Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › RIAA Wins First File Sharing Case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIAA Wins First File Sharing Case - Page 5

post #61 of 74
What's so annoying about this case is the huge fine. This reminds me of a case in Thailand, when I was living there. EVERYWHERE you can buy bootleg software, movies, music. In fact, you see the same dealers on the streets of downtown LA, NYC. Now, when a big Microsoft representative was coming, the authorities went down to the supermarket of software, Pantip Plaza, grabbed one poor vendor at random and slapped him in jail for 20 years! A few days later after the Microsoft guy left, it was back to business as usual, except for the next 20 years for the poor vendor - just one guy among thousands. A scapegoat and a example. That's what they're doing to this woman, plain and simple, making her a scapegoat - making an example of her. Is that justice?


Another point which hasn't been mentioned too much in this thread is that there is a big difference between a person 'stealing' 24 songs for personal use and a person 'stealing' 24 songs offered online for anyone else to steal. One parallel could be the variation in punishment for people possessing illegal drugs versus people distributing illegal drugs. This woman was actively supporting larcenous behavior which would hurt the RIAA's revenue.



All this woman forgot to do, like probably 80 percent of the kids sharing don't know how to do, was disable the "sharing" option on here P2P software. Are you using a P2P and haven't turned off the upload option? You're a dealer!! She was sharing the songs on her harddrive and probably didn't even realize she was doing so.
post #62 of 74
The Riaa says it is illegal to copy music from your purchased CD'S to a device such as an IPOD.
post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhaedrusX View Post
i think what's important to note is the link to the article concerning the riaa's clandestine and immoral tactics used to sabotage operations that are perfectly legal in the countries in which they reside.

the riaa hires a bunch of lawyers to put a stop to what they interpret as illegal activities under u.s. law, even when they occur outside of u.s. jurisdiction.

when this doesn't work, they go on the offensive and attack said perfectly legal operations, using deceit and largely illegal methods.

every step of the way, they get backing and assistance from friends in high places. friends whom we trust should know better.
Exactly. Let's please not be hypocrites and stop pretending this is about music or musicians. Neither is this about right or wrong or about justice. This is about a multi billion dollar business seeing it's source of income threathened by new technologies and cultural changes, and despite having not much interesting or useful services to offer anymore, doing it's utmost (be it legal or illegal, moral or immoral) to keep control over what used to be and IMO should be a public resource, no matter what the cost.

There have been several at the very least dubious actions against file sharing indexing sites, and individuals involved in the P2P communities in different European countries like Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands, trying to intimidate people into stopping things that are not even illegal, etc.

Downloading music for personal use, for instance, is perfectly legal in the Netherlands, only uploading is not allowed but has never been succesfully prosecuted in cases where there was no attempt to make a profit from it. Still every press release by the dutch version of the RIAA speaks of theft and stealing when refering to downloading which is simply a factual lie and therefore a form of intimidation.

The record industry should not be protected by increasingly draconian laws and outrageous fines. Like every outdated and obsolete business model it should be allowed to roll over and die.
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Exactly. Let's please not be hypocrites and stop pretending this is about music or musicians. Neither is this about right or wrong or about justice. This is about a multi billion dollar business seeing it's source of income threathened by new technologies and cultural changes, and despite having not much interesting or useful services to offer anymore, doing it's utmost (be it legal or illegal, moral or immoral) to keep control over what used to be and IMO should be a public resource, no matter what the cost.
I feel the same way. The true drive behind the RIAA is money. Pure and simple. They don't care AT ALL about the musicians, unless it means they make money.
post #65 of 74
That's just pure sickness. I wonder how RIAA calculate those fines..
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesebert View Post
you lost me on your 'future profit' argument. How is the violation of copyright's holder to exclude others from the use of her copyrighted material related to 'future profit', taking the 'Fair Use' exception into consideration?

...I am sorry if I missed any of your previous arguments...its Sat and my brain is dead
No worries I think I've pretty much said what I have to say about it, but to recap, what I meant by 'future profits' is that those simplistic TV ads imply that sharing music online is 'stealing' because it deprives record companies of revenues they might otherwise receive if, for example, the infringer didn't make the files available for download by others (i.e. who might have purchased a CD instead). Those revenues are potential and speculative, not money in a bank account. The 'fair use' exception was brought up by another poster to imply that copyright violation equates in some way to interfering with such potential revenues, because non-commercial usage is more likely to be 'fair'. The point of my long-winded arguments is that copyright violation is just that, the offence of copying, or in other words interfering with the holder's monopoly to control copying; the loss arising from such copying is a secondary issue for which various remedies may be available if litigation is pursued, including damages for loss of profits (if this can be proven). As I argued above, think about the multitude of other possible ways someone might perfectly legally interfere with record sales. It is only an offence if the particular method is copying, or something else illegal. Hence, again, you can't 'steal' money that the RIAA thinks it might have made, because it doesn't 'own' that money. Hence we don't observe any criminal prosecutions of downloaders for theft! They use the word 'steal' because of its moral connotations, which don't apply very well here, especially, as I argued above, because the standard moral justifications of private property don't apply to intellectual property.
post #67 of 74
What i don't understand is Why the RIAA is not considered to be a monopoly?

They consist of the big 6 record companies to control over 90% of record music that is released today. I understand they first developed the EQ setting for Vinyl and setting the standards which any Association will do.

but as of late how many Association's have you heard of that involved all the major competitors in cahoots with each other to price fix their product, scam artists and performers out of any reel payback, and i am sure the list can go on and on and on.
have you ever heard of another association filing 26,000 law suits?

the RIAA of today is a monopoly, all 6 companies are working as one with no other real competition. they price fix all their products (in other words no one else can make another price in competition.).

how are they getting away with this? why has someone not stepped up and demanded the Government to break them up?
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhd812 View Post
how are they getting away with this? why has someone not stepped up and demanded the Government to break them up?
Basically they've bought the American Congress. How do you think a monster like the DMCA and the The Copyright Term Extension Act ever got passed in the first place? If you have enough money you can get laws passed that allow you to treat your own customers like crimininals.
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bahamaman View Post
If I record a song, and you illegally download a copy, how am I not deprived of the income I would have received had you bought it lawfully?

And I just don't think your analogy in the second sentence holds water. Illegally downloading songs of band "A" to avoid shelling out $ for their album is completely distinguishable from my deciding to purchase a CD from band "B", which might thereby deprive band "A" of revenue.
Because I wouldn't have bought it in many cases. There are many many other demands on our expendable income these days and music is not high on the priority list for a very large number of people.

I know many many people who would happily accept a copy of a hit song/album, who would never go buy it. This would often be true of me as well. For example: If you handed me a copy of Umbrella I would take it and probably listen to it a couple of times. You will not, however, find me purchasing the CD.

Similarly, if a bar starts passing out free drinks to its customers a good number of people will get very drunk on drinks they would not have purchased.

I recently went to a concert and was handed some stickers and some CDs of bands trying to promote themselves. I accepted the CDs and will probably listen to them at some point. If the people handing them out had asked me for a dollar in exchange for the CD I would have passed.

Just because I accept/take something that is freely available does not mean I would choose to spend money on it. Therefore, you cannot assume that any revenue was lost.

The RIAA is very upset that they're losing sales, but I don't think it's fair to assume that the loss in sales is due to file sharing. As previously mentioned, there are a ridiculous number of ways that someone can spend their expendable income. As these ways increase it's no surprise that there will be growths and declines as trends change.

Another area to consider is content. If the RIAA would focus on putting out good content CD sales might rise again. For quite some time I stopped purchasing CDs, but it had nothing to do with downloading but rather my disappointment with what was available. I didn't want to spend $15 on one or two songs I might listen to a dozen times, and prioritized other things over purchasing music. I did buy a few new CDs recently (good content for a change, although I'm rather pissed about the horrible mastering of a couple of the albums I got), but the money I spend on music (considerable amount) primarily goes to used CD purchases since I am less than thrilled by much of the content being newly released. This actually ties back to my previous point. With my limited income and the large variety of things I can do with it I have to prioritize and make decisions based on value for the money (even though this happens subconsciously for the most part) and a CD with one or two good songs on it just doesn't rate very high.
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper994 View Post
Because I wouldn't have bought it in many cases. There are many many other demands on our expendable income these days and music is not high on the priority list for a very large number of people.

I know many many people who would happily accept a copy of a hit song/album, who would never go buy it. This would often be true of me as well. For example: If you handed me a copy of Umbrella I would take it and probably listen to it a couple of times. You will not, however, find me purchasing the CD.

Similarly, if a bar starts passing out free drinks to its customers a good number of people will get very drunk on drinks they would not have purchased.

I recently went to a concert and was handed some stickers and some CDs of bands trying to promote themselves. I accepted the CDs and will probably listen to them at some point. If the people handing them out had asked me for a dollar in exchange for the CD I would have passed.

Just because I accept/take something that is freely available does not mean I would choose to spend money on it. Therefore, you cannot assume that any revenue was lost.

The RIAA is very upset that they're losing sales, but I don't think it's fair to assume that the loss in sales is due to file sharing. As previously mentioned, there are a ridiculous number of ways that someone can spend their expendable income. As these ways increase it's no surprise that there will be growths and declines as trends change.

Another area to consider is content. If the RIAA would focus on putting out good content CD sales might rise again. For quite some time I stopped purchasing CDs, but it had nothing to do with downloading but rather my disappointment with what was available. I didn't want to spend $15 on one or two songs I might listen to a dozen times, and prioritized other things over purchasing music. I did buy a few new CDs recently (good content for a change, although I'm rather pissed about the horrible mastering of a couple of the albums I got), but the money I spend on music (considerable amount) primarily goes to used CD purchases since I am less than thrilled by much of the content being newly released. This actually ties back to my previous point. With my limited income and the large variety of things I can do with it I have to prioritize and make decisions based on value for the money (even though this happens subconsciously for the most part) and a CD with one or two good songs on it just doesn't rate very high.
Prime example of why the RIAA's argument of why file sharing hurts artists is complete bulls#*t. It hurts the record company's ego moreso than anything. Smaller artists have everything to gain from file sharing due to increased exposure.

As a Head-Fier, it's a different case. I am not willing to pay money for lossy file formats, so I won't ever touch those DRM ridden wares from Apple and the like. I buy CD's and rip them into lossless formats so I can have the best of both worlds. But since the masses and recording industry don't care one bit about quality, all this nonsense means nothing to me.

That is until the RIAA has been trying to get rid of all levels of fair use laws. Them's fightin words.

-Ed
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbang View Post

Another point which hasn't been mentioned too much in this thread is that there is a big difference between a person 'stealing' 24 songs for personal use and a person 'stealing' 24 songs offered online for anyone else to steal. One parallel could be the variation in punishment for people possessing illegal drugs versus people distributing illegal drugs. This woman was actively supporting larcenous behavior which would hurt the RIAA's revenue.
I've already mentioned this issue. In that case, the RIAA had someone from Sony BMG testify that "ripping one's own legally owned CD is a crime." Their argument is that you should pay for every instance in that copy of music. Fair use does not exist anymore.

The RIAA will make a criminal out of everyone. They won't stop until they have a law that has microchips implanted into everyone's brains so that when they listen to any music they get funds deducted from their bank accounts automatically every time.

-Ed
post #72 of 74
sigh. you'd think the RIAA would have realized by now that their few little "i'm suing you out of principle" cases don't deter anyone from file sharing or downloading.
post #73 of 74
This is way to harsh a punishment. 9 grand a song is insane. If you steal a pack of chewing gum in the supermarket and get caught, you dont go to jail, you pay a small fine or do community service. Petty theft. A cd single shouldnt cost more than 2 or 3 packs of gum. Each song she shared should have carried a penalty of 100 dollars max. Though even that is too high, but its in the ballpark as far as I am concerned. I don't believe in file sharing, and buy CDs from Amazon, or similar places, but this is like a Salem witch hunt. I sure hope the RIAA doesn't ever plan on banking on their public image in any way, shape or form, as they just killed it forever.
post #74 of 74
Thread Starter 
I agree. Regardless of all arguments of legality, CD pricing etc, if RIAA is suing her for lost revenue, and those songs were downloaded for her own consumption without purchasing CDs, the most revenue they lost was what they would have got if she had bought the songs herself. $100-$200 should have been sufficient and if they wanted to leave a stinging sensation, I could kinda see $1000 overall, but $9000 is way too much.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › RIAA Wins First File Sharing Case