danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | sure it is!
.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by danclan  :.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage. The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Prove that ANYONE actually downloaded that song from the person. The person is not knowledgably uploading the song. Someone else is downloading it from them. If anything, the person who is being downloaded from is being taken advantage of.
It's a lot like leaving your car door unlocked. Does that make you a criminal?
puritan |
|
Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Cheyenne, WY
clubs: 
·Bresnan Online
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :said by danclan :.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage. The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect. Then the RIAA needs to prove that user uploaded the song to thousands of people.
--
My site
CT Profile 60 NE Hunter |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to wentlanc
I hate car analogies. Mostly because they aren't a best fit. Better would be swimming pools and firearms. "I didn't know the gun was loaded" doesn't fly any more.
How can a person install, and run, a filesharing application without knowing what filesharing entails?
Mostly what they didn't know was that uploading copyrighted works was a violation of copyright law. As any two-bit, cheesy attorney (not to mention the really good ones) will tell you, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
2 edits | reply to Omega
said by Omega :Then the RIAA needs to prove that user uploaded the song to thousands of people. The RIAA only needs to prove two things:
•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable.
•That running a P2P application allows others to download the works.
They may have to settle for a lower estimate of lost revenues, depending upon what the judge in that case decides is reasonable. But it is entirely reasonable to estimate how many uploaders downloaders there are based on metrics available in any BitTorrent client. And I can think of reasonable methods to develop such metrics for the P2P apps which don't have them built in.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to NormanS
You would be very, very surprised.
Some people can't program VCRs, either, but can plug them into the wall. |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :The RIAA only needs to prove two things: •That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable. •That running a P2P application allows others to download the works. That depends on who's sitting on the jury. |
|
iotastorm
join:2006-01-24
Florissant, MO
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to NormanS
Actually, people will install the program with default settings not knowing or realizing that whatever they download gets stuck in a shared folder and shared again.
They just wanna get free music, etc.
I knew someone like that, called me because his connection was soooo slow, found their little file-sharing program (e-donk I think) was sharing anything they downloaded and was filling up the upstream bandwidth. They had no idea that would happen, (User in need of clue).
Not saying is good of bad just adding insight for mix.
PIBKAC (Problem Isolated - Between Keyboard And Chair) |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to mlundin
said by mlundin :said by NormanS :The RIAA only needs to prove two things: •That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable. •That running a P2P application allows others to download the works. That depends on who's sitting on the jury. Ideally, that should only depend upon the facts of law.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to iotastorm
"Filesharing". File: a set of data, including the bits which make up the music/video". Share: allowing people to obtain what I have in exchange for giving me what they have".
It sounds like those people are worse than ignorant; they lack a basic grasp of the English language. Perhaps we should insist on a literacy test before selling people computers. Geez! I have to prove my competence before California will allow be to drive a car on their freeways, or buy a gun!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to tsu9
If your VCR eats a tape from blockbuster, you are still responsible for the tape, even though you didn't know you were supposed to clean the VCR periodically.
It's not about whether or not you know if the filesharing program is indeed going to upload songs; YOU installed the program and chose to run it, thus YOU need to be responsible for what it does. Don't know what it does? Well maybe you shouldn't be installing and running software on your computer if you don't know what it does. Hell, if you are that ignorant about software, you probably shouldn't be using a computer at all.
Many (lets say, for example) young teenagers can jump behind the wheel of a car and manage to figure out how to make the thing move. Does that mean we should just let them drive through city traffic?
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | I wasn't arguing for an ignorance defense, but rather pointing out that ignorance is apparently quite contagious. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
1 edit | In that case, I agree wholly. It is amazing to what people will claim "but I didn't know!"
Because, of course, finding out one way or another is simply an absurd idea. God forbid they acquire new knowledge!
edit: typo
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to tsu9
said by tsu9 :You would be very, very surprised. Some people can't program VCRs, either, but can plug them into the wall. People like that should never be allowed to have cars and guns.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
biznatch11
join:2004-11-21
London, ON
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Consider this:
Person A has a song available for filesharing, which is downloaded by persons B to Z. The RIAA sues person A and gets $750, because even though the song is worth much less ($0.99 according iTunes, etc.), the RIAA has to recoup money lost because of persons B to Z downloading the song (and apparently not spending money to buy the song instead). Now what happens if the RIAA wants to sue persons B to Z for downloading the song? Can they use the defense that the RIAA has already been paid by person A?
It seems to me that if the RIAA wants $750 per song, they can only sue every 750th person who downloads the song. |
|
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | reply to PolarBear
I gotta say, love that avatar. |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :said by danclan :.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ for the executives, 500$ for the lawyers, the rest covers court costs and the .30c will cover postage. The amount of loss the RIAA quotes isn't for the cost of a single DOWNLOADED song. It is for the estimated cost of that song being uploaded to thousands of other people. The RIAA for the most part has gone after those UPLOADING songs and that is what the costs are meant to reflect. So any songs I may have been downloaded have been paid for in full by people distributing them? Sweet! |
|
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | reply to danclan
CRAP not worth the Bandwidth.
|
|
Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable. •That running a P2P application allows others to download the works. There hasn't been anything that has proven that filesharing incurs a loss of revenue. If it did, then radio would also incur a loss of revenue, since they're playing songs for free as well (but they're being paid as well by the music companies). As far as I know, radio is a promo way to raise revenues, so why wouldn't filesharing be the same?
As to estimates of files shared, wouldn't the RIAA have to estimate the availability of said file (time + bandwidth)? For exemple, couldn't I use for defense that I metered the time I was using the filesharing utility and the bandwidth used (some software utilities do this) and get a figure of how many songs I have really uploaded? In such case, if the number was small, couldn't I contend that it was fair use, and that the penalties are out of line?
Now I don't use the filesharing programs anymore, but back in the glory time of Napster, people were rarely downloading my songs despite the fact I was offering a fairly large selection (200 songs?). I would upload something like one song per night of usage (two times a week). |
|
