Woman convicted in File Sharing case...

http://www.bravewords.com/news/116146

Ok, she broke the law and should be repremanded...but to order ONE person to pay $80,000 per song for 24 songs?????? That's insane. That's like getting 20 years to life for swiping a six pack of soda. This one woman, had she bought the songs, would have only contributed $24 to the recording industry and now they want to make her pay $1.92 million???

And murderers roam the streets...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

http://www.bravewords.com/news/116146

Ok, she broke the law and should be repremanded...but to order ONE person to pay $80,000 per song for 24 songs?????? That's insane. That's like getting 20 years to life for swiping a six pack of soda. This one woman, had she bought the songs, would have only contributed $24 to the recording industry and now they want to make her pay $1.92 million???

And murderers roam the streets...

Yeah, but she was given the opportunity to settle for peanuts and refused. Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter what. Sure this is pretty absurd, but she knew what the possible consequences would be.

I'm surprised she thought she could win.

Wow! That sucks for her. 24 songs huh? I know people that have stolen and shared FAR more than that. Seems they are just making an example of her. Can't say I blame them, music sales have been in a slump and it's mostly due to file stealing, MP3 sharing, etc. Why buy it when you can just take it easily for free and justify it in your mind as ok.

There is no way she could ever pay that fine. They might as well throw her in jail for 20 years.

That fine is way too high and I predict on appeal that the judgement against her will be thrown out.

manny wrote:

That fine is way too high and I predict on appeal that the judgement against her will be thrown out.

She will still get a hefty fine but more reasonable and realistic.

manny wrote:

That fine is way too high and I predict on appeal that the judgement against her will be thrown out.

This was her second trial...first she was ordered to pay $220,000 total ($9100 per song) and she challenged it or something. That's still too much. In all honesty, I think a fine of $250 per song plus court cost is plenty. This individual stole $24...she should not be forced to basically pay for nearly 2 million songs for other people.

And, we all knew this was coming, file sharing is only one of several things killing the music industry...greed and $h!tty music being two others...

Quote :

greed and $h!tty music being two others...

I'd like to see some of the guys who look like this get convicted for producing crappy music:

I want to sue whatever label puts out Black Eyed Peas...unspeakable crimes against music.

I think she's being punished for being a dumbass.

Quote :

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I want to sue whatever label puts out Black Eyed Peas...unspeakable crimes against music.

Do it! Your pain and suffering alone is worth it.

The music industry set in motions in its own path to self destruction by having overpriced CD's, not helping bands have long term careers by dropping them immediatley, not embracing new technologies and just for acting like a bunch dead brain idiots.

manny wrote:

The music industry set in motions in its own path to self destruction by having overpriced CD's, not helping bands have long term careers by dropping them immediatley, not embracing new technologies and just for acting like a bunch dead brain idiots.

True enough, but that still doesn't give people an excuse to steal music.

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

The music industry set in motions in its own path to self destruction by having overpriced CD's, not helping bands have long term careers by dropping them immediatley, not embracing new technologies and just for acting like a bunch dead brain idiots.

True enough, but that still doesn't give people an excuse to steal music.

No, it does not. But to pinpoint downloading as the single thing that killed the music industry isn't fair either.

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

The music industry set in motions in its own path to self destruction by having overpriced CD's, not helping bands have long term careers by dropping them immediatley, not embracing new technologies and just for acting like a bunch dead brain idiots.

True enough, but that still doesn't give people an excuse to steal music.

I agree but when it the music industry treats its artist and music like its any product like a box of Tide, not a valueable commidity, it does not surprise that consumers do not place any value on it as an artform or as stealing income from the artist.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

The music industry set in motions in its own path to self destruction by having overpriced CD's, not helping bands have long term careers by dropping them immediatley, not embracing new technologies and just for acting like a bunch dead brain idiots.

True enough, but that still doesn't give people an excuse to steal music.

No, it does not. But to pinpoint downloading as the single thing that killed the music industry isn't fair either.

True too.

However, it is a BIG factor. I know many, many people that have iPods jammed with music, but they don't own a CD nor did they purchase those songs from place like iTunes.

ultmetal wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

manny wrote:

The music industry set in motions in its own path to self destruction by having overpriced CD's, not helping bands have long term careers by dropping them immediatley, not embracing new technologies and just for acting like a bunch dead brain idiots.

True enough, but that still doesn't give people an excuse to steal music.

No, it does not. But to pinpoint downloading as the single thing that killed the music industry isn't fair either.

True too.

However, it is a BIG factor. I know many, many people that have iPods jammed with music, but they don't own a CD nor did they purchase those songs from place like iTunes.

Oh, I do too. I know.

I think most music industry folk probably learned their lesson by now if they were given the opportunity to still exist. There should be a automatic fine emailed to the people that steal the music.

Upon thinking deeper into this, I think her conviction/penalty had more to do with her sharing these songs on Kazaa or something to countless other people...not just that she downloaded them...I think sharing was the bigger issue here...she was making it available for free when that's not her right.

Yeah, most of the file sharing law suits were against people that posted music on PTP sites like Kazaa.

It's still a tad ridiculous, but these lawsuits were really just a last-ditch scare tactic by the RIAA to try and curb the file sharing. Maybe if they had decided to embrace the internet from the very beginning...instead of trying to pretend it didn't exist...they could have gotten in on the ground floor of a great new profit stream...but instead they just hoped it would go away.

I have complete sympathy for bands that get screwed out of their money, but the record industry really needs to look at itself in the mirror when trying to find the root cause of their decline in sales.

Their stubborn determination to hold onto their ENORMOUS profit margin per unit was their ultimate undoing. Not only did they slit their own throats, but they helped kill off the independent record store (who couldn't make a profit or even break even)...which just added to the demise. If the record companies had offered competitive pricing to these stores so they could survive alongside monster corporations like Wal-Mart, the music world would be a very different place.

Quote :

Maybe if they had decided to embrace the internet from the very beginning...instead of trying to pretend it didn't exist...they could have gotten in on the ground floor of a great new profit stream...but instead they just hoped it would go away.

QFT

The industry was screwing the bands long before file sharing...it's when the industry began getting screwed that they were like "Hey, wait a minute!" Turnabout, if you ask me...

Not justifying it...I'm just saying...

First, downloading music without paying for it is stealing

Second, they are just making an example out of this lady to instil fear in the teenagers that download thousands and thousands of songs. It is so typical of the RIAA to instill fear. The Record Company execs are just concerned about their bonus checks.

It's not so much the downloaders as those who make the MP3's available that the RIAA is going after.

I saw this on another board:

Quote :

As someone who has technical experience and understands on a much deeper level on how P2P networking programs like Kazaa and Napster work, I would just like to bring to your attention some facts, especially to those who are siding with the RIAA on this. In order to find the people who are partaking in these "illegal" file sharing programs, the RIAA and the INTARNET POLICE must be on these networks as well, actively searching for content to download, and then successfully download just a portion of the song in question. They can't find and target people who are simply downloading songs. They target people who are making these songs available to others. This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because many of these P2P programs are set to seed automatically, and people are frankly too stupid to turn uploading off. I know Bittorrent will not allow me to download at significant speeds unless I am also seeding. There are ways around this, however, for the sanctity of this board, I will merely say go find it yourself if you're interested.

ANYWAY, so they have to download a partial song from a seeder, to prove that the song file is legit and that it's being shared out. THEN they have to obtain the IP address of the user who is seeding the file (this is very easy), and then must contact the ISP for logs on who was assigned that particular IP address at the time. Here's where things get a little gray in the legality of everything, and how I don't understand how the Juries keep finding for the record companies. The ISP is under absolutely no legal responsibility to turn over the IP addresses of their users to the RIAA. In fact, it's a violation of privacy to do so. The RIAA holds absolutely no legal ground, and cannot demand this information without a court order, which would turn this from a civil case into a criminal case (stealing). No one has ever been criminally convicted for stealing intellectual property, which it seems to me, is what the RIAA is claiming is going on. But, for $h!ts and giggles, lets say a Coldplay song was downloaded onto your computer. The RIAA comes knocking at your door. You end up in trial, and the only evidence they have is your IP address, and, heck, I'll even go so far as to assume: the song on your computer, with Kazaa, in a folder that's shared out. Now, forgive me for sounding a bit arrogant, but there are SO MANY things wrong with this it's unbelievable. Let me see if I can list a few.

1. If there are 4 people in the house, how can the RIAA or the Jury say it was one individual over any of the others? If your answer is "Well, the person who's in charge of the Internet Bill!", fine. I don't like it, but legally, i can't challenge it, because I don't know if it'd stand up in court. BUT.

2. If you have an open Wireless Network, or even a secure wireless network, they are easily hacked and are commonly done so in Apartment complexes, or Drive By Wi-Fi stealing. Even if you think you're secure, you're not 100% safe. Who's to say another individual was using your router for the same purpose? (The same IP address is associated to everyone using a specific internet connection via the same router. I could go more into this if you need me to.)

3. It is INCREDIBLY easy to spoof an IP address. What if, for example, you own a legit copy of Coldplay's CD and have shared your default music directory, ripped the CD AFTER the last time you loaded up Kazaa, say, 3 months ago, and have never actually shared the song in question, but someone spoofed your IP and now you're getting sued?

These are just a few quick examples of why I could never award the RIAA money if I were to be a juror in one of their trials. Too many "What-if's" ... Lawyers are doing a shitty job with these cases, and people like The Pirate Bay are losing cases because others don't understand the technology, and Judges are members of the very community that's crying fowl.

I like the Black Eyed Peas. They have much more substance than the other 99% of their musical equals.