It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman Ordered to Pay $1.92 Millon to multi-billion dollar U.S. corporation for Illegal Downloading

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 
Do you live near a cell tower?

Music should be free.

I can see a good heart surgeon say being worth millions, the guy has to go into a chest cavity and fix a heart and if that heart belongs to your wife, husband or child you better hope he/she knows what the heck they are doing.

Many musicians are worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Go to knowyournetworth.com...

This is absolutely insane folks.

Just because you can sing and shake your booty you can make millions.

Are singers worth that much more than teachers say?

If you said yes than you are part of the reason our entire education system sucks big time.

The American value system is absolutely insane.




posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


They are worth that much because they have a commodity people want. If people don't like what they are selling then they don't buy it.

Its pretty simple really.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


It's happened with many artist, but also what happens is the major record labels that make up the RIAA are notorious for signing top notch talent and shelving them, leaving them to rot, happened to band I was acquainted with.

IP laws need to be drastically reformed. Downloads have no effect on how many albums an artist sells. It's a changing paradigm and the record companies are trying to milk it for all its worth while they still can.

My point and case is Lil' Wayne, he said something that ticked off all the DJ's and they leaked his whole album and Lil' Wayne still sold a million copies the first week.

The RIAA is losing money because they no longer hold a monopoly on the recording medium because of the internet. People have a wide range of music to choose from now.

They aren't losing any money from downloads. Like I said if I did download music and they brought me to court for sharing the music, I would ask them to show me the formula they used to come up with how much money they lost.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


thanks for answering my question about youtube.I have another question about this court case.Why go after a woman who can't pay and leave the website where she downloaded it from alone?I know she is in the wrong but shouldn't the website where she downloaded the stuff be equally responsible? Ok last question if you are watching or listening to something on the internet(be it music or a movie) is it concidered downloading?I mean downloading is when you are copying something to your computer right?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 



Regardless on how much you think its not right what they do. The fact is that as of right now, at this moment, it is illegal to download music from the internet without paying for it.

The law is the law, no matter how much you disagree with it. She broke the law and is now paying the price. It sucks, but it is the law.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140 and othello
 


But this is the thing, she only downloaded the music, she didn't redistribute the music.

This court case has now set a precedent that if you go to a website and it is playing music and it downloads it to your computer you can now be sued for illegal downloads, because it got downloaded to your computer.

IP laws do not address the digital medium. It say right in the article the RIAA has brought 30000 lawsuits just like these and only 2 have ever gone to court.

There is no clear law, this is a case of judicial activism. The judge should have thrown this case out it shouldn't have ever gone to court.

Take the case of last.fm they were court ordered to pay for broadcast license even though the artist didn't bring up a suit. It was the RIAA that brought up the suit.

The justice system in this country is screwed, this woman should have never even gone to court. The precedent has already been set. The judiciary in this case made a mockery of our justice system.

And further more how did the RIAA get her information? They got it illegally just like ever other suit that was brought up. That is why only 2 out of 30000 have ever gone to court.

This court case has just set a very very bad precedent.

Edit to add - She did share the songs.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


They are worth that much because they have a commodity people want. If people don't like what they are selling then they don't buy it.

Its pretty simple really.


No it's because they are using broadcasting to reach millions of people. If a surgeon could do operations on millions of people through a broadcasting system he would be worth the same.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
She got what she deserves, she knew what she was doing was illegal yet she did it anyway. I bet she won't do it again.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
I don't feel bad for her. The music industry has lost massive amounts of money because of illegal downloads.


I think you need to read up on your beloved music industry. Even the artists get shafted by your beloved industry. It's geared to make only the people at the top rich. How do I know this? Well, for one, all the information is readily available and two, I have friends with record contracts and guess what....

Even after 3 albums, once they've paid back their advances for studio time, song writers, producers, engineers, music video's, roadies, merchandising, air play, distribution and so on, they are still forced to live on social security for majority of the year. They are indebted to gig until they drop just to break even.

A record deal is literally like selling your soul to the devil, but people do it because they are uninformed and it prays of the desire of the individual's quest for notoriety and fame.

It's sad.

So what if someone downloads a track or an album for free. Big bloody deal! It cost someone in the upper echelons of the music industry a few puffs of their Cuban cigar... or less!

Get some perspective man!

IRM



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 
Your value system runs different than mine.

To me a heart surgeon who can repair a aeorta valve, a teacher who shapes my children's education and the back room cancer researchers are worth way more than say Beyonce jiggling around.

Now come on Beyonce is worth 315 million dollars. Do YOU really think this is logical and sane?

The The median expected salary for a typical Surgeon - Heart Transplant in the United States is $416,227. www.chacha.com... (My heart surgeon's wife says that is about right).

Teachers and child care workers don't make near what they are worth as they shape our next generations thinking.

A warped value system is part of the reason our planet is so fuc&%d up.

Just because "that's the way it is and that's the what people buy" doesn't make it logical or correct.

Again, the asylum is being run by the inmates and that's part of the reason for the massive amount of injustices.

If you ever find yourself needing a valve replacement you might be thinking differently on what people are really worth.

Music and art should be free.

Charging someone (a common smuck) millions of dollars for a few songs is absolutely insane and unjust. She was charged that because she tried to screw a big corporation and not the singer personally. America is run by the large corporations.

We are allowed to steal from each other but boy don't get caught stealing from one of the "little kings/corporations".

These "stars" are controlled by major corporations and they have a strangle hold on the common man.

You have never ran a yellow light, or broken any "laws"? (Running a yellow may now net you a pricey ticket because of all the cameras going up at intersections).

Some of our "laws" are unjust and wrong.

The lady should have been made to pay $1.00 a song period.

But then again, I think music and art should be free and shared.

Next "they" will start taxing water and air and I guess you would go along with that too because "it's the law".


[edit on 19-6-2009 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Look you can cry about it all you want. It won't change anything. Whaa Whaa Beyonce makes more then my heart surgeon, Whaa Whaa".

I think the heart surgeon is charging way to much to save someones life. One is for entertainment and the other is for life. Charging half a million for heart surgerory is a rip off.

One can choose not to buy a 12 dollar CD. That person cannot choose whether or not to need heart surgery. They either get it or die. Yep half a million just so that they can live.

Does that sound right in your book?

edit to add- yes I have broken the law. When I get ticketed I don't complain about the price. I accept my punishment and pay it. I don't try to get out of it by showing up to court and hoping the officer doesn't. I take responsibility for my actions.




[edit on 19-6-2009 by jd140]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 



A lack of reading comprehension is a bad thing.

I have already stated that the fine was steep. She did break the law though.

I have also said that artists are paid poorly.


I have pretty much said everything you stated.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Dosn't really matter what you all say.

This is just an act of desperation from a dying music industry. The artists no longer need the distributors.

Not much longer.

When something is rendered obsolete it dies nomatter how much it tries to scare people from killing it. And when something that is obsolete dies, it makes room for something beautyful to be born.

Nobody can stop the NWO from saving our world and ourselves.

Everything will be amazing.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Stop buying there music and movies for just one month and it will bring them to there knees!
Tactics like these are uncalled for. They are not even going after the people who are putting up the sites, and they The RIAA are putting up sites to bait kids to download so they can go after there family's

They also claim that there system is perfect , well there are many programs out that can mask and ghost MAC address. I am not going to post them here as not to show people where they are.
We know that they have the power to go after and stop the sites that are hosting the music and the movies, but they do not. No it is easier to get the government to let them go after people who do not have the money to defend there case! Now I do not condone stealing anyone's product, ever . But I do not condone what the RIAA is doing now to there own customer's.

As they state now if someone hacks your router and downloads off your internet you are the one that has to pay the fine,even though you did not let it happen and a crime was committed to get it done! Now think about that.

It is like saying when you friend comes to your house and his car is stolen from your front yard you are the one that is responsible for the crime. Look this up and see. Call your cable company and ask them about this law . Then you will see. I did and was shocked by what I was told! And I was also told that Congress last year put this law into effect just before the change of presidents .
People really need to check on this so they will know what is up and how they are using this to there advantage .
Also all the RIAA has to do is contact the Cable company and say they want the name and address of this person and all your info will be given to them. And you will be given a notice that you have 24 hours to prove you did not do this and that no one used your equipment to download and or you will be shut down in 24 hours, this is without due process of law. You are also told to delete any software that let you download files on the internet, ie a bit torrent program. And it is stated in the letter that you will have to pay $250.000 dollars for what they said you did or they will prosecute in a court of law, but that is after you have been shut down from the internet and all of your communication's have been taken from you.

And how are you going to prove that you did not do this? There is no way to prove a negative and no matter how much you claim that you did not do anything you will be charged!

Check for your self and see!
There are cases going on here in the mid west where hundred's of cable users are getting these letters from there cable company's.
One lady that got one is 87 years old and is in big trouble, but the system was put in by her grandson who is in Iraq , and was done so he could talk to his Great Grand mother. It has been proven that she does not know more that how to turn on the system to get the email and chat with here Grand Son.
So the ones who think this is a good thing and the RIAA is just trying to stop some real bad people then check and find out for your self, then come back here and post!



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 
Making half a million a year not per surgery.

And a heart surgeon making under half a million a year is not as ludicris as a singer or actor making tens of million a year.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
What I don't understand is, how is downloading a file from a p2p network different from a friend giving you his CD that he bought? Or him simply playing his CDs while at your house? You may say that at least the friend bought the CD and isn't making "copies," but really the effect is the same: you're getting something you didn't pay for. Anyway, most songs that get on a p2p network had to be bought at one initial stage, and then saved on a computer.

The RIAA and Metallica need to learn that "illegal downloading" actually makes them money. Hundreds of thousands of people are given a chance to sample a CD record, and if it's popular enough, it reaches a viral status. That band then gets more exposure than it normally would, and many people go on to buy the record if they feel they are good enough to support.

Regardless, she shouldn't be charged this much. Shame on the jury for thinking this was a just payment, I hope they have this sort of injustice heaped on them so they learn from it.



[edit on 19-6-2009 by Viral]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

The law is the law, no matter how much you disagree with it. She broke the law and is now paying the price.



Originally posted by Brainiac

She got what she deserves, she knew what she was doing was illegal yet she did it anyway. I bet she won't do it again.


Isn't it grand when you get to buy your own laws.



Mitch Bainwol is Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA),

Bainwol joined the RIAA as CEO in 2003 following a twenty-five year career in federal policy-making and politics. Since joining the RIAA, Bainwol has helped lead the music industry’s campaign to curb piracy and transition its business to the digital world.

The Washington Post called Bainwol a “Top D.C. Lobbyist ... Capitol Hill’s Roll Call newspaper hailed Bainwol as one of the 50 most influential “politicos” in Washington. Campaigns and Elections magazine named him a “Mover and Shaker.”

www.riaa.com...


If this woman broke the law then she should be put in jail for 10 years, not put into financial bondage for life. Just my opinion. We don't know the details of the case. Maybe she is trully a bad actor.

But I'm telling you there is something not right about this case. I can't quite put my finger on it though. Maybe the FBI should see if she can be prosecuted for violating federal interstate commerce laws.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by jd140
 
Making half a million a year not per surgery.

And a heart surgeon making under half a million a year is not as ludicris as a singer or actor making tens of million a year.





One is making money entertaining and the other is making money from sick people.

Seems to me the immoral one is the person charging someone a small fortune to save their life.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
You want to read something really sad, try this...

www.todays-woman.net...

They should have asked all the people accusing her of wrong doing if they have ever song happy birthday in public, if they have its illegal !!!

Happy Birthday is copyrighted, by guess who - Time Warner !!!!



[edit on 20-6-2009 by R3KR]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
They would never find me if I received one of these letters. I'm close enough to leaving this country on my own terms. A lawsuit like this would be more than enough push to leave.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join