$1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs

Wow, why are the peer-to-peer sites still allowing folks to download, if they are going to be sued later?
Heres the story

new.music.yahoo.com...

I have downloaded some songs, and am wondering if I am next in a few years, but I can honestly say, I did not share what I downloaded.

I want to add, the songs were for my personal use in my MP3 player. Plus, the site I download from, you basically have to download the file first, THEN check it out to see if you like it...Many of them I simply delete.

reply to post by triplereiki


Stealing is stealing, regardless if you're going to share it.

~

reply to post by triplereiki

why are the peer-to-peer sites still allowing folks to download

It's not the nature of peer to peer networks to forbid or allow the transfer of specific files. You may as well ask why freeways still allow people to drive vehicles on them, when those vehicles have not passed smog inspection.

True the amount of the fine is outrageous but she broke the law. People know it is illegal to share copyrighted material and if they choose to do this and they get caught then they have no one but themselves to blame. There are multiple places online like Rhapsody where you pay a small fee and you can listen to all the music you want without having to worry about getting sued. And sites like last.fm you can listen to music for free.

The way i see it, the only persons responsible to pay any money for copyright infringment would be the fileshare sites/hosts. Honestly, its not really any different than all those ppl in the 80s/ early 90s that dubbed songs to cassette and made mix tapes for other ppl. Did any of those folks get sued for giving out copyrighted music for free? NO!! Besides the fact that no one person deserves 25million dollars a year for any reason. There is much better things that money could be doing than sitting in the banks of the already rich. I mean really, so ppl downloaded your music for free, now, heaven forbid, you can't afford that 12th car that you only drive once a year anyway. Celebs need to get over themselves already. half the homeless population of New York State could live comfortably in your homes and eat for 10 years or more off all the money they spend on cloths in a single year! Its a joke.

If the facilitation of sharing is made possible by the technology we have, then how is it wrong or illegal?
It's just another way to stick it to people where it hurts.

In the past, when people recorded tapes, there was virtually no way of tracking people down other than if they were reselling the recordings on a large scale.

My opinion on this matter, unless there is rampant piracy, and reselling of said copy written materials, then the individual user should not bear the burden of blame.
They have little other way to prove their point, than to kill the average Joe.

Gah! I just downloaded a LOT of songs from limewire right before they were shut down...
But I don't understand how it's illegal if people bought and paid for the cds, then uploaded them to share. I don't know much about the legalities about that stuff. I think it's a little ridiculous to have to pay 1,000's per song when they don't cost that much to begin with. Where do they pull these figures from?? I think that should fall under (cruel)/UNUSUAL punishment. It's just crazy.

As I had this pic sitting in my folder from an earlier thread I thought I may as well post it

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6221b2d667f1.gif[/atsimg]

This was an actual campaign in the eighties to try and stop people taping songs off of the radio and making mix tapes because apparently it was going to kill the music industry.

3 decades and multi trillions of dollars later it seems that the music industry strangely didn't die from people taping Madonna off of the radio, the campaign was complete nonsense, just as this latest one is, and was just a way of inflating profits through suing people.

Sony, who is one of the companies so intent on suing people now was actually sued themselves by universal studios when they released the Betamax as apparently home video machines were going to "kill the movie industry"

Sony Vs Universal studios

When you buy a CD, you buy a license to use the music for yourself. When you copy the songs and upload them you allow many others to download them and thus break the terms of your license/agreement when buying the CD.

I am so with stealing music.. I dont see why people should buy new artists music anyway.. its not even worth the cd its printed on.. Most of the stuff that comes out is plain out garbage..

But real artists let you download thier music for free.. so no big deal.. screw big market music you guys can keep it.

Oh and did you know.. Downloading music helps terrorist.. I learned that from a movie I jacked off the internet..

well if i have bought cd's and had them stolen from my car i'm sure as hell not going to buy the cd twice so i'll download it if i happen to get done well i'll offer them 10 cents a week as they can't get blood out of a stone hahahaha.

reply to post by triplereiki


" A massive win for the RIAA again, but not one that will benefit any musicians.

Previously, the RIAA told TorrentFreak that if they manage to recoup any of the damages, it will not go to the artists but will instead be used to fund new anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” RIAA’s Jonathan Lamy . "


There's the Rub .......... NO Musicians that had their Songs Alledgedly " Pirated " will recieve Any Monitary Compensation for Copyright Infringment , the RIAA will Keep all Monies from Fines imposed on File Sharing Convictions . Although the results of that trial set a Precedent , it will be Challenged in a Higher Court of Law . ..Stay Tuned......

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


That is indeed the rub, when the studios aren't suing people for downloading songs they are trapping musicians into terrible contracts that either leave them broke or without any form of artistic control over their own music.

If it were musicians that were suing people I would have some sympathy, but you will never get any sympathy from me for a company that is set up just to make money from other peoples artistry, and to screw artists over as much as they possibly can during their 15 minutes of fame before kicking them into a gutter the moment their sales lag

reply to post by Whyhi


Your Logic is Flawed concerning this Story......... .Let me explain....


I go to a Music Store and Purchase a Music CD .
I then take it home to listen to , and if I like it , I either Record it on a Audio Cassette to Play in a Cassette Player or Burn it on my Comp to make a Copy on a Blank CD .
Once on my Computer , because I Paid for it , I can Share it with my Friends if I want to because it is Now MINE .
How can that be considered Stealing ? It's Not , it is called Charity .

reply to post by PApro


Just like I believe the only person entitled to sue for copyright infringement is the Artist that's name is on the song. Record companies are nothing more than Mafia syndicates ..

And the courts aren't even trying to hide the fact that the record companies (ie, mafia) are buying them out..

It's pathetic.

reply to post by triplereiki


I hope they don't hold their breaths they'll never see that money.
She probably doesn't even have a job, or any assets.

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Regardless, the problem isn't sharing specifically, it's that she stole them to begin with.

Picture it as her walking in and stealing a CD instead of a p2p program, it's no different.

Imo, piracy is wrong. Downloading isn't piracy tho. They should go after the people who illegally upload / share copyright material. They are the ones that are breaking the law. If you find a CD or tape on the street then it's finders keepers, right!? It's not stealing. Yes I know that won't wash in court so ppl be careful what you download.

What's really wrong with this, is that the RIAA and MPAA are RUINING people's lives - forever - over a couple of songs. Committing second degree murder has weaker repercussions than being found guilty for internet piracy. That's not right.

Abducting a child, stalking, arson, and other crimes are LESS SEVERE than copying music.

In my opinion, that is WRONG.

Don't believe me? Here's an article showing proof!