manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs: | PFFFT
Since when is a single song worth $150K? Sounds like "Howie Math" to me.
Tell 'em Fred.
--
huh? | AIM | Utopia does not exist. |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | This value is not generated by the RIAA, it's in US copyright law. $150,000 is the maximum damages that can be awarded for each copyright violation. |
|
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
1 edit | That is my point. Also, people are not downloading pirated material from thepiratebay.org, they are downloading trackers...
--
huh? |
AIM | Utopia does not exist. |
|
JazzJRabbit
join:2003-09-27
Wheaton, IL
 ·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to stet
And coincidentally this is the exact amount RIAA asks for when filing lawsuits. So yes, according to them if it wasn't for the pirates they could buy France right now.
Read more here:
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_···HJvMDdwB |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to stet
That amount was meant for violations like someone taking your work and making a mint off of it. For instance if I have a copyrighted song that someone else recorded and then sold a million copies of without paying me royalties. It was never meant for individual copying. |
|
xmrocks
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-23
clubs: 
·Comcast
| reply to JazzJRabbit
said by JazzJRabbit  :...So yes, according to them if it wasn't for the pirates they could buy France right now. No one wants to buy France 
But back on topic - I agree that the amount of money asked for in damages is absurd. But in the end, artists and others need to make money and they certainly aren't making the maximum potential with pirates. Sure it's debated as to how much they should be making off of a sale, but I'm not even going to touch that! |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| said by xmrocks :said by JazzJRabbit :...So yes, according to them if it wasn't for the pirates they could buy France right now. No one wants to buy France But back on topic - I agree that the amount of money asked for in damages is absurd. But in the end, artists and others need to make money and they certainly aren't making the maximum potential with pirates. Sure it's debated as to how much they should be making off of a sale, but I'm not even going to touch that! I know the artists need to make money, but should you really use namecalling? I don't know if I would classify the RIAA and the labels as "pirates"  |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| reply to SRFireside
The amount is set to high because it's supposed to act as a deterrent. The penalty for getting caught is set so much greater then what it would cost to just go and buy the original (music, movie, book, painting, software, etc) so that people should think "I could save $10 and copy it, but if I get caught then I'm really in trouble so maybe I'll just buy it instead of taking the chance." But it hasn't really been working.
--
Look now to what is not, to the overwhelming depths between the stars; a darker geometry, the vast majority of all space and time.
Here dwell the Outsiders. |
|
fundamentalz
The Basics
Premium
join:2004-04-30
Moorpark, CA
| You're right about it being a deterrent, however it was never intended to be a deterrent for individual people, rather, it was meant to be a deterrent for businesses. The current copyright system wasn't designed to protect artists from casual copying, but from theft by a competitor or big business. It was never intended to penalize average people for these relatively minor infractions.
Besides, i would say that to your average citizen, there is almost no difference between $150,000 and $150,000,000; either way they can't pay it, so what the actual dollar amount is doesn't really matter once you reach such astronomical amounts. |
|
wolfhouse
join:2001-03-01
Union City, NJ | reply to JazzJRabbit
they could lamost buy the US to since american GDP is a tad above $12 trillion. |
|
Brownbay
Premium
join:2005-03-13
North York, ON
| reply to fundamentalz
said by fundamentalz :You're right about it being a deterrent, however it was never intended to be a deterrent for individual people, rather, it was meant to be a deterrent for businesses. The current copyright system wasn't designed to protect artists from casual copying, but from theft by a competitor or big business. It was never intended to penalize average people for these relatively minor infractions. Besides, i would say that to your average citizen, there is almost no difference between $150,000 and $150,000,000; either way they can't pay it, so what the actual dollar amount is doesn't really matter once you reach such astronomical amounts. Those are some really good points man... Good Job! |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC | reply to xmrocks
Funny you should mention the artists since they don't receive a dime from these lawsuits |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to stet
You can see why the RIAA loves the Internet...
they can make billions on their lawsuits. One months worth of downloads - if they prosecuted them all successfully, would be worth $11 trillion... I'm sure that the actual recording artist might get a penny out of that.
Bloated lawsuits |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to manfmmd
trouble is they would never get the money because they could never get 150k+ from one person. people would start refusing to pay and run to Canada. and the US Justice dept wouldnt extridite over failure to pay a copyright suit.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to wolfhouse
said by wolfhouse :they could lamost buy the US to since american GDP is a tad above $12 trillion. sounds about like how much debt the usa has too.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
underlord2
Lolcat is Lol
Premium
join:2005-01-06
Belleville, MI
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to fundamentalz
said by fundamentalz :You're right about it being a deterrent, however it was never intended to be a deterrent for individual people, rather, it was meant to be a deterrent for businesses. The current copyright system wasn't designed to protect artists from casual copying, but from theft by a competitor or big business. It was never intended to penalize average people for these relatively minor infractions. Besides, i would say that to your average citizen, there is almost no difference between $150,000 and $150,000,000; either way they can't pay it, so what the actual dollar amount is doesn't really matter once you reach such astronomical amounts. I salute you, now only if the RIAA would get this throught their thick skulls  |
|
dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH | reply to Kearnstd
Bet they would. |
|
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| reply to Kearnstd
I think you are missing the point of the satirical rants. Everyone is pointing out the ridiculousness of RIAA and their lawsuits. Someone needs to put their foot down in the house and senate (onto the throats of RIAA) and put an end to their silly suits.
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE! |
|
