Seven Crimes That Will Get You a Smaller Fine Than File Sharing

www.prefixmag.com...

1. Child abduction: the fine is only like $25000.

2. Stealing the actual CD: the fine is $2,500

3. Rob your neighbor: the fine is $375,000

4. Burn a house down: The fine is just over $375,000

5. Stalk someone: The fine is $175,000

6. Start a dogfighting ring: the fine is $50,000

7. Murder someone: The maximum penalty is only $25,000 and 15 years in jail, and depending on your yearly salary, would probably be far slighter a penalty than $2 million

I just came across this article and thought it is worth sharing. It helps shed some light on the absolute absurdity that is associated with the penalties dished out for file sharing. Our justice system has sold out to corporate interests.

The above crimes are REAL crimes. File sharing is not in the same league and it is absolutely absurd to think that it deserves a similar fine.

Edit to add: Treason only carried a fine of $250,000 when Scooter decided to leak the identity of some CIA operatives.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Karlhungis]

reply to post by Karlhungis


Wow! - Are the fines exchangeable?? Because I was thinking about branching out into becoming a professional hit man with a side in arranging dog fighting matches.... I figure I could take out at least 50 men and set up 20 - 25 dog fights with the points I have already accumulated.

(not that I file share... well maybe my collection of Barney the Dinosaur and the Michael Bolton discography... )

Interesting comparisons there Karl.

My biggest issue with the recording industry's crackdown on file sharing (DRM) is the manner by which they've portrayed it as protecting the rights and royalties of the musicians, when in fact it would seem quite clear their main goal is to merely protect their profits, margins and interests.

What I've never truly understood is Why they never considered embracing the technologies from the onset. They could have been reaping the rewards all along instead of basically wasting millions of dollars after the fact, trying to attain/keep a grip on something they could never really control in the first place.

Then again, perhaps that right there is the reason... they either couldn't see the forest for the trees, didn't have the foresight to realize the long-term potential benefits, or simply were running around like chickens trying their damnedest to "control" something they obviously didn't understand -technology.

well i'm on the fence on this issue pending evidence of point a.

the only 2 points people make to defend file sharing are.

a. musicians sell a lot more music after giving it away for free

b. music should be free!

now, a might be true i don't knwo. it is one of the "better" arguments for legalized theft. argument b is really stupid. music isn't free, nothing is free. if musicians want their music to be free they are more than welcome to give out cds to whoever they like or put on free concerts.

if any of you here think you can do a better job than record companies advertising, organising, developing, and mass producing music then show us and tell us how cheaply you can do it so that you don't care if people steal it.

all this is sort of moot in a country where politicians pander to the highest bidder. i understand that so none of this makes much sense.

as far as the fines go, who cares. most of the stuff on your list is insurable therefore fines aren't that big of a deal. for instance, if i staged burning down my own house and pinned it on someone else then i could get paid twice for that. simple enough. the govt. is just getting the point across and making examples of people before they crack down harder on this.

pay for your music losers! it's worth it. i know some of you dorks go out and spend 4 thousand dollars on a computer so you can play crysis and WoW so quit being retarded and buy a friggin cd.

There is an excellent Reason Phish was one of the highest earning bands in recent times. They Actively Support the taping of and archival of all their performances for distribution among other fans.

you know what that created? a band that could sell out festivals mere minutes after the tickets go on sale.

When bands embrace the technology and can produce the record independently, it helps keep the douche bags in charge from profiteering from their creativity

ever wonder why most music sucks on the Radio? Some guy is sitting in an office looking a spreadsheet and he tells the stations what to play. the bands that play the game, get played on the air, about 96 times in a single day. Then they stand dumbfounded when we dont go run out and buy the record. if you want pop music, turn on the dial. its that simple.

The RIAA is having a harder time squeezing a few dollars out of the system, which is how it should be!!; because since their conception they have been nearly singlehandely responsible for most aspects of a band being either arena rocking capable, or falling into obscurity. Think of the RIAA like the DMV for your song... they have NOTHING to do with it, but damn sure if they dont tell you WHAT to do with it....

if you are a true music fan and are lucky enough to have the correct gear, I suggest buying vinyl. Ubiquity Records and Stones Throw always have multiple formats for the consumer to buy, and their acts are all highly musically gifted.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by drsmooth23]

If those are all the arguments you heard you have been talking to the wrong people.

The real argument goes like this:
Filesharing is a new technology that works better for distributing digital content than any solution that came before it. The traditional way (selling CDs) is obsolete. (this has happened many times before, and will happen again. And yes: industries die because of it. When was the last time you visited a blacksmith?)

Making the bought product worse than the pirated one (restrictive DRM) will therefore not help.

As long as publishers can't add any value to their service, they will have a hard time charging money for it.

Originally posted by drsmooth23
There is an excellent Reason Phish was one of the highest earning bands in recent times. They Actively Support the taping of and archival of all their performances for distribution among other fans.

you know what that created? a band that could sell out fesvitvals mere minutes after the tickets go on sale.

When bands embrace the technology and can produce the record independently, it helps keep the douche bags in charge from profiteering from their creativity

The other bands should embrace free music, and use it to there advantage. Fighting against it just wastes millions.

reply to post by Moodle


Well here is the issue from the musicians stand point. A is true when starting out I have quite a few free bee's I got when I use to play guitar from bands that wanted their music out and about to become better known. Some even had radio time without knowing it and not getting paid and loved it.

I got the chance about 12 years ago to talk to someone when I was playing who was selling his own CD's and had his own recording studio and label. He told me the recording industry was filled with money sucking leeches and most musicians when signing up would get shafted so bad that many times they made more money doing gigs around the country than selling their music through them.

He went on to say these bands who want to be big will sign anything just to get their name out there and basically play for free because if they don't someone else will. He also mentioned the ideal way for making money would be selling each song on the internet for 0.50-1.00 a pop saying sure people will share and trade but they would still out perform what the recording industry would pay them.

Funny thing is even before MP3's where hardly known about people always commented they would love to be able to buy just the songs they liked and had no problem paying a buck each instead of shelling out for a whole CD that contained one song they liked. Even before that artists started selling their music across the internet making a good chunk of change. Well over a decade later I-Tunes pops up.

It comes down to an industry trying to survive after it refused to change it's marketing practice. They don't even need to bother making the CD's anymore but they do where as if it was myself in charge CD's would be a thing of the past. They have a lot of things they could be doing to rake in the cash with today's technology but their leadership is pry some 60 year old men stuck in a paradigm refusing to change and adjust with the times. They could base an entire internet service around the music and it's sales but they are too stubborn and too stuck in their ways to realize the profits that are still to be had in an instantaneous world wide market where you can go from song production to on the internet shelf literally in a matter of minutes if not seconds.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Darthorious]

Great thread! S&F

This is a nice illustration of fascism!
But hey, I don't know anyone who has actually been punished for file sharing, so fascism isn't so bad!

Originally posted by Darthorious
reply to post by Moodle

 

It comes down to an industry trying to survive after it refused to change it's marketing practice. They don't even need to bother making the CD's anymore but they do where as if it was myself in charge CD's would be a thing of the past. They have a lot of things they could be doing to rake in the cash with today's technology but their leadership is pry some 60 year old men stuck in a paradigm refusing to change and adjust with the times. They could base an entire internet service around the music and it's sales but they are too stubborn and too stuck in their ways to realize the profits that are still to be had in an instantaneous world wide market where you can go from song production to on the internet shelf literally in a matter of minutes if not seconds.

Personal opinion here, but I actually LIKE buying the actual CDs from stores. Yes, I still buy a lot of individual songs on the internet, but I try to buy the physical CD if I can. However, I still fell that record execs are relying too heavily on full CDs, when they should be trying to do everything they can to embrace the digital age, like you said. I'd say printing half of the CDs that they do would be a place to start. Otherwise they are just digging themselves a bigger hole that will only to be harder and harder to get out of.

My father was sat as the chairman for ELSPA (Entertainment and Leisure Software Publisher Association) up until 2004, and was also involved in the creation of FACT (federation against copyright theft). He also was COO of Microprose, Domark, Eidos, Inforgrammes and Atari (Some of the biggest games publishers in the world) He would tell me of the ten of millions of pounds that were spend to produce a game and the millions it would take to publish. However, he never saw the use of chasing down people who would download a game or movie or an album for personal use. It is the people that then go on to replicate and make a profit from these downloads at the cost of the company that made them. I think there is too much emphasis on the personal downloads. They should go after the crime syndicates that use this money to fund street and gang warfare, used to traffik women and children into countries who are then forced into prostitution or used to increase the size of their underground activities. The average tom, dick or harry does not download games, software, movies or music to make money from it; And most people that download music or movies will usually go and buy the DVD or CD so they have a copy with good quality sound and images, at the end of the day, no one wants to see a dodgy copy of Transformers 2 where u see someone get up infront of the camera to go the toilet and the microphone cant cope with some heavy bass! If they are going to fine people, it should simply be the cost of the DVD, game or CD that they have downloaded, minus the packaging a distribution costs.

reply to post by daveyp1986


exactly, 1 step, China pirated software distributors.

So...

It'll be cheaper if I just kill every person in the Anti infringement business and set their buildings to fire?

reply to post by Darthorious


Great post.
Yeah, from the artist's perspective, file sharing is great! Unless you are already established (Metallica).
Metallica doesn't need people to share their files to sell their stuff. Everyone already knows them.

But for the vast majority of artists, this is a good thing. It is the execs. that lose. And for precisely the reason you stated. Simply because they refuse to keep track with the technology.

One other thing though, there was a time when people DID buy just singles.
That changed in the 60's though.

yeah great minus the part where you leave out the jail time for each of these

I am pretty sure jail is a bit worse than a fine

-Kyo

The vompanies just need to deal with it.

"if any of you here think you can do a better job than record companies advertising, organising, developing, and mass producing music then show us and tell us how cheaply you can do it so that you don't care if people steal it."

1. I do.

2. Stealing music is illegal, but people spending $30-40 billion on music a year is just ridiculous.



Now as for why music piracy has been good:

1. The cost of CDs were rising but luckily piracy happened and they had to keep the prices low to compete. If it weren't for piracy, CDs would most likely cost at least $20.

2. It seems that it has caused an increase in live music in order to make up for the money lost due to piracy. Honestly I think bands should make it so if you buy a ticket to their show, you can download some of their music for free.

3. It provides a way for new artists to actually get out there and actually get enough of a following for a cross country tour.

4. It kind of lets us form what we hear on the radio, rather then just being pumped full of whatever Clear Channel wants. Granted the radio is still full of crap, but we are hearing more and more artists who normal people like you and I discovered online and when the downloads started skyrocketting, then the music industry took notice.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by AliBruh]

Where is the maximum penalty for murder 15 years?

I'm pretty sure 30 years is the minimum. At least in my state.

I know that's not the point of the thread but that last bit is just wrong.

reply to post by die_another_day


Would that be the best idea or are you an absolute fool! Im gonna go for the later im afraid mate. Im sure you'll do more time for arson than for stealing a CD eh!