There is just soo much lost revenue that somebody has to re-claim all the lost revenue, and then a little extra. Sueing for copyright infringement is a lucrative business. . . I wonder how much money the artist gets from the lawsuits? Who is really stealing from the artist, a person who gets a copy of the song for free and then potentially goes out and buys that and other albums, or the lawyers attempting to make $150,000 per song? L J
If you look at lost REVENUE, not the amount from a lawsuit. You'll be looking at $76Million~ (based on Itunes 99c per song.
And how many of those people would have gone out and actually bought the songs if p2p didnt exist? A fraction. That's not a real world statistic. That's like saying: Everytime you leave the house you're gonna get run over because there are so many cars on the road.
Exactly Bindi. The **AA are all full of ****. A spokesman said: "well, we calculated that Britney's latest record should have sold <plucks number out of arse> 16,777,556,445,889,1 and a half copies. We only sold 12 <*cough*becauseitsshit*cough*>. Pirates clearly owe us the difference, so we're going to be suing 12 year old girls." I cannot believe that people let them get away with calculating losses from sales they never had in the first place... Sam
Just because music churning out the same old crap each time (thers so many songs out there where I can say, "thats ripped of these 4/5/6/7/xxx songs" that its boring. Then the actual music I like is almost impossible to get in the UK within a reasonable (less then 3 months) amount of time.
