HUGE.

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

The difference is books are less accessible (it takes 3 minutes to listen to a song, far longer to read a book), and music now functions as digital information, as opposed to books, which is almost always in text form (with the rare instances being that eBooks thing).

Scruffy (January 26, 2006)

Yeah, but the fact remains that books are more cost-prohibitive and are found free legally. Also, I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather pay a buck for a song I could listen to every day forever than 30 bucks for a book I'll only read once.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

but you could read it twice...

Someone (January 26, 2006)

I don't care about my relatives. Lock them all up. Dirty frogs. -Chinatown

Anchors (January 26, 2006)

I love buying music too, and if in some crazy turn of events something like this ended up happening, I would still purchase just as many CD's as I do now. I wouldn't look at it as 'paying twice,' persay, it's such a small amount, and even if you personally would not reap the benefits, because you don't download, surely you'd be fine with the good it's doing to labels. Trust me, I don't want any more money to go to artists that don't deserve it as much as the next guy, but you have to think about where things are headed on this path. The sale of digital downloads increased some ridiculous percentage this year, it may seem extreme, but how long before music is barely even put into a tangible medium? How long before everything is digital, and you or I could not go to our favorite record stores to pick up a long awaited album? The fact is that labels are in so muc

show rest of comment

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

how would they know how much money to give each band?

Someone (January 26, 2006)

I assume that the most "ripped-off" bands would get the most cash. Unfair, as usual. -Chinatown

Someone (January 26, 2006)

« I had a professor last semester who had a pretty well thought out idea about how to both supplement lost income, and promote buzz for bands in their new releases. The idea is to charge every person with internet acess an extra dollar a month on their bill. » Just before Xmas a law about internet and piracy has been discussed and voted in the French parliament. A majority of MPs (both left and right wing together) voted an extra "surprise" article (against the government will) that was exactly based on this principle : people who wanted to download music or films would pay a few more euros per month to their ISP and would then be granted a full downloading right. People who wouldn't pay but still download would be sued if caught. The government and our local equivalent of the RIAA went mad at that and the law is going to be rewritten and submit to parliamentary vote aga

show rest of comment

Someone (January 26, 2006)

I heard about this. pretty cool idea

Neo_Reloaded (January 26, 2006)

The problem is that this takes out all competitiveness in the music industry. If everyone could download for free, legally, CD sales would drop even more, and download sales would drop pretty close to 0. So... what gauges whether a band is deserving of more money than another band? Downloads can be tallied and bands paid accordingly, but this all but shuts down many independent artists, and makes the industry focused on hit singles over solid records even more than it already is. And what incentives would record labels have to take risks? People are paying this $1 a month no matter what - it's not like people can just stop if they don't like any new music. It takes away the consumer's ability to vote with their dollars. Not to shit on the idea - it certainly is interesting, and any idea that would make the RIAA stop this fucking bullshit is worth listening to - I

show rest of comment

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Rape Is Awesome Adam

1+ Reply

northdakotaKILLS (January 26, 2006)

o shit! thats what it stands for? i seem to like the riaa more now.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Is Fat really protected by the RIAA nowadays? -Chinatown

2+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

yup they are, google for the RIAA radar you'll see 'em listed.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

ok, heres the problem. i dont have any money and my parents stopped giving me money for cds years ago. does that mean i'm denied the right to listen to good music?

3+ Replies

Shindo (adam) (January 26, 2006)

No, but you might be denied the right to acquire it… by the same logic that you're also denied the right to buy sports cars or get new hardwood flooring put in. In a consumer economy when you have no money you can't buy things. When those things are essentials like food or shelter that's a different issue, when it's entertainment that's another. You aren't entitled to own everything you want. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I hate to be the guy who answers a question with "Get a job!" but I'm tempted to. -adam

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

yeah, you're right. i'm just bummed i'm gonna be missing so many shows in march due to lack of funds.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Build a lemonade stand. -Chinatown

FAST_ED (January 26, 2006)

Get a god damn job!

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

i did some shit and now i have a police report. its funny how you dont get hired due to those things. and then i was self-employed for a while and the cops ended up taking that money. fucking bastards.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Your so punk.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

damn straight.

the_other_scott (January 27, 2006)

companies can't legally deny you employment because of a police record. i've been arrested twice (not that i'm that proud it) and i can find a job. thne again i have a degree so i guess that helps.

Someone (January 27, 2006)

your parents gave you money for CDs? lucky bastard.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

So basically what they are trying to say is Nettwork represents the worst music has to offer right now?

Someone (January 26, 2006)

thank god the RIAA is there to protect Against Me! they need all that cash to replace their slashed tires!

2+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Good one. It'd make a good sig on any punk board. I'm considering stealing it, actually. Ha!

plaidical (January 26, 2006)

money

Dante3000 (rich) (January 26, 2006)

Why not make her pay $600? That's what it'd be if they got the songs Via iTunes. That's like a 1500% mark up. Silly RIAA, no one will ever love you as long as you rape little children. Sure it's stealing but so what? Wal Mart steals more when you guy their music. Just do it first. -Dante

3+ Replies

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

and when you try to steal music from walmart they send you a bill for $300. and a lawsuit. life just isnt fair.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

itunes catalogue is total garbage.

plaidical (January 26, 2006)

seriously. markups suck. shoplifting is only a misdemeaner, right? sounds like a good alternative

FightToLive (January 26, 2006)

About fuckin time somebody stands up for downloading. The only reason I buy half the CD's I do is cause I download some songs by the band first & realize how much ass it kicks. Then I go buy it, which is why I have heard 2 of the new Loved Ones songs, and will be first in line February 21st to buy the CD. Make GOOD records and people will buy it!

3+ Replies

Kenjamin (January 26, 2006)

that's where you're wrong. Some people do not buy cds/dvds period - end of fucking story. I know because i have friends like this.

plaidical (January 26, 2006)

good point. me too. those friends piss me off to no end. they have no respect for the bands they love

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 27, 2006)

those retards probably wouldnt buy the cd anyway.

FAST_ED (January 26, 2006)

The RIAA is definitely not cool.

1+ Reply

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 27, 2006)

i spit in the face of those who are not cool.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

I'm rather indifferent towards this whole thing. Shitty company representing shitty labels sues girl with shitty taste in music. Who cares? -Chinatown

2+ Replies

sickboi (chris) (January 26, 2006)

Maybe the most intelligent comment you've ever posted....well said.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

i know. fuck this girl.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

I don't get it? Surely they were sueing her for her taste in music?

1+ Reply

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

laugh out loud.

die_die_die (January 26, 2006)

to make this post short. Downloading helps make it so you can't get fucked if a band puts out a shitty CD.

2+ Replies

CrookedSuperhero (January 26, 2006)

Exactly. I can't count the amount of times downloading has saved me having some piece of shit cd in my collection.

plaidical (January 26, 2006)

re: the new Yellowcard

boba_fett (January 26, 2006)

good for these guys.

Sick_Nick (January 26, 2006)

What happends if they sue you over a song say you sampled over the internet, but you bought the cd later on? Dosen't that make it legal to have the song? I have tons of songs on mine not nesscarly RIAA material that I just downloaded to check out the band, but I bought the cd with the song on it later down the road?

1+ Reply

CrookedSuperhero (January 26, 2006)

I think if you own the album on CD or vinyl you can say it's a backup copy.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Are thier any independent labels out there part of the RIAA, namely Epitaph?

2+ Replies

crazytoledo (January 26, 2006)

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp Ya they are there.

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

So is Side One Dummy, which really surprised me.

SalsaShark (January 26, 2006)

Holy shit, and BYO too.

Sick_Nick (January 26, 2006)

So you can sued for downloading shit from BYO?

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 27, 2006)

no, thats all bullshit. the riaa puts your label on unless you specifically request otherwise.

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Music downloading is a very tough ethical question. Rarely do you find such a large group of people breaking the law, where legal action can and may (very slim chance albeit) take place, while also adversely effecting a lot of people's incomes; theoretically all musicians. However, many times an illegal download can result in the spreading of the music amongst social networks. This can be a form of advertisement for the band, which is usually paid for out of their or their record label's pockets. In a world where every musician is competing against each other for your hard earned cash, every opportunity to be heard and enjoyed by somebody should be a cherished commodity. This is also cause for concern though, because the music you work hard and put many resources into is being freely distributed. The sole purpose of spending thousands of dollars for studio time and a prod

show rest of commentMusic downloading is a very tough ethical question. Rarely do you find such a large group of people breaking the law, where legal action can and may (very slim chance albeit) take place, while also adversely effecting a lot of people's incomes; theoretically all musicians. However, many times an illegal download can result in the spreading of the music amongst social networks. This can be a form of advertisement for the band, which is usually paid for out of their or their record label's pockets. In a world where every musician is competing against each other for your hard earned cash, every opportunity to be heard and enjoyed by somebody should be a cherished commodity. This is also cause for concern though, because the music you work hard and put many resources into is being freely distributed. The sole purpose of spending thousands of dollars for studio time and a producer is to sell the commodity that is now being distributed freely. You are also being pitted against every other musician imaginable, creating a highly competitive field. This can have both good and bad consequences. It may weed out the musicians not worthy of popularity, or it could cause such an influx of musicians that it may become cumbersome to find anything worth the time or the effort. Then there’s the whole issue of how to sell what is available for free. A lot of people justify their music downloads by saying, "I buy T-Shirts and/or go to their shows." This may help support the band, but in an industry that previously depended on people to buy their t-shirts, go to the shows, AND buy the CD; it is still not justifiable. A lot of people like owning the CD because of the lyrics, and the experience of owning the actual CD. This could essentially be embellished upon by making the CD buying experience an essential part of listening to the music. Not only put lyrics in the liner notes, but have the artists tell a story behind the songs, or talk about the creative process, or even have them write essays. The possibilities are endless. Sure, these may be scanned into a computer, or typed up by someone on the internet, but so can books. Nothing is quite like holding and reading literature. By only downloading the album, you would be missing out on something. There is also the justification that becoming a music fan is a lot easier nowadays through downloading music. A lot of hard to find music is a lot easier to find nowadays via the internet. It is also a lot easier for musicians just starting out to gather a worldwide following online. There is also something that has been termed “The Chumbawumba Effect.” I believe anybody that bought CD’s prior to music downloading has experienced this. Chumbawumba had a single out on the radio that sounded nothing like the rest of their album. A lot of people bought the album based upon one song they had heard (including myself), and were disappointed thoroughly by the rest of the album. This kind of effect made the radio a less useful tool for marketing. The internet has enabled music fans to listen to a whole album, and enable the consumer to make a well informed decision with the limited resources available. In the end, the ethical reasoning behind downloading music is still a debatable issue. A lot of people try and make the issue black and white; right or wrong. However, most of it is somewhere in a gray area (like most issues). The benefits of music downloads is undeniable. However, this does not come without detriment, and most of the music downloaded is still considered stealing. Many fans become critical of a band for signing to a major label, or charging too much for a show, or changing a musical style, when never showing their appreciation by buying a CD. I thank the bands that give me something to be passionate about. Hopefully I can give them a reason to get in a cramped van, drive to my city, play some songs for people like me, and do it all again the next day with the same energy and compassion every night.

2+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

Cross-Posted to www.punkswithpencils.com Oh, and why isn't this showing up as being posted by my user name, defyphysics. I'm logged in and everything. Also, I can't edit my user.php information. Any staffer willing to help out?

plaidical (January 26, 2006)

everyone breaks the speed limit. who's fitting over that?

fox82 (January 26, 2006)

Downloading Sum41 and MC Lars' tracks should be a crime.

crazytoledo (January 26, 2006)

Personally, I'm gonna agree with the RIAA. The come back is that what your doing is small and not hurting anyone. Go to a store and try to steal something worth $10 or so, if you get caught you can still get arrested. She had 600 tracks, thats the equilvaent of 50-60 cds right there, she's probably an ignorant teen download some pop and rap and the truth is her only defense is complaining that its unfair that she broke the law and is getting charged for the crime. It's not the RIAA's fault, they didnt force her to break the law. Tell that girls to go to Best Buy, grab a small cart, put 50-60 cds in and run out. Ask her if it's wrong. She'll obviously say yes, ask if she downloaded 50-60 cds and if its wrong, she'll say no. Ignorance doesnt give you a free pass to break the law. It's not like it was 10 songs or less, it was 600. The only time I ca

show rest of comment

4+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

I believe that there is a very simple answer... bands that dont want their music to be downloaded, join lables that are protected RIAA etc. If you want your music to be downloaded, join a lable that does not belong to any organization that will sue clients for dowloaing their songs. Does that work?

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

" Go to a store and try to steal something worth $10 or so, if you get caught you can still get arrested." True dat.

Someone (January 27, 2006)

Shut the hell up you stupid moron. Is the law always right?

crazytoledo (January 27, 2006)

In this case it is right. Stealing is stealing. If you owned a business and someone stole products from you, would you be mad? Also, almost every label is covered on the RIAA that releases cds (Epitaph, Ferret, Fat, etc.)

killyouridols (January 26, 2006)

kick ass

fallingupwards84 (January 26, 2006)

Ok, I personally prefer to buy all my music on vinyl. I prefer the sound of vinyl, and I love the appearance/uniqueness of it. I bought Lagwagon's new album Resolve on vinyl when the record store got it in stock. Now when I'm home, I listen to that. But if I'm in the car, of course I cannot listen to it then. So I downloaded the mp3s off Soulseek so I could play the songs in my car. Certainly that is not stealing.

3+ Replies

Someone (January 26, 2006)

I'm in the exact same boat as you. I haven't bought a CD in years, but I spend at least $150 a month on vinyl. With that, I have a 40gig mp3 player and it's much easier to download the album versus physically ripping the vinyl record to my computer. It may not hold in the court of law, but fuck it, I bought the album, and I'm going have a copy of it on my mp3 player.

FuckYouOiOiOi (January 26, 2006)

so.....you want the best of both worlds?!?

fallingupwards84 (January 27, 2006)

basically i want to be able to listen to what i paid for

plaidical (January 26, 2006)

A little off-topic, but: This talks about the RIAA subpoena-ing ISPs to get the IPs of downloaders. Does anyone know of a case where the RIAA sued an ISP? My university is telling me they were threatened with getting sued by a company becuase I downloaded some of their product. I use the university's ISP, so therefore they would be responsible, in addition to me. I am willing to accept the risk, but they are not, and they have taken my Internet away from me. Is their threat real? I have never heard of an ISP getting in trouble for it's users' actions, but I could be wrong.

Someone (January 27, 2006)

I wish more bands, artists, and mainstream labels had the courage to do things like this. props to MC Lars and Nettwerk for putting their money where their mouth is.

Someone (January 27, 2006)

boycott the riaa! find better music that way!

Someone (January 27, 2006)

Obviously she didnt download the Avril song or any of them recently(this is for the people insulting her music taste).. She probably downloaded it when Avril was popular which was what when she was 12? What kind of music did you like at that age? I'm just assuming it wasnt "great" music you listen to now.

1+ Reply

Someone (January 27, 2006)

Amen brother... or sister?

Someone (January 31, 2006)

Nettwerk is truly a revolutionary label. I just did an interview with Nettwerk's Director of Sales and Marketing, Erin Kinghorn, for Beyond Madison Avenue. She talks about the unique culture at Nettwerk (they work for their artists, not the other way around), as well as the careers of Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne, and other Nettwerk artists. If you're interested, check it out at: http://www.beyondmadisonavenue.com/2006/01/bma-interview-wit h-nettwerks-erin.html

Features

Exclusive Streams

see more streams

Newest Reviews

see more reviews

Punknews.org Team

Other Places to Go

Punknews.org Flickr Pool

View All Photos