$80,000 Per Song !

to help clear up the confusion, i did a quick google search for Canadian and American laws outlining downloading music.

Canadian/American Laws
google search of canadian laws


hope that helps out a little bit.

I think the difference here is that she was sued in civil court by the RIAA, not criminally charged by the police. Either way it sucks for her and hopefully the RIAA will be reasonable and settle this for an affordable amount for her, she should have accepted their original offer. I also think their is a reason no one has taken on the RIAA in court.

what are they looking for? people who download songs? or the people sharing? how do they know how many songs you have? do they take your computer or can they tell how many you have?

soulsinging wrote:

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...

if you are not transferring the file yourself though how you are culpable? Shouldn't the people who downloaded the song from her be the ones being targeted? If you put a song on Kaaza or Limewire and no one downloads it are you still guilty of copyright infringement?

mookeywrench wrote:

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.

What a joke this is. Splitting hairs. ‘commercial use’ on the side of the website you d/l’d from, NOT from the users end….this is even murkier with torrents. typical bureaucratic bs.

mookeywrench wrote:

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.

This is the beauty of the internet in general….a level playing field for all. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I disagree on the filtering too... Record companies do not sign only good artists ….they sign what they think will sell….loads of shitty artists to filter thru.
The internet makes it easier than ever to find good artists, thru related searches, genre searches, ‘similar to’ links, youtube etc etc…all the promotion avenues that rely on advertising or subscriptions for their income are still available to the industry. what sharing DOES do is give us the option to filter out all the GARBAGE record companies tell us we should be listening to, and lets us easily find what we like instead.

mookeywrench wrote:

New artists won't be able to afford full scale tours

Why not? Everyone uses sponsors and promoters these days....
if the collapse of corporate record companies does cause the music industry to revert back to smaller scale tours, with less production, smaller venues, cheaper tickets, local support acts etc for less established bands…I don’t see that as a bad thing.

mookeywrench wrote:

New artists won't be able to put out quality recordings

Totally disagree….anyone with a computer can put out higher quality music than most indy-studios were putting out 15 years ago.

mookeywrench wrote:

New artists won't be able to distribute vinyl or tangible forms of music nationally

Why not? You mean they won’t be able to distribute to box stores in one massive initial shipment….mail order seems to work for cd distribution. Niche markets like vinyl shouldn’t even factor into the discussion. Again, they’re just cutting out middle men, and taking further control of their own businesses.

soulsinging wrote:

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...

I can compare them…I did and will again :P Pretty sure there are taxes on blank cd’s too.
It’s the downloaders’ choice whether or not they share music they d/l…..But how is it any different to download a song than to record it from the radio?
My point is that most people have a pretty finite entertainment budget. This money would likely not be going to the record companies either way. Chances are, casual fans would be using the radio, borrowing/pirating from friends etc…hell, my music collection started by borrowing vinyl from the library and taping…I disagree that casual fans would be buying these discs en masse. I think hardcore fans are spending those same dollars on special edition sets and higher concert ticket prices….it’s not like they would have more music-budget-money just because downloading is no longer an option.

Yes, I’m rationalizing theft and don’t give a fuck! ...I'm also playing devil's advocate.
How much new material can a person realistically purchase? How many new artists and tours can a person support? The record companies are no more entitled to turn a profit on hundreds acts a year than I am to listen to or 'discover' said acts....They can’t realistically expect every artist they spend money promoting to become a platinum seller with a sold out tour….yet because someone only sells 300,000 copies of the follow up to his smash-hit debut, it gets blamed on downloading regardless of the product or other factors….it’s an easy excuse for the industry to justify bad management. I’m surprised the fuckers aren’t looking for bailouts.

Throw in 6 or 7 format changes in the last 30 years, and pardon my french…but they can fuck themselves. Find a way to adapt or become extinct, same as the industry has with every tech advancement since it's infancy. Making examples of some random music fan is not going to stuff this genie back in the bottle.

And downloading is WAY easier and faster than ripping….not that I’d know
I’m guessing you don’t use torrent….a person can find an entire album (discography for that matter) in seconds…with a decent connection; you can d/l an album in about 2 minutes flat. Type the album name into a search, check file quality, click download….quick virus scan, done. It would take longer to find the hard copy disc in a collection than to do that.

My biggest concern with the whole file sharing debate is that it may be all the excuse western governments need to bring in sweeping changes to the way the internet works as a whole.

Drowned Out wrote:

Yes, I’m rationalizing theft and don’t give a fuck!

well thereya go!



honestly, i think we all - or at least most of us - have burned a CD, DVD, etc....for our own personal use after renting, or borrowing from a friend, or even from a website. however, being the one to actually distribute said material on the internet, as it seems this woman did....is a whole other category of 'rationalizing theft' no?

Drowned Out wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

Yes, I’m rationalizing theft and don’t give a fuck!

well thereya go!



honestly, i think we all - or at least most of us - have burned a CD, DVD, etc....for our own personal use after renting, or borrowing from a friend, or even from a website. however, being the one to actually distribute said material on the internet, as it seems this woman did....is a whole other category of 'rationalizing theft' no?

hey, I call it like it is...I think the rationalization is mostly justified, for the reasons stated above.

And it depends what software you use, and how careful (or care-free) you were about sharing the file yourself. I haven't even read the article, but I'd guess its possible that this woman didn't even know she was sharing the files herself.

spoken like a true rationalizer.....;)
and no offense meant, i am one of the best rationalizers out there.

on this issue tho, i happen to disagree. and as to this exact case, this woman is never going to be expected to cough up that cash, it was/is simply a 'message'......

decides2dream wrote:

spoken like a true rationalizer.....;)
and no offense meant, i am one of the best rationalizers out there.

on this issue tho, i happen to disagree. and as to this exact case, this woman is never going to be expected to cough up that cash, it was/is simply a 'message'......

none taken, I know what you're saying. I know it's not black and white.
the point that it's a 'message' is part of what bothers me. Making examples is not justice, nor is it fair to the person being made an example of....
Singling out one woman and completely turning her life upside down is a joke. The symbolic amount is a joke too....maybe she'll get to declare bankrupcy and never pay a cent (and destroy her credit etc etc) ...over something that's imo trivial and commonplace. It's still way too harsh a penalty, even if she doesn't have to pay it all.