RIAA Wins Appeal, Music Downloader Owes $675,000
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
....So 95% of the human race owes various musical corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars.
good one. I highly doubtful that this will change jack in music piracy stats.Fusioncode9 said:
RIAA are truly awful for destroying this one guys life. most people pirate music at one point or another and companies have a right to punish them for excessively pirating, but this is honestly convincing me to pirate music rather than buy. just to give the finger to the RIAA
I have a 160gb iPod. That means I have roughly 20,000 songs on it (I low balled it, it is a few thousand more, I believe). So accourding to the RIAA, my iPod contains $450,000,000 worth of songs. My iPod is apparently one of the most valuable objects on the face of the earth.
Not likely to happen as long as it's easier to sue us as the reason music is on the decline.zehydra said:
And when you consider how many people have these high-capacity MP3 devices, by the RIAA's logic, there is a subsequent "value" per song for each device. Therefore, we can assume that there is enough hypothetical money out there that collectively those with such devices could royally screw up the global exchange rates, the world economy, et cetera.Zachary Amaranth said:I have a 500 GB Archos.dfphetteplace said:
I win.
Hell, maybe the RIAA should be so kind as to fix the U.S. debt crisis we're in by selling China and the likes a few Lady Gaga Cds worth of Mp3 files. In fact, let's just all do our patriotic duty and give China one song each to help alleviate the U.S. debt. Because those megabytes are worth more than freaking gold! A few generous folks can help steer the U.S. towards worldwide acquisition...
Hell, why not alleviate both problems? Get the Chinese Government to download a bunch of songs, let RIAA sue china into bankruptcy, then WE can come to their rescue!SelectivelyEvil13 said:
Personally, having just recently realized the costs behind pursuing a career in music are quite enormous, I have a certain disposition towards this topic.
It would be almost a dream if you couldn't download music illegally. Having people turn back to radio and the legal purchase of music (Music that costs THOUSANDS to create, record and distribute).
But as it stands now, this could possibly be the drastic force of action that may turn that dream of mine into a possibility.
BUT! being a person who has only recently turned to the legal purchase and acquisition of music myself, It's quite ridiculous to actually think that people, who pay so much money for just basic cost of living, will pay money to people who do this sort of thing.
Basically. Imagine that it's someone like Bob Marley, not some pale, vampire-looking billionaire on the prosecuting end of this case, and you might have a different view.
It would be almost a dream if you couldn't download music illegally. Having people turn back to radio and the legal purchase of music (Music that costs THOUSANDS to create, record and distribute).
But as it stands now, this could possibly be the drastic force of action that may turn that dream of mine into a possibility.
BUT! being a person who has only recently turned to the legal purchase and acquisition of music myself, It's quite ridiculous to actually think that people, who pay so much money for just basic cost of living, will pay money to people who do this sort of thing.
Basically. Imagine that it's someone like Bob Marley, not some pale, vampire-looking billionaire on the prosecuting end of this case, and you might have a different view.
My main problem with it, is the unfair application of punishments.
They're punishing one man for thousands of people's crimes. Purely because they know they can't catch them all. It makes sense in a way, but it's NOT how law is supposed to work, but they can afford to pay enough to make the law work how they want it to.
It's like with the recent riots in London, I believe there were a few hundred people involved.
Say the police only managed to arrest one woman standing by a broken window with a looted bag of crisps, should the courts apply the death penalty? After all, looting isn't a serious crime, but maybe we should make her suffer a few hundred times the punishment for all the people the police didn't catch?
The scary thing, is in our media led society, the public would probably vote in the death penalty for looting.
I still think his defence should have been 'yes, I illegally acquired 3 albums, I'd like to take my punishment equivalent to shoplifting 3 cds now please, minus any discount for not having done any damage or actually removed any items.'
They're punishing one man for thousands of people's crimes. Purely because they know they can't catch them all. It makes sense in a way, but it's NOT how law is supposed to work, but they can afford to pay enough to make the law work how they want it to.
It's like with the recent riots in London, I believe there were a few hundred people involved.
Say the police only managed to arrest one woman standing by a broken window with a looted bag of crisps, should the courts apply the death penalty? After all, looting isn't a serious crime, but maybe we should make her suffer a few hundred times the punishment for all the people the police didn't catch?
The scary thing, is in our media led society, the public would probably vote in the death penalty for looting.
I still think his defence should have been 'yes, I illegally acquired 3 albums, I'd like to take my punishment equivalent to shoplifting 3 cds now please, minus any discount for not having done any damage or actually removed any items.'