nailz
Member
You clearly have no idea why that quote is hilarious from a technology standpoint. It has nothing to do with Jurisdiction.
Century Media suing BitTorrent users... Opinions???
- Thread starter TwizstedJesus
- Start date
You clearly have no idea why that quote is hilarious from a technology standpoint. It has nothing to do with Jurisdiction.
The fun part is that Iced Earth doesn't support this lawsuit and would not have given permission if they had been asked.
I've been working in the Internet industry for 14 years, dealing with software, hardware, and networking - I'm pretty sure I have a full understanding of how hilariously stupid it is, but thanks for the condescension.
And, it does have to do with jurisdiction - getting the cases to stick in a court favorable to their claims matters. An example of this is the fact that an inordinate amount of patent litigation goes through the Eastern District of Texas - the judges there have set a precedent that they HEAVILY favor plaintiffs, and as such, those plaintiffs will do whatever they can to file suits there. I'm not as familiar with the New Jersey Court's tendencies, but the quote, misguided as it may be technologically-speaking, very likely isn't an accident in legal terms.
What this really shows us is that Century Media may be a desperate situation. It's beyond obvious that they stand to gain nothing, no matter how this plays out. First of all, as has already been pointed out, the technological premise on which these accusations are based, is utterly ludicrous. And even in the unlikely event of a victory in "court", they will have made themselves look like shitheads to the very people who they hope to sell records to. If they're worried about sales being hurt by downloading, how do they think branding a big scarlet A (for "asshole") on themselves is going to affect sales? And even worse, people will also make negative assumptions about the bands involved... who didn't even support this.
This is simply another desperate attempt by an industry that can't cope with change, to use legalism to try to force people to remain in an old paradigm that was once profitable for the industry.
This is simply another desperate attempt by an industry that can't cope with change, to use legalism to try to force people to remain in an old paradigm that was once profitable for the industry.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
Actually, it probably follows that these suits were filed long before CM added its catalog to Spotify. Lots of research has to be done by a legal team in order to file a lawsuit like this, in which thousands of people are being accused of a felony offense.
Vinyl rips of albums sound completely different than a CD rip. Records are mastered for vinyl differently than they are for CD and it's just an entirely different experience.
As for the case itself. I think that it's an incredibly touchy subject and I really don't have the answer. CM has a right to sue people who committed copyright infringement. Simple as that. However, is that an ethical decision which makes the company look like a reputable corporate citizen? Not really.
CM is still my favorite label though, I don't think that will ever change. Hard pressed to find a better label for heavy music.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
There was a thread a few months back in which I got into a heated discussion about EULA vs First Use Doctrine regarding this subject. First Use Doctrine allows people to rip their CDs since they own the CD. However, EULA prohibits people from distributing those ripped MP3s, WAVs, what have you.
SeaStorm
Member
I think the labels would argue that there's a large deterrent component to why they do things like this. Back in the Kazaa days when the RIAA was suing lots of people, I would say that a lot of people changed their mindset from "this is free and easy and no consequences" to "holy crap, I can get in trouble for this? I'm not doing this anymore". Obviously they can never stamp it out, but if they drive it further underground and put an element of risk into it, there's a large swath of "regular people" who are just never going to go to the work of diving in deep enough to be involved in it.
As a poker fan, I liken it somewhat to online poker. Millions of Americans used to play online. The government swooped in, shut down the big three online sites, and put people on notice that it's illegal (in their opinion, which they've already started to soften as they prepare to let casinos into the online market). Prior to that, it was easy to deposit money, find a site, and play, with no legal consequences. Despite the fact that no player has ever been charged with anything, 99% of people have stopped playing. The whole thing has gone further underground (similar to the change from the old peer-to-peer client days to our current torrent world). It's still 100% possible to play online poker, but 99% of the players have just stopped trying. That's creating a deterrent despite the fact that you have no ability to actually stop anyone from doing it technologically.
I'd say that's a big part of what the labels want to accomplish here.
nailz
Member
I've been working in the Internet industry for 14 years, dealing with software, hardware, and networking - I'm pretty sure I have a full understanding of how hilariously stupid it is, but thanks for the condescension.
And, it does have to do with jurisdiction - getting the cases to stick in a court favorable to their claims matters. An example of this is the fact that an inordinate amount of patent litigation goes through the Eastern District of Texas - the judges there have set a precedent that they HEAVILY favor plaintiffs, and as such, those plaintiffs will do whatever they can to file suits there. I'm not as familiar with the New Jersey Court's tendencies, but the quote, misguided as it may be technologically-speaking, very likely isn't an accident in legal terms.
Ok, my fault. I guess you really showed me how the idea of suing a group of unrelated people who have absolutely nothing in common and no real connection together as one entity makes perfect sense.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
That's the nature of John Doe lawsuits - you sue a large group of people, subpoena their ISPs for their real identity, then hope that either the suits stick in the jurisdiction you chose to file in or the defendants settle. In this case, both Century and McDaniel would much prefer a settlement as it maximizes their profit - paying a paralegal to talk with people over the phone and handle settlement documents is much cheaper than going to trial and risking having the damages reduced from the $150k figure.
I'm by no means saying that I agree with or condone the strategy, but it's not as if McDaniel and his firm just pulled this out of thin air for Century Media. I understand how dumb it seems from a technology standpoint, believe me, but this is a prime example of how the law hasn't kept up with the evolution of technology.
pack1fan4life
Member
Personally, I download all the time. I'm an 18 year old kid with little money. I buy CDs when I can, because I like owning physical copies, but I often don't have the money to do so. I refuse to pay for digital music, because the quality is inferior.
As a result of downloading, I have found some real gems that I have since bought. I also have a huge list of CDs I want to buy (and eventually will). Downloading is the very reason I'm into metal right now. It's the very reason I went to ProgPower this year.
As far as Spotify goes, do you really think everyone only listens to music on a computer? When I can use Spotify, I do.
As a result of downloading, I have found some real gems that I have since bought. I also have a huge list of CDs I want to buy (and eventually will). Downloading is the very reason I'm into metal right now. It's the very reason I went to ProgPower this year.
As far as Spotify goes, do you really think everyone only listens to music on a computer? When I can use Spotify, I do.
nailz
Member
I wasn't talking about the strategy of the lawsuit itself. I was talking about the way they're going about it from a technological standpoint using buzzwords to attempt to sue a large group of people as one particular entity.
Yes, I am aware that this is a settlement scare tactic. I know exactly how this works, and I know that 99% of these people will never see the inside of a courtroom. My whole argument based on my original lol comment was the whole absurdity of the attempt to sue a "swarm".
The fact that you lack the financial means to be able to purchase music is not a valid argument for the illegal downloading of CD's that "you buy when you have the money." There are free, legal means to listen to just about everything. The fact that you refuse to buy digital media because "it's inferior' is fucking stupid.
Yes, I am aware that this is a settlement scare tactic. I know exactly how this works, and I know that 99% of these people will never see the inside of a courtroom. My whole argument based on my original lol comment was the whole absurdity of the attempt to sue a "swarm".
The fact that you lack the financial means to be able to purchase music is not a valid argument for the illegal downloading of CD's that "you buy when you have the money." There are free, legal means to listen to just about everything. The fact that you refuse to buy digital media because "it's inferior' is fucking stupid.
The whole record label vs listener thing is stupid. I am saying this as a professional musician who worked with many labels, even EMI.
An artist usually makes around 5% net income over the sales price. After the deduction of distribution (which is mostly an online thing nowadays), tax (they also deduce an amount over your income for this), marketing costs, the rate of money making is still largely in favor of the label. Personally, I dont care if a listener enjoys my music over Youtube or p2p. A listener willing to support always supports,whether by sharing your name via word of mouth, facebook etc, buying stuff etc. All has a market value and labels are still too old fashioned to see this. Oh and also, bands, especially small ones, cannot even say a word about their marketing. So, when a label ignores you, they still deduct the marketing percentage from your sales.
I, myself, will go with bandcamp for my next album (www.themaegi.com - shameless self ad) and will let people listen to the thing ovet youtube etc as well. I am 30 and as a new generation musician, i am already fed up with label behaviour. My sales may be onE tenth of a label power but at least people who buy will know that their money will go to the artist, not some label accounting office.
Oganalp of dreamtone, dreamtone & iris mavraki s neverland, maegi.
An artist usually makes around 5% net income over the sales price. After the deduction of distribution (which is mostly an online thing nowadays), tax (they also deduce an amount over your income for this), marketing costs, the rate of money making is still largely in favor of the label. Personally, I dont care if a listener enjoys my music over Youtube or p2p. A listener willing to support always supports,whether by sharing your name via word of mouth, facebook etc, buying stuff etc. All has a market value and labels are still too old fashioned to see this. Oh and also, bands, especially small ones, cannot even say a word about their marketing. So, when a label ignores you, they still deduct the marketing percentage from your sales.
I, myself, will go with bandcamp for my next album (www.themaegi.com - shameless self ad) and will let people listen to the thing ovet youtube etc as well. I am 30 and as a new generation musician, i am already fed up with label behaviour. My sales may be onE tenth of a label power but at least people who buy will know that their money will go to the artist, not some label accounting office.
Oganalp of dreamtone, dreamtone & iris mavraki s neverland, maegi.
dcowboys311
Member
This SHOULD be true but these days, it really isn't. A lot of records, for example all the Earache reissues, Back on Black reissues, etc, are just CD sourced and pressed to vinyl. It's stupid.
dcowboys311
Member
Ok, so I've seen you mention this subject a few times and to be honest, I don't get it, especially when you yourself are a photographer (and quite good from what I can tell). You constantly go on about how physical media isn't necessary, digital is fine for everyone, blah blah blah. This is the equivalent of me saying that all I need for picture enjoyment is a thumbnail and I'll be just fine. To you that's crazytalk! Maybe for YOU all you enjoy is soundwaves -- for me and many other people, there's more to music than that. There's an experience that goes along with looking at album art, flipping through liner notes, sorting albums, trading records, and everything that comes with it. It's not just about the music, it's about the experience.
DuchessOfDork
Member
- Feb 9, 2009
- 2,235
- 1
- 36
I agree with you, but I think the point he was trying to make is... if you're gonna download something, why not pay for it so you're not outright stealing it? If you think the digital quality is inferior, don't download. Downloading without buying because you think it's inferior is basically like saying,
"I'll steal this shitty bread, because it's shitty. If I had the means to buy good bread I would, but this shitty bread doesn't deserve to be paid for because it's of a lower quality. I'm still gonna eat it, though."
Both bread and music cost money to make. By stealing either one of them, you are indeed taking something from someone else without compensating them.
AngraRULES
Member
$10/month. You can use Spotify in your mobile device. Excellent quality.
Again, ten dollars per month.
Also, don't tell me that the quality for digital music is inferior, because at 18 years old, unless you've lived for the past few years inside a professional studio, you probably can't tell the difference.
Brazil doent have any form of radio, spotify, etc. I download to listening to the bands i want to check out.
Liked? I buy( I have over a 1.000 cds/dvd). Normally I buy at amazon.com and when i come to the US i rescue them. If I REALLY want a CD NOW!!!! I buy in Brazil (from U$30 / U$ 60).
AngraRULES
Member
I know that, and I don't hold you guilty for it. However, when an 18 year old kid in the US complains that he doesn't buy music legally (much anyway) because he has no money for it, I make it a point to remind him that for TEN DOLLARS a month, he can listen to a bazillion songs legally.
Similar threads
