That Will Teach You
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- Corvo20
@chossy.
I'm not defending illegal downloads, and I respect record companies. Obviously there's a lot of work and cost involved in producing a record and copyrights exist for a reason. I, for one, still buy records and books that interest me just because I. (I'm not a saint though, and I do have illegal stuff in my computer.)
I just think that this verdict opens a can of worms. As others have said, I'm not sure she's responsible for exponential loss or potential damage to record companies, because there's no law that tells you you can't keep an open directory in your site.
If you steal 1 book and put it on your doorstep are you guilty of how many times people xerox it?
- Sugary0
some questions to think about: what if the music you steal was already stolen in the first place? Does 20,000 mp3 files = 20,000 cd's?
and i know a handful of local bands that would love if their music was downloaded by people across the world. I don't know if their record labels do though, so can the record label take someone to court for something the band doesn't mind?
- mikotondria30
if fining someone 1.9million dollars having no proof that they intended to commit the fraud they have accused her of, is not cruel and unusual punishment, I really don't know what is.
If I was her I would get a tshirt made saying 'I will not pay', and get as much press as possible..there is no way in the world she will ever be able to pay that, what fucking lunatic decided that was a reasonable verdict... what a bunch of fucking tools, this sets back the whole concept of finding a workable revenue model for artists and labels 10 years.- Isn't that like giving someone a sentence of 200 years or something? ha hajuhls
- Milan0
does anyone pay for music these days? i don't
- why not ?mikotondria3
- I have NO copyright infringed music on my machine, none at all. There is so little out there worth having, that I pay for what I do like.mikotondria3
- sikma0
So if you were on the hook for 2million what would you do? Clearly she doesn't have the money or any intention on paying it back. Do you just declare bankruptcy? Move to another country?
- CygnusZero40
She should be punished, but that's a little steep.
- Milan0
buuuurn the wiiitch
- chossy0
If you make a song available to download for free when normally it costs one dollar to buy and people download the free version 100 times how much money do you think you have missed out on?.
I don't want to participate in this discussion anymore and respectfully withdraw from this thread. I think some of you have missed the point in this and are a bit too bullheaded to appreciate the loss that the record companies are making, not the artists as they already get paid from the record companies, they are happy as larry.
- You're missing the point. Those other people are responsible for their own infringement.itsmitch
- You're withdrawing because you know you're wrong.itsmitch
- The record companies deserve that money but 1 person shouldn't pay for the entire group.itsmitch
- They're just saving money on having to sue the each person individually by exploiting this situation.itsmitch
- It would be smarter to find a better solution instead of suing the music fans.itsmitch
- But they're not smart, are they? No, they're just fucking greedy.itsmitch
- When the music industry dies, they won't care because they will have taken all the money they could.itsmitch
- That's why they don't try to really fix things, they're already getting more money than they deserve.itsmitch
- Dealer or junkie?. If I was the man in charge I would go for the dealer.chossy
- I believe the phrase is "rats from a sinking ship" and rats is a good word for them.itsmitch
- She's not a dealer. She downloaded the songs. The program automatically shared them.itsmitch
- Shes guilty of not checking all the setting in the program or being computer proficientitsmitch
- because they didn't prove (nor have they tried to prove) that she had "intent" to share the songsitsmitch
- I'm not defending illegal downloads, and I respect record companies. I for one still buy records and books.Corvo2
- I just think that this case sets a bad example (not that she's innocent, but the penalty is way too severe). Not toCorvo2
- dan53820
You all do know some artists are working with this problem. NIN is a prime example. They give out albums for free and if you want the artwork and presentation plus a couple tracks not available for download you can buy their box sets. Seems like a viable solution.
- visionary0
so is it illegal to download from http://g2p.org
- BaskerviIle0
I know a few musicians and I totally see their point of view, it annoys me when people say all music should be free. No it shouldn't, musicians should get paid for writing and recording their music.
But the recording industry can't win, even if they pick out individuals to make an example of, it won't solve the problem. Charging an individual such a huge amount isn't really right either. They shoul have to pay back what the tracks were worth and maybe a bit more on top (or be made to do some roadie-ing for some small bands for a few months as community service).
But the industry needs to properly come together an address this, especially with things like Spotify potentially changing the way we listen to music (ie, never having to own anything).
- itsmitch0
The judge is clearly corrupt and/or in the pockets of the recording companies. Our justice system is not based on revenge or teaching "lessons" which is clearly what they're doing. She's not responsible for the people that downloaded the files from her system -- those people are responsible for their own infringement and should be brought up in other cases. The losses she is justified in paying to the record companies is roughly: $1,700 but actually $24 for the "lost" revenue of the only songs that the lawyers were able to account for. This shouldn't have made it out of small claims court. It's not like she has a warehouse of CDs she's selling on a corner. She made no profit. She didn't send people the songs. If there is a hell, these lawyers have a guaranteed place in it.
- Corvo20
One thing I don't understand is - was she making money from it? If not, seems too harsh to sacrifice one person's life when there are thousands doing the same thing. I mean, she got caught, it's the law etc, but couldn't they cut her some slack? Just seems too heavy. Who never did this? Who hasn't a trunk in the attic full of old tapes, xerox/photocopies (yes, these too are a felony), etc?
- this said, I actually buy records when I want something.Corvo2
- jfletcher0
chossy - I don't like the idea of stealing music, but it will happen, it's a known variable. There are two options. First, try and stick to old methods that are crumbling...people will find new ways to get around buying music and steal it. I doubt it can be stopped given the nature of the net. Second, figure out a way to adapt. I don't know the best way for this second method, but a few artists are trying new things (Radio head, Presidents of the USA, etc).
Trying to enforce laws by assessing ridiculous fines is beyond lame. They are making an example of one person, but it won't stop the masses... and is pretty much useless expect to make this one person’s life miserable.
thoughts?
- I actually still mostly buy CD's for the art :D, but they are a bit expensive :(jfletcher
- GeorgesII0
not enough, lets fine her $20.000.000.000!!!
LIDICULOUS!! this judge is LIDICULOUS,
repeat after me, LIDICULOUS
- fooler20
*force quits Transmission
- twokids0
what songs were they?
- BattleAxe0
*opens up acquisition
- Corvo20
I guess it's exactly an example that they're trying to set: isn't it possible in US law for a case to be given a certain verdict based on a previous decision?