How ridiculous is this?

[Priam]

I think it's time recordlabels understand that profit should come from concerts, merchandising and the likes of it.
Sure it's not nice that the music gets "stolen", but the ability to download is also creating a higher fanbase for bands, increasing ad revenue, marketability of the band and concert income.
If it weren't for youtube/downloading I would have never gotten into contact with my music and the record labels wouldn't got a dime.

It's a retarded move the record labels are already removing content from youtube, they're screwing their selfs over.

Exactly, there's two opposites. On the one side they're losing revenue on online bought songs. On the other, they're gaingin profits from advertising/larger fanbases, and 3rd party's etc.

No loss. Practically.

[BloodyBlade]

Yeah, take everyone's money. Hurray for the new economic crisis that will come

[Psychedeelic]

a friend told me about this in the morning and I was shocked lol wth

[nohunta]

That is ridicoulos but i must say stealing is stealing..

If im going to jail (which is whats going to happen because she cant pay that shit) im going to jail for robbin a bank for 20m. They ask u why are u in im sayin" I tried to rob a bank for 20m" they gone ask you what you in for "I was trying to listen to some music." Your just asking for anal penetration.

[EcsTasY]

I've always wondered what if you download an album illegally, and then later buy it legitimately, can they still get you for that?

[Midori]

I've always wondered what if you download an album illegally, and then later buy it legitimately, can they still get you for that?

Yes.


BTW: I only only recieve files, whether or not they are actually music i wouldn't know.

[XemnasXD]

really they can only get you if you have the files in your file sharing folder. They can't prove you stole the music otherwise. You could have just bought the CD took the song you wanted and then threw it out...

[Toshiharu]

really they can only get you if you have the files in your file sharing folder. They can't prove you stole the music otherwise. You could have just bought the CD took the song you wanted and then threw it out...

Unless the file has proof that it was downloaded/ripped/etc like in the description it might say something like that.

[Love]

I think a fair middle ground is to make songs purchasable on release and at a decent timeframe, lets say 2-6 months (?) make them available for free. I believe regarding music this is a good approach since the fans get to support his/her artist and the product spreads around so the next time an album goes out those who appreciate the music and perhaps couldn't afford to buy it the last time around, do. I don't think this model can be applied to all markets but is all about understanding how they work.

While at it let me share models which I have reason to believe could be successful for the game and movie industry. For the movie industry lets go back to understanding the market, what people enjoy is quality in their picture for those "ahhh, wow " moments and such this is what you want to sell/market. I think studios should release an online version of movies no longer than 2 months after release ( I was honestly thinking more like 1 ) with what could be called "poor quality" definitely no more than 420p and more towards poor-very poor youtube quality ( there is such thing as decent youtube quality these days, scary stuff ).

Onto the game industry, which I believe is currently really off track/broken. Ok so before I post my little "segment plan" let me just say that games are going for almost 80 bucks atm which is pretty ridiculous because that is pretty much a new gpu, no joke. So the game industry is starting to catch up on this " drop price after x time" deal which is something good but at the same time is increasing prices on it's new releases which I believe is a huge step back for them. I think that rather than explaining how I believe this is faulty I'll just go ahead and present the way I think it should be done.

Ok so let me start by saying that I believe all games should release for no more than 40 bucks. Accompanying this should be a 10$ price drop 6-18 months later ( depending on the quality of the game I believe it should be more near that 10-12 month mark ) and remain this way for at least 3 years by which time the company should have a new product out and should consider bundling it's old product and focusing on it's new title/s. That sounds a bit cheap some might say but the reality is that there is a lot of product out and is impossible to emerge in all and here is where understanding the market kicks in. Fans like products and are glad to support their publishers with "special/collector's" edition and here is where the game industry should get clever and not "cash in" by releasing a new pack every 2 weeks but have themselves a business.

Have themselves a business is a tricky subject couse it can be easily abused but I'll site 2 games as examples. First would be Guild Wars,

Ok I lost interest in writing this but I think I got far enough to describe what I believe is a successful way for all these companies to do business and get rewarded like they should as we all without a doubt appreciate their products and what better way to show them this than by allow them to charge us ( I was going to say paying them but that sorta made it sound like if they were some kind of alley hoe ).

[SneakyBanana]

Lets just hope they never catch me.

Between music and movies i have downloaded 232gb at this time, Demonoid is so addictive

If they did catch me i'd tell me brother to take the blame who is 10, slap on the wrist for him?

[DumboDii]

I think the owner of the connection is the one to blame.

[Love]

Lets just hope they never catch me.

Between music and movies i have downloaded 232gb at this time, Demonoid is so addictive

If they did catch me i'd tell me brother to take the blame who is 10, slap on the wrist for him?

rofl so wrong but I can totally see that working.

[inky]

This just makes me want to download more songs. They just needed to make an example out of someone in hopes that they can deter others from doing the same; and to show that anyone can be persecuted for this, they chose to fine an unlikely candidate - without even thinking twice about how it would affect the woman's life. Pretty fucking low if you ask me.

And to the people who are ranting about how she deserved it since "stealing" songs is illegal..take a goddamn hike



and go fuck yourselves you pretentious hypocritical twats.

For the record, a lot of the songs in my music library we're taken from music CDs and online stores. Although some of them were sent to me by friends or downloaded from "various sources."

[Love]

before ranting about this anymore read this first:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14302/1/

pay attention to the last part.

[Midori]

Lets just hope they never catch me.

Between music and movies i have downloaded 232gb at this time, Demonoid is so addictive

If they did catch me i'd tell me brother to take the blame who is 10, slap on the wrist for him?

They'd still sue for millions of dollars.

[SneakyBanana]

Lets just hope they never catch me.

Between music and movies i have downloaded 232gb at this time, Demonoid is so addictive

If they did catch me i'd tell me brother to take the blame who is 10, slap on the wrist for him?

They'd still sue for millions of dollars.

Then he will be washing dishes for quite a long time wont he?

[CrimsonNuker]

infringement of the recording industry's copyrights by posting the music on the file-sharing site Kazaa.

LAWL

[inky]

before ranting about this anymore read this first:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14302/1/

pay attention to the last part.

It is expected that Thomas-Rasset will appeal the case on the basis that the damages are way out of line with reality. In December, the RIAA said it will stop suing people who download illegally and focus instead on getting internet Service Providers to take action.

Hey look.. a green flag!

[Mr.Ganji]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

$80,000... Per... Song...

Jesus Christ that is absolutely absurd.
Almost everyone I know downloads music or downloads movie/software torrents...
That is just so completely stupid...
I know that one of my friends has over 1,000 songs he's downloaded with Limewire.

The news thing said the jury can charge $150,000 per song, so that would be

$150,000,000+.

I'm sure there's people who have downloaded more than that...

They are ruining the life of one person just so people will get scared and stop downloading illegally...

What do you guys think?

She didnt download music. She uploaded music illegally without permission. Thats what bit her in the @ss

[Reise]

I've bought albums I liked after I downloaded them.

I consider it a try before you buy kind of thing.

[Doppleganger]

[evilpeta]

i would have to pay $2,727,920,000
how bout you guys?

[Pally]

LOL that's really funny.

[Reise]

lol "Illegal" downloads.

I guess they must think mixtapes and copies of CDs you have are illegal too.

[Priam]

In Holland, downloading is concidered illegal, but no action will be taken just for possesion.

[Midori]

Between music and movies i have downloaded 232gb at this time, Demonoid is so addictive

Totally forgot to add that demonoid is a shit tracker.

[rek]

God the title was irritating.

[Hellraider]

I don't even remember how many times i've downloaded a song/album and end up not liking it.. How would you imagine that happening if you bought a CD/song and end up not liking it after all

[PR0METHEUS]

I think it's time recordlabels understand that profit should come from concerts, merchandising and the likes of it.
Sure it's not nice that the music gets "stolen", but the ability to download is also creating a higher fanbase for bands, increasing ad revenue, marketability of the band and concert income.
If it weren't for youtube/downloading I would have never gotten into contact with my music and the record labels wouldn't got a dime.

It's a retarded move the record labels are already removing content from youtube, they're screwing their selfs over.

This is exactly what I've been thinking. I don't really download music myself, but I don't buy either. I generally just listen to music on the radio in my car on the way to/from work, or occasionally listen to those same radio stations online, or pandora.com and the like.

Thing is, a lot of times those radio stations keep playing the same music over and over, or the DJs talk a lot. So if I want to be exposed to new music, I can go out and download a bunch of songs to listen to. If I really like something, I can pay to go to one of their concerts, or pay for their CDs/merchandise because I like them. If I never downloaded anything, never became acquainted with that band, they (or the record companies) wouldn't get a dime in the first place.

Downloading helps the record companies and artists get more money I think, at least from people like me who aren't likely to just go out and buy music in the first place.

[Leon]

I'd have to pay over 1 billion, easily.
Glad I live in Holland, they don't do shit about it here