$1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs

Can you copyright a series of numbers??

Since music/software is in digital form and is just a series of bytes (numbers) in a specific order... is it possible to make the worlds smallest song, or worlds smallest computer software which only consists of a few bytes of data, copyright it, and then sue everyone who uses the internet because those series of bytes are probably downloaded and uploaded from computers billions of times an hour?

Here is the bytes to my new song, I just wrote it;

5, 14, 41, 255, 100

Convert those above numbers into bytes, and then play them with software which controls a speaker, and you will hear a sound. That is my new song, and it is now protected by copyright laws. Those 5 bytes are probably uploaded and downloaded billions of times a day by everyone... I AM RICH!! I'M GOING TO SUE YOU ALL! STOP DOWNLOADING MY SONG!

Originally posted by Faiol
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

No you're correct, if they didn't have the money and didn't have digital media, most likely they would if they were really desperate and wanted something, would just walk into a wal - mart and still a real valued item. They should be thanking god for the piracy industry, it keeps the people from going into a store and actually causing real losses to the store as well to the RIAA And the artists... where actual physical items would be stolen! Also I am not saying all people who partake would end up doing real theivery, obviously, but the majority of the people who do pirate are children who do not think about nothing but what they want or think they need at the moment and would be prone to resorting to actual theivery, if the digital media did not exist...and with peer pressure, this is even more likely. Cause let's face it, not all kids even think before they act!

Originally posted by triplereiki
Wow, why are the peer-to-peer sites still allowing folks to download,

Maybe it's all part of a conspiracy to keep everyone in debt through massive fines.
I think it's called 'Entrapment', and last I heard, it was illegal.
But hey,....... what do I know?

reply to post by yizzel


ya you are 100% right
but india is a free country you can do anything
you can download anything from internet,no law and no restrictions.no one can stop you

reply to post by triplereiki


Stealing involves taking something that is transferred from the victim to the thief. File sharing involves creating a copy of something that leaves the original item intact. Therefore, copyrighted file sharing cannot be said to be theft. Copyrighted file sharing is file sharing and stealing is stealing. They are very clearly and obviously two different things entirely. Its just another example of control freaks bending the dictionary to meet their political needs.

Originally posted by Illegal Alien

Originally posted by triplereiki
Wow, why are the peer-to-peer sites still allowing folks to download,

Maybe it's all part of a conspiracy to keep everyone in debt through massive fines.
I think it's called 'Entrapment', and last I heard, it was illegal.
But hey,....... what do I know?

Unfortunately, cops do this all the time...and the courts tend to look the other way in most cases. It is still against the law, it's just not enforced anymore and soon, beleive you, me, will be totally removed from our laws, because entrapment is all they have based the last 50 million drug cases on. Think I am kidding??? I know someone who does this for a living...for the cops...walks up to someone on the street and asks if they got any weed or whatever to sell them and how much will it be and how much do they have they can buy, then the scumbag Hillsborough County police come in and arrest they a&& and sit your A$$ in jail till they either prosecute you or you give them the big fish!!!!!

And that my friends, is ENTRAPMENT!!!! And it works for this case as well...they scared her into confessing to this...entrapment, probably said they would either not penalize her or reduce the punishment, that is ENTRAPMENT!!!

Originally posted by Whyhi
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.

Would the fine be 1.5 million?

reply to post by triplereiki


Not to mention you can download off of Youtube.

Should Youtube get sued?

reply to post by ldyserenity


And you can bet your bottom dollar that if YOU did it to bring to justice a real 'criminal', they'd have your a$$ on a skewer.

Come to think of it, isn't it more along the lines of wire tapping? can they show the transaction on paper with every song? along with whatever else was transfered through the internet connection. Isn't that invasion of privacy? How exactly do they monitor the activity to come up with the records of the downloaded songs?

thats and old case...she was uploading these songs by the masses.
eventually you will get caught doing that

Copyright Infringement Cases where the Defendant is charged merely with "Downloading" software or Music are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court.

In order to prosecute Criminal Cases, a Valid cause of Action must be Filed.

And a Cause of action is composed of 3 elements:

1. A law that was Broken
2. Proof of Injury or Loss to a second party through the violation of Law
3. Evidence linking the Defendant TO the Loss or Injury.


Unless the Record companies can PROVE a loss of Property, there is no Subject matter jurisdiction.


Which is why the RIAA is concerned with claiming Lost Revenue, because without the "Illusion" that they are losing Revenue from your "Piracy", they have no Subject matter Jurisdiction.

So, the only way that they can HAVE subject matter Jurisdiction, is if the Defendant is MAKING MONEY off of selling the pirated software or downloaded material.

Edit to Add: HAPPY GUY FAWKES DAY!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

-Edrick (No Harm, No Foul)

My experience of the media industry tells me:

They are liars, they have run campaigns stating that pirated stuff is of less quality than the original. How can a digital copy of something be less quality. They have stated that money made from piracy goes to terrorism, child trafficing, gun running, drugs and all manner of made up BS. I know plenty of people who download stuff and none of them are involved in any of these things.

They claim they have lost loads of money because of piracy..... I can tell you that anything I have listened to or watched which was not the original, I had no intention of buying in the first place. So no they didn't lose a sale.

If I recall correctly, none of the money recovered in these lawsuits has gone to the artists.Ultimately copyright laws (c) are there to protect the creator of said works or the artist. Why then is the force of those laws being brought against the citizenry in order to recoup imagined losses of the corporations that put themselves between the artist and listener/reader/viewer?
Evidently it wasn't a crime to record albums ( yes, albums ) to magnetic tape. Recordings of recordings have been made using that medium since its appearance. The argument often made is that the technology did not replicate the recording with exceptional fidelity. Magnetic tape tech. was constantly improved during its use but couldn't really ever get rid of the problem of distortion or hiss on recordings. That is true for commercially available products for the general public though professional set ups could sound remarkably better, they were never perfect.( i'm talking about 1/4" tape decks here not the studio ready 1" and 2" tapes )However, did that ever matter to you and your friends? I'm guessing no. We will use whatever tech that is cheapest and most widely available. Always.
These companys were caught with an out dated business model and rather than rush to embrace this technology like they had with absolutely every advancement in the field previously, they chose to prosecute and punish those with an interest in a 21st century mix tape. I don't believe that the reason behind this agenda is a better replication of original fidelity. Is the reason as simple as an old and unchanged business model? I don't know.
The selective prosecution of potential customers is truly curious behavior.

STH

The way I see it she owes them around 24$ MAX. And thats giving them a couple of extra cents for their time.

Next time I want to download some music I think I'll go murder someone instead. Seems like it would carry lesser charges.

MOTF!

Originally posted by Illegal Alien
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

And you can bet your bottom dollar that if YOU did it to bring to justice a real 'criminal', they'd have your a$$ on a skewer.

Yes, being a lowly citizen, you are probably correct, If I were to walk up to my previous neighbor(whom I loathed with a passion) and had asked to buy a hatload of POT which I wholly knew they sold (thanks to talkative children), then proceeded to inform the police here about it to get them taken to justice; I would have gotten charged as a buyer and in the long run would have spent probably a hefty number of days in jail while their fat A%#% would still be buying and using and selling pot on The WELFARE MONEY they got every month.

someone had asked about radio stations paying for music:
I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure radio stations and bars have to pay a fee to musicians unions to play their material.

Also, I don't think you can copyright chord progressions or vague song titles.

I think this lady has dealt with several of these cases. I read a story quite a while ago that mentioned she had been sued (over the same stuff, I think it was the second time) for downloading almost 2,000 songs. She was fined in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the company that sued her said it was mostly just for show and they would only make her pay $3,000. She declined obviously.

Originally posted by MadDogtheHunter

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.

Ahh so you changed your avatar..

So I guess now you are going to pay Kylesa The band who owns your new avatar image for the use of it?
I assume you have already contacted them for permission to alter their logo right? As you have no problem with obeying copyright laws and all

reply to post by anonymousstranger


Look up A.S.C.A.P. The american society of composers artists and publishers for that sort of info.

reply to post by stopthathurts


Thanks
Can't believe I forgot about ASCAP. I think there's another musicians guild as well, I'll have to look that up.