File sharing and the record companies
A case this week in the US courts has paved the way for record companies to sue "file sharers" for breaching copyright.
Jammie Thomas, a single mother who works for a Native American tribe as an envirnmental co-ordinator, was approached by a group of six recording companies, and asked to pay au$3000 for having shared music under license.
She refused, took the companies to court (or was taken to court) and the judge found in favour of the record companies, that she had illegally shared 24 music files.
She now has to pay these companies a whopping au$250,000 or $10,500 per song.
Well now, this is the future trend of an industry that has lost it's stranglehold, and the courts are finding legitimate arguments to ownership of digital material.
It does'nt really affect me coz i rarely look for stuff outside of vynil collections, but even for me that will change soon.
Of course, they (massive recording companies) don't have have a case if you buy music online, but people should be aware of this latest grab for cash...
:-/
J
yeah i heard about this
record companies wont be able to afford lawyers soon so no need to worry 
hehe
it is a bit freaky
demonoid was pulled down for a while a few weeks back
it is going to be interesting if political/economic pressure will force the countries holding all the servers to close. apparently demonoid had had to move from Switzerland to canada due to server hosting problems. and now they got shut down in canada. crazy. looks like the government might be getting on top.
major record companies are going to die in the ass soon anyway, the only thing holding them up is 13 year old kids watching idol.
Another bad thing for musicians is these massive online mp3 distributors, mainly itunes. The royalties are divided so unfairly that a lot of artists are getting screwed over.
here's an interesting page about the breakdown of royalties if anyone's interested.
we all copy music and have since we had tape recorders but file sharing is hurting artists more than most would care to think.
record companies like EMI are dropping really good bands from their roster like airborne and anyone else the least bit "risky" ?they're not prepared to take a chance on new music as they're just not making as much money. it's bad for music and only encourages more bands like nickleback
unfortunately nickledick type bands are always going to be around.
one of the main fall-backs of record companies is they don't like taking risks. hence the indie movement...
I hate fat record company producers, and they don't give upcoming quality artists a go unless they are 150% sure they'll make a profit.
Lets face it, the amount of people they have screwed in the arse since their conception will always and by far outwiegh any amount of downloading.
They ( record companies) have never been in it for the artist. Never forget this. they gimme the shits
some one call me a taxi, I just fell off my horse
;D
There is no draw-back in technology for musicians. Only the degenerates that sipher from them.. Record company rats have outgrown their use. Rather than ramble, I will use a loose metaphor to confuse the situation all the more;
THE MET - Once we bought paper tickets from a person.
I rest my case,
not so sure it's a grab for cash, more setting an example to people so they don't offer their music folders to the world.
when it costs $1.69 per song on itunes, it would have cost her about $40 to buy good copies of these tunes, and in turn buy them for everyone else who copied them.
I have no sympathy for her at all.
we all copy music and have since we had tape recorders but file sharing is hurting artists more than most would care to think.
record companies like EMI are dropping really good bands from their roster like airborne and anyone else the least bit "risky" they're not prepared to take a chance on new music as they're just not making as much money. it's bad for music and only encourages more bands like nickleback
i am a naughty cheesecake
http://www.facebook.com/pcpdj