.josh Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jury-awards-675K-in-Boston-apf-3221597159.html?x=0&.v=28 This is ridiculous. Does the "Music Industry" really think that financially ruining individuals is going to stop the file sharing "problem"? Bending over and raping a single person like this is not going to make this "problem" go away. When are they going to realize that they need to just buck up and change how they go about doing business, to accommodate technology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybride Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Maybe they should stop letting stupid lawsuits like this get into court in the first place. Like the McDonald's coffee one. Or the McDonald's-Made-Me-Fat one. Or the guy suing Guinness World Records because he got the title of the guy who made the most lawsuits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 I would not classify this with those lawsuits. I'm not saying the "Music Industry" does not have a legit case. What I am saying is that This "making an example" out of individuals is not going to solve the problem, so all they are doing is making an example of how they would rather rape individuals than get with the program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PugJr Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 CV, its probably the concept where you beat someone down and others are spectating and its a message to those spectators: "See, this is what happens when you mess with us! Don't be like him/her.". Then the spectators are supposed to be in fear which would make them stop downloading illegal things. Well, I think thats the idea anyways. EDIT: I bet it works to some degree. Like lets say Brother A. gets sued for 500,000$. Now his brothers, B. to E. are defintely going to stop downloading music illegally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 CV, its probably the concept where you beat someone down and others are spectating and its a message to those spectators: "See, this is what happens when you mess with us! Don't be like him/her.". Then the spectators are supposed to be in fear which would make them stop downloading illegal things. Well, I think thats the idea anyways. EDIT: I bet it works to some degree. Like lets say Brother A. gets sued for 500,000$. Now his brothers, B. to E. are defintely going to stop downloading music illegally. Well yeah, I definitely agree that that's what they are shooting for. The point though is that it won't work. Why? Sure, they may be able to scare one or two people, but what about the rest of the millions of people, not to mention the millions of people outside of their jurisdiction? As technology progresses, the need for data to be able to be abstracted away from the process and flow freely is imperative. This is why things like open-sourced solutions are growing, and the e-world is slowly but surely moving away from product-based sales and more towards service-based sales. The Music Industry is going against the grain; trying to paddle upstream when everybody else in the boat is paddling the other way. They may stop a handful of people, but they will never stop the masses, and they will never stop the progression of technology. They are fighting a war they cannot win. The smart thing would be for them to adapt. Offering things like subscription based music listening or downloading songs cheaply on an individual basis is a step forward (though not the ultimate ideal solution). Suing and winning thousands and hundreds and millions of dollars from average Joe is not. It's a waste of time, as they will not see that money anyway (average Joe cannot pay it, and will either file bankruptcy or else take whatever punishment happens when you don't pay, because bottom line is, average Joe does not have that kind of money). People will look at this guy as a vigilante or martyr to the cause, not as an example of what not to do. The Music Industry is shooting themselves in the foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerRobot Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Offering things like subscription based music listening or downloading songs cheaply on an individual basis is a step forward (though not the ultimate ideal solution). I don't think spotify has been launched yet in the US, but this kind of thing might really work. It's a streaming music service supported by adverts. You can play as much as you like and get an advert around every 8-10 songs, and i think they aim to tie them in with the end of an album if possible. Less adverts than a radio station and you get to choose the music. Or you can pay to have the adverts removed and it becomes more like your regular subscriptions service. It's certainly enjoying a lot of usage here in the UK. And i'm not surprised really...it's less effort to stream something and start listening instantly than it is to download, the library is pretty large and the adverts really aren't all that intrusive. I'd imagine there's pretty decent potential for advert revenues too. Targeted advertising is always a better and i'd imagine you could get a fairly accurate idea of a listener's demographic from the music listening history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynewex Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 hey guys wanna share mp3s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 Offering things like subscription based music listening or downloading songs cheaply on an individual basis is a step forward (though not the ultimate ideal solution). I don't think spotify has been launched yet in the US, but this kind of thing might really work. It's a streaming music service supported by adverts. You can play as much as you like and get an advert around every 8-10 songs, and i think they aim to tie them in with the end of an album if possible. Less adverts than a radio station and you get to choose the music. Or you can pay to have the adverts removed and it becomes more like your regular subscriptions service. It's certainly enjoying a lot of usage here in the UK. And i'm not surprised really...it's less effort to stream something and start listening instantly than it is to download, the library is pretty large and the adverts really aren't all that intrusive. I'd imagine there's pretty decent potential for advert revenues too. Targeted advertising is always a better and i'd imagine you could get a fairly accurate idea of a listener's demographic from the music listening history. I'll look into that one. Right now I am currently enjoying last.fm It's a free service, supported by ads, as well as revenue based on offering accessibility to buy. They have a huge database of songs. You can listen to the full version of songs up to like 5 times per song or something. After that, you can listen to a 30s clip of it. They also have radio stations and suggestions etc.. meant to help expose you to other artists/songs you might like, based on what you listen to and how you rate it. So far I'm loving this site, as I have quickly found a ton of stuff I would have otherwise never heard of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 http://www.pandora.com is another similar service that used to be free. They changed recently to 40 free hours per month and then you have to pay $0.99 for the rest of the month and you'll still hear ads. If you want it completely without ads it's like $36 / year. They do a good job of picking songs for your stations though. It's definitely worth the 40 free hours you get each month. I also listen to: http://www.technobase.fm/ http://www.trancebase.fm/ I'm not really a big techno / trance person but for some reason this type of music really goes well with coding or painting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerRobot Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I'll look into that one. Right now I am currently enjoying last.fm It's a free service, supported by ads, as well as revenue based on offering accessibility to buy. They have a huge database of songs. You can listen to the full version of songs up to like 5 times per song or something. After that, you can listen to a 30s clip of it. They also have radio stations and suggestions etc.. meant to help expose you to other artists/songs you might like, based on what you listen to and how you rate it. So far I'm loving this site, as I have quickly found a ton of stuff I would have otherwise never heard of. I've always used last.fm more as a record of the music i've listened to (can be surprising to see what you listen to most!) and as a way of getting recommendations, rather than for actually playing music. I know they have their radio stations and such, but i've never really found it that great to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 I do admit that it's pretty annoying that I can't somehow pause/rewind songs on last.fm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Well, back in December the RIAA stated it was abandoning its strategy of filing mass lawsuits against individual file sharers (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081219/0225073172.shtml), but it seems this was not entirely truthful as it seems they are still ongoing. They will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. There have been some positive changes recently. For example many music subscription sites now offer files that are not encumbered with draconian DRM technology. The "information age" has completely broken the model with which content providers have used for decades. They didn't know how to do anything differently. So, they pushed ahead putting whatever measures in place to prevent (so they thought) people from accessing content for which they didn't pay. But, what they have failed to realize is that the only people that were affected by DRM were the people that paid for the content. People who steal music, or other media, do not steal DRM'd content! In many cases, a provider has gone under and people who paid for the rights to content were now out of luck since the DRM on the content had a "phone home" validation to check that the user had rights to the content. But, once the provider went under, their servers which did the validation were no longer available. Totally, unacceptable in my opinion. I certainly don't have the answer. With electronic content a copy of an MP3 is as good as the original (assuming there was no reencoding). There needs to be an incentive to pay for the music as opposed to "sharing" it. There needs to be some service tied to the music in my opinion. On a related note, it is my understanding that when video cassette tapes were first introduced Disney was initally against it because people could watch one of their movies whenever they wanted and they (Disney) wouldn't be able to control how many people were watching it. Of course, we have come a long way since then and studios make many more millions than they would without video tapes and now DVDs/Blue-Ray. Just shows how short sighted the content providers are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I also find it rediculous that the studios use the argument that when you buy a CD (or other piece of media) that you are buying a license to the music not the music itself (which I agree with). But, if that is the case, they should have a program where you can replace a damaged CD with a new one for a much discounted replacement cost. Or, for that matter, I should be able to purchase a CD for an album I already owned on casette of vinyl for a somewhat reduced cost (since I am getting a higher-quality product). I already bought a license for the music, right? So, why should I have to bug a whole new license to get the music in a different format or to replace damaged media? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 the answer is to team up with companies that provide software and hardware for listening to the music. Strike a deal with apple to offer a year subscription to music w/ purchase of an i.* sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerRobot Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 There have been some positive changes recently. For example many music subscription sites now offer files that are not encumbered with draconian DRM technology. The "information age" has completely broken the model with which content providers have used for decades. They didn't know how to do anything differently. So, they pushed ahead putting whatever measures in place to prevent (so they thought) people from accessing content for which they didn't pay. But, what they have failed to realize is that the only people that were affected by DRM were the people that paid for the content. People who steal music, or other media, do not steal DRM'd content! They also failed to realise that, regardless of the DRM used, there would be a constant cat-and-mouse game of people finding ways around it. So once again, it's the people who wouldn't try and share music who suffer while those that do share music don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmola Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I don't have a problem with the guy losing the case. What's ridiculous is the damages. However, the guy in question, could have settled this case long ago for 5 grand. In fact the RIAA has stopped with these lawsuits, and only 2 of them went to court. I think what happened is more a reflection on the way the legal system and copyright law has been slanted absurdly towards the big business copyright holders. The damages were designed to prevent piracy, and there are any number of lawyers who believe that without a profit motive, there's no damages that can be assessed. One of those people, is the lawyer for the guy in the boston case, who was prevented from presenting a "Fair Use" based defense, and plans on taking this up on appeal. On a related note, there's a story on NPR right now about one of my favorite bands, The Posies. The main band is two guys who wrote all of their songs, and one of them, Jon Auer, talks about in the story, that their best selling album "Frosting on the Beater" sold about 250k copies. It was in fact their 2nd album, while they were signed to Geffen records. Auer says in the story that he never saw a check from the Album. 250k albums sold, and they never got a single penny. They did one more record for Geffen, which didn't sell well (but I can say without any hesitation is an incredible album that could have had several hits if it had got any promotion or radio play, which it didn't). Then they made an independent album, which sold only about 25k copies, and yet they actually received money for that album's sales. I think a lot of bands are now wise to the music racket, and understand that the big record company contracts are designed to fleece them. The days of becoming rich off record sales are fading into the sunset, for all but the multi platinum sellers, and even those people have horror stories -- like Bruce Springsteen who didn't make make any money off his first three albums which include Born To Run. I don't think it's as black and white an issue however. Movie Studios and big record companies are willing and capable of pumping thousands or millions of dollars into promoting an artist. They gamble knowing that the odds are against them, and so they fix the game so they still are able to recoup and profit off the 100-1 odds. CD royalities for artists are a joke for the most part, but even if they weren't, the problem is that for the 99 artists who don't blow up, they end up with very little from record sales, although this may still be worthwhile if it allows them to have a career and tour. BTW, this little article does a great job of talking about the way the music business works, and some of the current royalties issues: http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2009/07/21/music-royalties-for-dummies-or-ascap-is-not-the-riaa/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmola Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I also find it rediculous that the studios use the argument that when you buy a CD (or other piece of media) that you are buying a license to the music not the music itself (which I agree with). But, if that is the case, they should have a program where you can replace a damaged CD with a new one for a much discounted replacement cost. Or, for that matter, I should be able to purchase a CD for an album I already owned on casette of vinyl for a somewhat reduced cost (since I am getting a higher-quality product). I already bought a license for the music, right? So, why should I have to bug a whole new license to get the music in a different format or to replace damaged media? Amen. Sadly I worked for the Entertainment business for many years, and the thinking inside it is: The consumers will buy and rebuy our product -- we controll it. It's a really anti-consumer posture, but I believe there's a lot of new thinkers that are starting to make it into management. I think we'll start to see more packaging where you can get multiple versions of a product if you buy it, because sales for DVD's have been dropping off a cliff and Blueray has not enjoyed the uptake they were hoping for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cs.punk Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I would not classify this with those lawsuits. I'm not saying the "Music Industry" does not have a legit case. What I am saying is that This "making an example" out of individuals is not going to solve the problem, so all they are doing is making an example of how they would rather rape individuals than get with the program. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooo! how did you get a scroll bar in your message lol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 uh...what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cs.punk Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 uh...what? [attachment deleted by admin] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jury-awards-675K-in-Boston-apf-3221597159.html?x=0&.v=28 This is ridiculous. Does the "Music Industry" really think that financially ruining individuals is going to stop the file sharing "problem"? Bending over and raping a single person like this is not going to make this "problem" go away. When are they going to realize that they need to just buck up and change how they go about doing business, to accommodate technology? ..And they say he's the immoral one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.