[Kpalsm]

I want to point out that there is a difference between "sharing" and "stealing". That said, I am in favour of supporting those artists whom you enjoy listening to. They deserve your money. The RIAA, though, doesn't.

 

[Quinto]

There is no justice in such a huge fine and stealing 24 or so songs from the net.

A individual is sacrificed to set a example. It stinks, I feel like downloading now

 

[Kpalsm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinto /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no justice in such a huge fine and stealing 24 or so songs from the net.

Well, deterrence can be a powerful thing. Remember the Cold War?

I agree that $2 million for 24 songs is just plain ludicrous,. The problem with filesharing is most people don't know it's actually stealing from the music industry. The issue here is ignorance mixed with lack of information, as well as downloading music being made too easy to accomplish by the masses.

That said, I remember a few years back there was a court ruling here in Canada that likened downloading music to "going to a library and photocopying a page of a book" which is perfectly legal.

 

[Quinto]

I think deterrence is overrated, except when mutual distruction is at stake

It wouldn't work of course..My guess is most people know they are stealing but
- they dont care
- 'everybody does it'
- it is way to easy to do

I think the industry must realize it cant win this battle and must change thre mindset to using the download phenonema for promotion and maybe promote some more awareness..The artists can play a bigger role in this perhaps.

And they must stop pretending every download is a lost sale, lots of people download music they will never buy..

Sueing the crap out of some random individual is not wise and wouldn't help their cause, adept to the new world, better soon then later..I think they dont have much of a choise eventually..

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinto /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sueing the crap out of some random individual is not wise and wouldn't help their cause, adept to the new world, better soon then later..I think they dont have much of a choise eventually..

From what I've read, I think the RIAA has largely abandoned this strategy and has started going after the ISPs instead. Can anyone confirm? If so, it puts the RIAA in an awkward position here with a lot of bad PR. I think the RIAA probably would love to settle this suit and get out, which I think we will see happen in this case.

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

There is simply no feasible way that person can pay back that amount of money, it's far beyond reason. There should be set limits on the amount of money awarded on specific infractions in a civil court, it would prevent ridiculous things like this from happening.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif From what I've read, I think the RIAA has largely abandoned this strategy and has started going after the ISPs instead. Can anyone confirm?

Confirmed, see the following...

RIAA to Stop Suing Music Fans, Cut Them Off Instead | Epicenter | Wired.com

--Jerome

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiGHFLYiN9 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is simply no feasible way that person can pay back that amount of money, it's far beyond reason. There should be set limits on the amount of money awarded on specific infractions in a civil court, it would prevent ridiculous things like this from happening.

I think that is part of the gist of the due process argument.

 

[Judge Buff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif such a compassionate 'judge' you are. THIS is the problem, folks. 'tough on offenders'. yeah, a pocketful of songs and you call this lady 'an offender'. perspective, folks. perspective. have we solved all the REAL problems and crimes in the world that we have time for this kind of crap? wasting time on 'she took my songs!' is just absurd. don't quote law to me, this is about perspective. if you can only see the legal details, you have lost all perspective in life. she downloaded songs. she did not kill anyone, she did not steal bread from someone's table. she made BIT IMAGE COPIES of melodies. big frigging deal.

You can remove the quotation marks from judge. I am one.

And I do have compassion... for victims. The award amount is extreme, no doubt. But the next time anyone chooses to steal someone's intellectual property, I hope they think about what happened with this lady.

This is the problem: Lack of Respect for the property rights of others and a general disdain for laws you don't like. Linux is an open source code or you would probably steal it, huh? Stealing from others is a real problem in our entire world.

From plagiarism to identity theft to bank robbery, it's all stealing, and it's a really big frigging deal. If someone ever steals your property, your perspective may be a little less "compassionate."

Karma is still a bitch...

 

[Nebby]

The only question I have: what is the punishment for a person that goes in a retail music store and steals a single cd of 24 songs? or 24 cd's?

 

[Judge Buff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebby /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only question I have: what is the punishment for a person that goes in a retail music store and steals a single cd of 24 songs? or 24 cd's?

It might not ever go to court... and the store could drop the charges. If the store has a lot of thefts, though, the DA would probably be pressured to prosecute. I think this analogy holds true for the case being dissected here.

The worst punishment for a small town would probably be having all of your friends and family seeing your name published in the paper's police blotter for shoplifting and your family having to hire a lawyer and posting bond.

Here, the max would be a year in jail as a misdemeanor conviction, but it would never happen. Twenty-four separate convictions, though, might get some jail time and a fine and/or community service. The offender's "rap sheet" would be a big factor in any decision.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Buff /img/forum/go_quote.gif And I do have compassion... for victims.

Yes, but in this case there were two victims. The RIAA was the victim of defendant's copyright infringement. The defendent was the victim of an unjust award for damages. Both parties loose, and the public looses at least a little confidence in the courts and legal system.

--Jerome

 

[Judge Buff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but in this case there were two victims. The RIAA was the victim of defendant's copyright infringement. The defendent was the victim of an unjust award for damages. Both parties loose, and the public looses at least a little confidence in the courts and legal system. --Jerome

I disagree, but your assertion that the RIAA actually lost here is pretty funny. The $$ isn't the issue for them. They know they won't ever get that much. The publicity and the public discussion is worth more than the $$ to them.

 

[Happy Camper]

Re-selling intellectual property is ok? Sorry, this just don't make sense. DJs charge to play music at weddings. They are making profit on intellectual property. Why is it legal? School bands play songs at events. Do they pay for the use of intellectual property?

Point of this is that no one profits from sharing. That's the rub. This world has gotten too greedy and the legal system is selling out to the highest bidder. For a Judge to come here and taut the justice of the law just goes to show how twisted it's gotten. The winners are the lawyers driving this farce.

As kids, we made tapes. That was the only purpose of a tape machine. Why weren't they outlawed? Same with the R2R, VCR, CD, DVD, hard drives or any other format where you can store material. So are the makers of those machines accomplices?

Filesharing is low quality material. Same as the tapes we made as kids. Why is it illegal now?

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Buff /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree, but your assertion that the RIAA actually lost here is pretty funny.

Well, I think a judge who doesn't seem to know the difference between theft and copyright infringement is pretty funny. But I wasn't going to rub your nose in it until you decided to get snide with your reply.

Some of the reasons the RIAA has abandoned its sue and settle strategy is because they are actually loosing money just bringing these lawsuits and going after people. And the public image of the RIAA has taken a beating as a result of this campaign. They are getting the sort of publicity that most organizations in the public eye would rather do without.

--Jerome