Richard Marx!!!11!!!

There aint nothin you can do about it and it’s too late to say goodbye cause don’t you know he’s playin with fire, he shouldve known better, and won’t give up until he’s satisfied

Glad he’s speaking out!

And in other news, Richard Marx is pumped he’s being mentioned for the first time since the hairspray mullet went out of style.

I admire Richard Marx for speaking out on this subject. I love his music as well…

Duncan Sheik and Michael Penn are ashamed that no one, and I mean NO ONE, is downloading their music, illegally or otherwise.

Props to Marx and Moby for speaking up, no matter what you think of their music.

Although the RIAA are being ridiculous to outright abuse this poor person, she did technically steal. I’m a musician and I’m not going to lie I’ve downloaded a song or two illegally, however the money earned for music provides the livelihood of many starving and struggling artists who actually need that money

If chris was really a musician, he would understand that the artists dont see a PENNY of that money. GET A CLUE!!

As a professional musician, I can’t stand this.

I have friends who have their names on several platinum recordings (including a relative who played bass for Jimmy Buffet’s last 2 albums) and he rarely sees royalties off of any of those sales. Most of his money comes from recording session fees and payments from the labels.

This is absolutely disgusting, and a bad display of vigilantism at its worst.

Complete crap. I have never in my life time witness an industry completly villify themselves the way the music industry has. I used to buy tons of music, but I have all but stopped. I do not download musically illegally, I just hate the thought of giving these pricks one dime of my money. If you want to scare people to stop illegal dowloads, instead of suing people, load the sites up with tons of viruses.

She should have been fined twice that amount for downloading Richard Marx.

But, Richard Marx fucking rocks!!!!

It’s true, this is like using a wrecking ball to kill a fly. All of this proves why the music business is in the position they are in to begin with. A bunch of 60-somethings that don’t know the first thing about what music fans want.

The good news is, everything that has broken down that archaic, shithead system called the music business has benefited those of us that are willing to pay for music. Artists like Prince and Radiohead, for instance, are doing their business in more innovative ways, and consequently the consumer pays less and the money goes where it should-to the artists creating what we’re paying for.

I guess people are still listening to Richard Marx, who was big 20 years ago with 3 #1 songs including all time fave “Hold On To The Nights.” 20 Years from now, I doubt somebody will be interested in Lil Wayne or T-Pain. Good songs = Longevity

i’m making money selling my music online independently…

not a lot, but enough to be able to say screw the labels

if they concentrated on putting out good music instead of ruininig our shared cultural heritage with their greed and bad faith they’d be in a better position today

what goes around comes around. true artists will be fine — after all record companies didn’t invent the practice of paying for music…

I would settle for $23.76 … the cost to download 24 songs on i-tunes…not a penny more…and offer a place or two that they can shove the rest.

A $500 fine I can maybe understand, but as soon as this became a money grab then the judge should have told the labels to get bent.

Thank God someone like Moby has the balls to tell the truth. The fact of the matter is, the RIAA is a farce and the people who “illegally” download this music are proven to, 9 times out of 10, be more likely to support the artists through concerts, apparel, etc.

This has nothing to do with the artists; this is nothing more than a charade by greedy businessmen sitting in large chairs petting their hairless little cats thinking about who they are going to financially rape next.

Shameful. This is utterly shameful. The music industry is grasping at straws and the fans are suffering the consequences of their greedy actions.

I couldn’t imagine having to pay $80,000 for downloading one of David Hasselhoff’s songs! Talk about a kick to the teeth…..

I agree with the majority of the comments on this message board. When Radiohead released their album online, they asked their fans to pay whatever they wanted. Some paid full price while others paid less…Nine Inch Nails also allowed their fans to download an album for free…Fan appreciation speaks volumes..

This is ridiculous. Instead of finding new ways to punish the consumer, the RIAA should be focusing on attracting more people to legal music. The RIAA has made itself the villain, and it is only driving consumers away to musicians who sell their songs independently. The RIAA dug its own grave and needs to stop blaming everyone else. Glad to hear musicians are speaking out.

Moby & Marx sound like politicians. They aren’t addressing the reason the ruling is foolish.
First, I’m sure the lady can’t afford to pay it.
Secondly, it will not stop millions of others downloading.
This is exactly like the ‘war on drugs’. They aren’t attacking the root cause, the ones who are running these servers for downloading illegally. And yes, we all agree the music industry has been the enemy of most musicians since they started.

As well as most of you posters.

First off, the RIAA did not sue for 1.92 million. That figure was awarded by the JURY. The RIAA has been working the entire time to reach a settlement with this idiot, but she refused to play ball. The RIAA has even come out and said that they don’t care so much about the money as long as they can come to a settlement.

Why 1.92 million? This way the frickin idiot can’t profit off of this from speaking engagements, Lifetime movies or a book deal. Now, if she does this, the RIAA will get their share first. How many of you would feel this lady was so put upon when she becomes a well paid celebrity just by committing a crime?

The problem is copyright laws and the RIAA’s abuse of copyright laws.

Copyrights owned by corporations last 95 years (for individual authors, it is life + 70 year). In comparison, patents are 20 years. Why so long? – because corporate interests pushed through the legislation for it and for the draconian damages provisions that should be declared unconstitutional, but will not be given the current pro-copororate interest supreme court. The RIAA, for its part, exploits these laws to the fullest extent they can, thus exposing these unjust laws…

isnt the standard like 10 times the value of the product stolen… yeah, i could see her paying a few hundred… but the RIAA can go get bent, they should of handeled the case more soundly and maybe they would be taken seriously.

The public should be able to sue the RIAA for abusing our ears with all the brickwalled, lofi, compressed noise they try to pass off as music these days.

Something to consider – no _crime_ was committed. This is strictly a civil matter and should be handled accordingly. The RIAA’s and MPAA’s attempts to convert a civil action to a criminal one are at best stupid, and at worst, outright insane.

Should they succeed in making music piracy a crime of the genuine sort, they will find themselves in much more dire straits: namely, they will be held to proving beyond a “shadow of a doubt” of guilt, versus the “preponderance of evidence” standard used here.

That said, I’m glad to see the artists are issuing statements that reflect poorly on the RIAA. If anyone not involved in the political process can convince the RIAA they have erred, it will be the artists.

This is one of the reasons that pioneers like Radio Head, Paul McCartney and Guns and Roses left major record companies. Paul said they are holding artists back and released his last one first online and went Indie. You might say they can afford it, but the concept is correct. Paul said if he was younger he would do it.

So typical. Just like the Police go after the little drug smoker and let the real criminals free to roam. Easy prey the little guy. Cowards.

hey moron, loading up virii onto a computer network is illegal and criminal, much more so then the downloading in the first place….

Wanna see the RIAA go away? It’s pretty simple. Don’t buy new music anymore. Buy used cds from eBay or Amazon and upload to your mp3 player.

1. “No crime was committed”- Since when was taking something that doesn’t belong to you become a civil matter? Did I fall asleep and wake up in world where theft is no longer a crime?

2. “The RIAA abuses copyright laws”- This is also crap. Copyrights owned by corporate interests don’t last as long as for individuals. But why do they last so much longer than patents? Simply because the shelf life of a movie, a book or a song is FAR longer then that of most inventions. Also, the release of copyrights would allow companies to release music and pay no royalties to the artist. For example, every single song copyrighted before 1979 could be put out by anyone without paying the artist. Almost everything by Led Zeppelin and Bob Marley for instance would fall into this category. Also, what if Stephen King had died when he got hit by that car about 10 years back? His family would be penniless even though his early novels are STILL selling like crazy? But yet the patent on an Atari 2600 doesn’t mean much now does it?

3. “The public should be able to sue the RIAA for abusing our ears”- Not the RIAA’s fault. That blame should be placed on Hetfield, Ulrich and Rubin.” The RIAA only really cares about the compositions.

And like I said before, THE RIAA DID NOT SUE FOR 1.92 MILLION DOLLARS! THE JURY AWARDED THEM THIS BECAUSE THE STUPID B**** WOULDN’T PLAY BALL!!!!! She stole, she got caught, wouldn’t settle and now this happened. This is the equivilant of Michael Vick pleading not guilty. He’s going to get out soon because he admitted guilt and took a lesser sentence. This dumb b**** decided to fight because someone told her she’d get rich on book deals and Lifetime movies by fighting. Personally, I think the RIAA was pretty cool by NOT pressing criminal charges. They could have.

Re: Marx and Moby are Wrong. Question: what law school did you go to?

You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that stealing is crime. You also don’t have to be a lawyer to know that the RIAA didn’t ask for 1.92 million, but was awarded by the jury. Just read the article.

“The RIAA, who don’t actually expect Thomas-Rasset to pay the huge fee and instead see the verdict as a cautionary tale for those planning to illegally download, said they’d be open to make a settlement with Jammie”

Look, there is a lot wrong with the recording industry. Artists get treated like crap, royalty rates suck, Eminem was allowed to release “Relapse”. But just because certain individuals in the business are scumbags does not give us the right to steal from them.

I find it interesting that I can walk into a library and borrow a book that might have taken an author years to write for free. Meanwhile the recording industry that has screwed musicians for decades is given protection that the author is not given. These companies put out garbage and still get away with cheating artists. Buy music directly from musicians, and cut these pimps out. The laws need to be changed, a corporation can dump toxins in our drinking water and walk away with less of a fine than this person. Make the fines market value plus a $500 fine payable to the band downloaded.

It’s not a civil matter when it is theft people. Theft is a crime. Like you cant walk into a store and grab shit and walk out expecting it to be ok. Lot of people seem to think its ok to steal as its online..no, thats complete BS. All art is copyrighted, music as well, copyright, in other words, the right to copy.
I think the fine here is redicilous, and going after a single mom is just well, not cool.
Why dont labels and laywers go after these Torrent sites..to me its still mindblowing that it seems to be such a complicated matter. Go after the big guns.

Perhaps in show of support Rolling Stone should have an RIAA free issue. An issue with nothing but independent content and nothing from the labels.

The artists I’ve been acquainted with — some are not unknown — unanimously DESPISE the RIAA.

Anyone who knows about recording industry contracts know the RIAA has systematically ripped off the artists and the consumers alike since time immemorial.

SCREW THE RIAA !!!!

The artists I’ve been acquainted with — some are not unknown — unanimously DESPISE the RIAA.

Anyone who knows about recording industry contracts know the RIAA has systematically ripped off the artists and the consumers alike since time immemorial.

SCREW THE RIAA !!!!

I buy all of my CDS used off of amazon.com and ebay. It’s cheaper. Mark T.

Been hanging around music for over 40 years. Only met one musician who made it. Session man in LA that had quite a few of his guitar chops on top rated movie. His rights gave him enough to retire.

Used to ask musicians how much they got from ASCAP, BMI or RIIA and probably ten said they had gotten royalties.

BMI, ASCAP and RIIA are strictly shakedown artists, none of the money gets to the little people who keep music going.

I’ll happily pay full price at show and buy the music if I am handing it to the musicians. I won’t even buy from the company merch guy. Neither should you.

about stopping the downloading, they would do away with CDRs, MP3 players and all the other things people use to listen to their “stolen” music. Personally, I see nothing wrong with downloading. It’s no different than the old days, making cassettes of our favorite tunes to share with friends. I’d understand such a witch hunt if this woman and others were making a profit off of other people’s work or perhaps performing the music without permission. Then a judgment like this would make sense.

The artists that have the best music get my money. Plain and simple. If I “download” an album, and it sucks, I don’t buy it. I’ll give you a good concrete example: When Radiohead released their last album I already had it downloaded from a P2P site. But I bought the giant packaged one for more than 70 dollars anyway. Why? Because I loved the album. I respect them as a group. I respect the music. I respect who they are too much not to give them some of my bread. Simple as that. Just like Richard Marx and Moby are now getting a few points from me after reading this article. On a side note: I know exactly how artists can begin to sell albums again. Produce good work first and foremost. Then add unique content, like a DVD concert or making of footage or an interview, etc — and then sell it from 20+ dollars. The added content will be worth it for real fans — who won’t be able to get it easily in downloadable form. Fans will then go out and buy it just to have the extras, the art and the best sound quality.

You don’t have to be a native English speaker to understand that copying is not stealing. If I steal your CD then you can’t listen to it anymore. If I copy it, you can.

In a perfect world, a hard working and innovative musician should be able to get his/her product out to the general public without having to rely on these slimy middlemen. The last few years of internet communication and distribution have helped the independant performers tremendously and we now see the desparate spazms of a self-destructing “industry” that once had a monopoly and now is struggling to catch up with new technologies.

I have witnessed (first hand) the tactics used by the record-label A&R people to entice new promising bands to sign on the bottom line. These bands and artists gladly threw away their future direct profits from potential CD sales so they could have access to a flashy recording studio or have the record company pay half a million for a really cool video.

In some cases, the artists were truly mediocre and the record labels never fully recouped their investment.

As long as there are bands and artists that are desparate for a shortcut to hitting the big time, there will be the shyster middlemen poised to rip them off.

The lesson?

The musicians need to educate themselves about the business end of their musical aspirations. The consumers/ listeners need to insist on getting their CD etc more directly from the source. Support the artists you like, boycott the major labels whenever possible.

Jules, I am sorry, but you don’t understand intellectual property. It is not a physical product that you can hold in your hand and therefore is not capable of being subject to your comparison.

The problem here is that the RIAA is not protecting the artists who were wronged by this act. They are protecting an outmoded business model and trying to take home a few more bucks before they go out of business.

The reason the RIAA exists is to protect the RIAA’s existance. Not to protect the artists’ rights, not to provide service to consumers.

The first judge in this case recognized that the judgment of the jury was onerous and disproportionate to the crime. (think 80 years for a quarter ounce of pot.) The jury who delivered this decision was either stoned or stupid and placed the well being of a bunch of corporate fat cats over the concept of justice.

As a longtime Moby fan, I feel satisfied with his response to this issue. Moby is an artist who actually spent the greater portion of his career promoted by independent labels. And, I have been delighted to hear and purchase some of his earlier works. He is also the type of musician who is a remixer. As remixers go, it is often very difficult to find the remixes that you may enjoy that are submitted by remixers like Moby and many house, trance and techno remixers.

I happen to have a remix of a Moby song (that I paid for) by NYC House DJ Junior Vasquez. There are many songs that Junior Vasquez has remixed over his long career that have often been removed or put out of production. So, exactly what are my options for finding Junior Vasquez’ dance remixes, if I can’t even find them in cut out bins anymore? This is where I feel that record companies give no attention to club remixers. It is often by the method of the remixer art that makes it listenable, on many occasions. I think it accounts for poor decision making at the labels. As well, I feel that the RIAA leaves the interests of those who they represent out of the picture as well as the potential customer.