$1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs

Originally posted by triplereiki
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.

They had a private company downloading copyrighted songs from people and then tracing their IP address and taking them to court. You know what I would have done, I would have said that my computer must have been taken over and turned into a zombie. Where your computer is a being controlled by someone else. And if they would have looked for evidence, I would have took down my firewalls and AV and visited so many warez sites and other shady sites that by the time they looked at my computer it would have been filled with viruses and malware and zombie ware from hell. I would have found evidence and examples that other computers have been used without the owners consent downloading things they didn't want. And here's something she shouldn't have done, and that is to register her real email and or even register at all. They would have had my IP address and thats it, then they would have to figure out if I did it or someone else did it. She left so many clues and stuff that it made it easy for them to go after her in a case.

RIAA Will Drop Cases If You Point Out That An IP Address Isn't A Person

www.techdirt.com...

reply to post by Whyhi

Oh , there's a Difference alright . A Fine in Court for Theft would be around $400 depending on the Judge , but this Woman was Fined 1.5 Million Dollars for downloading 24 Songs ,,,,,, Big Difference there Indeed .

This is really scary. Do they really expect to get any money out of these law suit? I mean really what goes through the mind of these sick bastards. Over a million dollars for 20 something songs. Please give me a break. Most of us in our lifetime will never even make that kind of money. How are these people suppose to pay over a million dollars plus legal fees? What about these peoples families? Do they even think that these people that their lives they are destroying may have children that depend on them? This makes me sick. Maybe a couple a thousand dollars at most but over a million. They sure as hell don't need the money. And the artist don't need or even get a portion of the awards from the lawsuits. So what is this really about? Corruption, greed or/and power are my first guess. Maybe to remind us peasants who's really in control.

I give my music away!!!!! It's on all the download sites. But FREE on my own site.
The way it should be.

reply to post by cluckerspud


You are Also Giving your THOUGHTS Away for FREE here on this Site , or do I Owe you Money now for Reading your Post ? ......

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by cluckerspud

 

You are Also Giving your THOUGHTS Away for FREE here on this Site , or do I Owe you Money now for Reading your Post ? ......

Why would you owe me money?! I don't get where you are coming from.
Seriously, can elaborate on your vague remark. Thanks.

Originally posted by PApro
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!!

Exactly. They even made easy for us to do it. Remember the high speed dub double cassette player that recorded in 1/3rd the time? I mean come on. Give people the opportunity to dub songs and they will. Fine them afterwards for a million and a half? FRACK off.

Also.....how about all those so called "DJ"s who mix their own CDs?

Disclaimer: I have NEVER downloaded a single song off the internet. In case anyone was thinking I'm biased in my opinions.

reply to post by Whyhi

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

Scenario 1:
Person walks into a music store and takes a CD without paying for it. She now has a CD, and the music store does not.

Scenario 2:
Person walks into a music store and purchases a CD for money. She now has a CD, and the music store now has money.

Scenario 3:
Person buys a CD from a store. They now have a CD and the store has money. Person then uploads an mp3 copy of that cd onto the internet and somebody downloads it. The store still has the money. The first person still has the CD. The third person has a copy.

Tell me honestly whether scenario three more closely resembles scenario 1 or 2. If you wish to entertain the notion that piracy is not the way we want to do things for some reason, I'm willing to listen to those reasons. But don't pretend that piracy is "no different" than stealing. Stealing requires that one take property from someone such that they no longer have it. Digital copying does not cause anyone to no longer have a property. It is not stealing.

reply to post by cluckerspud


Aren't you Aware of Sarcasm ? It was a Joke.........

reply to post by cluckerspud


rhetoric, friend.

i know what he was saying.

reply to post by climberxterra

Do they really expect to get any money out of these law suit?
I mean really what goes through the mind of these sick bastards.

They recognize that they are technologically obsolete. Precedent and public opinion is the only reason they can continue to exist. The purpose of these law suits is to scare the public into continuing to believe that it's necessary to pay for money for these things.

Something else that confuses me.

Aerosmith (one of the bands that this woman downloaded) is signed to Sony.
Do you know what else Sony makes money from?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c234bf59c0d.jpg[/atsimg]

Thats right, Blank Cd's Blank DVD's, CD and DVD Burners and even good old cassette tapes.

It almost seems to me that Sony has been profiting from people pirating Music and Movies and then suing them for doing it, but that would be unethical so I'm sure I must be wrong

these record companies have lots of money invested in "acts".


i guarantee that all of them are just hype.

wait, i mean to say, the ones they push on us harder are fluff.

real acts, ones that can perform and play, really don't need cd sales.

the money is in merchandise and live gigs.

don't underestimate following. (fans not statement)

look at the most successful long term performers.

besides the eagles and metallica, who could buy countries, want to squash potential fans?

reply to post by davespanners


It's all about making a Buck , and lets face it , the Smart Ones have All the Bases Covered.........

Originally posted by davespanners
Something else that confuses me.

Aerosmith (one of the bands that this woman downloaded) is signed to Sony.
Do you know what else Sony makes money from?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c234bf59c0d.jpg[/atsimg]

Thats right, Blank Cd's Blank DVD's, CD and DVD Burners and even good old cassette tapes.

It almost seems to me that Sony has been profiting from people pirating Music and Movies and then suing them for doing it, but that would be unethical so I'm sure I must be wrong

I am sorry mods to include this whole post in response, but I thought it neccessary to convey the point. It's like the government dealing in drugs and then actually persecuting citizens for it's use. Seems like there is a text book on how to extort the common folk somewhere...huh?

Originally posted by fooks
real acts, ones that can perform and play, really don't need cd sales.

That is why a Broadway play is well worth the money.

So if I go out and purchase a cd, and then by means of wear and tear usage the cd no longer works, I am required to go out and buy another copy? Or seeing as I already own the cd do I download the same songs that were on that cd seeing as I paid for the cd to begin with? I know someone is going to pipe in and say if you bought a car and then it broke down..... But the first case scenario I am totally comfortable with and I would not feel like a thief. and seeing as nowdays you can purchase individual songs these people should only be charged fair market value for the material. Same as if you stole something from the store that was worth $100 the store couldn't demand you pay them $5000 for the item. I think this is all a real bad rub to the general public.

Dont get sucked in!

They want you to believe you are stealing. Duplicating somthing is not stealing it because the original remains untouched. They will say you are hurting the artist when the record companies are the ones taking most of the artists profit. In order for them to claim you are taking profit from them they need to show that you would have infact purchased that item if you were unable to download which most people wouldnt - why? because we can not afford to pay $25 for a CD with 1 or 2 good songs or $500 for an operating system that has the functionality needed to use our computer. We dont want to pay $100-200 for an office suite or game that is full of bugs and has issues that we will likely need to upgrade in 6months. People buy what they can, if they really like a particular band and they have cash they buy the cd if not they download it. These fat cats are just upset they are going to have to get the corvette instead of the lambo. Cry me a fn river!


If you ever find yourself on trial for file sharing:

Simply say you run a wireless network at home and although it is secure you do not have the means to stop all levels of hacker from accessing your internet - after all even the military struggles with its protection. They can not prove it was you that downloaded the song, only that it came through your connection. You can also say your PC in infected with spyware which is all over the internet and which open holes for hackers to use your PC to do download what they want.

The end of the day they need to prove things beyond resonable doubt and if you know what you are talking about they will get nowhere. They want you to believe you are stealing so you confess and they can make more money off you.

reply to post by Nutter


That is an extremely valid point! I'm glad you pointed that out because somehow i seemed to miss thinking that up. It seems to be a complete set up. But we know they will say they are only intended to be used to make backup discs of things you already own/ paid for.. However, if they had a REAL problem with piracy than they should discontinue making such things.

Another random point i would like to bring up is that there are many legit reasons to use file sharing networks and most of those programs automaticly search for files to be shared on ones computer. So lets say i by a cd and want to make a back up disk, I rip the cd to my computer, than one day i find a need to download a P2P program to get some freeware or something and the program auto adds that cd to the list of shared files. I can't see how that would consist of ME breaking any copyright law. So like i said in my first post, the only responsible party should be the P2P networks that allow the criminal activity.

And how much do the artist get from this? How much would've the 'penalty' been if it were physically stolen from a store.