Woman convicted in File Sharing case...

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

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

That's not saying much...

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

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

I was moved to tears by "My Humps"...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

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

I was moved to tears by "My Humps"...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

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

I was moved to tears by "My Humps"...

I don't know if I have heard that one. But the album I have from a few years ago had alot of soul on it. I'm just sayin', it is better than the "Bling, Bling, B!tches n HOs" boredom that has permiated and diseased popular urban music for WAY too long!

Black Eyed Peas started off vaguely soulful Uncle Sax, but trust me when I say they're far closer to the 'bling, bling, b!tches n hos" crowd now. I remember their first single, 'Where Is The Love?' actually being quite a nice song. What a misnomer.

I'll stick with my green peas thank you!

And about this whole file sharing case. Its stupid. Yes it needs to stop but to make an example out of one person is just rediculous and to even put that amount she has to pay is even more insane. Where is that money gonna go anyway? It sure as hell isnt gonna go to the artist where it belongs. I would just say slap her on the wrist and say dont do this again and end of story. If she does it again then maybe jail time or a small fine not millions of dollars.

A few weeks ago one of my cousins got a letter in the mail because he downloaded some tv show dvds and in the letter they told him they knew he downloaded the show and to stop or they will have to take legal action. So now even the companys are putting their own product out to catch people downloading which in itself is even worse that sharing I think. Its entrapment and isnt that illegal?

Ive downloaded my share of songs when it fist became popular because all the promos would be on there and I could hear things before they came out but eventually I had to stop because about time I would get the cd I would barely listen to it. So I pretty much completely stopped downloading anything unless it is extremely rare and only available on records or something. From an unsigned bands point of view I dont mind that people download my songs for free because how else is anyone going to find out about us? Yea we have our cds all over the internet and were on itunes and cdbaby and who knows what else but if someone doesnt know you and wants to sample some songs then go ahead chances are they will buy the cd.

ah... I can go on and on about this one.

This is ridiculous on SO many levels. I'm all for protecting the rights of the RIAA, and bands alike, but bands have been losing revenue for years. Let's go back to when CD stores were allowed to sell used CD's. I'm not saying that these two entities didn't raise a stink about this when retail outlets started this practice, but I think the message was sent loud and clear regarding the gray area involving the redistribution of music, and the industry losing money because of it. What about LIBRARIES? Some have a HUGE catalog of CD's readily available to the public. What do most people do when they rent CD's from their local libraries...beyond that of listening to it??? Hmmmmm. Clearly people shouldn't be allowed to do what she this woman was doing, but fining her a ridiculously stupid amount, is beyond absurd. She will never be able to pay this amount, hence, she will be filing for bankruptcy, and then who pays for it??? Oh yes, we do...

She's clearly not very good at stealing

metalinmyveins wrote:

This is ridiculous on SO many levels. I'm all for protecting the rights of the RIAA, and bands alike, but bands have been losing revenue for years. Let's go back to when CD stores were allowed to sell used CD's. I'm not saying that these two entities didn't raise a stink about this when retail outlets started this practice, but I think the message was sent loud and clear regarding the gray area involving the redistribution of music, and the industry losing money because of it. What about LIBRARIES? Some have a HUGE catalog of CD's readily available to the public. What do most people do when they rent CD's from their local libraries...beyond that of listening to it??? Hmmmmm. Clearly people shouldn't be allowed to do what she this woman was doing, but fining her a ridiculously stupid amount, is beyond absurd. She will never be able to pay this amount, hence, she will be filing for bankruptcy, and then who pays for it??? Oh yes, we do...

Excellent post.

Re: used CDs. The legal reason that buying a used CD is "okay", is because someone initially purchased it so all the correct royalties were paid (to the artist, label, distributor, etc). However, that area is just as "grey" as you suggest...because the artist gets nothing from that second sale (or 10th sale depending on how many times it's been shuffled from person to person). So in essence if you only buy used CDs, the only person being helped is the record store you purchased it from. To the band in question it's the same whether it's a used CD or someone downloaded it from a blog.

metalinmyveins wrote:

What about LIBRARIES? Some have a HUGE catalog of CD's readily available to the public. What do most people do when they rent CD's from their local libraries...beyond that of listening to it??? Hmmmmm.

That's the truth, I regularly vist a branch library near me where I see people check out the maximum they are allowed, which is 25 in this case. They of course take 'em home to throw on their computer, ipod, etc...
Does that mean the RIAA is gonna sue public library systems now? They are in effect doing the same thing this woman is accused of, that is making the music available to be pirated.

we are all stealing from somebody.

ultmetal wrote:

I know people that have stolen and shared FAR more than that. Seems they are just making an example of her.

That's one thing you've gotta hate, though. She steals 24 songs and gets charged 1.92 million dollars, while other people run whole websites with thousands of stolen songs, with each one being replicated a hundred times a day and they go for her. That's just bs. If they wanted to make themselves look good by doing that, they're idiots. It makes them look weak because they can only do that to the one person, and not go around dismantling torrent websites with a much bigger offense.

All in all, she should've been charged, but not that much. I'd have charged her $5,000 max for the songs, and some more for the breach of copy-write laws. This just shows you all how idiotic people can be.