Comments on: Joel Tenenbaum’s $675,000 playlist

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:34:52 +0000

Why do you people think recorded music should be free? As an indy artist, it costs me thousands of dollars to make a quality recording. I do this with the hope of at least recouping my investment (and hopefully eventually making a profit). This goes for most artists, signed to a label or not. Outside of a few “lottery winners” (the 1% of artists that make it big in the charts) most artists are scraping by. Did you ever wonder why some of your favorite artists quit making music or seem to disappear? They are generally unable to make a decent living. Of course this is not totally because of illegal downloading, but it certainly doesn’t help if people are stealing your product by posting it for free. You’re taking food off of my table.

By: Thomas Koltai

Thomas Koltai — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:51:32 +0000

@Neil Down and Ben Dover

The artists receive nothing out of the litigation. The revenue goes to the labels AFTER litigation, Administration and Lunch costs are deducted.
However, notwithstanding that Joel doenst have the wherewithal, you (if you live in America) will be paying via the tax deduxction the labels will get for an uncollected bad debt.

By: Lucas

Lucas — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:34:28 +0000

I doubt kurt cobain would approve. scum record companies. going after the users and not the suppliers. but the suppliers can afford real lawyers so they go after the users whom they can nail to the wall with there 50 lawyers against there court appointed one. 30 songs shared, how will the record companies ever survive, maybe they should get a bailout

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:06:38 +0000

The idea that anything that Eminem recorded is worth even $0.01 is laughable.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:17:38 +0000

” I wonder, if anybody can actually get in contact with the bands & artists in this case & ask their opinion about this, if the MAFIAA suing their fans on their behalf is something they want to be associated with. ”

Their contracts prohibit them from doing , or saying anything but what their owners
allow.
That’s why the artist that speaks out against them is rare.

Nearly all of the ones that speak against this practice are no longer signed, or haven’t been
in years.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 07:23:37 +0000

I hate everything but I am going to download these and start sharing on all the major p2p protocol networks including BT of course.

By: Scaramouche

Scaramouche — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 02:11:05 +0000

I wonder, if anybody can actually get in contact with the bands & artists in this case & ask their opinion about this, if the MAFIAA suing their fans on their behalf is something they want to be associated with.

By: Neil Down and Ben Dover

Neil Down and Ben Dover — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 01:28:18 +0000

Notice how The Goo Goo Dolls “Iris” are on both playlists? Maybe they’ll get $102,000 for their trouble! The again, they may not even get tree-fitty!!

And the boycott marches on!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:23:46 +0000

woops ($22 500 x (avg 85 songs x 20 artists))

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:20:48 +0000

Out of spite I downloaded all 20 artists discographies. I guess thats 675 000 x (avg 85 songs x 20 artists). This took less than 30 minutes. Bankrupt 1 guy, congrats. The rest of us who are out of the DMCA jurisdiction are laughing at the big 4. Im trying to think of a good use for all this music considering I dont even like much if any of it. Maybe CBC’s idea of drop a mix cd in random heavily populated locations might be a better plan. That way innocent people are picking up Joel’s playlist and learning about his story. Rather then simply file sharers.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:19:39 +0000

If the tunes are so valuable can we pay off the RIAA with a good old mixed tape ?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:28:25 +0000

âThe Streisand effect is a phenomen on on the Internet where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples are attempts to censor a photograph, a file, or even a whole website, especially by means of cease-and-desist letters. Instead of being suppressed, the information sometimes quickly receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet â¦â¦.â â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

By: NO1UNO

NO1UNO — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:19:50 +0000

This just confirms what alot of us here have been talking about. The MAFIASS efforts are doing nothing more than push people into reacting in the opposite direction. They are creating more filesharing!! It’s obvious at this point that they will only figure it out after their “industry” is dead and gone, sitting around some boardroom table asking each other “Where TF did we go wrong?” So, rest in HELL RIAA/MPAA/BIG4 we WONT miss you!

btw STW

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:33:48 +0000

Hmmm……I’d like to know what the artists themselves have to say about this travesty, and whether or not they’ll support the court’s decision. As I recall, both NIN and Limp Bizkit support filesharing, or at the very least do not agree with suing music fans as a deterrant. And I’m sure Green Day, RATM, The Fugees, The Outcast, et al wouldn’t support their record labels’ actions either.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:54:49 +0000

$675,000 for 30 tunes!

Sounds like a steal. Where do I buy them.