Paul McCartney's Confused About The Pirate Bay
from the speaking-out-of-turn dept
Paul McCartney is making some news by speaking out in favor of The Pirate Bay verdict, claiming he thought it was "fair," but the details of his comments suggests he is speaking about these things without being particularly knowledgeable about what The Pirate Bay does or is."Anyone who does something good, particularly if you get really lucky and do a great artistic thing and have a mega hit, I think you should get rewarded for that. I'm in favour of that sort of thing."He says that as if there is anyone out there who claims that artists shouldn't get "rewarded" for doing something great. The problem is no one is saying that. We're just debating how they will (not should) get rewarded. And, of course, plenty of artists who embrace things like The Pirate Bay are getting rewarded for doing so. Claiming that they're not is simply false and suggests ignorance of the subject.
"The problem is you get a lot of young bands coming up and some of them aren't going to last forever so if they have a massive hit that's going to pay their mortgage forever. They're going to feed the children on that and if they don't get that money, if they don't see that money, I think it's a bit of a pity."It's a pity that they might actually have to continue working, rather than living off one single hit? Perhaps we have different ways of thinking about things, but I think it's a much bigger pity when you think about all the musicians in the past who didn't have a wonderful free promotion and distribution system, and were unable to make any money because they were limited by gatekeepers known as the major record labels.
The fact that new musicians are popping up today and getting attention and (yes) making a living by embracing these tools and using them to their advantage, again, suggests that McCartney is speaking from a position of ignorance rather than knowledge.
"I've been very lucky because my main era with the Beatles was at a time when everyone did get paid."That's simply not true. Most bands of his era did not get paid. That's because the only path to getting paid was to sign to a record label, and many bands were unable to do that. Today, on the other hand, bands have many more options to create their music, to distribute it, to promote it and to get paid for it. And one of those tools is The Pirate Bay... which McCartney wants to take away.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, file sharing, music, paul mccartney
Companies: the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I especially liked this bit: "It's a pity that they might actually have to continue working, rather than living off one single hit?"
Exactly. No more get rich quick for a few undeserving, talentless "artists" to blow on drugs, the cult of celebrity and generally acting like pricks, etc
Now they will have to work at their jobs, just like the rest of us and that's as it should be. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's SIR, to you!
Thank you in advance for responding to this misleading post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucky?
Thankfully the Internet has removed the need for a monopoly in this industry any longer and just like the buggy and whip their usefulness (at least in current form) is no longer needed.
This is truly an exciting time when the platform has been leveled and a true renaissance of sorts can play out.
While Mr. McCartney might have been very lucky to be part of the music industry era that he was, I think most would agree that we are even more lucky to be part of this new renaissance.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lucky?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lucky?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lucky?
Freedom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance about how TPB operates is massive.
How this verdict was rendered is beyond me, as I'm sure all the damn idiots out there who support it will be more than happy to "enlighten" me.
Save your damn breath. This verdict is wrong. You know it is. It came down because TBP scoffed at the entertainment industry.
McCartney can't be blamed for his ignorance. It's apparent he, and millions more, can't take 10 damn minutes of their day to educate themselves, especially when they're too busy targeting the word "Pirate" in the Pirate Bay.
Alas, I'm hopeful the appeal will overturn the verdict.
On an interesting side note, someone compared the verdict of the 4 to someone who would scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no fire was present.
I began thinking about this, as there seemed to be some merit to it. After a few hours, I dismissed it.
Why? Because the analogy isn't the same. Only had the screamer been charged for yelling in an empty theater would the analogy be apt.
Trying to educate people like McCartney is a waste of time. People are so damn narrow-minded about the verdict, they can't open their minds to see just how wrong it is.
I pity McCartney and everyone else who favors this verdict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance about how TPB operates is massive.
An uploader says "I want to upload this" and uses some program that can or does to make a .torrent file.
The .torrent file is then uploaded to a torrent tracker site such as the pirate bay.
Inside the torrent file is basically a list of files and trackers. The trackers keep track of who is sharing the file.
The uploader runs the torrent once they post it and his program connects to all the trackers saying "I am sharing this file". The sharer is the seed.
Next, users perusing the tracker sites, such as Mininova or Pirate Bay see that there is a torrent for what they are looking for. They download the .torrent file. Once they run it in their client of choice, the computer connects to the trackers listed in the .torrent file.
Their computer asks the trackers who is sharing this torrent? The trackers then report back with individual IPs for others sharing the file.
Then the seed and the leechers establish direct connections and the seed gives the file to the leechers. The sweet thing about torrents though, is that unlike traditional P2P, when you are leeching a torrent, you are seeding the pieces you have so far at the same time. So once you are at 50% downloaded, you are at the same time seeding those pieces to other leechers who do not yet have those pieces of the file. This speeds up the file distribution because you do not have to download from only seeds, but you can download from anyone who has a piece that you don't.
So the trackers really only keep lists of who is sharing, like the Pirate Bay folks stated in the trail.
They themselves host no material. They merely point to those who are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definitely lucky
He had Susan Boyle-level fortune, in an era when that was a lot less accessible than now, and got rich on music the best of which was composed by his fellow Beatle John Lennon. But if the Beatles showed up now they'd be lost in the flood of better musicians with internet access.
Lucky? Oh, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definitely lucky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definitely lucky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definitely lucky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, but more importantly even the bands which did sign to labels got screwed. Roger McGuinn from the Byrds claims, that other than some upfront money, he never made a dime in royalties. This is what McGuinn said about the original Napster:
Grand Funk Railroad sold six gold albums right in a row, but all the money went to their label and manager Terry Knight.
And the screw over of of John Fogerty is legendary. He doesn't get a dime for all the hits he wrote with Creedence Clearwater Revival. He was even sued for stealing from one of his own songs. Luckily he won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCartney has become an old fart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't get is TechDirt's hang up with royalties - this bizarre attitude that you do the work once, you get paid once. Sorry folks, I'm not a fucking bricklayer.
Royalties are for usage of an intellectual product. If I write a song, I own it in perpetuity. That unique artistic contribution did not exist in the world until I thought of it - so, no, I'm not giving away my rights to that willy nilly.
When you buy my song (or download it for free), that doesn't make it "your song" - any more than giving me rent makes it your house.
If that song is played on a commercial radio station and they earn advertising dollars because of it - they owe me a slice 'cos people wouldn't have been listening otherwise.
If a big studio just made a blockbuster movie and put my song in the bit where the boy and girl play tonsil hockey - my song made that movie better and they should pay me.
If a club has a dance where they charge $20 on the door and $10 a drink, and it's packed to the rafters with kinetic young bodies dancing to my song, you bet that some of that wedge is mine.
If someone records my song (like, for example, Yesterday, which has been covered over 3,000 times) they're going to earn money from my work. I want some of it back, thank you.
If you're a kid downloading my album, you're welcome to it. I know you'll come to one of my shows or buy a better copy if you like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, before that 'fucking bricklayer' laid those bricks you didn't have a wall either. I supposed everyone that makes money inside those walls has to pay a royalty to that 'fucking bricklayer' as well since he made the experience better and/or provided an environment for someone else to make money.
What makes writing a song so special that it is worth getting lifetime payments anytime it is used, but somehow the bricklayer doesn't get lifetime payments every time their work 'product' is used?
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i totally agree. i can't get high and embarrass myself in the tabloids if i am working every day. i can't be expected to work like regular people. i also need more money than regular people because alimony, heroin, and rehab don't pay for themselves, so i need to make more while doing less.
it really hurt when i compromised my artistic integrity to make pop tunes, so i deserve compensation, a lot of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not a fucking bricklayer either...
On an unrelated sidenote, my band does a decent cover of Blood and Roses...once in a while we actually get paid for a gig...do you want royalties from that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And secondly, whoever wrote Blood and Roses most likely does collect royalties from the venue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My band has recorded a couple of EPs in the studio, I'm aware of the expenses. Since we're not signed to a label, we had to cover those costs ourselves...
But I suppose not having accepted an advance (not really our choice, mind you, but we didn't seek such a thing either), we are not beholden to anyone but ourselves and can reap the financial benefits from our efforts, however minuscule they may be.
But no royalties...oh well, gotta keep my other IP job for now, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I'm fine with free distribution - because that's how a lot of folks are discovering music now"
Agreed. Guess what, non-perpetual payments are going to be who artists get paid in the future. By your argument, you'll be fine with it. Glad we agree.
"Sorry folks, I'm not a fucking bricklayer."
Clearly not, since they have respect and pride in the honor behind actual WORK, and you seem to think you're somehow above them. You're not. You, the artist, are important. But no more important than other hardworking people.
"When you buy my song (or download it for free), that doesn't make it "your song" - any more than giving me rent makes it your house"
Great example. Here's the problem. If I host a party at my rented apartment and charge enough for drinks that I make money, I don't then owe my landlord a cut.
"If a big studio just made a blockbuster movie and put my song in the bit where the boy and girl play tonsil hockey - my song made that movie better and they should pay me"
Fair enough, but turnabout should be fair play. If your song makes the movie worse, then you have to pay them.
"If a club has a dance where they charge $20 on the door and $10 a drink, and it's packed to the rafters with kinetic young bodies dancing to my song, you bet that some of that wedge is mine"
See above.
"If you're a kid downloading my album, you're welcome to it. I know you'll come to one of my shows or buy a better copy if you like it."
Admirable. How does this statement not also reflect on nearly every other point you brought up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:bricklayers and such
I see no reason why sites like pirate bay should not have to pay license fees just like any brick and mortar club where music is played.
As for the apartment, you have an agreement with your landlord to pay a certain amount for the use of it regardless of what you do there (except you might not want to advertise that you are selling liquor without a license) and if the owners of the club are using that music to make money they should have to pay license fees for it (or buy the rights to it) just like they are paying the owner of the brick walls that he paid to have laid (or buy the building) so they would have a place to fill with young bodies.
Oh, and if the movie is bad no one is going to watch it and the royalties for the song will dry up.
Now, that being said, you and anyone including me is allowed to give music we own the rights to for free but no one should be allowed to make that decision for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
pretentious much?
A reasonable argument can be made for royalties... but that kind of thinking strikes me as short-sighted.
Sure plenty of artists are collecting royalties, but royalties also increase the cost of running a radio station, club, podcast, YouTube, or making a movie. Surely these additional costs make it harder for these enterprises to make a reasonable profit. I wonder, how many more radio stations, clubs, etc. there would be if they didn't have to pay royalties? just how much are royalties inhibiting new businesses and new innovation?
More radio stations, more clubs, more podcasts, more youtube means more exposure... and for musicians, more exposure means more money.
So fight for your pennies here and pennies there if you want, but it wouldn't surprise me if your royalties are costing you a lot of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Music industry execs break the law to PAY for air time! If free market economics were allowed to operate radio fees for radio play wouldn't exist because there is value in having your music played to thousands of people. Evidence? Payola!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want to own it in perpetuity, keep it to yourself.
If on the other hand you want your government to enforce your right to collect exclusive royalties from the song, then you must be prepared to give something in exchange. What (most if not all countries) currently require for this deal is your agreement that after some time the material enters the public domain.
Copyright is a deal. If you aren't willing to fulfill your side of the bargain, don't expect your government to give you a free, no-strings-attached, perpetual monopoly on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for this:
"It's a pity that they might actually have to continue working, rather than living off one single hit?"
If you came up with a single invention and lived the rest of your life off of the profits, would that be wrong too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know a kid whose dad invented the technology used in HD television, and he figured he would be set for life. Instead of getting another job and continuing to invent, he sat back and watched the royalty checks come in. Then, someone made a way to do it that didn't violate his patent, and now they aren't living so comfortable anymore.
Its not that its wrong, its that it is not smart. Someone shouldn't expect to live off of something they did ONCE, but instead they should continue striving to better themselves.
As for downloading music... the world is changing, and the way the music industry has worked over the past 100 years is not going to be enough to keep them going. Changes and adaptations must be made, and it looks as if there is no room for them and their old fashioned ways.
Back before records, tapes, CDs, and MP3s, musicians were paid for their performances. It seems like now, we most go back to the way things worked for thousands of years. And whats wrong with that? Everyone knows that musicians make most of their money off of concerts, anyway.
I download music illegally. I listen to the blues mostly, and nearly all the music I download is from musicians that have been dead for a long time, and even if they were alive, they would not be receiving royalties.
And what's wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree, but this isn't really about whether the artist will be smart or not. If they want to rest on their laurels, then they're being lazy and taking a BIG risk. But that doesn't mean that they don't still deserve to reap the rewards of their creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can manage to do it by competing, fine. If you take profits for decades because of an artificial monopoly, then that is likely a problem, because it's enriching you at the expense of progress for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Patents...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents...
And I'm "not making sense" because you don't agree with me. Apparently I'm not allowed to have a difference of opinion...I'm just confused and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh woe is the poor artist who is terrible at making music or marketing themselves.
Ill just go back to listening to Devotchka and Chopin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having listened to his comment, I do not recall him saying this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's see... he agreed with the court decision that said the site was illegal. I think that's a pretty clear statement that he believes this tool should not be available.
Can you explain your alternate interpretation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but what I don't understand is ...
Whether the file sharing community assents in principle to artists being paid for their intellectual and artistic products
Whether, if payment of artists is ethically acceptable, how that is to be done
Whether the argument is being made that music fans can afford a computer, an ISP, and perhaps an iPod, but they can't afford a CD
I'd be happy for any comments on these points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but what I don't understand is ...
Not exactly. TPB is indicating where it is available, in the same way that a web search engine indicates where various pieces of content are available.
Whether the file sharing community assents in principle to artists being paid for their intellectual and artistic products
It's impossible to characterize such a huge community as having one opinion. I'm sure some don't care, some haven't thought about it, and some believe that artists should and will be paid. I doubt there are many who believe that they should not.
Whether, if payment of artists is ethically acceptable, how that is to be done
Search TechDirt for "business model" for numerous examples.
Whether the argument is being made that music fans can afford a computer, an ISP, and perhaps an iPod, but they can't afford a CD
Not that I am aware of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't listen to celebs
Even though he made a lot of money, the group was screwed left and right. Sometimes innocently, as Brian Epstein was a guy who ran a store, not someone who understood the music business, and later on Apple Corp just bled money to any sycophant who could talk their way into a job, and still later signing away all his stuff to Michael Jackson. That's only a tiny number of incidents, but the guy has absolutely zero business sense. And smart people understand that about themselves and figure out how to compensate for it somehow.
I don't know why anyone would take the opinion of any artist about legal issues without a huge amount of skepticism. 98% of the time, they don't know what they're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't listen to celebs
Don't go to a dentist and ask how to fix your marriage.
Don't go to Paul and ask about copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oldskool vs Nu Skool
Sir Paul, and most in the industry, want to keep their old ways of doing things - why would they want to change - think about how much money these guys were earning in the 80s. They would be completley adverse to any technological breakthru that would shake their utopian economy.
Because of the great 80s/90s, the old skool had no need to turn to or at least understand new technologies. Just fight for what works. So when the old skool have no idea how things like Torrents work, how could they ever utilise it to generate revenue.
This is where the Nu Skool must come in. Up and coming bands dont need to settle for the old distribution methods. Stop following Sir Paul's lead - theres some amazing online busienss models out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spectrial judge is working within copyright lobby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paul mccartney pirate bay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In 2006, the tune "Boten Anna" became a big success and one of the most downloaded hits(later translated to the english hit "Now You're Gone"). The song has today more than 18 million free-of-charge downloads via Youtube. The song spent 5 weeks at the top of the English charts (only Swedish song to more successful in England is Dancing Queen with ABBA).
2006 Warner Music Sweden gladely wanted to sign a contract with Basshunter. Of course, all of a sudden they wants a piece of the cake.
Today Basshunter tours the world (April and May in UK/Ireland and then off to USA) making great money.
Record labels did not create the success. The internet with free downloads did!
By the way.. seems like Piratebay didnt get a fair trial as the judge was a former member of copyright organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pennyroyal Tea
Firstly, on behalf of fellow musicians and human beings, apologies for the effete fucker and his attitude to bricklayers.
I'd agree with many of the points regarding expiration of copyright, and find it especially galling that the E.U. is considering extending the term of copyright.
However I believe that many of the arguments here are based upon the false assumption that recordings are made with practically zero cost and working hours. The fact is that many people have to be paid, from studio and equipment hire, to producers, sound engineers, inlay designers, (sometimes)musical arrangers and session players, as well as the composers themselves. Even a budget recording in a cheap studio can easily run into tens of thousands of dollars, and this is to say nothing of the advertising, distribution etc. involved in a conventional release.
This is to say nothing of the fact that music is typically an unpaid labour of love, and any competent player will have put in hours per day over years of work with little or no financial reward.
Indeed, the more I think about this, the more tempted I am to delete the things I have pirated (at least, those where I know that royalties would be due).
And I believe there to be a number of problems with the arguments put forward above, from weakest getting stronger:
1, Creative careers rarely (if ever) create regular income streams or working patterns(given that youth and popularity are fleeting), making it more or less impossible for musicians or artists (save those that give up to do something else, or have conventional day jobs) to put aside for pensions or mortgages that require a regular fixed payment. How do you propose that anyone involved in an artistic career and unable therefore to put aside or maintain insurance payments live in the event of injury?
2, Destruction of the royalty scheme might make some sense where the overplayed and overpaid are concerned, but what about instances where a little known tune is synchronized by a movie company or an advertising agency. Should the agency/studio get free use of the recording, or pay the record co?
3, If a royalty system does not exist, all the money from any sales goes to the online distributor and the record company. Is that better?
4, Let's assume that the idea is to have the musicians pay in advance for the studio time and recording costs, receive no royalty and live off gigs. All recordings are distributed by free file-sharing, and only your I.S.P. benefits. This creates a catch-22 situation where a musician without a recording will be unable to get the gigs required to make enough money to record. Therefore, record companies will manufacture most of the bands that record and perform. You get more people like Britney, and people like Paris Hilton, who had money from elsewhere, recording. Great?
5, In addition, the absence of a royalty scheme means that it is free for nightclubs, pubs and other venues to put on records. This actively disincentivises them from putting on gigs. No gigs, no money for musicians, no musicians recording, lots of old records, Paris Hilton and Britney. Good?
5, Did anyone think of composers whose tunes are covered, or who don't perform at all? How on earth are they ever going to get paid?
5, Do actors in films, and all the production teams and supporting cast, have to hope for sufficient income from cinemas, or ought they to go out and act in the theatre, pushing plays out into the street?
6, How about game studios and software devs? Can anyone propose a rational means by which they might receive any money for what they do, unless they are to begin gigging or acting on stage too?
7, Would you like this to be funded through advertising? Do you want all of the tunes you listen to, the games you play and the films you watch to be created in the interest of sponsors who will have their own agenda in all aspects of politics and morals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pennyroyal Tea
Musicians who perform on a record do not deserve any more payment than - as my delightfully repeated utilitarian and misunderstood example suggests - a fucking bricklayer. Playing someone else's music is craft. Building a wall is craft. Writing a song is *invention*.
Songwriters deserve payment for the lifetime of copyright in the same way authors and inventors do. Jobbing
musicians deserve fuck all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrrrrrrrrithmetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awww....
Exactly!! Hehe, poor Maca, hasn't a clue. It seems to me like he just got put on the spot with a few questions and simply gave as generic a response as he could without looking like a clueless noob!
Ok, so he's ignorant (and wrong), but at least he's not sueing people like Metallica or lobbying politicians like stupid Andrew Lloyd-Webber.
PS: Not a fan or anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm...
Mike, I know you wrote this but I am only using it here as a point of reference; my following paragraph is meant for you and the general crowd of fellow Techpunks. I have seen this asked here and elsewhere but don't get what the point is. Are you implying nothing previously made (insert time frame here) has value because it is old, no one should attempt to sell it because it is old, no one should buy it because it is old or that anyone buying old stuff is getting ripped off? It seems to me that if you truly believe in a free market then there can be no objection. I think that as long as consumers find the song valuable and willing to pay the asking price then anything that stops that is market intervention.
...and were unable to make any money because they were limited by gatekeepers known as the major record labels.... That's because the only path to getting paid was to sign to a record label, and many bands were unable to do that.
Now this is just not historically accurate. Granted they could not make the large sums of money that other bands made but they all had the opportunity to make money through concerts, bar gigs and, as some rap bands for a generic example proved, starting their own record label. The wall always had gaps in it and the gate keeping was never as all pervasive as some thought, and seem to still do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm...
Not at all. You are putting "should" instead of "will" into this. And you are also confusing value and price.
Old things can be valuable, and of course you can try to sell old things -- but the point is that in a free market, price is determined by supply and demand. If a good is infinitely available (as a digital file is), then the price will get pushed to zero.
So the answer is to focus on business models that deal in scarce goods. You can always sell old scarce goods, but simply making a copy of an infinite good won't be able to earn you much money, because it's free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have done some research myself into the questions being discussed here, including a brief look at the present status of Napster, which seems to be selling music these days.
And of Pirate Bay and other such sites, I wonder, well, what they expected? The copyright and royalty systems are the law of the land(s), and the business of prosecutors is to enforce the laws. Napster wasn't housing protected music on its site, nor is Pirate, but the courts appear to have taken a dim view of facilitating the downloading of protected material, no matter where it was stored.
It seems to me to be insufficient to say that the traditional music industry should just admit that they have been swamped by the wave of the future, and that if it can be downloaded, it will be, and that's the end of the argument. I don't see that that is an argument, first. Second, I wonder whether Pirate and similar sites have even attempted to find a way to observe perfectly legal protection arrangements that are already in place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a pity that they might actually have to continue working, rather than living off one single hit?
You mean like the guy from Snapchat that talks down to women and made billions from his innovation? Your comments and logic are childlike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]