James
Staff member
Damn, glad I'm not him! 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...675g-fine-for-illegally-downloading-30-songs/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...675g-fine-for-illegally-downloading-30-songs/
Illegal Downloading
- Thread starter James
- Start date
good for the court system..Damn, glad I'm not him!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...675g-fine-for-illegally-downloading-30-songs/
$675,000 verdictgood for the court system..
30 songs
really? thats pretty harsh dont you think?
A federal judge called that unconstitutionally excessive, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the penalty at the request of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc. and other record labels represented by the RIAA...... AKA another way that big companys have hands in government.
dont go downloading and warez but The RIAA is evil as fuck.
Yeah I think it is fair. 30 songs sitting on the internet for free download is revenue lost to the companies. We do not know how popular the songs are or how many people downloaded them. If you make it less, it is a slap on the wrist and people keep doing it. Look at the issue a few years ago with college student going in and downloading song of a pirated site. They were getting fined too. Would you like it if you published something and someone hacked it and started giving it away for free? Yeah these are big companies, but if you do not make point up front and stop it, they will be losing money fast.
Hey we can always go back to the old days and have to go to the store to buy our music...
no they shouldnt be able to make a point that extreme there was another case were some mother got the same treatment for downloading a few songs. its crazy and only reason is because the big companys have their hands on thi0ngs... that quote from teh article is proof.
i just do not agree with you on that point CDA..... you are entitled to your opinion and i will respect that besides we could argue the revenue lots issue all day.... in some cases it brings in revenue when otherwise there would not be.
i just do not agree with you on that point CDA..... you are entitled to your opinion and i will respect that
besides we could argue the revenue lots issue all day.... in some cases it brings in revenue when otherwise there would not be.
James
Staff member
How so? You illegally download a song and because you like it so much you go and
You know I'm really surprised that they haven't cracked down more on the music on YouTube. That seems to be the new thing, why illegally download it when you can just listen to it whenever you want to? I'm guilty of this everyday, however if I really like a band/album I'll buy it on Napster. That why I can listen to it on the go.
I could see the "brings in more revenue" argument whole some water for YouTube as you can't freely "download" the music. So if you want it on your phone/MP3 player you have to get it from another source*, aka buy it.
*you can still technically download music from YouTube.
because they know that in todays day and age people will just go elsewhere. when i use copyrighted music on youtube im doing nothing but advertising for them... so they got to be nuts to not want me to use it. This is why you can find royalty free music out there that is pretty good. They just are not part of one of the big evil corporations. Which BTW do not allow youtube to use but there is a free copyright law that allows you around it as long as you are not trying to make money off of copyrighted materiel.
So Travace did you give CDA permission to copy your post? That "Reply w/Quote" is just a synonym for "Pirate the post."
OK, that's a little ridiculous, but so it s the size of that fine. I understand the need for content creators to be compensated, but hey RIAA isn't the content creator are they. Usually the content creators barely get anything and the corporations that own the rights take the largest share.
It's certainly a complicated subject.
Many if not most people violate copyrights without even realizing it. Ever watch a riding video set to music? You are an evil copyright violator. With current case law even listening to a CD on a computer is construed as illegal copying.
OK, that's a little ridiculous, but so it s the size of that fine. I understand the need for content creators to be compensated, but hey RIAA isn't the content creator are they. Usually the content creators barely get anything and the corporations that own the rights take the largest share.
It's certainly a complicated subject.
Many if not most people violate copyrights without even realizing it. Ever watch a riding video set to music? You are an evil copyright violator. With current case law even listening to a CD on a computer is construed as illegal copying.
why would you think that?I thought that is what you did best
James
Staff member
The way I understand it is that the RIAA is representing the record labels. If this fine is going only to the RIAA then yeah I think that that's BS. The record labels are the ones that need to be compensated, not the lawyers.
You aren't forced to sign with them are you? There's a price to use their knowledge and resources.That's like paying a locksmith a $100 to unlock your house/car. Since it probably only took him a couple minutes, you're paying him a massive hourly rate. However you aren't paying for his time but instead for his knowledge, otherwise you would've unlocked it yourself.
Ditto. You wouldn't walk into Walmart, steal a CD, and go make bootleg copies of it (and give them away for free) would you? And don't tell me that that isn't the same thing as it technically is. If he was just listening to this music I'd say that this case should be thrown out as you'd be hard pressed to find somebody that hasn't done this. Illegal downloading (and not sharing it) is one thing but sharing it with the masses is another.
Depends on the numbers, which I'd think would be nearly impossible to prove. Lets say his songs were downloaded 650,000 times, a $1 a download would be fair as that's the price to legally download them.
I'm really curious as to what they based that fine on.
Don't think that that was meant in a bad way, you're one of the best (and vocal
) debaters on here.