TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

MooZar Aims To Turn Pirates Into Paying Customers

The operators of MooZar, a new service set to launch at the end of February, believe they have the solution to the file-sharing piracy ‘problem’. Illicit downloaders can apparently go to their site, pay some money and feel happy in the knowledge that they’ve supported the artist. Controversially, there are suggestions they won’t get sued either.

moozarOver the years there have been quite a few starry-eyed companies who believe that they have the answer to online piracy, turning the millions who access unauthorized music online into a significant source of revenue for the recording industry.

The latest outfit set to attempt online musical alchemy are known as MooZar. The company was recently touting its wares at MIDEM and has been running very large, very expensive ads recently, both online and in print. So what miracle are they going to perform?

Imagine this scenario. You’ve downloaded your favorite artist’s latest track from a torrent site, or maybe even a blog or Rapidshare. Half way through listening you suddenly became overcome with guilt – the artist, the label, the copyright holders and everyone else involved in making the track deserve to get paid and you have no way of making this happen.

But then you remember MooZar, the site which enables illicit downloaders to compensate the artists and copyright holders. You head over to the site after the February 26th launch date, admit that you’re a pirate, pay some money into your account, MooZar sends the artist/rights holder some money and all is forgiven. Simple.

In theory.

MooZar seems to be trying to set itself up as some sort of intermediary between creators and downloaders, so in order for this system to work the downloaders/artists/rights holders in question have to create their own MooZar account in advance to be able to send or receive payments.

The amount people can pay is open, but the default minimum suggested payment/donation is set at 1 euro per track, of which MooZar says it will take a 20% handling fee before passing the rest on. Simple thus far, but now the complexity and inevitable politics kick in.

While this type of service might be of interest for artists not on the big labels or those without a deal at all, imagine for a moment those who are already selling their music online, for example on iTunes. If the minimum donation amount is set higher or equal to that on iTunes it wouldn’t make much sense for a downloader to use MooZar. If the price was set to a lower price than iTunes, it could have the effect of driving people away from iTunes and onto file-sharing networks – not that good for Apple.

As the operators of the failing Qtrax ad-supported service might admit privately, the secret of success in this area lies in getting the big labels – EMI, SonyBMG, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group – on board and supporting the service. While it seems unlikely that these companies will warm to another middle man taking 20% of ‘their’ money, it is even more difficult to imagine a situation where these giants – who have spent much of the last decade trying to destroy file-sharing services and downloading in general through legal action – would about turn and invest in a project which would drive people towards the target of their destruction.

MooZar doesn’t completely overlook the legal issues though. They are proposing a situation where if the donor pays an amount in excess of the minimum fee set by the artist/copyright holder, in effect he/she will have bought an amnesty in the event of a legal dispute. If the amount donated is less than the minimum fee, the downloader is on their own.

However, there is some text, albeit in not particularly clear English, which suggests that downloaders have to pay the artist/rights holder before they download from otherwise illicit sources to get protection. Furthermore, there is no mention that downloaders are able to upload the music they download and be exempt from legal action, which means that this element of the service is useless for BitTorrent users. Indeed, the only way any copyright infringer is pursued on file-sharing networks is due to their uploading, so unless this so-called amnesty includes a license to distribute too (doubtful for 1 euro), it is completely useless.

MooZar are to be praised for trying to find some solution to the ongoing file-sharing wars, but one can’t help being skeptical. The launch is coming soon, so it will be interesting to see what that brings. In the meantime, the marketing info for the service is available here (.pdf).

[via Numerama]

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • http://www.eZee.se www.eZee.se

    “the artist, the label, the copyright holders and everyone else involved in making the track deserve to get paid ”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA!

  • brenard

    HA! – ‘Half way through listening you suddenly became overcome with guilt’

  • redmarine

    I’m not sure how this is actually better than our friend Sunde’s idea.

    This service seems doomed to fail.

  • rndpirate

    Seems like another pointless middleman. With this the artist will get even less then selling cd-s.

    downloader pays 1 eur
    Moozar takes 20 % of that
    The labels, who actually get the donation, take their cut
    The content actual creator the artist gets basicly nothing because 2 middleman

    i do not see the point of this

  • NubCakes

    If Torrentfreak is to be believed (and anybody that seriously wishes to understand issues rather than sit around in a circlejerk of agreement with this site doesn’t go elsewhere for infomation then I suggest that you do) then this sounds like a collossal fail.

  • Aaron

    Anyone remember fairtunes.com? Seems kinda’ similar.

  • Pirated.me

    It seems more like someone else wanting to take advantage of the issue and earn 20% profit off piracy… they didn’t make the work, nor did they release the work on the web… Seems they’re just asking for free money here.

    I’m pretty sure this won’t catch on, unless they can provide a “proof of purchase” after donating that can vouch for you in court (and be a tax writeoff) =P

  • http://www.eZee.se www.eZee.se

    Ohh boyyy! Ok, I’m back, I just had to pick my ass off the floor because i was laughing so hard..then wipe the laughter tears as well. Now that i AM back, let me clear up that sentence/paragraph a bit:

    Half way through listening you suddenly became overcome with guilt – the artist, the label (that’s screwed over the artist/artists and the public for generations), the copyright holders (the same ones who wrestled control from the artist/s so that what the artist has created no longer belongs to them for the next 70+ years, the same ones who control how and where the music is used even if the original artist agrees or disagrees with them, who pays the artists pennies to the dollar etc) and everyone else (not involved with the actual music, but who dont really do sh!t but wait their turn in grabbing a piece of the pie like MooZar, and the IFPI who indirectly get paid and corrupt entire foreign governments and/or their legal infrastructure ) involved in making the track deserve to get paid.

    Ah! That’s better!

    Also, “MooZar”??
    I know nearly all the good domain names are taken but why do they have to come up with such daft damn names?

  • Orange

    Er, if I really was “overcome with guilt” I would go out and buy the song/album in a store.

    I don’t understand this.

  • NubCakes

    @EZee : “(the same ones who wrestled control from the artist/s so that what the artist has created no longer belongs to them for the next 70+ years, the same ones who control how and where the music is used even if the original artist agrees or disagrees with them, who pays the artists pennies to the dollar etc)”

    Sorry … how is voluntarily signing a contract with a recording label equal to “wrestled control form the artists”.

    And would you care to explain if this is such a bad thing as you seem to be implying why the hell are many artists continuing to voluntarily (no “wrestling” of any nature involved) sign recording contracts. It seems clear to me that there is a large benefit to the artist in signing a contract – or else why would they do it? If there was a better way to earn money from their art are you saying they’re too stupid to see it or something?

    I don’t believe it’s because artists are stupid and your seeing something that they are too feeble to see. You know, seeing as your not even in the shoes of an artist making the decision to voluntarily signup (again, no “wrestling” involved) – your in the shoes of someone justifying their actions of piracy.

    Stop making statements that don’t reflect reality and do like me – accept that however much money is going to parties other than the artist there is still a portion that is going to artists and you aren’t paying it.

  • dwpbike

    something is better than nothing. i like it. but 20% is way too much. would you give to a charity that took 20% off the top?

  • http://www.torrentfreak.com enigmax

    @9 Orange:

    Neither do we, it’s never going to work

  • Gary

    I would only support paying money directly to the artists, not to rights holders.

  • lawl

    after the awesomelessness fail of Flattr i had high expectations.

    FAIL!!

  • Esnopser

    I’m not one to go around calling things retarded, but MooZar is utterly retarded.

  • yogi

    Why don’t artists just put up a “donate” button on their sites and wherever their music is playin?.

    I was going crazy when i heard a Kutiman clip on youtube “mother of all funk”.I’m probably responsible for like a hundred views.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprMEs-zfQA

    But this is not something you can buy – lord knows the copyright issues would be endless – but I would still really like to show my appreciation to the artist – and there is no way to do that! Why?

  • Dan

    First of all, when I have the money for it, I will go buy the album in a store. When I buy something I don’t want it on my hard drive, I want it PHYSICALY.

    Secondly, this would not help much, as people would only download the best song from the album and leave the bad tracks there.

    @ 11 – enigmax

    I like that comment. ;)

  • Walrus

    @9 Screw that, if I was “overcome with guilt” I’d mail the artist $10.

    Too bad half of the artists I listen to are dead.

  • Anon

    Overcome with guilt? Seriously?

    Will never work.

  • Erik

    Oh I´m suddenly overcome by guilt of having downloaded that movie oh oohh i think i´m going of to pay Moozar, and lot of money and while i do that anyone interested in a deal i got this sweet deal on London bridge if you buy now i´ll throw in the Big Ben for good measures.

    Seriously as many others in here have put it if i really were overcome by guilt of having downloaded the newest soundtrack or latest movie, i´ll go into the store and BUY IT there or better yet donate some money to the artists.

    I think this doomed to fail on so many levels.

  • nabs

    That’s why we have Jamendo, where 90% of all donation’s go to artists. But sadly they only have sucky indie music. But its free and legal to download. I like “brad sucks” music the most. If you want to search it.

    http://www.jamendo.com/en/

  • Zig

    Pirates don’t become overcome with guilt.

    Doesn’t work.

    “OMG I FEEL SO GUILTY I’M NEVER GOING TO PIRATE ANYTHING ANYMORE.”

    Then you’re not a pirate anymore.

    Fail.

  • Terminator

    FAIL ! *Sorry , I could not resist saying that :)

    I will rather donate directly to the artist than waste it in “Moozar”
    Artists won’t get anything as long as there are middlemen.

    And to all content creators, don’t forget to put a “donate” link on your site.

  • Huggybaby

    And if I feel bad about my part in global warming, I will buy carbon offsets from the billionaire Al Gore. Oh wait, it’s snowing outside, NM.

  • Ted Bundy

    When Microsoft realized that they forced a monopoly among consumers with the abomination of an Operating System called Vista, then how come they weren’t overcome with guilt?
    Not only do they continue to seel Vista, but they force unhappy Vista customers to pay nearly full price for the upgrade to Windows 7

    If anyone should be overcome with guilt, it should be Steve Ballmer and those corporate fat cats swimming around in your money, while giving us a low value product.

  • Captain sarcasm

    Oh lawd the wording in the article. Brilliant.

  • John Watts

    WOw, why would anyone want to be a paying customer??

    Jess

  • Matthew

    Lol good luck getting me to pay. I only download songs/films/software from the major studios so I know I am doing absolutely zero harm. They can guilt trip me all they like

  • mpaa, riaa and ifpi funded ACTA represent !

    Fail, it’s a commercial setup. NOT USER FRIENDLY, that’s the difference between TPB and gonna fail attempts services!

  • Anonymous

    Flattr ovens this moozar.

  • United Hackers Association

    “the artist, the label, the copyright holders and everyone else involved in making the track deserve to get paid ”

    let me change that too:
    “the artist can get screwed , the label and copyright holders get yacht building programs funded by this”

    and you do not deserve anyhting we in society give you a limited it me to make money if you cant then you dont get paid, thats the intent of copyright FOR THE CREATOR
    not the label , not someone who tries to buy rights that should be UNSALEABLE.

  • tosser

    The Flattr model is appealing – it’s a one-click money-where-your-mouth-is digg that sends a bit cash in the direction of the people who earn it.

    This is just a middleman for a paypal account. Fuck that – royalty FAIL.

  • OJ

    These people are basing their success on the supposed guilt of the P2P community. You know what though, “pirates” have very little guilt if any because they are a market segment that buys (and shares) more content than any other.

    In the mind of every “pirate”
    file sharing is solidly in the free category with minimal risk and ample reward.

    The most “pirates” will do is occasionally thank the uploader with a comment or warn others of a virus. Do you really think they’ll take time to register and enter their credit card numbers to pay for goods already stolen (I mean shared of course).

    When “pirates” decide to support the artist/director they buy music or movies from places like amazon.com where they get top quality physical media at a fair price with money they’ve saved by not buying crap.

    Why would people donate through Moozar.com and get nothing in return except for a hypothetical “get out of jail free card” when they could “donate” to amazon.com and receive physical media of the highest quality and own the actual rights thereto?

    I will leave you and any other outsiders who think they can turn a profit with P2P:

    P2P is non-profit.

  • United Hackers Association

    it me = time (firefox edit error)

  • John

    I might send them a christmas card some year.

  • Unauthorized Content Consumer

    It’s not the unauthorized content consumers that the artists need to worry about. It’s the executives and lawyers that are supposed to be protecting them that are the biggest criminals of all.

    Too bad artists simply cannot understand this because the are so badly brainwashed.

  • Pingback: Pirate Home Page » MooZar Aims To Turn Pirates Into Paying Customers

  • lol!

    who feels guilty to the trolls who want to control are entrainment, and have been brain washing us for century. I have the right to go out and buy the artist CD if its good enough! THIS SERVICE IS GOING TO FAIL. EVERY SERVICE THESE TROLLS WANT TO US TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ARTIST, WHY I AM CONTRIBUTING BY LISTEN TO THEM AND BUY THEIR CD IF ITS WORTH BUY.

    FAIL FAIL FAIL, BUT NICE TRY FAILURES!

  • Ninja

    I read half of the article. Epic fail.

    “Admit you are a pirate”????? Also, TWENTY PERCENT HANDLING FEE?

    Thanks but no thanks. Awesome fail.

  • poo

    Why shouldn’t the artist and the label get paid? Fo example, @TorrentFreak, would you like it if I ripped off your design for a P2P news site and stole all your articles?
    Thought not.

  • Nice Try BRAINWASERS!

    “Imagine this scenario. You’ve downloaded your favorite artist’s latest track from a torrent site, or maybe even a blog or Rapidshare. Half way through listening you suddenly became overcome with guilt – the artist, the label, the copyright holders and everyone else involved in making the track deserve to get paid and you have no way of making this happen” THIS Paragraph just makes me sick, WOW great way to set yourself up to FAIL!!

  • Enigmax

    @poo

    No one suggested the artists shouldn’t get paid, it’s simply a case of the major labels never embracing something like this, although that was pretty clear in the article ;)

  • United Hackers Association

    and

    hammers NEED YOUR MONEY
    every use , or purchase you will be required to pay these people

    the miners of the metal
    there kids
    there grand kids

    the manufcturer and the people that work there
    there kids
    there grand kids

    the distributor
    there kids
    there grand kids

    share holders
    there kids
    there grand kids

    the store owner
    there kids
    there grand kids

    and of course then th eguy tha uses the hammer ot build somehting for you every time you use it youmust pay him
    his kids
    his grand kids

    WOW whats the cost of the hammer thingy anyways

  • United Hackers Association

    Half way through listening you suddenly became overcome with guilt – the artist, the label, the copyright holders and everyone else involved in making the track deserve to get paid and you have no way of making this happen.

    oh like hte CRIA stealing artists money from as far back as 1980 and
    450 million in cdr levy fees no artists are getting?
    ya im over come with something and it aint guilt

  • a

    I highly doubt this won’t run into major problems…

  • gigi

    there is another angle that i think we should look at. When u pay on the site, u have to give personal data like credit card or something. By doing so u acknowledge that u r a pirate and have been downloading for free from torrent sites. That makes u a suspect because it is normal to assume that u r engaged in illegal downloading on a normal basis. So MooZar creates a database of personal data of suspected pirates paid by the pirates themselves. U become a huge and easy target for possible future legal problems. Or am i just paraonid?

  • fantasy

    At 1 Euro per file there isn’t enough money in the world to pay for all the tracks out there.

    How much money you guys got on your hard drives?

    I’m at 60,000 Euro and counting.

  • Virotelisa

    “the artist, the label, the copyright holders and everyone else involved in making the track deserve to get paid”

    Claptrap.

    The label doesn’t have any distribution costs for a torrent download. The copyright holder should be the artist, or it is just another leech. Cut out distribution, manufacturing and shipping as they are not even involved. Last, i am quite certain Moozar also wants a cut.

    The artist is the only one deserving payment for a torrent download. And as the article already mentions, it does little more then adding yet another middleman – a greedy middleman that tells you you can “donate” what you want, but 20% of that amount is his.

    In other words, a ridiculous service. If i feel guilt stricken i will just use i-tunes or download the CD, as i always do.

  • Brandon

    @21 I like that “Brad sucks” group. They sound like Bloodhound gang alittle. Your right mostly lame groups on jamendo.com but some are good…

  • josh

    I am shaking in my little booties, so overcome with guilt for downloading that Rob Zombie album…Doesn’t matter if I’m paranoid – they’re still after me.

    MOOZAR, COME SAVE ME.

  • No Dice

    FAIL

    Screw the labels… artists need to band together. (Excuse the pun) I want the money I spend to go to the artist. *IF* money is being lost due to piracy, its only the labels losing out. All the labels, shareholders, and copyright enthusiasts that didnt have anything to do with the production of the art are starting to realize the answer to piracy includes the exclusion of their now unnessecary role in the industry.

    The artists want less hands in their pockets, not more.

    I repeat… FAIL

  • annoyance

    this is just mooooovalous.

  • Rboy

    I think the consensus to this service is FU. If I get half way through a track and think this is utter crap I just wasted my time will Moozar pay me?

    Filesharing is just a more efficient library. Most artists that get paid what they worth. Any good artist is a multi-millionaire they have been paid plenty there is no guilt here if I listen to a song of theirs.

  • Fugasmic

    Another completely pointless website trying to profit off guilt. When are they actually going to learn that all we need is a download service that will sell digital music for a proper price. We don’t need or want any of these stupidly ridiculous sites and their daft business models. Sell your frickin songs online for 10 or 20p a track and I’ll buy them, lots and lots of them. that will be 10 or 20p more than they would otherwise be getting for it.

  • neostyles

    #1 : Please explain why someone shouldn’t get paid for their own work. It’s all on you now, buddy.

  • Hoboapple

    nice try.

  • neostyles

    Another completely pointless website trying to profit off guilt. When are they actually going to learn that all we need is a download service that will sell digital music for a proper price. We don’t need or want any of these stupidly ridiculous sites and their daft business models. Sell your frickin songs online for 10 or 20p a track and I’ll buy them, lots and lots of them. that will be 10 or 20p more than they would otherwise be getting for it.

    “If you don’t sell it for a price that I like, I will steal it” is extortion, which is a crime fyi.

  • Haha…

    With most of the music out there, the so-called “artists” should pay me for wasting my time listening to their stuff.

  • overcome with guilt

    FailCzar

  • Anonymous

    That is pretty much like the Church trading with letters of Absolution. It didn’t worked during the middle ages, and it shouldn’t work now.

  • Hop234e

    === What if we could harness the power of all the mindless trolls on here,, IMAGINE what we could achieve –==

  • matt

    this is stupid. nobody wants to pay the label, we only want the artists to benefit

  • John Down

    So now you can clear your conscience using a service that charges $0.2 / track? Isn’t going to church much cheaper?

  • prodigydancer

    Fail.

    I could pay the author/artist directly (via PayPal for example). But no intermediaries.

    Absolutely. NO. Intermediaries.

  • Whatever

    I wouldn’t call it a service… It might be a service for the people behind MooZar.

    However if its very existance is allowed by the “entertainment industry” and the fact they have a pending list of 30+ years (and still don’t pay ofcourse) would be a nice defence in court:

    Plaintiff: You stole the works off (list of artists)..(and so on)…, around 1,5 years! ago.

    Defendant: I was planning to pay MooZar but never got round to actually do it, i have them on the pending list like you except for a very short time. As everyone knows it can be on the pending list forever and i haven’t even had them on there for 30 years. Because my intention is to pay MooZar it is completely legal.

  • NubCakes

    Hate to tell you this but Paypal is an intermediarie.

  • Brandon

    These Freaking girlie musicians need to band together and setup a website ONE that has GOOD bands and have a donation button!!! Cuts out the Clowns goons and Nazi squabs… There are some really good indie bands too just starting out. If you buy a plastic cd you are funding these Cop wannebe copyright squads… They are gonna tread water long anyway. All has to so the the bands though. They just want some manager to take all their money. I don’t feel sorry for them if they can’t stand up for themselves…

  • Dan Stevens

    When I saw the article headline in my RSS feed, I thought perhaps this MooZar was going to actually offer something of real value, something that people would WANT to buy. Sadly, MooZar couldn’t be closer to worthless.

  • Quasimodo

    Wake up and smell the foul stench of a sting.

    One of the MooZar founders, David Brami, tried a similar enterprise back in 2006 and supposedly offered data of admitted fileshareres to SAGEM and other “rights” holders.

    http://eco.rue89.com/2010/02/12/moozarcom-veut-indemniser-les-artistes-que-vous-avez-pirates-137988#comments

  • Lothor The Evil

    ["...Half way through listening you suddenly became overcome with guilt – the artist, the label, the copyright holders and everyone else involved in making the track deserve to get paid..."]
    LMFAO! I feel REALLY guilty! That’s just too damn funny!

    ["...if the donor pays an amount in excess of the minimum fee set by the artist/copyright holder, in effect he/she will have bought an amnesty in the event of a legal dispute."]
    I think if the donor pays any amount, they will not be buying amnesty, they will be buying a lawsuit against themselves. They will have your name, address and other information. Which means, if you admit you pirated something, you will be setting yourself up for an easy lawsuit and you will surely lose. This will make you a very, very, very, easy target by the anti-piracy groups. I think this site might actually be an anti-piracy trap in this manner.

    ["If the amount donated is less than the minimum fee, the downloader is on their own."]
    Torrent Freak worded this wrong. Minimum fee means that you can NOT pay anything lower than the minimum. So how can you pay “less than the minimum fee”? The only way that is possible is if they are monitoring your internet connection to see if you download a song and not donate money for it, as “less than minimun fee” would mean you payed nothing at all.

    ["However, there is some text, albeit in not particularly clear English, which suggests that downloaders have to pay the artist/rights holder before they download from otherwise illicit sources to get protection. Furthermore, there is no mention that downloaders are able to upload the music they download and be exempt from legal action, which means that this element of the service is useless for BitTorrent users. Indeed, the only way any copyright infringer is pursued on file-sharing networks is due to their uploading, so unless this so-called amnesty includes a license to distribute too (doubtful for 1 euro), it is completely useless."]
    FOR GOD’S SAKE THINK ABOUT THIS PARAGRAPH!! The only way for them to find out if you downloaded something BEFORE you donated is to monitor your ISP address! If they don’t monitor your internet address, they can then automatically assume you downloaded the music BEFORE donating thus you violated the contract WITHOUT ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER! They can then turn over your name, address and other information over to the anti-piracy groups who will probably use that as evidence in court against you because when you donate to Moozar, you are basically admitting you infringe upon copyright, and it would probably be in the fine print somewhere on the site and most of us don’t read the fine print.

    Basically I suspect Moozar is an anti-piracy trap. The anti-piracy groups will not only make money off of donations, but also make money off of suing people who do donate and admit they are “pirates”. The problem is: you would have no leg to stand on if that was the case because you admitted to breaking the law before you even go to court.

  • Lothor The Evil

    @63 Quasimodo

    The last comment on the page when I started typing my long comment (which became #64) was below #50. Somewhere in the #40 range.
    It would seem you have a similar idea as to what the site is really about as I posted it my excruciating long comment, with possible proof. I am American and only speak and read English so I have no idea what that website says that you posted the link to.

  • Cujo

    i got 2TB of data on the shelf ,, and i’m really feeling overwelming guilt

  • asaf

    MooZar means “weird” in Hebrew, which fits this initiative quite well

  • SteveK

    This is a scam.

    MooZar has no agreement with the copyright holders and has no authority to grant any rights to copyrighted material.

  • sceptic

    MooZar is just an other crook like most charity groups. Not transparent enough and 20% is ridiculously high. 3-5% would be ok but 20% is a bad a joke.

    Would be cool if there would be a possibility to send money directly to your favorite; film director, actor, singer etc account not to these crooks.

  • Anonymous

    “MooZar Aims To Turn Pirates Into Paying Customers”

    Not going to hapen. We are BOYCOTTING!

  • M-RES
    Another completely pointless website trying to profit off guilt. When are they actually going to learn that all we need is a download service that will sell digital music for a proper price. We don’t need or want any of these stupidly ridiculous sites and their daft business models. Sell your frickin songs online for 10 or 20p a track and I’ll buy them, lots and lots of them. that will be 10 or 20p more than they would otherwise be getting for it.

    “If you don’t sell it for a price that I like, I will steal it” is extortion, which is a crime fyi.

    Oh Neo, how wrong you are in your assumptions of the original poster.

    You assume that because they won’t pay more than 20p they’ll simply ‘take’ the track, but that’s not what the poster said at all.

    They said that they weren’t willing to pay more than 20p per track, which could mean what you assumed, but just as easily (and more likely) it could mean that they wouldn’t download that track at all.

    So rather than MAKE 10p or 20p from a happy paying customer, the record labels have simply lost a sale and maybe even a customer and with it, they’ve lost many future sales.

    That’s not a crime, it’s not extortion, it’s not really anything beyond a disgruntled consumer expressing their dissatisfaction at the price point currently set for digital media distribution methods.

    In a true market-economics system, the value of a product is not what you choose to sell it for, it’s what someone is willing to pay for it.

  • Ricardo

    It looks like Davenport/ACS Law. They just dont send letters to file-sharers, but wait them to come in and pay for the songs and get out free.
    But as we ca see, its not completely free.
    “if the donor pays an amount in excess of the minimum fee set by the artist/copyright holder, in effect he/she will have bought an amnesty in the event of a legal dispute. If the amount donated is less than the minimum fee, the downloader is on their own”.

    In other words, if you do not pay what they are demanding, you can face legal problems. And as you created an accout there and sent your personal data, I can bet you will be prossecuted. You are handling your personal data and admiting you downloaded the song. Its the best thing copyright holders could expect.

  • Anonymous

    since downloading is illegal in some countries, I don’t know how many people there would be that intterested in paying money for the privilege of turning their contact info over to some company, but I’m sure some of the record companies, etc would be willing to buy any names and addresses Moozar did manage to collect!

    All in all, it sounds like easy money for lots of lawyers in just consulting fees alone, even if Moozar doesn’t actually get any confessions!

  • Erm

    Most pointless service ever.

    1. Guilt from what? Those people that download because they cannot afford the legal alternative at all can’t be guilty and affluent at the same time..

    2. The point made in the article. If you’re going to pay, why have a middleman and why not pay a price equal to a legal purchase IF YOU CAN?

    Which leads to
    3. Downloading should and is mostly done by people who cannot keep up with the 50.000 new things to buy every day, yet still want access to cultural artefacts.
    As long as no FLATRATE SOLUTION is offered, they will continue to indulge via “illegal” downloading.

    Offer a flatrate solution for the modern consumer and all this becomes legal and an income stream instead of criminals and “lost sales”(..which are purely invented to begin with).

    Sorry guys, no flatrate no dice. The money goes to usenet, vpn, rapidsh.t etc instead.

    Your loss, industry.

  • zarmoo

    … you lost me at “20% handling fee”.

    Like we don’t have enough middle men already.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.