FLRedskins Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Did not see this posted anywhere http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading Do you guys agree with the ruling or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Guilty? :yes: $80k/song? :no::no::no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Guilty? :yes:$80k/song? :no::no::no: what do they cost on iTunes, $1.98 per song ? that's more like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The artist in me loves this. The internet has definately been a double edged sword. Great exposure, but there are way too many rats who steal your sweat and effort without compensation or even a thank you. I'd have rather that she lose to the artists themselves than the recording companies, but... what can you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 RIAA v Thomas verdict reached yesterday...A new lawyer, a new jury, and a new trial were not enough to save Jammie Thomas-Rasset. In a repeat of the verdict from her first federal trial, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for willfully infringing all 24 copyrights controlled by the four major record labels at issue in the case. The jury awarded the labels damages totaling a whopping $1.92 million. As the dollar amount was read in court, Thomas-Rasset gasped and her eyes widened....The recording industry lawyers, though clearly pleased, had no desire to showboat this one. The massive damage award, which increased from $9,250 per song in the first trial to $80,000, might sounds like a "win," but will probably stoke grassroots anger against the industry's campaign... if the music business tries to collect. There are hints that it might not. I can't believe there are 12 people on earth who would award $80k per song in civil penalties for copyright infringement. The original verdict was something like $10k per song. If you get caught shoplifting can the store owner charge you for $1M in damages? Cleary she is guilty, I just figured a jury would realize the the lower limit of $750 per song would be more than enough. Our legal system is whack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Clearly guilty... $80k per song? WTF jury? Someone needs to merge since I *just* created a thread on same topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Shoudn't have broken the law. When one of my daughters buys a CD, the other is not allowed to download the songs to her MP3 player. If she wants the songs, she has to buy her own CD. If they want to download music, they have to buy a pre-paid card they can use to make the purchase. If I find music on their MP3 player and they haven't purchased it, they lose the player. My opinion on how the industry works is irrelevent. We are governed by laws on the issue and they are to be followed. Not sure why this seems to be such a difficult concept for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 stevenaa, The laws are BS and have been bought and paid for by industry. Why should we follow unjust laws? Penalties are way out of line with what industry loses. Your stance is ridiculous... you do realize it should be fair use to rip and share within your family, no? If the law is unjust and applied in an unjust manner ie. why are they going after a non-commercial file sharer? I would have less of a problem if she was a commercial pirate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Sounds like you have a guilty conscious, Fergasun. Is the bell tolling for thee? Also, this thread is a duplicate of the one just above yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 stevenaa, The laws are BS and have been bought and paid for by industry. Why should we follow unjust laws? Penalties are way out of line with what industry loses. Your stance is ridiculous... you do realize it should be fair use to rip and share within your family, no? If the law is unjust and applied in an unjust manner ie. why are they going after a non-commercial file sharer? I would have less of a problem if she was a commercial pirate... While the penalty may be unjust, the law is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Burgold, We both posted duplicate threads within 5 minutes. Took me some time to cut and paste. Do you not think I realized this. Furthermore, would it be fair to charge someone $20k for a speeding ticket? I believe casual file sharing is akin to a speeding ticket. While I no longer fileshare using P2P applications (I've found the media is not worth the time/risk), if I did this case would make me think about spending some money on an anonymous proxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 What's the right financial penalty for stealing 24 items? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 What's the right financial penalty for stealing 24 items? Extra 10% mark-up on the goods stolen and legal fees sound good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Dictator, The penalty is built-into law. I agree she's guilty. But comon! RIAA didn't even show that *more than their investigator* downloaded the song. So they have proved she distributed the song to 1 person. How is distribution to 1 person $80k per song? Additionally, its not like she was the original source of the music... she was 1 person out of thousands that was chosen randomly to "set an example" of. If the law was changed to say that for every mile over the speedlimit you are getting fined $10k; people would be marching in the streets. I believe this is the same issue here; except not enough people understand the law and implications. I'm pretty sure her penalties are more than counterfeiters caught hawking this on the street get. Our lawmakers should be ashamed... I think the jury should be as well, download a few songs and your financial life is ruined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Here's the problem that I've faced as an artist. At first, I was kinda honored that someone cut and pasted the image of one of my paintings and used it as their desktop. That's pretty cool. People like my work. Then, I started hearing that they sent that image to their friends and their friend's friends etc. Some of them have now become posters, book covers, etc. It's still cool. What's not cool is that I put dozens of hours into this painting and have received nothing for it. That's a hundred posters that should have been sold or a thousand postcards, or three dozen prints. Heck, I saw someone making money on one of my works by selling it as t-shirts on a campus. And as an individual artist there's really little you can do about it. It would be a full time job tracking them down, policing it, etc. It winds up being a lot of money. And it's theft. Conscious theft. What's the price on that? I suppose it depends if you are taking away someone's livlihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Extra 10% mark-up on the goods stolen and legal fees sound good to me. That's not much of a disincentive for crime, if they get caught, prosecuted and convicted. I'm no fan of the RIAA but usually what they go after are people who are downloading and sharing music, not just people who download a few songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If they go so far as to become posters and book covers, I would believe you would have standing to go after the publishers of those; correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 stevenaa, The laws are BS and have been bought and paid for by industry. Why should we follow unjust laws? Penalties are way out of line with what industry loses. Your stance is ridiculous... you do realize it should be fair use to rip and share within your family, no? If the law is unjust and applied in an unjust manner ie. why are they going after a non-commercial file sharer? I would have less of a problem if she was a commercial pirate... Why should it be fair to share music with family? I don't own the music when I purchase a CD. I own a license to a copy of the music. That license does not entitle me to share it. It is a single use license. Very simple concept. Your stance is the one that is ridiculous. You act as if you have some right in regards to the music. You have none. The owner of the music has all the rights. He/She or whoever the owner is gets to stipulate the terms of use. If you don't like the terms don't buy or listen to the music. Same goes for software. It blows my mind that people feel they should have the right to do with what they please with other peoples property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Why should it be fair to share music with family? I don't own the music when I purchase a CD. I own a license to a copy of the music. That license does not entitle me to share it. It is a single use license. Very simple concept. Your stance is the one that is ridiculous. You act as if you have some right in regards to the music. You have none. The owner of the music has all the rights. He/She or whoever the owner is gets to stipulate the terms of use. If you don't like the terms don't buy or listen to the music. Same goes for software. It blows my mind that people feel they should have the right to do with what they please with other peoples property. I think thats a little over the top. So you'd rather buy the same CD twice for your kids then have them share the songs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drop Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Did not see this posted anywhere http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading Do you guys agree with the ruling or not? No it's outrageous and ridiculous. You wanna know what the penalty should be for downloading media or sharing it illegaly? You should have to buy the content you downloaded or shared. Simple as that. $80,000 per song is absurd. How the hell is that even justifiable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 If you can hunt them down, find them, and sue them sure... but it's a tremendous pain in the ass to hunt down single individuals who do this or some college kid who prints out t-shirts in their dorm room. In this day and age all you need to make a poster is a computer and a decent printer. I mean heck look at how many copyrighted pictures are posted on ES every day. Now, most of those are public domain, but still. They are generally posted without attribution and certainly not compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I think thats a little over the top. So you'd rather buy the same CD twice for your kids then have them share the songs? My selfish answer is that I'd rather not buy 2 CD's. But that's not the right thing to do. I'm endeavoring to raise law abiding children who are taught to do right and take the appropriate legal actions to affect change. I'd love for the music industry to change the license to allow sharing amongst family. But, until it does, my family will obey the law. This isn't a matter of rights violation that warrents civil disobedience. I also agree the penalty is over the top. But, she had a chance to settle, as the ~30k people before her chose to do. And she will likely still have that opportunity. The industry is not going to risk the PR exposure by sticking it to her for the judgement amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 When I download music for free, I am not encumbered by said "single license". Seriously, do you not allow your wife to listen to your CDs as well? "Honey, you can't have that; I'm the sole owner of the license to that CD". Also, if tons of people are downloading media for free, what's the incentive for you to pay for it? If tons of people are speeding, what's the incentive to go the speed limit? The whole reason we have copyright in the law is to encourage new works. Copyright was never intended as a welfare program for artists (and their families). The law has "evolved" in a way that now unjustly favors the artists over society. To put it bluntly, corporations have bought out our laws; and our lawmakers have sold their laws down the river. The reason myself and others undermine copyright laws is that we see an unjust regime of laws and policy. I'm baffled that people adhere to and back-up poor laws and policy. There are thousands of things way more important than copyright in this world, yet we get all emotional about it. As far as this case; I'd like to see the penalties appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which I doubt it)... again... we don't believe its not illegal; but believe the penalties are out of line with the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 My selfish answer is that I'd rather not buy 2 CD's. But that's not the right thing to do. I'm endeavoring to raise law abiding children who are taught to do right and take the appropriate legal actions to affect change. I'd love for the music industry to change the license to allow sharing amongst family. But, until it does, my family will obey the law. This isn't a matter of rights violation that warrents civil disobedience.I also agree the penalty is over the top. But, she had a chance to settle, as the ~30k people before her chose to do. And she will likely still have that opportunity. The industry is not going to risk the PR exposure by sticking it to her for the judgement amount. So you don't even let them burn the music onto the computer? Because you can do that. I understand where you're coming from, I just think its a little crazy that's all. I don't think anyone wants to raise their children to be thieves or anything. The penalty is definitely over the top. 80k per song is outrageous. If anything just go make her buy the CDs. This is why I stopped downloading songs, its not worth it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 stevenaa, You shouldn't be trying to raise law abiding kids; you should be trying to raise kids who can use their brain and think about "right" and "wrong". Will you force them to drive the speed limit on the Beltway for example (or in a dangerous situation)? Clearly it is wrong to file-share, by law. However much the media corporations want to convince you, there is little harm to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.