 SSX4lifeHello WorldPremium
join:2004-02-13
kudos:2
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! 7 songs != 1 Million dollars in losses no matter how you cut it.
Fine lets go with the argument that downloading songs is EXACTLY like stealing them out of a store. You don't see a million dollar fine for a petty 5 finger grab.
Even if you consider the fact that every single download is a lost sale it doesn't equate to 1 million dollars. Not to mention that even the RIAA has stated that a download does not equal a lost sale.
Sorry to burst your bubbles on this one but common sense must prevail in this country, for too long we have had our heads stuck up our corporate asses thanks to lobbiest in congress etc.
I really REALLY REALLY hope that this is the start of something better.
--
»www.google.com is your best friend... please use it before asking your question. |
|
 DownTheShoreTag, you're itPremium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:11 | Boy, this report brings a smile to my face. About time some high-powered people put up some opposition to this. It doesn't matter what your position is on P2P sharing - the point is that the RIAA should not be allowed to act in the manner it has, and to impose/request these outrageous penalties.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals |
|
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
1 edit | reply to SSX4life
Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. |
|
SSX4lifeHello WorldPremium
join:2004-02-13
kudos:2 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| True.... but considering both are means to the same end you would think it would end up in civil courts not federal.
--
»www.google.com is your best friend... please use it before asking your question. |
|
 spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to Goober
said by Goober:Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. Either way Goober, the process by which the RIAA has witch-hunted file traders is about to be vetted in the court system. About time I say! Here, Here!! 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! |
|
| reply to Goober
so 7 songs equals $1million in compensation??? I don't see it. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to SSX4life
Copyright violation is a federal offense though. So federal court is the proper jurisdiction.
But, I agree that the statutes are being abused by the copyright holders. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to boogi man
Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm saying the $1M is statutory, not compensatory. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to spewak
Oh, I agree. This one is going to be fun to watch. The RIAA has got to be squirming big time on this development. |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to Goober
said by Goober:Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. WTF are you even talking about. Your comment makes about as much sense with regard to the topic as saying that red apples and a blue sky are different animals.  |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to major marco
Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! Okay. Whatever you say . . . |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to major marco
Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! said by major marco:said by Goober:Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. WTF are you even talking about. Your comment makes about as much sense with regard to the topic as saying that red apples and a blue sky are different animals. On top of that he's dead fuckin' wrong about pretty much everything WRT statutory infringement damages: the statute provides for damages $750 to $30k per work (up to $150,000 if proven to be deliberate) so $1M just doesn't make sense anyway, it was obviously pulled out of the bottom part of some skinny 'hot stud' studio boy by his fat boss...
--
said by bicker:Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. |
|
|
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
2 edits | said by kamm:said by major marco:said by Goober:Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. WTF are you even talking about. Your comment makes about as much sense with regard to the topic as saying that red apples and a blue sky are different animals. On top of that he's dead fuckin' wrong about pretty much everything WRT statutory infringement damages: the statute provides for damages $750 to $30k per work (up to $150,000 if proven to be deliberate) so $1M just doesn't make sense anyway, it was obviously pulled out of the bottom part of some skinny 'hot stud' studio boy by his fat boss... $150K * 7 = $1.05M
I guarantee you that I'll be correct compared to you in regards to IP matters 99.99% of the time. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by Goober:$150K * 7 = $1.05M I guarantee you that I'll be correct compared to you in regards to IP matters 99.99% of the time. Might be - though we will have to see that because you really sound like someone with little clue about the very flimsy or flat-out false constitutionality of these "copy-right" or IP laws, the lingering illegality of the DMCA etc - but again, you are NOT CORRECT here.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | said by kamm:said by Goober:$150K * 7 = $1.05M I guarantee you that I'll be correct compared to you in regards to IP matters 99.99% of the time. Might be - though we will have to see that because you really sound like someone with little clue about the very flimsy or flat-out false constitutionality of these "copy-right" or IP laws, the lingering illegality of the DMCA etc - but again, you are NOT CORRECT here. I don't see my math being wrong.
"someone with little clue . . . " BIG LOL!!! You're a funny little self-inflated ego maniac. |
|
| reply to Goober
i could see feds involvement if he was profiting from the copyrighted works, but not just SHARING. i dont see how its different from recoring it off the radio and making copys for friends, i did that alot when i was younger. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | In your example, your copies weren't virtually perfect and you supplied only to a limited number of people.
In the cases being pursued by the RIAA, virtually perfect copies are being distributed to potentially millions of people. |
|
