Record labels win a 220,000 dollar suit against single mom.

[TheRealRoach]

Records Labels successfully bankrupt a single mother for downloading tunes.

Universal Music Group, Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG's Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Terra Firma Capital Partners Ltd.'s EMI Group Plc, and Warner Music Group Corp.

So, a single mom is sued $220,000 US (approx 9 grand per song). And so it continues. Could this be this be another sign of the majors clawing their nails into the cliff they keep sliding down? I'm curious about how they decided to go after her as opposed to any of the other hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who download music without purchasing it.

Update, June 19, 2009:
TheStar.com | entertainment | 24 copied songs, $1.92 million U.S.
So the case went back to court since Fall 2007 when I originally posted this. THIS time, the court ordered Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay $1.92 million. That's nearly 9 (nine!) times the amount originally awarded to the record companies.

$80,000 per song.

[Chris Parsons]

dfegad Universal Music Group
dfegad Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG's Sony BMG Music Entertainment
dfegad Terra Firma Capital Partners Ltd.'s EMI Group Plc
dfegaddfegad Warner Music Group Corp

[RCM - Ronan]

It was not just downloading, it was that she made 1,702 songs available for other people to download illegally via Kazaa. It is not accurate to say she was bankrupted because of songs she downloaded.

[mikey]

good !!thats stealing.How are artist gunna get paid if everyone is stealing thier music.I know i like to get paid for working..If you get lucky enough to have a hit
you should be makin some money on it..tutt

[GYang]

Pop and rock songs (and whatever is around that) should be essentially free for mass public. Future is coming and situation is almost changed.
Artists should play and earn by entertaining people first.
Then they should invest in low cost demos. If they are good, people will download (at cost of service providers) and listen their music. As per download rating some of them will get chance (by financial support of others like family, friends, private investors) to find financing for better recordings (or record by themselves via some giga internet studio). At the end no fat bastards publishing companies will own rights or whatever to fukk anyone on that issue. Pirate business will die with them together.
Technology is very near to bring music as art (not business) to level that anyone with talent will be able to deliver acceptable product cheaply to masses (cheaper than now) and if it is accepted, allow them to earn by core activity - entertaining.
Other that that we see ill, greedy, corrupted, stinky model of ripping off mainly artists, than potential consumers that are fed up of 15-20 $ per carrier prices which don't justify content in must cases.
Even is exaggerated, above is inevitable and with exception to less popular genres (classical music, jazz, ethno etc.) is direction to go.
To make first steps, I already don't charge artists which I like on their early stage. To make step forward, I do whatever necessary for making fairly good track free of charge and they are doing their best to do something with that. If thing is running well they are happy to continue and pay something for job.
Artist that are in my fukked opinion sub standards just pay normal charge.

[numrologst]

$220,000?

[JP11]

From what I've read, this woman could have settled for a thousand or 2 but decided to use that amount to retain a lawyer. Whoops.

[goatsound]

well she did know it was illegal right? what do people expect? if someone makes something, anything its not for YOU to decide if it should be free its for THEM to decide.

How about if went into her house and I decided I wanted to give someone else her T.V.?

just because its not a physical thing doesn't make it any different in my book.

my bands whole catalogue (5 albums and numerous singles eps etc) is online for anyone to take in one neat file, and they do, while we are working full time jobs to pay for the recordings, buy the gear we need and all that stuff some dude on the other side of the planet just decides "music should be free man" and im left without a record label because no one buys music anymore.

we dont and have never make heaps of money, seriously we just scrape by to pay costs, now its getting harder to do even that.

get her to jail as quick as possible, not for downloading, but for sharing like it was hers in the first place.

people wonder why music is getting worse? because all the great artists who "could be someone great" are now working in sawmills or behind the counter at wallmart.

i dont agree with major label culture either, but this is affecting pretty much everyone who makes music.

again... just my 2 cents.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by goatsound

well she did know it was illegal right? .

She claims she didn't do it at all...confusing on the surface, not really interested enough to get all the facts truly straight....but either the music on her hard drive was hers that she ripped from her own CDs (and there's even some controversy about the legality of that)...or someone used her IP....

the jury didn't buy it, the judge made some faulty rulings, the judgment will be overturned on appeal...these are the fragments I've got going...

[mtstudios@charter]

Originally Posted by GYang

Pop and rock songs (and whatever is around that) should be essentially free for mass public. Future is coming and situation is almost changed.
Artists should play and earn by entertaining people first.
Then they should invest in low cost demos. If they are good, people will download (at cost of service providers) and listen their music. As per download rating some of them will get chance (by financial support of others like family, friends, private investors) to find financing for better recordings (or record by themselves via some giga internet studio). At the end no fat bastards publishing companies will own rights or whatever to fukk anyone on that issue. Pirate business will die with them together.
Technology is very near to bring music as art (not business) to level that anyone with talent will be able to deliver acceptable product cheaply to masses (cheaper than now) and if it is accepted, allow them to earn by core activity - entertaining.
Other that that we see ill, greedy, corrupted, stinky model of ripping off mainly artists, than potential consumers that are fed up of 15-20 $ per carrier prices which don't justify content in must cases.
Even is exaggerated, above is inevitable and with exception to less popular genres (classical music, jazz, ethno etc.) is direction to go.
To make first steps, I already don't charge artists which I like on their early stage. To make step forward, I do whatever necessary for making fairly good track free of charge and they are doing their best to do something with that. If thing is running well they are happy to continue and pay something for job.
Artist that are in my fukked opinion sub standards just pay normal charge.

Do you really believe a band that plays the local club makes any money? Your solution is only lucrative to those that have had many hit songs (The Rolling Stones).


www.bluethumbproductions.com

[superkev07]

Originally Posted by GYang

Pop and rock songs (and whatever is around that) should be essentially free for mass public. Future is coming and situation is almost changed.
Artists should play and earn by entertaining people first.
Then they should invest in low cost demos. If they are good, people will download (at cost of service providers) and listen their music. As per download rating some of them will get chance (by financial support of others like family, friends, private investors) to find financing for better recordings (or record by themselves via some giga internet studio). At the end no fat bastards publishing companies will own rights or whatever to fukk anyone on that issue. Pirate business will die with them together.
Technology is very near to bring music as art (not business) to level that anyone with talent will be able to deliver acceptable product cheaply to masses (cheaper than now) and if it is accepted, allow them to earn by core activity - entertaining.
Other that that we see ill, greedy, corrupted, stinky model of ripping off mainly artists, than potential consumers that are fed up of 15-20 $ per carrier prices which don't justify content in must cases.
Even is exaggerated, above is inevitable and with exception to less popular genres (classical music, jazz, ethno etc.) is direction to go.
To make first steps, I already don't charge artists which I like on their early stage. To make step forward, I do whatever necessary for making fairly good track free of charge and they are doing their best to do something with that. If thing is running well they are happy to continue and pay something for job.
Artist that are in my fukked opinion sub standards just pay normal charge.

So do you just hypothetically work in the music industry or are you actually this ignorant? Why do you think there is corruption in the music industry? Just accidentally? "If we could only get rid of the fat kats..." No. Humans are involved. Go ahead and try a music-is-art-and-if-you-like-it-spare-me-a-few-bones culture if you like, but what I experience is artists, photographers, fans, labels, venues, and even single mothers trying to shortchange me if at all possible.

What's so wrong with setting a price and being compensated for work that I do?

I applaud the new thing radiohead is trying, but these guys can afford to take a hit if it bombs. And if they're successful, then great! But it's still the exception, not the rule.

Taking money out of the equation doesn't suddenly rid humanity of greed.

[goatsound]

Originally Posted by JP11

She claims she didn't do it at all...confusing on the surface, not really interested enough to get all the facts truly straight....but either the music on her hard drive was hers that she ripped from her own CDs (and there's even some controversy about the legality of that)...or someone used her IP....

the jury didn't buy it, the judge made some faulty rulings, the judgment will be overturned on appeal...these are the fragments I've got going...

i doubt someone would bother to post mp3s on the net with a stolen IP...

i would say she did it but doesn't want to face prosecution.
fair enough, i wouldn't either, but then again i don't file share so i guess her moral stance on things may be different than mine.

even if she bought the cds it seems like she still put them up on kazar or whatever sharing thing it was so other people could have them.

[numrologst]

I eat crow... Did some more information searching

[goldphinga]

Originally Posted by GYang

Pop and rock songs (and whatever is around that) should be essentially free for mass public. Future is coming and situation is almost changed.
Artists should play and earn by entertaining people first.
Then they should invest in low cost demos. If they are good, people will download (at cost of service providers) and listen their music. As per download rating some of them will get chance (by financial support of others like family, friends, private investors) to find financing for better recordings (or record by themselves via some giga internet studio). At the end no fat bastards publishing companies will own rights or whatever to fukk anyone on that issue. Pirate business will die with them together.
Technology is very near to bring music as art (not business) to level that anyone with talent will be able to deliver acceptable product cheaply to masses (cheaper than now) and if it is accepted, allow them to earn by core activity - entertaining.
Other that that we see ill, greedy, corrupted, stinky model of ripping off mainly artists, than potential consumers that are fed up of 15-20 $ per carrier prices which don't justify content in must cases.
Even is exaggerated, above is inevitable and with exception to less popular genres (classical music, jazz, ethno etc.) is direction to go.
To make first steps, I already don't charge artists which I like on their early stage. To make step forward, I do whatever necessary for making fairly good track free of charge and they are doing their best to do something with that. If thing is running well they are happy to continue and pay something for job.
Artist that are in my fukked opinion sub standards just pay normal charge.

Remember once music is free there is no going back.If people get something for nothing first time around, generally they wont want to pay for it again as in their eyes it has no monetary value. If you do your first album free mainly as a promotional tool then what happens when you try to charge your fans for the next album?

Giving away music for free is perhaps fine if you already have a big fan base and sure you may get X more downloads of your track if its free as an unknown artist bu the artist and all involved in the recording chain should still get paid by the music somehow. None of us have studied and developed our skills for years and years for it to come to this.Its easy to just give up on music become a revenue earning model and just go 'ok its free' but its not really solving anything.Nobodys worked out the answer yet and this is why its a scary time for all in this industry.

What radiohead are doing is just mixing things up a bit and making people think OTB, but for them its fine- for smaller indie artists its making things more difficult right now as smaller acts just dont have the desired marketing power without a label or paying good money for a promotions company to spread the word. Gigging is an option of course but many acts arent actually bands and so the live thing aint ideal.

Once youve made your money its easy to sit back (if you're that way inclined) and go well 'hey ive made my cash, we can give our music away for free now,screw the majors etc etc' but i why should we give up on music being worth something and people having to pay for it? Sure drop the price a little maybe but free is just encouraging the idea that art is just free for the taking. Its not a good way to think considering the years of toil it takes to get anywhere in the industry.

(Having said that, i like the vibe of we7.com where the music is free but the site passes on a royalty for each download to the artist via revenue accumulated from playing an advert before the download commences).

Finally on the gigging thing, there are many that dont want to be continuously gigging to earn their keep. Gigging is a great way to put a face to the music and to earn decent amounts but its hard emotionally and physically to be gigging 5 nights a week and it doesnt leave time for much else outside of that. Neither just gigging or giving music away totally for free is the answer. Over and out!

[rectifier]

$220,000 ..... that's just outrageous and totally unacceptable.

[klaukholm]

It's theft and being a single mom does not change that.
If you stole a copy of Harry Potter and hit the xerox machine and distributed free copies that is also theft on a grand scale.
It is the same.

I am shocked that fellow engineers and producer on this forum would think otherwise.

if it is over a thousand songs with over a thousand downloads per song.
at $1 per illegal download that comes out to $1 million. $220 000 seems fair compensation for lost income for the label and the artists.

[tyro]

I can only talk from MY own perspective, which is that of a band member of a still fairly small, but quite successful Swedish band. We got our name out, got gigs and people recognising our name/the music and coming to our gigs, mostly thanks to people uploading/downloading. If it weren't for internet sharing & downloading, I'm quite sure we wouldn't have gotten this far. Yes, we release CDs, but in a very small quantity. About 60% of the CDs are sold directly by us, at the shows. This give us all the profits of that sale, so that way is good for us. We still get about 2/3 of our gigs through the internet - people downloading, sharing with their friends and boom: someone wants to book us, since they heard us on a mix CD they got from their best friend's sisters boyfriend. Great!

For bigger cats, that are used to the usual sales and how it was done before internet, sure I understand that maybe their record sales have gone down quite a bit. I would guess that they have benefitted from the internet music sales too, though (itunes etc). I think that the sharing community is here to stay - I don't think I know a single person (OK, yes I know 2 or 3 maybe) under the age of 30 who's not downloading and sharing music illegally... but most young people do it; therefore it's a quite uncontrollable phenomenon.

So, while the download/upload action IS illegal, maybe it's time for everyone, big record corps as well as indie labels, to get a little creative and use the internet to market the bands, to get more people to the concerts, buy more t-shirts etc and get more airplay due to popular demand. This is something that is tough on the labels of course, because business can not be done exactly the way it was before internet. But as stated, I believe that internet downloads can be used to get music out to people (advertising buy word of mouth). The way my band has done it, yeah it probably will not help the sales of our CDs in stores; but then again we sell the majority of CDs in a live situation and we make the bigger part of the money by playing live, not on record sales.

I _personally_ do not download OR upload content that I don't own. I buy most of the music I listen to on itunes; if I really like the band (or can't find it on itunes) I buy the CD to get better quality and the artwork. I have uploaded my band's intellectual property yes, and for OUR situation I think that was a good move. I think it CAN be a good move for other bands too, but yes the artist should, in the best of worlds, have the right to not get their music shared on internet. All I'm saying is that every artist's music GET'S shared today, so instead of fighting a battle against several 100 millions of downloaders/uploaders, one can TRY to use that channel as an advertising channel to gain popularity and thereby make more money that way.

Oh, and Kjetil asked for my name and band name (see his comment below). I'm Magnus Angehed, I play with the bands Livelihood (reggae/dub) and Tunes United (pop/post rock/prog). I also record these bands and some other constellations as well. I'm soon finished with my own CD, which is a "one man show" thing, and I intend to get parts of it available for free on internet (for promotion) and hopefully also get it on itunes/cdon/others.

/Magnus

[klaukholm]

If you want to provide your music for free go ahead.

It does not give you the right to promote stealing other peoples property.

How would you feel if I go to your concerts with a xeroxed ticket because I feel your concerts should be free?

Magnus, how about your full name and the name of your band?

[rectifier]

Sure it's theft. The thing is though 20 years ago, you had people copying tapes and vinyl and selling the tapes down at dodgey markets or via dodgey advertisements etc and yes there were busts and fines/prison sentences were dealt out and these people were seen as criminals and everyone knew this.
Copy an album for a friend however was always a bit like vhsing a tv show, not supposed to do it, but hey no one tells.. no one is caught. The unwritten rule was it was naughty yes but as long as you didnt make money from it, pass the shit on to friends. Within reason.. Everyone had tapes of albums.

Now you have soccer mom X and all her friends exchanging albums and using P2P etc and they are the criminals in the first case in my first paragraph. The bandits! The Thugs! The Scum!

Would they have downloaded and used P2P if they knew the fine could be that big and that it could happen to them?? HELL NO
Would the thugs in my first paragraph have carried on selling tapes at markets and dodgey places knowing then could get a huge fine/prisin? YES

So the conclusion is I have no ****ing idea what I am talking about.

[klaukholm]

Digital rights legislation is blurry in some ways.
I have no issue with people making personal backups of their own music, or ripping it to MP3.
Distributing illegal copies is another matter altogether.
I do not buy the Robin Hood argument either.

[andreªs]

Originally Posted by rcm

It was not just downloading, it was that she made 1,702 songs available for other people to download illegally via Kazaa. It is not accurate to say she was bankrupted because of songs she downloaded.

Not quite right. She made 24 songs available.

24 x $9250 = $222000

The 1.702 songs were downloads she had on her PC.

[klaukholm]

That would make $70 per illegal download.
High, but still within reason from a punitive damage point of view.
is part of this amount also court cost etc?

[chandlersonic]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

It's theft and being a single mom does not change that.
If you stole a copy of Harry Potter and hit the xerox machine and distributed free copies that is also theft on a grand scale.
It is the same.

I am shocked that fellow engineers and producer on this forum would think otherwise.

if it is over a thousand songs with over a thousand downloads per song.
at $1 per illegal download that comes out to $1 million. $220 000 seems fair compensation for lost income for the label and the artists.

I want to agree with you...but honestly I can't. I find it stupid to sue this one person.

The downloading "system" is so huge now that I don't think there's any point in fighting it. Labels should find ways around it, For one thing they should sell cds cheaper, in France we're talking between 20-25€ for a new release!!

Secondly, I love having the actual album cover, the booklet, to check out the artwork, so some labels should actually make an effort and sell you an object that'll make you want to buy the actual record ( instead they're making you pay $10 for an i tunes release...).

Take Tool for example, their artwork is an essential part of the album, and People buy their records because they know that they'll get more than just a crappy booklet with a few pictures of the guys posing...

I personally do not download, ever, most of the artists I listen to are pretty small acts, and I find it important to actually buy their albums to support them and help them make other albums, but I don't think these bands are really affected by the negative aspects of the downloading system, the internet is a chance for them to share their music with as many people as possible and get people to come to their concerts.

[klaukholm]

Our label would not be suing her either, but it is the perogative of the labels involved .
What she did was illegal, and is possible due to american punitive laws that are what they are.
They don't have the resources to sue everyone and the autorities do not make it a priority.

As for cd prices, we need to charge 20 euros for a cd to finance the huge cost of orchestral sessions and the cost of using state of the art equipment.

[j-uk]

Setting aside any legal aspects and if downloading should be accepted/banned etc.

The argument that downloading a song has the same impact as stealing a hard copy from a shop is flawed.
Electronic copies are infinite. If a person downloads a copy of my product doesn't mean I have one less copy to sell, so whether I have actually lost revenue is debatable
i.e. if the downloader would've had to pay would he have actually bought the product?




[herecomesyourman]

I've been writing a paper...that's kind of slowly turning into a book...at first it was an attempt at a business plan to appeal to possible investors for starting an indie label focused on alternative and indie rock.

The label is starting off slow and steady...but I got really into the statistics of sales as I went...here's my 2 cents.

The RIAA is completely out of line doing this to anyone. And cases like this are legimate proof in my eyes that the major labels collectively, not only don't care about artists anymore, but ever since they decided to rail against Napster...they have consistantly failed to provide and care for the needs of the very consumers that made them what they are in first place.

This callus and twisted process of trying to maintain a shallow foothold of a dying meduim like CD distrobution has taken a catastrophic toll that will probably be the undoing of major labels as we have always known them over the course of the next five years.

This year was in fact the most profitable year in music.

The pie is what's being broken up differently.

In real estate you have what they call a self correcting market.

That's when a really big boon of great buyers markets, coupled with a high sellers market...subside after a promising time frame, and start to adjust as people catch on to what's happening on a wider scale. (And start looking elsewhere for a house)

There was a 49% increase in overall album sales worldwide in the fiscal year of 2006-2007. But this increase was in DIGITAL MEDIUM only. (meaning MP3/MP4) This was not only the year that everyone who could afford an MP3 player bought one if they were holding out...but people also could buy a reasonably priced phone with great features finally that also plays MP3's/MP4's (IE: The I-Phone, etc.)

Not only that, but as with every shift in medium...people started buying back catalog in digital medium format in order to get all their faves on their phones and zunes and I-Pods...

Back catalog used to make up about 40% of CD sales in a major label market yearly during the late 90's early 00's...

647 Million albums were sold this year.

Rap music is down 36% in all of this...and other closely related genre's like Hip Hop, R&B, etc. Are in similar trouble collectively.

Rock music is up for the first time in years. And not just the Emo and pop punk stuff. legitimate rock and roll is finally slowly rounding the corners.

The reason is indie labels that spend the time to establish smaller core audiences and good reputations are slowly taking larger chunks of the pie.

While the lower income families that buy Rap and R&B so adamantly are hurting on the crest of a recession that George Bush has pushed us towards...and as the overall songwriting of these productions become more and more homogenized and hackneyed...boredom with Clear Channel sponsered stations and albums with only one or two decent singles has made the idea of downloading what you want for free illegally even more tempting for these people.

The fact is...record companies have always stolen money from artists...and taping things on cassette from the radio only boosted sales worldwide time and again. The microcasm provided by file sharing in the first place was a huge marketing tool, and worked like the radio always should work. Total request, all the time.

Yes people have to make money, but people are more likely to support a decently promoted piece of real art with honest production values after being exposed to it than buying an entire album of the same song when they can just sample the record and get the single they like.

Things haven't shifted to the singles orriented market that the majors predicted. Instead everyone who loves the music they latch onto are buying digital backcatalog and sampling new things. This is the first time since the art rock movement of the late 80's where experimenting and making new kinds of music could in fact take you places faster than conforming to any one genre exclusively as a result.

- Cary.

[Fredrik]

Well, no matter how you turn it piracy is just wrong. If you publish your book I might copy it and sign it with my name if you don´t mind.

Seriously though I think that the fine here is excesive and I think they should go after the broadband operators first.

[herecomesyourman]

Yeah the broadband operators are enabling the crimes.

I agree.

I'm just saying like...look at how they used to do standard contracts.

10% off the top for "breakage" (vinyls that would breaking during manufacturing or shipping)

Up till 2006 they still charged all bands back for that!

All royalty percentages used to be based off of cassette manufacturing costs too.

Because when the CD became a new medium for less than a year they were more expensive than cassettes to manufacture.

So they used to dock 25% to 15% off of CD manufacturing costs prior to the 10% they'd deduct for breakage...leaving you with 74.25 cents to 84.15 cents on the dollar...maybe...if you had a decent cut with 10 points on every song on your "cassette"

(This was also changed in 2006. And I'm not even using my own statistics this time, this from another great book every one on this board should own that I can site if you'd like)

I'm not advocating stealing, but if the band wants a song available for free as promo...or an album...or they want to leave it up to the listener to make donations or buy it if they like it...if the band is GOOD, they will sell music because people understand that artists need money too at the end of the day.

If we take the stance to educate people that supporting the music they love is not only paramount, but expected of them as consumers in a more copacetic light, instead of trying to be big brother about every move they make on the internet, you will entice just as many people if not more than those who just blatently steal by being open and aproachable.

Taping songs off the radio boosted sales.

Downloading off of napster boosted independant sales, and the sales of more albums embraced by critics universally than any other point in the in industry for music that wasn't nessesarily aimed at the mainstream American culture. (And it boosted pop singles!)

The problem is the utter lack of humanity and respect for the listener.

They've built this giant iron lung where you can't even breathe without paying them. And they've forced us to think that's the only way we'll make money as artists universally in the process.

It's a con.

[chandlersonic]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

Our label would not be suing her either, but it is the perogative of the labels involved .
What she did was illegal, and is possible due to american punitive laws that are what they are.
They don't have the resources to sue everyone and the autorities do not make it a priority.

As for cd prices, we need to charge 20 euros for a cd to finance the huge cost of orchestral sessions and the cost of using state of the art equipment.

I can perfectly understand why YOU would be selling cds at that price. I'm not at all a classical engineer but I've attended many classical sessions and I know that the money is not wasted.

But honestly, when you listen to the sound quality of some cds these days you know that they probably spent more money on the video than on the recording/mixing of the album...

[antonbuys]

Originally Posted by GYang

Pop and rock songs (and whatever is around that) should be essentially free for mass public. Future is coming and situation is almost changed.
Artists should play and earn by entertaining people first.
Then they should invest in low cost demos. If they are good, people will download (at cost of service providers) and listen their music. As per download rating some of them will get chance (by financial support of others like family, friends, private investors) to find financing for better recordings (or record by themselves via some giga internet studio). At the end no fat bastards publishing companies will own rights or whatever to fukk anyone on that issue. Pirate business will die with them together.
Technology is very near to bring music as art (not business) to level that anyone with talent will be able to deliver acceptable product cheaply to masses (cheaper than now) and if it is accepted, allow them to earn by core activity - entertaining.
Other that that we see ill, greedy, corrupted, stinky model of ripping off mainly artists, than potential consumers that are fed up of 15-20 $ per carrier prices which don't justify content in must cases.
Even is exaggerated, above is inevitable and with exception to less popular genres (classical music, jazz, ethno etc.) is direction to go.
To make first steps, I already don't charge artists which I like on their early stage. To make step forward, I do whatever necessary for making fairly good track free of charge and they are doing their best to do something with that. If thing is running well they are happy to continue and pay something for job.
Artist that are in my fukked opinion sub standards just pay normal charge.

And I suppose gear will just be given freely to anyone with a modicum of talent? And Hollywood actors will work for the love of the movies, and not the money, and peace will reign on earth, and George Bush and old Osama will be best buddies...?

Whatever...

Anton