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.

 

Thinking about downloading music perhaps this will put you off $1.9 million fine

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
 
Thanks for replying

Will you at least admit the *IAA's are hanging onto a dead business model?
No problem.
I will agree to that. They can't do anything about it now. Digital media has changed everything. Whatever they try, someone will come up with a hack to get around it.

Some companies are doing just what you've stated. I've heard rumors that Microsoft may be switching to a monthly fee for Windows.
At that point I'll reformat my hard drive with a free os like Linux Mint.

The other possibility is that Obama and his Internet Czar take control of the internet China style.




posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Wow, this is Insane. 80,000 X's the amount of music on my computer comes to about umm....1 billion fine. Not including other stuff. I wouldn't have a problem purchasing music if I didn't know that the label is the one who gets 80 cents from the dollar per song. Corruption is what it comes down to. I am not condoning stealing or that my actions as an individual are by any means RIGHT. But, 80 grand per song is WAAAAYYYY out of line. I agree with one of the above posters. If a song is worth 80 grand, then by all rights it is the pirates of the world that LITERALLY own the world.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Well it won't bother me, because i make my own music...

Since i don't sell it, i don't care who downloads it. Even if i did want to release it, i still wouldn't care if people downloaded it illegaly. I'd make my money from gigs etc.

Also, nobody has 1.9 million, so I think if anything this ludicrous amount of money would encourage people to keep downloading, because after all, they won't have any money to pay it anyway...

FREE MUSIC...


Kudos.

Yes, IMO these stories will only accelerate the death of the music and video middle men. Downloaders will always find new ways to 'stick it to the man' and the more severe the 'punishment' the more dedicated the resistance becomes.

No tears here. Britney et al. will just have to go without their multiple mansions and private jets

[edit on 21/6/09 by RogerT]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
well, at least if you download by torrent, everything can be encrypted and it is hard to see what the hell u are downloading ...

they should accept the internet ERA instead of fight against it ...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Greed much RIAA, how much of the settlement will actually go to real artists and how much of it will go to line the wallets of the record executives and big shot lawyers?

One thing that is never investigated is where the money goes after an individual is sued for "illegal downloading".

The fact that you can buy a song with the same or better quality for under a buck and the fact she has to pay 80 grand per song is beyond outrageous! This is nothing more then a show trial to scare all the would be down loaders.

The fact of the matter is the RIAA and the MPAA are loosing the so called war on piracy, this is nothing but propoganda and the MSM are playing along.

I sincerely hope she appeals this decision because personally this is very disturbing and amazingly greedy. Did she have a jury? I find it amazing that sane individuals would agree that this woman must pay 1.9 million dollars for 24 songs.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
 


I've never downloaded a song that I didn't already pay for (lost, stolen, destroyed CDs). The same can be said for the majority of downloaders.


[edit on 6/21/09 by Magnivea]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
with tens of millions of people to choose from for a show trial like this, I wonder why they picked this particular woman?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Probably because it sends out a stronger emotional message. Not many would care if some random basement nerd got sued. But when a mother of 4 pretty much has her life destroyed it sends out the message "look how much pain and suffering you can cause by illegally downloading music."

Granted it pisses off people more so than deters them, but they don't seem to understand that.

edit: No offense intended to the basement nerds out there, I'm pretty much one myself.


[edit on 6/21/2009 by somedude]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The most screwed up part is it is not only her life it ruins. She will probably never pay this off. Her children will never go to college at least not without getting the family into more debt. She will have to pay this off so food and shelter are out of the question. All in the name of greed because she downloaded a few songs off of the internet. By this logic 80% of the population of the US would be in debt to the record companies. (Aww crap I just gave them an idea.) We are all doomed!



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I personally think these fines are ridiculous. Most downloads are $1 if you get them from iTunes and whatnot, so if she downloaded 24 songs it should be $24 right? I think someone mentioned if you shoplift you don't get fined this much. I mean, what is the max you can get, say if I shoplifted a CD and got caught? No where near 1.9 million. So how do they prove she even downloaded them?

Only your ISP provider has the info linked to your IP address. You cannot get individual information from an IP address alone. Try it yourself. At best you will get your ISP provider information, but not your personal info. I guess your ISP provider can give the government that info, but they would need a warrant correct?

Also, can they prove she doesn't already have the music on CD/tape/record/whatever?? I thought you were allowed an "archival" copy for backup purposes. Another thing, can they prove she has the file? So they say she downloaded it, ok...where is it?? Again, they would need a warrant to search here computer for said file. What if they cannot find it. Would they not need this evidence to prove she downloaded it?

Again, we are going by what is on record at an ISP, what if a hacker somehow used the same IP and downloaded said files? Can this be proven?

Why is this person being singled out?? I'm pretty sure she isn't the only one, yet she is getting media coverage? Why? This practice isn't new, why aren't all the others getting media attention. I often think these are just scare tactics put out by the media. Remember the "Pepsi girl"? I want to say she was one of the first cases where she was fined a huge amount of money for downloading music...oh, and then she was put in a pepsi commercial saying to download legally or something. I'm just going of of memory right now...I could be wrong.

I find so many things wrong downloading music and record companies trying to prove if it's legal or illegal. What if my download is damaged, what if some bytes are lost in transmission...do I get a re-download. Do you even get a receipt?? What if my hard drive crashes? My ipod gets stolen?
Can I insure my legally downloaded music collection in case something like this happens?

I read an article that says the RIAA wont let me sell my used mp3's! Why not?? I mean I can buy CD's and sell them if I want right? I have resale shops in my area that specialize in selling and buying used CD's/Records, and even video games. If downloading is the same as buying (leagally) then why am I not able to re-sell my mp3 at a discounted price? The article says there is no way to prove if the music was obtained legally by the seller.

The article states "Unlike CDs — physical products you hand over to a record store clerk — digital files can be replicated ad infinitum with negligible expense". So, is it about the physical media, or the song itself?? Basically I can legally buy an intangible object (mp3 file) but cannot sell it because it CAN NOT BE PROVEN it was obtained legally. On the other hand I can buy a tangible object (music CD) and sell it because the CD cannot be replicated (actual pressings...I could make a CDR) and the contents are verified as legitimiate. Fine, but who is to say the physical CD was obtained legally? The number one place stolen CD's go to are pawn shops and resell shops. Who verifies if those were obtained legally??

If the RIAA says songs were downloaded illegally, they should have the proof without a shadow of a doubt, other than and IP address saying you were at a certain place at a certain time with a certain file. Can they prove the mp3 is actually an mp3 and not a renamed file?? There are so many ways to look at this.

sorry for the rant and the long post, but I'm a thinker.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Record companies need to find a way to provide the music for free, as illegal downloads are never giong to stop and it is impossible to catch all of the millions of users around the world downloading illegaly on a daily basis.
The dance music industry has kind of already figured this out, which is why DJs now make most of their income from live shows rather than record sales.
The music should be used as a promotional tool to promote the artist, with money being made by doing live shows.

unless they can come up with some other way to provide the music for free and get advertisers to pay for them in return for advertising.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


I agree 100% thats what we are taught well we are kids is to share



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join