Aurous shutters for good, will pay $3m damages Pirate music wannabe Aurous has shut down, barely three months after first surfacing. Billed in Vice as “BitTorrent Music for your Dad”, and described as a “Popcorn Time for music”, the outfit, whose sole proprietor was Andrew Sampson, has agreed to pay damages of $3m. The case is notable for the speed with which the operation …
This post has been deleted by its author
"But what is the relevance of a Weagles player being hit in the nose by an Aussie Rules football?"
Well, it's now an out of order parking meter with the word FAIL on the LCD display which is ever so slightly more relevant, but not by much. Maybe the picture editor has stared Xmas hols early and the YTS trainee has been left in charge? :-)
I'd be interested to know how that figure was arrived at. It doesn't sound like Sampson could have made anything like that money during the short time his service was running.
Would it have been a case of pay up or go to jail? I suppose it might have been possible to scan logs and estimate how much copyrighted music was downloaded through Aurous and hence how much revenue was potentially lost. Presumably RIAA has a finely tuned algorithm for this.
It's interesting that the RIAA blame pirating for the decline in profits from recordings when you can argue that the real culprit is the record companies themselves that have stifled creativity to the point that all their carefully curated acts sound the same.
Let's face it - the music industry is all about profits and not music.
"It's interesting that the RIAA blame"
Everybody except themselves.
Historical notes: Music industry revenue was declining from the late 70s until CDs came along(*). Sales spiked as people refreshed their collections, then it declined until people started sharing mp3s on the Internet. It started declining again when they shut down napster and friends and has stayed that way ever since.
(*) Revenue, not sales. Sales have been declining since the early 1960s.
Where si the demand for a piracy service in 2015 when there are so many legal free or cheap ways to get all the music or movies that you want. If you are willing to listen to a few ads Pandora and iHeartradio are free and they have really great apps that are much easier to use then downloading a pirated mp3. If you don't want the ads the monthly fee for Pandora is very reasonable, Spotify only slightly more. The same goes for a Netflix subscription, the month fee for Netflix is which is only $10 a month.
big money music industry did. the corporates whose only difference between any manufacturer (gun, car, computer, fast food, etc) is their product. gaining profit by any means necessary including hosing over content providers, industry staff, and customers.
Basically lawyers and investors getting paid to maintain a status quo while the music makers, similar to manufacturing or coding producers, take whatever is left over.
I miss napster, it was the only place I could get music I couldn't buy because they were out of print and not available. It had a wonderful community of people dedicated to music that would rip vinyl just to share with others. I'm sure many record companies were annoyed but at the end of the day if you're not going to make the music available then what do you expect and yes I know there was a lot of "Popular" sorry "Shite" music on there but I never downloaded that.
What would happen if someone created a spotify type app that harvested youtube? Would that be taken down for copyright as the royalty would have been paid by youtube therefore there would be no argument or am I missing something?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
