Another win in the fight vs. piracy: The US Supreme Court we

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/05/21/153199008/supreme-court-lets-stand-students-675-000-penalty-for-downloading?ft=1&f=1001

:sunglasses:

You know Jeff, at $675,000 dollars, that’s still a relative bargain for the plaintiff. Figure that 30 songs at only $22,500 each is still far cheaper than back-in-the-day when the labels/artists would have to buy studio time, hire and rehearse the musicians, secure rights to the songs, pay the engineers and a producer, and have them pre-mastered and distributed.

If only everyone that steals music realized what a bargain it is to simply pay 0.99 to iTunes (or comparable) instead of what it actually cost artists/labels to create a song in the first place. Maybe then they wouldn’t steal? Nah! A thief is a stealing stealer that steals. I ain’t about the money. It surely ain’t no “David vs Goliath Music Industry” nonsense. That’s pure unadulterated BS. It’s about being a thief, in-and-of itself.

Damn, swamptone, you jes keep gettin’ more and more and more eloquenter! :sunglasses:

Regarding the “bargain” ,I think this is incorect. However you add up the production cost of an album “back in the day” it never averaged out to over half a million dollars. Only the very top self indulgent artists, during the bloat years (approx 1978 to 1985) in LA or New York got recording budgets like this. I’ll bet the average Columbia,Captiol or EMI production was more like 50k at best.

Piracy is lame but so is exaggeration on either side of the discussion. BTW Itunes is no bargain for the muscian since Apple rips of 70% of the money for doing nothing basically( they dont develop artists or provide easy independent access). Thats almost as bad as piracy since they’re the world richest company these days.

Not to be confused with Buddy Emmons who is a steeling steeler that steels. Big, big difference! :wink:

…and who, in his later years, bears a striking resemblance to Ernest T Bass. :mrgreen:

Mr. M … are you suggesting the average music pirate lacks the critical ear and good taste to steal the very best and most expensive music productions? Do they limit their thievery to only productions of "average"expense? C’mon man! Give the thieves more credit than that (no pun intended).

Guns and Roses album Chinese Democracy reputedly cost $15 million to record.

Michael Jackson’s Invincible cost $30 million to record, with an additional $25 million promotional campaign.

I could go on, but you get the drift. So, maybe $675,000 is not such an exaggeration after all? Besides, less face it … Rock-n-roll is all about exaggeration.

Swamprtone- Piracy has to be looked at across the board from pop icons to indie bands. There is no way on this earth that the average album across the board cost anything near $600k ; this would be a money losing proposition for the remaining labels to deal with. When you cite Guns and Roses ,that a misnomer. This wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Democracy
points out that their management disputes the figure (actually reported $13mil) and more to the point the bloated budget happened because of delays due to constant personnel changes. Point is ,no label would contract up front to pay G&R $13 mil for a recording.

Also the cost of Invincible comes from “sources” not MJ or Sony. The promo budget included a MSG concert and TV special that they made money on. Its always the details on these things; nobody is going to spend thousands or millions without a clear path to recoup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_(Michael_Jackson_album)

Also more to your original point ,based on what I know of the defendent in the original article, a $600k fine for downloading 30 songs is a punishment that doesn’t fit the crime. To try and rationalize this as making sense kind of joins the surreal attitude of some kids that “music is free”. This is 2 sides of the same ,irrational coin. The public loses sympathy that they should/would have for muscians that are getting ripped off when fines like this are handed out.

Once more Pirateers™ start paying the fines, the cost to steal will lower.

Bottom line, .99 will always be a better bargin + you will be able to get into heaven.

Harrrrr, Shiver Me Timbers!!!

I’m certainly not rationalizing the fine, nor the recording industry in general. My point was that it would have been far cheaper for the miscreant to buy the 30 songs on iTunes than get clobbered with a $675,000 fine. Furthermore, that the costs of recording a record (regardless of exact amount, or “averages”, or industry standards, or examples of thrift / excess) is ALWAYS going to be greater than $1.29 per tune (the highest price for buying an MP3 on iTunes). Thus, it is cheaper to do the honest thing and buy rather than steal. AND it represents excellent value for money (regardless of the “ethics” of artists negotiating poorly, which has been standard operating procedure for most artists since time began).

No, I’m not going to get into the ethics of recording contracts with majors or indie labels. You used the term “surreal” and it don’t get any more “surreal” than the record bizness.

I’m solidly in the D-i-c-k Dale camp when it comes to the efficacy of the typical record label recording contract. Which is to say: Just Say NO! An average musician can, and will, do better selling self-produced product out of the trunk of their car). :wink:

Just for the sake of adding a slightly different perspective, from the other side of the planet… so to speak.

  1. Itunes is not available everywhere, neither is Amazon or Google’s Media Share facility.
  2. Some countries are deemed pirate friendly and then the big distributors avoid them leaving a gap in the fair-distribution chain. (my theory)
  3. Local stores do not have the variety and do not keep to $1 policies (good & bad) - net result is it becomes easier and cost effective to simply download illegally.

The irony though is that I still believe and the evidence is anecdotal - people who pirate music are simply collectors, like magpies - no real appreciation of the music. The true fans and serious listeners will always end up buying a CD or DVD.

Its like software piracy - I’ve come across a lot of people that have a cracked copy of some DAW, but are generally clueless and would never have paid money for that type of software in the 1st place.

the Supreme Court this morning let stand a $675,000 jury verdict

So, how many people did this guy share it with and how many did who he shared it with share it with and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on… Get the big picture? It is a big frigging picture.

If the amount was left to stand then that’s it. That is fair. Listen, the supreme court isn’t going to let some arbitrary amount be the penalty. Screw the kid. Stealing and giving away something that has rights is wrong and if he didn’t know this he is probably a scum bag and if so, all of us would be giving thumbs up anyway.

Who are we to say what is fair and what is not in this case? Was it your business that got destroyed by Napster and P2P file sharing.


What I would like to hear from all of you saying it was an unfair judgment is what you think he should have paid and back it up with why. Maybe then I will understand where you are coming from because right now I don’t.

Inequality of justice brings the whole system into disrepute.

This could be called “Another win” but it sure as hell ain’ no justice.

Mauri.

And the record industry wonder why people don’t wanna be their friend and give them money anymore… Threats and lawsuits isn’t exactly the way to reach out to potential new customers.

Just because a court sets a judgement of $675,000 doesn’t mean that money (or anywhere near that amount of money) will actually be collected.

If the defendant doesn’t have the money, nor assets that can be liquidated, the court can levy a garnishment on wages. The maximum amount of the garnishment that can be withheld from each paycheck is severely limited by law. As a practical matter, the $675,000 fine is unlikely to be collected even fractionally.

Interesting that the corporate side is reduced to claiming this legally rigged nonsense as a "win’. Reduced, as in they’ve really lost, bad. But pretending is everything to the corporate mentality.(Let the market decide, after our bailouts)
And they used to steal so well, where were the complaints when they were the stealers? 100% hypocrisy for the record companies.

Given the absurdity of the ‘damage claim’ it is clear what this is about. Its about what all the other corporate strongarming through the so called justice system is about; setting examples, putting fear into folks, intimidation. This is what they know. This is how they roll. The decision only measures the depths of how far their bribery and extortion extends into the justice system.

In the capitalistic system where everything is for sale and nothing has real value, the future will bring more and more of this ‘property’ issue reification. People will hum a tune and get put in jail for it. Jails too are for profit. Get the picture?

Interesting when the desired outcome of intimidation and punishment actually increases the spirit of forgivness and amnesty.

:unamused:

Interesting when the de-Sired inputs of pun-timid-ation and “ish”-ment actualizes decreased sprites of forgetfulness and amnesia.