![]() ![]()
Most of what the industry puts out, and the file-sharers go for is garbage. #Streamcast comcast tv#Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronologyĪctually, its been shown that file-sharing sells music albums and the RIAA-type sleaze-squeeze adds to costs in payola-style “costs” outloaded to radio stations, etc, for music that prevents many the army of competent original -song musicians from competing with the standard old buzzards like Lennon and the Beatles, and Jagger and the Rolling Stones, and the whole phoney “music history” gambit on radio and TV which delivers the aforementioned ad nauseum – which “music history” has nothing to do with an evaluative process of aired debates by pop-music historians who dare to wander of the industry-determined path to the past, but is specious “mustic history” that is altogether beholden to the music industry that wants to keep the doors closed to new artists. However, most record companies increase prices in order to offset the losses from filesharing, and that is wrong-why punish people for doing exactly what you want them to do? The whole music industry is horridly corrupt but in the end the artists get the shortest end of the stick. #Streamcast comcast free#If radio were free and got their money from commercials as they should, prices of albums would go down, which would in turn decrease pirating, allowing the RIAA to focus on the people who really want to steal, those who are still left downloading. #Streamcast comcast download#Looking at the way the music industry works, you would know that record companies ultimately pay at least $1,000 per week per station to get aired (nationally that’s hundreds of thousands) and with that loss and the loss from people who illegally download that leaves, in the end, a very stiff deal for the record companies and an even stiffer deal for the artists-the best artists might make a few million an album and most people don’t believe that-but MOST artists make much less than that. The truth of the matter is that the record companies are in both the right AND in the wrong. They plan on making the case that they didn’t “induce” anyone to infringe on copyrights. Even more interesting is that they clearly recognize just how little the Supreme Court ruling really changed, as they say it doesn’t make a difference. So, now, Streamcast says they’ve dropped settlement talks completely. Streamcast even went down that route, and said they were close to settling until one of the RIAA law firms began “seeking revenge, retaliation and retribution,” rather than just coming up with an agreeable settlement. Still, many of the file sharing platforms saw the writing on the wall and shut down or settled. Of course, many people missed the specifics on that, and simply ran with the theme that the entertainment industry “won.” The entertainment industry, of course, did nothing to discourage that viewpoint, and even started pretending the Supreme Court flat out said that file sharing was illegal - something they didn’t even come close to saying. #Streamcast comcast software#As we noted at the time, if these firms could show they were not specifically promoting the use of their software to violate copyrights, they could be perfectly fine under the law. When the Supreme Court ruled on a tiny aspect of the case between Streamcast and the entertainment industry, it only said that file sharing companies could face liability if they somehow promoted copyright infringement (the so called “induce” test). This is actually a much bigger deal than it may seem. ![]() Just after going after Skype and its founders for charges dating all the way back to the early days of Kazaa, it appears that the company has now decided to go to court with the recording industry, rather than settle with it. Streamcast sure is keeping its lawyers busy these days. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |