Please enter your username below and press the send button.A password reset link will be sent to you.
If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on January 12, 2011
Yes, the record labels will sue you for $50,000 for downloading a track [100s of times more than if you physically stole a cd and actually deprived someone of property] --- But meanwhile, they take artists' tracks, put them on CDs without their permission, and never give them royalties. They put the payments on a "todo" list until the artists sue.
So yeah. Copyright protecting artists? Maybe. But the record companies protecting artists? A total fucking sham.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on January 22, 2010
Obama administration files briefs agreeing that downloading an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value make syou liable for $750 to $150,000. Sheer idiocy. Let's just go steal CDs from record stores, since apparently that is a lesser crime.
First comment is telling: "Enjoy your choice And two party system." Yup. Big Business gets a free handjob as long as people vote 2-party. This is what happens when you hire someone who promises "Change", but then fills his justice department with CORPORATE lawyers.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on December 07, 2009
Wait -- these labels are the same group [collectively] that are suing people for downloading music? Meanwhile, they're screwing their own artists.
If you're a new recording artist -- don't sign on with a record label. These dinosaurs are dying.
The hypocrisy is pretty astounding. After all the money they've won from lawsuits in the name of the artists, they're still screwing them.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on July 30, 2009
To quote Slashdot, "One wonders when the Music Business is going to run out of feet to shoot?" and "How can reducing your customer base make any kind of business sense?"
To quote Sex Pistols from the *song* entitled EMI, "There's unlimited supply / And there is no reason why". Exactly. Then later, "They only did it 'cos of fame." Indeed. Still later, "Too many outlets in and out" -- well, not quite as many outlets, now that they're "shutting down" the little guy.
To quote Nofx, "Parasitic music industry / As it destroys itself / I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be there to watch the fall."
Well, I'm off to listen to "Professional Distribution" by Screeching Weasel... Music existed before idiotic industry began, and will continue to exist regardless of circumstance.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on April 17, 2009
Wow. This is big. They'll probably appeal it though. And The Pirate Bay wont go anywhere. Prohibitions don't work. This may be the beginning of the end for bittorrent, however. But probably not. Hell, people still use gnutella.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on February 12, 2009
This link recently saved by clintjcl on January 01, 2009
In Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes, MP3Tunes has brought up the point that all they ever did is link to free mp3s. And 100s to 1000s of the songs they link to are actually put online, for free, anyway, by the hypocritical record company and their affiliates!
Apparently free mp3s publicly posted such that anyone in the planet can download them are somehow something that you can be sued for linking to. But you shouldn't be able to be. Here's hoping they win their case.
Happy 2009! To the continued destruction of the music industry in 2009! We had music before you, and we'll have music after you. Dinosaurs must die.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on February 28, 2008
Remember when I argued w/people supporting karaoke licensing fees, that they have no way of knowing which songs were played and compensating the artists actually used? Same thing here... No artist is going to get a cent without a lawsuit.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on August 15, 2007
Mamotin insisted that by paying royalties to a Russian licensing group, allofmp3 was in compliance with Russian laws. Recording companies contend, that the licensing group never had permission to collect and distribute royalties on its behalf.
This link recently saved by clintjcl on March 07, 2007
I was impressed that I knew of 7 out of 10 of these already.
It's sad when art is comprimised for monetary purposes. Very sad.