The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Limewire Sues! Channel Strip Plugins
Old 27th September 2006
  #1
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Limewire Sues!

I know it's not gear, but I think this is "high end"

http://news.findlaw.com/scripts/prin...54ed98821.html
Old 27th September 2006
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Gregg Sartiano's Avatar
 

Wow. THAT'S huge. Somehow it reminds me of the NFL/USFL debacle -- the USFL won...one dollar (tripled to $3 because of anti-trust laws).

I guess ANYBODY can open a record store but NOT a DL store. Wonder how it'll turn out.
Old 28th September 2006
  #3
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

It is huge

Wonder if this ship is coming down....
Old 28th September 2006
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Gregg Sartiano's Avatar
 

How come we're the only two interested in this?

If you're a pro, these sorts of debates are crucial to the money stream. Frankly, a lot of people live off of self-financed (by others, duh!) vanity projects. Still others live off of a certain percentage of these combined with a certain percentage of money derived from the traditional CD sales market -- i.e.: label budgets, ASCAP royalties, etc. Some of us live 100% off of this kind of money. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the internet money stream has turned into a "wild west" gold rush with significant income generated completely outside of either -- except that websites (i.e.: myspace -- advertising $$$) are taking the money that content creators (i.e.: probably YOU!!!) should be entitled to, given a just and fair system that compensates those who create and promote artistic content.

The Limewire dispute in and of itself may have legitmacy within the court or it may not. But it's completely indicative of the wide gulf between consumer demands and the products and services available in the marketplace. If this demand for easier, better access to music gets serviced, the solution (whatever that is) could very well turn into a money stream that has positive benefits for a lot of us.

And, although I'm an RIAA-loving moderate who DOESN'T want to see record labels die a horrible death, I recognize as well as anyone that the legacy of this DECADE within the music business could be the development of a "musical middle class" -- a loosely defined group of people who are supported DIRECTLY BY THE FREE MARKET by virtue of the value placed on their artistic output.

And sometime in the next five years, the "holy grail" of monetized music distribution will probably surface. What's it gonna be? This being the "high end" forum, I'll admit that I would trade my 1073 for that info...

If you don't own your house yet, this debate (and the greater issues surrounding it) is way more important to you than which preamp to use.
Old 28th September 2006
  #5
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano View Post
And, although I'm an RIAA-loving moderate who DOESN'T want to see record labels die a horrible death, I recognize as well as anyone that the legacy of this DECADE within the music business could be the development of a "musical middle class" -- a loosely defined group of people who are supported DIRECTLY BY THE FREE MARKET by virtue of the value placed on their artistic output.

And sometime in the next five years, the "holy grail" of monetized music distribution will probably surface. What's it gonna be? This being the "high end" forum, I'll admit that I would trade my 1073 for that info...

If I'm even around in 5 years I have some gold of my own to dig.

Life you've said before, it's all in the portable devices. First one wins.
Old 28th September 2006
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Rufuss Sewell's Avatar
This isn't huge. This is stupid.

This is the R.I.A.A. wasting the music industry's money once again.

File sharing programs are easy to make. Thousands of little kids will keep making file sharing programs in their bedrooms if the big boys get shut down.

The only solution is the SpiralFrog thing. Offer a better product than Lime Wire based on web advertising revenue and you have a successful business model as proven by TV and radio for decades.

SpiralFrog COULD offer 192K, 64 bit files for those who care. They could also offer nice artwork and lyrics that can load into your iPod. They will almost definitely offer more reliable MP3's that are easier to find. In addition these files will be legal for the extremely small percentage of people who care about silly things like copyright laws.

That means me and a lot of other people will choose to watch a commercial in order to get this superior file. Then Lime Wire and those like it will become far less significant... without a lawsuit. And a few musicians might actually get paid.
Old 28th September 2006
  #7
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell View Post
This isn't huge. This is stupid.

can't it be both?


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 28th September 2006
  #8
Lives for gear
 
sedohr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k View Post
can't it be both?


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Yes, it can!!! I can think of a number of persons who are !

Kalli
Old 28th September 2006
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Rufuss Sewell's Avatar
Hah! Yeah, I guess you're right. In fact I have lots of friends that are both huge and stupid.

But this lawsuit is small and stupid... except for those who work for/own/make money from Lime Wire which is a very small group of people. The free supply of music to the people will not be affected by this trial in any significant way.

I suppose it will also help out a few of the competing file sharing networks.

Bring on SpiralFrog... and for god's sake make it better than Lime Wire!!! If the songs purposefully sound horrible or there are stupid restrictions like you have to install a virus to use it, then they'll be slitting their own throats.

As for the six month limitation, hackers will get around that one in about 5 seconds. Just think... the top hit on Version Tracker for the next six months:

SphericalAmphibian V2.5!!! Eliminate that pesky 6 month time limit on your SpiralFrog MP3s.

Then more R.I.A.A. lawsuits and more hacker programs.

Just give people what they want. Jeez. It's called supply and demand, and right now the supply is infinite and free. The labels have to work with that knowledge.
Old 28th September 2006
  #10
I don't understand what they are on about ... everyone I know <myself included> has started buying more CD's because of a tune they downloaded @ limewire, u like the song, you buy the CD, those record company execs still have their heads buried in the sand
Old 28th September 2006
  #11
Lives for gear
 

i buy the cd cause they sound better..every full album i've bought from itunes has somehow gotten lost in the ether..cd's are still in the rack..
Old 28th September 2006
  #12
Dan
Lives for gear
 
Dan's Avatar
 

It seems to me this more legal posturing back and forth. Limewire is claiming the record labels won't license recordings for a reasonable amount, so what, they let users trade for free? How does this help their argument that they are not promoting illegal downloading?
If they can trace who downloads what song, and charge for it, wouldn't that record be necessary for paying the artist? So that means if they want to be able to legally broker music, they must be able to generate this info. That information should be important for the case of wether the application is used for illegal music trading or not. To me that IS the primary use of the software. How did I end up agreeing with the RIAA?
Old 29th September 2006
  #13
Lives for gear
 
dreamsongs's Avatar
 

These type of wars will wage for many years to come...
Old 29th September 2006
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Gregg Sartiano's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell View Post
The only solution is the SpiralFrog thing. Offer a better product than Lime Wire based on web advertising revenue and you have a successful business model as proven by TV and radio for decades.

SpiralFrog COULD offer 192K, 64 bit files for those who care. They could also offer nice artwork and lyrics that can load into your iPod. They will almost definitely offer more reliable MP3's that are easier to find. In addition these files will be legal for the extremely small percentage of people who care about silly things like copyright laws.

That means me and a lot of other people will choose to watch a commercial in order to get this superior file. Then Lime Wire and those like it will become far less significant... without a lawsuit. And a few musicians might actually get paid.
"This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models," according to Lime Group's lawsuit.

Is advertising the ONLY solution? Is it a 50/50 part of a bigger solution? Maybe $10/month (mobile surcharge) unlimited wireless-music-on-demand is the endgame that would make watching commercials before listening to music look horribly passe. What if it was $5/mo.? I don't think people rebel against spending a little money; they just want the CONVENIENCE and RELIABILITY above everything. My point: WE DON'T KNOW how the "big picture" will turn out.

O.K., back to the endgame...The questions are: 1) how long will it take to get there, 2) what are the intermediate steps, 3) what form will the endgame take, and 4) who will be the winners and losers along the way?

The court is obviously at least finding their counterclaim relevant -- so the debate is out in the open. That's important.

"In its counterclaim, Lime Group contends it also sought to reach an agreement with the labels so that it could field a licensed music service. It also claims it was prepared to employ a filtering system of its own design."

This is a central issue. Legal DL's amount to more than half a billion dollars (in the U.S.) a year -- so, for one thing, even if fighting over the legal DL market is "stupid" in the big, big picture, I would say that the shape of the legal DL market is important. Like I said earlier, how come I can open a record store and sell anybody's CD's, but I can't compete legally on the same playing field with iTunes? This is why I compared it to NFL vs. USFL, which USFL won (they just didn't win much).

iTunes can't sell product from veteran artists who refuse to license songs to them -- even if Limewire's filing is a "stupid" counterclaim, are any precedents going to be set here that have relevance for unforeseeable debates five years from now, as formats and delivery methods change?

Advertising isn't the only way...maybe a relatively small mobile bill (or cable bill) surcharge for unlimited access-on-demand (combined with some traditional sales & commercial-added DL'ing) could be just as effective and create a money stream similar to the current $11B (U.S.) recorded music sales industry.

Maybe there are compelling differences with the process of legal DL'ing -- compelling enough for the gov't to let collusion slide...does this "larger modern conspiracy" represent collusion? What if there WAS free market competition for distribution of licensed product -- and you could buy that song you want from your phone provider, from Amazon, from iTunes, directly from the label...in a package deal or a la carte...in subscription/library/radio "on request" form from your cable provider...commercial free at a premium, or with commercials at a discount (or free), with a set rate per DL being paid through ASCAP or BMI...is that too much "laissez faire" for the Libertarians among us?

Personally, that's a little TOO "Wild West" for me. But these sorts of boundaries are being established as we speak, and the market may NEVER be 100% advertising driven. Think about it: despite Direct TV & cable's current prominence, DVD sales and rentals still represent a viable market.
Old 1st October 2006
  #15
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano View Post
how come I can open a record store and sell anybody's CD's, but I can't compete legally on the same playing field with iTunes?

iTunes can't sell product from veteran artists who refuse to license songs to them -- even if Limewire's filing is a "stupid" counterclaim, are any precedents going to be set here that have relevance for unforeseeable debates five years from now, as formats and delivery methods change?

Advertising isn't the only way...maybe a relatively small mobile bill (or cable bill) surcharge for unlimited access-on-demand (combined with some traditional sales & commercial-added DL'ing) could be just as effective and create a money stream similar to the current $11B (U.S.) recorded music sales industry.

What if there WAS free market competition for distribution of licensed product -- and you could buy that song you want from your phone provider, from Amazon, from iTunes, directly from the label...in a package deal or a la carte...in subscription/library/radio "on request" form from your cable provider...commercial free at a premium, or with commercials at a discount (or free), with a set rate per DL being paid through ASCAP or BMI...is that too much "laissez faire" for the Libertarians among us?
The more apt question is, why can anyone open up a USED record store and sell CDs, from which no royalties or other revenue is paid to record companies/artists/etc., but doing the same thing (with an inferior product, namely ****e-quality mp3 sound files) in the electronic space is verboten. This makes no sense, and appears to be different only because one transaction involves packaged goods and the other doesn't. The RIAA has been scared senseless of anything other than their beloved (and obscenely profitable and self-interested) packaged goods model, and its position regarding electronic business models has been a defensive crouch (or terrified fetal position, depending on your level of cynicism).

ITunes can't sell catalog of veteran artists who have regained control over their catalogs from the labels, and who have elected not to grant licenses. Limewire's counterclaim isn't necessarily stupid (I haven't read it); the way the "major labels" have thrown their collective weight around like bulls in a china shop throughout this new digital era analogizes quite well to crime syndicate/cartel/general a-hole behavior. It took the majors several years to acknowledge that they can't rely on lawsuits alone to solve the problem of "technological progress". They're still not sure what to do. When you think about how these companies present themselves as the pinnacle of "creativity", it's pathetic how unimaginative their solutions have been to date. Enough to make you want to root for the other guys, in a lot of ways.

Subscription models like the "small mobile bill / cable/Internet/phone bill" for music is currently in play with services like the satellite radio providers, Napster, and doesn't Real/Rhapsody have something like that too? Obviously, someone's gotten started on such things, and that's good for the state of play. Are they making money yet, and if not, are they figuring out what they need to do to make their model work? Let's hope so.

That last graf of yours doesn't make sense to me: from my experience as a ~$200/month music consumer (mostly in singles/downloads, not $20 albums) who buys everything from cd's on Amazon to vinyl in used record stores and on ebay, to mp3 and wav downloads online at places like Beatport, I'd say there already exists the free market that you've described as a hypothetical. Obviously, it's not too laissez-faire for anyone who's participating, since it exists and appears to be a thriving marketplace. What was your question again?

I almost didn't recognize you with your new avatar!
best,

vic
Old 1st October 2006
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan View Post
It seems to me this more legal posturing back and forth. Limewire is claiming the record labels won't license recordings for a reasonable amount, so what, they let users trade for free? How does this help their argument that they are not promoting illegal downloading?
If they can trace who downloads what song, and charge for it, wouldn't that record be necessary for paying the artist? So that means if they want to be able to legally broker music, they must be able to generate this info. That information should be important for the case of wether the application is used for illegal music trading or not. To me that IS the primary use of the software. How did I end up agreeing with the RIAA?

lol. totally hear you.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
djui5 / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
0
djui5 / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
3
BevvyB / Music Computers
0
maskedman72 / Music Computers
13

Forum Jump
Forum Jump