12 Year Old fined - follow up

Cdr · Sep 13, 2003

Well, as I couldnt find the original post, I had to start a new one.

I think it was mentioned in the last thread that she agreed to pay $2000, it now seems a radio DJ has offered to pay the money back to the parents.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/nm/20030912/us_nm/media_music_lawsuit_dc_11

There is some heart left in the music industry after all.

SoWat · Sep 13, 2003

I really believe that the record industry has realised that it's days are numbered and is fighting to get as much revenue as it can... while it can.

With bands now able to release material directly to the web, and therefore cutting out the middle man (the suits with the heavy-handed lawyers), it won't be too many years away that bands will be able to do it all themselves.

Teh Krypt · Sep 13, 2003

The music industry and greedy bastards.

Im telling you, if they cut the pricess people WILL pay for them. No1 will pay £4 for a 2 min song for fuck sake, its rediculos.

Also, its not like they can't afford to cut the price, look at these overpaid singers, come on....

CAC · Sep 13, 2003

the thing that concerns me the most about all this is the amount of money people are getting sued for

how can they justify wanting $2000 or whatever for 1 song?

Embattle · Sep 13, 2003

I knew it would be a fine......the cost of going to court would of been a lot more.

Any · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Teh Krypt
The music industry and greedy bastards.

Im telling you, if they cut the pricess people WILL pay for them. No1 will pay £4 for a 2 min song for fuck sake, its rediculos.

Also, its not like they can't afford to cut the price, look at these overpaid singers, come on....

ARRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Im going to explain this to you.
The music belongs to the RIAA(shut up).
They can charge whatever they like for the music. They also have a right to not have things stolen from them.
If they want to take criminals to court then that is fine with me. I may not agree with how they are going about it but i dont blame them for trying.

It doesnt matter what you think is a 'fair price' or how overpaied you think they are. You pay what they ask or go without.

I have to say you are wrong about people paying for music. Most are dishonest and if they can get something for free then they will.

Will · Sep 13, 2003

The success of iTunes suggests people are happy to pay for a download-based music service. Maybe the RIAA should be offering alternatives, rather than sueing its own customers, right or wrong.

For once, I actually agree with Krypt. I don't know what to think about that.

Tom · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Any
I have to say you are wrong about people paying for music. Most are dishonest and if they can get something for free then they will.

Thats your opinion, and I think it tells us what kind of person you are.

Will · Sep 13, 2003

Shh, I already defended you.

Teh Krypt · Sep 13, 2003

*Hides under the sofa*

Will · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Tom.
Thats your opinion, and I think it tells us what kind of person you are.

Lawyer or RIAA executive?

I'd have said Tory, but I think some people might flame me.

Clowneh! · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Will
Maybe the RIAA should be offering alternatives, rather than sueing its own customers, right or wrong.

Why? At the end of the day they are there to make money. I don't think they care if anyone listens to music or not as long as they get their dollar out of it

Any · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Tom.
Thats your opinion, and I think it tells us what kind of person you are.

Please tell me what type of person that makes me.

To make this more clear. I dont agree with the way they are going about this. But i do think they have a right to protect their music. If they think that suing people is the way to do it then then fine.

Krypt, it wasnt aimed just at your post.

Will · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Clowneh!
Why? At the end of the day they are there to make money. I don't think they care if anyone listens to music or not as long as they get their dollar out of it

It doesn't have to, that is true. But if it offered a legal pay per download service, do you not think that it would make more money than it does currently?

In fact, since most of the losses can be attributed to organised pirates, rather than file sharers, the pay-per-download would help to claw back some of those losses too.

Clowneh! · Sep 13, 2003

I just think that a lot of people have the mentality that if they can get it for free (illegally) then they will. I heard some idea (I forgot from who) that it might be an idea to build the cost into the ISP charges or blah blah blah.

Will · Sep 13, 2003

Why should I pay because other people illegally download songs?

Teh Krypt · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Will
Why should I pay because other people illegally download songs?

Because your a man of god?

Clowneh! · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Will
Why should I pay because other people illegally download songs?

I kinda took it to mean that the RIAA got their money from the ISP, and the customers could download X music from X place.

mank! · Sep 13, 2003

The industry should be about the music and artists, not the RIAA and their fistful of dollars.

evilmonkeh · Sep 13, 2003

also if you read the article, the dj doesnt pay the fine, but:

Rochester, New York radio disc jockey Brother Wease also offered to pay Torres' legal bill, and online music retailer MusicRebellion.com said it would allow Torres' daughter, Brianna Lahara, to download $2,000 worth of free music from its industry-sanctioned site.

Sar · Sep 13, 2003

They're like the show-business version of the Taliban.

Classic.

Krazeh · Sep 13, 2003

If they really wanted to cut down on internet piracy then they should goto the root cause of the problem, which is the ridiculously over inflated prices of cd's these days and the crap music that is getting released.
People these days have many more things to spend thier disposable incomes on, just compare the number of mobile phones owned by teenagers compared to 5 years back for example. People are not gonna pay the prices albums are being pushed at especially when most albums only contain a handful of good tracks and then just filled with crap to make the time up.
And the state of new music these days is getting tbh pretty dire, we have crap from things such as pop idol and fame academy bein released and they wonder why noone buys singles. They need to get some genuine new talent out there instead of crappy manufactured bands, then they might find people willing to fork out for cds.

Sar · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Krazeh
they need to get some genuine new talent out there

Here was me thinking that that was the point of Fame Academy & Pop Idol...

Krazeh · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by Sar
Here was me thinking that that was the point of Fame Academy & Pop Idol...

I think the term talent needs to be used in it's loosest possible sense when paired with those.

plightstar · Sep 13, 2003

Recently though the sales in 12" Vinyl has risen by tons compared to previous years, with lots of young DJ's and Dance Music listeners( I use the term 'Dance Music' loosly cause it stands for many different types of music, its just easier to label them under one for this thread) meaning that CD manufactuers mainly the pop manufacturers are losing out aswell to MP3's and Vinyl. So they will grab at any revenue they can.

Tom · Sep 13, 2003

You need to understand that vinyl sales in no way harm the recording industry. Indeed, if more vinyl was sold than CDs, they would be making more money.

mank! · Sep 14, 2003

I've been watching Fame Academy (not religiously, just because I think Peter has good taste) and some of them are pretty good. They're not all fucking R&B ****s, or ballad singers either which is nice.

Mind you, I can't remember the name of the bloke who won the last one so it shows how well he's done.

icemaiden · Sep 14, 2003

I watched fame acadamy for the first time ever tonight, and tbh i was shocked how pants they were, with the exception of the first girl, who i would describe as ok. Paris looked weird and messed up at least 3 times, and the funny looking grunge chick everyones been raving about (alex i think she's called) was absolutely crap. It's rather worrying that some of them will get recording contracts.

mank! · Sep 14, 2003

Yes, but at least some of them display a degree of originality and don't constantly sign Celine Dion covers.

It's really not my sort of thing at all, so I don't care who wins but it passes the time.

Darkov · Sep 14, 2003

Originally posted by Any
ARRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Im going to explain this to you.
The music belongs to the RIAA(shut up).
They can charge whatever they like for the music. They also have a right to not have things stolen from them.
If they want to take criminals to court then that is fine with me. I may not agree with how they are going about it but i dont blame them for trying.

It doesnt matter what you think is a 'fair price' or how overpaied you think they are. You pay what they ask or go without.

I have to say you are wrong about people paying for music. Most are dishonest and if they can get something for free then they will.

Prices should be representative of the costs involved in producing the product.

Price of making a song/album should fall in line with the price of other CD/DVD based products like Films/Software.

12 Year Old fined - follow up

Cdr

Guest

SoWat

Guest

Teh Krypt

Guest

CAC

Guest

Embattle

Guest

Any

Guest

Will

Guest

Tom

Guest

Will

Guest

Teh Krypt

Guest

Will

Guest

Clowneh!

Guest

Any

Guest

Will

Guest

Clowneh!

Guest

Will

Guest

Teh Krypt

Guest

Clowneh!

Guest

mank!

Guest

evilmonkeh

Guest

Sar

Guest

Krazeh

Guest

Sar

Guest

Krazeh

Guest

plightstar

Guest

Tom

Guest

mank!

Guest

icemaiden

Guest

mank!

Guest

Darkov

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread