Sued for Filesharing Music: Should You Settle or Allow a Default Judgment

There is no clear answer (is there ever with law?). It often depends on how many songs you are accused of sharing. The statutory minimum is $750 per song; the amount that would be applied in default. So ten songs? $7500. Settling with the RIAA appears to cost around $4000 to $5000.

Ars Technica has an article examining further the two options.

"The Golden Age of Infinite Music"

John Harris writes in an article for BBC News on the ease of obtaining music (by whatever means) and how that has created a generation of musically knowledgeable youth with palettes as well versed as middle aged music lovers. Mr. Harris opines on what a possible and likely future for music will entail:

Empty record shops will be overrun with weeds and old CDs will be used as coasters. Your Madonnas, U2s and Coldplays will prosper, but for anyone further down the hierarchy, the idea of making much of a living will be a non-starter.

While the future looks bleak, Mr. Harris tries to see the positive in the present:

But for now, this is a truly golden age - the era of the teenage expert, albums that will soon have to be full of finely-honed hits and the completely infinite online jukebox.

"The Download Decade"

Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail is doing a multi part series: The Download Decade.

In addition to examining the progression of illegal downloading during the last 10 years, The Globe and Mail have collected news stories on downloading going back to the year 2000.

The People Who Illegally Download Also Purchase the Most Music?

"People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else." Believe it? A new poll held in the United Kingdom says it's true.

"The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly. ... The poll, which surveyed 1,000 16- to 50-year-olds with internet access, found that one in 10 people admit to downloading music illegally." (via The Independent)

But what does the poll really mean? It could be that almost everyone in the UK who enjoys music has downloaded music illegally, leaving only those that are rather disinterested in music in the non-downloading category. It seems reasonable to believe that those who like music the most, and thus most likely to listen to music, are also those that have at some point downloaded illegally. To me, the poll really says nothing that we can accurately analyze.

Does it really matter if, as the poll suggests, people who download music illegally also buy the most music. The fact that they download some music illegally means that they are likely buying LESS than they would if they couldn't download illegally. Sure, people would not pay full price for every song they download illegally, but the fact that they are downloading it means they place SOME value on the music. If the price point in the market met that value, they would arguably pay for it. Because you can download most songs for about a dollar online, it is hard to believe that people would not buy some of the music they download illegally if they were prevented from downloading illegally.

So, the labels and artists may get MORE money from illegal downloaders than non-downloaders, but they are getting less than they would if the pirates stopped downloading. That's the important point often left out of the discussion.