$1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs

I'm planning on giving all of my CD's away, as I no longer have a use for them. I don't even own a CD player anymore. I have them ripped to my computer, which is what I use to listen to music. Are the people I give them to stealing because they didn't pay for them? This is ridiculous logic. Like someone already pointed out: Imagine if we could infinitely replicate physical items. Everything would immediately lose value. Nothing would be rare anymore. Take the 1943 copper penny for instance. The only reason those pennies are valuable is because there were so little of them minted.

The funny thing about this whole file-sharing thing, is that musicians themselves take ideas from other musicians to create their own music. So they're essentially doing the same exact thing. I also doubt most musicians who record music are doing so via methods they themselves created, such as inventing their own musical instruments, instead of using the standard guitar, bass, drums, etc.

As a musician myself, I would feel guilty making people pay to listen to my music. Seriously, we need to be paid to be listened to?

It is indeed a hefty fine.

But then again, imo, it is wrong to pirate music.

The same goes for games or movies. Piracy is piracy, and that is it. There is no ifs or buts.
I never buy pirated movies or music, or download said things.

If you cannot afford to buy the original, then you should not have it. To then pirate, or download a copy for free, that is stealing.

This is my opinion. People may differ. But this is the values i hold.

vVv

I gotta say I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread - I've never given so many stars in a single thread as I have this one!

Especially liked DaveSpanners posts

I've read a few articles about this woman. The title of most of them says she's fined the outrageous amount of money for downloading 24 songs and there are a lot of comments saying it's too much money for only 24 songs. Those people obviously did not read the entire article, because she actually downloaded 1,700 songs within a short time frame. I cannot think of 1,000 songs over the past few years that I would've even wanted to download. I smell something fishy...

Personally, I don't care that much since most of the people that snag downloads don't have that much expendable income in the first place. And how would they get 1.5 million from some 12 year old? It's asinine.

(And I'm speaking as an artist. Heck I even sell some of my 3D models on occasion. They're already cheap, so if somebody is desperate enough to get unauthorized copies of them - what would honestly be the point of litigation? It's a waste of time and the only person that would see any money out of that is some creepy lawyer. I'd only have reason to get mad if somebody tried selling my work as their own, but if they're doing it for their own enjoyment and still give proper credit - let 'em have their fun.)

Now if you're really worried about downloading being backwards-tracable, you can always get a patch cable and record from the radio. (That's old school, and still works. I remember those tape cassette days...)

Or take the time to discover some artists that post their music directly to the web, and that some music released under Creative Commons is actually good. If you can, then buy something from the artist's website or put in a tip via their donate button if they got one to keep 'em going. Then you can enjoy your tunes without the giving the media racketeering outfits their legal excuse to hassle you. That's the way I roll now. Also don't forget to spread the word yourself, since the radio and that type of media are in the pocketbook and obviously won't do it when it comes to free (as in libre) music.

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
It is indeed a hefty fine.

But then again, imo, it is wrong to pirate music.

The same goes for games or movies. Piracy is piracy, and that is it. There is no ifs or buts.
I never buy pirated movies or music, or download said things.

If you cannot afford to buy the original, then you should not have it. To then pirate, or download a copy for free, that is stealing.

This is my opinion. People may differ. But this is the values i hold.

vVv

Why should we have to pay exorbitant prices for music that isn't worth it's price tag? Especially if we can get previously purchased copies for free? Oh yes, sharing music with your peers, letting them experience artists they never would have considered normally is really a horrible thing for both the RIAA and musicians.

Take Stardock for example, consumers support them and purchase their goods BECAUSE they respect that consumers hate DRM. Sure, people pirate it, but the company does fine, and they get free good publicity because their consumers appreciate being respected.

I never even would have considered numerous films and games I've eventually purchased if I hadn't downloaded it prior. I never would have spent money to rent it.

Or, take for example the new tv show on AMC, "The Walking Dead" - if it hadn't been leaked onto torrents, I never would have been able to see the show. If I hadn't seen the show I never would have bought a season pass on XBox live so I could watch the series.

Yes, some pirates just take, others provide. Sharing what you enjoy with others, without asking anything in return should not be considered a crime - especially when the one whining is a multi-billion dollar industry that tries to shove terrible music down it's customer's throats.

As an added thought, I'm honestly quite surprised that people on ATS are defending the media industry - considering people here usually seem to dislike MSM. I don't see why the music industry ruining people's lives over sharing data is so defensible.

The same people behind the RIAA and MPAA are the guys who run TV and the news. The same powers that only report nonsense and gloss important things. These guys are the reasons reporters no longer report the news, and instead distracts the masses with 'intellectual wonders' like the Jersey Shore. In a nation where more people vote on American Idol than they do for the president of the United States, is it really surprising that some people don't want to support these corporate giants?

reply to post by zelaar


#1 rule of law: if you're hot then you wont get into any trouble.

ha ha ha

-subfab

I think I heard a story that had the same situation as this. Allow me to put in who it would represent as well.

There was a painter(Artist) who decides to paint a picture(song, movie etc.), and it turned out to be great. Then an entrepreneur(RIAA) sees it, and would like to have people charge to see it. The painter would like a profit off the piece, but when people pay to see it, others will be able to while almost one person does.

So they both decide to build a tent, and charge people to get in and see it. During that time, a person(pirate) trips, and exposes that painting for everyone to see. The entrepreneur charges everyone in the area for looking at the painting.

Is it justified?

reply to post by Whyhi


exactly what are you stealing? electrical imputs?
this is madness.

reply to post by Whyhi


exactly what are you stealing? electrical imputs?
this is madness.

reply to post by triplereiki


This is the very reason that I hate the music industry. The record companies are ruining peoples lives, over a few songs, that to them... is really only worth a buck. Most new albums have around 12 songs, and sell for around 12-15 bucks. That's $1-$1.25 per song, that has to be disbursed along the chain involved in producing a record, so the record companies see significantly less... and then sue for around $200000 or more per song, when downloaded illegally.

Here's an interesting read. visitwikipedia article, and scroll down to the album description for ten thousand fists. It describes their view on the whole thing, and I have been seeing a LOT more bands swaying this way.

Except metallica... they ruined napster back in the day, and then they started making crappy albums.

I'm a musician and so are many of my friends. This one band I know recorded an album with Steve Albini (Nrvana, PJ Harvey) which they paid for themselves. They immediately put digital files of the album for download for FREE. They offered on their website low price vinyl and CD versions of their music with handmade original artwork to cut their losses. No record company, no industry, just the artist and the listener.

Many people don't know this but a record company is a lot like a bank. They loan you the money to make an album, promote it, tour, stay in hotels; and the band earns the money from playing shows, which they use to pay back the loan. The common story is an unsuccessful band will be slaves to their contract until the loan is repaid. With the internet providing promotion and quality affordable music software like Apple Logic ($500) and artist can make music and share without the use of a middleman. Most bands make their money by playing live shows, and mostly get cents per album.

An MP3 cost practically nothing to make and host. The outrageous prices for media files just goes to show that value is a fabrication. As an artist, my only interest is creating and sharing my work. Its only because i had a need for money that I considered making a buck off of it. But I think it's silly to charge money for a file. It's a testament to these insane times that something that has no material form and cost less than a cent to create and post can cost more than a piece of fruit, which sustains life.

K

reply to post by vkturbo


Exactly right! I had my awesome collection a huge binder full of original CD's stolen from my car (along with my stereo amp and speakers) I was at work doing security at a club, and the cops were called for a report and what not, they didn't care about my stuff they just wanted to get the report done with, they must have been wanting to go and catch some citizen to give him/her a ticket lol. Anyway, I rebuilt my collection again, new stereo new amp and speakers, almost a year later outside my own home, again it was broken into, was it my fault? yeah I left my binder and stereo face in the car. Still the person/s who stole my stuff have stolen property and I'm paying the record industry double, but will they care? of course not. Either way, since I already paid for a collection twice already, I have given myself the right without conscious remorse to PYRATE [sic] music.

reply to post by Whyhi


hey guys, I never used the internet, so, let me call everyone a bank robber

downloading over the internet is not stealing, simply because you are downloading a copy and the owners are not losing anything, since its a digital copy, meaning, it did not cost anything to the owners that copy

besides, to this day, no one proved that people that dont have money would buy a CD or whatever if they did not have the mp3 available for free

plus, in the past, people always pirated this kind of thing, now its more easy, but people always did the same thing in other technologies

ignorance is not a blessing

Originally posted by zelaar
As an added thought, I'm honestly quite surprised that people on ATS are defending the media industry - considering people here usually seem to dislike MSM. I don't see why the music industry ruining people's lives over sharing data is so defensible.

The same people behind the RIAA and MPAA are the guys who run TV and the news. The same powers that only report nonsense and gloss important things. These guys are the reasons reporters no longer report the news, and instead distracts the masses with 'intellectual wonders' like the Jersey Shore. In a nation where more people vote on American Idol than they do for the president of the United States, is it really surprising that some people don't want to support these corporate giants?

a lot of people here are completely closed mind without any kind of culture, thats the problem

most of the people that post on these threads defending the big corporation, they simply dont know what a download is, or what internet is, they dont know anything about it ... they just want to feel the satisfaction to believe they are defending something ...

How can a judge be considered sane when he orders a single mother to pay $1.5m damages to Billion-dollar Corporations because she downloaded 24 songs? Does the judge understand the concept of "the punishment fitting the crime?"

Maybe those who still buy physical CDs should send these Greedy Corporations a message by boycotting them for 1.5 million days.

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by Whyhi

 

downloading over the internet is not stealing, simply because you are downloading a copy and the owners are not losing anything, since its a digital copy, meaning, it did not cost anything to the owners that copy

That has to be the silliest thing I've seen in this thread thus far. Copying IS stealing. Ignorance of Copyright Laws is no excuse. I will argue the facts in this thread no longer. Instead, I will let the Federal Copyright Laws argue it for me. Its in black and white. If people can't understand it or want to take time and understand it, then thats their problem.
I BUY all the music I listen to. I don't mind obeying the Copyright Laws. After all, those laws are some of the very few Laws that actually make sense in our Government.

The amount of money the band makes off an album sale is truly minuscule. 1-5% shares, and the record company hoards the rest. I agree with downloading on one simple basis. Say you have £50. You could buy (say) 5 Foo Fighters albums, and the Foos make barely 50p from me overall, with Warner and whatnot making a killing. Or, I download the 5 albums, love them, share them with my friends, etc. then pay my £50 on a gig ticket. My friends all do the same, and the Foos make around £40+ off of each of us - by file sharing, the bands do far better because more people then go to gigs.