Attorneys seek end of court-ordered talks in Brainerd music downloa...

Attorneys for the two parties in a landmark illegal music downloading case say the two sides are too far apart to reach a settlement, and they're jointly seeking the end of court-ordered talks.

[da girls]

This is a ridiculous case. The Recording Industry Association should quit harassing people like this.

[P T Bull]

Wish the reporters spend more time on these stories. So the record company wanted a re-trial. Now having the damages reduced on appeal is not grounds for an automatic re-trial, so somebody must have granted them a re-trial--the basis of which is unknown.

If they are facing the same appellate court after the next trial, what do they hope to gain? Not in the story.

[Mike]

This is still the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Who's getting rich here besides lawyers? Typical America. If record companies didn't pay performers outrageous salaries for their music, the cost wouldn't be passed onto consumers, and they wouldn't revolt by trying to get something for nothing. It's a simple as that.

[buck]

Mike wrote:

This is still the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Who's getting rich here besides lawyers? Typical America. If record companies didn't pay performers outrageous salaries for their music, the cost wouldn't be passed onto consumers, and they wouldn't revolt by trying to get something for nothing. It's a simple as that.

Mike, record companies don't pay salaries to performers so they're not passing anything on to the consumer. Any record deal or advance that artists sign will have the cost of recording, marketing and anything else the company does for the record, deducted from it. The truth is, for 99% of the artists out there, their money is made through touring and selling merchandise or product directly to the consumer.

[dum dums]

da girls wrote:

This is a ridiculous case. The Recording Industry Association should quit harassing people like this.

if you made a product and someone stole it from you then resold it for a profit, would you be okay with that? didn't think so. use your brain, that's what it was given to you for.

[Jack Hammer]

dum dums wrote:

<quoted text>
if you made a product and someone stole it from you then resold it for a profit, would you be okay with that? didn't think so. use your brain, that's what it was given to you for.

I think you're missing the point. No one disputes that there was wrong doing. The dispute is the value of the songs. I have (approximately) 600 CD's, in my basement, that are completely worthless. Assuming the average number of tracks on each CD is ten, and the most I could recoup (via sale or trade) is $2.00 per CD, what is the true value of the each song? Are the more popular songs worth more?

If the average price of each of my "junk" CD's equals $20.00, and via fair public access, the very discs I own could have been had by any consumer, for the same amount that I paid, wouldn't that render the value of each song, and each CD, considerably less than the $2250.00 (per song) amount the latest court ruling recommended?

To take the issue a step further, if the common cost to legally download a song is commonly between $.89 and $1.29, would that not be the closer to the true value of each song? In either case, I am keeping a close eye on this case because I will almost certainly file a class action suit against the RIAA, and the distributors of their music, for placing a false value on what I currently own.

At the core, any settlement should equal what copyright fees are owed for publicly playing copyrighted music. However, should the judge award punitive damages, that would not be considered in any "per song" judgement.

[Mike]

buck wrote:

<quoted text>
Mike, record companies don't pay salaries to performers so they're not passing anything on to the consumer. Any record deal or advance that artists sign will have the cost of recording, marketing and anything else the company does for the record, deducted from it. The truth is, for 99% of the artists out there, their money is made through touring and selling merchandise or product directly to the consumer.

So what you're trying to say, is when they paid Mariah Carey 27 million dollars and she recorded one album and they paid her to go away, they just ate that? I think you are naive. Artists do make most of their money touring, but they don't work for free in the recording studio. They get whatever percentage of sales they can negotiate.

[buck]

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>So what you're trying to say, is when they paid Mariah Carey 27 million dollars and she recorded one album and they paid her to go away, they just ate that? I think you are naive. Artists do make most of their money touring, but they don't work for free in the recording studio. They get whatever percentage of sales they can negotiate.

Mariah Carey is a different story. Remember, out of 90,000 releases last year only 2% of those sold 5,000 copies or more. Everything that an artist does in the studio and everything that the record label does to market that record, advertising, videos, etc is deducted from advances and royalties.