![Piracy Piracy](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/piracy_64.png)
![The Almighty Buck The Almighty Buck](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/money_64.png)
![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
IFPI Won't Share Pirate Bay Damages With Musicians 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."
well (Score:5, Informative)
This certainly comes as a huge surprise [slashdot.org]...
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
anyone, including "content creators", who believed IFPI wouldn't pocket the money are idiots.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the people who actually believed that piracy legislation is not about making lawyers richer.
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
the only way to effectively deal with sociopathy is through bribery.
Or executions.
Re:well (Score:4, Insightful)
Those would be somewhat counterproductive for raising teenagers..
Not at all, "Jimmy, clean your room, or else!"
Re: (Score:2)
Those would be somewhat counterproductive for raising teenagers..
Not at all, "Jimmy, clean your room, or else!"
And they don't mean half killed either.
Obviously not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
uh I thought it was quite clearly stated that they would use the money to do more lawsuits. it's sort of their way of "investing".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
*back to the future 2 quote*
doc brown: justice is swift now that they have outlawed all lawyers.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 aus
Re:buy directly from artist (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Stop buying music (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop buying music altogether and this problem will go away...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you can still buy music just buy it from independent musicians on soundcloud or bandcamp.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Humble Bundle for Music (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Stop buying music altogether and this problem will go away...
I have stopped buying music. I have seen no change.
Re:Stop buying music (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY. Of course the '1000 other people' number is pulled straight out of their asses, just like every other statistic they use.
Re: (Score:3)
IFPI = organized crime (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
So we must treat them like organized crime.
And elect them to political office?
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:IFPI = organized crime (Score:5, Funny)
Organized crime called.
They do not wish to have their name associated with the IFPI or RIAA.
They say it makes them look bad to be associated with the music industry.
Re:IFPI = organized crime (Score:5, Funny)
the problem's not the labels or the customers... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
IOW, the more things change, the more they stay the same. :-)
Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but my point was she at least has that, whereas in contrast, Nikki Minaj doesn't but is still thrust upon our radios for some reason.
Even if they can sing it's something, but most of them can't even do that now.
Re:the problem's not the labels or the customers.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
artists can't unsign. (Score:4, Informative)
one of the biggest problems is that while artists can unsign themselves from a label, they can not (in most of the world) unsign form the copyright protection monopoly "representatives" which collect fees for radioplay, public performances and so forth, part of that money is then used to do things like sue piratebay. worst part is that that their business is approved - and awarded to the specific org. through law.
so once you sign up you're registered forever and you will have to pay.. for even performing your own shit. so even if new artists would stop signing up it would take a loong time for their income base to flush out(and in some cases they'll take the money for artists they don't even represent anyways).
Re: (Score:2)
.... 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. ...
I don't think you pay attention. There is 100 of thousands of people who would. Those same people that try out for American Idol and other shows like that, the cam whores on youtube. The reality TV stars. We have way too many people who will do whatever to be a star.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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).
That's because, back in the Bad Old Days before the Internet, a record deal was 1 act in a thousand or so were hyped into stardom to show that 'it could be done' if you 'worked hard and did what your label told you to do', baiting more thousands into willingly selling their souls for a chance to do the same. Nowadays, anybody can post a music video of themselves on Youtube and have the chance to do the same. Bieber originally did that, and got co-opted by the labels because somebody thought they could m
Re: (Score:2)
Thief label applied incorrectly (Score:1)
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. (Score:2, Informative)
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 woul
There is such a thing as too indirect (Score:2)
Most of the world is connected up in some way or another, even if it is only indirectly.
As I see it, there is such a thing as too indirect. Recording artists not signed to major labels get their works played only on the Internet, not on FM radio. So if people discover new music during drive time, how can artists reach listeners who happen not to subscribe to a cellular data plan? Or what am I missing?
When all the spectrum below 92 MHz is full (Score:2)
If you listen carefully, in between the NPR crap and the Jebus channels, you will find the small 10 and 100 Watt College Radio stations.
Unless there are so many NPR and Jesus stations in a given city that the FCC doesn't have any frequencies below 92 MHz left for a secular college radio station. I seem to remember this being the case in Fort Wayne, Indiana: Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) wanted to start a radio station, but there wasn't any open frequency.
And how many? (Score:2)
i think it's worthwhile distinguishing between "listeners whose only exposure to new music is drive time radio" and "listeners who are reachable by other means". having redefined our target listeners as the latter group [...] where exactly are these other listeners reachable?
And how many of these other listeners are there? Before fully committing to the latter, we also need to compare the size of the former with the size of the latter in order to rule out the latter being so microscopic that it is an edge case not worth serving, much as home theater PC owners are widely considered an edge case not worth serving within the video game market.
No surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 s
Artists do benefit (Score:1)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Artists do benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not to the IFPA to decide (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Courtney Love (Score:2)
And how many of those artists do you think are going to risk their careers by standing up and complaining about it?
I'd love [salon.com] to answer that question.
Re: (Score:2)
I've already moderated, but I'll waste the points to answer this post.
Consider for a moment that Courtney Love posted her articles and made her speech more than a decade ago. Has anything changed? At all? Except for the worse? Do artists shun the major labels? Do consumers avoid giving them money? Do the labels enjoy any less power in Congress and the parliaments of the world? Is there any sign of any of these things happening?
No.
Justin Beiber eagerly signed. Every other new artist eagerly signed.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting but I doubt it's accurate given the lifestyles that such artists have, the homes they buy, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many of those artists do you think are going to risk their careers by standing up and complaining about it?
One would be enough. If the complaint isn't some whining on his blog, but a criminal complaint and a solid civil lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Great idea, but it just ain't gonna happen. Every time the MAFIAA got awarded money and managed to collect it, they used it to finance the next round of litigation and lobbying Congress for even more draconian laws allowing them to more easily litigate potential victims. Yeah, it's a court order, but who's gonna call them on the carpet and demand an accounting? The courts aren't. When the judge drops the hammer to close the court, he's done. The MAFIAA sure as hell won't, that'd give their little game
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
OMG, you drank the koolaid!!!!
illegal copying has nothing to do with losing a sale. In fact, studies that they try to hide, show that sharing music leads to more sales.
And being someone who
Well, I'm sorry, but DUH. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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! (
Doesn't surprise me one bit (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Sabam even tried to argue that, since truckers are at work while driving, they should pay for the music they play (radio) in their cabin (considered the work floor).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thanks. Here's the link [youtube.com] (in Dutch)
Re:Doesn't surprise me one bit (Score:5, Informative)
That is really interesting. Here is some coverage: Music Royalty Society Collects Money For Fake Artists, Bathroom Equipment and Food [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So "stealing" from agencies, not artists? (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
What did you expect? Thieves hate competition. That's why there's no viable alternatives to government, they keep knocking out the competition. Same thing with the MAFIAA, only, being thieves themselves, they think everybody else is a thief too.
It's not about the artists (Score:3)
It was never about the artists. Stop pretending it's about the artists.
No surprise (Score:3)
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. (Score:1)
Can it be made more clear somehow? (Score:3)
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.
"Screw the artists" (Score:1)
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.
Surpirse!? (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Actually, I completely agree with that one, because the last thing I want to see done is giving smokers anything for smoking, because you want as much disincentives as you can get.
And for the same reason, in this case the money should go to the artists, because you want incentives for them to create more stuff.
So someone build a website (Score:2)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics (Score:4, Informative)
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.
I know -- lawyer up! (Score:2)
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.
No money (Score:3)
Pirates being Pirates (Score:2)
They're only "content creators" (Score:2)
I mean, you, as a major corporatation, don't want to deal with *artists* or *authors*, who are notoriously difficult to handle, and have their own opinions[1], and want a real share of the profits[2], you want "content creators", who produce work for pay, and can be easily replaced, like any packages boy band, girl band, or whatever.....
mark
1. For example, as a corporation, you might have deals with airlines....
2.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try this again: footnote 2: http ://www.janisian.com/reading/internet.php
mark "gotta be some way to add a link"
Warner Music Group is privately held (Score:2)
Maybe someone like Zukerberg, Ellison, or Apple Corp could just buy *all* of the major labels
That would require Apple (AAPL, mkt cap $548.5B) to not only buy Sony (SNE, $12.4B), Vivendi (VIV, €19.8B or $24.4B), and a privately held company, but also to convince competition regulators in multiple countries that this isn't foul play.