QUOTE(Lyx @ Oct 6 2007, 04:46) 
As for hurting and piracy. In the case of indie-artists, your remarks may be true. In the case of RIAA-artists however, it is not, because the RIAA doesnt give a fuck about its artists - it just cares about itself. And it is the artists own fault, that they became the whore of the biggest abuser in the music world. And: Piracy or not, it doesnt make much of a difference to an RIAA-Artist anyways, because as already mentioned, the RIAA is not the saviour of its artists, but instead their abusive slavemaster.
The RIAA looks after the interests of its member labels which look after the interests of their signed artists. Artists that do not want their abusive slavemasters may simply remain independent. However, if I am a singer songwriter and I don't know dick about album production, distribution, or sales, let alone protecting my copyright, then I need someone to help me. That distribution doesn't have to be via physical CDs in record stores, it could be via the internet. But I don't have the skills to do it myself.
QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
It mostly hurts people who don't contribute to society: the labels. They're just what I call box-mover: a facilitator (or should be, that fact that they actively market and create music is appaling IMHO). So that doesn't concern me a bit, as I don't see why they should take 50% of every euro/dollar we spend on music.
All distributors in the world of business are "box-movers". Whether that's a regional distributor of physical CDs or a website pushing MP3s, that middle-man is a specialist who's good at their job and getting the artist's product in front of you. They are and always will be necessary for the majority of artists. There is also a cost associated with that which you cannot avoid.
QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
As I said before, this so-called morality you speak of is only a hundred years old. Before that nobody thought of making a buck out of music. Before that, sharing music was 'the way to go', that was how it was done. No, I don't care much for opportunistic businesses trying to make a buck of what is essentially a basic cultural need.
Bullshit. Absolute crap. For God's sake man. All of the classical era's music was produced mostly in direct solicitation and for compensation. Try stealing Beethoven's new score in 1790 and playing a public performance without permission and see how well your idealistic "sharing" hippie rubbish will protect you. It goes back much further than that, ask a historian about the origins of plaguarism as a concept.
All consumer products meet a "basic cultural need", because consumers "desire" them. If they don't, they don't succeed. Businesses profit from that. You don't like it, move to North Korea.
QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
Downloading is not stealing, downloading is copying.
Uploading is infringement of copyright and willful disregard of it by enabling others to co-conspire in your tort. The case of the OP does NOT concern downloading.
QUOTE(Brent @ Oct 6 2007, 05:37)
Move over to Europe and don't worry, be happy! $150k for a song is ridiculus, no matter how you look at it. The way you blindly accept that as a reality is shoking, it's clear that you accept you're being ruled by institution and it is not you who rules, the way it should be in a democracy.
The $150K is not a price for a song, it's a statutory fine against a guilty offender, found so by a court of law - perhaps the pillar of your democracy. So please, get it straight okay?
QUOTE(spockep @ Oct 6 2007, 05:40)
I can't understand the huge amount awarded. The only damage that really took place would be the cost of those 24 songs. So the amount should have been no more than $40. In other words the price of 2 expensive CD's.
The $150K is not a price for two CDs, it's a statutory fine against a guilty offender, found so by a court of law - perhaps the pillar of your democracy. So please, get it straight okay?
QUOTE(de Mon @ Oct 6 2007, 06:36)
Today more than 50% of people have downloaded a book or a song (or duplicated) at least one time. And 0,0000000001% of people (which name is RIAA) count this crime.
It's time to change rules. As most people would like them to be.
It's time to change rules. As most people would like them to be.
No, rather a great deal of people, particularly the lawmakers which YOU elected and the judges installed in power by the appropriate authorities in YOUR democracy, would "like" those laws to be in place. Believe it or not they are there for the good of all. And clearly the majority of the electorate continues to accept the justness of these laws - I don't see any mass protests in the streets of American cities or the issue being raised as policy by any election candidates.
Don't believe me? Write to your local senator or whatever and ask him nicely if he'll please present a bill to allow you to get your music for free.
QUOTE(de Mon @ Oct 6 2007, 07:03)
Can you tell me how many percents gets artist and how many percents of total goes to you? Maybe then I will tell you why people share music.
Most of times all these legal proceedings are initiated by recording studios and producers. And not by artists.
Most of times all these legal proceedings are initiated by recording studios and producers. And not by artists.
Of course they are - because that's their job, as they are obliged to do so for their signed artists. You moron. You expect some small band bringing in a few hundred K a year, if they're lucky, to prosecute a multi-million dollar lawsuit?
A $17 CD? Try this:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Record%20company
This is the cost and profit breakdown for a typical CD:
Manufacturer's Costs:
Recording expense: $.065
Manufacturing expense: $1.25
Packaging: $1.30
Advertising and promotion: $2.00
Artist's royalty: $1.60
Freight: $0.09
Payment to musician's trust fund: $0.65
Manufacturer's Profit: $2.94
Distributor's expenses and profit: $1.50
Retailer's expenses and profit: $5.00
TOTAL: $16.98
As an aside, a simplistic analysis of this would suggest that an online download for the same album should cost approx...
Recording expense: $.065
Advertising and promotion: $2.00
Artist's royalty: $1.60
Payment to musician's trust fund: $0.65
plus a few $ to cover costs of label and reseller: $3
TOTAL: $7.32 (?)
QUOTE(xip @ Oct 7 2007, 16:09)
What kills me is, I could go into a record store and steal 100 albums, and the penalty wouldn't even come close. I understand that this is how the law is written, but it doesn't seem reasonable regardless.
You would probably end up in prison for some time and a permanent criminal record as a thief. How do you compare the penalties?