Limewire

Scoreboard Red

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
6,710
Location
In bed with Berbatov's dad
So having not used it for some time, I have seen Limewire have been slapped with an injunction to cease file sharing.

Bummer dude.

Can anyone else recommend me a jolly good similar program to download some sick-ass tunes?
 
Pretty low down the list of johnno's disgusting behaviour, tbf
 
Been going about 7/8 years now and it's never come down. No advertising, never had a single virus. For me it is the greatest program I've ever had
 
Frostwire is a much better alternative to limewire.
 
x42bn6 said:
They're basing it on the fact that there are damages every time it is downloaded (possibly fair, although the figure there is still exorbitant) and every time it is shared (let's ignore double-counting for a second...).
Click to expand...

So what's their stance on someone buying the CD and lending it to a mate?
 
no im a good boy, i download music legally

you thieving little shits
 
The Flying Potato said:
Erm, are you saying it is wrong for it to be based on that? :wenger:
Click to expand...
Say I illegally download a song and pass it on to a friend, who passes it on to another friend, and so on, until there are 10 people who have the song.

RIAA's argument is that the damages are the 10 songs existing on 10 PCs, and the 9 times it was shared. They also say that the 10 songs are a lost sale.

However, say the song is Rebecca Black's new debut album. It is utter shite. RIAA's argument is therefore "if the song wasn't shared, then we would have got 10 Rebecca Black CDs' worth of revenue".

This is clearly wrong - you aren't going to get 10 Rebecca Black CD sales out of the 10 people here - the CD is crap! Just because the song was illegally obtained doesn't mean the song would have been legally obtained if the illegal version is not available.

Even though piracy is not theft, thieves stealing a Ferrari does not mean they would buy a Ferrari if they could not steal one.

The actual damage is the people who would have bought the CD if the illegal copy wasn't available - and it can only be approximated, of course. But it implies that the damages should be equal to "expected revenue minus piracy" minus "expected revenue with piracy" - in other words, it has to be less than the expected revenue minus piracy.

(And it assumes piracy always has a negative effect - for an independent, struggling singer or band, it could well be better if the song was mass-pirated since it spreads the song's popularity, indirectly boosting revenue.)

(Also, there's the murky fact that those who pirate more music are more likely to buy music...)

(I accept this doesn't always work for all industries like the film and video games industries - in the latter case, it can really hurt - but for the music industry, is it really hurting things?)
 
The Flying Potato said:
Erm, are you saying it is wrong for it to be based on that? :wenger:
Click to expand...

This vv

x42bn6 said:
Say I illegally download a song and pass it on to a friend, who passes it on to another friend, and so on, until there are 10 people who have the song.

RIAA's argument is that the damages are the 10 songs existing on 10 PCs, and the 9 times it was shared. They also say that the 10 songs are a lost sale.

However, say the song is Rebecca Black's new debut album. It is utter shite. RIAA's argument is therefore "if the song wasn't shared, then we would have got 10 Rebecca Black CDs' worth of revenue".

This is clearly wrong - you aren't going to get 10 Rebecca Black CD sales out of the 10 people here - the CD is crap! Just because the song was illegally obtained doesn't mean the song would have been legally obtained if the illegal version is not available.

Even though piracy is not theft, thieves stealing a Ferrari does not mean they would buy a Ferrari if they could not steal one.

The actual damage is the people who would have bought the CD if the illegal copy wasn't available - and it can only be approximated, of course. But it implies that the damages should be equal to "expected revenue minus piracy" minus "expected revenue with piracy" - in other words, it has to be less than the expected revenue minus piracy.

(And it assumes piracy always has a negative effect - for an independent, struggling singer or band, it could well be better if the song was mass-pirated since it spreads the song's popularity, indirectly boosting revenue.)

(Also, there's the murky fact that those who pirate more music are more likely to buy music...)

(I accept this doesn't always work for all industries like the film and video games industries - in the latter case, it can really hurt - but for the music industry, is it really hurting things?)
Click to expand...

I download music then if I like it I buy it, will probably attend a gig if the artist is in the area and depending on my money situation around the time buy some merch. If I don't like it I don't buy it and delete it.

I can't be the only person on the planet that does this.
 
Alex99 said:
This vv


I download music then if I like it I buy it, will probably attend a gig if the artist is in the area and depending on my money situation around the time buy some merch. If I don't like it I don't buy it and delete it.

I can't be the only person on the planet that does this.
Click to expand...

Honestly mate, why would you download it for free and then buy it afterwards, you can't honestly expect me to believe you do this for ethical integrity?
 
x42bn6 said:
Say I illegally download a song and pass it on to a friend, who passes it on to another friend, and so on, until there are 10 people who have the song.

RIAA's argument is that the damages are the 10 songs existing on 10 PCs, and the 9 times it was shared. They also say that the 10 songs are a lost sale.

However, say the song is Rebecca Black's new debut album. It is utter shite. RIAA's argument is therefore "if the song wasn't shared, then we would have got 10 Rebecca Black CDs' worth of revenue".

This is clearly wrong - you aren't going to get 10 Rebecca Black CD sales out of the 10 people here - the CD is crap! Just because the song was illegally obtained doesn't mean the song would have been legally obtained if the illegal version is not available.

Even though piracy is not theft, thieves stealing a Ferrari does not mean they would buy a Ferrari if they could not steal one.

The actual damage is the people who would have bought the CD if the illegal copy wasn't available - and it can only be approximated, of course. But it implies that the damages should be equal to "expected revenue minus piracy" minus "expected revenue with piracy" - in other words, it has to be less than the expected revenue minus piracy.

(And it assumes piracy always has a negative effect - for an independent, struggling singer or band, it could well be better if the song was mass-pirated since it spreads the song's popularity, indirectly boosting revenue.)

(Also, there's the murky fact that those who pirate more music are more likely to buy music...)

(I accept this doesn't always work for all industries like the film and video games industries - in the latter case, it can really hurt - but for the music industry, is it really hurting things?)
Click to expand...

It is massively hurting the industry, the only real way for a band to make it nowadays is through your live performances and sync deals, if it wasn't hurting the industry why even bother selling albums/singles? Recording costs need to be paid, heck, bands can owe record companies hundreds of thousands of pounds in their contracts, for a small band just starting out to rely soley on live performance revenue and the odd sync deal is madness.

Different story if they are unsigned/have their own label though but that is a rareity.
 
So how has Lady Gaga earned over $100 million in a year despite most of her tunes being illegally downloaded?
The stars are still earning massive amounts, that will never change.
 
Scoreboard Red said:
So how has Lady Gaga earned over $100 million in a year despite most of her tunes being illegally downloaded?
The stars are still earning massive amounts, that will never change.
Click to expand...

Yes, the stars are earning massive amounts, thats not the problem, the problem is the small artists just starting out getting the short straw.
 
The Big Dog says: "Don't steal music or the honeys won't be all up in ya shit!"



westwood425.jpg
 
The Flying Potato said:
Yes, the stars are earning massive amounts, thats not the problem, the problem is the small artists just starting out getting the short straw.
Click to expand...

I know of plenty of small bands that would happily give their music away for free. The less it costs the more people are going to be willing to purchase it so then more people hear about it. The more people that know about it the more people are likely to want to turn up at a gig and buy merchandise.

A single on itunes is 79p. The artist will get something like 11p of that. If there's a video they'll have to cover the costs of that as well as the costs of advertising and promotion.

Then there's things like Spotify where people don't even have to download the music anymore. That £4.99 a month or whatever it is isn't exactly going to go far between the amount of artists on there.
 
The Flying Potato said:
It is massively hurting the industry, the only real way for a band to make it nowadays is through your live performances and sync deals, if it wasn't hurting the industry why even bother selling albums/singles? Recording costs need to be paid, heck, bands can owe record companies hundreds of thousands of pounds in their contracts, for a small band just starting out to rely soley on live performance revenue and the odd sync deal is madness.

Different story if they are unsigned/have their own label though but that is a rareity.
Click to expand...
Is that the fault of piracy, though? You can't assume that people will buy an independent artist's music, even if piracy didn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.