Limewire sued for $75 Trillion

[No_M0re]

[hide][hide=Antispam]

[hide]

Plagiarizing and copying music in this context don't mean the same, Jaffy. Plagiairism laws exist so people don't make a profit or claim ownership of other people's ideas. With piracy, none of these apply.

They aren't entirely the same, that's true. However, here are plenty of sites that do offer other people's music, tv shows and whatnot in return for payment. To avoid plagiarism you can credit a source a specific way, or in certain cases, buy the material. To avoid copyright infrigmentation you buy the music for your own personal use, or the right to play it (for example shops have to pay the owners of music to be allowed to play it when they are opened). The reason behind the rule may be slightly different, but that doesn't mean it is entirely different. In both cases the material belongs to someone else, and you have to pay for the right to play it, quote it, or own it in a sense.

 

You may not take away the original, but the owners have the right to claim a fee for your using it in both cases.

[/hide]

 

At No_M0re,

I don't mind you calling people "man", it just makes me feel odd since plenty of people seem to think there are no women on the internet. xD

Anyhow, I can assume you hereby admit to randomly sharing your opinion with made-up prices for songs and whatnot?

If your information is based on fact, finding credible sources isn't that hard, so for lack off it is safe to say you were not basing your claims on facts, but simply making things up?

 

You claim to have read every word I said, yet you repeat the same futile questions while I have already provided a proper answer, and you repeat flawed statements without any arguments or even hint at evidence to back them up. Don't go round in circles now, go on and show us that support for your claims.

 

Yeah I assumed you were a girl because of your avatar lol!

 

I do have a fair knowledge of the costs though because of watching my friends and like i said my best mate is an engineer, pretty good one at that. I'm making things up to an extent, it isn't exactly 5k£ to bring out a song, but it is definately around that with no manager/company involved. I would say, for a good songwriter, including the time spent writing the song. If you don't want to accept that is credible that's fine, I don't mind. It's not really but it's a fiarly good estimate, gives an idea.

 

Also I did read what you said, but it's all weird legal nonsense. I'm saying for my case how is it stealing? Surely you can see it's not really.

 

Oh well I guess we both have pretty strong opinions on this :ohnoes:

 

I don't have any evidence either because once again I'd say it's kind of self explanatory, or is it even possible to get evidence for my last post.

 

Basically I don't think that I personally am stealing.

^In other words, you are wrong.

Calling that source weird legal nonsense proves that much to be honest.

You're not the only one that claims it isn't stealing, but the simple fact that you're downloading illegally means that you are.

The source shows you perfectly that copying the original without taking it away is stealing, so please stop claiming you're not. xD

 

Also, what you're saying is not self explanetory, because if it were there wouldn't be room for opposite opinions, now would there? Backing up something that is self explanetory should be very simple.

 

If getting a song on the market is around 5.000 pounds including all the advertisement and whatnot, why do so many artists lack the money to do so? Getting 5K isn't that hard.. What is that based on?

The fact that you think you know what you're talking about, or the fact that one random friend of yours may have hinted at that? I'm not going to claim I do know how much it costs, because I don't, but you made a statement about it, so I would like to see the validity of that. And even if, assuming every song costs 5K to create, do you honestly think that pirating that one song makes up for the creator's costs? Would you go to a concert to listen to one song? How much should an artist invest into a song, and how many songs should they create for you to steal before you pay to go to a gig?

 

 

Now I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but surely you enjoyed some education with regard to backing up statements, and were taught to think critically? And I'm sorry, but saying"I know a lot about this subject so I am right" simply doesn't cut it, because everyone can say that too, and if they did it still wouldn't be true.

 

Finally, to clarify part of the "weird legal nonsense" --> You claim copying the original is not stealing, then what is plagiarism again?

 

 

And to think, 3 million people could all share one cd and the record companies would be pissed off about the 2.9million who didn't buy the cd. Record companies are hippocrits, putting a price tag on something that's theoretically free...

That too is stealing, so you're suggesting you're as hypocritical as you claim record companies are?

[/hide]

[/hide]

 

Plagiarism I don't know much about, in my eyes though it should only be ilegal if people profit from it.

 

I suggest you read the below again... and uh, how do you plagiarise without profitting off it in some way?

...This link right here...

 

 

What I'm saying is is that in my case noone loses any money. I wouldn't have bought the CDs anyway and infact after hearing about the band I go see them.

Already proven that to be invalid.

 

 

I really don't understand how you can argue with that :(

Because what you are saying is incorrect, and you fail to answer any critical question to explain yourself.

 

 

Also I did say, advertising shouldn't be part of the coosts because msot good bands/musicians go viral on youtube now. Therefore it's free,

That is nonsense, and you know it.

 

 

Granted most big bands still get loads of money spent on advertising, but I don't think the music industry should be like that, bands should get famous becasue people like them and share them with their friends.

Believing something should be different doesn't make it different. That also doesn't justify theft.

And uh, how do people get to like bands without advertising? How do they get famous if no-one knows about them?

 

 

Also I don't live in a world where I have to back everything up with facts and sources, my sources are in real life. There's no way I can link you to all of them.

I'm not asking for a link to everything, but when you come up with "factual" claims that are made up for whatever reason I think it's reasonable to ask what they are based on.

 

 

I can't remember excactly how much it costs to hire an engineer and studio for 1 day, I think it's cheap..

 

Ok so I googled it, you can rent a studio AND an engineer for 180£. Assistants are usually interns and work for free. So that's 180£ apparently.. Granted that might not be amazing quality. But if it can cost 180£ then I'm sure I'm safe in saying that it's around 3k£ for one day with a good engineer. So 3k£, maybe you need a few session musicians, they're around 30-60£ an hour.. Usually you only need them for a few hours. So let's say you have 2 for 5 hours, that's 600£. Then you need someone to master, they can work cheap becauase there are too many. I can't easily find one on the internet but many places are saying around 500$ a track, so like 300£. So around 3900£ to have a song produced. Maybe you need a video but due to the large ammounts of amateur film makers you can usually get it done for free, or possibly around 1k. Once again I can;t back this up but I know it from experience.

 

Music videos for free mhm? I'm sure a random cheap camera and lacking choreography will go very far... And all you need is to spend money on an engineer and studio time?

 

I'm no expert, but I am sure that a lot more is required. You also said that advertising isn't necessary, so if I just randomly spent x thousand pounds on making a song, and then put it on YouTube, following your logic this would happen:

 

1. "Loads of people" will somehow see my random video with music, and download it for free.

2. I will get "loads" of fans because people will share my song a lot.

3. How on earth do I get a gig then?

4. When does the money come into the picture?

5. I end up facepalming at having lost x amount of money, but the bright side is that a bunch of people got my song for free, and like to listen to it at times?

 

It does make me wonder what kind of experience you have.. :rolleyes:

 

 

Basically, whether I pirate or not it makes no difference. I wouldn't have bought the CD otherwise. Only difference is that if I pirate I hear it and share with my friends, if I don't I don't and my friends might not hear about them.

 

Please tell me how there is any leeway in the above statement. :pray:

Even if that were true you would still have stolen the music. You didn't buy the right to have it, and therefore you should not have it. If you were intregued enough by something you would have bought it, or heard a song on the radio and then may have chosen to buy it. Even if you didn't, the fact that you take what does not belong to you means you cheat the creators. Shops pay owners of music to be allowed to play it to their customers, that's just the way it works. By having it, and playing it, you owe them the money they are entitled to by the simple fact that it is theirs. That is how they lose.

 

It does make a difference, because a huge amount of people pirate music (and movies/TV shows), and since that started the sales of music and movies went down by a significant amount.

^I've already explained that before as well.

 

Would you buy the DVDs to a movie or TV show if you've already pirated it?

Would you buy the CDs if you've already pirated the music?

 

Would I buy DVDs? No, I hate spending 12pound on something I watch once.

 

Would I buy CDs? Possbily because I can listen to music over and over again but in better quality. I don't though and never have because I'm skinted. I buy vinyl from things I've listen to from pirating.

 

It is true though, you can get music out without advertising costs.

 

 

350k views on an original with no advertising costs? that's pretty good no? (I think it;s a crap song tho)

 

Also I dunno if you know dubstep?? Most artists got famous by posting music on youtube and are now touring and DJing.

 

Anyway I can't be assed to argue anymore, your not gunna change my opinion I'm not gunna change yours.. so let's not :thumbup:

[Furah]

Would you buy the DVDs to a movie or TV show if you've already pirated it?

Would you buy the CDs if you've already pirated the music?

I would and I have. I bought I Am Legend after watching a pirated version a number of times. Unless I'm watching on the tv out the back I prefer watching it off the pirated version though, I have issues with my DVD drive, and I just want to watch the movie; not watch 3 ads for other movies, an ad on how much better Blu-Ray is compared to DVD (even though you can't tell in the ad,) a few ads on how pirating this DVD is illegal even though it's a legal copy, and way too many little ads about the various companies who made the movie (advice, I don't give a [cabbage] who made it as long as it's good.) Every gig I've gone to because I pirated the artists' music beforehand and decided I enjoyed their music enough to go see them live, which I wouldn't have otherwise. On top of that, I own about 15 games I originally pirated I enjoyed enough to purchase and I wouldn't have bought them otherwise as I wasn't sure enough. The cases where I have pirated and not purchased something I would not have purchased the item if I had no other option. As far as it's affected the people who made it, it made no difference what-so-ever. They've only complained because someone tells them about all the money they've lost, then convince them to pursue those people with settlements. Bands such as Radiohead have actually testified against their own labels in court before.

[Jaffy1]

Would you buy the DVDs to a movie or TV show if you've already pirated it?

Would you buy the CDs if you've already pirated the music?

I would and I have. I bought I Am Legend after watching a pirated version a number of times. Unless I'm watching on the tv out the back I prefer watching it off the pirated version though, I have issues with my DVD drive, and I just want to watch the movie; not watch 3 ads for other movies, an ad on how much better Blu-Ray is compared to DVD (even though you can't tell in the ad,) a few ads on how pirating this DVD is illegal even though it's a legal copy, and way too many little ads about the various companies who made the movie (advice, I don't give a [cabbage] who made it as long as it's good.) Every gig I've gone to because I pirated the artists' music beforehand and decided I enjoyed their music enough to go see them live, which I wouldn't have otherwise. On top of that, I own about 15 games I originally pirated I enjoyed enough to purchase and I wouldn't have bought them otherwise as I wasn't sure enough. The cases where I have pirated and not purchased something I would not have purchased the item if I had no other option. As far as it's affected the people who made it, it made no difference what-so-ever. They've only complained because someone tells them about all the money they've lost, then convince them to pursue those people with settlements. Bands such as Radiohead have actually testified against their own labels in court before.

 

Although I admire that you do, many do not.

I'm in no way on that sort of record labels' side, but that still doesn't mean illegal downloading is right. Legal downloading is perfectly fine, and with the artist's conscent I would assume downloading it is legal.

 

If many artists wish for their music to be freely available I'm sure that a market for a legal download library can suffice in one way or another, and going back to what's been mentioned before, I agree that that should change. However the notion that illegal downloading at this time is theft simply remains, which is my reason for opposing it.

 

I'm not sure about Australian DVDs, but the vast majority of the ones I've got don't have advertisementz (TV shows), and the few movies that do have advertisement that can be skipped with a single button. However I do agree that such "in-your-face" kind of messages on a legal copy of something are :thumbdown:

[foursideking]

@jaffy: there's a difference between piracy and sharing, and in the case of 3million people sharing a cd, it isn't technically piracy. Piracy happens when people obtain a copy of a record/cd without paying for it. The other 2.9million people didn't obtain a copy, they merely borrowed it. And since borrowing/=/taking, sharing/=/piracy (/=/ is supposed to be doesn't equal). I'll admit it though, I didn't use limewire that much, so this doesn't really affect me (although it is hilarious). If they go after youtube though, then they will have problems.

[Jaffy1]

@jaffy: there's a difference between piracy and sharing, and in the case of 3million people sharing a cd, it isn't technically piracy. Piracy happens when people obtain a copy of a record/cd without paying for it. The other 2.9million people didn't obtain a copy, they merely borrowed it. And since borrowing/=/taking, sharing/=/piracy (/=/ is supposed to be doesn't equal). I'll admit it though, I didn't use limewire that much, so this doesn't really affect me (although it is hilarious). If they go after youtube though, then they will have problems.

Ah, I misunderstood your comparison then, sorry. I missed you referring to an actual CD.

Still, that is a rather unlikely situation, isn't it?

 

Anyhow, I don't think anyone will go after YouTube in that respect, since YouTube does fight copyright infrigmentation (e.g. mutes videos with certain songs in them).

[foursideking]

Still though, youtube is essentially offering the same service as limewire, giving people the ability to listen to music/watch shows for free. And since the record companies aren't getting paid for this, I assume they'll go after them too, possibly suing for 800 billion (to the exponent google) dollars!

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well, the deal with Youtube and record companies is ridiculous and I've got no interest in defending the companies there.

 

I can understand why they would be upset over people "sharing" copies of the file to each other meaning they lost potential revenue they were rightly entitled to, but when someone comes knocking on the door essentially offering free video advertising for your products, you don't really have a right to charge them for the gratuitous service they're giving you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6832196/How-the-record-labels-spurned-the-YouTube-opportunity.html

 

The cheek of it all is beyond belief.

[FlameHawk18]

I'm too lazy to read through the past three pages(I've read the first two, pardon me. I need to go to sleep soon, so I don't have time to read it all.), but I guess I'll throw my opinion in.

 

As a musician, I think pirating is completely fine. Most of the musicians I know actually are pro-piracy. I don't see it as a problem.

 

Especially when you mark down the price for most things, you can get the bare essentials for under $1000 a song. My local music scene has plenty of studios that give pretty decent quality recordings, and they usually charge only about $20 an hour. Mastering can cost anywhere from $90-400, depending on where you go(I live in Miami, I like to go for cheaper alternatives since the big deal studios here are expensive), and then duplication fees will usually cost no more than 60 cents a disc, and maybe another 50 cents for casing. It's not that expensive to release albums. I could easily write a 6 song EP for under $1500(without mastering, sadly) and be able to release over 1000 copies as an independent artist. Sell them for $2 an EP and you still make profit.

 

The only music I buy is for the local scene, and that is because I know 100% of the profit will go to them. With most other major labels, the artist relies on merchandise and ticket sales. And with the openness of piracy, your music is put out more. More people listen to your music, and as a result, will go to your concerts and buy your merch. To me, pirating is one of the greatest things to have come to independent artists, but it might be one of the worst things to come to major labels.

 

tl;dr - I support piracy.

[The Dark Lord]

 

Especially when you mark down the price for most things, you can get the bare essentials for under $1000 a song. My local music scene has plenty of studios that give pretty decent quality recordings, and they usually charge only about $20 an hour. Mastering can cost anywhere from $90-400, depending on where you go(I live in Miami, I like to go for cheaper alternatives since the big deal studios here are expensive), and then duplication fees will usually cost no more than 60 cents a disc, and maybe another 50 cents for casing. It's not that expensive to release albums. I could easily write a 6 song EP for under $1500(without mastering, sadly) and be able to release over 1000 copies as an independent artist. Sell them for $2 an EP and you still make profit.

 

 

Just curious - are you able to make a living off of that?

[FlameHawk18]

 

Especially when you mark down the price for most things, you can get the bare essentials for under $1000 a song. My local music scene has plenty of studios that give pretty decent quality recordings, and they usually charge only about $20 an hour. Mastering can cost anywhere from $90-400, depending on where you go(I live in Miami, I like to go for cheaper alternatives since the big deal studios here are expensive), and then duplication fees will usually cost no more than 60 cents a disc, and maybe another 50 cents for casing. It's not that expensive to release albums. I could easily write a 6 song EP for under $1500(without mastering, sadly) and be able to release over 1000 copies as an independent artist. Sell them for $2 an EP and you still make profit.

 

 

Just curious - are you able to make a living off of that?

Well, obviously not for $2 an EP, but as far as I know most independent musicians rely on a combination of touring, merchandise and EP sales.

 

There was this website(now it is renovated so I really cannot cite the source now), that explained this in a better way than I could. In order to make a living off of music, you'd have to have much more dedication than I personally have, and you would have to make many, many sacrifices. You won't be making the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Top 40 Artists make, but enough to get by probably.

[Jaffy1]

 

Especially when you mark down the price for most things, you can get the bare essentials for under $1000 a song. My local music scene has plenty of studios that give pretty decent quality recordings, and they usually charge only about $20 an hour. Mastering can cost anywhere from $90-400, depending on where you go(I live in Miami, I like to go for cheaper alternatives since the big deal studios here are expensive), and then duplication fees will usually cost no more than 60 cents a disc, and maybe another 50 cents for casing. It's not that expensive to release albums. I could easily write a 6 song EP for under $1500(without mastering, sadly) and be able to release over 1000 copies as an independent artist. Sell them for $2 an EP and you still make profit.

 

 

Just curious - are you able to make a living off of that?

Well, obviously not for $2 an EP, but as far as I know most independent musicians rely on a combination of touring, merchandise and EP sales.

 

There was this website(now it is renovated so I really cannot cite the source now), that explained this in a better way than I could. In order to make a living off of music, you'd have to have much more dedication than I personally have, and you would have to make many, many sacrifices. You won't be making the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Top 40 Artists make, but enough to get by probably.

But when pirated there is no such thing as receiving $2 an EP. xD

[Furah]

When working for a record label there's no such thing as receiving $2 an album.

[saifzam]

I loled. I never used limewire anyway you can only find [cabbage] mainstream songs on it.

 

The music industry is [cabbage] regardless. Some people see music as a form of youth culture and when youth culture becomes monopolized by big business what are the youth to do? I oppose listening to the [cabbage] played on the radio.

 

Good luck suing piracy software based in Dubai.

[All_Is_Great]

I download torrents.

 

I live in Canada.

 

I buy albums that I like even if I downloaded them already.

[Nadril]

When working for a record label there's no such thing as receiving $2 an album.

 

Hah, this.

 

Most of the album sales are going to the label and not the artist.

[lordkafei]

Two things to add:

 

(1) I proudly pay for my music downloads (I prefer Amazon over iTunes)

 

(2) $75 trillion is over 5 times the current US National Debt

[Assume Nothing]

I still find it amusing that you can justify suing someone for more money than the entire world's GDP

[jasignhagj]

What disgusts me is that a jury of people could approve such ridiculous lawsuits. If I was on that jury I would never let a case like that go in favor of the RIAA.

[foursideking]

To be fair, the same jury also acquitted oj and cancelled king of the hill.

[The_Gabe]

To be fair, the same jury also acquitted oj and cancelled king of the hill.

 

What?

[KittyKat]

It's a joke...

[Ryannator]

saw that coming. i bet bit torrent is next in line to get some major piracy restrictions

[Orpheus]

saw that coming. i bet bit torrent is next in line to get some major piracy restrictions

 

Except the government won't be able to get the source code for torrent programs easily. Sure ISPs can restrict, but that's all they can do.

[jasignhagj]

The difference between torrent clients and Limewire is that Limewire was built around copying media files, while torrent clients simply facilitate a legal and more efficient way of downloading and uploading files.

[Shiny]

The comparison can be drawn between torrent clients and knives: Knives are useful tools, able to be used in completely legal ways. The torrent clients are like that. There is nothing inherently illegal about them. They can just be used for illegal things. Like knives.