Why is the music industry only going after casual downloaders?

musicismylife78

Seems to me, most if not all of the high profile lawsuits filed against average citizens who download songs, has been a major label going after a person who downloads from Kazaa or Limewire.

To be frank those are crappy download sites. You rarely if ever will find the entire album of any band on there. Just the singles.

So why have they shyed away from going after people on the Torrent sites?

Seems silly to bust people who are stealing britneys new single and panic at the discos 3 singles, when many of us, including many on this forum download entire records by the handful

Oh, Jimmy

radiohead33 wrote:

Seems to me, most if not all of the high profile lawsuits filed against average citizens who download songs, has been a major label going after a person who downloads from Kazaa or Limewire.

To be frank those are crappy download sites. You rarely if ever will find the entire album of any band on there. Just the singles.

So why have they shyed away from going after people on the Torrent sites?

Seems silly to bust people who are stealing britneys new single and panic at the discos 3 singles, when many of us, including many on this forum download entire records by the handful

shhhhhhh

pjoasisrule

didnt even know that torrent sites still existed

superdeluxe

It seems to me that they are going after those that 'share' music first..and not the downloaders.

augustwest

superdeluxe wrote:

It seems to me that they are going after those that 'share' music first..and not the downloaders.

Agreed...to me it's the uploaders that they are targetting more so than the downloaders

SweetHarmonics

seems like they would target the groups that do the most leaking (you know the ones with the specific organization name on the torrents)

but to explain conglomerate rationale is completely beyond me

JOEJOEJOE

It looks as if they are trying to send a message to the casual downloader.

They are not trying to squeeze money out of people, rather, they are trying to deter others from stealing music, and levying a huge fine against someone will hopefully stop others!

Tek Money

I think it is stupid. They fined that girl $222,000. I think that is over-doing it. She works for minimum wage. Way to go.

I wish people would stop making music only about money. The world would be better without them.

facepollution

I have no sympathy for the music industry, it's their fault that they failed to keep up with technology, not the consumer's. People have been getting music for free for years, copying from the radio, people copying cds for each other etc, downloading is just the next progressive step. I particularly hate the way they try to make people feel bad for the artists, when they have been ripping off artists themselves for years - record company execs earn far more than the average band member does from making an album.

I think it's unreasonable for record companies to expect people to shell out £12 (about $24 -the average price of a cd here in the UK), without the person having heard any more than a single or two from that album. The only reason I download music is so I can 'try before I buy'. If I like an album after downloading, I'll go out and buy it and chances are I'll go see that band live when they're playing near me. The record industry doesn't cater for people like me, which I think is ridiculous - there are plenty of people who are still willing to pay for music, yet by taking people like me to court, they are shitting on perhaps some of their most loyal customers. FUCKING IDIOTS!

Brain of J.Lo

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

shhhhhhh

lol, that made me laugh.

Tek Money

facepollution wrote:

The only reason I download music is so I can 'try before I buy'. If I like an album after downloading, I'll go out and buy it and chances are I'll go see that band live when they're playing near me.

This is exactly the reason I download as well. Sometimes music just isn't worth buying, though. That is the beauty of being able to download. Lord knows how many shitty cd's I would have if I didn't.

soulsinging

Tek Money wrote:

I think it is stupid. They fined that girl $222,000. I think that is over-doing it. She works for minimum wage. Way to go.

I wish people would stop making music only about money. The world would be better without them.

it's nothing personal. EVERYTHING is about money.

soulsinging

radiohead33 wrote:

Seems to me, most if not all of the high profile lawsuits filed against average citizens who download songs, has been a major label going after a person who downloads from Kazaa or Limewire.

To be frank those are crappy download sites. You rarely if ever will find the entire album of any band on there. Just the singles.

So why have they shyed away from going after people on the Torrent sites?

Seems silly to bust people who are stealing britneys new single and panic at the discos 3 singles, when many of us, including many on this forum download entire records by the handful

the people listening to britney don't much care about music and will probably not buy the album anyway. they only want the singles and if they can get them, they won't bother buying the album.

the people downloading full albums probably would buy albums if they couldn't download them or might buy albums after downloading them... they're more musically inclined. they view music as an art worth paying for. pop fans view music as a disposable commodity. as do record companies.

fada

Album prices are too dear. I get an album off play.com for €12 and the same album would be priced at €20 in HMV or Virgin

superdeluxe

Tek Money wrote:

I think it is stupid. They fined that girl $222,000. I think that is over-doing it. She works for minimum wage. Way to go.

I wish people would stop making music only about money. The world would be better without them.

She was 'sharing' music. I don't think they would have gone after her if she was just downloading the music. But who knows.

Tek Money

superdeluxe wrote:

She was 'sharing' music. I don't think they would have gone after her if she was just downloading the music. But who knows.

I still don't see what the problem is.

lukins fridge

Tek Money wrote:

I still don't see what the problem is.

think of it like drugs. they go after the pushers, dealers or suppliers way more and with harder penalties than the buyers.

chipboy

The record companies should just offer every record free to download in crappy mp3 quality and just put one of those overdubbed "thank you for listening" messages during the song so people who like the record will buy the record. And if you are buying a CD you should always be getting lyrics, photos, exclusive ticket presale passwords, videos, or whatever extra things they can thing of to make you want to buy the record. Instead the record companies are in denial and trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube as if suing a few thousand people for ridiculous amounts that they will never collect anyway is going to stop millions from downloading. It's such a bad business idea it had to be thought of by a lawyer that worked for the record company and was just thinking "how can I make this work for me?"

hguz73

scapegoat!

PJGARDEN

soulsinging wrote:

the people listening to britney don't much care about music and will probably not buy the album anyway. they only want the singles and if they can get them, they won't bother buying the album.

the people downloading full albums probably would buy albums if they couldn't download them or might buy albums after downloading them... they're more musically inclined. they view music as an art worth paying for. pop fans view music as a disposable commodity. as do record companies.

Well said.

I do think they are going after people to send a message though. By fining one person $220,00 they are stopping a large number of people. The majority of people out there don't know what a torrent site is so, in their minds, they're stopping one person.