Slashdot Mirror
BPI Sue AllOfMp3 In British Courts
Ckwop writes "AllOfMp3 is getting sued by the British Phonographic Industry. From the article:
"We have maintained all along that this site is illegal and that the operator of the site is breaking UK law by making sound recordings available to UK-based customers without the permission of copyright owners. Now we will have the opportunity to demonstrate in the UK courts the illegality of this site."
" The issue of course will be whether any injunction will be enforceable or not.
How much of the money from allofmp3.com goes to the artists that actually made the music?
I came to shop and cashed out €18 for old Queen's album The Works. How much of that went to artists?
€5-7 is retailer's fee. about €10 is label fee. So how much went to artist? I wonder.
[ You really seem to work for RIAA/whatever. You speak too well. Or if not, talk to them - probably they are hiring now for astroturf campaing. You would fit. ]
The point here is that people want art on their conditions, not on conditions of labels. It's simple as that. And at moment there are no other ways to easily buy music. Read any review on how subscription model works in real life and what kind of PITA it can be. (At least for some people Apple's iTMS kind'a works - better than nothing).
Just try to get that in your head: it's not about money, it's about music. It's not about industry - it's about art and music. Ring any bells?
I think the all story with "recorded music" is just bluff. Now how do I understand the russian copyright law. The law is quite simple. The performace is what artist is paid for. I can record the performance and (granted that I have paid artist the fee for performance) I would own the recording I did (with copyrights etc). It's my recording of her/his performance. I can make money selling the recording. Artists can go on doing money by performing. It's easy as that. Nobody is robbed, as RIAA/BPI/IFPI/friends try to tell everybody. Artist has to pay taxes from the profits s/he makes performing. If I would be distributing recording, I would need a license for that from gov't and of course I will pay taxes too. (*)
As much as idealistically it sounds, I think such model can work: only way for artists to profit is to perform. Not like the starlets a la Britney Spears, living off huge promotional and ad campaigns. They have to perform. No performance - no money. I think it's even logical.
In the end, as live music fan, I can tell that in reality that how it is works. Recorded music is in quantity - but it will never beat the quality of live performance. All best music I ever heard in my life was in Dresdner "Blue Note" cafe sitting against musicians play live jazz.
(*) I hope I did not infriged your copyrights for quoting *your* words in *my* comment? Or would you sue me for that??
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
A lot of ISPs here make great noises about how they do *not* filter traffic (and many of them are uncapped also).
There's simply no framework to require them to filter it - they don't filter anything else, why this?
A friend who used to work at an ISP says the reason UK ISPs are so against filtering is it would jepoardise their common carrier status - at the moment they're not legally liable if someone accesses kiddie porn over their connection.. once they have filtering in place it one judgement to remove their immunity and force them to filter *everything* that could get them into trouble.