SkinInsite 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. I guess stealing is wrong by law but there's little harm to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 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. Then there's no penalty for the theft. My company makes software. We spend millions every year in improving it. When other companies steal our property, should our remedy be just to recover the price of the software they used illegally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I agree with others that stevnaa's "stance" is ridiculous at best. I'm also a parent and would allow the household to share a CD. It's a legitimate buy and they are not sharing files with the public. You might think it's a noble gesture, but in reality you might be teaching your kids to be selfish. You know, what's mine is mine.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator 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. there's little societal "harm" for regular shoplifting too. Except multiply that by thousands of people, and it equals a ton of lost revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa 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. You can fight that which you perceive as unjust while still abiding by the law. We're not talking about life or death here. I'm doing my children no favors by teaching them only to abide by the law when it suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me be a little more narrow: Stealing music, TV, and movies has little harm to society. Remember when there was a big-to-do about the new Wolverine movie leaked over the Internet? Did it have a negative impact on sales, pretty sure that movie did gangbusters. How about other music that is leaked and shared onto the internet? Nope. The reason? The casual file sharer has no intention of paying for something unless he believes there is value in it. So he'll evaluate it and see if there is value; and if so he'll buy it and purchase more by the artist. If not, well the artist is asking too much for it. Getting into arguments over "does that mean it is okay to shoplift movies, music, and TV shows"? I don't think so because the physical copies have a much greater value than a digital copy... indeed you are paying mostly for the legal license, although the packaging, etc. provides value as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 "let me be a little narrow and create a valid excuse why it should be ok to obtain a copy of any TV/Movie/Music item I want without paying because some people will still pay for it afterwards, but many will not". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 You might think it's a noble gesture, but in reality you might be teaching your kids to be selfish. You know, what's mine is mine.:2cents: Seriously? You really think they are going to make the leap from "abide by the law in regards to ILLEGALLY sharing music" to what's mine is mine? It isn't about being noble. Abiding by the law is a simple concept. Breaking it because they don't want to take the financial hit of buying their own music is not an option. What you might be teaching your children is it is ok to break the law when it suits them financially. Again, this isn't a case of personal rights violation that justifies civil disobedience. I don't disagree that the laws need to be updated for the times. But until they are, I'm not compromising my principals because i'm in disagreement with them. I don't mind buying my children their own CD's. It's just not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me be a little more narrow:Stealing music, TV, and movies has little harm to society. Remember when there was a big-to-do about the new Wolverine movie leaked over the Internet? Did it have a negative impact on sales, pretty sure that movie did gangbusters. How about other music that is leaked and shared onto the internet? Nope. The reason? The casual file sharer has no intention of paying for something unless he believes there is value in it. So he'll evaluate it and see if there is value; and if so he'll buy it and purchase more by the artist. If not, well the artist is asking too much for it. Getting into arguments over "does that mean it is okay to shoplift movies, music, and TV shows"? I don't think so because the physical copies have a much greater value than a digital copy... indeed you are paying mostly for the legal license, although the packaging, etc. provides value as well. If i were on the Jury and the woman had your attitude I'd fine her 800k a song too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Extra 10% mark-up on the goods stolen and legal fees sound good to me. So in your opinion, the way the law ought to deal with thieves is "go ahead and steal, and if you get caught, we'll make you pay 10% extra?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I agree with others that stevnaa's "stance" is ridiculous at best. I'm also a parent and would allow the household to share a CD. It's a legitimate buy and they are not sharing files with the public. You might think it's a noble gesture, but in reality you might be teaching your kids to be selfish. You know, what's mine is mine.:2cents: As opposed to teaching them that "what's somebody else's is mine, too"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The reason? The casual file sharer has no intention of paying for something unless he believes there is value in it. So he'll evaluate it and see if there is value; and if so he'll buy it and purchase more by the artist. If not, well the artist is asking too much for it. That's nonsense. Most media is available for free to stream, or in a preview form. The music video for a lot of popular music is on youtube or elsewhere. The "I'm only evaluating it" argument doesn't hold water. Many video games come with playable demos and yet there's still a significant industry around stealing the content on modified machines. The reason it's less prevalent than theft of music or movies is because it's a little harder technically. The reason people download music and movies illegally is because they can and they think the risks of getting caught are low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Here's an interesting question: In America we pay $200 for a copy of Microsoft Windows. Did you know in China and India, places with much higher piracy rates, legal copies of Windows are sold for a discount (like $65)? Does this mean the American consumer is getting gouged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So in your opinion, the way the law ought to deal with thieves is "go ahead and steal, and if you get caught, we'll make you pay 10% extra?" Well, it doesn't seem that they are going to be punished criminally whereas a person who shoplifts at a retail store would. So, 10% more, plus legal fees. Which seem to add up when it comes to the RIAA.Of crouse, I'd be open to more too. But there should be a cap on the fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Here's an interesting question: In America we pay $200 for a copy of Microsoft Windows. Did you know in China and India, places with much higher piracy rates, legal copies of Windows are sold for a discount (like $65)? Does this mean the American consumer is getting gouged? Possibly. But that doesn't make it an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Here's an interesting question: In America we pay $200 for a copy of Microsoft Windows. Did you know in China and India, places with much higher piracy rates, legal copies of Windows are sold for a discount (like $65)? Does this mean the American consumer is getting gouged? If you feel like you are being gouged you don't have to buy Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I thought the industry wasnt going to go after this stuff anymore? Anyone looking back for a thread about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Recall reading about the first verdict. Y'all think that the fact that the defendant had, iir, 1,700 stolen items on her hard drive might have contributed to the large award? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 24 songs at 2$ each = 48 dollars. Lady is guilty so she should have to pay a markup of what 100,000%? Good luck with charging a single mom with 80k for something we hear for free on the radio over and over and over.. 2400.00$ would be more in line with what you could reasonably get. They said they won't sue people anymore, she was old case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Let me be a little more narrow:Stealing music, TV, and movies has little harm to society. Remember when there was a big-to-do about the new Wolverine movie leaked over the Internet? Did it have a negative impact on sales, pretty sure that movie did gangbusters. How about other music that is leaked and shared onto the internet? Nope. The reason? The casual file sharer has no intention of paying for something unless he believes there is value in it. So he'll evaluate it and see if there is value; and if so he'll buy it and purchase more by the artist. If not, well the artist is asking too much for it. Getting into arguments over "does that mean it is okay to shoplift movies, music, and TV shows"? I don't think so because the physical copies have a much greater value than a digital copy... indeed you are paying mostly for the legal license, although the packaging, etc. provides value as well. This is nothing more than an entitlement mentality. Want, want, want, but don't want to pay. Stop hiding behind this farce of an argument, railing against the big, bad Music industry and just tell the truth. You, and all those who illegally share music, are too cheap to pay for it and think you should be entitled to it for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 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. And many of them are legal under fair use. (Well, OK, maybe "some" would be a better word. But there do exist circumstances in which quoting a copyrighted work is perfectly legal.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I thought the industry wasnt going to go after this stuff anymore?Anyone looking back for a thread about that? They aren't. This is a left over who refused to settle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 The law was broken, but the penalty is out of line. Make her pay what the normal dl fee would be, plus a realistic penalty that would set an example. IE, make her pay 100 dollar per song penalty. 2400.00. She'd pay it, it would hurt her, and it would send the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKSkinsFan Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Music sharing has been going on since the cassette was invented. Tell me nobody in here has never borrowed a tape or CD from a friend and copied it. Imagine getting fined $800,000 for that mix cd you made someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Well, it doesn't seem that they are going to be punished criminally whereas a person who shoplifts at a retail store would. So, 10% more, plus legal fees. Which seem to add up when it comes to the RIAA.Of crouse, I'd be open to more too. But there should be a cap on the fine. What you're advocating is theft with immunity from punishment. How many bank robberies you figure we'd have, if the law was that if caught, the maximum penalty was that they made you give the money back? If that's the penalty, then why shouldn't I steal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.