torrentfreak.com — In less than two years the RIAA has sent copyright infringement notices to 1.8 million Internet subscribers and 269,609 to colleges and universities. Despite this staggering average of more than a million infringement notices every year from the recording industry alone, the effect on file-sharing levels seems unnoticeable.
Jul 4, 2010 View in Crawl 4
milsorgnJul 5, 2010
I copy, download, rip and share whatever I want.
Of course I also own more copies of games, music and movies then anyone else I know.
Funny how that works out! Also I have never received or known someone to have received one of these things, and I go on some pretty epic DL'ing binges from time to time.
rmoanJul 5, 2010
Honestly, it does not make it less wrong. Unfortunately, not everyone is you, people download s**t not to pay for it. Not because they want to preview it fully and buy it. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
suricouJul 5, 2010
If they are downloading s**t, they probably arn't planning to pay for it anyway.
jparkinsonJul 5, 2010
i'm the same way, i pirate musc like a bastard, but i also own over 500 albums. ~450 of them i would have never discovered had I not pirated them first.
shozikuJul 5, 2010
I've had plenty of these notices. The subject line says. "Get Viagra and Vicodin at low low prices at our pharmacy".
aericJul 5, 2010
I have gotten cease and desist orders twice in the past few years. Both from Warner Bros. Both from movies with big stars that did terrible in the box office. First was 16 Blocks, then Sherlock Holmes. Both of which I would have been mad about buying or going to see at theaters.
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
I received a copyright infringement warning once from my ISP for downloading the DVD screener version of 2012. It didn't make me stop downloading.
hujp1jJul 7, 2010
Studies already pointed out that people who download "illegaly" also buy a lot more cd's, dvd's, game's etc. RIAA only makes more money from people who are doing it, and they spend that money by trying to stop people from downloading... I can just say: Only in America!
buboniclouieJul 5, 2010
It costs more to find and sue a file sharer then the amount collected in a settlement or judgment. Even if they get more draconian laws past they can't collect more then the file sharers have. The scare tactic isn't working, and they can sue enough people to make it work. They can't shut down the distribution system in less time than it takes make a new and better one.
What options do they have left?
jparkinsonJul 5, 2010
put out music that people WANT to buy.
originalmadmattJul 7, 2010
Hahaha...
cmostJul 5, 2010
And their point is?
rmoanJul 5, 2010
Stop sharing files lol.
acknotswJul 5, 2010
That's cool, they can waste all the time and money they want trying to stop the flow of an intangible product that can serve as an infinite source of copies of itself.
It's borderline insanity to believe that you can release something to millions of people and then control what they do with it in this day and age. they might as well try to control the flow of air from one part of the planet to another, I'm sure they will about as much success.
cntlscrutJul 5, 2010
f**k the riaa!!!
admiralwoofJul 5, 2010
you're doing it wrong
f**k THE RIAA!!!
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
why did you whisper that?
thedudediggsJul 5, 2010
I don't know anyone who has gotten one of these "infringement notices".
bdbrJul 5, 2010
I know someone who got a warning. They regularly downloaded tons of stuff, though.
doomedwerJul 5, 2010
Only 1 million? Come on people we can do better than that!
admiralwoofJul 5, 2010
I'm downloading right now
getbrownJul 5, 2010
When the product that you sell can be perfectly duplicated, recreated, and transferred, at zero cost by anybody; your product becomes worthless.
Mathematics graduates might as well start suing calculator manufacturers.
The musicians are doing better than ever thanks to filesharing, and if they don't already release their music under the Creative-Commons or similar, then they are actively harming their-own industry.
hipmanJul 5, 2010
That's probably because they're not just making music for fun.Which is what you seem to believe.
admiralwoofJul 5, 2010
so they're only in it for the money? Now understand why most of todays music and movie products are pure s**t wrapped up in a colorful box
rmoanJul 5, 2010
No such thing as zero cost. Cost is minimal, loss of revenue is huge.
"musicians are doing better than ever thanks to filesharing" I am done here.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
getbrownJul 5, 2010
Loss of revenue is huge?
Very, very few recording artists turn a profit from record sales, and the ones that do are generally the super-rich mega-stars (I believe it was less than 1% make a profit, but I can't be certain.). The great majority operate at a loss.
CDs are used by artists as nothing more than promotional items for tours, and what better advertising could you wish for than having the entire planet being able to access your work?
ifeiceJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
rmoanJul 5, 2010
It doesn't matter to me who makes that money, its lost to file sharing. I am not about sit on my high chair and make the claim that super-rich mega-stars, execs, suits dont deserve this money. Its plain as daylight the music "industry" as it is today is bleeding money. Your baseless claims do not impress me.
"Major recording labels rip them off big time" sign with a smaller label, its not a monopoly. Oh wait it doesn't matter now does it, because you jackasses will continue to steal with music regardless of how much money the artist makes per album how do you not understand that? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
getbrownJul 5, 2010
If the music industry continues to try and sell us a worthless product, then they deserve to be 'bleeding money'.
If you own a shop that sells bacon, don't expect to stay in business when a guy moves in next-door and starts giving bacon away for free.
getbrownJul 5, 2010
Oh, and the money isn't 'lost'. It doesn't f**king disappear. It stays in the pockets of the people who earned it.
Maybe if people spent a little less on CDs they could actually afford to go see a band perform live, rather than just giving money to the scum-bags who make a living by exploiting both artists and fans.
grantmoore3dJul 5, 2010
Agreed, anyone who creates entertainment media (music, video, written, etc...) has easy access to directly market and sell their own products with a little bit of work. A few thousand dollars can net you a pretty decently designed / developed webpage to host all updates, fan interactions, related information and even include a cart to sell digital property directly to your fans. Stop going through unnecessary middle man.
darkstar3333Jul 5, 2010
If the prices were simply reasonable more people would buy music.
Why is it that I can buy a complete video game for $2 on steam that originally went for $60?
Why can I buy a used movie at Blockbuster for 75% most times?
$2-3 is all that ends up going to the artist anyway, why should I give the bulk of my money to RIAA? I haven't purchased music in about 10 years now but I probably attend 10+ music events a year.
getbrownJul 5, 2010
It's much less than $2-3.
getbrownJul 5, 2010
^^ forgot to add that that's only if they have an excellent deal, and that's AFTER the album has started to turn a profit.
If it doesn't make a profit, they can receive nothing. (Or can even be billed, or have their next albums profit subsidised to pay the record company)
darkstar3333Jul 5, 2010
If I could buy music directly from the artists for a few bucks I would. I agree they deserve to get paid but I disagree with the entire music industry business model.
rmoanJul 5, 2010
Dark,
People continue steal music, I remember when albums cost 20$ in stores. Now they cost 7-13$ and thats with inflation. My point is that no matter what the artist makes for per album, if you for a second cared about the artist you would buy the CD/etc, if its 7c or 7$ that the artist is losing hes still losing that money.
People try to justify this s**t with "oh the record label blah blah", my answer to you is f**k off you greedy ****. Music is not expensive in this day and age. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darkstar3333Jul 5, 2010
Its not about being cheap, its about being smart. I would much rather spend the money and see a concert then buy a plastic disc. The music industry isn't selling music, they are selling plastic.
The only difference is that my money is going to the people responsible rather then the inefficient business model that has prevented the music industry from evolving.
They might have served a point but realistically these days anything a record studio can do, you can do yourself.
blipblipbeepJul 5, 2010
They may be developing a sustainable model where they say they want it gone ultimately tho they will rely on it as a form of income.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
The RIAA are a bunch of bullies, and it's about time they were disbanded. They have no right to seize control over an issue they know nothing about.
blacklilyninjaJul 5, 2010
the riaa is just another organized crime syndicate.
cjays1Jul 5, 2010
1 MILLLLION Copyright Infringers!
dutchsaintJul 5, 2010
1 million?
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAND!!!!!!!
gottlosJul 5, 2010
I support the RIAA... drive the music industry into the ground and let's get on with the age of the internet where I can download songs cheaply and ACTUALLY support the artist instead of the bloated middle man who steals from the very people they "protect".
sameziesJul 5, 2010
F**K THE RIAA!!!
originalmadmattJul 7, 2010
F**K THE RIAA!!!
cfuseJul 5, 2010
Considering that there'd easily more than that many people using bittorrent in a single day, I fail to see anything for them to crow about.
frakkinbastardJul 5, 2010
Apart from posting endless "f**k THE RIAA"-like comments that nobody (nobody who really matters, that is) reads, and which will have no effect whatsoever on the media industry's stance, do you have any idea that could really make the difference? One that can stop filesharing from being criminalized worldwide? No "encrypted anonymous yadda yadda", please. Something that everyone can do or it's worthless. And something that works fast because if we wait for the Pirate Party to get any meaningful number in any Parliament, the Internet will be the industry's playground in no time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
suricouJul 5, 2010
Piracy continues to grow at a slow but steady pace. Perhaps the best stratagy would be to continue to fuel it's growth - spread the knowledge, invite friends in, and grow the movement. In the meanwhile, at least make sure that every slight gain the RIAA/MPAA make is as expensive for them as possible, and slow them down.
frakkinbastardJul 5, 2010
The problem is that while piracy grows at a SLOW pace, bought legislation and filtering technologies advance at a FAST pace. They have started late, but they're catching up fast, way faster than we could have imagined. They have forced entire countries to abide by the laws dictated by the media industry.
Do not underestimate the kind of power those people wield.
suricouJul 6, 2010
Time to speed up the growth then - promote piracy more, and continue to perfect the technology as much as possible.
productfredJul 5, 2010
I don't need a warning, thanks.
inactiveuserJul 5, 2010
Media companies: We have 1 million people downloading our content
Lawyers: We should sue through a front company
Media companies: Yeah that will learn em!
Public: I wish I could download stuff without having to search for torrents, half of them are broken.
Media companies: Ha ha
Public: iTunes? Awesome
Apple: Only good for Apple users.
Public: DRM? WTF!
Apple Well ok but you have to pay more plus we will increase the bit rate if you do
Public: Yay! (iTunes dominates sales)
Media companies: OMG iTunes has taken over, our LP sales have plummeted!
Media companies: This internet thing, I just don't understand it, how can we control it
Public: You can't, we won't let you!
Lawyers: Sue more! That'll learn em'.
Media companies: YAY!
Public: Alternatives to iTunes? sigh...
Media companies: Not going to happen, we are charging apple millions a day for people just to view stuff, how can the little man expect to come up with so much money.
Public: TPB then....
djdisconessJul 5, 2010
Eh. Not really Apple's pricing of the music. And it's DRM free now (has been for a while). iTunes is actually one of the best ways to get media, which is why it's so popular. If greedy labels get their hands out of pricing, we might see an actual change or two!
aitironbirdJul 5, 2010
Amazon mp3 is much better than Itunes, But NOTHING beats TPB!
inactiveuserJul 6, 2010
I can't use Amazon here. Only available in the States IIRC..
jparkinsonJul 5, 2010
this is quite accurate. its like the music industry is full of old retards who don't understand how computers or the internet work, and also have no idea what their biggest market wants to see happen... oh wait...
aitironbirdJul 5, 2010
I wonder how many that were warned still download.
originalmadmattJul 7, 2010
99.9 and a half percent
Closed AccountJul 6, 2010
That's it? I would have figured more, they should be happy.
I rarely pirate anymore. I can stream youtube through my phone, pc and PS3 (TV hooked up to stereo) so I pretty much have access to some version of any song I want, any time I want and I actually buy the CDs , Artist Website downloads or Amazon downloads from artists I trust.
LilFuniAZNBoiJul 6, 2010
they still can't get you if you use 4share.
doublebaconsodaJul 6, 2010
ever since I bought a computer game for 59.99$ and it wouldn't install because I didn't have a pixel shading capable graphics card (yet the system requirements on the side of the box were all within my computers capability) I have had to download the games, install them to see if they worked, and if they did I would go out and buy the real version for online play.
gkiltzJul 6, 2010
And NONE Counter sue for invasion of privacy????
michichaelJul 6, 2010
And nothing of value was gained or lost...