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.

said by tsu9 :

You would be very, very surprised.

Some people can't program VCRs, either, but can plug them into the wall.

said by NormanS :

I hate car analogies. Mostly because they aren't a best fit.

said by flotknot :

ummm...the issue is something like 'prove that the guy who downloaded a copy of some dumbass song cost the record company 30k', not 'prove that filesharing is legal'.

The record companies pull numbers out of their asses on a regular basis ffs.

Christ on a stick!

I've dl'ed millions if each POS song is worth 30k.

Cool, aint I a badass mega-criminal. Move over Gotti/Rumsfeld/ENRON execs...my hard drive is worth millions!

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

said by Omega :

Then the RIAA needs to prove that user uploaded the song to thousands of people.

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.

said by mlundin :

That depends on who's sitting on the jury.

said by NormanS :

•That their estimate of lost revenues is reasonable.
•That running a P2P application allows others to download the works.

said by Capharnaum :

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).

said by NormanS :

You overtrimmed the quote. There is more context that you deliberately omitted.
Commercial radio makes money off of the advertising, not off of anything paid them by the RIAA. In fact, they pay the RIAA for distribution rights.

No defense. You did not have permission to distribute the work, therefore your distribution of the work is a violation of the copyright.

All that is left to hash out is the degree of damage done by the unauthorized download.

AFAIK, they need some kind of provable metric to estimate the number of people who downloaded from you. I don't know how I would go about it. Could be that the RIAA will be in the position of Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice" (I think), who was told by the judge that he could have his pound of flesh if he can get it without drawing a drop of blood.

said by biznatch11 :

It seems to me that if the RIAA wants $750 per song, they can only sue every 750th person who downloads the song.

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.

said by KrK :

That entire post could be considered being between shite and syphilis, methinks. Bit of a sore loser, eh?

Its the Democrats fault. In fact it is the Speaker of House Polosi fault. Everything is the Democrats fault. Everything. Just like Everything was the Republicans Fault when they were in power.

said by KrK :

Wrong. Apparently you forgot. When the Republicans were in power (and many still are) everything was Bill Clinton's fault.

said by guitarzan :

I have 3 times as much venon and hatred of ALL LIBERAL Democrats. Paybacks are usually hell, and its my unwavering, firm resolve to make this payback as hellish and mean spirited bashing, as humanly possible. You want to poke one eyeball out. I will settle for nothing less than two eyeballs poked out from their sockets in return.

I can hardly wait for them to start beating the liberal drum for gun control and the 2nd Amendment right.In case they are stupid and they are, here is a clue. A drivers liscense is a privilage, which can be takin' away or revoked.

The Government does/did not grant Constitutional Rights. Therefore they have absolutely no power or authorithy to restrict, deny, or take away Rights. (Hey newly elcted Liberal Dems, You got that, you clueless f&*kers? )

said by flotknot :

Bhaaahaaaa!

I love stephen colbert's satire of right wing mumbo jumbo.

thanks steve.

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

said by TKJunkMail :

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.