Student fined $675,000 for illegal downloads

[Montrovant]

From what I've read about this, the music companies have decided not to go after individual users anymore and instead try to go after file sharing sites and the like; this is supposedly just one of the already ongoing cases, and new ones against individuals will not be filed. After this (and another case recently where a woman got a very large fine under similar circumstances) I wonder if they will stick to that.

 

[alan1]

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.

And a musician can feel that he was assaulted if somebody takes his music for free. Perhaps musicians have the right to not have their music stolen just as your hypothetical wife shouldn't have her sex stolen.
Sometimes you have to use an extreme to point out foolishness.

 

[Soaring]

There is a very powerful organization called ASCAP, or the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers that is the watchdog for these kinds of things, and they will catch you if you download music illegally. Here is an article dealing with just that very thing.
ASCAP NEWS

 

[editec]

Copyright infringement is a very expensive crime to get caught at, folks.

 

[chanel]

This kid confessed to "uploading" which they consider far more serious than "downloading" Its like the difference between dealing and using.

It is a ridiculous judgment but they are trying to send a message. I think its too late. My son said they have programs now that allow you to download from youtube. The technology is far ahead of the law.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Explain the difference to me.

 

[Navy1960]

While I am not expert in the field of music downloads and law it does seem to me that if you come down too hard on those that desire and artists music that eventually what you do if turn the very people you wish to sell it too off. Those same people that listen or take the time to download this music would in turn, by word of mouth pass along good will for the artists that they listen too. An old marketing theory but seems to work very well, however if your customer base fears you or you don't provide an environment where your product is easily available then your customers will seek other methods. One other thing to consider here as well , if you take into consideration that these downloads are illegal are not the tools that allow for such downloads then providing methods for such activity? i.e. CD/R ,DVD/RW, sites like limewire, etc. So the music industry goes after the individual because they know that generally speaking an individual does not have the resources to defend themselves in court and by doing so they send a message to others wishing to do so. I submit if the music industry really wanted music to be in a format that can only be "for sale" then it would encrypt it to such a degree as to make it so and go after the very same makers of devices that allow for such copying in the first place. It did not escape my notice that Sony was one of parties to the lawsuit in the original thread who also makes these devices and now here they are claiming some sort of loss.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Can you find the song "I asked for water (she gave me gasoline)" by Howlin' Wolf? I can't find that on youtube.

i just googled it and got this but there was a lot listed on "G"

Howlin' Wolf – I Asked For Water (She Gave Me Gasoline – Free listening at Last.fm)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.



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.

Explain the difference to me.

Stores pay money to get a product. If you go into a store and take that product without paying then you are stealing. If you download a song you haven't stolen from anyone. Now you might say that you're stealing from the artist because they own their songs, but if we follow that logic then we have to prosecute people who upload songs and people who let their friends listen to a cd that they haven't purchased. They haven't bought the album so what right do they have to listen to it for free, right? That might deprive the artist of another sale.

 

[Paulie]

When you d/l a song, you're d/ling it from another peer. Just another person that already has the song on their hard drive, in a folder that's tagged as the "share" folder in their file sharing program of choice.

So essentially, you're doing the exact same thing as if you were to have taken a CD to someone's house, and taped some songs from it onto a cassette tape, or burned them onto a blank CD.

No one from the RIAA seems to care about anyone recording a song from a CD onto a cassette tape, or recording a song off the radio onto one...but yet, they care about the internet file sharing.

My guess is it's because the internet file sharing can be tracked, and the random person recording a CD in his house can not.

We should probably be just as tough on ALL the different ways to record songs, and make anyone who buys a stack of blank CD's give their personal identification information, complete with home address.

The RIAA knows this has been going on for decades. The only reason they even give a **** now, is because now they have a way to track people.

Get the PeerGuardian program and be done with it.

The fact is, most of the time a song you d/l is not good enough quality. It's been compressed and re-compressed so many damn times that it's no better than a song recorded onto a cassette tape ANYWAY.

The point of it is to get an idea if an album is even worth buying. I know I'm personally tired of buying an album that was hyped up, only to find out that it actually SUCKS.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

Explain the difference to me.

Stores pay money to get a product. If you go into a store and take that product without paying then you are stealing. If you download a song you haven't stolen from anyone. Now you might say that you're stealing from the artist because they own their songs, but if we follow that logic then we have to prosecute people who upload songs and people who let their friends listen to a cd that they haven't purchased. They haven't bought the album so what right do they have to listen to it for free, right? That might deprive the artist of another sale.

Downloading songs from the internet without paying for them is stealing. It's the same thing as taking a cd from a store.

Buying a song off the internet or buying a cd and sharing it - gray area that has been done forever. The point is . . . the song/cd was originally purchased; it wasn't stolen.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Explain the difference to me.

Stores pay money to get a product. If you go into a store and take that product without paying then you are stealing. If you download a song you haven't stolen from anyone. Now you might say that you're stealing from the artist because they own their songs, but if we follow that logic then we have to prosecute people who upload songs and people who let their friends listen to a cd that they haven't purchased. They haven't bought the album so what right do they have to listen to it for free, right? That might deprive the artist of another sale.

Downloading songs from the internet without paying for them is stealing. It's the same thing as taking a cd from a store.

Buying a song off the internet or buying a cd and sharing it - gray area that has been done forever. The point is . . . the song/cd was originally purchased; it wasn't stolen.

Somebody had to buy the album originally for someone else to be able to download it so wouldn't that fall under the gray area as well?

 

[alan1]

Can you find the song "I asked for water (she gave me gasoline)" by Howlin' Wolf? I can't find that on youtube.

i just googled it and got this but there was a lot listed on "G"

Howlin' Wolf – I Asked For Water (She Gave Me Gasoline – Free listening at Last.fm)

maybe it's just me, but that link doesn't have the song.
Do you like folk blues?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Stores pay money to get a product. If you go into a store and take that product without paying then you are stealing. If you download a song you haven't stolen from anyone. Now you might say that you're stealing from the artist because they own their songs, but if we follow that logic then we have to prosecute people who upload songs and people who let their friends listen to a cd that they haven't purchased. They haven't bought the album so what right do they have to listen to it for free, right? That might deprive the artist of another sale.

Downloading songs from the internet without paying for them is stealing. It's the same thing as taking a cd from a store.

Buying a song off the internet or buying a cd and sharing it - gray area that has been done forever. The point is . . . the song/cd was originally purchased; it wasn't stolen.

Somebody had to buy the album originally for someone else to be able to download it so wouldn't that fall under the gray area as well?

Buying a cd and sharing it with a few friends is one thing; buying it with the intention of giving it away for free to thousands . . . you don't see the difference?

Should musicians just make their music cds . . . and give them all away?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Downloading songs from the internet without paying for them is stealing. It's the same thing as taking a cd from a store.

Buying a song off the internet or buying a cd and sharing it - gray area that has been done forever. The point is . . . the song/cd was originally purchased; it wasn't stolen.

Somebody had to buy the album originally for someone else to be able to download it so wouldn't that fall under the gray area as well?

Buying a cd and sharing it with a few friends is one thing; buying it with the intention of giving it away for free to thousands . . . you don't see the difference?

Should musicians just make their music cds . . . and give them all away?

When Jay-Z released "The Black Album" he gave it away for free online and it still went platinum. Tech N9ne did the same with his "Absolute Power" album and it still sold very well. If people like the album enough they're going to buy it. But if we follow your logic then it's just as wrong to share an album with your friends as it is to share with thousands on the internet. Somebody who steals one thing still gets arrested just the same as the person who steals many things.

 

[Intense]

This guy needs to schedule a beer fest with the man from Kenya ASAP. Maybe he could get a job with the Fed., where private property is relative, or ACORN, they could hide him, they could hide anything.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This guy needs to schedule a beer fest with the man from Kenya ASAP. Maybe he could get a job with the Fed., where private property is relative, or ACORN, they could hide him, they could hide anything.

I believe in private property. I don't believe in intellectual property.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Somebody had to buy the album originally for someone else to be able to download it so wouldn't that fall under the gray area as well?

Buying a cd and sharing it with a few friends is one thing; buying it with the intention of giving it away for free to thousands . . . you don't see the difference?

Should musicians just make their music cds . . . and give them all away?

When Jay-Z released "The Black Album" he gave it away for free online and it still went platinum. Tech N9ne did the same with his "Absolute Power" album and it still sold very well. If people like the album enough they're going to buy it. But if we follow your logic then it's just as wrong to share an album with your friends as it is to share with thousands on the internet. Somebody who steals one thing still gets arrested just the same as the person who steals many things.

Jay-Z owned the album and could do with it as he wished. It was his choice.

If I choose to take someone's music and give it away for free to thousands . . . you don't think they (the musicians) would have a problem with this?

 

[xsited1]

A Boston University student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs was ordered Friday to pay $675,000 to four record companies.
In awarding the companies $22,500 per track, a federal jury in Boston decided on a far lesser amount than the maximum faced by Joel Tenenbaum of Providence, R.I.. Under federal law, the jury could have ruled that the record studios were entitled to as much as $150,000 per track, or $4.5 million.

...

30 songs, $22,500 per track. See what happens when we have deficits? Run-away inflation. I remember when you could buy a track for less than 25 cents. Of course, you had to walk uphill in the snow to the vinyl record shop, but it was worth every penny.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Buying a cd and sharing it with a few friends is one thing; buying it with the intention of giving it away for free to thousands . . . you don't see the difference?

Should musicians just make their music cds . . . and give them all away?

When Jay-Z released "The Black Album" he gave it away for free online and it still went platinum. Tech N9ne did the same with his "Absolute Power" album and it still sold very well. If people like the album enough they're going to buy it. But if we follow your logic then it's just as wrong to share an album with your friends as it is to share with thousands on the internet. Somebody who steals one thing still gets arrested just the same as the person who steals many things.

Jay-Z owned the album and could do with it as he wished. It was his choice.

If I choose to take someone's music and give it away for free to thousands . . . you don't think they (the musicians) would have a problem with this?

It's already been proven that they do indeed have a problem with it. My point is that they shouldn't have the right to prosecute people for downloading music. The music industry points to people downloading music as the reason for their decreased sale, and I think that's a fallacious argument. There's simply very little music of quality that people are enticed to buy anymore. You can see this in a few examples. Kanye West's album "Graduation" sold very well it's first week, along with Lil Wayne's "Tha Carter 3," and Eminem's newest album did well also. This shows, in my opinion, that if you release music that people want then it will sell, but if you release trash then you're going to see your sales decrease. This shouldn't be surprising.