$80,000 Per Song !
Phantom Pain
Posts: 9,876
Holy Crap !
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading
Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case
By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer Steve Karnowski, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 19, 7:08 am ET
MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.
The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.
Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.
Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.
"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.
In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.
An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.
Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.
He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.
He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.
Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.
The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading
Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case
By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer Steve Karnowski, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 19, 7:08 am ET
MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.
The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.
Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.
Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.
"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.
In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.
An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.
Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.
He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.
He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.
Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.
The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
My drinking team has a hockey problem
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
There's no way any song by any of them is worth 80K.Phantom Pain wrote:
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
This weekend we rock Portland0 -
Poncier wrote:
There's no way any song by any of them is worth 80K.Phantom Pain wrote:
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
Haha !!
I dont know...everyone owns Journeys Greatest Hits
My drinking team has a hockey problem
The ONLY thing better than a glass of beer is tea with Miss McGill
A protuberance of flesh above the waistband of a tight pair of trousers0 -
Phantom Pain wrote:Holy Crap !
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.
Must remember if I ever get sued in a case like this not to hire a lawyer named after a fruit.0 -
I don't understand why the punishment for stealing songs by downloading them is different than if you went in to a store and stole a couple of CD's that had the same songs on them. What would the punishment be for that? Maybe some probation or a small fine if you were a 1st time offender.PJ: 8/27/00 4/29/03 9/15/05 5/12/06 6/28/08 6/30/08 8/21/09 5/15/10 5/21/10 9/11/11 9/12/11 9/14/11 10/25/13 10/27/13 10/29/13 10/30/13 8/5/16 8/7/16 9/2/18 9/4/18
EV: 8/09/08 8/10/08 6/08/09 6/09/09 6/18/110 -
Vart wrote:I don't understand why the punishment for stealing songs by downloading them is different than if you went in to a store and stole a couple of CD's that had the same songs on them. What would the punishment be for that? Maybe some probation or a small fine if you were a 1st time offender.
The logic goes that if you steal the CD, you steal one copy of the CD and listen to it and you owe the money for that CD. If you make songs available for free online, they can potentially be downloaded by thousands and thousands of people that will not buy the CD... so in a sense, you're stealing 1000 cds, not just the one.
What people don't realize about illegal downloading is that it's not just "hey, so I stole one 99 cent song." If you make that song available online, cumulatively you're depriving them of thousands of songs. Radio stations have to pay royalties every time they play a song. You can't steal a cd, burn 1000 copies and walk around a mall handing them out for free without getting in trouble. And you shouldn't be doing it with music either.0 -
Wouldn't downloading a single song count as petty theft? A whole CD costs around $15, so even if you stole the whole damn thing, it'd be petty theft. How can the RIAA get away with meting out such massive fines?
EDIT: Ack, looks like Soulsinging already answered this.Thanks EPOTTSIII!
"Vinyl or not, you will need to pay someone to take RA of your hands" - Smile05
424, xxx0 -
soulsinging wrote:Vart wrote:I don't understand why the punishment for stealing songs by downloading them is different than if you went in to a store and stole a couple of CD's that had the same songs on them. What would the punishment be for that? Maybe some probation or a small fine if you were a 1st time offender.
The logic goes that if you steal the CD, you steal one copy of the CD and listen to it and you owe the money for that CD. If you make songs available for free online, they can potentially be downloaded by thousands and thousands of people that will not buy the CD... so in a sense, you're stealing 1000 cds, not just the one.
What people don't realize about illegal downloading is that it's not just "hey, so I stole one 99 cent song." If you make that song available online, cumulatively you're depriving them of thousands of songs. Radio stations have to pay royalties every time they play a song. You can't steal a cd, burn 1000 copies and walk around a mall handing them out for free without getting in trouble. And you shouldn't be doing it with music either.
So they are punishing her for illegal distribution of copyrighted material, not for stealing it? When I read the story I read it as her being punished for stealing not for distrbution. But I'll be the first to admit my reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. PJ: 8/27/00 4/29/03 9/15/05 5/12/06 6/28/08 6/30/08 8/21/09 5/15/10 5/21/10 9/11/11 9/12/11 9/14/11 10/25/13 10/27/13 10/29/13 10/30/13 8/5/16 8/7/16 9/2/18 9/4/18
EV: 8/09/08 8/10/08 6/08/09 6/09/09 6/18/110 -
soulsinging wrote:Vart wrote:I don't understand why the punishment for stealing songs by downloading them is different than if you went in to a store and stole a couple of CD's that had the same songs on them. What would the punishment be for that? Maybe some probation or a small fine if you were a 1st time offender.
The logic goes that if you steal the CD, you steal one copy of the CD and listen to it and you owe the money for that CD. If you make songs available for free online, they can potentially be downloaded by thousands and thousands of people that will not buy the CD... so in a sense, you're stealing 1000 cds, not just the one.
What people don't realize about illegal downloading is that it's not just "hey, so I stole one 99 cent song." If you make that song available online, cumulatively you're depriving them of thousands of songs. Radio stations have to pay royalties every time they play a song. You can't steal a cd, burn 1000 copies and walk around a mall handing them out for free without getting in trouble. And you shouldn't be doing it with music either.
that fine is utterly fn ridiculous. $80,000 for a song. how did they come up with this number? you could rob the master tapes of those songs and not pay that hefty of a fine. our justice system is so screwed up0 -
pjhawks wrote:that fine is utterly fn ridiculous. $80,000 for a song. how did they come up with this number? you could rob the master tapes of those songs and not pay that hefty of a fine. our justice system is so screwed up
Well, in the defense of the legal system, I don't think lawmakers envisioned this kind of problem when they wrote the laws..."The dude abides. I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' her easy for all us sinners."0 -
damn, that's a lot of cabbage! I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com0 -
Vart wrote:soulsinging wrote:Vart wrote:I don't understand why the punishment for stealing songs by downloading them is different than if you went in to a store and stole a couple of CD's that had the same songs on them. What would the punishment be for that? Maybe some probation or a small fine if you were a 1st time offender.
The logic goes that if you steal the CD, you steal one copy of the CD and listen to it and you owe the money for that CD. If you make songs available for free online, they can potentially be downloaded by thousands and thousands of people that will not buy the CD... so in a sense, you're stealing 1000 cds, not just the one.
What people don't realize about illegal downloading is that it's not just "hey, so I stole one 99 cent song." If you make that song available online, cumulatively you're depriving them of thousands of songs. Radio stations have to pay royalties every time they play a song. You can't steal a cd, burn 1000 copies and walk around a mall handing them out for free without getting in trouble. And you shouldn't be doing it with music either.
So they are punishing her for illegal distribution of copyrighted material, not for stealing it? When I read the story I read it as her being punished for stealing not for distrbution. But I'll be the first to admit my reading comprehension skills aren't all that great.
Exactly. That's what they hit her with.0 -
milarso wrote:pjhawks wrote:that fine is utterly fn ridiculous. $80,000 for a song. how did they come up with this number? you could rob the master tapes of those songs and not pay that hefty of a fine. our justice system is so screwed up
Well, in the defense of the legal system, I don't think lawmakers envisioned this kind of problem when they wrote the laws...
They definitely did not. Internet law is very new and awkward and patchwork. Nobody quite knows what to do with it.
As to the fine, I see 2 things:
1) it's not that absurd if you think about it. Say that retail cost of a CD is $16. If you make a song available to 5000 people, which is not that farfetched, and those people don't buy the CD, that's $80,000. Like them or not, those artists listed were major artists that easily sell hundreds of thousands of copies. It's not that unreasonable to think a lot of people might download in lieu of buying. The justice system also allows for punitive damages, aka punishment. When you nail someone for theft, they go to jail regardless of whether or not the victim gets the goods back. Why? Because it's not just about getting your stuff back, it's about teaching them a lesson.
2) The article makes clear that there's no way she's going to pay it, and the record companies aren't that interested in collecting on it. This isn't about the money for them. They've already offered her many settlements. For them, this is about setting a legal example to show people clearly that you cannot do this. And much as I loathe the record companies, they have a point. It's amazing how people that would never even think of stealing a CD from a Target will think nothing of downloading it from limewire. They do it because they think they can't get caught, but they try to rationalize it by acting like it's somehow ok. If you shoplift at Target, I guarantee you face more penalties than having to pay back the CD cost.0 -
soulsinging wrote:
2) The article makes clear that there's no way she's going to pay it, and the record companies aren't that interested in collecting on it. This isn't about the money for them. They've already offered her many settlements. For them, this is about setting a legal example to show people clearly that you cannot do this. And much as I loathe the record companies, they have a point. It's amazing how people that would never even think of stealing a CD from a Target will think nothing of downloading it from limewire. They do it because they think they can't get caught, but they try to rationalize it by acting like it's somehow ok. If you shoplift at Target, I guarantee you face more penalties than having to pay back the CD cost.
I'm sure you have a better idea on how the law is on this sort of thing more than I, but I just want to say that if it was 1 and ONLY 1 CD that you stole from a store you aren't going to face much as far as penalties.
From what I know shoplifting is only a felony if the merchandise stolen is valued at more than $500. So say you get got stealing 1 cd. Aside from making you give it back/pay for it the store as well as the police aren't going to do much to you.
I could be wrong though, and I am in no way disagreeing with what you are saying, just putting a hypothetical real world example out there.0 -
soulsinging wrote:2) For them, this is about setting a legal example to show people clearly that you cannot do this. And much as I loathe the record companies, they have a point. It's amazing how people that would never even think of stealing a CD from a Target will think nothing of downloading it from limewire. They do it because they think they can't get caught, but they try to rationalize it by acting like it's somehow ok
I'm of the school of thought that file sharing is no different than making mix tapes or cd's for friends. I'm sure there are those that don't use the honour system whatsoever...but I'm sure there was in the tape days too...
before file sharing, if I wasn't sure about a band, I'd tape their songs off the radio, or borrow a friend's copy to pirate and decide if it was worth buying etc.
The thing that is so stupid about this....they're assuming that the person would actually have bought and paid for these songs otherwise...when in many cases, the person likely would not have...so...the artist is getting exposure they wouldn't have got before file sharing, yet the record companies are suing the fans. brilliant.
Not to mention that there ARE people who download things they've already bought (sometimes in multiple formats), just to get a digi copy and save the hassle of ripping it themselves.
80k is fucking absurd. I should check up on Canada's current laws... as far as I know, file sharing is still not illegal here.0 -
Drowned Out wrote:soulsinging wrote:2) For them, this is about setting a legal example to show people clearly that you cannot do this. And much as I loathe the record companies, they have a point. It's amazing how people that would never even think of stealing a CD from a Target will think nothing of downloading it from limewire. They do it because they think they can't get caught, but they try to rationalize it by acting like it's somehow ok
I'm of the school of thought that file sharing is no different than making mix tapes or cd's for friends. I'm sure there are those that don't use the honour system whatsoever...but I'm sure there was in the tape days too...
before file sharing, if I wasn't sure about a band, I'd tape their songs off the radio, or borrow a friend's copy to pirate and decide if it was worth buying etc.
The thing that is so stupid about this....they're assuming that the person would actually have bought and paid for these songs otherwise...when in many cases, the person likely would not have...so...the artist is getting exposure they wouldn't have got before file sharing, yet the record companies are suing the fans. brilliant.
Not to mention that there ARE people who download things they've already bought (sometimes in multiple formats), just to get a digi copy and save the hassle of ripping it themselves.
80k is fucking absurd. I should check up on Canada's current laws... as far as I know, file sharing is still not illegal here.
You cannot compare a mix tape to digital downloads. So you tape a song off the radio, or share a tape with a friend. You have to buy a tape (record companies got royalties on those I believe) and physically make the copy and physically hand it to your friend. Lot of work for ONE copy, and you're still adding money to the music industry. But you put a digital song in your share folder and thousands of people can get it in seconds for absolutely free without you having to lift a finger. That's a hugely different problem.
And I think you misapprehend downloaders. Many of them are casual music fans. Maybe they would buy, maybe they wouldn't. But if there was no other way for them to get that latest hit pop single, they are a hell of a lot more likely to buy the cd. Now, they'll download it and not even think about buying. On the flipside, I think a lot of these people are opting to buy those singles through itunes or amazon. It's a matter of convenience and just getting a single.
How is downloading something easier than ripping it? It takes 5 minutes to rip a whole cd you bought onto your computer as opposed to potentially hours trying to track down all the songs in varying qualities and potentially loaded with viruses or weird edits...0 -
Thorns2010 wrote:soulsinging wrote:
2) The article makes clear that there's no way she's going to pay it, and the record companies aren't that interested in collecting on it. This isn't about the money for them. They've already offered her many settlements. For them, this is about setting a legal example to show people clearly that you cannot do this. And much as I loathe the record companies, they have a point. It's amazing how people that would never even think of stealing a CD from a Target will think nothing of downloading it from limewire. They do it because they think they can't get caught, but they try to rationalize it by acting like it's somehow ok. If you shoplift at Target, I guarantee you face more penalties than having to pay back the CD cost.
I'm sure you have a better idea on how the law is on this sort of thing more than I, but I just want to say that if it was 1 and ONLY 1 CD that you stole from a store you aren't going to face much as far as penalties.
From what I know shoplifting is only a felony if the merchandise stolen is valued at more than $500. So say you get got stealing 1 cd. Aside from making you give it back/pay for it the store as well as the police aren't going to do much to you.
I could be wrong though, and I am in no way disagreeing with what you are saying, just putting a hypothetical real world example out there.
I assume that means next time you go to Target you have no problem just grabbing a CD and walking out with it?
No, it's not a felony. Neither is downloading a song. This lady got slammed becos she was distributing the songs. But I'm willing to bet anything Target calls the cops on shoplifters. Even if you get a slap on the wrists, you go on paper. It's not just a simple matter of giving it back and paying for it. But the point is, people don't do that at Target because it's hard, they know it's wrong, and there's a good chance they'll get caught. These same are willing to download because odds are they won't get caught and it's easy, yet they try to rationalize it as if there's nothing wrong with it. Be honest is all I'm saying. It's stealing and you don't give a fuck.
The upside is that the ease of selling music online is likely going to wipe out the need for record companies, which is only a good thing.0 -
Drowned Out wrote:soulsinging wrote:2) For them, this is about setting a legal example to show people clearly that you cannot do this. And much as I loathe the record companies, they have a point. It's amazing how people that would never even think of stealing a CD from a Target will think nothing of downloading it from limewire. They do it because they think they can't get caught, but they try to rationalize it by acting like it's somehow ok
I'm of the school of thought that file sharing is no different than making mix tapes or cd's for friends. I'm sure there are those that don't use the honour system whatsoever...but I'm sure there was in the tape days too...
before file sharing, if I wasn't sure about a band, I'd tape their songs off the radio, or borrow a friend's copy to pirate and decide if it was worth buying etc.
The thing that is so stupid about this....they're assuming that the person would actually have bought and paid for these songs otherwise...when in many cases, the person likely would not have...so...the artist is getting exposure they wouldn't have got before file sharing, yet the record companies are suing the fans. brilliant.
Not to mention that there ARE people who download things they've already bought (sometimes in multiple formats), just to get a digi copy and save the hassle of ripping it themselves.
80k is fucking absurd. I should check up on Canada's current laws... as far as I know, file sharing is still not illegal here.
Point 1: a mix tape/ radio recording is not being sold for comercial use and therefore you are protected under the Home Recording Act of 1992. However digital downloading/file sharing is done through a business which means you are downloading for comercial use which is in violation of copyrights.
Point 2: The artist is not the record company, yeah the artist is getting exposure, but the company who is mainly responsible for launching the artist is not getting anything out of the deal.
Point 3: the problem with uploading an album you already own comes when you leave that file available to other thousands of users for downloading.
it's stealing.....the odds of getting caught are slim....but if you get caught....it's blatant stealing no matter how you try to spin it.0 -
soulsinging wrote:
The upside is that the ease of selling music online is likely going to wipe out the need for record companies, which is only a good thing.
The downside is that good record companies sign good artists, without record companies you'll have to filter through loads of shitty artists in order to find an artist you'd be interested in.
New artists won't be able to afford full scale tours
New artists won't be able to put out quality recordings
New artists won't be able to distribute vinyl or tangible forms of music nationally0 -
i love how people are too lazy and cheap to pay 0.99 for each song.0
-
Here's a hypothetical...
Say I download Metallica's Master of Puppets. Now back when this record was released I bought the vinyl and eventually bought the cassette, both of which no longer function or I don't have. I have paid my share to the record company more than once so is downloading it from a torrent stealing?#FHP0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help