Why can't they just host their own files? The cost of bandwidth is next to nothing and as they become more popular and burn more bandwidth their pockets will also be fat(ter) enough to pay for it. What is the point of using these file sharers like megaupload to host your free music when they could disappear overnight and all your links are then dead?
unknown unsigned artist trying to use the pirate bay to get on the charts
Collapse
X
-
-
because mega upload pays you for putting your content on their siteWhy can't they just host their own files? The cost of bandwidth is next to nothing and as they become more popular and burn more bandwidth their pockets will also be fat(ter) enough to pay for it. What is the point of using these file sharers like megaupload to host your free music when they could disappear overnight and all your links are then dead?
your arguing that an artist should lose that revenue stream and replace it with a cost.
Would you support a 200% tax on your content to give free money to independent artist
mega upload was profitable and the only reason they disappeared is because the government violated the procedures they were supposed to follow.Comment
-
Per your logic then because they don't publish the music for everyone then it's okay to steal from them ?

I'm sure everyone, including their current visitors, would leave both the pirate bay and mega upload alone if they where not stealing from anyone.
Just look at myspace and be your own judge :wink wink:
How much do you allow the record label companies to make in profits before their work should be pirated and shared amongst thieves and scumbags ?I buy plugs
Skype: Due_Global
/DueComment
-
Comment
-
I never said that.
I simply said if you want to be a superstar like U2 or Taylor Swift you need the help of a major label.
As for The Pirate Bay and Mega Upload being left alone. . . that is another topic that I am not going to debate because it will do nothing but waste time.Last edited by kane; 04-26-2012, 10:03 PM.Comment
-
seriously moron what about the statement
do you not understand.We didn't outlaw the VCR because some people daisy chain them together to make boot leg copies (until Sony figured out a way to stop that)
they went after the people who USED the tool to infringe, they didn't outlaw the tool
This is a clear example of the tool being used LEGALLY
and yet your still attributing the actions of the users to the tool
go back and try and download copyright material from the pirate bay without a torrent client on your machine.
https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7216...Not_one_excuse
you can't even infringe without the actions of another completely independent company.
With the vcr you could "infringe" with just the products sold by a Single company.Comment
-
I think you are missing that the VCR had legitimate uses and Pirate Bay pretty much doesn't. Their business model was designed around a loophole in the copyright law that was in Sweden. They have been successfully prosecuted under the law several times.seriously moron what about the statement
do you not understand.
This is a clear example of the tool being used LEGALLY
and yet your still attributing the actions of the users to the tool
go back and try and download copyright material from the pirate bay without a torrent client on your machine.
https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7216...Not_one_excuse
you can't even infringe without the actions of another completely independent company.
With the vcr you could "infringe" with just the products sold by a Single company.Comment
-
how stupid do you have to be to post that in a thread where an artist is legitimately using that site to promote themselves.
as to being convicted
they were convicted of assisting copyright infringement when the police admitted they didn't know if the pirate bay trackers were involved because they left DHT turned on.
They got rail roaded once.
They have no totally disabled the tracker completely. So if they turn off DHT (limit themselves to only transactions the pirate bay is involved in) now no copyright infringement will happen at all.Comment
-

number 8, 10,11,12,13,14,15,16
on the best selling hip hop /rap charts
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestselle...music_1_3_last
and number 1 on the Reggae chartComment
-
Yes I realize they paid them, but how much? Like $0.001/download? And don't you have to reach 50,000 downloads just to begin getting paid for them? Is it really worth the small amount they make from megaupload when all their links could be dead overnight? Bandwidth is such a small cost, you make it as if they will go broke over $4/mo hosting fees. Not to mention hosting on their own domain such as "punkband.com/newalbum.zip" will allow people to type in "punkband.com" into their browser.because mega upload pays you for putting your content on their site
your arguing that an artist should lose that revenue stream and replace it with a cost.
Would you support a 200% tax on your content to give free money to independent artist
mega upload was profitable and the only reason they disappeared is because the government violated the procedures they were supposed to follow.Last edited by Jakez; 04-28-2012, 09:47 AM.Comment
-
dan bull made an extra 7k a year from mega upload/file lockersYes I realize they paid them, but how much? Like $0.001/download? And don't you have to reach 50,000 downloads just to begin getting paid for them? Is it really worth the small amount they make from megaupload when all their links could be dead overnight? Bandwidth is such a small cost, you make it as if they will go broke over $4/mo hosting fees.
When you use the give it away for free, and if you like it buy it model you can give a shit load of your music away for free.
Not to mention hosting on their own domain such as "punkband.com/newalbum.zip" will allow people to type in "punkband.com" into their browser.
that the stupidest statement you have ever made
one simple entry in the webhosting plan allows me to redirect
www.mybandname.com/myalbum to what ever mega upload link i want.
Remember the whole pointer thing with files means that if i uploaded my file to mega upload first (something i could easily do if i were the copyright holder) i got credit for the download (because everyone else was a pointer to that file not their uploaded version of the file)
something i could not get if i hosted it myself.Comment
-
oh and btw if i told you to pay send me a check for what ever your paying on your hosting bill.Yes I realize they paid them, but how much? Like $0.001/download? And don't you have to reach 50,000 downloads just to begin getting paid for them? Is it really worth the small amount they make from megaupload when all their links could be dead overnight? Bandwidth is such a small cost, you make it as if they will go broke over $4/mo hosting fees. Not to mention hosting on their own domain such as "punkband.com/newalbum.zip" will allow people to type in "punkband.com" into their browser.
Would you do it.
And if you have a problem with me telling you to pay more for no good reason, why do you believe it ok to do it some one else.Comment


Comment