Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits

November 17, 2008 By RODRIQUE NGOWI , Associated Press Writer

(AP) -- The music industry's courtroom campaign against people who share songs online is coming under counterattack. A Harvard Law School professor has launched a constitutional assault against a federal copyright law at the heart of the industry's aggressive strategy, which has wrung payments from thousands of song-swappers since 2003.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Lawyer: Song swapper on trial doing `what kids do'

Jul 28, 2009 | 3 / 5 (3) | 0

Mass. student on trial admits sharing tunes online

Jul 30, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

Big fine could be big trouble in downloading case

Jun 19, 2009 | 3 / 5 (3) | 3

Music downloading hearing can't be streamed online

Apr 16, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

Minnesota song-sharing case heads for 3rd trial

Jan 28, 2010 | 5 / 5 (1) | 1

• lengould100 - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
  [QUOTE]"There are alternative ways," he said, "of packaging entertainment to return revenue to artists." [/QUOTE]
  
  I might be a LOT more sympathetic to the music "industry" if they actually did return ANY revenu to artists. Last few interviews I've seen show that artists earn nothing, nada, zero, ziltch from "industry" CD sales. All their earnings come from concert ticket sales, and they have to organize the concerts themselves with very little help from the "industry".
  
  Its time for a new music industry paradigm. Companies who speculated heavily in the future value of music copyrights need to be told they simply screwed up. Then artists can be freed to figure out creative new ways to market their music using the very powerful and fully adequate functions of the internet.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• D666 - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet

  
  I might be a LOT more sympathetic to the music "industry" if they actually did return ANY revenu to artists.

  
  
  Anyone know offhand how much of the $.99 an artist gets from a sale on ITunes?
  
  On the one hand, it's probably significantly better than what they'd get from a CD sale; on the other hand, people tend to buy singles a lot more often on ITunes rather than the whole CD including filler songs; on the third hand (yeah, my mother is my sister :-)) people who wouldn't buy CDs because they're too expensive may buy a single song that they like.
  
  Any stats on this?
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Sean_W - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
  If I had gobs of money I would hire various artists to create free music just to erode the profits of these music companies. They vandalize people's computers with "copy protection" malware in the hopes that some of those punished will actually be the people who are copying songs but then they demand that everyone else be law abiding? Boycott all music that comes from the entertainment mobsters.
  
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• earls - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
  Boycott is the only way, the only language they understand is $$$. Only when they are begging to meet any demands to reconnect with the young and informed market, then, and only then should payment be CONSIDERED.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• h1ghj3sus - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
  Copyright is ridiculous. As long as you give credit to the creator, share as much as you wish.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• vanderMerwe - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
  Mature industries always find it easier to outlaw competition via legislation by buying corrupt Congressmen than to change their business models to respond to evolving technology. Witness the Big Three in Detroit for another great example. The RIAA and MPAA need to be allowed to wither to a size consonant with their importance, say to about that of the buggy whip industry.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• holmstar - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet

  Boycott is the only way, the only language they understand is $$$. Only when they are begging to meet any demands to reconnect with the young and informed market, then, and only then should payment be CONSIDERED.

  
  
  Boycotts won't work because the recording industry will only point at it and say "SEE!!! we're loosing tons of profit because of all of this piracy! Look at how many fewer sales we are getting!"
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• holmstar - Nov 17, 2008
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)

  Copyright is ridiculous. As long as you give credit to the creator, share as much as you wish.

  
  
  I don't quite agree. If you put a lot of effort into what you create, I feel you should be fairly compensated for the value that your creation provides.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• DGBEACH - Nov 18, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)

  Copyright is ridiculous. As long as you give credit to the creator, share as much as you wish.

  
  
  I don't quite agree. If you put a lot of effort into what you create, I feel you should be fairly compensated for the value that your creation provides.

  
  
  How much real "effort" do the record companies put into "creating" music??? I DO think artists should be compensated directly, right into their bank accounts...and the technology already exists!
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5