Student fined $675,000 for illegal downloads

[rhodescholar]

A store is legally selling a product that it has bought. Under intellectual property laws this guy obviously downloaded these songs from somewhere that was not legally selling them.

Why are you quoting IP laws when you do not accept them? And he d/l them from a site that was not in business trying to sell them...

Further, if you read the fucking article you would know he wasn't being punished for d/l them, he was convicted for placing them on a site for OTHERS to d/l...

And please explain to the adults here why stealing aphysical book is wrong - but d/l without paying for the PDF of that book is not...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A store is legally selling a product that it has bought. Under intellectual property laws this guy obviously downloaded these songs from somewhere that was not legally selling them.

Why are you quoting IP laws when you do not accept them? And he d/l them from a site that was not in business trying to sell them...

Further, if you read the fucking article you would know he wasn't being punished for d/l them, he was convicted for placing them on a site for OTHERS to d/l...

And please explain to the adults here why stealing aphysical book is wrong - but d/l without paying for the PDF of that book is not...

Whether he was punished for downloading or for allowing others to download makes no difference, he was punished under intellectual property laws. I am quoting them and using them as hypotheticals to show how ridiculous they are.

Here's a good article discussing intellectual property:

Intellectual Property 'Theft': Not Just for Disney Anymore by J. L. Bryan

 

[jillian]

good luck collecting it is all I have to say, these companies know damn well they cannot collect those kinds of damages from the average people they seek to recoup their so called loses from. This is all about sending a message to any would-be downloader in the future that they tend to crackdown on this issue. If thats the case then why not go after the sites that permit such downloading in the first place. While the artist deserve money for their craft, the companies that represent them need to focus their efforts on the sites that allow for these sorts of downloads rather than going after the fans, because soon these same artist may find a severe lack of fans as well.

as to any judgment (assuming the award is sustained on appeal), a judgment is good for a very long time and this kid will make money over the next 20 to 30 years. They will garnish his paycheck.... attach his bank accounts and go after any other property that comes into his name... unless they cut a deal and resolve it for less.

it's a fairly loud message bo sent.

 

[alan1]

Probably. My point is that intellectual property is ridiculous and should be abandoned, especially when it leads to such an excessive punishment as we're seeing in this case. The amount of money this man has to pay is ridiculously disproportionate to his "crime."

I agree that the punishment was disproportionate, and I agree it was a crime.

Then we disagree on this being a crime.

If I rape your wife what makes it a crime? Does my disagreement with the law make something not a crime?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I can go onto YouTube right now and listen to pretty much any song I want to. Am I stealing that song?

I meant that songs would be classified under intellectual property and that I don't believe in intellectual property.

Listening to it? No. Downloading it without paying for it? Yes.

Listening to it in the store? No. Taking the cd without paying for it? Yes.

Stores don't generally let you listen to full tracks, usually somewhere around 30 second clips. YouTube lets you listen to full songs so I wouldn't even need to download a song or buy the album. I could just go to YouTube and listen to any full song I want anytime I want.

You would need to download the song if you wanted it as part of your music library. If you downloaded it without paying for it, it's stealing. It doesn't matter that it's a digital dowload vs. a physical cd you can hold in your hand. This guy didn't 'listen to the songs on youtube'. He took something without paying for it; he stole.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I agree that the punishment was disproportionate, and I agree it was a crime.

Then we disagree on this being a crime.

If I rape your wife what makes it a crime? Does my disagreement with the law make something not a crime?

What makes it a crime in my opinion is that you assaulted my (hypothetical) wife against her will. She has the right not to be assaulted, and by doing so you violate her rights. Now maybe you don't see it as a crime, hypothetically I'm sure, and you proclaim you've done nothing wrong. That would be your opinion just as it's my opinion that intellectual property is nonsense. I don't realistically expect that my opinion would have any basis on the law.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If they actually fined him a legitimate amount (not some ridiculously high amount that will just result in him declaring bankruptcy), they might actually put some fear into people. Sue/fine him $100 per song plus court costs.

Maybe. Guess they didn't see it that way. I did read that if they stick to the $675,000 he will declare bankruptcy.

Cripes, isn't easier to just pay for what you buy?

DOHH! That's the point, he didn't buy it. He stole it. If he had bought it, he'd have paid for it.

Sorry, I couldn't resist walking through that door. I know what you meant, but you gotta poke fun when you can.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Listening to it? No. Downloading it without paying for it? Yes.

Listening to it in the store? No. Taking the cd without paying for it? Yes.

Stores don't generally let you listen to full tracks, usually somewhere around 30 second clips. YouTube lets you listen to full songs so I wouldn't even need to download a song or buy the album. I could just go to YouTube and listen to any full song I want anytime I want.

You would need to download the song if you wanted it as part of your music library. If you downloaded it without paying for it, it's stealing. It doesn't matter that it's a digital dowload vs. a physical cd you can hold in your hand. This guy didn't 'listen to the songs on youtube'. He took something without paying for it; he stole.

So there's a difference between me listening to a song whenever I want on YouTube and listening to a song whenever I want that I downloaded? I'd have to disagree. Under the intellectual property argument I'm still not going to go buy the album regardless of whether I listen to it on YouTube or whether I've downloaded it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Stores don't generally let you listen to full tracks, usually somewhere around 30 second clips. YouTube lets you listen to full songs so I wouldn't even need to download a song or buy the album. I could just go to YouTube and listen to any full song I want anytime I want.

You would need to download the song if you wanted it as part of your music library. If you downloaded it without paying for it, it's stealing. It doesn't matter that it's a digital dowload vs. a physical cd you can hold in your hand. This guy didn't 'listen to the songs on youtube'. He took something without paying for it; he stole.

So there's a difference between me listening to a song whenever I want on YouTube and listening to a song whenever I want that I downloaded? I'd have to disagree. Under the intellectual property argument I'm still not going to go buy the album regardless of whether I listen to it on YouTube or whether I've downloaded it.

But under the YouTube argument the copyright holder can have youtube yank the content if they desire.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Stores don't generally let you listen to full tracks, usually somewhere around 30 second clips. YouTube lets you listen to full songs so I wouldn't even need to download a song or buy the album. I could just go to YouTube and listen to any full song I want anytime I want.

You would need to download the song if you wanted it as part of your music library. If you downloaded it without paying for it, it's stealing. It doesn't matter that it's a digital dowload vs. a physical cd you can hold in your hand. This guy didn't 'listen to the songs on youtube'. He took something without paying for it; he stole.

So there's a difference between me listening to a song whenever I want on YouTube and listening to a song whenever I want that I downloaded? I'd have to disagree. Under the intellectual property argument I'm still not going to go buy the album regardless of whether I listen to it on YouTube or whether I've downloaded it.

Kevin, what aren't you getting about this?

If you download an album or song off the internet and you now have it as part of your music library and you did not pay for the album or song, it is stealing.

If you go into FYE and take a cd without paying for the cd, it is stealing.

You're using this 'intellectual property' argument as a way to side-step the fact that downloading music without paying for it is stealing.

I read the link you provided. It talks about the intellectual property argument as embellishing/growing/expanding/on the original idea, using the original idea as a jumping off point for something else to be created . . . not taking the original idea and selling it as yours or taking the original idea and giving it away.

With illegally downloading songs, you're not using the songs as a 'jumping off point' for anything. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's stealing and stealing is a crime.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You would need to download the song if you wanted it as part of your music library. If you downloaded it without paying for it, it's stealing. It doesn't matter that it's a digital dowload vs. a physical cd you can hold in your hand. This guy didn't 'listen to the songs on youtube'. He took something without paying for it; he stole.

So there's a difference between me listening to a song whenever I want on YouTube and listening to a song whenever I want that I downloaded? I'd have to disagree. Under the intellectual property argument I'm still not going to go buy the album regardless of whether I listen to it on YouTube or whether I've downloaded it.

But under the YouTube argument the copyright holder can have youtube yank the content if they desire.

And the song could be re-uploaded in a moment and multiple times. It's unlikely they can stop every single transmission of the song.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So there's a difference between me listening to a song whenever I want on YouTube and listening to a song whenever I want that I downloaded? I'd have to disagree. Under the intellectual property argument I'm still not going to go buy the album regardless of whether I listen to it on YouTube or whether I've downloaded it.

But under the YouTube argument the copyright holder can have youtube yank the content if they desire.

And the song could be re-uploaded in a moment and multiple times. It's unlikely they can stop every single transmission of the song.

Doesn't make it any less of a crime.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You would need to download the song if you wanted it as part of your music library. If you downloaded it without paying for it, it's stealing. It doesn't matter that it's a digital dowload vs. a physical cd you can hold in your hand. This guy didn't 'listen to the songs on youtube'. He took something without paying for it; he stole.

So there's a difference between me listening to a song whenever I want on YouTube and listening to a song whenever I want that I downloaded? I'd have to disagree. Under the intellectual property argument I'm still not going to go buy the album regardless of whether I listen to it on YouTube or whether I've downloaded it.

Kevin, what aren't you getting about this?

If you download an album or song off the internet and you now have it as part of your music library and you did not pay for the album or song, it is stealing.

If you go into FYE and take a cd without paying for the cd, it is stealing.

You're using this 'intellectual property' argument as a way to side-step the fact that downloading music without paying for it is stealing.

I read the link you provided. It talks about the intellectual property argument as embellishing/growing/expanding/on the original idea, using the original idea as a jumping off point for something else to be created . . . not taking the original idea and selling it as yours or taking the original idea and giving it away.

With illegally downloading songs, you're not using the songs as a 'jumping off point' for anything. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's stealing and stealing is a crime.

I'm trying to point out that intellectual property laws, such as making downloading music illegal, are pointless. There's no difference between listening to a song on YouTube and listening to it in your own music library. I'm not side-stepping any facts, downloading music is only "stealing" because of intellectual property laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But under the YouTube argument the copyright holder can have youtube yank the content if they desire.

And the song could be re-uploaded in a moment and multiple times. It's unlikely they can stop every single transmission of the song.

Doesn't make it any less of a crime.

So do we start fining these people then?

 

[Zoom-boing]

And the song could be re-uploaded in a moment and multiple times. It's unlikely they can stop every single transmission of the song.

Doesn't make it any less of a crime.

So do we start fining these people then?

If you can catch them, yes.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So there's a difference between me listening to a song whenever I want on YouTube and listening to a song whenever I want that I downloaded? I'd have to disagree. Under the intellectual property argument I'm still not going to go buy the album regardless of whether I listen to it on YouTube or whether I've downloaded it.

Kevin, what aren't you getting about this?

If you download an album or song off the internet and you now have it as part of your music library and you did not pay for the album or song, it is stealing.

If you go into FYE and take a cd without paying for the cd, it is stealing.

You're using this 'intellectual property' argument as a way to side-step the fact that downloading music without paying for it is stealing.

I read the link you provided. It talks about the intellectual property argument as embellishing/growing/expanding/on the original idea, using the original idea as a jumping off point for something else to be created . . . not taking the original idea and selling it as yours or taking the original idea and giving it away.

With illegally downloading songs, you're not using the songs as a 'jumping off point' for anything. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's stealing and stealing is a crime.

I'm trying to point out that intellectual property laws, such as making downloading music illegal, are pointless. There's no difference between listening to a song on YouTube and listening to it in your own music library.

There is if you download the music without paying for it. You can listen to it for free on youtube; if you choose to download it you must pay for it. If you don't pay for it it's stealing.

I'm not side-stepping any facts, downloading music is only "stealing" because of intellectual property laws.

You're side-stepping the fact that taking something without paying for it is stealing.

Your logic says that downloading music without paying for it isn't stealing. Following that logic . . . . then taking a cd from a store isn't stealing.

 

[rhodescholar]

KK =

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not a single one of the 50,000+ songs were illegally downloaded off the internet.

your a pillar of the community MM.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, what aren't you getting about this?

If you download an album or song off the internet and you now have it as part of your music library and you did not pay for the album or song, it is stealing.

If you go into FYE and take a cd without paying for the cd, it is stealing.

You're using this 'intellectual property' argument as a way to side-step the fact that downloading music without paying for it is stealing.

I read the link you provided. It talks about the intellectual property argument as embellishing/growing/expanding/on the original idea, using the original idea as a jumping off point for something else to be created . . . not taking the original idea and selling it as yours or taking the original idea and giving it away.

With illegally downloading songs, you're not using the songs as a 'jumping off point' for anything. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's stealing and stealing is a crime.

I'm trying to point out that intellectual property laws, such as making downloading music illegal, are pointless. There's no difference between listening to a song on YouTube and listening to it in your own music library.

There is if you download the music without paying for it. You can listen to it for free on youtube; if you choose to download it you must pay for it. If you don't pay for it it's stealing.

I'm not side-stepping any facts, downloading music is only "stealing" because of intellectual property laws.

You're side-stepping the fact that taking something without paying for it is stealing.

Your logic says that downloading music without paying for it isn't stealing. Following that logic . . . . then taking a cd from a store isn't stealing.

That's not my logic at all. Taking a cd from a store that has paid for it is stealing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK =

Why don't you go ahead and report my posts in this thread as well?