File-Sharing Single Mom Loses Again
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
And this is why I have stopped buying any music whatsoever.
I go to concerts to support the artists I like as that usually where they get their biggest take of the profits from. CDs and MP3s are just there to feed those greedy pricks that barely do anything beyond leech off the talent of the actual musicians.
So to use a phrase from the wise Goerge Carlin.
Fuck the RIAA, fuck them in their asses with a big rubber dildo, then break it off and beat them to death with the rest of it.
I go to concerts to support the artists I like as that usually where they get their biggest take of the profits from. CDs and MP3s are just there to feed those greedy pricks that barely do anything beyond leech off the talent of the actual musicians.
So to use a phrase from the wise Goerge Carlin.
Fuck the RIAA, fuck them in their asses with a big rubber dildo, then break it off and beat them to death with the rest of it.
Thank God I live in Poland, when they never sue single people, only ones that pirate games and sell them for profit on a mass scale.
And even then it's only thrice the retail price. So if she had 1700 songs (...Jesus Christ), that's 1700 x 9 PLN. That would equal only 15,3k PLN. About $5000.
Woot for us.
And even then it's only thrice the retail price. So if she had 1700 songs (...Jesus Christ), that's 1700 x 9 PLN. That would equal only 15,3k PLN. About $5000.
Woot for us.
Their ways of distributing media is flawed and needs to adapt. That's it... That's all there is to it.Chipperz said:
Someone found a way to distribute media cheaper and more effective and the big corporations don't like that. So what do they do? They complain of course.
Now, so far I'm with them. I mean, of course you complain when everything your company is built upon is falling apart.
What I can't comprehend is why the government listens to these people...
I'm pretty sure that people are going to complain when they lose their jobs at Wal-mart because robots have been developed that can do their job twice as fast, twice as cheap. That doesn't mean that we should ban robots...
I can see both sides of this argument yes she downloaded and distributed songs illegally but 9250 for each is ridiculous I say charge her twice the retail price for each song and call it a day with a piece in there about if she continues to distribute them then she will be charged 10 cents for each song distributed and approximately 2 dollars for each new song she illegally downloads.
It is hard to say how much to charge someone like this though because not only did she illegally download the music if she used torrents or something along those lines more then likely she redistributed those songs.
It is hard to say how much to charge someone like this though because not only did she illegally download the music if she used torrents or something along those lines more then likely she redistributed those songs.
Remember, she's being fined for sharing the songs, not downloading them. Presumably the RIAA is not suing her for the $24 dollars they didn't get from her, but the $X they didn't get from all the people who downloaded what she was sharing.
That said - $80,000/song? She had 80,000 peers downloading each one of those songs? At 3MB/song, that's 5.7 terabytes of network traffic - I find that pretty hard to swallow. Even the previous judgement places it at 570 GB of traffic - also doubtful. I'm sure that there is a punitive multiplier in the judgement, but I'd be surprised if she had more than 500 people per song downloading them, placing the total lost revenue at $12,000, which would make the punitive multiplier something like 20x - which seems like total bullshit.
That said - $80,000/song? She had 80,000 peers downloading each one of those songs? At 3MB/song, that's 5.7 terabytes of network traffic - I find that pretty hard to swallow. Even the previous judgement places it at 570 GB of traffic - also doubtful. I'm sure that there is a punitive multiplier in the judgement, but I'd be surprised if she had more than 500 people per song downloading them, placing the total lost revenue at $12,000, which would make the punitive multiplier something like 20x - which seems like total bullshit.
In a civil case where a jury is called in the jurors set the damage award.stinkychops said:
Not that it matters, the law got changed so that the RIAA can just get your internet connection shut off, they put out a press release saying that they weren't going to sue for cash any more.
You gotta admit though, the evidence against her is pretty weak. It was only proven that the files were traced back to her computer by only one source. As the article at Yahoo! said: "They couldn't put a face behind the computer". It could be she downloaded some of the songs, but amassing all those files on her own is kinda hard to imagine. Though this sounds bad, it still doesn't beat the overturned decision from South Korea. But that's another story for another day.
I'll never understand people that claim piracy is a good thing; at the end of the day you honestly expect these companies to try for the bare-minimum in order to please you?
They are a business, and you run a business to gain a profit - thats how success is measured in the business world - when you pirate, your not making a statement (besides being a cheap greedy *ahem*; your just hurting the "little people" that work at that company, as well as making media more expensive for everyone else - way to go...
I'm glad she lost, she was file sharing files she had no right to share; although that ruling is ridiculous...
They are a business, and you run a business to gain a profit - thats how success is measured in the business world - when you pirate, your not making a statement (besides being a cheap greedy *ahem*; your just hurting the "little people" that work at that company, as well as making media more expensive for everyone else - way to go...
I'm glad she lost, she was file sharing files she had no right to share; although that ruling is ridiculous...
Music piracy is a good thing because:D_987 said:
a) It denies profits to any company who cannot adapt to the new environment. It FORCES them to be innovative, and society advances forward.
b) It can spread a musician's popularity by even more than word of mouth, without having to pay for advertising or endorsement, and this in turn will lead to much higher concert attendance and merchandise sales. The artists can achieve a much larger audience.
c) Frankly, music made purely for profit is of a very low quality. If this music is no longer profitable, it will no longer be made, and I will no longer have to endure hearing it everywhere.
A) How so - its alright saying that but to explain it is something different.riskroWe said:
B) I disagree; a large number of people will not download music they haven't heard of; pirated or otherwise. Besides which you can simply listen to it on Youtube if you wish to listen to a band.
C) I'm so sorry your tastes don't match with that of the majority...thats the worst excuse for piracy I've ever heard.