The music industry is sticking to a self-valuation that has been rejected by various courts and has now been described as “absurd” by a New York judge. Judge Kimba Wood has handed down an opinion in the LimeWire damages case that challenges the industry’s belief it could be owed more than the entire global GDP for one year. …
“The absurdity of this result is one of the factors that has motivated other courts to reject Plaintiffs’ damages theory”,
The very fact that courts have been willing to recognise damages of any amount at all on behalf of these parasites is what is absurd.
Contrary to popular belief
Producing music actually cost time and money. The session artists, mixers etc at the studio have to be paid a livin' wage, not to mention all the supporting staff you need for running a modern organization. Ditto for the admins of those iTunes servers, the artists who design the cover art, etc etc. These are average people, who want a decent salary to pay there mortgage, not the kind that whizz around in stretched hummers with bowls of Bolivian marching powder in the back, and just tell each other how important they are for the record industry and mankind in general. :-(
So saying there are no damages at all is just as ridiculous as the claims those cokeheads make about the trillions they claimed they lose.
Let's just copy the jeebus out of them and make them shovel-ready because I can't just hear the term "music industry" anymore. It's in the same league as "financial industry".
"Producing music actually cost time and money." - Check
"The session artists, mixers etc at the studio have to be paid a livin' wage, not to mention all the supporting staff you need for running a modern organization." - Check
"Ditto for the admins of those iTunes servers" - Umm, these are illegal downloads so inherently don't use iTunes or the iTunes servers, so this argument is invalid.
"the artists who design the cover art, etc etc. " - This depends, are the users also downloading copies of the cover art or just the MP3 files? Cover art needs something to cover and a lot of people don't bother downloading the cover art to their portable music players where they have a choice, so again invalid.
The session artists, mixers etc at the studio have to be paid a livin' wage....
This bit really annoys me. Firstly, they were, have been, and that's all their getting.
Its the wrong people - the "rights holders" who get the money, not any worthwhile musical types, for the most part.
If the revenue went back to the musicians i would be a lot more happy to pay it, some of the best session musicians go £25 for their part of an all-time classic. That's wrong, even if it was accepted at the time. There needs to be a "windfall tax" - making all music revenues revert to artists after 25 years.
In a market economy?
In this world you get paid what someone else think you are worth, no-one has the right to a living wage for any job they may wish to do. That's how it is for the rest of us. The world does not owe those in the music industry a living.
Add this to the fact the artists, workers and punters have persistently been fucked over by that same music industry for generations and you start to get an idea of why people don't want to pay what is being asked.
Except any damages should be proportional to any REAL not imagined loss.
A bunch of 12 year old kids sharing music with other 12 year old kids results in a maximum loss of income to the tune of their weekly pocket money, whether they have download loaded 1 or 1 million tracks is irrelevant, the loss is only what they were ever capable of buying....
The music industry will at some point need to accept the reality, that when content is "free" to download, people really will download anything, not just what they otherwise might have purchased, thus the bulk of the music industry's "loss" is imagined not real.
contrary to popular belief
If all of the downloaded songs had actually been sold to consumers at the rate the recording companies give Apple, they would still only get a few million. So, let's be realistic here and understand that it's not nearly as valuable as the RIAA (or apparetly uncle sjohie) thinks it to be.
In a market economy? #
I'm intrigued. I would just like to ask the person who downvoted this which part they disagree with. Is that, in your opinion, the world does owe the music industry a living or that you believe the music industry has always acted in an ethical manner?
can still be found in US legal system. Amazing!
It's a sales pitch
Everyone knows when you buy a second hand car off a slimy dishonest used car salesman they start with a high price and then work your way down to a less ludicrous price to make it seem a bargain.
What's the betting they come back and say they want 7.5 trillion instead...
There's also a negotiation theory that you start from a more extreme point in order to make the middle ground where you actually want to be. Same thing essentially
This isn't negotiation. This is perjury.
When you're trying to come to terms privately, and take an extreme position, that's a position for negotiation (a legitimate tactic.)
When your corporation swears in legal documents that it's taking a loss greater than the entire product of the planet, that's perjury (a felony.)
See the difference?
The world has moved on
And is not playing their game anymore and they're kicking and screaming for attention.
How does it feel to be redundant?
Maybe they need a new calculator
Theirs seems to work in Octal, getting that high a number.
P.S. I had a friend that did her checkbook in octal (too much PDP-8 programming). It was a big boo boo at the time.
Octal for checkbook balencing
I find this unlikely, as so many prices have 8's and 9's in them. Think of all the things that are one penny (cent) lower than a round number of pounds, euros or dollars. I guess that it depends on what your calculator does when you hit 8 or 9.
octal 65 (or 145 depending on your point of view)
You wouldn't get 8 or 9 on an octal calculator, only 0 - 7 alá:
0 + 1 = 1; 1 + 1 = 2; 2 + 1 = 3; 3 + 1 = 4; 4 + 1 = 5; 5 + 1 = 6; 6 + 1 = 7; 7 + 1 = 10; 10 + 1 = 11; 11 + 1 = 12; 12 + 1 = 13; 13 + 1 = 14; 14 + 1 = 15; 15 + 1 = 16; 16 + 1 = 17 + 1 = 20, etc.
Is it possible to have octimals? (icon applies to question)
you forgot to use the 'joke' icon
If you don't use the 'joke' icon people will think your are serious 'can't use octal 'cos prices have 8s and 9s in them....'
Unless you are serious.....in which case you also believe that the number 2 can't be represented in binary....weird.
PS. Octal also works in fractions of a dollar/pund/euro...see examples
£12.44 (octal) = £10.14 (and a bit) (dec)
$0.95 (decimal) = $0.746.. (octal)
$99 (dec) = $145 (octal)
If you look at physical calculators that work in octal (rather than 'soft' calculators on PC's and smartphones that can change the keyboard layout according to the mode), they normally do have an 8 and a 9 key (and a decimal point key), because they normally also work in decimal and hexadecimal.
These keys are normally disabled when the calculator is in octal mode, so you could press them, but I think I would notice that they had not registered. Also, as far as I am aware, nobody has produced a calculator that does non-integer arithmetic in anything other than base 10 (what a mind-bending concept that would be!).
For reference, look up the Texas Instruments Programmer Calculator that was available in the '80s, and any number of modern scientific calculators from makers like TI and Casio that also work in different bases including octal.
BTW. I was working in Octal on systems before PC's were invented, so I do understand it. I learnt clock arithmetic in bases other than 10 when I was about 8 in the 1960's, when they actually taught Maths in junior (primary) school.
Did you realise that Humans were meant to have thirteen fingers?
It's obvious, because in the HHGTTG, the ultimate question and answer is "What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9". Answer Forty two.
This is indeed the case if you work in base 13.
The only reason we work in base 10 is because we have 10 fingers. In some instances, it would actually make better sense to work in base 6, because you could then use one hand for 0-5 and the other as a carry. This enables you to count up to 35 with your two hands.
Gawd. I think up such crap!
@AC re. Joke
No. I was serious and yes, I know that 8 is 010 and 9 is 011.
I was presuming that the person was using a calculator which worked in octal and decimal (and thus had 8 and 9 and point keys) but which was in octal mode, so that when they were typing in something like 18.49, the calculator actually registered 14 (neither the 8, the 9 or the decimal point would have registered). Would get the sums very wrong.
If you had actually bothered to think of the mechanics of it, you would have understood.
By the way. I think that your floating point octal to decimal is incorrect.
When writing non integer octals to one significant digit, the numbering would be
0.1 octal, which is 1/8 (0.125 decimal)
0.2 octal, which is 2/8 (0.25 decimal)
0.3 octal, which is 3/8 (0.375 decimal)
0.4 octal, which is 4/8 (0.5 decimal)
0.5 octal, which is 5/8 (0.675 decimal)
0.6 octal, which is 6/8 (0.75 decimal)
0.7 octal, which is 7/8 (0.875 decimal)
1.0, which is 8/8 (1.0 decimal)
So in Octal 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.1 will equal 1.0, which it needs to do in order for arithmetic to work.
The first significant digit after the octal point (geddit) is 1/8th's, the second is 1/64ths, the third is 1/512th's and so on.
This means that by casual inspection, 0.44 octal HAS to be larger than 0.5 decimal.
By my calculations 12.44 (octal) is (1x8) plus (2x1) plus (4/8) plus (4/64), which makes it 10.5625 (decimal) or 10.56 rounded to decimal pence.
I can't see how you got 10.14. Even if you had worked in pence, 1244 octal is 676 decimal.
You got the 0.95 decimal correct, however.
You could do the exact arithmetic if you worked in pence or cents. Non-integer arithmetic in any base other than 10 hurts my head.
"Also, as far as I am aware, nobody has produced a calculator that does non-integer arithmetic in anything other than base 10 (what a mind-bending concept that would be!)."
You may be right about that, which is interesting since it is easier to convert binary to both hex and octal then to decimal.
@AC re Joke - again
And you can't convert decimal integers to octal either!
99 (decimal) actually equals 143 (octal)!
For this one, you're getting the pedantic Maths teacher!
@AC re Calculators
I remembered having to work in base 12, and base 20 for £sd and base 16 and 14 for imperial weight as I hit submit.
Even though I was well versed in Maths at the age of 10/11, decimalisation still caused me problems when my one shilling of pocket money became 5 new pence.
"Decimalisation, decimalise, decimalisation will change your lives"
g a b cb g g a b c f g a a#af f f f g
Key might be wrong, and the a# should probably be written as a b flat, but I can't seem to see a flat symbol on the keyboard!
Damn. Forgot that the Reg. stripped multiple spaces out of comments. All of the note changes happen on syllables.
re: Pre-decimalisation UK currency
You forgot the guinea, 21 shillings. And I think the cubit deserves a mention, because it's actually a useful measure.
Guinea had a purpose
The extra shilling was to simplify calculations when buying things through an agent. When paying for something in Guineas the seller would receive that amount of £s and the agent would receive that amount in shillings.
So Lord Snooty buyings a racehorse at Tattersalls pays 1,000 guineas. The seller gets £1,000 and Tattersalls takes 1,000s = £50.
Bloodstock agents still use Guineas.
The best the music biz should be able to hope for is the equivalent of a reverse class action. The difference being that instead of each claimant getting about $8, each defendant would cough up that amount. Seems reasonable to me, assuming they win of course.
Nice to see at least one judge saying,
"GET YER NOSE OUT THE TROUGH!"
Shouldn't Apple join in....
Claiming they lost 30c for every song that WASN'T downloaded through iTunes ?
Where's my cut?
I was going to start a legal download service (honest) but I didn't because of all the illegal services that were undercutting it.
If there are ludicrous hypothetical damages going around, my ludicrous hypothetical claim should be worth a few bob.
... and, since I could be listening to music a lot more, they could bill me for the music I didn't listen to after not buying it from them? Don't give them ideas
At least they're honest about it
They have now made it clear - they really do want the world. They consider themselves entitled to every last penny of it.
It's a tactic
One used by teenage girls all over the world;
"If you want a puppy, ask for a horse."
re: It's a tactic
I do hope that people don't let you handle the ordering in restaurants...
Tactic? Not exactly.
Teenage girls don't generally file false claims with a court to get a pony. Or a dog. Or goldfish.
I'm afraid that you lot must be getting to me.
I spent ages thinking "If you want a puppy, ask for a horse." was some sort of sexual innuendo, then realised that it was about a teenage girl really asking for a puppy.
Hangs head in shame. wanders off.
Are there still some record companies left pity they should die in silence and stop screwing the rest of us and their artists most of all. Thumbs up to the judge on this one.
Isn't it irrelevant?
Whatever figure they pull out of their ass Limewire won't be able to afford to pay it - I'd be surprised if they had five figures in the bank never mind six, seven or eight.
I lost the £10 Million at the weekend
I played the lottery and bought my 6 numbers. That money was mine I had 6 numbers but because all these other bastards played on-line. I lost £10million.
Who can I sue for £1000Trillion please?
I'll fail them because...
If people didn't use limewire to download and listen to music then they wouldn't go out and buy a cd.
Limewire creates growth in the music industry, when will these peple realise that?
How much will the musicians get?
Let's base the damages award on the lost royalties the muso's have suffered. Then add on a suitable amount (say 5%) as an unearned "bonus" for the record companies. After all, it's not as if they've had to go to the expense of pressing vinyl, shipping product or promoting all these pirated copies.
This is record companies we're talking about - do you think the musicians who spent hours producing the 'product' would get anything? If the companies got even a few million they would give it to themselves as bonuses for having done so well.
It's been show over and over again that the music companies just want musicians as prostitutes "More product, now! Fuck any thoughts you had of 'art' - where's my next car? where's my new house, where's my kilo of coke?"
Suing Usenet (the NNTP network) would be like trying to sue a virus for giving you a bout of pig plague. Usenet.com was a commercial entity with a sales pitch of "get your pirate on!" which has bugger all to do with the Usenet that those of us who know of its existence use.
Pineapple, for obvious reasons.
"a damages claim of as much as $75 trillion dollars"
whoever came up with that figure needs to take his head out from where it's stuck.
Leaves it there till he suffocates.
One. Less. Snout.
"previous successes against USENET"???
Huh? They sued a PROTOCOL?
Could someone (preferably the author) enlighten us as to who the Usenet corporation is and where they are based?
New business model
Everyone keeps saying that they need a new business model; This is it.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...