PDA

View Full Version : RIAA sued by victim.


Flightfreak
03-10-2005, 06:00 PM
deleted

Ashley
03-10-2005, 06:22 PM
I think the artists should get more of the money, in some cases they're getting very little and the companies get the majority.
I buy the CD's of less known artists and barrow the CD's from huge artists... there are exceptions to that though, based on my own personal preference. If I really love the artist I'm buying the CD. Other than that, unless I want an actually album album for whatever reason, I download it from iTunes or from other sites that are cheaper than actually going to Best Buy or Wal-Mart. Actually laying down a few dollars doesn't hurt, and it keeps me guilt free.

DefyingGravity
03-10-2005, 08:34 PM
Good for her. I knew it was only a matter of time before this would happen.

Hazzle
03-10-2005, 09:26 PM
Want to support an artist? Go and see them live. Buy products they've endorsed. Buying the records does SQUAT.

Even George Michael at his peak was making 70p out of every £14.99 sold. That's one of the world's biggest musicians and that's all he got.

Smaller musicians make roughly 5-10p out of every CD you buy. For Americans they make roughly that many cents too.

It's really not worth it for them. I've studied recording contracts, they don't make anything. However from other products they make a fair bit. Concerts and so forth they get a bigger cut.

Truth be told, the people you hurt most by downloading are the small fry, the cleaners and admin staff at the record labels. So if you feel guilty, feel guilty for depriving them, but never worry about the "starving" artist because that's record label bullshit propoganda.

I tells you, this is war, and I think the industry might well lose out to technology. It happened before when Napster was inapplicable to the new non-server-client P2P platforms, and now it's being argued that Torrent files for BitTorrent software are not the copyright works (which they're not) and that it's impossible for the current copyright laws to catch these. I think there may well be a point as hash files are NOT the music files, they're an independent work with copyright of their own.

meegaan1
04-10-2005, 04:00 AM
I think we should share illegal pie.

Hazzle
04-10-2005, 06:02 AM
I think we should share illegal pie.

Isn't that like statutory rape? And several offences about child pornography?

deviljet88
04-10-2005, 08:33 AM
Hazzle has released me of all my guilt. *continues downloading*

It's hard to stop music sharing and don't see much point in it. This is the age of digital music (or whatever those old fogies call it). People can easily just load 20gbs of music onto their iPod, plug it into their friend's computer and offload it all to them. While internet sharing might be choked (WinMX, eDonkey and a few other p2p's being shut down recently, but my trustworthy eMule and Limewire work fine), you can't prevent all forms of illegal sharing.

Oh, and there's enough of the legit people to make the world go round.

DragonRat
04-10-2005, 08:47 AM
Haz is right. Most artists make their money (and their living) on tour. When you have like 20 dates on a tour, and you're selling out shows with $20 a ticket, you're going to make some level of bank, even with all the equipment and logistics to handle. That's why a lot of musicians are almost always on tour.

As for downloading music, I do it with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. If I download music of someone who's dead (like Nick Drake or Elliott Smith), am I depriving them of my money (a bit cynical, but it's a point nonetheless)? If I download music of a band in which I am interested, am I not interested or intrigued in their music at all? And, if I do ever get a chance to see a really good band on tour, won't I be willing to spend the money? (Well, no, not really, but that's because I never have time to watch bands live.)