Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IFPI Won't Share Pirate Bay Damages With Musicians

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the delivering-on-expectations dept.

Piracy 177

An anonymous reader tips this news from TorrentFreak: Earlier this year the sentences against the Pirate Bay defendants were made final. Aside from prison sentences, they will have to pay damages to the entertainment industries, including €550,000 to several major music labels. The court awarded the damages to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses. However, it now turns out that artists won’t see a penny of the money, as the labels have allocated it to IFPI to fund new anti-piracy campaigns. ...While it may come as no surprise that the music industry has a hard time getting money from The Pirate Bay defendants, what comes next may raise a few eyebrows. 'There is an agreement that any recovered funds will be paid to IFPI Sweden and IFPI London for use in future anti-piracy activities,' IFPI writes. In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all."

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

well (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807025)

This certainly comes as a huge surprise [slashdot.org] ...

Re:well (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807049)

anyone, including "content creators", who believed IFPI wouldn't pocket the money are idiots.

Re:well (5, Insightful)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807079)

Or the people who actually believed that piracy legislation is not about making lawyers richer.

Re:well (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807105)

Or the people who actually believed that piracy legislation is not about making lawyers richer.

So does that mean if we just gave the lawyers lots of money for free from some gov't fund then they will stop doing this?

Like the way we sometimes pay farmers NOT to grow crops? Might cost a lot less in the long run.

Re:well (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807285)

That's actually (snark aside) not a terrible idea.

I recall several studies, a few years ago, which somewhat conclusively showed that the only way to effectively deal with sociopathy is through bribery.

Re:well (5, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807409)

the only way to effectively deal with sociopathy is through bribery.

Or executions.

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807817)

Those would be somewhat counterproductive for raising teenagers..

Re:well (3, Insightful)

drkim (1559875) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808333)

Those would be somewhat counterproductive for raising teenagers..

Not at all, "Jimmy, clean your room, or else!"

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807873)

Corporate lawyers are on the corporate payroll or on a retainer. Geez, you'd think by reading slashdot that the lawyers get all of that settlement money for themselves.

Re:well (4, Insightful)

tramp (68773) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807107)

Not really a surprise indeed, organisations like IFPI and the MAFIAA solely purpose is to earn money for the big media corps not for any artist they own.

Re:well (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808011)

IFPI and the MAFIAA?

excuse me sir, please allow me a correction. what makes you think there's anything separating them? They are essentially one big "Artists union" falsely proclaimed, because it's more of a "industry union". IFPI and MAFIA - every distribution around the planet that is a recording artist group aside from possibly GEMA (who decided to be worse on their own) are basically under the same hood - the local groups do not sue their artists, the MAFIAA under guise of "local" do it. As noted in australia.

Re:buy directly from artist (4, Insightful)

miknix (1047580) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807713)

This is exactly why I don't buy music from stores. The only discs I have were bought directly from the artist after a live concert. Doing so, I believe I am sponsoring the artist directly because the discs they sell after stage, despite still being produced by their record label, do not contain distribution and retail fees. The disc price might even be higher but that way I really believe I'm sponsoring the artist and not the mafia.

As a side benefit, all of my discs are signed by their respective artists ; )

Re:buy directly from artist (0)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807857)

The last money I gave to an artist was a direct donation of 5â for giving his songs under a CC license. I believe that no artist ever received that much money from me. A 20â CD usually ends up at 2 or 3 for an artist.

The CD model sucks and is dead. Let's dance on its corpse.

Blacks Objectively Inferior According To Blacks! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807029)

See this link [essence.com]

Even black men respond less often to black women. So don't tell me this is racism. The men being black too doesn't change anything.

It's a simple fact black women are less desirable than white or asian women. They also got worse attitudes - often severe and militaristic. Like they grew up in boot camp or something. The frizzy "just stuck my finger in the light socket" nappy hair doesn't help either. The most attractive black women have their hair straightened. The big flat noses don't help for sure either. But mostly it's their attitude. It would be great for business but terrible for a love partner.

Hell even small children don't like blacks. That includes black children! Check it out for yourself [cnn.com] . The bed-wetter liberal types who want reality to fit their ideas and not the other way around could use their normal page from their playbook and say "well that's cause of racism". So how does that explain why even black children preferred whites? THey like whites better than the black people they are raised by and spent their most formative years with. Racism? Please. You libs gotta come up with a new explanation if you are still averse to admitting inherent inferiority.

Oh then there's the crime rate. [dailymail.co.uk] It's mostly black victims being victimized by black perpetrators. Even in the hypersensitive UK they admit this. Guess they are better at admitting painful truth than libs in the USA. Oh and speaking of USA, black men commit about 50% of all murders in that country but they are only about 6-7% of the population. Most of their victims are black too. How could racism explain that? If whites are racist against blacks a thinking man would expect it to cause "us against them" and make blacks unite together against whites. But no, blacks hate blacks more than whitey does.

So please somebody tell me this. I mean these days racism from whites is simply not tolerated. Most whites are not racist. THe few whites that are racist keep their mouth shut about it so we are talking about THOUGHTS here. How does a thought in a white person's head make innocent black children prefer whites? How does a thought in a white person's head make black men kill other black men? If you think whites have psychic mind control that can hypnotize blacks and make them do their bidding well... how's that tinfoil hat fitting you?

This is why thinking people think liberals are a bunch of bed-wetting nancyboys who cannot cope with reality. Why? Because they won't acknowledge these PROVEN FACTS (study after study) and they won't even dare try to explain them. Mostly they just insult you for asking a question that makes them uncomfortable. Reminds me of the Catholic Church in Galileo's time, the whole prospect of the "heavenly bodies" not being perfect spheres (craters etc) made them "uncomfotable" too so they tried to silence Galileo. So bedwetters, let's hear your answer. I don't think you can do it.

Re:Blacks Objectively Inferior According To Blacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807589)

THe few whites that are racist keep their mouth shut about it

No, one of them is posting offtopic comments on slashdot.

With posts like this you really don't know if the poster believes it or is just trolling but because of the genuine cranks I have seen I go with the former.
I would not feed him/her but I am just too curious about how people like them experience reality, so let me ask some meta questions:

* Why exactly did you ignore the explanations from the first two links? Were you not able to process them due to cognitive dissonance or did you just expect nobody to actually read your links and thus wilfully omit them?
* Do you genuinely don't recognize (even mild) racism today or do you chose to ignore it because you don't want to believe it?
* How do you come up with insults like "thinking people think liberals are a bunch of bed-wetting nancyboys"? Seriously, what is going through your head while you write something like that?

Re:Blacks Objectively Inferior According To Blacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807619)

"* Why exactly did you ignore the explanations from the first two links? Were you not able to process them due to cognitive dissonance or did you just expect nobody to actually read your links and thus wilfully omit them?"

If you had read what he wrote you would know that it's not because he has cognitive dissonance, it's because he's black.

Stop buying music (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807033)

Stop buying music altogether and this problem will go away...

Re:Stop buying music (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807051)

you can still buy music just buy it from independent musicians on soundcloud or bandcamp.

Re:Stop buying music (0)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807099)

You can buy directly from soundcloud now? Haven't seen this one yet. Also last time I heard bandcamp would help itself to 50% of your sales income, I didn't look it through but it sounded legit.

Anyway, anything against established art distributors. I personally like little indies that send you their music after a paypal/"or alt" donation. Ok, I know paypal is supposed to be evil also but who cares at this point.

Re:Stop buying music (3, Informative)

BanHammor (2587175) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807605)

Fifteen ain't fifty. Read the numbers a bit more carefully.

Re:Stop buying music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807109)

You say that like the big labels have any music worth buying. Last time this happened we got the music from the late 60s. I want a music revolution, come on artists!

Re:Stop buying music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807827)

There are many bands putting some effort in. Depending on what you like...

Some I like, off the top of my head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvn7h1k3Mo8&hd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgNoadKcIWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgNoadKcIWg&hd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJG2Au51BQ&hd=1 (they have a whole album under creative commons on jamendo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-__PTPQ82s (two albums under creative commons on jamendo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fxM_o-YbXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3i78NcpORI&hd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DllNjqC45Y&hd=1 (Classical music + good metal band is almost always good...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp5e3T3eqjc&hd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YMXpFca0ko&hd=1 (yay for classical pieces, newly arranged and lively performed)

Do you really not find anything at all that you like from recent times? I find that hard to believe.

Humble Bundle for Music (5, Informative)

ElementOfDestruction (2024308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807169)

Check out the current Humble Bundle: http://www.humblebundle.com/ [humblebundle.com]

FLAC Audio and DRM-Free, not a penny to the leeches! And if you think that the bands are too hippy, you can choose to send all of your money to the EFF who actively fight said leeches.

Re:Humble Bundle for Music (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808159)

Yeah, but let's be fair. That bundle contains two novelty albums (at least one of which is a greatest hits album), one video game soundtrack, one pretentious neo-classical album, and two albums of remixes. None of this stuff is anything that would even interest the major labels, so it's not like the artists are taking any big risk releasing it this way. Don't get me wrong. I bought the bundle and enjoyed most of it. (TMBG's brass band remix of "Mr. Me" alone was worth the price!) I just don't really feel like this collection of curiosities is stickin' it to the man.

Re:Stop buying music (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807229)

Stop buying music altogether and this problem will go away...

I have stopped buying music. I have seen no change.

Re:Stop buying music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807487)

I haven't even started buying music

Re:Stop buying music (4, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808293)

That's because you become part of the piracy statistic, as they don't consider the fact that people just aren't buying their music. Every unsold album, in their eyes, was an album that was downloaded, and is thus used by them as further justification for their heavy-handed tactics.

Why is this considered strange? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807043)

Neither any artists nor "the industry" was part of the trial. Specific organizations were, that fought for what they saw as their rights. Anyone else involved who also considers themselves to have lost money should have their own trial, I suppose.

IFPI = organized crime (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807057)

That's all.
They operate like organized crime. (In regional cells and a strict hierarchy ruled by having connections .)
They harass people like organized crime. (Mostly protection rackets.)
They defraud and steal from people like organized crime. (Getting creative works from others, then asking lots of money for every worthless copy, without moving even a single finger.)
They take drugs like organized crime. (I had a colleague who had to do all the deals with that industry for our company. Often there was no way of even making a deal without at least consuming cocaine and ordering some hookers. [I wish I was just making that up.])
They would shoot and torture people like organized crime, if they weren't openly in the spotlight and could get away with it.

They are organized crime.

So we must treat them like organized crime.

Re:IFPI = organized crime (5, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807111)

So we must treat them like organized crime.

And elect them to political office?

Re:IFPI = organized crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807319)

They are already in the white house.

Re:IFPI = organized crime (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807153)

So we must treat them like organized crime.

You mean, now that we have The Sopranos as a TV series, the next step is filming The Tenors?

Re:IFPI = organized crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807183)

Why is this moderated as "funny"?

Re:IFPI = organized crime (4, Funny)

NettiWelho (1147351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807203)

Because its true.

Re:IFPI = organized crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807959)

This is /. - where funny posts are modded insightful or informative.

Re:IFPI = organized crime (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807301)

I agree cocaine is not so good but what is wrong with hookers?

Re:IFPI = organized crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807369)

They are organized crime.

Shock horror, the people behind the music (and film) industries are involved in 'organized crime'.
How come we didn't know?, oh, wait, there was Payola 'back in the day', and still going on in some form (have a read of ' Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business).

Seriously, I thought it was common knowledge that organised crime 'ran' the entertainments industries, and have done so since the early days.

the problem's not the labels or the customers... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807065)

It's the musicians who sign up to these labels. They're the ones doing work for them. They're the ones who could cause the labels to shrivel and die simply by choosing or building alternative distribution methods.

Worst of all are the half a dozen successes who pretend that these scrounging middlemen act on musicians' behalf, with superstar whores acting no better than the celebrity representatives of Scientology from Bee Gees to Metallica to Lily Allen (only joking, Lily - you're no superstar, you're shit).

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (4, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807119)

It's the musicians who sign up to these labels. They're the ones doing work for them. They're the ones who could cause the labels to shrivel and die simply by choosing or building alternative distribution methods.

Worst of all are the half a dozen successes who pretend that these scrounging middlemen act on musicians' behalf, with superstar whores acting no better than the celebrity representatives of Scientology from Bee Gees to Metallica to Lily Allen (only joking, Lily - you're no superstar, you're shit).

"we call it Riding the Gravy Train."

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (4, Informative)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807265)

"we call it Riding the Gravy Train."

  • artist: Pink Floyd
  • album: Wish you were here.
  • song: Have A Cigar
  • copyright: Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. (...according to lyricfreak.com)
  • Label: Harvest, EMI (UK), Columbia, Capitol (US)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_a_Cigar

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807919)

That album was released in 1975, 37 years ago. Back then there was no Web, the Internet was still ARPANET, copyright in the US only lasted 28 + (optionally) 28 years and the RIAA wasn't suing their customers left and right. It's not comparable.

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (1)

sgtrock (191182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808349)

IOW, the more things change, the more they stay the same. :-)

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807397)

But you kind of hit on the reason why this problem is the fundamental problem, but also why getting musicians to act can't possibly be the solution.

That reason is that people like Lily Allen only succeded in the industry because her dad got her there due to his contacts. The fact is the music industry is absolutely full of acts who just wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the industry to turn them into a product. These artists wont leave the industry because it's the only way they can make a living doing what they love - they sure as hell couldn't go it alone because without the music industry's cartel operation to prop them up they wouldn't stand a chance in a free market where they're competing based on talent.

The industry keeps these people employed as "artists" whilst keeping any uncontrolled real talent that hasn't signed up out. It's a protection racket, unless you sign up you've got no hope, and half those who have signed up signed up because they had no hope otherwise anyway due to them having a severe lack of talent compared to everyone else.

There's just trash after trash after trash - Nikki Minaj seems to be the latest abysmal excuse for an artist that's being thrust repeatedly on the radio here in the UK right now. A few good artists make it through, like Rihanna does actually seem to have some talent, for example, but even they get used as tools to prop up the shite - case in point, I don't know what song it is because I don't care but there was a song on the radio a few weeks back which involved some fairly decent singing from Rihanna and then you get that silly Minaj bitch come on to just completely destroy the track. Had she not had Rihanna to prop up the song most sane people would just completely and utterly ignore the track. Christ, I don't even like this type of music, but again, because of the cartel, there's really little choice to listen to anything else during my commute as it's all the radio stations play in the UK.

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807843)

Listen to Radio 4. No music, just science documentaries, comedy and interesting talk. A little island of sanity in the otherwise bullshit laden electromagnetic spectrum

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807937)

Hear hear. I strongly recommend Just a Minute for anyone who wants to know what "Britishness" really is.

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807879)

Uh... Rihanna has some talent doing what? Because it isn't singing. In live performances, she often has major troubles with intonation, and all I hear when she sings is whining. On top of that, she seems to think she can mask her awful singing with a thick, forced vibrato.

Otherwise, I'm with you on them signing people with poor musicianship. They're after people they can prop up to stardom, which is really more about appearance or backstory or anything that can make attract people. Musicianship is hardly required, and sadly, Rihanna is just another example of what you claim.

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808195)

There are several things to do to be a successful rock band. Which part do you think is harder?

      1. Playing music
      2. Marketing

In the grand scheme of things, musicians are of little importance to the final product.

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (3, Insightful)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807737)

It's unrealistic to expect that the MAFIAA will be stopped if artists no longer sign with them. There are probably 10,000 - 100,000 artists that sign with them. If some fraction decide to stop, they'll just sign some more to replace them. And what's the average lifetime of most artists nowadays... less than 5 years? So they're easily replaceable.

Besides, these so-called artists don't even really do very much. The MAFIAA makes its killing on the major 'stars' who don't honestly do very much themselves. All they do is find find a woman that has no respect for herself or her image or a boy that'll make 12-year-old girls horny, then they manufacture a song and market the shit out of it. Let's face it - there will always be at least 100 people who are stupid and/or desperate enough in America to enter some kind of ridiculous bargain like this. So there really isn't much of a way to stop these 'artists' from signing them.

Now as for the rest of the artists who aren't stars but still actually make their own work, you could argue that we need to fund independent labels so they don't sign with the corrupt labels, but what do you expect that to achieve? It's gonna take a lot of artists and a lot of marketing to make any success for them.

But regardless, the only hope of breaking these industries is to break their public image. There needs to be created a New World Order of sorts in the music industry, one which will make the current labels look antiquated and corrupt. Explore new revenue models: support real online music stores like Jamendo and Bandcamp that actually support the ones who make the music and cut out the middlemen. If we break their image, then we can start to push them out of the way. They will try to take us back over, but if we tarnish their image so much that they can't recover, then maybe there will be hope

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808025)

A lot of aspiring musicians don't realize how bad the industry is before they sign. Once they sign their first contract, they're pretty much stuck unless they want to break a contract as the companies involved won't release their final contracted album until they sign a new contract.

Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808157)

It's the musicians who sign up to these labels. They're the ones doing work for them. They're the ones who could cause the labels to shrivel and die simply by choosing or building alternative distribution methods.

Worst of all are the half a dozen successes who pretend that these scrounging middlemen act on musicians' behalf, with superstar whores acting no better than the celebrity representatives of Scientology from Bee Gees to Metallica to Lily Allen (only joking, Lily - you're no superstar, you're shit).

Why would anyone think they are acting on the artists behalf? That's like thinking that McDonalds is acting on behalf of the guys making your big mac. The artists are not that important. They are the product, not the customer.
   

Thief label applied incorrectly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807071)

Judge orders innocent men both prison time and to pay â550,000 to the thieving criminals. More news at 11.

No shit the money isn't going to artists. The IFPI thieves do nothing BUT steal money from the artists, did you honestly think a court ruling would change that?

There you go, Artists. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807073)

Now make sure to spread this to every single one of them employed by said company and make them feel guilty as absolute hell for still being under a label as corrupt as they are.
While I know a good chunk of musicians are equally as corrupt, most actually aren't and are just afraid.

Artists don't need these stupid labels anymore.
They made sense back in the disconnected world.
Most of the world is connected up in some way or another, even if it is only indirectly.
In particular, most of the world a musician would care about reaching is connected.

People pirating songs isn't going to do a damn thing.
People pointing out how corrupt they are on some blog or community isn't going to do a damn thing.
Making the artists realize their labels are corrupt and don't give a damn about even their lives IS going to do something. It already has worked before, and it can do it again.
Some labels go as far as walling in their "property", closing them off from reality as much as possible. That is the worst part!
This is a godly piece of information that every artist, musician and anything even remotely related to the industry and label should read. Everyone has to see this, not just generic consumers or bystanders. The labels don't care about opinions.

No surprise (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807083)

I'd feel a modicum of sympathy for these musicians if they understood that the record companies have never cared about their careers, just about how much money they could wring out of them before disposing of them and moving on to the next disposable musicians, but they don't.

They naively believed that they're all on the same side and the reality is that they've never been and never will be.

Re:No surprise (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808091)

Blaming musicians for the problems in music distribution is about like saying that soldiers are responsible for war. After all if every soldier refused to fight we would have no wars.
                    Musicians face an almost impossible hurdle as their chance of making a decent living as a performing artist is next to none at all. From being totally without work to getting any kind of solid offer bridges the void from heaven to hell. Only when society becomes willing to support artists can the middle men be knocked out of the system. Frankly the entire pile of these middle men are a sad reflection of what is happening in our entire society. Very few people actually produce anything while the huge numbers of employees involved in paper work, hand shaking and fluff dominates industries.

Artists do benefit (0)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807101)

From TFA:

In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all.

This is not a logical conclusion. If anti-piracy activities increase future sales by detering illegal copying, the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels.

Re:Artists do benefit (4, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807139)

That is using the failed logic that a pirated copy is a lost sale. Also if all funds received from courts for piracy go into fighting it more the artists will never get any of it as it will be a continuous loop.

Re:Artists do benefit (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807201)

That is using the failed logic that a pirated copy is a lost sale.

Not only that, but it isn't as if ThePirateBay (and it's not even shut down...) is the only place to download things.

Re:Artists do benefit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807563)

That is using the failed logic that a pirated copy is a lost sale. Also if all funds received from courts for piracy go into fighting it more the artists will never get any of it as it will be a continuous loop.

That's ridiculous. He never said that every copied track is a lost sale. We'd be idiots to believe that 100% of copied tracks are lost sales. We'd likewise be idiots to believe that 0% of copied tracks are lost sales. What percentage of copies result in lost sales? Nobody knows. But it isn't 0%. So the GP's statement stands that if illegal copying goes down, profits go up. The only valid argument is about the ratio.

Re:Artists do benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808185)

It is entirely possible that the percentage of copied tracks that are lost sales is in fact negative.

Re:Artists do benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807165)

"If anti-piracy activities increase future sales by detering illegal copying, the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels."

hahahahahahahaha

sorry, but I just have to laugh. "the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels" - that's a good one, implying that artists and labels have anything close to a 50:50 profit sharing deal.

Re:Artists do benefit (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807177)

Except these activities have about as much chance to increase the sales as the Kyoto Protocol has a chance of decreasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the next few decades.

Re:Artists do benefit (4, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807267)

From TFA:

In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all.

This is not a logical conclusion. If anti-piracy activities increase future sales by detering illegal copying, the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels.

You do realize that "money that the Court awarded" and "increase future sales" are not the same? One is actual cash, and the other is wishful thinking. So, logically, your second sentence is a non sequitur.

Not to the IFPA to decide (4, Informative)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807307)

The court explicitly declared that the money should go to the artists. If the artists decide it should be used for that, fine, but it should be going to the artists first. If they decide to give it to someone else for some other purpose, whatever, but not giving it to the artists is violating a direct court decision.

Re:Not to the IFPA to decide (4, Insightful)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808085)

The court explicitly declared that the money should go to the artists. If the artists decide it should be used for that, fine, but it should be going to the artists first. If they decide to give it to someone else for some other purpose, whatever, but not giving it to the artists is violating a direct court decision.

And how many of those artists do you think are going to risk their careers by standing up and complaining about it?

Re:Artists do benefit (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807329)

If anti-piracy activities increase future sales

This is probably not going to happen. For ten years, one filesharing system after another has been shut down, yet people are still downloading (and the RIAA/IFPI/etc. are still in business). It is very unlikely that the majority of downloads correspond to a lost sale.

the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels

What is that proportion? The problem here is that what benefits the labels only really benefits a tiny minority of artists in any meaningful way.

Re:Artists do benefit (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807417)

Ahh, the contrary opinion.

At least you say "if". Do anti-piracy activities increase sales? Sadly, it's difficult to find studies on this question that aren't biased. That's not a big problem however. The question is not that important. It doesn't matter if sales drop to nothing.

Copying is good. The public benefits enormously. We save hugely on not having to stamp millions of plastic disks, ship them to all corners of the world, and store them. DRM is one of the purest wastes of money I've ever seen, as it is almost entirely ineffective, and known to be unworkable. That's the least of the benefits. This also wrests control away from the oligarchs, always a good thing. They could centralize and concentrate power under the old technologies of physical media and all the facilities that required, and used and abused that power to gain more control over both the artists and the public and to make sure they got nearly all the profits. They could afford to bury any artists who wouldn't submit to their absolute control. They've also tried to manipulate the public into accepting a small number of big hits, rather than allow the flowering of a much more diverse world of music, as the former is easier to milk for profits and takes less effort to produce and manage. Now they can't do any of that anymore. We know of Payola, Clear Channel, and the dull sort of radio station that plays nothing but the same few dozen big hits, sometimes 2 or 3 times in the same day. We are finally seeing the beginnings of the paperless office envisioned as the start of the Age of Information. We have a long way to go, a lot more to gain. Imagine the savings and greatly increased usefulness of a digital public library. Quick searches of the entire library for any combination of information imaginable! No more lost books, late returns with the associated fees, unavailability because all copies are currently checked out. Imagine no longer having to fool with paper receipts and all the problems of storing and organizing them. We should not deny ourselves these benefits to prop up a business model that the more intelligent among us have understood for decades is no longer at all practical. We can compensate artists by other means. Don't let the cartels sucker you into thinking copyright is necessary, good, or enforceable.

Well, I'm sorry, but DUH. (5, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807115)

This has been well known from the start. For the RIAA/MPAA/etc, the recording artists are *resources*. Like lumber, or oil, or minerals. Just something to be mined and discarded when it's of no further value. You don't see mining companies making sure their mines are well taken care of, do you? Or taking the profits from the sale of the minerals and pouring the money into old, abandoned mine shafts?

Of course not. Artists are resources to be consumed.

Suing copyright infringers is really just fucked. It's like if I, as a citizen, started sending letters to people for jay-walking; I'd sue them in civil court for $5,000 (with photograph evidence obtained legally), or I'd settle for $50. Just sign the papers, fill in your bank details, then we'll deduct the money from your account.

Is that legal? In this specific example, probably not, unless I *owned* the street. Let's say for a moment that I do.

Is it immoral? I'd consider it immoral.

I publish all my books DRM free and I don't give two fucking shits if people download them illegally. Every time one of these fucking "sue the piraters FOR THE ARTISTS", I always say... "Where's my share?" I own the rights to books. I publish them electronically. They get "pirated". Why shouldn't I get free money for it?

Well?

Well?

The real reason is, obviously, the MPAA/RIAA are cunts and the idea that they're doing this for the artists in any way is completely retarded.

It's a small world (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807501)

Sasayaki! Damn, meeting you here of all places! I knew that name sounded familiar. How is your book sale going?

----

I remember reading about his book on TvTropes[1], and he offered his book free for a day. The problem was, it was not available for my region, according to Amazon's rules. So yeah, even if I *do* want to do something legally, I can't do it!

I don't know if the facts and figures match, but I personally feel most of the piracy happens in the developing countries, who simply *can't* get the item! (Don't consider torrents only, due to lack of reliable internet, most pirated stuff is downloaded once, and then burned onto CDs en masse, which are then sold at cost) Frankly, people here are happy with crappy vga cam rips, some thing hollywood could just let out for free and gain much more revenue on ads.

YMMV, but I feel that if you *have* created a global network, let it *remain* a global network.

[1]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13261689090A06160200 [tvtropes.org]

Doesn't surprise me one bit (5, Interesting)

SilenceBE (1439827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807127)

Doesn't surprise me one bit. Here in Belgium you have Sabam [sabam.be] which also collects money from different sources but "fails" to get the money to the artist. If I remember correctly last year artists where waiting for about 200 million of euro's and that in Belgium alone. You know how much interests they get on such sums ? And those interests don't get into the pockets of the artists.

They are also masters of getting money out of peoples pocket. When a slick Sabam inspector arrives, you know it will cost you money and they go through some stupid lengths to justify the "extra's" you need to pay.

A flemish satirical program Basta! went even that far to organize a concert with a jar of vegatables (from the brand Suzy Wan), a mixer from Kenwood and another thing that I can't recall. And Sabam slapped them with an invoice for those "artists". So they went with the jar of vegetables and the mixer to the Sabam HQ so the "artists" could sign up to get their money.

Sabam was not amused en when the Basta! guys where planning to give concert with those 'artists', they called the police.

Sabam was even under investigation that they falsified the accounts so they could put money away to bribe officials. But even after all the shenanigans those organisation can still operate. And it isn't that the general public doesn't hate them, they loathe them with a passion.

Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (4, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807227)

And it isn't that the general public doesn't hate them, they loathe them with a passion.

Even the artists hate them. To get money, they need to pay an annual fee. Many don't even get enough back to pay for that fee.
And I am talking about the songwriters and the music makers.
So they are double dipping. Charging the people they tend to get money for.

It used to be that a DJ had to send in his play list upfront and thus not be able to play anything else. If he did, he would be paying a fine.

Most companies don't have radio (which has commercials) in their offices anymore, because it is considered public music and they need to pay for it.
They are working on deals that companies need to pay, no matter what.

If I would be working for them, I would probably tel my friends I was selling meth to 10 year old school kids, because that would be considered as bad by my friends.

Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (3, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807391)

Even the artists hate them. To get money, they need to pay an annual fee.

You know, I'm reminded of various scams with this? Various Nigerian and Lotto scams where 'Send us $X so we can process the paperwork to get you your winnings/smuggled money!'.

I mean, I advise people at work against this stuff.

Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807717)

Nonsense, even if the meth was high grade, sold in very small quantities, and great effort was taken to teach the children about the possible dangers I would still say this is worse than working for the RIAA or MPAA in most cases. Some people don't have much real choice in their employer but they still need to make a living. From security guards to secretaries, cafeteria staff to IT workers, there are many jobs which support the companies but are hard to decry.

Of course, if by working for the RIAA or MPAA, you are referring to the jobs near or at the top then of course I agree with you. Those that have real choice in their work and are choosing to play key roles in these companies are, in my opinion, utter scum. I find it difficult to feel anything above contempt or disgust for these cunts; maybe pity on a good day.

Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (1)

ACE209 (1067276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807399)

Sounds much like the german GEMA [wikipedia.org]

Thanks to them a large portion of youtube videos with music isn't accessible from a german IP adress.

Their latest coup was changing their billing system which led to 5 to 10 times the fees for discotheques and clubs.

Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (1)

zanian (1621285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807519)

You might already know about this and it doesn't change the reality of the GEMA, but it does fix the Youtube issue:

https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/proxtube/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807407)

A flemish satirical program Basta! went even that far to organize a concert with a jar of vegatables

Thanks. Here's the link [youtube.com] (in Dutch)

So "stealing" from agencies, not artists? (2)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807171)

Even if we accept the utter bs argument that piracy is stealing(it's not), this would mean the "stealing" is from companies who themselves steal from the artists.

Interesting.

Re:So "stealing" from agencies, not artists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807289)

Ask yourself which side is the "Copyright Holders"? "Artists" these days hand over their copyrights to the record companies as "Work for Hire".

It's not about the artists (2)

pscottdv (676889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807185)

It was never about the artists. Stop pretending it's about the artists.

No surprise (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807193)

In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all."

Anyone who is at all surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.

I find it amazing. (1)

ravenswood1000 (543817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807211)

This whole lawsuit is very similar to someone suing the telephone company for listing a gun shop in the yellow pages that sold a gun to someone who murdered someone.

Can it be made more clear somehow? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807225)

The RIAA and the IOC are very similar in this regard. They don't care about the people they make money from. They don't want to pay them. They want to take anything they earn and keep it for themselves. Their weapon of choice is copyright and also trademark in the case of Prince and the Olympics. And they seem to get worse each time you hear about it.

stop buying from them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807241)

We gotta stop buying shit from these assholes.

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807245)

To celebrate this very thoughtful decision I decided to share 5 Gigabyte of sacred information per million dollar that has not been distributed to the artists.
Apparently they aren't worth anything and don't need money.

Happy sharing my fellow kopimists!

Crtl+C,Crtl+V be blessed!

"Screw the artists" (1)

OldSport (2677879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807247)

That's the basic message these industry groups have sent again and again. I'm sick and tired of being guilt-tripped by anti-piracy campaigns when it's the producers of those same campaigns that have been giving the artists they claim to represent the short end of the stick for decades now.

Suprisis no one in America. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807261)

Except perhaps the court. Everything is a surprise to them, I would prefer courts the got to the truth not justice. Justice is a synonym for revenge.
If revenge is all we need there are no need for courts.

Surpirse!? (1)

ocean_soul (1019086) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807273)

Is there anyone who was thinking something else would happen? Didn't the RIAA do exactly the same? The institutes work like the mafia. They claime to 'protect' the artists but in fact their only purpose is raking in as much money for themselves as they can.

Same As Tobacco Lawsuits (5, Insightful)

iinventstuff (1888700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807401)

In the US, the government sued (and continues penalizing) the tobacco industry, because their product causes "wrongful death", "injury", and causes the individual to require significant medical expenses. This product causes all of those things, so the lawsuits were justified. However, one would have thought that at least some of the $16B recovered by 2006 would have been given to the smokers who were suffering.

Instead, the government kept all of that money justifying that they would/might someday provide Medicare for those people -- despite the fact that most did not receive Medicare benefits! The State governments even announced that they were using the funds to build roads and for other projects!

This is one more demonstration that these types of groups seek to champion causes in order to perpetuate themselves, by keeping up the fight (fear), rather than relaying recovered damages back to those who were harmed. It's disgraceful.

Re:Same As Tobacco Lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807749)

I'm impressed when I can agree that something the US government does is disgraceful. It's not as though this particular government has much grace to start with.

So someone build a website (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807425)

That lets us list artists and whether or not they are enslaved to one of these organizations. Make it an easy way to check who its safe to buy from, and to clearly indicate which artists are recording for one of these Organized Crime media companies.
A useful tool to let folks speak with their wallets.

I don't buy any music at all. I also don't download it. I don't listen to it anymore unless it happens to interrupt the talk radio stuff I do listen to (mostly CBC here in Canada).

The court will allow this? (3, Insightful)

adewolf (524919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807475)

Why is this allowed? I hope artists get together and sue RIAA/IFPI. As mentioned in other comments, these organizations are nothing more than bullies.

Re:The court will allow this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807941)

Considering that many contracts contain indemnity clauses as well as covenants not to sue, this one might not be possible.

Re:The court will allow this? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807965)

How are said artists supposed to afford such a massive legal campaign? It's not as though they've been paid!

Semantics (3, Informative)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807555)

Pirate Bay is .... pirates.

RIAA/IFPI are privateers [wikipedia.org] . Want to fix the problem? Rewrite the crazy copyright laws and reduce the terms. Its not about benefits to the artists. It never was. Its all about slipping more cash to the middlemen.

Buy direct after pirating like I just did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807705)

Two anecdotes from my personal life this week.

I have been discovering a lot of new manga by downloading scanlations. There are so many I look and see what the manga is first from a description on the net. If it is really good and I can find it in the bookstore I buy it, not all of them but the latest and then I tend to buy the ones after that in the bookstore too. Even living in Japan there are tons and tons of manga that are not in the stores (just serialized weekly or maybe just in some specialty shops, or who knows.) And they are not cheap, it can be 5-10 bucks or more per volume. I actually spend quite a lot of money on manga and so what I find on the net (scanlated to English, or sometimes even some raws though I don't tend to buy them) is beyond my budget anyway. Then I find a good one (since I've read all the good series I know of) via scanlated versions and then end up either buying the latest ones in the store, or I just come back to it and buy later.

By the way I should also mention that I have professionally translated manga too. There are sometimes mistakes in scanlations but in general they are good and high profile sites seem to take down manga that are licensed for sale overseas. Translating manga is really not a high margin business anymore, it is harder than ordinary translation I think too.

Actually with science fiction and fantasy, and with manga too, over the years I have developed a fun habit of "rebuying" a collection of books. With manga a series can be like 20 books or more, and it gets to be too much to store or move when you change apartments. So I have rebought entire series over again (I think I bought Hunter x Hunter and Baki both 3 times over). And for great authors like for example Robert Heinlein, whose books I read everything when I was younger (unfortunately missing the chance to send him a letter, I regret that a lot) and then buying them over and over again over the decades, and also re-reading many times digital copies I've found on the net.

I am finding now that free copies (freely given, and also from torrents) are the best way to discover new writers. I really don't like spending money on a lousy book. However it is possible to find book reviews on the net easily and from that discover new promising books and authors.

A case in point is David Adams' Lacuna: Demons of the Void, a new sci-fi author who sells DRM-free books and also welcomes readers who find his work in torrents or wherever. I found out about him on the net, and he was proud to have become visible enough that his book was pirated. Well I still think he has a ways to go, since I tried and tried to find it and it is almost nowhere I looked. While looking I saw he said people were worried the book was too cheap at $2. And he urged people who liked his book to donate to a charity instead, Childs Play.

Well I was intrigued. I looked at Amazon, it was $5 not $2. Hmph. Then it says free to borrow on Kindle, and I happen to have a great Kindle my brother gave me, but you have to pay over $70 to join that library program. Okay... Well more searching. It's a new author, and I have a huge amount of books already I could be reading in print and on my devices. Sample chapters? I hate that. Well long story short I was impressed with his attitude and I turned on my Kindle that was next to me, it picks up wifi from my phone (HTC EVO phone/router), wham I am in the Kindle store. I stay away from that because I discovered it is like a kid in a candy store. Well, search for the book and it downloaded in like 10 seconds to my Kindle, honestly if my time is worth anything at all that would have been the intelligent thing to do. I think finding books and manga on the net is really a game basically now. It was so quick it was like a huh! moment.

Well I don't know how good it is but I am looking forward to it. Another book of his was picked up for a movie recently apparently too. So I would like to send a shout out to David Adams and recommend musicians, writers and other artists to try their utmost to get into this new metric. Make a website and blog that you update yourself. Make great works. Don't use DRM. Get pirated. Welcome all readers with a generous heart. Your goal is not to join the RIAA. Your goal is to become so loved and part of our hearts, like Heinlein is to me from a young age, that your fans want to buy your works (even the same ones) over and over again for themselves and as gifts for people they care about. If you don't make it into the world culture archive that is our global network of fan websites, including irc, download lockers, torrents, home pc hard disks, and good old libraries, well you haven't made it yet.

Speaking of which Amazon should not be charging 70 or 80 bucks for their "Library" what a joke. Here's how a library should be run. Buy enough digital copies from each author (is there a way to buy digital wholesale direct from authors for this purpose?) to handle all simultaneous requests from people, not asking for books to be returned but just figuring on how long it takes to read a book before it would have been returned. So if 2 people want to borrow the book within 1 week, Amazon should pay the author for 2 copies. If people want to keep a copy on their hard disk or device forever, fine. Where do funds come from? Well they could come from where libraries normally get their funds, or from ads. Conceivably there could be a flat yearly fee. It would be an interesting project that would support authors.

Wishing David Adams and everyone else good luck. If you can provide ways to buy direct and perhaps provide a wholesale price too that would make it easier for libraries and individuals to buy from you I think.

Posting this anonymously because this is one of the few times I honestly want to tell how I feel and act.

http://www.lacunaverse.com/thoughts-and-musings/writing/piracy-statement [lacunaverse.com]
http://www.lacunaverse.com/ [lacunaverse.com]
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006RZNR3Y/?tag=wwwlacunavers-20 [amazon.com]
http://www.childsplaycharity.org/ [childsplaycharity.org]

Makes Sense... (1)

VJmes (2449518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807719)

After all the IFPI/MPAA/RIAA represent the media companies and not the artists.

It sounds better that they represent the interests of the famous artists everyone (supposedly?) likes rather than the faceless company that leeches of their talent. After all, it's the media companies who create these groups. This is why performing artists form their own unions and trade organisations to represent themselves. The only way this story could've been interesting is if the IFPI did something that was in the interests of actual artists.

I know -- lawyer up! (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807883)

The guy who had the patent for how windshield wipers worked took decades to prove it in court, getting settlements that never even covered his many hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees.

The system is set up for lawyers. Note 99% of politicians are also lawyers.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808225)

Lawyers want to keep other people's money for themselves? Who coulda seen that coming?

Piratebay could troll a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808227)

Why doesn't piratebay use this for good publicity? Offer to pay 20% more if the IFPI agrees to give all the money to the artists and make all communication public.

Create a donation system where it is guaranteed that 100% of the money will go to artists one way or the other.

Something like that...

Piracy: A New Business Model? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808407)

It seems we have the beginnings of a new business model for the labels:

Artists sign contracts to produce music and get paid on sales.
Pirates distribute the music to listeners and possibly make money from it.
Labels sue pirates and keep all of the money not sharing with artists.

Does anyone think the time won't come when labels secretly encourage piracy and pirates settle out of court leaving labels with all of the profits? Like newspapers, it looks like the major labels are a dying business model. Maybe someone like Zukerberg, Ellison, or Apple Corp could just buy *all* of the major labels and fix the business model. It relative terms, they're really not that big.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?