|
Italian DJ fined 1.4 mil Euro for illegal mp3 (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jocker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
karim , gabry ponte?
wtf wher e are you guys making up this information from
post a source next time you make up a name.c ause i can make up 100 too:whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: |
wtf... look two posts up
http://au.news.yahoo.com/050216/11/t3lb.html |
|
|
| Benjamin B |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
bull. let the guy get sued for damages by the artists he's harmed. what the government is doing is the height of bullendom.:mad:
'nuff said. |
agreed |
|
|
| DJ Laz |
I just want to summarize both sides of the argument as I see it.
1:
A well known DJ with enough cash to buy music to spin, and thus legally earn money from spinning. While in this case he is well known and has cash but instead downloads MP3s to spin and earn cash.
2:
A normal person downloads MP3's just for personal listening purposes.
Anyways the conclusion,
Both can be just as bad. Both do not pay for the MP3, the DJ earns money from it, but the personal listener listens to the MP3 for fun. Both get something (ie. money or pleasure) without paying for the MP3.
That is why some people are arguing both are at fault. It's just different circumstances. Not one is more at fault than the other. It just depends how you look at it. IN THE END BOTH ARE WRONG. YOU CHEAT THE PRODUCER OUT OF THEIR MONEY. WHETHER FOR LISTENING OR PROFIT PURPOSES.
end. |
|
|
| Tayfoon |
Finally
now maybe every 16 year old kid with Kazaa lite will stop playing mp3s @ clubs and on the radio
Its very disrespectfull to the artist and label
Release dates and promos exist for a reason |
|
|
| Ghostface |
| It's so lazy and selfish, the guy deserves it. You can get legal 320kbps digital downloads for $1. Scumbag. |
|
|
| Innervision |
| People are so hostile here. It's truly hilarious. |
|
|
| seval |
What the , this really pisses me off, most young deejays afford the £5-£10 it costs to buy a reccord, then the reccord label has the cheek and audacity to give reccords to deejays cause they are famous, take judge jules for example the guy openly said in an interview that he hasent payed for a reccord since 1998, i know that they are givin for exposure, but surley they can send clips of the song then if the song is liked they can buy the song for the same price as the rest of us
i have a message for the reccord labels who complain |
|
|
| seval |
| if you are fair to us the customers then we are fair to you, giving promos for free to deejays months before they are released, then after the tune is played out we have to pay in riduculus ammount for half a vinyl as usually only one mix on the ing record is any ing good, bull if customers wernt coned out of their hard earned cash they wudnt result to this kind of action, i my self dont have the capibilities to play mp3 on cdr or final scratch, but as i pay the money for the reccords i know if i did have the ability then one or two tunes in my set wud be an unreleased promo |
|
|
| Frase |
| quote: | Originally posted by seval
if i did have the ability then one or two tunes in my set wud be an unreleased promo |
you are a gimp. |
|
|
| flavdave |
That article doesn't name the DJ who was caught. |
|
|
|
|
