$60000 song?

fractiouslowend · #1 11-05-2010, 02:55 AM

i just read that a woman from minnesota has been fined $1,500,000 for downloading 24 songs of kazaa.
now, whether you believe downloading songs for free is wrong or not, surely 60 odd thousand dollars per song cannot be justified.

R. Laevinus · #2 11-05-2010, 07:10 AM

Yeah, seems like a bit much.

Me, I buy CD's. I figure it's my duty as an asipring musician to support the major labels and help keep physical album sales viable - after all, I want them to give me a record deal some day!

joshwilkesbooth · #3 11-05-2010, 07:11 AM

Anyone still using Kazaa deserves what they get, imo. Get with the times.

champbassist · #4 11-05-2010, 07:17 AM

I fear another out of control thread on copyright infringement looms here.

We've already had some pretty ugly ones here

joshwilkesbooth · #5 11-05-2010, 07:21 AM

In before the moral crusade.

**Lazarus.Bird** · #6 11-05-2010, 07:23 AM

You JUST read this? Is the source credible? The RIAA announced a couple years ago they would no longer pursue lawsuits targetting individuals and instead develop anti-piracy methods with ISPs. The story you read is most likely bogus.

champbassist · #7 11-05-2010, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus.Bird

You JUST read this? Is the source credible? The RIAA announced a couple years ago they would no longer pursue lawsuits targetting individuals and instead develop anti-piracy methods with ISPs. The story you read is most likely bogus.

Don't think so:

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amp...ding-24-songs/

**Lazarus.Bird** · #8 11-05-2010, 07:29 AM

Ah the trial started back in 2007. That was before the RIAA's "change of heart"

Simo98 · #9 11-06-2010, 05:16 PM

I don't get it. What do they think they are accomplishing?

Will this stop anyone who already downloads music from doing it? I highly doubt it. Will they sell more CDs? No. Will the 1.5 million dollars or whatever make a difference to a big organisation like that, considering the time and resources it would have chewed up, and the bad press they receive for it? Unlikely.

The music industry needs to adapt, people WILL download music, deal with it, start adjusting your business model to deal with it instead of trying to dismiss the internet as a passing fad.

I download music/movies/videogames, quite often, I also listen to it on youtube. That being said, I also have probably a thousand dollars worth of CDs and Vinyl with ease, and probably another thousand in movies, and god knows how much in videogames.

It didn't stop me from purchasing the media, in fact it made me purchase the media. Had I not downloaded it, id have probably never bothered to go out and buy it. I don't agree that "Piracy" is necessarily "Right", but it certainly has its place. I just spent $150 on a festival ticket, because a band is playing there that I have listened to on the internet.

In my opinion, its not far removed from listening to the radio, taping songs off the radio, or burrowing CDs from a friend. Just because I didn't pay for the CD, doesn't mean I won't buy the T-Shirt, nor does it mean I won't buy the CD at a later date.

If the music being produced by these big record labels was actually worth buying, id go out and buy it (as it stands, I wouldn't download it if you paid me). Yet they even make it difficult for you to do that. The new Warpaint album came out October 25th. I had it ordered a week early and I STILL don't have it! If new music was being released, that was good, and the albums were on the shelves the day it came out, I, and many other people, would be happy to buy them.

As it stands, the companies are not making their bread and butter off new music, they are still holding onto the copyright of old Led Zep albums and selling best of collections. Thats just not right in my opinion, music that was released more than 10 years ago should be free for everyone.

I hope you will excuse this rather directionless rant, however its early, and keeping me from my breakfast, so i'll just post it and we'll see where it goes

Pilgrim · #10 11-06-2010, 06:13 PM

The RIAA simply decided to show no mercy and go after the largest obscenely ridiculous fines available under our current laws. IMO those laws should be changed. In the meantime, DO NOT get caught.

champbassist · #11 11-06-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simo98

I don't get it. What do they think they are accomplishing?

Will this stop anyone who already downloads music from doing it? I highly doubt it. Will they sell more CDs? No. Will the 1.5 million dollars or whatever make a difference to a big organisation like that, considering the time and resources it would have chewed up, and the bad press they receive for it? Unlikely.

The music industry needs to adapt, people WILL download music, deal with it, start adjusting your business model to deal with it instead of trying to dismiss the internet as a passing fad.

I download music/movies/videogames, quite often, I also listen to it on youtube. That being said, I also have probably a thousand dollars worth of CDs and Vinyl with ease, and probably another thousand in movies, and god knows how much in videogames.

It didn't stop me from purchasing the media, in fact it made me purchase the media. Had I not downloaded it, id have probably never bothered to go out and buy it. I don't agree that "Piracy" is necessarily "Right", but it certainly has its place. I just spent $150 on a festival ticket, because a band is playing there that I have listened to on the internet.

In my opinion, its not far removed from listening to the radio, taping songs off the radio, or burrowing CDs from a friend. Just because I didn't pay for the CD, doesn't mean I won't buy the T-Shirt, nor does it mean I won't buy the CD at a later date.

If the music being produced by these big record labels was actually worth buying, id go out and buy it (as it stands, I wouldn't download it if you paid me). Yet they even make it difficult for you to do that. The new Warpaint album came out October 25th. I had it ordered a week early and I STILL don't have it! If new music was being released, that was good, and the albums were on the shelves the day it came out, I, and many other people, would be happy to buy them.

As it stands, the companies are not making their bread and butter off new music, they are still holding onto the copyright of old Led Zep albums and selling best of collections. Thats just not right in my opinion, music that was released more than 10 years ago should be free for everyone.

I hope you will excuse this rather directionless rant, however its early, and keeping me from my breakfast, so i'll just post it and we'll see where it goes

I'd advise you to beware, there are guys around here who'll attack you through PM for portraying music downloads in a non-negative light

M0ses · #12 11-06-2010, 08:43 PM

Whether this case is right or wrong, the defendant sure has made a crap-load of ridiculously stupid legal moves.

Matt Dean · #13 11-06-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simo98

I don't get it. What do they think they are accomplishing?

Will this stop anyone who already downloads music from doing it? I highly doubt it. Will they sell more CDs? No. Will the 1.5 million dollars or whatever make a difference to a big organisation like that, considering the time and resources it would have chewed up, and the bad press they receive for it? Unlikely.

The music industry needs to adapt, people WILL download music, deal with it, start adjusting your business model to deal with it instead of trying to dismiss the internet as a passing fad.

I download music/movies/videogames, quite often, I also listen to it on youtube. That being said, I also have probably a thousand dollars worth of CDs and Vinyl with ease, and probably another thousand in movies, and god knows how much in videogames.

It didn't stop me from purchasing the media, in fact it made me purchase the media. Had I not downloaded it, id have probably never bothered to go out and buy it. I don't agree that "Piracy" is necessarily "Right", but it certainly has its place. I just spent $150 on a festival ticket, because a band is playing there that I have listened to on the internet.

In my opinion, its not far removed from listening to the radio, taping songs off the radio, or burrowing CDs from a friend. Just because I didn't pay for the CD, doesn't mean I won't buy the T-Shirt, nor does it mean I won't buy the CD at a later date.

If the music being produced by these big record labels was actually worth buying, id go out and buy it (as it stands, I wouldn't download it if you paid me). Yet they even make it difficult for you to do that. The new Warpaint album came out October 25th. I had it ordered a week early and I STILL don't have it! If new music was being released, that was good, and the albums were on the shelves the day it came out, I, and many other people, would be happy to buy them.

As it stands, the companies are not making their bread and butter off new music, they are still holding onto the copyright of old Led Zep albums and selling best of collections. Thats just not right in my opinion, music that was released more than 10 years ago should be free for everyone.

I hope you will excuse this rather directionless rant, however its early, and keeping me from my breakfast, so i'll just post it and we'll see where it goes

Big Plus One.

Chrisk-K · #14 11-06-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

The music industry needs to adapt, people WILL download music, deal with it, start adjusting your business model to deal with it instead of trying to dismiss the internet as a passing fad.

What kind of business model allows "stealing" from a manufacturer? It is people, not the music industry, that needs to adapt.

s4001 · #15 11-06-2010, 08:50 PM

It was a punitive action. She'll be forced into bankruptcy regardless of the dollar amount associated with it.

Shakin-Slim · #16 11-06-2010, 08:54 PM

major labels can suck it. I buy New Zealand music. The rest needs no support from me.

Boguszewivz · #17 11-06-2010, 09:04 PM

1.5 million? how can she possibly pay that. It takes an average person 30 odd years to repay a $300,000 home loan, this is 5 times more. Do they honestly expect to see this money, its pretty silly.

Simo98 · #18 11-06-2010, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrisk-K

What kind of business model allows "stealing" from a manufacturer? It is people, not the music industry, that needs to adapt.

By definition it is not "Stealing", despite what the corporate propaganda says.

I agree that it is not right, and is similar to stealing in a way (this is where the very big grey area appears), but the way that it is compared to stealing a car is just plain old-fashioned bull****.

However, if you do treat it as stealing, take supermarkets for example. They don't allow shoplifting, however they realise that it is inevitable no matter how many precautions they take, and as such have factored it into costs of operating. Now of course its not exactly the same, particularly because "piracy" (which is not actually the correct definition for downloading music) is infact not stealing. However it is an example of a business model which takes into account theft.

C.Linton · #19 11-06-2010, 09:43 PM

No, it''s stealing, no matter how you try to spin it.

Simo98 · #20 11-06-2010, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.Linton

No, it''s stealing, no matter how you try to spin it.

I used to look at it that way too. But it is not the same thing. It is very similar, however there is one major difference which I believe to be a determining factor.

Blatant theft: Im in your house, and take your "Best of Gary Numan" CD.

"Piracy": I take a copy of your "Best of Gary Numan" CD, leaving me with a copy, and you no worse off and potentially completely un-awares.

Now, where it gets tricky is the fact that by copying "Best of Gary Numan" and listening to it, I don't buy it, and as such you can argue (and a while back I would have also) that you are essentially "stealing" the companies profits. But it gets trickier again when I say "Best of Gary Numan, are you kidding me!? Why would I buy that".

So we're stuck. Im listening to a CD which I haven't paid for, and as such it could be saud I have no right to listen to it, but you still have your Gary Numan CD and are no worse for wear. Who's in the right? Who's in the wrong. The only person who really misses out is the record company, and possibly Gary Numan, though I doubt he even gets any money from his record sales these days.

But here is the crux of it. They don't miss out either! Or at least, they don't have to. This "Piracy" is happening every day of the week, and is only going to increase more and more, so preventing it is a lost cause, its like trying to drain the pacific with a bucket, then emptying the bucket onto the land behind you so it ends up in the ocean again anyway. So, instead of fighting it, why not capatilise on all this free promotion, when you really think about it file sharing is advertising gold. People copying your music is like having your song on the radio 24/7, more people are hearing it, more people are liking your music, and more people are supporting it. Sell them T-Shirts, book live shows, collectors editions of the albums, sell it on vinyl for us vinyl junkies, sell "learn to play Gary Numan" guitar lesson books.

I mean, ideally the record companies would all go back where they came from, and i'd buy my CDs directly from Gary Numan (or some other artist that I actually like), the artists would get all the money, and the CD would cost bugger all. I mean, if I had any scrap of talent and people wanted to listen to my music, thats how i'd do it. However, that would require some radical changes to.. well.. everything. So in the meantime, lets make do with what we've got.

Piracy is no longer a growing concern, I think you would stuggle to find anyone in a western country who hasn't infringed on a copyright. Be it downloading a song, watching a video on youtube, listening to a friends iPod, or buying a chinese copy of something. The record companies need to find a way to use it to their advantage, instead of trying to operate on an antiquated business model based on how it worked back in the "glory days".