AAAaaaand.... It's gone!

HappyMJ

glentoran99 wrote: »

how much do you think the artist gets of that?

According to the BBC from a few years back not much more than £1.

Sharon87

glentoran99 wrote: »

how much do you think the artist gets of that?

Depends on the record company. For some of the smaller bands I buy the CDs for they may get a bigger cut as they don't use the big record companies. And one band recently crowd funded their new album, so they probably got a large majority of the money I gave them as they're not signed to a label.

RumRat

It will just be revisited, reworded and made legal again at some stage. I don't recall the Film or Music industry actually prosecuting someone for copying something.
Having a completely clueless Government and Judiciary just adds to the problem.
Everyone will just carry on as normal and not give a stuff, so, nothing has really changed.

kwikbreaks

RumRat wrote: »

I don't recall the Film or Music industry actually prosecuting someone for copying something.

They've successfully prosecuted vanishingly few for just downloading CD's ripped and distributed via newsgroups, torrents, and file hosters who can make no claims of legitimacy.

The only winners from all the various copyright infringement legislation are those paid to press for its introduction.

RumRat

kwikbreaks wrote: »

They've successfully prosecuted vanishingly few for just downloading CD's ripped and distributed via newsgroups, torrents, and file hosters who can make no claims of legitimacy.

The only winners from all the various copyright infringement legislation are those paid to press for its introduction.

Yes, but, that is an entirely different scenario from buying a legitimate CD and ripping it onto your PC/NAS to stream around your house or copying onto a RW/CD for use in your car, for example.
Not even a speculative letter from dodgy lawyers to anyone doing that.

kwikbreaks

I'm well aware it's a different scenario. My point is that they can't even successfully prosecute those with no excuse whatsoever that their behaviour is legitimate so the odds of any prosecutions for home ripping or for that matter burning CDs from purchased downloads must be low too. They are just making themselves look ridiculous imo.

RumRat

kwikbreaks wrote: »

I'm well aware it's a different scenario. My point is that they can't even successfully prosecute those with no excuse whatsoever that their behaviour is legitimate so the odds of any prosecutions for home ripping or for that matter burning CDs from purchased downloads must be low too. They are just making themselves look ridiculous imo.

Ah..I see your point now. Very true...

Delia_Cardei

Agree with you. I'd rather own a copy of certain music, so I don't have to rely on Spotify keeping it on their streaming service. One day it's there but another day it may be gone. I'd rather not let those companies dictate which songs I can access and which songs I can't.

Besides streaming services pay rubbish to the artists, they may get a couple of pennies for thousands of streams. I would rather give them £10 for a physical CD
Originally posted by Sharon87

Exactly, totally agree with u. Lots of rubbish music in streamline that they r trying pass fish eyes for pearls. I can not help uninstall it whenever I look through playlist.

onomatopoeia99

RumRat wrote: »

Having a completely clueless Government and Judiciary just adds to the problem.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Internet, politicians of all flavours are clueless, which is obvious as soon as they open their mouths. They aren't all clueless about everything though.

The senior judiciary are in general far from clueless. Most of them are incredibly sharp, even if they don't know about tabloid "celebs" (which appears to be how intelligence is defined by The Sun). So, here is the judgement from Mr Justice Green which the OP, the article they linked (and the Guardian article that linked to) all failed to directly link to:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1723.html&query=songwriters&method=boolean

The judge found in favour of the government on four counts and against them on one. Had I the time I'd read the whole thing as they are usually enlightening, but with over 300 clauses setting out method, evidence, reasoning and conclusions for each I don't have the time at present. Perhaps you do and could explain what part of the method or reasoning you find clueless?

chunter

I think by now most people with any substantial amount of music cds will have them transferred onto their computers. More practical. Once the ipod/mp3 player arrived, the days of the cd player were numbered.
The decision is not so much clueless as pointless and irrelevant and about 10 years out of date.