It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Court Victory For Music Industry Against Kazaa

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:01 AM
As much as I love artists like Rainer Maria, who pour their hearts into each and every song, there are lots who simply don't. Major artists put ut CD's with maybe two or three quality songs, and the rest is filler. You're damn right we feel ripped off.

I know there are plenty of artists who do put out good albums- Tapping the Vein, Rainer Maria, ES Posthumous and others. But anyone with any weight behind their names just rip us good.


posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:39 AM
All this does is impinge upon the freedom of information. A sad day indeed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in complete ignorance.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:04 AM
pretty soon due to people crying about money and stuff and security leaks we'll be paying $50 per log in or...worse no internet at all

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Lamagraa
pretty soon due to people crying about money and stuff and security leaks we'll be paying $50 per log in or...worse no internet at all

Very True. I don't see how Mayet sees this as a victory. This is the type of stuff that infringes on free speech.

Everything is going to be run by a corporation. Everyone is going to be listening to whatever shit MTV puts out. Totally distroys freedom of information.

This is totally pathetic. This is more like Big Corporations Vs. The People, and the people are loosing.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by websurfer]

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:44 AM
Why is the music industry hurting? Lets look at it from a consumer standpoint.

For $16 to $20 I can get a cd with a couple good songs. For $16 to $20 I can get a DVD with 2 hours of quaility movie.

For $40 to $50 I can go to a concert and suck in people's smoke and watch someone else play the music for the singer. You think Britney Spears or NSYNC can play instruments? The live performance part of the show is gone. If it isn't someone else playing the instruments its recorded music and lipsyncs. For $40 to $50 I can take the entire family for a night out at the movies.

Lets forget about the RIAA thinking the problem with the industry is the file traders when in reality its anything but. Produce a quality product and people will buy. The music industry lost when they introduced a line of boy bands like NSYNC, 98 Degrees, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, etc. Who here knows anything about their bands?

Give me a stage with a stack of Marshalls and a guy with a mean guitar.

As a consumer I cast my vote against what has become today's music industry. I buy movies exclusively.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:50 AM
This is just bleeding the stone dry. So the record company lose a few hundred million from their bottomline to only make a few billion dollars in profit, cry me a river.

If you can't make a career in music doing it independently then you either aren't working hard enough or you suck. Simple.

Do it independently and actually make real money off your product and not only will you be able to earn a living, you won't have a teet you have to suck on to get your few cents for each sale.

More importantly, don't support the "Idols" because they are the ones draining the music industry dry. Record companies spend millions on these people and don't get the return from sales, they look at their bottomline and think they are getting ripped off.

I work in the music industry, i deal with these people everyday. The major label folk are clown shoes, they are just business men who have no idea about music. I've experienced much more organisation, success and wealth from the independent scene.

By the way, Filesharing can be the cheapest and greatest advertising for your music you can get - just make sure you didn't spend $1 million on your film clip and you should benefit greatly from the increased crowds, word of mouth AND CD sales.


posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:28 AM
the fact of the matter is that NOTHING can stop filesharing..

even if all companies that run filesharing programs get sued into bankrupcy. some one who knows how to write code will just make his/her own file sharing program and post it on the net completely and UTTERLY anonimously (and i'd bet my LIFE that it would happen)...

therefore no single person/entity could be held accountable...

what are they gonna do then?...start suing individual end users?...

that sort of policy would be completely unenforcable, and would be utter lunacy to even attempt...

(and for the record, i'm not advocating or critisizing fileshareing programs eitherway)

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Urn

therefore no single person/entity could be held accountable...

what are they gonna do then?...start suing individual end users?...

Erm..that's exactly what they have been doing...

that sort of policy would be completely unenforcable, and would be utter lunacy to even attempt...

Apparently not. "They" are trying, as we speak.

So, the posts here are indicating that big bands don't "need" the money/proceeds from CD sales, as they make a lot more money from touring. Therefore, the general consensus seems to be that filesharing doesn't hurt them. Probably very true to the artist who has a bank balance well into the $millions.

Small/local/unknown bands don't have the income from tours (ever actually asked a local band how much they get from touring? it really isn't much), and they often do rely upon cd sales to keep their heads afloat.

Filesharing does hurt them, if that's the case. Four downloads generally means at least two end users aren't going to buy the CD. Why should they? They have the end product on their hard drives already.

So, what's the law to do? Make different sets of laws applicable to different levels of popularity? Anyone else see how this would be both legally questionable (how do you decide who's popular? Cd sales alone?) and unfair?

The law has to exist to protect those who are being hurt - if it's revoked, then what protection do they have?

The law might not be relevant to big bands, but it's still there - they're entitled to it's protection should they choose to be, but perhaps more importantly, it does inevitably provide some protection to those small, local bands who just don't have the money to go national, and who actually do rely in some part on the actual sale of their CDs.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Lysergic
More importantly who the hell is still using Kazaa, come on now, eMule be the way to go.

exactly my first thoughts!

Use Azureus it has no spyware unlike Kazaa

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:30 PM

With all respect my man, the smaller bands are exactly who this technology can benefit - if the RIAA and those like them would get off the pot. Filesharing is a fantastic medium to showcase skills, and for a smaller band whose chioces are touring a bunch of small town shows making next to nothing for the hope that someoen will hear their music, like it, like it enough to want it, and then like it enough to want it and remember it days, weeks later when they are by a store to see if the store even carries the artist, and if so, to pay not only for that band, but for the record exec, the store, and all other distribution methods is - in a word - assinine.

What the RIAA is proposeing is to financial allow an outdated, out moded, obsolete methodology to control the evolution of music all to make sure "their" jobs are safe. While it is human, it isn't right and all the legal preceedings will eventually lead to nothing because once the genie is out of the bottle she is out, and humanity will not be willing to de-evolve in the music business anymore that we would be willing to back step to antenia tv systems, just because the antenia people would be out of a job with this crazy "cable" thing catches on... Pretty silly isn't it?

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Passer By

With all respect my man, the smaller bands are exactly who this technology can benefit -

Yup, I agree. If that's their choice - but that's the point, isn't it? Shouldn't they have a choice between going the traditional route, and not?

The technology is great - that's not the problem I have with the mess at all

It's the argument that "it doesn't harm the bands" - because in too many cases, it obviously does...

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
It's the argument that "it doesn't harm the bands" - because in too many cases, it obviously does...

...but then so do record companies?

I can list example after example of the abuse done by record companies and list bands ten-fold that have benefited from these sort of programs.

Take Pantera for example, their Far Beyond Driven album has shifted nearly 30million units world-wide. Over all they are one of the highest selling bands of all time.

They have seen less than $8million including touring as profit. Yet I do believe have a totel of over 60million album sales. God knows how many single sales as well, as they reached number one in several nations [including Russia I do believe]. And the only reason they got so much is because Phil was able to cut a good deal with the record company. He himself has spoken out about the amount of abuse pushed upon new artists - especailly bands who tend to do everything.

Disturbed are another good example, they had one of the top five highest selling albums of 2002 or 2003 [can't remember off of the top of my head] shifting several million in that year yet they earned less then $150,000 from it where as the record company is earning massive amounts.

As far as I am concerned, I pay £50 to £150 to see a band play, who gain well over 2/3rds of that money instead of paying £80 for all their albums when they will be lucky to get £4 from that.

The same goes for everyone else I know.

Maybe if the record companies took less and the albums cost less, the market would grow once more. People do not like to be ripped off and that is what is happening.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:50 PM

Do they have a chioce? Do any of us? Do we not have to take what the environment and technology throws at us? Did the type setters of the 1800's have a chioce when the typwriter was invented? Should we have stopped because it would hurt them, or do we let the chioce be up to the consumer? What about when personal computers wiped out the typewriter business? Should that have been saved, because they would have been hurt?

So we can agree that progress can not be held back, nor is it wise to do so.

So then, it comes to chioce. Let me ask you - whose chioce? Is it he artists? The record exec?(Which includes record companies, stores, distribution method's, etc) or is it, as I profess, the consumer? And if it is the consumer haven't they already decided, haven't they already chose?

The artist has chioce to become a musician. They have a chioce whether to persue it as a career or a hobby. To do it for the love of creating music(a real gift IMO) or to create money. Nothing says it can't be both - the point is that the chioce for musicians is there.

The record company though - they don't have a chioce, and they are the ones that are stopping it because they have been left behind. They too had a chioce to embrace new technology or try and keep an outdated system a float. They fought at ever step and turn about radio, records, tapes, recording tapes, CD's and now the net. The fact is they were given huge chances to make the right chioces for the consumer, the artist and them - and they chose not to take advantage of it screwing the consumer and the artists.

We all have chioces. The artists has it to make music. Consumers have it by being free to get the music through varous sources and even the record companies have it by either embracing the new world or being left behind in it. The sadness is that how much harm can they do before it is over. The RIAA have lost, the writting is on the wall and they are dead but know it not yet. So they will fight and hurt those that have surpassed them by welding the power of the courts and their deeper pockets against those that are unable to defend themself's. Pure bully mentality IMO.

All that blow hearty ness aside, I don't download much music, but I find the means to transfer files or TV shows and documentries to be far superior to anything else available, and for it to be threatened because of a bunch of dinosuaers is jard for me to take.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:04 PM
The bottom line here is this comes down to ethics. You can argue technology this, technology that all you want, but technology is not the concern here. The question is whether you should be listening to a music file without express authorization from the artist or record company.

If they gave it to you free, great, show some gratitude and help them by buying their CD or attending their concerts or both. Another good way to help is by buying their merchandise. Bands typically do very well through merchandising, and see much of the money in profit. Plus, nothing's cooler than to have your very own artist t-shirt, baseball cap, or jacket with their name on it.

If they didn't give it to you free, and you know this, then why continue to obtain music this way if you are not going to help them? If you appreciate their art, and obtain enjoyment from it, then they will appreciate you very much for any small contribution you can make towards their cause.

I am totally with TinkleFlower on this.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:11 PM
TrueAmerican, how do you expect people to find out if they like a song off of a new album though?

A lot of bands do not [ I repeat, do not] release singles or get T.V. exposure so the option is the internet.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Odium
TrueAmerican, how do you expect people to find out if they like a song off of a new album though?

A lot of bands do not [ I repeat, do not] release singles or get T.V. exposure so the option is the internet.

You know, if you like an artist, and have heard or bought their music before, then chances are you will like at least one of the songs off their newest album. Not always, I agree, but still...Even if you buy an album that you don't like, it helps them towards writing the next one. And so on. I know there's a limit, but at least you tried. A typical example of this is the band Rush. I bought every single album up to "Moving Pictures," and then when they got off into the excessive synthesizer stuff, I just lost interest. So I don't buy much of their stuff anymore, but I still love them for the music they have done prior to that. But I still visit their site, and like many artists they provide free sample clips of new stuff (or used to).

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:38 PM
...and to some extent I do, but I already own well over 400CDs [I used to DJ in a club and still do every couple of months, so I need a lot of them for remixs.]

However, let's take one of the artists I like.

Alec Empire has done over 100albums. That's be roughly £800 to get half of those, that's excluding his work during the early 1980's. In fact Alec has been known to come out with 2/3 albums a month.

Couple that with Sepulture who have about 20, Slayer the same again and do you see the growing trend?

I have at the moment 60gb's of music on my P.C. be it my own, from C.Ds or stuff I download.

It is really too expense for a lot of us to buy all the music we want. In a perfect would I would buy it but in a perfect would the record company would not screw everyone all over.

...but then also, I've seen nearly every band I like [but two] live who do, do live shows and only because one of those do not tour in Europe and the other always tours during my exams.

This is the same for everyone I know and I've met a lot of musicians and fans of music.


And when it comes down to bands/groups/artists which have 7songs I like spaced over 6albums, I will not pay that much money for the few tracks I do like.

Which there are many of these, Slipknot and Ice Cube being two rather famous examples. I like at best 12songs between the two of them, yet they have well over 20albums and I tend to see one good per-album from each of the artists.

[edit on 6/9/2005 by Odium]

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:47 PM
I am the MD of an independant record label. A CD album costs approximately 59p to make including all the artwork, printing and delivery to us. On top of this you have the recording and mastering costs - somewhere in the region of 10,000 pounds for an album. Then there's the promo video for the first single (vital to get exposure on TV) around 5 grand for that.

Then there's PR and Marketing costs...more than the cost of the recording usually....and the bands expenses...(don't even go there)

These are tight budgets...nowhere near what major labels have.

The dealer price (what the shops pay for it) of a CD album is about 6 pounds. Then then put thier mark-up on that...used to be around double, but big stores like TESCO are driving it down to nearer 3 quid now.

So we make about 6 pounds from a CD - oh, but wait...we need to pay the distributors....

Then we try to re-coup what we've spent and anything over that gets split 50/50 with the band.

We use online sales as a marketing tool for actual Cd sales....and it works.

Stealing tunes via Kazaa and it's's easy and sometimes people do go and buy the CD afterwards...but not many. Most legit download sites let you hear a 30 sec sample of each track to see if you like it...

So stop stealing what we pour all our money and time into.....or we'll be round to steal your car...Why not? The insurance will up huh? Thought not.

Check out

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
More importantly, don't support the "Idols" because they are the ones draining the music industry dry.

I have never supported a single Idol until Bo Bice. The reason is he is a real musician that had been kept down by a pathetic music industry. Good musicians like him are left playing in bars while garbage like Britney Spears is touring the world. The music industry needs people like Bo to bring back faith to consumers that there are still real musicians left in the world. Someone that can write a song and pick up a guitar and play a tune. Bo is a throwback kind of musician. A southern rocker that reminds you of the good ole days. He was a natural on the stage performing with Lynyrd Skynyrd. If he puts together a good supporting band and plays his brand of rock he will be a huge success for many years to come. He just needs to shed that title of "Idol Contestant". Its sad that someone of his ability had to go that route.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:44 PM
How many artists have actually came out and spoken out about this?

Except Metallica, because they don't count.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in