I know this is probably a repeat but...

RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth insisted the music companies will again prevail, just as they had in 2007 when a federal jury in Duluth found Thomas-Rasset violated copyrights by offering 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network. She was ordered to pay $222,000 in damages, or $9,250 per song.

24 songs equals $222,000? What sort of logic is that? That's insane.

Glitchwerks: I know this is probably a repeat but...

RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth insisted the music companies will again prevail, just as they had in 2007 when a federal jury in Duluth found Thomas-Rasset violated copyrights by offering 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network. She was ordered to pay $222,000 in damages, or $9,250 per song.

24 songs equals $222,000? What sort of logic is that? That's insane.

I think that's what they call "punitive damages".

BTW, I agree. It's insane.

I think we should all have a massive pirating rally in support of the re-trial.

Think about it, thousands of people waiting outside the courthouse, sitting quietly by their laptops torrenting away at entire discographies via the courthouse's wifi service.

The RIAA can't sue us all! Nor enforce anything, really.

They'll yell out "whose responsible for this?"
Someone will stand up and say "I am Spartacus".
Then someone else will stand and say "No, sir. I am Spartacus."
And then another, and another.

Trolly headline is trolly.

in a landscape: I think we should all have a massive pirating rally in support of the re-trial.

Think about it, thousands of people waiting outside the courthouse, sitting quietly by their laptops torrenting away at entire discographies via the courthouse's wifi service.

The RIAA can't sue us all! Nor enforce anything, really.

They'll yell out "whose responsible for this?"
Someone will stand up and say "I am Spartacus".
Then someone else will stand and say "No, sir. I am Spartacus."
And then another, and another.

Looks like the biatch downloaded a whole lot of fugly, too. Eeeesh.

to continue the trend i'd also like to suggest that as a result of the suits against the RIAA; where's the beef, here comes the judge, and gollllley

In this thread lots of farkers will split hairs and tell you its not really stealing, that the record industry is ran by a bunch of goons and that the music sucks so much that its not worth paying for.

Which in some bizarro world makes it ok to take artists work and deprive them of a living through companies they've consciously chosen to do business with.

in a landscape: I think we should all have a massive pirating rally in support of the re-trial.

Think about it, thousands of people waiting outside the courthouse, sitting quietly by their laptops torrenting away at entire discographies via the courthouse's wifi service.

The RIAA can't sue us all! Nor enforce anything, really.

They'll yell out "whose responsible for this?"
Someone will stand up and say "I am Spartacus".
Then someone else will stand and say "No, sir. I am Spartacus."
And then another, and another.

That sounds like something a few hundred awkward /b/tards would get behind, especially if they can claim membership to Anonymous and wear their little masks.

That would, however, leave anyone else in the company of /b/tards, which would likely result in a mass exodus.

This Is Spartacus!!

//Umm, can I have a do-over?

me texan: In this thread lots of farkers will split hairs and tell you its not really stealing, that the record industry is ran by a bunch of goons and that the music sucks so much that its not worth paying for.

Which in some bizarro world makes it ok to take artists work and deprive them of a living through companies they've consciously chosen to do business with.

I'm pretty sure that discussion is scorched earth at this point.

Glitchwerks: I know this is probably a repeat but...

RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth insisted the music companies will again prevail, just as they had in 2007 when a federal jury in Duluth found Thomas-Rasset violated copyrights by offering 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network. She was ordered to pay $222,000 in damages, or $9,250 per song.

24 songs equals $222,000? What sort of logic is that? That's insane.

How is U2's manager supposed to live on any less? Give up the Bentley?

Sure would have been nice if the record industry has started working on solutions to this problem when it was clear it was going to happen. That is to say, solutions that didn't involve alienating and demonizing your client base.
There is probably a solution in there somewhere, but I think it is going to come from the bands, not the industry. For example, tip jars (via Pay Pal or something) on band websites. Content is no longer controllable, so like it or not, compulsory payment is no longer an option. Make good music, and make it clear that the tips on the website will go directly to the artist, and I think people will tip. I have. Would you? Discuss.

the fight against digital piracy is nonsensical.

/up the PIRATE BAY

Downloading songs is socially acceptable, hence the outrage.

Dear RIAA:
You were so right, and we were so wrong. We feel ashamed. We have decided to heed your advice. We will no longer pirate any music. Furthermore, we are deeply hurt by what we've done to the industry and we encourage you to raise CD prices by 50% in order to slowly make up for the losses you incurred. We promise to line up for $23 copies of Kelly Clarkson's "All I Ever Wanted" and Pleasure P's "The Introduction of Marcus Cooper".

Thank you for setting us straight. We look forward to re-joining the industry as your dependable market matrix.

Best Regards,
Every Music Fan on Earth

Artists: Do what I do. Give away the low quality copies, sell the higher quality ones. You're just going to get pirated anyway, but if at least try to undercut it, you might grab a few sales you were going to lose. Release a CD, by all means - people will still buy it if they like it. I worked in a CD store when In Rainbows came out, and it sold like mad, despite being available for months online beforehand. And even though Radiohead made the album available for free officially, people still torrented it. This is what you're up against - fighting it is hopeless, so embrace it, and try to work with it.

Fighting against "digital piracy" is stupid. There is no cost of production, hence there should not be a price - much less the highly inflated prices of music these days, of which only a tiny fraction is given back to the artist. The rest? To pay for the giant, unsustainable structure of the music industry. More advertisement, more lawsuits against elderly women - just to prevent us from getting a thing that has no cost of production.

Here's an idea: Why don't artists release their music directly to certain sites? The sites will pay for the right to distribute the music, while earning money from advertisements. Perhaps a percentage of the revenue from advertisements could be given to the artist. This ensures artists get their rightful due, and little-known artists get a suitable amount of exposure. And it saves us billions of dollars.

me texan:
Which in some bizarro world makes it ok to take artists work and deprive them of a living through companies they've consciously chosen to do business with.

I know I cried when I heard that Bono had to sell some of his art collection to be able to afford to buy the castle that he wanted. The humanity!

Herunar: Fighting against "digital piracy" is stupid. There is no cost of production, hence there should not be a price - much less the highly inflated prices of music these days, of which only a tiny fraction is given back to the artist.

This argument is frequently used as a justification for file sharing. To paraphrase, making a copy of a file is acceptable as there is no direct cost to the creator.

If this is the case, surely the same could be applied to patent law; would you agree that is would be fine for a third party to manufacture products from an original patented design, as there is no direct cost to the patent holder? I admit to knowing nothing about patent law (and I'm happy to be corrected on this), I'm just curious whether people's swashbuckling disregard for IP/copyright extends beyond the music industry (ie an area where they can directly benefit).

/agree that fighting digital piracy is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent developing new business models/relationships with digital content providers.
//dubious about the arguments/morals of those who shout loudest in support of it.

Bob Silver: Herunar: Fighting against "digital piracy" is stupid. There is no cost of production, hence there should not be a price - much less the highly inflated prices of music these days, of which only a tiny fraction is given back to the artist.

This argument is frequently used as a justification for file sharing. To paraphrase, making a copy of a file is acceptable as there is no direct cost to the creator.

If this is the case, surely the same could be applied to patent law; would you agree that is would be fine for a third party to manufacture products from an original patented design, as there is no direct cost to the patent holder? I admit to knowing nothing about patent law (and I'm happy to be corrected on this), I'm just curious whether people's swashbuckling disregard for IP/copyright extends beyond the music industry (ie an area where they can directly benefit).

/agree that fighting digital piracy is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent developing new business models/relationships with digital content providers.
//dubious about the arguments/morals of those who shout loudest in support of it.


This

And I was just going to call Herunar a fracking moran who doesn't understand the Cost Curve he's referencing.

I just downloaded the entire Beatles discography so this is somewhat relevant to my interests...