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.

 

Graduate Student Fined $675,0000 in Music Download Case

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cassini
 


Tell me what was stolen?




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
if you break the law and cross the line you have to prepared for any consequences that come with it. Who cares how much he stole? If I stole $100 from your wallet would you not want me to be punished?


Yes, if you steal $100 from me you should be fined $100,000 for that. Fair right? or maybe have it be $10,000 for every $1 so lets make that $1,000,000.

Oh, and I won't get any of that back the courts/some other system will.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Like another poster mentioned, I think it is the way it is so they can make an example out of the poor sap. Especially considering they have traced his piracy history back to the late '90s - it seems as though they are targeting one person and making it into a threatening exposé for all the "pirates" out there, letting them know that they can and will find out about their illegal doings.

But the fact is downloading music is so widespread and common these days - it's practically impossible for them to regulate everyone.

[edit on 3/8/09 by pretty_vacant]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 


Even if the record companies are too dumb and stupid to adapt to today's technology, it does not mean that you get to decide how they can market their product.

Let us imagine there is a pizza shop down the street. The pizza shop charges more for a slice of pizza than Pizza Hut or Dominos because it makes its pizzas by hand and uses expensive ingredients. The pizza shop also does not deliver like Dominos or Pizza hut.

Does this mean I can start stealing pizzas from the pizza shop because their methods are outdated or because I do not like their business model? Then why should people like you think that you can download music for free just because the record companies charge to much or have an outdated business model?

Perhaps the fine the student paid is excessive, but people should be able to make a living of producing music and other copyrighted works. The day nobody can earn a living off music is the day that all we will have to entertain us are silly videos on youtube by 13 year olds who are starved for attention.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LOLZebra
 


I strongly suspect this verdict will be overturned on appeal.

I Under copyright law, one can collect statutory damages which can be equal to a few thousand dollars per copyrighted work. However, the only people that end up paying a few thousand dollars per work are your bootleggers and other people who flagrantly and willfully copy protected works in a way that could cause the copyright holder a large amount of loss. Here, the student just copied protected works and it does not appear he was sharing his copies with thousands of people. So it is likely he will not have to pay the full statutory damage.

The US Constitution also prevents excessive damage awards. Here it seems clear that $600,000 for copying some songs is clearly excessive.
Therefore, the conviction will likely be overturned on Constitutional grounds.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


There is no selling of his ripped music either mentioned so it wasn't for financial gain, it was for his and his friends listening pleasure! The amount of 800.00 is also considered a misdemeanor. How this judge let it get to felony status shows how foolish the whole idea is. I hope they don't go back to the 60's with me. I have miles of tape of music that I transferred and copied and sent to my friends in Viet Nam! Isn't there also a statute of limitations for crimes that totals 3 years maybe two years for misdemeanor charges. Ridiculous!

Zindo



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I dont condone stealing but this really doesnt seem like the punishment is befitting the crime.$650,000 seems a bit of overkill to me.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
It's ridiculous and it's thuggery on the part of the RIAA.

If someone came in my house and stole my cds....heck, I'd be glad.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
This really sucks for him. He's going to be in debt his whole life. It makes me want to stop downloading, till I realize I want a new song. Eh, damn.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
if you steal something you steal it. what happens if someone walked into your house violated your property took it and benefited from it? just because the record labels make huge profits does n`t make it right. I`m an atheist though and through but the bible had it right at least once, you shall not steal.

Deserves what he gets however untenable the ultimate punishment is


Someone could walk into your house, steal everything you own and burn it to the ground and their punishment would be a fraction of what this guy is facing. This guy didn't physically "steal" anything, yet his life is pretty much financially over before it even gets a chance to begin. There are rapists, child molesters, and murderers that get smaller penalties than this. Scooter Libby committed treason that jeopardized national security, put peoples lives in danger and he only got a $250,000 fine.

This would be like giving someone a year in federal prison for jaywalking.

It is disgusting to see our justice system whored out to corporate interests. Absolutely disgusting.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Let us imagine there is a pizza shop down the street. The pizza shop charges more for a slice of pizza than Pizza Hut or Dominos because it makes its pizzas by hand and uses expensive ingredients. The pizza shop also does not deliver like Dominos or Pizza hut.

This analogy isn't very accurate at all. If a guy took a piece of pizza, was able to use a "super duplicate machine"(hypothetically, obviously), and made a replica of that pizza, then put it back without anyone noticing, is that stealing?

The pizza company still has that pizza, they haven't lost money that was put into making that pizza, so they wouldn't notice. You could say that it's losing money that would have been a sale. But what if the guy who has that replica piece of pizza, has a family to feed, and wouldn't have been able to afford that piece of pizza, and never would have paid the excorbitant price for the pizza anyway, are the pizza company losing any money?


Perhaps the fine the student paid is excessive,

Perhaps? Of course it's excessive!


The day nobody can earn a living off music is the day that all we will have to entertain us are silly videos on youtube by 13 year olds who are starved for attention.

I don't believe this to be true. A true musician would not stop making music if people were downloading it. And musicians would still make a profit from LIVE performances and shows, real music IMO, and the downloaded songs could serve as good advertising.

Sure I think it's wrong if someone else was making a profit off the music, but I don't think that is the case with this guy. Just a guy who enjoys listening to music, trying to do so without paying the ridiculous prices for a cd. And now he has more of a punishment than an arsonist, or a guy with hard drug possesion, or someon who steals and then writes off a car. Is that right?

$%&* NO!

(Although as a poster pointed out, it's quite likely this guy is merely serving as a warning to others. and may have been in on it all along)



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I don't necessarily think it's wrong to steal, there are some situations where stealing would be the right thing to do.

Aside from that, the changes that are coming to the music industry are not going to stop music. In fact, its going to create more music. I believe that due way information is spread these days we are going to see a new way of promoting music. This will lower the importance of record labels and give more money to the artists.

Today everybody has the internet almost everywhere. Bands don't need record labels to distribute their music.

Often times downloading music helps spread the music a band has to offer. I think the money and fame part of the music industry have forever changed music.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cassini
 


You will have to forgive those of us who are not perfect law abiding citizens like you.

The music industry is a monopoly. The real cost it takes to make a CD is .99 cents.

Laws have been written by man, man who is far from perfect. Do you follow the speed limit at all times when you drive? If not, then you sir are a hypocrit.

Cant we all agree that there are some real Sh*tty Laws that make absolutly no sense?

How can you possibly justify ruining the life of someone else who downloaded music via the internet? It is not like he went into a hastings, or a walmart and proceeded to steal CD's.



Alright, this song has some bad language, but I think it will help show the other side of the argument.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 10-8-2009 by West Coast]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join