Student fined $675K for 30 music track downloads - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tyreek
United States141 Posts
| ||
|
UGC4
Peru532 Posts
Ever since the music industry boomed with artists ranging from Michael Jackson to Britney Spears, among many others, it began to sell MILLIONS and MILLIONS of CD copies, so the industry was destined to be pure greed. Nowadays, an artist like Lil Wayne will be lucky to sell 1 million copies, and it serves him right if you ask me. What is popular music now anyway? a compilation of sex, cars, drugs, alcohol, and shit like that, all in a non-sensical way ("i got your bitch riding my dick with no shocks," gotta love it but where is the quality in that?). Though i like a lot of it much like any other teenager, you have to admit that most music genres have lost quality over time, and that is because most "musicians" just want to come up with a record hit (soulja boy? what the fuck) as opposed to making good music. True, some genres havent changed as much, such as jazz for example, but even there it's hard to find musicians that are truly motivated by passion. If a musician is sincerely motived by passion, what he should want is to perform in front of live audiences and show the world his love for music. He shouldn't be mainly concerned with selling. Music nowadays is not worth what the price tag tells. | ||
|
bN`
Slovenia504 Posts
| ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9376 Posts
they are just a bunch of money fucking whores, who like to make big cash out of people like this. Fuck you RIAA | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
![]() | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
On August 03 2009 16:45 mahnini wrote: the fine is absurd | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
| ||
|
NerO
United States2071 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Music Industry Lures ‘Casual’ Pirates to Legal Sites Article Tools Sponsored By By ERIC PFANNER Published: July 19, 2009 PARIS — Record company executives say there are three kinds of music fans. There are those who buy music, and those who get a kick out of never paying for it. And then there are those whom Rob Wells at Universal Music Group calls “dinner party pirates”: the vast majority of listeners, those who copy music illegally because it is more convenient than buying it. If those low-level copyright cheats could be converted to using legal music services, the digital music business would get much-needed help. Yet even industry executives acknowledge that until recently, they were not giving those listeners many ways to do what they wanted: to sample new music and to play it back anytime, at little or no cost. Over the past year, however, as sales of CDs have continued to fall and paid-for downloads from services like Apple’s iTunes have fallen short of hopes, record companies have moved to embrace casual file-sharers. Legal services offering free, unlimited streaming of music, rather than downloads, are proliferating. According to a survey published last week, they are taking some of the wind out of the pirates’ sails. “Consumers are doing exactly what we said they would do,” said Steve Purdham, chief executive of We7, a service that says it has attracted two million users in Britain in a little more than half a year by offering unlimited access to millions of songs. “They weren’t saying, ‘Give me pirated music’; they were saying, ‘Give me the music I want.”’ The music industry has high hopes that the growth of sites like We7, whose investors include the former Genesis musician Peter Gabriel, can change the reputation of Europe as a hive of digital piracy. Similar businesses include Deezer, in France, and Spotify, which was started by two Swedish entrepreneurs and has grown rapidly in Britain and elsewhere. All of them are licensed by the music industry and hope to make money from advertising. Last week, Microsoft said it, too, planned to offer a music streaming service in Britain, via its MSN Web business, though it provided few details. Meanwhile, the survey by two research firms, Music Ally and Leading Question, showed that Britons were adopting such services in large numbers. Among British teenage music fans, 65 percent said they listened to streamed music at least once a month, with 31 percent saying they did so every day. The survey showed a striking decline in the number of British teenagers who said they had regularly engaged in unauthorized file-sharing; only 26 percent said they had done so as of January, when the survey was taken, compared with 42 percent in December 2007. Music industry executives say that does not mean the piracy problem has been solved. The survey results did not distinguish between licensed and unlicensed streaming services or others, like YouTube, where both kinds of music can be found. Illegally copied music still accounts for the vast majority of digital listening, they add. Still, executives say there are some promising signs. Rather than cannibalizing existing digital businesses, they say, the new services are often attracting people who previously shared files illegally. According to research by one of the major record companies, nearly two-thirds of Spotify users say they now engage in less piracy. Spotify says it has two million registered users in Britain and another two million in Sweden, Spain and France. Paul Brown, managing director of its British arm, said it wants to expand to the United States by the end of the year. There, it would go up against a number of digital businesses that also offer free music in various ways, including MySpace Music, Imeem, Last.FM, Pandora and others. While Pandora has said it expects to be profitable by the end of the year, analysts say most other free streaming services are still losing money. Some advertising-supported free music sites, like SpiralFrog, have already gone out of business. “You only have to use these services for a while to realize that there’s not a lot of advertising on them,” said Paul Brindley, chief executive of Music Ally. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/technology/internet/20stream.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=music industry&st=cse | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
I wouldn't download any music that I would be sued for downloading (most of the artists I like either give it away for free and I donate money to them or they don't care enough to sue because they just like making music), so I could care less. But, if you wanna download the newest turd released by a major record label, expect to get harassed and possibly sued (although the probability is really small). You deserve it for consuming that garbage. Also expect to die quickly when smoking cigarettes, or eating McDonald's. | ||
|
purgerinho
Croatia919 Posts
i mean, albums are around 50 $, LOOOL! here in croatia average pay is around 700 $ .. and i should buy every album of every artists i want to hear? hahaha, yeah right! if you want money come here and make concert! croatians are ready to give 200 $ for a ticket (U2 was sold out in few hours so they made one more concert day after that was sold out again in few hours) so every musician can earn more then from selling records... musicians, games makers, movie makers etc, etc.. have no sense for customers and sharing all of these things is one of few ways to fight against big companies and rothen capitalism... ppl, pls don't feel sorry for greedy musicians and their houses.. make an album for 10 $ and maybe more ppl wuld buy it .I. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On August 03 2009 21:57 Charlespeirce wrote: I find it amusing that a company will sue its consumers. Luckily this will just make them die faster due to consumers either having no money or ill will toward the company. I wouldn't download any music that I would be sued for downloading (most of the artists I like either give it away for free and I donate money to them or they don't care enough to sue because they just like making music), so I could care less. But, if you wanna download the newest turd released by a major record label, expect to get harassed and possibly sued (although the probability is really small). You deserve it for consuming that garbage. Also expect to die quickly when smoking cigarettes, or eating McDonald's. I guess TL really is pretentious.....oh wait 3 posts still time to change! | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On August 03 2009 22:02 Charlespeirce wrote: I'm also getting a doctorate at an Ivy league school, so... ratchet that up a notch please. :D +2 pretentious points. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
First one is: Is it okay to download pirated music? Second one is: Is it okay to destroy someone's life with a $675,000 dollar fine for downloading pirated music? I believe the OP was asking for debate on the second question. I doubt many music artists would support such a move, and it's generally the RIAA who will take such a stance in order to protect their outdated business model and try to get us all to go back to buying CDs at a record store like good little children. Screw the RIAA, and screw their business model. If I want to get a music track, I will not drive over to a record store and buy a CD. I will download it from the comfort of my home. Through the iTunes Music Store. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Guy leaves Kazaa open and gets caught sharing music. He is NOT in trouble for downloading music. No one has ever been sued for downloading music. The RIAA issues him/his ISP a statement telling him to stop and ordering him to pay some relatively minimal fee, usually like $500-1000. Guy decides he has some legal merit to stand on and doesn't pay it, therefore they take him to court. He obviously loses because he's in the wrong, and a JURY OF HIS PEERS choose the damages. The judge may still lower it. Moral of the story? If you get caught, just pay the fucking fine. The RIAA might be terrible, but there is no legal or moral ground to stand on if you're downloading music. That and don't be an idiot and use Kazaa/Limewire/public trackers/etc. | ||
|
Lord_of_Chaos
Sweden372 Posts
One thing the antipirates are always proclaiming is the death of the music industry. Funny, since the "music industry" is still alive. And this in the age where the vast majority of all teenagers and young adults (the large music consumers) are downloading illegally. They claim that in some future, the music industry will begin to suffor from this, when it's only suffering a little now. Somehow this is going to grow even bigger and more problematic in the future when all music is free on internets. Oh wait, it already is. And they're not dead yet. Fighting piracy is the wrong way to go, the correct way is to give good alternatives to an obsolete CD. Spotify, for example. I've basicly stopped downloading music all together since I got the free version of Spotify, financed through advertisements. An excellent way the "music industry" can live on in the age of this rampant piracy. Other ways of getting money is selling extra stuff, T-shirts, wallpapers etc. And of course concerts, which can never be pirated. And the huge majority of musicians do not earn any money on what they do, they still produce music. I'm not saying everyone should do this, I'm just saying the vast vast majority of all musicians the "industry" claims to stand for never earned anything on music, except for the odd live show in a bar or so if they get really lucky. Still nothing that can be hurt through piracy. This huge fine for 30 songs is absurd. I got thousands of songs on my computer, all downloaded illegally. Let's say I got 3000, which is still a small amount compared to some of my friends. That would mean $675,000,000. That's about 0.5% of the Swedish state budget each year. I doubt that's proportional to the damage I've done to the music industry. | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
Start with: Hastie, Schkade & Payne (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's request and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and human behaivior, 23(4). | ||
| ||
