Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Weird News Stories => Topic started by: Torgo on October 04, 2007, 07:15:03 PM



Title: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: Torgo on October 04, 2007, 07:15:03 PM
All I've got to say is that it must suck to be her right now.  I was wondering how this trial would go as it could've set precedent if she had won.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1)


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: Jason on October 04, 2007, 07:44:15 PM
I don't know where I stand on this one - whilst I hate the RIAA with a passion (despite being the other side of the Atlantic from them...) I also feel that if she did indeed download the tracks (and let's be honest, she probably did)  then she knew full well that what she was doing was illegal and that if she was caught she'd probably end up in court.

Whilst I'm not entirely sure that the best part of $10,000 per song is a fair amount to fine someone who probably earns $40k per annum at the most, I always find it hard to sympathise with filesharers who complain when they're caught, and this is as an ex-filesharer myself.


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: CheezeFlixz on October 05, 2007, 10:18:51 AM
What I find odd is that you can record a song off the radio and keep it without harm. You can record a show off the TV and keep it without harm, I doubt there are many of use who haven't but soon as you share a "digital" file you are in violation of the law ... I would think and this is opinion only if you get a digital song for free 99% of those people that get the song had no attention of buying the song anyway. So no real damages are made, I think she had a poor lawyer, as I'd make the record company prove damages by providing a list of people the would testify in court that they downloaded a song from her for free that they had every intention of buying if they didn't get it for free. Damages require proof, I'm not saying what she did is right I just think the burden of proof is weak and the fine is excessive.
Who among us from the Cassette/VHS boom generation hasn't dubbed/copied a cassette or vhs tape? Jeez most folks had a double deck player/recorder for that very purpose. Now it's a federal crime? Government gone wild I tell you ... how long before it's illegal to photocopy a page from a book?   


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: Khaz on October 05, 2007, 11:01:02 AM
There was actually and episode of "history of new Rock" that airs on a local station that dealt with just this topic. (great show, all about music and its history, if anyone is interested, I will send the link) In the episode, it talked about the huge outrage from record companies at the introduction of the cassette recorder. Before then, you had to purchace the record, or hear it on the radio. Lawsuits were filed, charges laid and fines paid then it died out. Next came the release of the VHS tape recorder. Same deal but with the movie studios. Next came the CD recorder and right on it's heels, MP3's and DVD recorders. There is an amusing point brought up in the show about Sony, who holds shares in music production, being also one of the first every time to release the means to make iligal copies. Delicious irony, that is..


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: AndyC on October 05, 2007, 11:21:11 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Cheezeflixz on one point: estimates of lost income due to piracy are very much inflated. The presumption is that everyone who got it for free would otherwise have paid for it and purchased the same quantity. Music companies do this, cable and satellite companies do it.

I'm not saying everybody who downloads or pirates cable would not otherwise have bought it legally, but by the same token, the sellers can't assume that every one of them would have. They are not actually out of pocket for anything, as they would be for stolen merchandise, so the measure of the crime must be how much income they would have received if nobody was able to steal their product. But they just total up the retail price of everything as though they actually would have sold it. Not accurate.

The other place I have a problem is in broadcast services, such as satellite. First of all, I appreciate that in all these cases, the fees paid by honest people make the service possible. However, I don't know if stealing satellite can technically be considered theft. Consider that if I can see into your drive-in movie from my second-storey window, you can't take me to court (unless I record it and sell copies, but that's another issue). Yet, you can broadcast a signal into my yard and I can be in big trouble if I decide to look at it. Granted, you can't broadcast a signal without it going into my yard, so we must make that allowance for the sake of the industry. But the principle is still the same as the drive-in movie.


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: trekgeezer on October 05, 2007, 02:16:43 PM
When the TV system in the US goes all digital, just wait and see what shows up. The movie and tv companies want something called a broadcast flag attached to the signal and you would only be allowed to record to a device that recognizes the the flag and will inform the broadcaster that you are recording the show or movie.


Here is an article you should read about what Sony-BMG thinks about you even ripping your own CD's .

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: Jason on October 05, 2007, 02:25:07 PM
I have to admit, back when I used filesharing, I tended to use it as a BS filter. There's nothing worse than hearing the single on the radio, going out and buying the album for 12 and then finding out it's one decent song and 11 fillers. I'd usually download a couple of songs from the album, and if they were alright, I'd probably buy the album. If they were terrible, I'd give it a miss.

I have no problem with fining/prosecuting those that illegally share large quantities of music/digital media. I think that the fines in this case are ridiculously out of proportion, but I do think that if you are caught distributing something that you have no right to distribute (ie someone else's music) then you do leave yourself open to legal action.


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: wtffilm on October 08, 2007, 04:57:32 PM
A bit of an update:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202300917

Kindest regards,

Kevin P.
http://www.wtf-film.com


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: Jim H on October 14, 2007, 05:27:46 PM
Quote
What I find odd is that you can record a song off the radio and keep it without harm. You can record a show off the TV and keep it without harm, I doubt there are many of use who haven't but soon as you share a "digital" file you are in violation of the law

Actually, you're supposed to destroy it after a reasonable time.  Hence why the practice is referred to as "time shifting".  If you keep a movie for a long time, what you're doing is in fact copyright infringement.  As far as I know, no one has ever been sued over it though.


Title: Re: 24 illegal song downloads cost US woman 220,000 dollars
Post by: CheezeFlixz on October 15, 2007, 10:34:09 PM
Quote
What I find odd is that you can record a song off the radio and keep it without harm. You can record a show off the TV and keep it without harm, I doubt there are many of use who haven't but soon as you share a "digital" file you are in violation of the law

Actually, you're supposed to destroy it after a reasonable time.  Hence why the practice is referred to as "time shifting".  If you keep a movie for a long time, what you're doing is in fact copyright infringement.  As far as I know, no one has ever been sued over it though.

One would have to define reasonable and that is subjective.