The problem is those who think its not a big deal or some other bullshit rationalization.Never had their work used by others without their permission.Its really that simple.

well for me i would say yes
a couple of years ago
abc studios sent my isp copyright infringement warnings
and they forwarded it to me with the usual threat don't do this again or we will disconnect your service
i sent them

1. a copy of my cable bill
2. a scan of the tv guide table with the episode of lost highlighted
3. a copy of the canadian piracy tax
4. a link to the PEPIDA requirements for disclosing my private details to abc
5. a link to the betamax case

with an explaination that i paid for the show, i had a right to timeshift it, and i have a right to download it (piracy tax ruling) and granting them access to my personal information without a court order would represent a violation of my privacy rights punishable by a fine of $10k.

Never heard from them again, and i still download tons of shows (including lost)

product placement
process monitization
branding bugs
maybe piracy taxes (although as a nashian free marketist i am against this solution until all the other market based ones failed)

the point is the RIAA as an interpretation of time-shifting
fair use proponents have another
the judge makes the decision who is right
and tough luck he said ours was right
live with it.

BTW if not for that basic system, your entire industry would be illegal, so you should be saying thank god for that too.

btw if your rule was applied

PVR(tivo, dvr would have to fight all the way to the supreme court to exist (since you changed medium from tape to hard drives)

can you image the detriment to technological advancement if new technology was made illegal automatically and forced to prove it validity all over again time and time again.

Do you really want to take away the fundamental principle of being innocent until you are proven guilty (the only way your rule could exist) given the industry you work in.

I would take them to court, and win.. without question.. and without a lawyer.

I don't think piracy should be acceptable, but I'm not so blind to think it's going to stop. So rather than yelling over laws I can't change, cases that have already blocked me, and so on.. I accept it, work work with it, and learn to make money from it.

I also understand from my own experience with it, that it made me spend money I wouldn't have ever otherwise spent.

I don't know what you are referring to. I don't re-burn or transfer anything. And the statement I made that you quoted, I watch 'legal streams' provided by Fox, ABC, ect - online for free.

When it comes to, piracy. I watch streams, I don't download. And at that, I don't give to shit about new movies. I find Japanese cartoons and kungfu movies, crap like that. Crap I can't rent, find, and don't even know the names of. But now I own, and later found out most of these studios put them online for free anyway.

And the few, rare, movies that might be pirted, I probably own now or at least rented it. And crazy as it sounds, I stream movies I own, because I don't want to look for the DVD.. Kids cartoons mostly.


Back to the same medium, in japan the movies are put online, legally, our movies. I'm not trying to argue the time shift stuff, but just saying.. it is on the same medium then.

Looking this thread over again.. I'm an owner, not a rep or a normal traffic webmaster. I own content, I'm pretty sure more than anyone else in this thread.

I don't even notice content piracy.. I notice type-ins out of thin air when I upload a new movie with a stamp. I see my shit on torrents, tubes, ect.. I don't send a notice, I send a better video with a bigger stamp to replace it with.

I know, piracy produces traffic and sales.. I don't question it, I know it. At that same time, in a different situation, I know it hurts. Like when people pirate my scripts/nats customizations which I don't sell the rights for.

I still don't get all bent out of shape over it, I use it as an opportunity to contact the Company, not to get money back, but to sell them ads, more services, traffic, ect.. I use it for my advantage and get them to pay even more.

I'm too busy seeding the internet with all your precious content to answer this post seriously.

Could you try to hit some markets and sites I'm not currently on? I need the extra exposure on traffic sources I would otherwise "never" be able to reach..

I can give you some movies if you like, if you really have places to seed.. no affiliate links though, I don't like to share.

Exactly! :thumbsup I only quoted you because you were siding with Gideon and his whole basis for argument is the "cloud" "time-shifting" which claims recordings that somehow mysteriously move from your DVR devices onto the internet for downloading is legal.

How any judge could rule that is beyond me?

Yes, most networks now stream their shows. Nothing wrong with that. Recording to your TIVO or other DVR device, perfectly fine, you pay for that right.

Of course you would take what I said out of context so I will paint you a picture:
TV to DVR Device, you watch it, you enjoy it, its legal... TV to DVR Device to ANY OTHER MEDIUM, you watch it, you download it, it should be illegal.

doc hit me up on icq
i would like to talk to you about something i am working on regarding branding bugs

it failed to save stargate sg1 when we first tried but i thing it might work after the retooling
would like to test it out first on something smaller scale so i have some hard numbers.

Well, since it's was myself and Darkland that got into the heated debate in the other thread I figured I'd move over to this one as it's the main thread on the subject.

Props to you Darkland. true to your word you brought the topic out for more exposure and discussion.

I still haven't changed my stance but if it'll help you to hate me less - I've never burned anything to disk for later viewing and I certainly don't seed anything either. I watch and delete them.

And to the fella' that mentioned something about paying $10/month for cable.... my cable bill runs about $150/month

I pulled an all-niter last nite so I'm going upstairs to watch some TIVO'd shows before I hit the sack and deprive the advertisers who pay the production of their revenue by fast forwarding through the commercials...

I'll be back online later and surf some sites with my pop-up blocker and ad-blocking plugin's for Firefox turned on and deprive some other folks of their revenue too!

Damn me! But I'm already going to hell, so I might as well do enough things to get a house closer to the Devil!

"Illegally Downloading Hollywood Movies... Right or Wrong?"

Illegally downloading is wrong.

Next question.

total BS you don't have the right to timeshift because you paid TIVO for it
you have it because the courts gave it to you
the fact that the torrent sites give me the functionality for free does not invalidate that COURT GRANTED RIGHT.

They found a way to get me to pay with my attention (i watch their banner ads, advertisers pay for it)
IF TIVO released a sponsor version of their device that download a small commercial while booting up and gave it away for free would you argue that was illegal too.


The fact that you think it SHOULD BE ILLEGAL is totally irrelevant,
what i think SHOULD be explictly LEGAL is totally irrelevant.

what is legal is all that matters

Would you love it if the laws were different sure, if wishes were horses ....

personally i would love to see seeding EXPLICTLY declared legal it would solve a lot of problems and would allow me to launch my torrentrecorder device NOW. but i have to live with the fact that MPAA has avoided the cases which make that potential arguement an issue.

LUCKLY FOR ME the "innocent until proven guilty" principle protects me for all of these up in the air issues.

TPB + Torrentflux + 1.5TB of storage + 16mbps Cable = tons of 1080p movies.

LOL @ the people who try to front and claim they're above it.

But ya know what? After I d/l a movie, and watch it on my computer, I'll go buy it if it rocks. Think of it as incentive for studios to make movies that are worth watching.

P.S. I always seed to 150-300%, too.

well that make me hate you more :winkwink:
you should at least seed to parity, give back to the community that is helping you fulfill your timeshifting rights.



Even if you had watched every single commercial, since neilson doesn't count them at all the show still got nothing from that viewing.

In fact since many product placement agencies are using tracker to boost product placement rates your actually costing them money by using your tivo

BAD BAD BOY.

The internet is a big fantasy bubble. There is no right or wrong.

I've downloaded in the past, but it has always been movies that I would have otherwise paid for but couldn't...example: foreign films that aren't available in the US or Region 1 encoding (this was before region-free DVD players)

I don't have a horse in either race. Copying/duplication/piracy have always existed. There will always be someone to take something for free if they can.

does this bitch know that there are more people that work in putting a record together than just the singers/bands? And most of them are NOT rich? I'm not sure why people are retarded about this? Would they work for free? No of course not. If record companies and musicians can't get paid then they aren't making albums. I wouldn't. I think most of us enjoy any work we do in this biz. That being said if there wasn't any money to be made we'd all be doing something else.

I'm not sure where the sense or entitlement comes from that people think that they are to be supplied and endless amount of entertainment at zero cost. And no ads or commercials either. God forbid a network should ask you to watch a few 30 second commercial on Hulu or whatever so you can get FREE shows.

Man, I don't hate you. If anything I was looking for alternative views and possibly something leading me to believe I was wrong in my beliefs. Sadly that didn't happen so we will have to agree to disagree, however the shear numbers on here who DO think it is wrong versus the few who don't speaks volumes.

I sure would like that dudes cable bill, mine runs $130 a month here.

You are a theif and a piece of shit. And no I PAY for my content. YOU are the reason why we get crap like DRM. YOU are the reason why maybe Hollywood doesn't bother making many good movies. Why bother when assholes like you are going to steal it without paying anyways. Where is the incentive? YOUR logic is like the robber telling bank to send him a check so he doesn't hold it up. By the way if something is crap why have it anyways? the whole "I steal because it's crap" logic is retarded. If I gave these people a pile of shit on plate and told them it was free I guess they'd eat it. Since it's free and all.

She uses the same logic that a lot of people do. She says, "I wouldn't have purchased it in the first place, so they aren't out anything." And she uses this to justify it. She is one of those people who feels everyone in the movie and music industry is rich so they won't miss a few dollars. Sure, Brad Pitt is not going to miss a few bucks here and there, but the assistant sound editor who makes a regular wage and sees his wage go down because the profit on movies is going down will.

If the CD money, went to the band directly, I would buy more or if I could donate the band only. At the same time, bands wouldn't charge $10-$20 per cd, and even at $1 a song, it's still a massive rip off.

The music business will never fail but I sure as hell hope the music industry fails. Finally I wouldn't be forced to listen to horrible bands that the studios and radios force us to like while they exclude far better bands because they didn't suck the producers cock in the back room.

1000's of bands just in America that make a great living, never going through a studio, and are better than 90% of the crap on the radio. And almost all of them support piracy because it has helped make them who they are today.

I'm still one to think that most of the people claiming to not or never download anything, do and have. They just don't want it to be known otherwise.

Wow nice thread. I dont download movies, i watch what my tivo records and thats it.

I dont down load music either. I listen to the same music CD's that i bought a long time ago.


o yea, buddy craven gave me a drive with a 125 gigs of music, is that stealing if dont listen to it? lol. That drive has everything on it. way too much for me,lol

owning content and busting your ass producing and creating content are two very different things. Im pretty sure Lightspeed probably owns more content than you and it pissed him off alot.I think the big difference is he is actually creating it. As far as all of it helping sales I dont know about that, it sounds good but I seriously doubt it to be honest. I didnt just get online yesterday. I remember how weak Yahoo groups were for sales all they wanted was more free stuff.

There are a lot of people involved in bringing a CD to a store near you. The main players are the band, the record producer and the record label. But there are also often engineers, song writers, session musicians, studio owners, graphic designers and the people that duplicate and distribute the CDs. These people need to be paid for their work. Digital music does cut some of them out of the circle though so the costs can and often do go down. As for donating directly to the band you can. Go to their website and buy their merchandise and buy a ticket to see them when they come to your town. They get a much larger piece of that pie than they do from CD sales.

If you put it in porn terms it would be like this: A fan comes to your paysite and sees a new shoot with a hot model. As far as they know you grabbed a camera and snapped some pics/video of her and put it up on your site. The reality is you either did the shoot yourself or hired it done and had to pay for that. Then you paid to edit/retouch the pictures (unless you do it yourself). You have hosting costs, potential cost of traffic and affiliates as well as affiliate reps and other employees that may work for your site. There is a lot more to it than meets the eye.


It is a catch 22. Without the money and influence of major labels most bands would continue to be bar bands and bands that struggle. I think your idea that 1000's of bands are making a great living without the support of a record label is a little over stated. I used to write for a pretty big indie rock music magazine. I interviewed and wrote about bands every day of the week. Almost all of them existed in a strange world where they would put out a record, tour then go back to their day jobs. Almost none of them made enough to live on music alone. Having a bigger label behind them allows them to work towards growing their audience and selling more records/concert tickets. Without them it is hard for these bands to get enough promotion to survive.

Are there great bands that don't have major label deals that tour a lot and make a great living? Sure, but I think the amount of bands like that is very small.

I didn't buy my content, we shot it in one of our two studios. One in LA and one in Canada. We didn't buy all this kick ass big dick content that tons of people enjoy in a content plugin, on paysites, in stores, in shops, on vod, ect.. we shot in, our selves.. we created it, by hand.

And I prob have few 100 more DVD's than Steve.

cool just remember the next time do that remember that the commercials don't count at all
and if you don't watch it within 24 hours for most pvr you don't show up in the stats for product placement either.

IF you had downloaded it from the torrent instead at least the numbers would have boosted their product placement stats.

I didnt know that. Then I dont understand and guess I never will.

Because they can tour, cant take porn on the road.

I don't buy junk I don't use. Buying a shirt, is junk, I do go to concerts, I will gladly pay $100's for live entertainment, and have.

That's the way they choose to do business. That's why I don't do business with them. I buy my music, don't get me wrong. Lots of places online to buy legal music from great bands that don't have anything to do with a studio. Euro based trance.. oahhhhh the love!


If I could only sell millions, or hundreds of thousands of copy, of one CD... wow.. if one movie alone could make a rich.. fuck yeah, that would be kick ass!


It's not catch.. Let it fail, and it will equal out. Less crap bands being forced on us, more good bands being able to actually play concerts rather than having to be big first.

Just like the guys that choose to make $100 a weekend in bars and work a day job, and the others that quit the day job and play for the love, and they make money because of it.

We don't need big music, we don't need the industry.. Maybe in the 80s, but not today. Tons of people create music, put it online, sell it on shops, ect all over the world, and they do it for a living.... they don't have to be rich, what they are producing already made them feel rich inside...

That's why the industry needs to fail.

Oh and to add... Our "music industry" that you people support.. They block the euro trance, dance, house crap in our Country.. because they don't make any $$ off of it. That's one of 100's of examples..

Our music industry, has suppressed music... and that's a fact!

Crap bands arent forced on you. You dont like them dont buy them. The shitty movie and music argument and thats why I take is very weak.

I don't buy them.. I did say that. Online music, it's easy.. I just listen to streams, which are legal. And once I hear something I like, I buy it. I don't pirate music, no need to pirate it.

But I don't buy CD's anymore, it's the 'value' not that they are forcing them on me. The forcing them, is from radio. They say, this is the best band, this is the top music.. well, they only give us 20 choices.. So that is who is big and who isn't.. end of story.

That's the problem..

do you understand how a record contract works.

courtney love letter to recording artist.

Successful bands are getting ass raped to support bad decisions of the record company.

Radio head made more money from every person they gave the cd away too (from the mailing advertising and promo cost reduction for their tour to the mailing list generated) then they would have gotten if they had sold that album to those people at full price.


while that may have been true in the past the internet has radically changed that
torrents and youtube can make you famous

ask people like
jonathan coulton
maria digby
sick puppies

with the right bit torrent campaign you can make good money buy giving away your music.
newer sites like eventful.com allow you to build a touring audience from your mp3 leachers

and when people do donate, buy your mp3 you get to keep 100% of the revenue generated.

That is the problem I have with that excuse as well. Individual taste can not be a factor. Perfect example, I love Guy Ritchie movies, some can't stand them. I like experimental filmmaking, Memento comes to mind, I know lots of people who didn't like OR understand that movie.

If we were talking about bad food or shitty service, that would be one thing, but personally NOT liking something that you KNOW or FIND OUT you don't like should be grounds for freebies.

Hey Gideon, I have zero room left on my ICQ. I had to delete a lot of people to get it working again, and to add someone new, I have to delete someone off.

New revolution coming for our Industry.. hehe.. twitter - it works like ICQ if you use desktop application like twhirl, and you can use your phone.. and private messages and it can have 50k+ friends, at least.. I'm on twitter under @TheDocXXX - so hit me up

or my handle at thedocblog.com for email :)

EXACTLY... Everything you just said here was or would be in COOPERATION of the artist, NOT BEHIND THEIR BACK, which is what this whole discussion is about.

That is what the subject on this was about.. Them making music outside of the music industry/studios.. which they do, at great levels.

So the Music Industry, is slowing down progress. Even more so when they want you to pay them for playing music in your house that your neighbors can hear. Of the little thrift shop, bar, restaurant, ect playing music inside that can just hardly be heard outside.. yep, they want royalties on the average foot traffic that passes on the 'outside public area.'

You guys keep supporting the music industry.. but maybe you should educate yourself first.

Thats a bit extreme.

Yeah, but still the truth.

here is perfect example of legal music trading, this is/was done AT THE REQUEST OF THE BAND.

I had never heard of them, but once introduced to them, now I promote others to listen to them,...technology is not evil, what we do with it is.

http://rapidshare.com/files/11515905...oid_Empire.rar

DOWNLOAD IT!!! FREE ALBUM!!!

The last track is awesome!

http://bp3.blogger.com/_23rtV-s_p6A/...1600-h/AE.jpgp

As candyflip pointed out, it's true.. it's very true, and they are actually very aggressive with this. I think in UK, or maybe Germany.. I can't recall, some places over in EU do this already.

These guys want it, so if you buy a CD, that's it.. No computer, that's different music, and new purchase. If you make a backup, they want $ or it not to happen. If you buy an MP3, no burning to CD to listen to it in your car. Actually, they want it so if you download it on your Computer - the same mp3 won't play in a in car radio's mp3 player, you would need to re-buy the music for that.

That's what the music industry is ALL about.. the $$, end of story. They are making hundreds of millions net profit by over charging us, when the music we are 'allowed' to have is about 90% smaller than other Countries have.. we are suppressed.

you don't get it at all
the second these artist sign with the record company
the record company kills any type of sharing promotion the artist have

i worked with a band called projectwyze
two of the band members were friends of mine
i did the seo for them, and i even keyword stuffed a couple of their song so they could leach traffic from the hot news items that were happening at that time.

They got signed, the record company shut down their napster account
cleaned up their web site and pretty much killed all the leaching traffic.
The band never sold thru, and it broke up
lead singer and one of the other singers went on to do a single solo video
but that tanked as well.

if they had properly market themselves they would have made /were making more money touring then they got from the record deal.

The fundamental point is that dinasaurs don't get it, there are revenue streams from bit torrent that you are ignoring.
Done properly you could easily make as much money as your are currently making from process monitization alone.

the fundamental problem is that rather then exploit those revenue stream you are trying to take away rights granted to be by the law to prop up those losses.

Fundamentally timeshifting is taking content that was broadcast on day X and watching it on day (X+Y)

the court are realizing that irregardless of the the technology that allows me to do that it is same basic right.

you may not want it to be, but it is.

I know all too well how a record contract works. Most bands, even big, very popular bands, get screwed. It is not uncommon for a band to see little or no royalties from an album even if they sell a million copies. However, that million copies sold allows them to go on tour and make millions of dollars doing so.


Radiohead is a terrible example because they have benefited from a very long relationship with a large music label that has spent millions of dollars promoting them. They have sold tons of records, been all over MTV and sold a ton of concert tickets. That popularity allowed them to give away their last records and still cash in. A lot people paid for their last record and a lot of people did not, but the bottom line is that there were a lot of people involved. These people didn't just magically appear, they were built up over years of hard work and millions spent in promotion. Sure, they are a talented band. I am a huge Radiohead fan and they have worked very hard to build their audience up. But the chanced of them becoming the band they are today without the support they have received from their record label in the past if very slim.

If some unknown band puts out a record that they give away online, makes a cheap video or two for Youtube, starts up a myspace and does all the online marketing they can think of the odds are they will give away some downloads, but they will not be on the radio and they will not be on MTV and they will not be on the cover of every major music magazine in the world. That is publicity you need big money to get and you need that level of publicity to pull off what Radiohead did.

Courtney Love is someone I can't stand, but she does have a good point. The music business is like the movie business and book business in that the few successes end up paying for the many failures. Most records released don't sell very well at all so those that do end up picking up the slack for the failures and the artists behind those records get screwed to help cover the loses of the less successful. That is one of the flaws of the major label system. They will sign 20 bands, pay for them all to record albums and put them out in hopes that 1 or 2 get a hit song. Those that fail cost them money so they try to recoup by taking from those that succeed. They need to do a better job of picking the artists they sign and they need to commit to working with them to develop an audience. They should sign 2 bands they are committed to working hard with, not 20 that they intend to ignore and hope for the best from.

There are always going to be exceptions to the rule. The internet has leveled the playing field to some extent. These people you list are having some success and that is great. With any luck they will have long careers. But they are not Radiohead. They use torrents, youtube and online campaigns to build an audience and maybe some of them will eventually break big and sell a ton of records, but for every one of those types there are 1000's who go nowhere and do nothing. The internet is great and it offers those that know how to use it a great opportunity, but it still can't compete with the sheer power of publicity and support that a major label can.

I'm not saying major label music is the only way to go. Almost all of what I listen to is smaller, lesser known bands on smaller labels. My point in all of this is that it seems people are believing that the internet can turn everyone into a rock star. The reality is just the opposite. In the end, internet or not, there will be a few bands that have world wide superstar success. There will a larger number of bands that make some decent money for a handful of years then move on to the next stage of their lives. Most bands/musicians will play some gigs, they might record their own album and start a website and work hard, but they will never succeed because the public is fickle and you can get a million views on Youtube, but that still doesn't get you on MTV.

It all boils down to what you consider success. If you consider success making enough money to live on, living out of a shitty van as you spend most of the year on the road touring, have no real retirement plan, sick days and in some cases health insurance then sure there are more bands that could be successful. If you consider success being a band that can put out a very good record every couple of years, touring for a year or so and having enough money to solidify your life in between records, own a home and be able to support yourself, your family and your future, then most bands will not have that success.

I am no huge fan of the major label music system, but let's look at it from a different point of view.

If there is no major label music system is there:
Pink Flyod's The Wall? No. The Wall was a huge record that cost a lot of money to produce. The band had the freedom and money to produce this album because of the success of Dark Side of the Moon. That album owes much of its success to getting Money played on the radio. Getting money played on the radio cost millions.

The Beatles? Probably not like we know them. They were huge when they came to America. How? Sure they have talent and wrote great songs, but their record company got those songs on the radio and got them on TV. That success afforded them the freedom to make some of the music they made and allowed for them to play it in front of huge crowds. Without that success there is no way of knowing if that music would have ever seen the light of day.

Arena Rock? Maybe, but probably not. There is something to be said for going to an arena and seeing a big hard rock band play. It is not something I would want to do every day, but when I saw U2 on the Zoo TV tour or Metallica and Guns N Roses together it was a great experience. If those bands don't have the serious money behind them that they did they don't sell the albums that they sold and they would not be able to fill an arena and put on the show that they put on.

My point is that major label system is flawed, but it is not evil and it could be saved. It has also brought us some very good stuff.

But aren't we talking about personal responsibility here? They were not forced to sign that contract and they knew what they were getting into when they did. If they didn't get strong advice on every aspect of the contract from a lawyer before signing it then they only have themselves to blame.

They could have signed with a small indie label and before the contract was even written expressed what they wanted to do and how they planned to go about it so that the contract reflected that. This would have allowed them to promote themselves however they wanted and still had a label to distribute their records.

A bar plays your music that's creates an atmosphere where people want to stay and spend money. They should pay. If your music is played in any commercial establishment they should pay.Its someones work they should get paid for it. Dont like that buy royalty free music or create your own.
The music industry isnt going anywhere, there is good and bad and its always been that way. The same time let it be came out so did Cherish. its always been that way.
Now the net does open opportunities for small players, it replaced selling it out of the back of your trunk. But those who want to give their music away god bless them but its their choice.

This isnt new The Beatles first record deal with parlophone bordered on usury the small small amount of money they got per record.

all of which is totally irrelevant to the point i am making
if radio head had only sold the album they would have gotten their royalties but when record company sent out mailing to the list they could have been charged for all those cost out of those royalties.

they sent out mailers to all the people who download the album they told them about concert appearance and they used ticket agents which paid affiliate commissions on the sales.

That revenue was greater that the money they would have made from the royalties - expenses.

johnathan coultron (unknown artist) use the same methodology, (his is a little harder since he negotiates directly with smaller venues) but the point is the same,
more money to him without the record company.

to opposite extremes of the same business model.

and all i am saying is that the talent is the corner stone of that equation
no matter how much money they put in promoting my fat ass as a singer there is no way in hell i would ever be as successful as maria digby.

The fundamentally unfair record contracts combined with the fact that it takes 10 downloads to cost one sale (independent study commissioned by the RIA) all i have to give the artist is .5 cents per song for them to break even.

They can easily get that from advertising/process monitization/efficient cost savings.

Kick in the piracy tax (without the standard record company split) from countries which have such a tax and every artist out there is better off giving away all their music.

Big small independent, signed unsigned.

the only way that new better solutions can challenge this failed business model is if the distribution channels created by fair use rights be protected, so they can spawn more efficient revenue streams when you figuire out how to monitize them.

See
printing press
vcr->dvd
cable tv


i disagree johnathan coultron has a song featured on GH for the xbox.
no artist has ever fully untilized the internet to do a promotion of themselves.
if you combined all the successful actions of all the different artist, focused behind a comunity of artist and made sure they took advantage of every opertuntity absolutely you could generate the power of publicity of a major label.

The company would make a tiny fraction of the money the industry is making as it's cut but it could be done.

The record companies would try and kill such a business if it was to start with lawsuits
and until 2 legal precidents with torrents are established that business could never get off the ground because of that threat but as soon as those two precedents are EXPLICTLY set i am 100% sure that company will be launched.

but if they are making the same amount of money they would be making who cares.

absolutely not, you are comparing the success hindered by no company being able to combine all the technologies together into a community against an established business model that will their unfairly gained revenue to kill such a business.

once the technology is vindicated (like vcr, like the printing press) and that threat is eliminated the revenue potential will explode. And just like the previous technologies you will find the artist making more money from torrents then they ever made from selling their records at full price.

Some do pay, others have machines that take money.. Royalties are paid.. they want to be paid because the music is to loud and others outside can hear it, even if it's the radio and even if they aren't spending money just by walking by.

Royalties is more than one payment..