music industry to end lawsuits against file sharers

[Amby 490]

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003.

Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet service providers.

The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an e-mail to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop.

If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more e-mails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider.

Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470039,00.html

[MrsCat 6]

[HAL 9000 96]

Uploading... but what about freeloading??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow - so this will finally be a thing of the past...

[Ban Hammer 13,356]

about time.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I have doubt that the ISP will cancel the service because there's no legal ramnifications to the ISP. And, they want to continue receiving money from their customer. Canceling it will just lower their profits.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Niels Bohr

[Ban Hammer 13,356]

I have doubt that the ISP will cancel the service because there's no legal ramnifications to the ISP. And, they want to continue receiving money from their customer. Canceling it will just lower their profits.

good point - unless their isp is like mine, which limits you after you exceed the fair access policy limit on downloads.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Something needs to be done about it. Jeez, pay the artist $1.00 per song for their work. I just read a post on YouTube about Carolina Liar's disc. The poster was raving about how great it was and where to go to steal it.

[MrsCat 6]

Maybe its just about pricing. If you put it at a price which is low enough that most people won't search the internet for a free version, than that market is working as it should. Right now the market is saying $1.00 is too much and I'll look elsewhere for a free song.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Maybe its just about pricing. If you put it at a price which is low enough that most people won't search the internet for a free version, than that market is working as it should. Right now the market is saying $1.00 is too much and I'll look elsewhere for a free song.

A buck is too much? Come on.

[MrsCat 6]

Maybe its just about pricing. If you put it at a price which is low enough that most people won't search the internet for a free version, than that market is working as it should. Right now the market is saying $1.00 is too much and I'll look elsewhere for a free song.

A buck is too much? Come on.

I think so. I mean, I'm super lazy so I'll pay the $1.00 but I'd sure download a lot more stuff if it was $0.20. If there was a better program around that I could get music for with a little more hassle I'd rather shop (for freeish) there.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Maybe its just about pricing. If you put it at a price which is low enough that most people won't search the internet for a free version, than that market is working as it should. Right now the market is saying $1.00 is too much and I'll look elsewhere for a free song.

A buck is too much? Come on.

I think so. I mean, I'm super lazy so I'll pay the $1.00 but I'd sure download a lot more stuff if it was $0.20. If there was a better program around that I could get music for with a little more hassle I'd rather shop (for freeish) there.

I'm not defending the record companies, believe me. It's the artists that I'm sympathetic towards. It's pretty cool that we can now pick and choose the songs that we want, so I'll pay them a buck per song. I can't recall how many times in the past that I would hear one or two good songs, rush out and buy the album (I'm old) and find out I'd just purchased 3 good minutes and 30+ of a suck fest!

[MrsCat 6]

Maybe its just about pricing. If you put it at a price which is low enough that most people won't search the internet for a free version, than that market is working as it should. Right now the market is saying $1.00 is too much and I'll look elsewhere for a free song.

A buck is too much? Come on.

I think so. I mean, I'm super lazy so I'll pay the $1.00 but I'd sure download a lot more stuff if it was $0.20. If there was a better program around that I could get music for with a little more hassle I'd rather shop (for freeish) there.

I'm not defending the record companies, believe me. It's the artists that I'm sympathetic towards. It's pretty cool that we can now pick and choose the songs that we want, so I'll pay them a buck per song. I can't recall how many times in the past that I would hear one or two good songs, rush out and buy the album (I'm old) and find out I'd just purchased 3 good minutes and 30+ of a suck fest!

Oh I agree with you completely on that! I hate buying a disc and most of it is #######. So I'm not totally against a good product either (itunes). I mean its simple, its relatively affordable. I spend way less on music now than I did in the early 90's.

But I still think ultimately when someone buys a disc or song, its their property and they should be able to disseminate it anyway they want to, to anyone they want to. Is BMG going to sue me now, if I start giving away CD's, cassettes, and records on the street corner to everyone? Probably not.

There is this thought that music which is digitized is somewhat a different kind of property than the original tape/disc/record. To me its all one in the same. If the industry doesn't want digital music to exist because it impedes their profits than they should go another route. Otherwise just live with the fact that people make use of this form of music in a way that they didn't intend.

I think the artists are the one's that should be in court and getting their due, but unfortunately that music industry strips them away of so many rights that they don't even own their own music. I dunno, the whole thing is one greedy mess on all people's part (owners, musicians, fans, downloaders, illegal downloaders).

Joe, my head hurts and I have no idea why I started on this rant. Got some beer in the cooler? That'll settle me down.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its also about who holds the rights to certain material. Some stuff is out of print and you can't get it anywhere - yet the record label still retains the rights for republication sometime in the future. So if you want an out of print song or album - you're forced to acquire it illegally.