LimeWire Pays RIAA $105 Million, Artists Get Nothing

[gideongallery]

In the midst of their jury trial, the company behind the defunct LimeWire client and the RIAA settled their dispute out of court. Limewire will pay $105 million to compensate the major music labels for damages suffered. A moment of justice for the music industry, but not necessarily for the artists. The recouped money is destined for reinvestment in new anti-piracy efforts and will not be used to compensate any artists.

got to love an industry that justify their lawsuit based on the harm it does the artist and then just pockets the money themselves.

http://torrentfreak.com/limewire-pay...othing-110513/

[Gambrinus]

Dear Jesus,

I rarely ask you for favors... but do you think just this once you could do me a solid?

Please give gideongallery a rare and untreatable form of ass cancer.

Thanks Jesus!

Your humble servant,

Gambrinus

[TheDoc]

You forgot to make this part of your quote large: money is destined for reinvestment

I hope that clears up the stupidity.

[Alky]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You forgot to make this part of your quote large: money is destined for reinvestment

I hope that clears up the stupidity.

Well that's fine and dandy.... but at what point does it stop going to lawyers and executives and actually go to people who created the music?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Alky

Well that's fine and dandy.... but at what point does it stop going to lawyers and executives and actually go to people who created the music?

I'm sure it helps them in other ways.... Less piracy, for sure counterfeited piracy, is a good thing, even the threat alone stops some people. The benefits don't have to be a paycheck directly back, they can happen in many various ways.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Alky

Well that's fine and dandy.... but at what point does it stop going to lawyers and executives and actually go to people who created the music?

When the musicians fund the lawsuit, maybe?

;-)

[merina0803]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

got to love an industry that justify their lawsuit based on the harm it does the artist and then just pockets the money themselves.

http://torrentfreak.com/limewire-pay...othing-110513/

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Alky

Well that's fine and dandy.... but at what point does it stop going to lawyers and executives and actually go to people who created the music?

was reading somewhere that all those 'compilation albums' have huge backlogs of royalties to be paid to artists.. lol

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Quentin

When the musicians fund the lawsuit, maybe?

;-)

with what money

they give up 90% right off the top and then have to pay for all the production cost out of their 10%.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

with what money

they give up 90% right off the top and then have to pay for all the production cost out of their 10%.

Yeah, with what money.... true.


6.2 million home of the Cyrus family


Poor Alan Jackson


Not even sure how Lada Gaga got the Lambo and House being broke.

[Sly]

That's sort of like saying all basketball players make Kobe Bryant money.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Sly

That's sort of like saying all basketball players make Kobe Bryant money.

Not all artists take part... but once you see the studio list, you'll quickly realize these aren't bar singer artists being repped by the riaa.

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?cont...boutus_members

[AdPatron]

Artists should go on strike

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Not all artists take part... but once you see the studio list, you'll quickly realize these aren't bar singer artists being repped by the riaa.

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?cont...boutus_members

you should take a look at that list again

none of the ARTIST you are talking about are on that list.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

with what money

they give up 90% right off the top and then have to pay for all the production cost out of their 10%.

Relax skippy; it was a joke.

Were I to respond seriously, it would look like this:

Artists aren't the only ones who have a right to exploit their skills and efforts for financial gain. Lawyers get paid the way they do because they have highly specialized skills.

When you choose to litigate, typically that's the reality you face: your lawyers are going to charge their hourly rate, and if the lawsuit is successful and damages eventually come along, they are going to take their cut of those.

As to record label executives/companies, they are in business to make money. As I understand it, that's the primary raison d' etre of damn near every business in existence. By and large, entrepreneurs are not altruists, nor are they philanthropists. I'm sure most record executives don't particularly care about the wellbeing of the artists on their label, and I'm equally sure that the artists don't give too much of a shit about the wellbeing of the "suits" who they sign with.

When you choose to a record contract, typically that's the reality you face: the record company is going to take its cut, and that cut isn't going to be based on what's "fair," it is going to be based on what they can get you to agree to.

Artists aren't forced to sign a contract with a record label. It is a choice they make, a choice largely informed by a desire to make money themselves, and not a function of some fanciful pursuit of artistic greatness. You can pursue artistic greatness on your own, after all, without ever earning a penny.

IMO, it is senseless for artists (or fans) to rail against the greed of record executives. I'm not saying they are wrong to assert that there's greed being exhibited, it's just that complaining about the greed of a businessman and expecting that to shame the businessman in question into being more generous is like complaining about a vulture's taste for carrion and expecting the vulture to stop eating dead things because you've pointed out how distasteful his appetites are. ;-)

Bottom line: for artists that don't like the way it is, there's a simple solution: don't sign a record contract.

There's also a slightly more complicated solution: start your own label.

(Hey don't laugh -- it seemed to work out pretty well for Frank Zappa....)

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you should take a look at that list again

none of the ARTIST you are talking about are on that list.

Cool, nobody said artists were on the list, we said studios.. and I do see Interscope, Lyric Street, and Arista on that list.

[bronco67]

Thoughts that come to mind...

Limewire is still around?

--and they have $105 million dollars?

[PiracyPitbull]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you should take a look at that list again

none of the ARTIST you are talking about are on that list.

Why would you care ???

Don't you download your entertainment for free under the guise of Time shifting?

Simple solution for artists, sign or don't sign. Not all artists get the same deal either, there are negotiations....simply broad sweeping a figure and applying it to every artist does not make it fact.

Also, you can't forget RIAA case costs.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

Why would you care ???

Don't you download your entertainment for free under the guise of Time shifting?

Simple solution for artists, sign or don't sign. Not all artists get the same deal either, there are negotiations....simply broad sweeping a figure and applying it to every artist does not make it fact.

Also, you can't forget RIAA case costs.

if your going to keep all the money

then don't make the arguement to the jury about how much it damages the ARTIST

make the arguement about how it damages your record company.

[marlboroack]

fast and furious 5 movies 2011 fast five tamil movies child fuck office 2010 source code naughty america hindi movies pirates of the caribbean telugu movies alexis texas i am number four malayalam movies bd company sucker punch ko tamil movie lesbian seductions harry potter indian xxx 100 love telugu movie web video collection inthecrack mummy edit need for speed priest 2011 telugu movie torrent windows 7 ultimate abby winters classic xxx ashlynn brooke sunny leone young girls game of thrones gianna michaels japanese schoolgirl naturist freedom transformers 12 years old desperate housewives microsoft office and furious 5 ita english movies facial abuse underage girls corbin fisher little girls red riding hood modernist cuisine just go with it kagney linn karter russian teen photoshop cs5 jenna jameson kayden kross my friends hot mom adult movies reality kings swingersakce no strings attached battle los angeles call of duty party hardcore abella anderson vaanam tamil movie realitykings dancing bear audrey bitoni women seeking women big bang theory carmella bing hindi movie 2011 teenmar telugu movie jenna presley and furious 5 french backroom casting couch lucas entertainment real wife stories backroomcastingcouch michael jackson of the caribbean 4 baby got boobs fucking a girl kids shor in the city madison parker fratpad spencer public disgrace dog fuck a girl fansadox collection digital playground water for elephants fast furious 5 2011 actress bhuvaneswari blue girls kissing girls lesbian triangles the king s speech prince of persia ultimate surrender thank you hindi movie and furious 5 in hindi

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by merina0803

gideongallery to coming to explain that "child f*ck" is all about fair use, time shifting and legitimately using torrents as a vcr

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by marlboroack

fast and furious 5 movies 2011 fast five tamil movies child fuck office 2010 source code naughty america hindi movies pirates of the caribbean telugu movies alexis texas i am number four malayalam movies bd company sucker punch ko tamil movie lesbian seductions harry potter indian xxx 100 love telugu movie web video collection inthecrack mummy edit need for speed priest 2011 telugu movie torrent windows 7 ultimate abby winters classic xxx ashlynn brooke sunny leone young girls game of thrones gianna michaels japanese schoolgirl naturist freedom transformers 12 years old desperate housewives microsoft office and furious 5 ita english movies facial abuse underage girls corbin fisher little girls red riding hood modernist cuisine just go with it kagney linn karter russian teen photoshop cs5 jenna jameson kayden kross my friends hot mom adult movies reality kings swingersakce no strings attached battle los angeles call of duty party hardcore abella anderson vaanam tamil movie realitykings dancing bear audrey bitoni women seeking women big bang theory carmella bing hindi movie 2011 teenmar telugu movie jenna presley and furious 5 french backroom casting couch lucas entertainment real wife stories backroomcastingcouch michael jackson of the caribbean 4 baby got boobs fucking a girl kids shor in the city madison parker fratpad spencer public disgrace dog fuck a girl fansadox collection digital playground water for elephants fast furious 5 2011 actress bhuvaneswari blue girls kissing girls lesbian triangles the king s speech prince of persia ultimate surrender thank you hindi movie and furious 5 in hindi

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

gideongallery to coming to explain that "child f*ck" is all about fair use, time shifting and legitimately using torrents as a vcr

Originally Posted by merina0803

you muck raking scumbag realize that keyword term you bitching about was used to represent a news story about pentagon employees buying child pornography


http://bankofamericasuck.com/tag/child-fuck

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you muck raking scumbag realize that keyword term you bitching about was used to represent a news story about pentagon employees buying child pornography

You're delusional if you think CP terms aren't common torrent searches. Well, scratch that... it's quite clear and widely agreed that you're delusional anyway.

[merina0803]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

gideongallery to coming to explain that "child f*ck" is all about fair use, time shifting and legitimately using torrents as a vcr

CP is always a crime but fair use is never CP

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

with what money

they give up 90% right off the top and then have to pay for all the production cost out of their 10%.

No one forces artists to sign with the labels.

[Nautilus]

Now that we know how evil those RIAA dudes are, let us all open up member areas and let gideons of the world dl our stuff for free. Obviously there's no reason to fight piracy anymore because we lost our high moral grounds after this story has seen light.

[slapass]

Gideon if they were doing nothing wrong why did they pay up?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

You're delusional if you think CP terms aren't common torrent searches. Well, scratch that... it's quite clear and widely agreed that you're delusional anyway.

searched term yes

every search engine has that problem even google

commonly searched enough that it appears in the top 25 hell no

that the point you misrepresented a search for bit torrent distributed documentary/propaganda film about the "pentagon covering up a cp ring within their walls" as an actual cp search

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by slapass

Gideon if they were doing nothing wrong why did they pay up?

never said they did nothing wrong, i said the record companies are scum for arguing how much they damaged the ARTIST in the court case, and then deliberately damaged the artist themselves by keeping 100% of the money.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

that the point you misrepresented a search for bit torrent distributed documentary/propaganda film about the "pentagon covering up a cp ring within their walls" as an actual cp search

Really? Someone created a documentary and then named it "child f*ck"? Or people just inherently understood that they need to go to a torrent site to find a fox news story about pentagon officials and search using the phrase "child f*ck"? Your proof of that is an embedded youtube video on a fake website attacking bank of america? Hahaha.

I'm getting increasingly curious to know the background on your mental problems. I admit, it's a little intriguing at this point.

[DBS.US]

Originally Posted by GatorB

No one forces artists to sign with the labels.

Yes, very true

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Really? Someone created a documentary and then named it "child f*ck"? Or people just inherently understood that they need to go to a torrent site to find a fox news story about pentagon officials and search using the phrase "child f*ck"? Your proof of that is an embedded youtube video on a fake website attacking bank of america? Hahaha.

I'm getting increasingly curious to know the background on your mental problems. I admit, it's a little intriguing at this point.

operation child fuck: the pentagon's secret plan to cover up a child pornography ring within it walls.

i said it was a propaganda film

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by GatorB

No one forces artists to sign with the labels.

excpet those labels are using their current monopoly control to destroy any alternative distribution method to their own.

you currently have two choices sign with a label

or

fail

that not a choice at all.

[cherrylula]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Not all artists take part... but once you see the studio list, you'll quickly realize these aren't bar singer artists being repped by the riaa.

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?cont...boutus_members

No, bar singers actually make tips.

Musicians need better representation, like cam girls and the tip system. And I mean that, sincerely.

And I say that because here in New Orleans, there are working musicians who make hundreds of bucks a week, at least. Talented ones clean up if they aren't trainwrecks. But record deals? nah... they sell their own cd's and make tips, % of drink sales, that's how you do it and live as a musician making a decent living. These dreams you're the next Led Zepplin or Nirvana are dead like Kurt. LOL

[PiracyPitbull]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

excpet those labels are using their current monopoly control to destroy any alternative distribution method to their own.

you currently have two choices sign with a label

or

fail

that not a choice at all.

I'm pretty sure that musicians are aware of their options (which are not as simple as you describe).

You don't know the RIAA costs for their cases and how their own accounts need balancing in order to maintain actions.

And its quite obvious that you don't support entertainment industries........So, It still begs the question ... "why do you even care?"

Troll much ?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

I'm pretty sure that musicians are aware of their options (which are not as simple as you describe).

You don't know the RIAA costs for their cases and how their own accounts need balancing in order to maintain actions.

And its quite obvious that you don't support entertainment industries........So, It still begs the question ... "why do you even care?"

Troll much ?

i don't support industry that try and quash fair use under the guise of fighting piracy

the industries that are more interested in extending/keeping their monopoly rather then let technlogy grow

87% of the computer advancements you have seen in the last 20 years can be traced back to the commercialization of solid state disk by diamond rio mp3 player.


solid state disk commodization improved memory, cpu , hard drives, etc

how much technology are we going to be forced to go without because the record companies want to kill the technology that threatens their control over the artists.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

excpet those labels are using their current monopoly control to destroy any alternative distribution method to their own.

you currently have two choices sign with a label

or

fail

that not a choice at all.

WOW! This is a sudden change. It wasn't too long ago that you were ranting and raving about how with Youtube, Facebook, Myspace (among other social media) and torrents a person could self-release their music and make more money than they could singing with a record label. Now all of a sudden you are saying it is labels or fail.

What happened to you beloved Maria Digby? Or about your golden boy Johnathon Coultron? You did point out that Sick Puppy got 40 million views on their YouTube video without the aid of a record label. Suddenly they are all failures?

You have made exhaustive arguments on how musicians and have great success outside the major label system using your own methods, methods you helped use to get a band signed and make more money than they did when they released a record with that label (or so you claim) and now all of a sudden you seem to no longer agree with yourself. What gives? New meds?

[JustDaveXxx]

And the winner is;


The Attorneys

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

WOW! This is a sudden change. It wasn't too long ago that you were ranting and raving about how with Youtube, Facebook, Myspace (among other social media) and torrents a person could self-release their music and make more money than they could singing with a record label. Now all of a sudden you are saying it is labels or fail.

What happened to you beloved Maria Digby? Or about your golden boy Johnathon Coultron? You did point out that Sick Puppy got 40 million views on their YouTube video without the aid of a record label. Suddenly they are all failures?

You have made exhaustive arguments on how musicians and have great success outside the major label system using your own methods, methods you helped use to get a band signed and make more money than they did when they released a record with that label (or so you claim) and now all of a sudden you seem to no longer agree with yourself. What gives? New meds?

and what exactly about the statement

those labels are using their current monopoly control to destroy any alternative distribution method to their own.

if record companies force torrent sites and tube sites to keyword filter song titles (see isohunt case) then cover songs would be squashed too

good bye marie digby


good bye ever artist which uses covers to find an audience.

the success i am talking about is dependent in part to having those technologies allowed to operate uncensored.

and every example i gave you was dependent on those technologies remaining uncensored.

[Fletch XXX]

the record industry is based on paying artists 1% of record sales LOL

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and what exactly about the statement




if record companies force torrent sites and tube sites to keyword filter song titles (see isohunt case) then cover songs would be squashed too

good bye marie digby


good bye ever artist which uses covers to find an audience.

the success i am talking about is dependent in part to having those technologies allowed to operate uncensored.

and every example i gave you was dependent on those technologies remaining uncensored.

Technically if someone records a cover song and then uses it to make money they should be paying royalties to the original song writer or the holder of the publishing for that song. Somehow I doubt all of those using covers to build an audience are doing so. This means that these people are also fucking over the artists. The record company fucks the artist (no argument on that) and so do all these people who record their songs, get tons of views on YouTube and sell downloads/CDs without paying royalties.

And whatever happened to writing your own songs and building up an audience with your own talent and your own words? I guess it is easier these days just to piggy back and make money off of other people's work.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Technically if someone records a cover song and then uses it to make money they should be paying royalties to the original song writer or the holder of the publishing for that song. Somehow I doubt all of those using covers to build an audience are doing so. This means that these people are also fucking over the artists.

re read the copyright act moron
the copyright holders monopoly only extends to direct revenue not indirect revenue.

if you record a cover and SELL that cover you need to pay royalties,

but the courts have recognized that indirect revenues (like selling a vcr for 1k) is not covered by the monopoly of the copyright holder

doing your own version of someone elses song, and selling your original songs to people who think your cover version is better is exactly the free speech that fair use was designed to protect.

commentary like listen to my version of "gimie more" is valid free speech.

The record company fucks the artist (no argument on that) and so do all these people who record their songs, get tons of views on YouTube and sell downloads/CDs without paying royalties.

and this is exactly the situation i was talking about

if you need to get permission to do covers, record companies could force you to sign away all your IP just to get the right

the sign with us or fail senerio is all you would have.

the artist/record companies lose nothing from cover songs being given away on youtube, becaue the only people who would not buy the original would be the people who PREFER the unique cover version

The record companies are not entitled to that money.

And whatever happened to writing your own songs and building up an audience with your own talent and your own words? I guess it is easier these days just to piggy back and make money off of other people's work.

when you write a completely original story that doesn't borrow any elements from any previous work in existance then you can talk

free speech has a right to be derivative

hell commentary is ALWAYS derivative since you must comment on something.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

re read the copyright act moron
the copyright holders monopoly only extends to direct revenue not indirect revenue.

if you record a cover and SELL that cover you need to pay royalties,

but the courts have recognized that indirect revenues (like selling a vcr for 1k) is not covered by the monopoly of the copyright holder

doing your own version of someone elses song, and selling your original songs to people who think your cover version is better is exactly the free speech that fair use was designed to protect.

commentary like listen to my version of "gimie more" is valid free speech.

This is mostly what I meant. There are a lot of people out there that record cover versions of songs, put them up on places like YouTube and then sell their version of that song on iTunes, Amazon etc. I would love to see how many of those people are actually paying the original writer/publisher royalties. I would guess it is very few.

and this is exactly the situation i was talking about

if you need to get permission to do covers, record companies could force you to sign away all your IP just to get the right

the sign with us or fail senerio is all you would have.

the artist/record companies lose nothing from cover songs being given away on youtube, becaue the only people who would not buy the original would be the people who PREFER the unique cover version

The record companies are not entitled to that money.

If they force sites like isohunt to filter keywords could a person not just record a cover then contact isohunt (or whatever site they want to put their song on) and tell them that this is a cover song, not the original and all would be good? I have never seen nor heard of the labels trying to force people to get permission in order to do a cover.

when you write a completely original story that doesn't borrow any elements from any previous work in existance then you can talk

free speech has a right to be derivative

hell commentary is ALWAYS derivative since you must comment on something.

There is a big difference between writing something that might have a few derivative elements and copying something word for word.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

This is mostly what I meant. There are a lot of people out there that record cover versions of songs, put them up on places like YouTube and then sell their version of that song on iTunes, Amazon etc. I would love to see how many of those people are actually paying the original writer/publisher royalties. I would guess it is very few.

well the answer is zero
if you have ever tried to get your content up on itunes you know the hoops you have to jump thru to get yourself listed.

the crediting for song writers is a pain in the but, if you sell your cover on itunes then yes the song writer get their cut

itunes make sure of that.

If they force sites like isohunt to filter keywords could a person not just record a cover then contact isohunt (or whatever site they want to put their song on) and tell them that this is a cover song, not the original and all would be good? I have never seen nor heard of the labels trying to force people to get permission in order to do a cover.

1. read the ruling what you are talking about is in fact automatically prevented by the court order

2. happens all the time, hell it happens for parodies

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-th...hdrawn-091021/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...al/8317952.stm

http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/


and that doesn't include the 100s of videos that have the audio scrubbed automatically by youtube because it includes "their" music.

There is a big difference between writing something that might have a few derivative elements and copying something word for word.

not when your talking about free speech

weather you change one word or 100 the right to be able to make that free expression is still the prevailing principle.

arguing you have a right to take away that free expression based on a word count is censorship plain and simple.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

well the answer is zero
if you have ever tried to get your content up on itunes you know the hoops you have to jump thru to get yourself listed.

the crediting for song writers is a pain in the but, if you sell your cover on itunes then yes the song writer get their cut

itunes make sure of that.

That is good to hear. I am sure people could still sell CDs without paying royalties, but I think most of the people who put cover songs up and try to sell them do so digitally.

not when your talking about free speech

weather you change one word or 100 the right to be able to make that free expression is still the prevailing principle.

arguing you have a right to take away that free expression based on a word count is censorship plain and simple.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Are you now saying that if you copy someone's work word for word and post it online that is covered by free speech?

I can't buy a Stephen King book, copy it word for word and post in online with the simple tagline of " this is my favorite stephen king book I hope you like it" and call that free speech because I added commentary.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Are you now saying that if you copy someone's work word for word and post it online that is covered by free speech?

I can't buy a Stephen King book, copy it word for word and post in online with the simple tagline of " this is my favorite stephen king book I hope you like it" and call that free speech because I added commentary.

stop trying to create insane stretches to justify your bullshit position

your copying word for word example was covering a song

turning a stripper pole music song into a acoustic ballad

or turning a dance song into a love song

completely changing the context of the music so that it does not represent a DIRECT loss of sale of the original work

fair use already balances the situation your talking about

while still protecting the derivative works i am talking about.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

stop trying to create insane stretches to justify your bullshit position

your copying word for word example was covering a song

turning a stripper pole music song into a acoustic ballad

or turning a dance song into a love song

completely changing the context of the music so that it does not represent a DIRECT loss of sale of the original work

fair use already balances the situation your talking about

while still protecting the derivative works i am talking about.

Dude, calm down. I'm not trying to justify anything. I simply said you can't buy a Stephen King book, copy it word for word onto a website and then add the commentary "This is my favorite Stephen King book" and then say it falls under fair use.

I understand the difference between an original song and a cover song and so long as the original writer/publishing owner of the song gets paid if you try to sell your cover version of the song I don't have any problem with people doing cover songs. It is a time honored thing in music. Back before the internet bands would often play covers at live shows while they wrote their own music and use them as a filler for the show to help draw listeners. Today they just do it on YouTube.

[gideongallery]

this was your original statement

Originally Posted by kane

Somehow I doubt all of those using covers to build an audience are doing so. This means that these people are also fucking over the artists. The record company fucks the artist (no argument on that) and so do all these people who record their songs, get tons of views on YouTube and sell downloads/CDs without paying royalties.

And whatever happened to writing your own songs and building up an audience with your own talent and your own words? I guess it is easier these days just to piggy back and make money off of other people's work.

you accused artist doing covers of ripping off the song writers

Originally Posted by kane

Dude, calm down. I'm not trying to justify anything. I simply said you can't buy a Stephen King book, copy it word for word onto a website and then add the commentary "This is my favorite Stephen King book" and then say it falls under fair use.

I understand the difference between an original song and a cover song and so long as the original writer/publishing owner of the song gets paid if you try to sell your cover version of the song I don't have any problem with people doing cover songs. It is a time honored thing in music. Back before the internet bands would often play covers at live shows while they wrote their own music and use them as a filler for the show to help draw listeners. Today they just do it on YouTube.

now you say it a time honored thing in music.



the fact is ruling like the one against isohunt are basically designed to prevent this process to leverage the new medium/technology.

To protect the abusive system of the record companies and to reduce the choice of musicians

to either sign with the record companies

or fail.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

this was your original statement




you accused artist doing covers of ripping off the song writers






now you say it a time honored thing in music.



the fact is ruling like the one against isohunt are basically designed to prevent this process to leverage the new medium/technology.

To protect the abusive system of the record companies and to reduce the choice of musicians

to either sign with the record companies

or fail.

Your primary problem is that you have a basic lack of being able to follow a conversation. If you put basic logic to use you will see how my statement evolved. I will break it down to you in a line by line format so you can follow it.

1. I said that people who are recording cover songs, posting them on YouTube then selling those songs are ripping off artists if they are not paying royalties for the songs they sell.

2. After some clarification you say that selling songs on iTunes and Amazon is a bitch and that the original artist must be credited and that the original writers do get their cut.

3. Having read that, I then said that I don't really have a problem with it so long as the the original writers are getting their fair royalties.

4. That is it. I made a statement, you clarified how the system works, I modified my statement and changed my opinion.

Yes, doing covers of songs is a time honored thing. Of course the main difference is that when band were covering songs as they start out they were playing for 20 people, not 500,000. Those views do make YouTube money, but I guess if you look at it right it is no different than the bar or club owner who hired a band to play profiting from that band playing cover songs.

[ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by Alky

Well that's fine and dandy.... but at what point does it stop going to lawyers and executives and actually go to people who created the music?

It doesnt.
It never will till artists cut the middlemen.

Artists that have grabbed hold of there work are making shit tons.
Prince is a primary example.