BenRaines Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I did not read all the posts in this thread but let me ask you this. Just because it can be done does not make it right. Should I buy one copy of Microsoft and then burn copies for all my friends, family and anyone who wants to have one free from Craigslist? How about Microsoft Office? How about one person buying an Xbox game or a Playstation game and then just burning off a million copies and letting anyone have it for free. Just because digital music can be downloaded does not make it right. I have been against illegal downloading since it first started. Call it what you want it is stealing. I have purchased over 350 songs from ITunes. I have over 2,000 on my IPod from CDs that I have owned over the years. I do not steal music and no one who considers themselves honest should. Ben Raines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 According to the account in our local newspaper, the RIAA offered to settle this case early on for between $3,000 and $5,000. Yeah, I guess they offered a lower sum but she said something like, "I didn't do anything wrong" and didn't accept it. ===Just a Guy,That is interesting thought about the Pirates being let go. hmmmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Here are details of the case.The original judgement was for $9k per song, total of $222K. She had shared 1702 songs, but charged only for 24. She had ignored a cease-and-desist letter.I have little patience or sympathy for people who break the law, and refuse to stop breaking the law, and then whine and cry when a big ten ton CONSEQUENSE of their actions falls out of the sky and flattens them. but yeah, $1.92 million really is overboard. That's not justice. Justice involves restoring the harmed party to it's former state, and punishing the bad guy so they feel it. I can see the original judgement. Heck, I could even see a tenth of the original judgement. I could see a week in jail and a month of community service and a $5000 fine. $1.92 million is stupid.LMAnd here is the problem why they went after her: "She had ignored a cease-and-desist letter." Yes! They do send out the warning e-mails to both the host provider and the person who was sharing copyright material. Even our home had a warning after someone downloaded a video, which I had to erase from one of the home's computer and make a formal apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I did not read all the posts in this thread but let me ask you this. Just because it can be done does not make it right.Should I buy one copy of Microsoft and then burn copies for all my friends, family and anyone who wants to have one free from Craigslist?How about Microsoft Office?How about one person buying an Xbox game or a Playstation game and then just burning off a million copies and letting anyone have it for free.Just because digital music can be downloaded does not make it right.I have been against illegal downloading since it first started. Call it what you want it is stealing.I have purchased over 350 songs from ITunes. I have over 2,000 on my IPod from CDs that I have owned over the years. I do not steal music and no one who considers themselves honest should.Ben RainesAccording to Microsoft, you are allowed up to five home copies for your own usage. But I do agree...anything that is abused is Microsoft products. If the world owns ups to Microsoft piracy problems, I would bet Bill would be worth over 100-billion dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 lol Moksha,I think what the judge did was completely reprehensible. It was like either he wanted to punish her for all sins of all pirates or he wanted an insane amount that would influence the next judge to overturn the judgement.And Limewire is another program that is never allowed on my computer. I have blocked limewire as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I have blocked limewire as well. Pammy, was this before or after the stop and desist letter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Obviously she doesn't have 2 million dollars, so this case will need to keep going to higher courts. Additionally, the higher court will have to examine why the fine was so high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I wonder if it was ever first justified when it became law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Oh, I think the RIAA knows they'll never collect. They just want that judgement to be out there so they can point to it and tell others that it can happen to them too. It gives them leverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I hear what you're saying John Doe but what kind of leverage is it if they can't collect anything for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Pammy, was this before or after the stop and desist letter? Ummm...it was after having two special investigators knock on my door at 10:30 at night. And I'm going to just leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I hear what you're saying John Doe but what kind of leverage is it if they can't collect anything for it? Legal precedent. "Look what we did to the last person who went to court against us. Why not settle your case for $5,000 and we can make this all go away." They're going to use it as scare tactics in future cases. Also there is the intimidation factor here. It tells you they are committed to crush you if they have to. This lady will be followed for the rest of her life by this judgement, If she ever for any reason gets a large amount of money, the RIAA will be there to take it. This will show up on her credit report, and it will affect her ability to buy a home or a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 That's true. Good thinking John Doe :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 That's true. Good thinking John Doe :)That's why there is a TV Show based on the man, he's amazing. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Oh please...don't inflate his head bigger than it already is. I have to have him as a brother in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Oh please...don't inflate his head bigger than it already is. I have to have him as a brother in law.If we boost his ego doesn't that make it all the more enjoyable when you deflate it? We're only thinking of you Pam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Hey I never looked at it that way before. Thanks Dravin!!! What a great friend you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahone Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 The tactics the music and film industry are employing to try and "prevent" piracy will never work. Attempting to bully people into doing as they want will not work seeing as in half the world the industry has no legal rights anyway and the way in which ISPs and the music industry track the copyright infringers will just be circumvented again and again. The technology already exists which makes it pretty much impossible for ISPs to see what data is being transferred over their networks. When the data is encrypted, they have no proof that any piracy ever took place. DRM was made such a mockery of... it was all cracked, often within a couple of hours of its release. And because of its inconvenience to those who pay for their music legally, DRM is now seen on the same level as offshore call centres. Basically the industry is trying to keep its clutches on it's old methods - it made them billions and they are desperately trying to hold onto it. But they will lose and eventually they will realise they have to update their methods. The cost of films and music is ridiculously expensive for what it is. And the argument that it wouldn't be as expensive were it not for piracy is just not true. One illegal download does not equate to one lost sale and in a lot of cases, many bands have become much more well known due to piracy. Then more people go to their gigs. It is true they make most of the money out of their gigs, some bands even release their music for free because of this. Whether piracy is morally wrong or not, I think it was about time that it happened. The industry is being slowly forced to update its ways now, even though they are being dragged kicking and screaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I wonder what the new methods will look like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahone Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) I wonder what the new methods will look like?Itunes is a start, though still not the best deterrent to piracy. There is better. The only reason apple created itunes anyway is because their ipods were encouraging piracy (to this day in the UK it is not legal to have a copy of your CDs, even for your ipod), and this was their answer to the legal problems they potentially faced.Spotify is probably a better example. Edited June 23, 2009 by Mahone corrected spelling errors... too late at night *yawn* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 So what was it called? Was it the iPod? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I hear what you're saying John Doe but what kind of leverage is it if they can't collect anything for it? "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."- Potential statement in the Recording Industry Scooping in the Money Act, 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayhale Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 The whole music industry is about intimidation, just think of what stealing music is called, “piracy”, these raids of sometimes innocent people, making them out to be criminals, like an 80 year old woman that was looked at for ‘pirating’ rap music, the prosecutors stopped after they realized that they would make themselves look bad for going after her, when it clearly was not her, that was stealing the music. I need to point out that the line between what is legal and not legal, is sometimes blurred. I looked at a CD, it said that you can not copy it, yet the VERY SAME company made blank cassettes that said it was great for copying CD’s, that in it’s self is confusing, but now in the digital age, we have legal places like Myspace, YouTube, and even places like Limewire, have artists that place their music there so that people can check out their music, and become popular. To make it even more confusing, there are some musicians, like Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails, just to name a few, that have put some of their music online, FOR FREE!!! If the music industry wants stricter enforcement of laws, then I saw that the music industry needs to be more clear as to what is, and what is NOT legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted June 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 They give away their music? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanette Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 There's also a concept called "fair use". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.