So if they know what 24 songs she has downloaded, if she ever pays a fine, does the original artists get a cut of the fine?

What a useless figure. There was a post on /. saying that the total average revenue for a song is around $62 grand so there is no way $80 grand is going to stick.

RIAA must be praying for a settlement at this stage.

Too bad the artist wouldn't get any of this money. Just goes to the Company >_>

how did this poor schmuck get done for downloading 24 songs in the first place?

Musicians need to go out and earn their money Like PINK is doing.
The days of making a song and being paid forever are over.
And that goes ditto for Music Companies.

I was reading somewhere that record companies are now taking a slice off the top from Live performances of bands. They must be getting a nice little earn out of Pink. 10 concerts in Brisbane ?

last edited by FaceMan at 16:03:40 19/Jun/09

Can anyone find out what songs they were?

@Faceman
Pink also does some aerobatics, so it's like two shows in one. Double the value.

I was reading somewhere that record companies are now taking a slice off the top from Live performances of bands. They must be getting a nice little earn out of Pink. 10 concerts in Brisbane ?

maybe if they are on a development deal or being funded for tour by the label, but not for a "big" name. Pink for example would not be having slices taken from live performance, and if she is, she has a s*** manager. I'm a big fan of bands like NiN and even aussie guys like Silverchair who are doing their own labels so they are free from greedy contracts of big companys.

At the end of the day 90% record labels are pure scum, dont give a f*** about the artist and will screw them as long and hard as they can to make 5 bucks.

It all comes down to the RIAA trying to hold back the tide, dam near impossible. They had their chance years ago when instead of taking Napster to court they could have reinvented their ditribution model of captured a market before it got out of hand. Its only now with the innovations from companies like Nokia that they are going to see some of this wind back.

MPAA is in exactly the same boat that the RIAA were in years ago. Trouble for them is that they are stuck on the idea that Movies have to be distributed at the Cinema, then DVD, then Pay-TV then Free TV. If only they would wake the f*** up and realise that unless they do away with this model and offer movies on the net at the same time as Cinema releases they are going to pwned by John Q Citizen the same way the RIAA has been.

It would be interesting if they actually did this, we might see cinema prices actually come down and they might have to offer some real service to get patrons back.

how did this poor schmuck get done for downloading 24 songs in the first place?

This isn't the first time she's been sued for this, so now they're watching her.

Can anyone find out what songs they were?

This is a great idea - let's find out the songs, then "encourage" people to "get" the music themselves, so the WWW smashes those songs to teach the record industry a lesson.

Here you guys go...

* Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
* Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
* Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
* Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
* Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
* Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
* Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
* Aerosmith "Cryin’"
* Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
* Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
* Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
* Bryan Adams "Somebody"
* No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
* Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
* Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
* Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
* Green Day "Basket Case"

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/trial-of-the-ce/

haha, ok, lock her up and throw away the key

I assume since they have these huge payouts (larger then what these songs would normally make), that they are all now free to download right ?

what mass said

MPAA is in exactly the same boat that the RIAA were in years ago. Trouble for them is that they are stuck on the idea that Movies have to be distributed at the Cinema, then DVD, then Pay-TV then Free TV. If only they would wake the f*** up and realise that unless they do away with this model and offer movies on the net at the same time as Cinema releases they are going to pwned by John Q Citizen the same way the RIAA has been.

It would be interesting if they actually did this, we might see cinema prices actually come down and they might have to offer some real service to get patrons back.

I completely appreciate your point, but I'd hate for movies to stop being shown at the cinema altogether. What I could imagine happening is that cinema venues only show blockbusters or award winners (which usually means the movie gets to the cinema about 6months after it's release), and neglect indies and less guaranteed money makers.

Don't get me wrong, I only go to the cinema about 10 times a year and only because I get really cheap student rates. The majority of movies I watch I rent from Video Ezy, but the shelves there are so full ofutter garbage I've been going less and less. I look out for DVDs that the store only has 1 copy of - they are usually better than the rest. Most of the time I borrow movies that I've already seen and enjoyed, because the alternatives are s***.

Point of the rant: if movies become available online at the same time as cinema release, cinemas will become really selective about what they screen, which is bad. For the few times a year when a decent movie comes out I'd rather see it at th cinema.

Yeah, what mass said, cept this bit:

we might see cinema prices actually come down

Ahahahaahahaha!

haha, ok, lock her up and throw away the key

lol :D

Point of the rant: if movies become available online at the same time as cinema release, cinemas will become really selective about what they screen, which is bad.

perhaps. or perhaps with attendance numbers falling off cinemas will have to start branching out & offering extra incentives for people to attend like indie movies, double-features, dusk-till-dawns, live plays... or something~! :P

I don't reckon it'd be a bad thing myself

The Cinema problem is actually more about the huge fees they are charged by Distribution Companies to show the movies.
I dont know what the margins are for Cinemas but considering how much they overcharge for munchies Id say they make very little on the movies themself.

Why dont they move to other types of Viewing. For instance TV shows or even sport.

After seeing Terminator at the new Vmax at Robina I think the cinema industry are already moving toward a more experience driven market. The difference between offering movies online for home theatre viewing and revamping cinemas to be something worth going too is time and money. It'd take no time at all to create an online delivery system and comparatively very little money but it'd take years to get cinemas up to scratch and a s*** tonne of cash.

I actually prefer to watch stuff at home now. Don't have to deal with people talking, shining laser pointers, smsing people. Also my old man ears don't have to put up with it being so loud.

^ yeah Ive found that on the rare occasion I go to the Cinema I'm finding that the background noise (Music, Explosions etc) often drowns out what the actors are saying on screen.
Now when I watch the latest DVD or pirated beer coaster at home I can pause and rewind the bits that get drowned out by the noise or simply put the subtitles on.

Quantum of Solace was a prime exmple.

Its unjustifiable thats for sure. Has nothing to do with justice its all about money.