Looks like they are running for Parliament -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090506/...SywoH1e6LtiBIF

I guess they really want to change how things are done.

never mind

Ha! I little tidbit about democracy actually working for the people perhaps?
Very interesting - especially considering the ludicrous judgement against the The Pirate Bay peeps :)

Jacquii.

I don't know if this is on the subject, but I heard someone say this, and I don't remember if it was here, or on another forum. I think it was on another.

Anyways, I am against having to buy all of your music. Sometimes it's great, but most times, I hate it. If someone builds a car, they sell it, but then they have to keep making more cars to make more money. Artists have to record one album or song, and they get the money for it, forever. I don't understand why they get so much money from just one song (or album), when other people in the world actually have to work as hard as they can day and night to make some decent money.

Is that fair?

I know it must be quite some work recording some songs, but really, they should have to do some more. They make enough at concerts and tours, etc. Why do they need to charge for every single album?

I think you are somewhat naive on how a record/album is produced - the process from production to end-user. Many artists struggle to make it on what little the receive from their part/share of what they create when they use major-labels to produce their music. I by far am no expert on the process, however, I know a couple bands (the members respectively) from their startup - one didn't make it and the other is currently doing tours.

When you buy a song off of iTunes, the money most likely gets broken down like this:

Apple: 10%
Credit Card Company: 3-5%
Music Studio: 80% (includes marketing and distribute charges)
Artist: Remainder.

So a 99 cent song probably nets the artist 6-7 sents in royalties. Its worse on CDs because they have to add in packaging and shipping costs which amount to half the cost of the CD.

They make more money on tours in fact they make the majority of their income on tours but that is done through presales bonuses. If the tour bombs or is cancelled, they have to give a good portion of that money back.

So while you might feel that the artists don't deserve your money for the MP3s, realize they really don't make anything off of iTunes anyway. They would get more having their work converted to Muzak and played in an elevator which pays an average of $30.00 in royalties per license.

Anyway, the Pirate Party has one representative in the European Parliament woh0000!!!! :D

maybe if they had better songs that people liked they would earn more that is how it works out im afraid.
Also no matter how skint they are they always seem to find the money for drugs

It actually still does make the case.

So if Vbulletin is making close to 50 million a year for example, and they wanted to start suing people that are using it illegally because it's hurting their profits, it still makes the case. It's not a matter of how much they are making or have grossed thus far. It's the amount of revenue they feel they have lost from potential profits.

So in the case of Transformers for example, if they feel they have lost close to 500 million dollars (or even $50 for that matter)...then it still makes the case as that is still a chunk of change. The same with Vbulletin. Vbulletin makes a chunk of change. Why would they continue to waste time and money trying to shut down illegal forums or those sharing illegal versions of VB? It's all the same in the end.

As for that study. If they were really 10x more likely to pay for it, then they wouldn't need to be downloading it illegally would they? Logic really flies out the window with that. Why pay for it, when you already have it free? I would say that study is horribly flawed.

Either way, pirating something just because you don't like the cost of it or believe everything in life should be free, is a poor excuse to do so. Remember that the next time someone steals something from you.

There is lots of logic to it, in my personal opinion because back in the late 90's I used P2P software and downloaded music.. I have NEVER bought so many cd's ever, as I did during the time I used it. Then I heard it was illegal and they started advertising all those ads with artists telling you not to DL P2P music so I stopped because I like to feel legit. haha. In the last 8 years I havent bought as many CD's as I did in that 18 months of P2P.... So what ever. Theres plenty of logic when I look at that perspective. You say they lost 500 million in revenue because of estimated pirated copies but what they fail to show is that they probably would have been down 750 million in revenue with out the pirates. LOL So, they are shooting themselves in the foot. One thing the P2P is good for is LOTS of exposure most people wouldnt even be subjected to.

Its long since been known that artists even pirate out there own stuff to gain popularity too, because some of them "get the logic" and know it in the end it will boost their sales.