Lets hope Spain will have guts to send corrupted US congress dogs to fuck themselves.

“Great logic! So do you think an artist would become an artist if none of the sales went to them?”

Most artists are surprised at just how short their end of the stick is once they sign into a contract. It’s not uncommon for many artists to feel that they were taken advantage of, the problem that exists here is that they don’t have much negotiation power when it comes to their offered contracts. Even top lawyers admit that these recording contracts offered by these major labels are hardly negotiable, so many artists simply feel they don’t have a choice.

I’m not saying that sales don’t go to the artist, and I’m sure they do appreciate the royalties they DO receive, but they may also feel like they were strong-armed a bit by their label. It gets even worse with royalty deductions such as free goods, container fees, etc where the label is free to pocket profit that should have otherwise gone to the artist on some technicality. Since the record companies work the financial books they are able to work them any way they want, essentially cheating the artist out of due royalties. Because these companies are careful, there are no monetary penalties owed to the artist under contract should it be discovered through an audit (that the artist is forced to pay for, by the way) that the artist was cheated out of royalties. What is the labels incentive then NOT to rip off an artist?

Neostyles and Reasoned Mind: if you work for the RIAA or for any of these major recording companies than you must be aware that these companies, generally speaking, do not treat their artists fairly. If it were up to them, these artists would be indentured servants for life. The best thing that protects these artists from these one-sided contracts is the California seven-year rule which the RIAA fought extensively to get artists excluded from this law. These recording companies are afraid that if the artists are only bound by seven years (which is still quite a stretch, given that most contracts are one year with four options) that they will not receive their full worth. Basically what they are implying is that, on the off chance an artist should become very successful, the company wants to own these artists for life. I still fail to see how you believe the record companies have the artists best interest in mind.

The ball is back in your court. I expect you’ll send it back…

Viva la pirateria!

“I used to doooooooownload songs,
and record labels cursed at me,
now nobody remeeeeeeembers them,
now the old king is dead, music is freee!” BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Its easy to say “oh then there won’t be any more music” . Bullshit. As long as girls swoon over any skinny loser with a guitar, there will be music being made. In fact, we might see some progress in music since people wouldn’t feel compelled to just copy what every other big selling act is doing right now.

Making music should be a hobby, same with sports and other trivial entertainment things. Sure, a great baseball player or singer deserves to make a decent living wage, but they sure as fuck don’t deserve to make 100x what a doctor makes in a year! The reality of our current system is that it encourages far too many young kids to focus their energies on generally unrealistic goals (“i want to be a rockstar/nba star/etc”) instead of focusing on academics like the rest of the world. Hmmm maybe this is why our school system sucks so much!

Sorry, was meant as answer to @ 62.

Now i’m going for coffee here.

LMFAO! I think your brain is on it’s way out.

Whoa, that’s a longcat there too.

Nice to see, that we are not just stupid trolls like our “friends”.

Man, you are really working those trolls (neostyles/reanoned mind) there….:)…yesterday I wrote some rebuttals to neostyles/RM to the Sarkozi HADOPI article, but they are always bringing the same, dead arguments, and trying to force the current conception of law/order into our mindframes.

As mentionned before, there is a paradigm-change going on in those matters, and this issue is as fluent(in process), as my hangovered shit after “dia de San Juan” in Spain, and it’s making these bots riddiculous, who are trying here to “solidify” the argumentation using the current IP law.

The laws, which had been laws before(and enforced as well), are not anymore, as segregation, as slavery, as women’s rights. Babbling about reasons for current laws may sound reasonable(and there are many “reasonable” arguments for slavery as well), but its doubtful, that it will stand the test of times.

And hell yeah, nobody is buying from the butcher, who is(or did, or will) butcher a few of his customers, its just simple market psychology. This is the type of arrogance the free market will punish accordingly with insolvency and similar delicatesses. Then, reasoned and neo will not be able to post BS here, coz their ISP will disconnect them due non-payments…:)

Jimmah
http://www.total-privacy.tk

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Oh, Neostyles, Neostyles… such an active imagination. That is, without a shadow of a doubt, a total INTERNET CLASSIC.

Oh, it’s all over guys, piracy is on it’s way out!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, fuckin’ brilliant lad.

Now, pirating has always existed, and will always exist. Earlier, it was done via cassettes, you just needed to have one friend who could afford the original, and then everyone would record their favorite songs. Now it’s even easier, and to be honest, it will never be stopped. It can be diminished in certain countries, but there is no stopping it. Even if they shut down the torrent sites completely, friends would still just buy one copy of the music and share it via usbs, etc. So, how will musicians make a buck? Well, first of all, certain musicians who find their niche do really well even if they didn’t sell too many albums. See Iron Maiden. They fill stadiums to this day and it’s a 20+ year old band! And ain’t no downloading avalanche of pirated Maiden albums gonna make them stop playing. Same with several indie bands. What the recording industries don’t get is that the way they got filthy rich was never deserved by them, that was never right. And now they´re kicking and screaming cause someone is taking one of millions of candies away. Big babies! Enjoy your ride while you can, hopefully you’ll cease to exist soon enough. They were in it just for the buck, not the love of art. I don’t have anything about business, but if you read new trends, you’ll realize a business thrives when it caters to their customers. Now their time is hopefully up. Now is the time when true artists will be able to create art, some will fare better than others, some not, but this would be the case even without piracy. And whoever said you had to be a millionaire for it to be worth being a musician? Hell, I used to play in a small bar I loved, got paid a small amount for each show, but I would do it every day from the heart, and would do it again, and it was a nice extra income. Who says you have to sell millions of albums to be successful? that’s the problem with the world today, they only focus on the bottom line instead of having a life. My conclusion is that, even though it sometimes hurts their wallets, musicians who get popular by true fans will fare well even if they gave away their mp3 songs. I believe this is where the future is headed. In the future, music will be free, and the revenue might come from shows, physical merchandise and the like. And if you don’t make it, who says you have to? Or who says a musician can’t hold two jobs to maintain himself? Who told you “it’s either living off your music or die?” Life offers too many options to be that narrow minded. don’t be greedy. That’s my long ass 2 cents. Peace.

a tree strike law will be inforced, if they don’t stop they will be terminated

hasta la vista baby…

no cars… all that blubber on a foot chase.

americans are beyond really stupid

Case B: Paul would pay 20 euros for a DVD movie if he can not copy the movie. He can and does so. Where is the damage?

Case C: Jack would pay 100 euros to get his car repaired if he can not repair it. He can and does so. Where is the damage?

Let’s see if you are really a reasoned mind.

That’s because Reasoned Mind is neostyles.

He’s got this good troll, bad troll ruitine going where he makes his less abbrasive comments under his Reason Mind pseudonym, and his more abbrasive comments under his neostyles pseudonym.

Which is pretty funny considering that his ‘Reasoned Mind’ moniker used to be 10x more hostile than ‘neostyles’, back when the paid MAFIAA shill was still learning the ropes of trolling TorrentFreak.

This is actually his fourth(give or take) version of ‘Reasoned Mind’.

Not true. The mere fact that we can charge for things that have no value is horribly stupid. You can’t put monetary value on things you can endlessly duplicate. Basic concept of our market: prices are influenced by supply.

How utterly self absorbed. ITS SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK! It does have value, even if it’s not tangible, because people enjoy it. If it had no value, then why do people mindlessly steal it?

Let’s try a third option: I’m an idealist who is contributing to a freer world in the future.

Freedom has limits. This is the basis of any civilized society. Apparantly, you dont know these exist, so brace yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws

You’re starting to sound a lot like neostyles, what with your use of terms like “thief.” Filesharing is not theft. The files I’m downloading are not for sale, they are free to whoever wants them. Others can sell their copies of the files if they want, but not a single file on my computer was “intended for sale.” Neither are any of the files I send to others, or that I seed to my peers.

Monetary gain is not a requisite of theft. You ARE depriving them of their rightful profits. Intellectual property was designed to imbue non tangible property with similar rights and protections as tangible property.

Also, who said we hide? I share copyrighted material. Gasp, I said it. I’ll start watching for the police at my door.

You haven’t seen the news?
http://torrentfreak.com/more-bittorrent-users-go-anonymous-090622/

That copy is being freely given by seeders on the torrent. Your wording implies that I am taking a copy from someone without their permission. I am being given a copy by others on the Internet who believe in the same concept of sharing as I do. I am sorry, but it remains that filesharing is not stealing.

AND IN DOING SO, YOU ARE EVADING PAYMENT. You’re starting to sound pretty disingenuous. Where non tangible propety is possible, depleting the creator’s supply, isn’t applicable. You are still depriving them of profits.

@49 :

This is a pro-piracy forum, you don’t have to come here and spout off at the mouth like you are an online encyclopedia of overwhelming goodness and caring. I understand that you are in the minority here and feel like you need to come across as knowledgeable with all your handy know-how on copyright law, but take it down a notch would you? Loosen your tie, take down the first button on your collared shirt and see how it feels.

It’s supposed to be an impartial arena for discussion.

We all know how the law defines stealing, most people here just disagree in that creating a copy is not on the same level as physically stealing a material item. You can consider a download a lost sale, but in the very least it is not a real loss of revenue because no artist or company had to actually invest money into that particular copy and wait for the return. As smart as you are, surely you can grasp this simple concept.

So, you can have nontangible stealing. The company did, however, invest it’s trust in the public that they would pay for their things, and thus contribute to the things they enjoy instead of being parasites. With the legal versions, you are getting copies too, the only difference being that you paid for them.

Perhaps I pirate music so that these companies can’t rip off artists further through their container fees and other bullshit clauses included in the artists contract. Remember folks, even if you purchase music legitimately through iTunes the artist still loses a percentage of that sale to cover the cost of packaging. Good deal for the label!

Great logic! So do you think an aritst would become an aritst if none of the sales went to them?

P.S. Spain’s file-sharing laws are awesome.

We’re looking at the one sensible country in the EU here, which has followed the very law established by the copyright defenders – “if no profit is made from the work, it is licensed for personal use”.

All they are doing is simply not giving in to the threat of governing the internet by fear, and it is admirable that they are.

Now, I live in a country that isn’t one bit idealistic and we sell CDs DVDs of pirated material for a profit (if ever so slight a profit). But guess what? Rather than completely driving the venezuelan music industry to hell…rather, it has eliminated all the bad artists that were only in it for the money (that is to say, what in the US is called “pop music”) and is now composed entirely of artists who merely do art for art’s sake and actually improved the quality overall.

So who says that filesharing en masse can only bring ruin to the entertainment industry?

In order to posses an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work you must take a copy, literally, at no pay to the holder of the rights. You literally take a copy. Take it without paying for it.

That copy is being freely given by seeders on the torrent. Your wording implies that I am taking a copy from someone without their permission. I am being given a copy by others on the Internet who believe in the same concept of sharing as I do. I am sorry, but it remains that filesharing is not stealing.

The act of taking a copy of anything intended for sale but willfully avoiding payment by hiding while you take it deprives the creator/owner of their just compensation, and leaves the value of the sale in the pocket of thief.

You’re starting to sound a lot like neostyles, what with your use of terms like “thief.” Filesharing is not theft. The files I’m downloading are not for sale, they are free to whoever wants them. Others can sell their copies of the files if they want, but not a single file on my computer was “intended for sale.” Neither are any of the files I send to others, or that I seed to my peers.

Also, who said we hide? I share copyrighted material. Gasp, I said it. I’ll start watching for the police at my door.

Either you are intelligent and know you are dissembling, or you are a fool parroting something you heard or read.

Let’s try a third option: I’m an idealist who is contributing to a freer world in the future.

Material or immaterial, the net result to the creator/owner is the same

Not true. The mere fact that we can charge for things that have no value is horribly stupid. You can’t put monetary value on things you can endlessly duplicate. Basic concept of our market: prices are influenced by supply.

http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html

Read this to see why selling copies for a living is a bad business model.

Slight math lesson:

inf – x = inf. Always.

You cannot “take from” an infinite supply. Stealing DIMINISHES it — that’s why it’s BAD. It causes a LOSS of SOMETHING.

Filesharing does not. It INCREASES the supply — ever-approaching infinity.

So… yeahhh. :/

And that last statement, ladies and gentlemen, is sarcasm.

This is a pro-piracy forum, you don’t have to come here and spout off at the mouth like you are an online encyclopedia of overwhelming goodness and caring. I understand that you are in the minority here and feel like you need to come across as knowledgeable with all your handy know-how on copyright law, but take it down a notch would you? Loosen your tie, take down the first button on your collared shirt and see how it feels.

..Please?

We all know how the law defines stealing, most people here just disagree in that creating a copy is not on the same level as physically stealing a material item. You can consider a download a lost sale, but in the very least it is not a real loss of revenue because no artist or company had to actually invest money into that particular copy and wait for the return. As smart as you are, surely you can grasp this simple concept.

Don’t give us some sob story about taking money out of artists pockets either, especially if they are signed with RIAA affiliated labels like Sony and BMG. Fact of the matter is, all of the worlds pirates combined do not even come close to the pirates within these companies. These labels seize every opportunity to shortchange artists by skimming royalties and going so far as to dip their greedy hands into concert and merchandise earnings- money that has traditionally been the main source of income for these artists. And don’t even get me started on the RIAA’s slippery attempts at robbing artists of their copyrights through their clever “Work for Hire” agenda, quietly slipped into a seemingly unrelated bill in the senate a few years back (it did not pass).

Perhaps I pirate music so that these companies can’t rip off artists further through their container fees and other bullshit clauses included in the artists contract. Remember folks, even if you purchase music legitimately through iTunes the artist still loses a percentage of that sale to cover the cost of packaging. Good deal for the label!

Isn’t it obvious yet that these labels truly do have the artists interests at heart?

In Spain, all file-sharing is LICIT unless it’s made for profit. And no, having ads in your bittorrent/edonkey link site doesn’t count, as shown in court.

In Spain there’s a thing called “the right to private copy”. Some people should learn2SpanishLaw.

Finally, just like some fellow commenters have said, “America, you’re not the world police.” Stop interfering with other countries affairs.

The act of taking a copy of anything intended for sale but willfully avoiding payment by hiding while you take it deprives the creator/owner of their just compensation, and leaves the value of the sale in the pocket of thief.

Either you are intelligent and know you are dissembling, or you are a fool parroting something you heard or read. Material or immaterial, the net result to the creator/owner is the same, so tell it to the judge.

Or perhaps you’d prefer infringement redefined as criminal… stealing?, and tried and punished accordingly?

Don’t you realize that this is a bad thing for your anti-piracy effort?? I doubt they will get 1 site shutdown..

Boohoo, copying really is theft because our mafiaa friends didn’t got payed, now quit splitting hairs.