Pirate Bay Trial Day 8: Pirates Kill the Music Biz

Pirate Bay Trial Day 8: Pirates Kill the Music Biz
torrentfreak.com

I must say it's getting really hard to tell the difference in this case.

"less is being paid for than ever before." Really? The second the first recording company came into business it was making 18 billion a year? I'm fairly sure it's still higher than throughout most of the history of the recording industry.

"Unfortunately The Pirate Bay does what it says in its description and its main aim is to make available unauthorized material." No, its main aim is to facilitate the sharing of files. The users choose to upload illegal material.

"It is common sense, if they couldn’t get it for free they would buy it and when we ask them, they confirm that." Prove it. I download plenty of music to see if it's any good, sometimes via youtube, sometimes via torrents. Probably at least 95% isn't, so I delete it again. I certainly wouldn't buy it.

"When asked if downloaders have less money than others, Kennedy said that younger people have the money but just don’t spend it on music anymore. Kennedy said that the reduction in sales in the music industry is directly attributable to illegal downloading." Again, PROVE IT. I suspect that if you put music sales next to video game sales you'll see some very close correlation between the decline of the former and the rise of the latter.

"He was asked if he understood BitTorrent. [...] It was very clear he knew nothing about any remotely technical issues." Perhaps you could spend 10 minutes reading up on it so you know what you're talking about in a court of law?

"The reason for this drop is that the number of premieres have increased but sales have decreased. File-sharing has somewhat made the market thinner." Or maybe people have only a limited budget for movies, so now they have to split it between them, resulting in lower sales per movie? Or you just make too many crappy movies? Again, get some proof.

"Sandgren further told that the damages they claim are based on a fictitious license fee." So basically they're just pulling numbers out of their ass.

"He had to admit, however, that he has no evidence to back these claims up." I'm not even going to comment on this one.

If only I were the judge... I'd hold them in contempt of the court for wasting everyone's time with unsubstantiated BS. Or better yet, sue the entertainment industry because they cost me several billion dollars. How did I arrive at that figure? Well, I have no evidence to back that claim up, but it seems reasonable to me. Now give me my money.

Pathetic.

1) The music industry refused to acknowledge the impact of iTMS instead pretending as if CD sales are the only thing making them money. I might be wrong, but isn't iTMS the number 1 seller now... ?

2) I have a deep, very deep problem with commenters who say stuff like "piracy for life" or "I'll keep pirating till I die". They're just confirming the views of the music labels.

Without an agreement with the author, you cannot make copies of a copy you have bought legally, for he (or more exactly, the copyright-holders) is the only one allowed to make further copies.

Since this would make playing CDs on a computer impossible laws provide exceptions for the purposes of playing your legally bought representation (copies are made in cache memory, buffers etc...)

Other exceptions may be given (fair use doctrine, explicit mentions in other countries) letting you arrange a performance of the work (playing the CD) inside your private circle. (This would be impossible to enforce against)

So it stands to logic that if you have bought say, a vinyl of a particular work, you do not have a right to obtain counterfeit copies made of other representations (of the same work) as CDs or digital files.