Music Industry Wins 871 Subpoenas Against Internet Users

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Fishu

It's actually quite amusing that pirating of songs is far higher hyped against than theft of private property.
If anything, resources and money should be rather used to investigate actual crimes, which causes FAR more losses than a kiddie or poor arse student copying MP3 off the net.

Whats even more amusing is losses quoted against piracy include stuff that goes out the back door of the factories in Asia. Many years ago (before MP3s were big) I remember a conversation with a media company rep (media as in CDs, floppy's etc) who said that it was fairly common for 10% of the production to go out the back door as 'failing QC'.

So when the RIAA throws piracy figures out most of it is NOT the MP3 community (which I doubt is even quantifiable).

What we need is some 3rd world country who doesn't give a damn about int'l law and have easily bribed officials with a decent pipe to set up an online music selling service, legal or otherwise

Hmmm... I wonder how big the pipe is to Fiji?

[Fishu]

DrDea,

It is funny they're punished worse than some actual criminals who might have caused injury or severe financial losses.. for something which necessarily didnt cause more than a cents loss if even that much :>

[DrDea]

Its actually more the writing on the wall thing there trying to stop.Once it gets rolling its going to be difficult to halt at best.IE Napster.  I think if a band wants to put there music on the web for promotional purpouses thats there decision.What would you do if you created paintings and some schmuck was out there making lazer copies and passing them around?Its all relevant.Its just got such a following of "I want it now and I want it free" that the people doing it think they actually have the right.I cant afford a Jag.Does that mean I can grab someones and take it out for a ride whenever I want?Hell no.What the record companies SHOULD do is really not the issue.There protecting an investment and they have the right to do so.Also they have the obligation to the musicians to do so.

[midnight Target]

So.....

Lazer copies of the Mona Lisa make the original less valuable?



hehe

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by DrDea
Exactly.And the funny thing is the Musicians are getting the shaft in this grand scale theftathon.They get a cut of album cd sales and the more that gets swapped the less gets bought.Hey.If ya only like 1 or 2 songs on a CD so what.It does in NO way give you the right to what is in effect steal it. To coin a phrase,if ya dont like the rest of the cd,boo ****ing hoo.  Unfortunatly now people think they have the right to trade off music like its baseball cards.I feel no pity for the ones that get caught and fined at it.

Jim Croce made no $$ from his music. Why? Cause he signed his music rights over to the music companies to get his music out. Big mistake. It actually cost him money to go out on tour. If he had the internet to get his music out, he might have actually made some money. How many artists have been fleeced by the big record companies?

[DrDea]

Pretty much all of em sixpence:(

[g00b]

You said "There (they're BTW) protecting an investment and they have the right to do so."

As I said in an earlier comment "It is not our, nor our governments job to protect anyone's revenue stream." This is what most people assume. The RIAA/MPAA are going to take a HUGE hit, they are going to be relegated to secondary postions behind the artists like they should have been all along. Why do they have a "right" to fight this? Where is there a law that says you have a right to sue people to try and maintain your outdated business model?

The RIAA/MPAA became it's own entity many years ago, existing only to maintain itself. It no longer represents artists interests and benefits no-one but itself. Such is the nature of all beaurocracy.

Does anyone here actually believe that the great artists of all time give a rats bellybutton about the $$$. Sure more $$$ is good, but is that what drove Motzart, Bethoven, DaVinci, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, etc? I think art will always be expressed regardless of the $$$.

[DrDea]

Beatles,Floyd,Hendrix?  These were truly great musicians who no doubt got screwd by the Music industry.Most of the crap being spewed out of the music industry shouldnt even be classified as music.Still its the artists work and as such they should be compensated for it.It shouldnt be given away.I could argue this all day and night but some people feel there entitled to whatever they want regardless of the consequences.Im not going to spend forever trying to convince some Kazza user he doesnt have the right to whatever he wants in life.If ya cant afford it,do without.

[OIO]

I still hold my position on this:

Until the big record companies allow me to purchase JUST the song I want, and not jack 15 crappy songs up me arse, they wont be getting my money.


But you can bet I will be getting that song I want by other means.

And right now the only means is the internet. Whats bad now is the online music services that do let you buy each song you want...want a Msquealing monthly subscription fee. Thats no different from getting jacked by the RIAA. Its like signing up with AT&T and paying a $20 bill every month for their services and making a 10 second call at $.10 cents a minute extra charge per month. Bollocks.

[Maniac]

The effort represents early steps in the music industry's contentious plan to file civil lawsuits aimed at crippling online piracy.

Crippling online piracy? Sorry, cant be done...

I still say that they will loose more money on this witchhunt then they will gain...

They cant keep this running for an longer time, i bet theres computer consultans charging 100$ hour djust scanning I.P numbers (The income of selling like 7-8 records), lol!