how is listening to music on youtube better than downloading it?D_987 said:
Explain that logic.
File-Sharing Single Mom Loses Again
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Explain that logic.
Thats a pretty excessive judgment, but lets not forget that she was doing something illegal.
The problem I see with the record industry is the fact that they presuppose the sales they might have had, and assume that everyone that downloaded it would have bought it. This kind of rationale is exactly what kills sympathy for them.
I for one, am against copying (or sharing, or whatever the word you want to use to try to justify it). In my opinion, artists that work hard and produce something for our enjoyment ought to be compensated for it.
The problem I see with the record industry is the fact that they presuppose the sales they might have had, and assume that everyone that downloaded it would have bought it. This kind of rationale is exactly what kills sympathy for them.
I for one, am against copying (or sharing, or whatever the word you want to use to try to justify it). In my opinion, artists that work hard and produce something for our enjoyment ought to be compensated for it.
Amen I will never get the argument that "I download it to try it". Bands have myspace pages and youtube accounts all sorts of legal means to access their music. And yet people insist on DLing it...D_987 said:
I think it's safe to say that this is one of those special moments when everyone is wrong.
Illegally sharing music is wrong. I can certainly understand why it's done and I have a lot more sympathy for it than I do for videogame piracy but at the end of the day it's still denying companies, bands and individuals monies to which they're legally entitled.
Thomas-Rasset is wrong. She put the music online, got busted and then thought she was smart enough to cover her tracks and concoct a story that would fool everyone. Bad, stupid move. Dishonesty has a way of coming out and it never looks good, particularly when you're under oath.
The RIAA is wrong. Two million bucks for some slackjaw who dumped her music on Kazaa? That's so far beyond the bounds of reason that even the RIAA itself seems sheepish about it. All they're going to get out of this award is a boatload of bad publicity, and they know it.
The system is deeply flawed. Sharing copyrighted music online isn't the answer. Coming down like a ton of bricks on the clueless average citizen is not the answer. I have no doubt that someday, way in the future, we'll come up with the answer, but right now we're all just sniffing each other's balls and wondering what's goin' on.
Illegally sharing music is wrong. I can certainly understand why it's done and I have a lot more sympathy for it than I do for videogame piracy but at the end of the day it's still denying companies, bands and individuals monies to which they're legally entitled.
Thomas-Rasset is wrong. She put the music online, got busted and then thought she was smart enough to cover her tracks and concoct a story that would fool everyone. Bad, stupid move. Dishonesty has a way of coming out and it never looks good, particularly when you're under oath.
The RIAA is wrong. Two million bucks for some slackjaw who dumped her music on Kazaa? That's so far beyond the bounds of reason that even the RIAA itself seems sheepish about it. All they're going to get out of this award is a boatload of bad publicity, and they know it.
The system is deeply flawed. Sharing copyrighted music online isn't the answer. Coming down like a ton of bricks on the clueless average citizen is not the answer. I have no doubt that someday, way in the future, we'll come up with the answer, but right now we're all just sniffing each other's balls and wondering what's goin' on.
Personally, Id live in a tent and publicly send them personal checks for a few hundred dollars at a time, occasionally give them a few penny rolls, and try to act stoic for the media, and tell the RIAA that I will stop doing this if they give me a million dollars.
Primarily because the videogame industry has embraced digital distribution while the music industry has fought it tooth and nail.Kwil said:
Do bear in mind, I said it's "sympathy," not that it's "fine." I'm firmly against both.
"You don't wanna mess... with the RIAA...
They'll sue you if you burn that CD-R.
Doesn't matter if you're a grandma or a 7-year old girl,
They'll treat you like the evil, hard-bitten criminal scum you are!"
I'm sorry, I felt it was appropriate...
They'll sue you if you burn that CD-R.
Doesn't matter if you're a grandma or a 7-year old girl,
They'll treat you like the evil, hard-bitten criminal scum you are!"
I'm sorry, I felt it was appropriate...
Was this the same lady, who got sued by the RIAA for downloading child songs for her kids?
As for the damages, there logic is this.
She downloaded from person A
She uploaded that, in conjunction to say, 20 people.
Those 20 people uploaded that song to 20 people
And then 20 more people, and then 20 more people, ect, ect, ect. So she according to them, have effectively 'gave' there songs away. For no profit. And they can't claim no-profit, so instead of sueing them for any money she could have earned 'selling' the songs, they have to sue her for potential damages she has suffered the company.
Course, IF those people werne't going to buy those songs anyways, you can't really say they lost any profit.
Also, of course people download songs they haven't heard! Are you stupid!?
Friend: "Dude, I just bought this CD with this awesome song on it"
You: "What song?"
Friend: "*insert song here* it was f***ing great!"
You: "sweet"
So, instead of going out and buying a $30 CD, they go torrent it for free. If they really, really like it, they may buy the song on itunes, you know, to support the artist. Or perhaps, they'll actuallly spend $150 on a concert ticket.
As for the damages, there logic is this.
She downloaded from person A
She uploaded that, in conjunction to say, 20 people.
Those 20 people uploaded that song to 20 people
And then 20 more people, and then 20 more people, ect, ect, ect. So she according to them, have effectively 'gave' there songs away. For no profit. And they can't claim no-profit, so instead of sueing them for any money she could have earned 'selling' the songs, they have to sue her for potential damages she has suffered the company.
Course, IF those people werne't going to buy those songs anyways, you can't really say they lost any profit.
Also, of course people download songs they haven't heard! Are you stupid!?
Friend: "Dude, I just bought this CD with this awesome song on it"
You: "What song?"
Friend: "*insert song here* it was f***ing great!"
You: "sweet"
So, instead of going out and buying a $30 CD, they go torrent it for free. If they really, really like it, they may buy the song on itunes, you know, to support the artist. Or perhaps, they'll actuallly spend $150 on a concert ticket.
*pah* the RIAA makes me sick sometimes. Everyone pirates music, EVERYONE. You, Me, that guy down the block everyone does. If they cracked down on everything there wouldn't be enough courthouses,judges or juries to try and convict these people. The RIAA would spend more money than they got from winning. Impossible.
Nah, it would work. My dad's partner (he used to have a partnership as Architects) bolted with all the company's money, and then declared bankruptcy to get away with it.sirdanrhodes said:
EDIT: Oh, and he bout a truckload of stuff with company money as well, which meant that when he declared bankrupcy my dad was hit with the debt.
One word for that bloke: Asshole. Also shows how screwy the legal system is.