BF2S Forums Music piracy fines: How much is too much?

I believe that suing someone for music piracy is a crime in itself.

Artists like Lars Ulrich who whinge about people pirating their music is a disgrace. These people should be happy that people are actually listening to their music, heck if people listened to my band's music and shared it online I'd be as proud as punch.

The RIAA and artists who whinge (Lars Ulrich, Flea etc etc) are the scum of music. They are people whose only goal in playing music is to make money. I spit on these people's feet. Turning art and music into a business, a commodity is one of the most disgusting things I have seen.

These people not only whinge but then have the gal to charge $30 for an album full of shit and charge $100 for a concert. It's a sham.

"Artists" like Lars and Flea need to release that it is infact piracy that keeps their music alive. I would never have ever heard of Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers if it wasn't for downloading some of their tracks over downloading programs.

Ikarti wrote:

I was never a Metallica fan, but I had a roommate that was. I didn't mind them until I heard St. Anger. Worst music I've ever heard. Poor Lars. If you make shitty CDs no one will buy them.

Exactly, St Anger was possibly one of the WORST albums of music to be sold for the past 10 years. And yet they expect people to buy it?

Pull the other one Lars.

Just a point of clarification, DLing music illegally is no different than going into the store and stuffing your jacket full of CD's and walking out with out paying.  That said I think the record comapnies and whiny bitches like Lars take it way too far.  And the artists shouldn't even be getting involved.  I know if I was an artist I'm be happy if I found out millions had downloaded my music, means you will have people showing up to concerts.


Oh, and Primus FTW, last concert of theres I went too, first thing Les Claypoole said before even starting the music was, please download our music.  Liked it enough I went and bought all the albums

That's why we love newsgroups, isn't a company spying on users over p2p is illegal ?

ts-pulsar wrote:

Just a point of clarification, DLing music illegally is no different than going into the store and stuffing your jacket full of CD's and walking out with out paying.

Not in the slightest.  It's more like taping off the radio, or copying a friends CD.  Your analogy is repackaged record industry hype, and whilst it may have been more true in the 90's, doesn't apply today.

There are lot's of things you get (artwork, physical media, distribution costs, retailer costs, price gouging, staff and security costs) which don't apply to downloads, or at least are a fraction of the cost.  And the subscription model shows that downloading can be beneficial for artists if DRM content is used, because people will still pay to buy and burn their own CDs.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-08-28 05:30:32)

aardfrith wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

ts-pulsar wrote:

Just a point of clarification, DLing music illegally is no different than going into the store and stuffing your jacket full of CD's and walking out with out paying.

Not in the slightest.  It's more like taping off the radio, or copying a friends CD.  Your analogy is repackaged record industry hype, and whilst it may have been more true in the 90's, doesn't apply today.

There are lot's of things you get (artwork, physical media, distribution costs, retailer costs, price gouging, staff and security costs) which don't apply to downloads, or at least are a fraction of the cost.  And the subscription model shows that downloading can be beneficial for artists if DRM content is used, because people will still pay to buy and burn their own CDs.

It is illegal and that's all there is to it.  If some person gets hit by humungous fines because they have downloaded stuff illegally, fair enough because it should be a deterrent to other people.  Saying that the maximum fine should be the lowest cost of the item is just crazy - where's the deterrent?  You need cost of the item, cost of the trial plus punitive damages that are high enough that nobody will ever think of downloading illegally ever again.

Yeah, and people who tape CDs off their mates should get LIFE IMPRISONMENT!  Give me a break.

edit: Making downloads affordable (which is happening) is obviously going to 1000000000% more effective that punishing a couple of people who get caught.   Why not execute people for spitting, so no-one ever thinks of doing it again...

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-08-28 06:05:43)

I say it is no different than recording a movie with a vcr...better quality sure but as long as the person is not selling them then I say go for it...

ts-pulsar wrote:

Just a point of clarification, DLing music illegally is no different than going into the store and stuffing your jacket full of CD's and walking out with out paying.  That said I think the record comapnies and whiny bitches like Lars take it way too far.  And the artists shouldn't even be getting involved.  I know if I was an artist I'm be happy if I found out millions had downloaded my music, means you will have people showing up to concerts.


Oh, and Primus FTW, last concert of theres I went too, first thing Les Claypoole said before even starting the music was, please download our music.  Liked it enough I went and bought all the albums

Downloading music is not like stealing music from a shop. The example of "how would you like it if someone came into your house and stole all your stuff" is often used by record companies. It is an entirely inapproriate analogy. If someone came into my house and made an exact duplicate of everything I owned and stole that, I wouldn't mind so much (I'd be quite pissed off by the intrusion, but perhaps that's not appropriate either - because they don't have to go onto music company websites to 'steal' the music, so there is no aspect of intrusion).

It's no different to making tapes for people or recording films off TV.