| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On August 04 2009 02:47 Kennelie wrote: Yea but once you stop paying for the zune pass, all your music is basically gone for what I hear. Edit: IMO that sucks. Except no it isn't, he JUST wrote that you keep 10 songs a month in his post. | ||
|
MasterReY
Germany2708 Posts
On August 03 2009 16:42 eMbrace wrote: 30 tracks of music is basically equivalent to shoplifting a pair of jeans (price wise) -- although you wouldn't get in too much trouble for the jeans now would you? WRONG ! the fact that he SHARED them makes it much more. Imagine 1000 people dl'ed the songs from him. 30x1000 = 30.000 track is worth 5 $ ? 30.000 x 5 = 150.000 $ The point is not, that he owns the tracks now, but the fact that he probably gave them to hundres of other people illegally too. ofc 675K is absurd anyways T_T | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:06 MasterReY wrote: WRONG ! the fact that he SHARED them makes it much more. Imagine 1000 people dl'ed the songs from him. 30x1000 = 30.000 track is worth 5 $ ? 30.000 x 5 = 150.000 $ The point is not, that he owns the tracks now, but the fact that he probably gave them to hundres of other people illegally too. ofc 675K is absurd anyways T_T This calculation is not reasonable: 1) The market price of a track is $1 (itunes) 2) The probability that of each of the songs shared would have been purchased by the people who have been shared with is somewhere around 10%. 3) There is also a positive effect of sharing by creating buzz and providing information to consumers, thus reducing this 10% figure. Thus, if he shared 30,000 tracks worth $1 each with a maximum 10% probability of buying he owes at MOST $3,000 in compensatory damages. That is an upper bound estimate. However, say the probability of getting caught is 1/500k. Then, to make stealing actuarialy unfair, we would need $3,000X500,000, meaning he should have to pay 1.5 billion. So the amount they asked for is probably actuarialy unfair to have a deterrent effect, given the assumption that consumers are risk neutral. | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:14 Charlespeirce wrote: This calculation is not reasonable: 1) The market price of a track is $1 (itunes) 2) The probability that of each of the songs shared would have been purchased by the people who have been shared with is somewhere around 10%. 3) There is also a positive effect of sharing by creating buzz and providing information to consumers, thus reducing this 10% figure. Thus, if he shared 30,000 tracks worth $1 each with a maximum 10% probability of buying he owes at MOST $3,000 in compensatory damages. That is an upper bound estimate. However, say the probability of getting caught is 1/500k. Then, to make stealing actuarialy unfair, we would need $3,000X500,000, meaning he should have to pay 1.5 billion. So the amount they asked for is probably actuarialy unfair to have a deterrent effect, given the assumption that consumers are risk neutral. For them to believe that the punitive damages have a deterrent effect they would have to believe that people are severely risk averse: U(X)=X^(8.94831198×10^-9) Instead they make these judgments based on 'gut feeling'. Stupid in my opinion. | ||
|
ColdLava
Canada1673 Posts
On August 04 2009 02:02 Gregsen wrote: The fine is way too high, I agree. BUT: Since I'm a musician myself I can tell you guys that the "millionaire puppet" artists are at maximum something like 0,1% of all the musicians around. All the others who try to make money with their music, are e.g. signed at an independent label and put all their heart and effort in it just get robbed by download piracy. If you like what a musician is doing, appreciate it and pay for it. You wouldn't claim a picture by picasso for free, would you?! Since nobody wants to pay for music anymore, the quality of music will decrease soon enough. Passion is one thing, but the financial possibility to be musician as full-time job is entirely another, it is slowly disappearing. Can you not possibly see that "illegal downloading" is making it EASIER, not harder, for you to make a living making music and playing shows? There is WAY WAY WAY more to an artists profit than CD sales, and actually, an artist will rarely see profit come from selling CDs as you don't get profit for selling CDs until your debt is gone. At least when dealing with a label. And besides, the internet spreads music around and makes it so accessible it's not even funny. it makes it sooo much easier for you to promote yourself. Of course this isn't true when you release a CD independently (either produced and engineered by yourself or contracted out by you to someone you know), but in that case you're probably not big enough to get affected by downloading anyway. Now, then there's the possibility that you are an artist making a CD on an independent label (which mostly same rules apply as a major label or a branched label), but you still get publishing rights for every time a DJ plays your song on the radio, or in a night club, or wherever in a public place. That's a huuuuge amount of your income, and that combined with live shows (and this includes CDs being bought at your shows, because that doesn't get taxed/treated the same way) would most likely be your profit unless, of course, you're fucking huge and sell millions of CDs, but in that case you're probably well off enough anyway. edit: by the way, i'm not necessarily trying to justify downloading music (even though i think everyone should do it), but what I am saying is that it in NO WAY hurts the artist. only the record label (and the producer too because he gets usually 3% of your CD sales... but producers usually are doing pretty well themselves as they are contracted out money by the label ALONG with that 3%) | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
| ||
|
MasterReY
Germany2708 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:14 Charlespeirce wrote: This calculation is not reasonable: 1) The market price of a track is $1 (itunes) 2) The probability that of each of the songs shared would have been purchased by the people who have been shared with is somewhere around 10%. 3) There is also a positive effect of sharing by creating buzz and providing information to consumers, thus reducing this 10% figure. Thus, if he shared 30,000 tracks worth $1 each with a maximum 10% probability of buying he owes at MOST $3,000 in compensatory damages. That is an upper bound estimate. However, say the probability of getting caught is 1/500k. Then, to make stealing actuarialy unfair, we would need $3,000X500,000, meaning he should have to pay 1.5 billion. So the amount they asked for is probably actuarialy unfair to have a deterrent effect, given the assumption that consumers are risk neutral. yea ok i agree. ur right. but the main point of my post stays: the damage done is not just the price of the 30 tracks (30 $). | ||
|
soudo
603 Posts
On August 03 2009 17:17 JohnColtrane wrote: selling music only cheapens and diminishes it. music should be free for everyone musicians that truly enjoy making music release it for free in their spare time, rather than charging people and making a job out of it. making great music and interacting with great musicians is the reward Well you're obviously not musically talented or good enough to sell records or else you wouldn't be saying that. | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:25 MasterReY wrote: yea ok i agree. ur right. but the main point of my post stays: the damage done is not just the price of the 30 tracks (30 $). Compensatory damages are definitely not $30. I think it would be better if they asked for the 1.5 billion. At least they would have a reason for the amount they are asking for. | ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free. Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead. | ||
|
Clasic
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On August 03 2009 16:48 On_Slaught wrote: It's because he was the only one of many stupid enough to actually fight the charges and try to justify it with some bullshit. I'm glad the arrogant prick got shat on. Then thats what the stupid bitch gets.. you don't do something illegal and then say " WELL THEIR WAS A GOOD REASON " that's like saying " I KILLED SOMEONE BUT THEIR WAS A GOOD REASON HE GOT ON MY NERVES PLEASE LET ME GO " | ||
|
ColdLava
Canada1673 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people. It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free. Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead. Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about and don't know how the music industry works. It's an entirely different beast than say, stealing a bottle of shampoo from walmart. I'm a musician myself, and I am playing a local show in 3 weeks. If it weren't for the internet, this would be absolutely unknown | ||
|
Charlespeirce
United States46 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's pretty absurd that so many people actually believe they have the right to download copyrighted music for free. It's no wonder the music industry has to resort to this sort of crap to make examples out of people. It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free. Maybe I'm getting old, and the younger generation feel much more obligated to have everything for free instead. That is not correct. Check out Fader's work on the effect of Napster on Napster users' music purchases. They actually increased: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/faderp.html There is also an argument that the market prices of the music are too high, which may be true. | ||
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
| ||
|
Mutaahh
Netherlands859 Posts
Because that is what they want? That people stop downloading illegal music... | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:35 baubo wrote: It's one thing to pirate music and movies and whatever because you want to save a buck. But quite another to think you're actually doing musicians a favor that you're getting their music for free when they don't want you to have it for free. Well, i think i am doing them a favor, because if it wasnt for me, many of my friends including me would never ever buy quite many of the albums that we first pirated and listened to them, and if we liked them, we bought them.. If it wasnt of the piracy, i would never ever buy the album based on one song that i hear and i like, and probably i would never even hear for many of the other albums.. So basicaly all they got from me was +. Including my friend, more pluses.. Because of it, we went to concerts that we wouldnt attend otherwise.. Sadly, today there is way too many shitty music and albums that contains 1 ok music and the rest are shit, so piracy today is a necessity. I always buy the music that deserves my money. Further more, the fine just shows how bad the system really is.. 650k.. Pathetic.. I will download 3 times for mp3's that i currently have, and laugh even more. | ||
|
Day[9]
United States7366 Posts
| ||
|
unit
United States2621 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:58 Day[9] wrote: The music industry is a bunch of trolls well at least someone knows the real situation here...damn riaa trolling bittorrent then tracking where the uploaders are :O | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
On August 04 2009 03:42 Charlespeirce wrote: That is not correct. Check out Fader's work on the effect of Napster on Napster users' music purchases. They actually increased: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/faderp.html There is also an argument that the market prices of the music are too high, which may be true. I don't see that paper on the front page. I guess it was an old paper? Likely since napster was so long ago. Regardless, I'm guessing what the paper suggest is that relatively unknown musicians are able to get better sales from distribution sites like napster. But that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which really just deals with musicians that has already made it. i.e. If you're a Britney Spears fan, you're not going to more likely buy her CDs if you get if for free. But if you found an unknown band's music interesting, you may buy it to support them. On August 04 2009 03:38 ColdLava wrote: Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about and don't know how the music industry works. It's an entirely different beast than say, stealing a bottle of shampoo from walmart. I'm a musician myself, and I am playing a local show in 3 weeks. If it weren't for the internet, this would be absolutely unknown Why do I need to know how the music industry work? I just need to know that (A) it's illegal, and (B) the people who own the rights to the music don't want to make it available for free. Whether you're a musician or not is immaterial. You may freely distribute your music however you like. But you can't just say ALL musicians want their music distributed this way. | ||
| ||
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
Elazer vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Scarlett
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|
EPT
