SanChonino SanChonino

It's total bullshit.

▼

It's total bullshit.

or; nine thousand dollars a song?!?

from JoeUser Forums
News today is that there's a lady in Minnesota who finally stood up to the record companies' ridiculous and draconian copyright rules.

And what does she get for it?

220,000 dollars in fines. For 24 songs she supposedly downloaded.

Yeah, that's a little over 9,000 dollars a song.

Now, I understand that the record companies' goal was to make an example of the single mother of two, but she maintains her innocence - that she was neither involved in downloading or uploading music. And besides, 9,000 dollars a song? Seems a bit ridiculous.

But I only see this as making those of us who may or may not participate in file sharing becoming more brazen. I'm sure that more sites will become more ardent in their desires to stick up to the big corporations, like the Pirate Bay does so very, very well.

But nine thousand dollars a song is bullshit.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Radiohead has it right. Pie in the face of those fools.
music
7,045 views 34 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whoo boy, I wish I gotten into this one earlier...

First of all, I think the record company going after an individual like this are showing they're nothing more than money-hungry bastards who deserve every criticism they get.

Having said this, I see peer-to-peer file sharing, for instance, as stealing and something that needs to be controlled. And this goes further than greedy record companys because even small, independent artists are disadvantaged by file sharing. In Australia, the recording industry has made allowances for those who buy a CD, for instance, and want to put it onto their Ipod. The simple rule of thumb should be, in my opinion, if you haven't paid for it then it is not yours.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Having said this, I see peer-to-peer file sharing, for instance, as stealing and something that needs to be controlled. And this goes further than greedy record companys because even small, independent artists are disadvantaged by file sharing. In Australia, the recording industry has made allowances for those who buy a CD, for instance, and want to put it onto their Ipod. The simple rule of thumb should be, in my opinion, if you haven't paid for it then it is not yours.


A couple thoughts:

1. The money from this lawsuit won't be going to the artists. If the money was going to the pockets of the artists, I would feel better about it.

2. There really should be a better way to produce digital "samples" to help sales, rather than hurt them. Maybe an audio quality that is reduced enough to be noticeable and less than desirable? From my own personal perspective, download sites have provided a gold mine of resources, allowing me to check out material that I will be buying anyway if it's any good.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still maintain that, in many cases, file sharing helps talented artists and hurts shitty ones.

All those CDs that I listed as having purchased lately? Who would I have heard of if it had not been for file sharing? Hmm . . .

None! Just looked at the list again, and every single one of those artists is one I've found through file sharing. If I hadn't downloaded their stuff first, I'd have never bought a single thing from them, because I wouldn't even know they exist (and that, my friends, would be the real tragedy here).

On the other hand (and if I was feeling really masochistic) I could download some of the "popular" music they play on the radio today, see how bad it really is, and then know without a doubt that these artists must be ignored and shunned as the crappy parlor magicians they are, turning tricks to make a buck.

For me at least, torrents + last.fm + pandora = musical bliss + spending lots of money on CDs for artists I want to support.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
There really should be a better way to produce digital "samples" to help sales, rather than hurt them. Maybe an audio quality that is reduced enough to be noticeable and less than desirable? From my own personal perspective, download sites have provided a gold mine of resources, allowing me to check out material that I will be buying anyway if it's any good


Both Pandora and last.fm give you resources to listen to new music, without downloading it to your computer. Pandora's been giving me a lot of new music lately that I'd have never heard of, as I slowly but surely compile the rocking-est personal radio station ever.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
1. The money from this lawsuit won't be going to the artists. If the money was going to the pockets of the artists, I would feel better about it.


First of all, apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I agree with you on this one, for sure. This whole case has been about the big boys taking down a little person who really doesn't deserve it. It is just another example of corporations screwing over the individual

2. There really should be a better way to produce digital "samples" to help sales, rather than hurt them. Maybe an audio quality that is reduced enough to be noticeable and less than desirable? From my own personal perspective, download sites have provided a gold mine of resources, allowing me to check out material that I will be buying anyway if it's any good.


I agree. It would be really good. What Radiohead are doing, for instance, is a great idea. That you, Gid, do the same as I do shows we both respect the artists making the music we like and acknowledge this by purchasing a copy of the CD or whatever. But the reality is a lot of people (and by a lot, I mean most) if they think they can get something for free, will take it. I know people whose entire iPod is filled with music they've 'stolen'.

I like the idea of degraded quality of digital samples or, as some do, pieces of songs (30 seconds worth), which should be enough for the listener to decide whether they like what they're hearing and buy the whole song or songs.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another thing: access to Pandora is now restricted to residents of the United States, due to licensing constraints. I don't exactly know what this means because as far as I knew (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) the music they were using was actually provided by users. To my way of thinking, the music provided is already owned by users so why should there be licensing problems. As I understood it, Pandora doesn't allow users to copy music, but simply listen to music that is similar to their favourite bands.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pandora doesn't allow users to copy music, but simply listen to music that is similar to their favourite bands.


No, that's exactly what it does. You can't download what you hear from Pandora, it just streams like a radio to your compy. But I've heard new stuff there, and then gone and purchased it.

That sucks that you can't hear it down there, Maso. Sorry.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see peer-to-peer file sharing, for instance, as stealing and something that needs to be controlled.
End of quote


I agree. No amount of rationalizing will get around this fact.

No matter how one slices and dices it......"file sharing" is stealing.

Planning to buy it later (if you discover you like it) doesn't excuse the crime. This is what's known as "the end justifies the means". Does it?