 
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. | |
|  | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
| Re: sure it is! 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
| Re: sure it is! 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 | |
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: sure it is! 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 | |
| | | | | 
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: sure it is! You would be very, very surprised.
Some people can't program VCRs, either, but can plug them into the wall. | |
| | | | | | 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA
·CableOne
| Re: sure it is! 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 | Re: sure it is! 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
Riverside, WA
·CableOne
1 edit | Re: sure it is! 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | Re: sure it is! I gotta say, love that avatar. | |
| | | | | | | 
meomyomeomy
@telus.net
| quote:
"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?"
Ok, drive a one tone car that could take someones life for good; or download a song that takes money out of someones pocket? Hmmm tough one!
I should sue company's that uses automated robots cause I lose my income because a technology has forced me out of a job!
We live in the year 2006, some people like the riaa refuse to acknowledge that. When the times change businesses must change as well. Other wise the makers of the horse and buggy would be suing ford for making cars...
Ya I know, this topic is always a very opinionated subject, nature of the beast i guess....
On second thought, the riaa is right. If ALL music was free it would be the end of the world... | |
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 | |
| | | | | iotastorm
join:2006-01-24
Florissant, MO
·AT&T DSL Service
| 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
| Re: sure it is! "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 | |
| | | | | 
toadlife
Premium
join:2004-05-03
Coalinga, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by NormanS :I hate car analogies. Mostly because they aren't a best fit. maybe we should start one of these for DSLR.
--
Break yourself from the Windows admin nipple...
»nonadmin.editme.com | |
| | | | | flotknot
Premium
join:2004-05-29
Calgary, AB
| 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! | |
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: sure it is! 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'. I have no idea what you are responding to. None of what you are writing relates to anything that I have posted.
Downoaders are not the ones facing legal sanctions. Period. You can't identify downloaders, but you can identify uploaders.
Never have I ever stated that filesharing is "illegal". Only that people who run filesharing programs without understanding what it means to share files are, um, deficient in their knowledge of what English words mean.
The record companies pull numbers out of their asses on a regular basis ffs.
I never said otherwise. I even questioned whether a methodology to determine actual losses could be developed.
Christ on a stick!
Blasphemy! I should "plonk" you for that. Seriously...
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!
If all that you have done is download the stuff, they will never catch you. They can't catch. If you have uploaded, as well, without authorization of the copyright holders, well; yes, whether you steal a penny, or ten billion pennies, you are a thief. Not that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works is theft, but it is illegal.
--
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 | Re: sure it is! 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 | |
| | | | | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
| Re: sure it is! 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. | |
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: sure it is! 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 | |
| | | | | | | flotknot
Premium
join:2004-05-29
Calgary, AB
1 edit | Re: sure it is! What if these 'facts of law' are fascist, unreasonable, and written by bastards?
Read up on why the jury system exists, dumbass. | |
| | | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA | Re: sure it is! "dumbass"...
I am done with you. "PLONK". | |
| | | | | Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| 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). | |
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: sure it is! You overtrimmed the quote. There is more context that you deliberately omitted.
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? 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.
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?
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.
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).
Probably not as many HSI connections then as now. Or, maybe the stuff wasn't worth the effort.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | flotknot
Premium
join:2004-05-29
Calgary, AB
1 edit | Re: sure it is! said by NormanS :You overtrimmed the quote. There is more context that you deliberately omitted. said by Capharnaum : 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. Are you joking? If not, you are 100% wrong, at least in N.America. 'In fact', not only do the stations not pay the record companies, some record companies pay the stations. i think you are getting confused with the payments to BMI/axcap.
No defense. You did not have permission to distribute the work, therefore your distribution of the work is a violation of the copyright. Are you a copyright lawyer? Didn't think so. Maybe you should tone down your black and white know-it-all replies. They leave little room for actual discussion.
All that is left to hash out is the degree of damage done by the unauthorized download.
Really? Wow. so its all the legal rangling has been settled then.
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.
Great quote! lets not forget the other one: he who has the gold makes the rules. | |
| | | biznatch11
join:2004-11-21
London, ON
| 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. | |
| | | | Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC | Re: sure it is! Even then, nothing says the downloader hasn't paid for the song. I used to be lazy and download the songs I have on cd instead of ripping the cds | |
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by biznatch11 :It seems to me that if the RIAA wants $750 per song, they can only sue every 750th person who downloads the song. They aren't suing the downloaders, they are suing the uploaders.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | 
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| said by LiamJunket :said by danclan :.10 to the artist, .60 for the manufacturing and distro, 150$ 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! | |
| | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Its the voice of the people that have spoken, who are now awash in complete liberal giddiness or in other words.
The I want for free, take me, buy me, show me, give me, era of the new entitlement generation, lessons learned from their new political masters (idols).
I hope the liberals expand the NSA wire tapping into the area of P2P internet file sharing. Since the election one no longer hears the cries and wailing of we are losing our right, we are losing our privacy Everything hunky dory A-OK now?
Ya, know what has me perplexed? All the posts and talk of revolt and revolution against the government from posters here, showed their true colors by casting a vote for DemocRATS, to end the war Iraq and the terrorists pouring into Iraq from Syria and Iran. OMG stop he war, we just want to violate copyright laws and download music for free.
I was against the RIAA, now more power to them 
In my dictionary, sympathy for getting nabbed for file sharing is between shite and syphilis.
--
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. | |
| | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: sure it is! 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. Wrong. Apparently you forgot. When the Republicans were in power (and many still are) everything was Bill Clinton's fault.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | | flotknot
Premium
join:2004-05-29
Calgary, AB | Bhaaahaaaa!
I love stephen colbert's satire of right wing mumbo jumbo.
thanks steve. | |
| | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: sure it is! said by flotknot :Bhaaahaaaa! I love stephen colbert's satire of right wing mumbo jumbo. thanks steve. Oh look a leftist liberal socialist from Calgary, AB Muhaaahaaaa! trying to defend the complete nit-wittery of liberal politics, which if classified as satire would be a major step up in policy that has more fruitloops than what is found in a box of fruitloop cereal.
Yet, again another classic example of the mentality of the for free, take me, buy me, show me, give me, era of the new entitlement generation.
Your welcome
Dr. Heywood yablowme
--
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. | |
| | | 
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| said by LiamJunket :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. You can't even prove that much.
You can't say how many people it was uploaded to, or that it was uploaded to anyone but the RIAA official who downloaded it. You can't say it lost them money because, in addition to not being able to prove they would have bought the album if not for downloading, you can't prove they didn't download it without knowledge the band existed, then went out and bought the album.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
| | | 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by LiamJunket :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. Can someone say "unfair practice". Of course the person who stole the song broke the law, but you can't prosecute them for sharing the medium, and THEN charge them "extra" money for your losses, when you expect to "overcharge" everyone you sue for sharing the music.
Basically, it's not right, knowing that in the end, if everyone responsible gets sued, the music companies will make the cost they expected, plus extra revenue for sueing. $750 a song, compared to the average cost of an entire retail CD of $18, average CD has 18 tracks, meaning the songs REALLY worth $.99, pfft c'mon. This is why everyone is screwing the music industry in the first place, for overcharging on something the artist would probably be doing for free anyway, lord knows thats how they were discovered.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | 
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | CRAP not worth the Bandwidth.
| |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| The funny thing is....... ....when the defendant put forth the brief questioning the amount, they cited previous case law. The RIAA merely objected with nothing to back them up. I wonder where the RIAA got their lawyers.
It all goes to the attitude they the RIAA should not be questioned no matter what it does. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
jmycknshk
...bring your green hat
join:2004-07-02
West Chester, PA | absolutely! K-fed worked hard on those... | |
| | 
Rogue Wolf
Drank Your Milkshake- He Drank It Up
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: absolutely! said by jmycknshk :K-fed worked These two words cannot exist in the same sentence without warping the space-time continuum.
--
Let not the Demon in your thoughts.
Let not the Demon in your dreams.
Lest you should awake one morn,
And find the Demon within thee. | |
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Do the real math.... No media missing, no production costs, no distribution.... the real fine should be about.... 99 cents per song + a one-time processing fee of $9.95.
Oh, and as someone else said... $37 cents for the stamp and a free F*CK YOU!!
puritan | |
| | st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA
| Re: Do the real math.... said by wentlanc :No media missing, no production costs, no distribution.... the real fine should be about.... 99 cents per song + a one-time processing fee of $9.95. Oh, and as someone else said... $37 cents for the stamp and a free F*CK YOU!! puritan Exactly. $750 is a joke. its not worth anywhere close to that. | |
|
BuyAclueFOOL
@comcast.net | It doesn't natter what YOU believe... ...The law allows for a $10K fine for each copy illegally transferred.
Get over it. Piracy is a crime and you will be punished.
End of story. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
alsglhe
@optonline.net
| future theft Computer files will always be stolen, and it might even be more widespread when Windows Vista and IPv6 is deployed to give everyone their own domain. The RIAA or any other force on this planet doesn't have the man power to stop it because people will always find ways around road blocks that institutions have setup.
On another note, I'm suprised that YouTube has lasted this long generating revunue from the MPAA and other organization's copyrighted material. Do you think a website would have flourished as greatly or even lasted a day if instead of videos you upload songs to share on a website? The RIAA should go the same route as the MPAA and embrace piracy as a means to getting their content more widespread into the world. Look at it this way, they are fighting a loosing battle against piracy but the RIAA or the musicians don't seem to be starving, so they really have nothing to lose at this point. | |
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Of course it's not worth $750 I've long said that, although the RIAA is well within their rights to go after the uploaders, the fines are way out of line.
Sure the user has uploaded the song without permission and that's unauthorized distribution. But to how many people? Is distribution to one person the same as to a thousand? If I copy a CD for my friend, is it the same as running off a hundred copies for all of my friends, family, co-workers, etc? Of course it isn't. One copy is bad (though not likely to be prosecuted), and 100+ copies is worse (though the example above might still fly below the RIAA's radar).
The fines should match the severity of the crime. If you are selling thousands of bootleg CDs on a street corner, then you should get the maximum penalty. If you've shared out copyrighted music without proper permission, then you should be fined based on how many people downloaded it from you.
Of course, the sticking point for the RIAA is that they don't know. If I were to share a song and the RIAA were to catch me, they only know about one transfer: From me to them. Given that you can buy a song from iTunes for $0.99, a $750 fine for one transfer is over 750% of the value of the song.
I might be fine in assuming a small number of transfers (say, 3-10) and establishing a fine based on that (say $3-30 per song), but $750 is way too excessive. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Bad Summary The RIAA has traditionally imposed fines on accused broadband file traders
They are not "imposed" fines, they are what the law allows for in punitive fines for this type of lawsuit.
"Inflated penalties" is subjective until Congress (not a judge who will likely stop short of legislating from the bench) gets off their asses and decides if these figures are inflated, and while they are at it make some damn laws one way or the other.
--
The hills are alive with the sound of jehu. | |
| | Idiotunes
join:2006-06-27 | Re: Bad Summary it's common sense.....
you know a fine for uploading a song is WAY inflated when it CAN be more than a car payment. | |
| | |
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | Re: Bad Summary So is a fine for littering, as pointed out by one of the original article comments.
--
The hills are alive with the sound of jehu. | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| It deters stealing The $750 is a fine and used as a deterrent to stealing. The bases is a person wouldn't steal or steal again if they thought they had to pay a high fine afterwards. If the fine was the price of the item that was stolen then that wouldn't be a deterrent but just a slap on the wrist and the person would keep on stealing.
The courts use deterrents like fines all the time to prevent a crime from happening again. To some deterrents don't stop them but is a green flag to do it again. | |
|
disbarrTHEfool
@comcast.net | Any judge that dumb should be disbarred If a justice needs to ask such a foolish question, he certainly isn't qualified to be deciding the fate of criminals. | |
| | George Kidd
join:2001-08-09
Vancouver, BC
| Value??? I keep finding Songs and "Tunes" in dumpsters. When I try to collect by selling them nobody will offer me even 1 red cent. I do better collecting pop cans at 5 cents each... | |
| 
AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA
| OT But Wanted to Share... The guitar player in one of my favorite bands recently posted on their forum saying he was going to have to sell one of his prized guitars and also a prized amp. The reason?
He stated that 4 different record companies owe his band over $150,000, and he's having to fight for that money. He even stated that the companies have admitted they owe his band that money but yet still aren't giving it to them. They have, of course, had to retain an attorney and fight for the money they've earned.
It's sad that a musician with so much talent, who happens to be a very nice guy, is getting totally screwed over by the piece of crap record companies and having to sell such prized possessions just to pay the bills.
Sorry for going off topic of the thread... | |
| | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: OT But Wanted to Share... I spent 27 years in the music business. SOP.
You wanna watch a record company panic and develop grand mal convulsions? Get a court to approve an account audit by forensic accountants. Especially if said FA's have a reputation as pitbulls.
Monkeys and bowling balls. Lemme tell you.
Record companies pile every expense they can on the backs of their artists, real or not. | |
| | | st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA | Re: OT But Wanted to Share... cheers to the swedish bay!! | |
| | | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Couldn't get a fly high This issue reminds me of a common practice law enforcement. When ever they make a drug bust of marijuana, even though it might be home grown stuff that couldn't get anyone high, they always inflate the value to what it would be if it where some of the good stuff from California, Jamaica, or perhaps Hawaii. By doing this the Police make it look like they busted up a huge drug growing operation. Note this is about Marijuana not chemical drugs that is a whole other can of worms the inflation of value does not apply.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
WhatsPiracy
@comcast.net | The ignorant leading the blind... Any judge so removed from reality should be locked in a padded cell so he doesn't hurt himself. Does this fool even know what Piracy is? | |
| | 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: The ignorant leading the blind... Have you ever had time to consider registering so it shows you have grown a sac over the years with your pro-RIAA blasphemy as an anon-coward? | |
| | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | Re: The ignorant leading the blind... quote:
grown a sac
LOL. | |
| 
Kamaz
join:2006-01-26
Elizabethtown, PA | ROFL Excellent, excellent. So the RIAA has finally encountered a speed bump, or whatever. I don't know I'm having a hard time paying attention to the story. Too busy downloading songs and porn with my filesharing program. Oops! | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| The RIIA is run by people that love monehy. It is written in their holy book that it is OK to rob the heathen. I just purchased my fourth copy of Bat out of Hell. The media keeps changing but my right to the song is forever. I have 8-tracks I would love to shove up those people's ass. Then I would ask the LORD to call them home with a song in there heart, or some body part. | |
| | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | Re: The RIIA is run by people that love monehy. Bravo to yerself and a slew of others in the thread (not the politically charged ones), you've provided some fine comedic reading! | |
| mikesco
join:2006-02-17
South Hadley, MA
| Analogy I have a private library that I leave unlocked, it also has a copy machine in the room. Am I liable if someone comes in grabs a book, and makes a copy for personal use without my consent?
These lawsuits are totally bogus unless they can prove intent.
Mike Smith | |
| | | |
|
|
Is a Song Really Worth $750?
