|
|
Post by nascent on Jun 19, 2009 17:34:12 GMT -5
I saw this and figured I should ask everyone for their opinions. Am I the only one who thinks this is massively excessive? Granted, what the woman did was illegal and wrong... but $1.9 million dollars?! You'd think the woman was downloading gold to warrant that kind of financial slap-to-the-face! Discussion point: Has the music industry gotten to big for its britches? |
|
|
|
Post by angelous on Jun 19, 2009 17:36:41 GMT -5
I've seen people download over a hundred songs. And I've heard of people downloading that much and being fined half what that woman was. So yeah, I wasn't too happy when I read that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Dude on Jun 19, 2009 20:53:02 GMT -5
HOLY FARK THAT'S A LOTTA MONEY.
Geez music industry. I think by now you'd know that the whole 'deterrent' scheme doesn't really work.
Edit:
Wait. Wot? The first judge ordered a re-trial because he found the first fine excessive (about 220k) and at the second trial it's octupled? D: Thees don't make much sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhea on Jun 20, 2009 0:05:05 GMT -5
The point is if people continue to download music, the musicians suffer. This is what they do for a living. They write music, they perform music. There are so many people involved...who's going to pay them if no one buys songs any more? The musicians won't have any money, and they won't be able to afford recording more music, so we'll end up with less and less music. I think nowadays musicians make the most money from touring and such. Where a few decades ago the touring was to get people to buy the music.
Am I making sense in my ranting?
But...yes, it's excessive and ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by nascent on Jun 21, 2009 12:47:54 GMT -5
Do you know how the music industry treats musicians, though? How little they get paid for their music in comparison to the big record labels making money hand over fist? Here's a breakdown. It's an insult to the music artists that people who put almost nothing except their name towards an artist's work are getting 90% of the profits, and ultimately an insult to music listeners when the RIAA thinks it can sue people ridiculous amounts of money over songs that they never properly compensated the musicians for! |
|
|
|
Post by LEO LION on Jun 21, 2009 15:10:10 GMT -5
You know, there's a simple solution and it's been done by quite a few musicians. Make it so that whenever someone downloads a song the artist gets an amount of money (of course I can see why the wouldn't cause then the record label doesn't see much of the money, but this would give the creator of the song more power so go us). It works by the way. I think the fact that downloading music is illegal right now is stupid when they can and many already have started doing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Dude on Jun 22, 2009 18:00:11 GMT -5
You mean iTunes and the like? It's the legal alternative but I think what Nas is getting at that unless the artist goes independent (which is/was pretty gosh-darn hard) they're really not making any money at all. I'm fairly certain that fact extends to iTunes as well because there's yet another middleman who wants in on the profits.
As for alternative pay-schemes go, I like the Pay-what-you-want idea (e.g.: Radiohead) where you basically pay what you think the music is worth. They get the profits, the audience gets to judge, there's no point in pirating (as a matter of fact, I don't think you *can* given that it's legally free) and last I heard it was decently successful. Everyone (that matters) wins. Still, you can't pull it off unless your publicity is above average so it's certainly not an ideal way to handle things. =/
|
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Jun 23, 2009 16:44:18 GMT -5
Not to mention that she was offered $200 a song as a plea deal, but declined, and now has to pay $80k.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Dude on Jun 23, 2009 16:58:54 GMT -5
Srsly? Huuuuhn. Musik industry lil' more reasonable than I thought.
._.
Linky?
|
|
I did post in shades of grey if anyone even remembers that lmao