Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
| posts about #joeltenenbaum more → |
Ahoy! Cloned Pirate Bay Site Sets Sail |
Student Forced to Pay $675,000 to RIAA for Sharing 30 Songs |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Gizmodo 
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Or perhaps he does have the bandwidth and for some reason hasn't implemented/upgraded it yet.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Gee, seems like this is out there....
Oh wait, its called a Tivo! (or DVR for all you brand name haters)
Sure, you actually have to get the channel you are talking about, but if you aren't paying HBO (by proxy) to make the next season of Entourage, why should you be able to watch it?
08/21/09
Also, with what I proposed up above, I figured it was clear that a portion of the subscription fees and ad revenues that I mentioned would go to the content providers, such as HBO. I guess I should have been more specific.
08/21/09
Full of Win
08/21/09
Yeah, best stay away from those confusing numbers and technical terms.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
We pillage plunder, we rifle and loot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
/I loves teh interwebs
08/02/09
08/02/09
08/03/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
I like the way you're happy to suggest that artists should only be paid for performance and then you can say that Mozart must have "had an orchestra" and that he "probably made a lot of money."
Think of orchestras as the iPod of Mozart's time -- if you had one and you had a copy of Mozart's score, you could listen to music. The only people who had iPods in the late 1700s, though, were the rulers of the day -- royalty, government and the extremely rich. These performances were not mounted for Mozart's finanacial benefit and any monetary gain did not go to him. They wouldn't even let him sell t-shirts at the door!
Mozart died destitute and was buried in a mass grave.
"So...um...again...what?"
So...um... it seems likely that a sustainable system for cultivation of the arts doesn't look like just PERFORM OR DIE! The situation just might be a little bit more complex than that.
Here's a bit of optimism: These days people can have their own orchestras, almost literally. A motivated individual can produce work that in even the recent past would have required resources that were not generally accesible -- recording and distribution, primarily. You can have your own recording studio, radio station, television channel and record store. So while things are screwed up at the moment, they're also changing pretty fast and I think that what we'll find in the near future is that artists of all sorts (not just performing artists) will be able to make a respectable living off of a system that everyone will feel good about supporting. Indeed, I think that even given how much people argue about this subject, the idea that a self-sustaininng system is within reach (one in which artists rewarded in a meaningful but not indulgent manner for their work) is something on which everyone generally agrees.
08/01/09
08/01/09
When you copy music, it cost nothing for the music industry. Its not like they pay for stocking excess copies of music online, its not like they need to order more copies to 'stock the shelves' in itune. so how are they justifying 100s of thousands of dollars of monetary loss? Will grocery stores sue me for 'potential loss' if I plant my own organic garden that I planted by cloning grocery store tomatoes?
Crucifixion really does describe what is happening here and is totally not fair for the guy who is getting sued. He isn't responsible for all our sins, yet he's paying for them because RIAA wants to make a business out of suing people. If they are really honest about 'protecting the industry' they should significantly reduce fines and return them to the artists much like how parking tickets pay for our roads and highways. RIAA is like the crooked cop who takes bribes and does nothing to improve the traffic infrastructure.
Well, at least they stopped suing people and their new strategy of working with ISPs won't work because ISPs don't want to loose customers since most of them are sharing files, especially for their premium customers who pay more for the higher bandwidth. I don't know what the right way to deal with piracy is, but everything the RIAA is doing are not working. Perhaps they should think about rewarding loyal customers instead of punishing 'potential customers' who weren't your customers in the first place. They should provide incentives for buying new songs because no matter what they do, people will always find ways to rip music and share them.
08/02/09
Yes, copying a CD is like sneaking into a theater, but that's not the issue. We're talking about filesharing.
If you rip a CD, the "crime" ends there, since it will likely be for personal use. But if you then go ahead and distribute the items on P2P, then it's like passing a copy to a couple of your friends, and they in turn copy out to a couple of their friends, and it keeps going. You are enabling a distribution network. You now have an act orders of magnitude above lifting a CD from a store.
I have no love for the RIAA, but at least you can see some of the justification for these crazy high penalties.
08/03/09
08/03/09
08/01/09
In regards to the commenter who suggests firing the RIAA lawyers...the RIAA are LAWYERS. It's an entity that exists in a vacuum subsided BY lawyers for lawyers.
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/02/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
If that's true, then why isn't a cent of this money going to the artists? This thing hasn't been about artists or music companies being paid for their work. It's been about a crusade to fight off the coming invasion of digital music long enough for the old hats to learn how to control it. If they were really concerned with artists getting paid, they'd be finding ways for artists to get paid.
Get your eyes off Tenenbaum and Thomas and start actually helping your artists.
08/01/09
08/01/09
But the RIAA is there to protect publishers, and the publishers are losing potential profit because of piracy.
That's not to say that every pirated song amounts to one real potential purchase, but you have to admit that, were piracy not around, a lot of people would be buying a lot more music.
08/01/09