Lady is fined $2 million for downloading 24 songs

124»

  Comments


  • LokoOneLokoOne 1,823 Posts
    The RIAA's members need to ask the organization (which is pretty much 110% dedicated to it's own preservation and, IMO, not to it's membership's best interest)why it is spending so much time, money and resources on herding cats as opposed to figuring out a better way for artists and companies to get paid from/for their product. Technology has essentially rendered their old models useless, and all the lawsuits in the world won't make them work again.

    why are you making me go to bat for these assholes?

    a regulatory body of this nature must ensure its own viability and effectiveness if it is to protect its members' interests. secondly, why must it be one solution or the other? a multi-pronged strategy may be the most effective means of countering piracy and encouraging respect for property rights.

    here's my problems with this whole piracy issue. is the RIAA and other similar groups around the world really doing this for the 'artists' or the major labels? They use the 'poor artists' arguement, and the piracy is stealing argument, but how much is going back to the artists and if you where to look at the track record of these major labels they have ripped off a whole lot more $$$ from artists, distributors, small labels etc than anyone downloading.

    I think they would save themselves alot of hassle/time/money/public damage if they made it clear they will pursue ANYONE who pirates/copyright infringes for PROFIT. They would get most ppls support if they went after sites that make money by posting up mp3 rips etc. Going after end consumers is silly, in the end they are attacking their fanbase, cus why else would ppl download either for profit or pleasure.

    Plus many artist are shooting themsleves in the foot, because d/loading to me is an extesnion of radio/mixtapes/video clip shows etc. it promotes the artists. At the same time this could be a great boost for undergournd/indy acts cus if the majors make their music off limitis to free d/loads etc (unless they control it and market it) then there will be a great deal more interest and room for underground acts and labesl to make noise/moves with free downloads...IMO...

    I think the record companys are f*cking their own artsts again on this one....

    Personally a d/load means a listen, and a listen means a potential fan who will purchase my next shit or check out my next show...

  • fauxteurfauxteur 342 Posts

  • kicks79kicks79 1,338 Posts
    Mate thats in some pretty bad taste

  • kicks79kicks79 1,338 Posts
    selves alot of hassle/time/money/public damage if they made it clear they will pursue ANYONE who pirates/copyright infringes for PROFIT. They would get most ppls support if they went after sites that make money by posting up mp3 rips etc. Going after end consumers is silly, in the end they are attacking their fanbase, cus why else would ppl download either for profit or pleasure.

    I think the record companys are f*cking their own artsts again on this one....

    Personally a d/load means a listen, and a listen means a potential fan who will purchase my next shit or check out my next show...


    Major and lets face it how unrealistic is it for the label to go after everyone who illegally DLs. They were trying to pass the buck to the ISPs here in Oz and they refused. They simply don't have the money and resources to do this.


  • yes, the judgement in the present case is excessive, but your comparison with "advances" made by air france voluntarily to victims' families is completely inapt and misleading.

  • troublemantroubleman 1,928 Posts

Sign In or Register to comment.