Risky Changes

[NickNack]

I wanted to post this advertisement (that's what it says) on the board that I saw in the July 11 issue of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY. It starts out with this caption in large bold print:

Next time you or your kids 'share' music on the Internet, you may also want to download a list of attorneys.

Now, the article... I'm sorry, the 'advert':

By now, most people know that distributing copryrighted music over the Internet without permission is illegal. The courts have said it, Congress has said it, the artists, musicians and songwriters you love have said it, and we have said it. What's more, there are now many legal and inexpensive ways to get music online. So why do millions of computer users who may know it's wrong continue to steal music? Because they think they can't be caught. And because they think it's free.

So now they can explain themselves to a judge.

Starting today, the recording industry will begin gathering evidence and preparing lawsuits against individual computer users who illegally "share" copyrighted music over so-called peer-to-peer networks.

Some folks ask us, "How cna you sue your customers?" Well, the same question can be asked of retailers who prosecute shoplifters. And the answer is simple: retailers take action against shoplifters because they know the problem would get a whole lot worse if they didn't.

Music doesn't just happen. It's made and brought to you by tens of thousands of people---from songwriters and recording artists to warehouse workers and record store clerks---who work very hard to get it right.

Still others claim the problem isn't sharing but that today's music just isn't any good. Hey, there's no accounting for taste, but if the music isn't good, why are millions of people illegally downloading literally billions of new songs each month?

Here are the facts: stealing music over the Internet is no different than shoplifting CD's out of a record store. It's wrong, and it's against the law. It's also a very public activity---meaning that offenders can easily be identified.

We'd much rather spend our time making music than dealing with legal issues. But we can't just accept the work of our artists, songwriters, and an entire industry being stolen. So the next time you think about "sharing" music illegally on the Interent, maybe you should also think about how it's going to play in court.

<signed>

American Federation of Musicicans, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, ASCAP, Association of Independent Music Publishers, BMI, Country Music Association, Gospel Music Association, Nashville Songwriters Association International, National Music Publishers Association, Recording Industry Association of America, SESAC, Songwriters Guild of America, and
Tennessee Songwriters Association International

To bring the point home, an Associated Press article yesterday stated the music industry has issued 871 subpoenas (to ISP's) with roughly 75 new subpoenas being issued each day. The subpoena compells the ISP to identify the name and mailing address of users known to be sharing music on their network. Lawsuit damages for the users range anywhere from $750 - $150,000.00 for each song offered on their pc. And, inspite of a previous statement by the RIAA that they would only go after internet users with "substantial collections" of music files, subpoenas have been issued for users with as few as five.

I don't know about you guys but I think they are really about to get serious.

[QUINNY]

I'm surprised it's taken them so long. It'll be interesting to see which side wins. Who's got the most money I wonder?

[Bernie]

It was just a matter of time before the music industry reacted in such a manner. While I don't condone MP3 swapping, the music industry has to get its act together and give the consumer what they want at the right price or else it will be an uphill battle.

[NickNack]

I also read that there is now a proliferation of software to prevent others from monitoring your computer. I guess the battle is in place.

[QUINNY]

Bernie: Do you believe in an authors right to intellectual property rights? The whole point is that musicians have the right to refuse to sell their property. Just because a record is made and issued doesn't mean it's in the public domain from then on and it doesn't mean that you or I should be able to demand a copy of it just 'cos we have the money to buy that copy (or not buy as in the case of file swapping). That's what the argument is all about.

[Discomanic]

Thanks Bernie....you're comments sums it all up.