Welcome to PatsFans.com

Dear peers,

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by TBradyOwnsYou, Nov 6, 2010.

  1. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Please, die in a fire.



    Ok, now that I have your attention:
    The Associated Press: Atty: MN woman can't pay for sharing songs

    I know it's old news, but this lady has had THREE trials with jurys of her PEERS each time thinking that for sharing 24 songs, this mother of 4 deserves to pay 222,000, 1,500,000 or 1,920,000 dollars to the RIAA.

    Seriously? Wow. Maybe "jury of your peers" is an outdated concept, because I can't think of a single "peer" of mine that would bend me over like this!!
    My question is, can anyone here maybe justify making someone pay more than the minimum 750 dollars per song which would equal 18,000 dollars total in this case?
    I don't want to argue how our legal system is broke, or how stealing is wrong, or how this or that. I want to know how you justify anything more than the minimum.
    They probably figure you share 1 song that costs 1 dollar, and share it with an average of 750 people, bam, there is a loss of 750 dollars to the RIAA.
    However, let's say you don't share that file, do you really think those 750 people are going to all of the sudden think "oh no! the one person in the world sharing this one file is not sharing it, I guess I'll pay the 1 dollar for it!"
    Unlikely. And this theory gets exponential when you get up to 150,000 per track!
    I know if the RIAA got a hold of my records from my college days, I'd be paying millions that I don't have. I'm pretty sure I'd end up walking in to RIAA headquarters and re-enacting the end of Terminator 2.
     
  2. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Its an upside down pyramid. One person, say the reviewer for the Washington Post, gets an advanced copy of a new album or a Blue Ray of an unreleased movie and uploads it and the sky is the limit on who gets it. First there's one person distributing it to 10 others, then there's 11 people distributing it to 10 others each and before you know it an album that might have sold 15 million copies sells 1 or 2 million.

    You can't use Itunes' price of $1 per song either. That price is about combating piracy.
     
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,124
    Likes Received:
    478
    Ratings:
    +1,054 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    Case means nothing ... I would just roll over and file bankruptcy ... screw them.
     
  4. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If you can find that the specific individual was the original sharer of an original file that can be found NOWHERE else, ok, I'll buy it, even though I don't buy the fact that a download = guaranteed sale.
    However, we're talking any song in general. Could be a song from the 80's. You can't tell me that Joe Blow in Iowa is the first person in the history of history to release to the world a song from 30 years ago. So now, how is the sharing of this song costing record companies millions of sales?
     
  5. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well they went after her for 24 counts because they were able to turn that into about a million and a half total. But if they could only get a max of 750 per song, they could have easily gone after her for all 1,700 songs she shared, which would come out to a million and a quarter.
    The whole thing is exponential. Her 1,700 songs could easily have been shared a million times.

    I honestly don't know what the right solution is. File sharing is illegal and has caused some serious monetary damages to the recording industry. Nevertheless, I'd be lying if I said I never file shared music in my life.

    I guess the lesson learned is that the smart thing to do if the industry threatens to sue you is accept their first offer of settlement, which in her case was a very reasonable $5,000.
     
  6. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Legally that doesn't matter. If Joe downloads a song from her, that would be considered stealing $1 worth of merchandise. You cannot apply the logic "oh, well if the song wasn't available for a free download, then Joe wouldn't have bothered buying it for $1, so the music industry hasn't actually lost out on anything."
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13

    The copyright laws have been extended way beyond 17 years for the entertainment industry (as opposed to other types of copyright. If material passed into the public domain like other material some of the issue would go away.

    Some artist (the Grateful dead and it's derivatives for example) are fine with their material (live performances) being distributed so long as the specific concerts have not been released commercially. Then there is the issue of material having been purchased multiple times by the consumer and getting a digital copy to replace worn out media (think records or scratched cd's here) which in many cases are no longer available commercially.


    The music business needs to figure out a better business model ultimatly to deal with their ongoing issues
     
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    The fine does seem out of proportion to the crime. Does anyone really think the crime of illegally downloading a fairly small number of songs requires a punishment equivalent to a lifetime's wages? Running a red light puts individuals at risk. That doesn't warrant such of punishment. The penalties given this woman are absolutely perverse and distort, in my opinion, a reasonable notion of right and wrong.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2010
  9. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It's just so ridiculous though. 2 million bucks?! I understand it's illegal, but it just seems extreme. Even 18,000 dollars is a ton for most people to pay, especially for just 24 songs. But it seems like the RIAA isn't content with justice, they want to destory these people's lives.
    But again, this is kind of off track.
    You are the juror, how do you sleep at night thinking this individual should have to pay 7 figures for her crime?
     
  10. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Just for funsies, the 24 tracks the RIAA sued over:
     
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Wolfpack, I think you're oversimplifying things by suggesting that she should own all the liability. The fact is, there's an enormous likelihoood that every song she shared is being shared by many, many other people. This penalty is almost like saying that if someone got into a car accidenrt, they should have to pay the costs for all car accidents. Maybe that's your point?
     
  12. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ah, but here's a key difference. She isn't being fined or punished in a criminal court of law. She is being sued for damages and that is why it will not work to fall back on the Constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment. This is not a criminal matter.
    If you run a red light and get caught by a cop, you will have to pay a fine of about $100 or so. But if you run a red light and hit a car which leaves a 4 year old paralyzed for life, you and your insurance company can expect to get sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that a cruel and unusual punishment? After all, you shouldn't have to pay so much money when all you did was run a red light, right?
     
  13. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No, because if she was responsible for all file sharing, she would owe billions and billions, not just $1.5 million. A better analogy would be to say her negligence created a 5 car pile up, so she is responsible for damages to all 5 cars, not just her own.

    I admitted there is certainly no easy solution to this problem. The lid cannot be placed box on Pandora's Box. But in this particular case, what she should have done was accept the initial deal the music industry made her.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2010
  14. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I suppose in your world its only bad for other people to impose excessive punishments then? I didn't wish that fate on the OJ jury and they failed to avenge two brutal murders.
     
  15. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    While I think I would make an amazing brutal dictator, I would actually not want my peers to literally "die in a fire".
     
  16. Bigdogx

    Bigdogx On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Hell, over half the artist on that list should be just thankful people still listen to their music.:D

    I'm glad i stopped d/l stuff when they started to target sites like the original napster, i knew it would only be a matter of time before they started going after consumers. Didn't think they would take it this far though, like this woman has this money or ever will it's a pathetic joke that does nothing but waste the courts time!
     
  17. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,830
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +100 / 7 / -14

    #37 Jersey

    How dare the women do what she did.:eek: Artists like Lars Ulrich need another mansion and more Lamborghini's.:rolleyes:
     
  18. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    One of the best South Parks!
     
  19. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,576
    Likes Received:
    71
    Ratings:
    +224 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Why are they wasting their time on someone with no money? Why not go after the Chinese who have actually no respect for copyright or IP laws?
     
  20. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Its like a tripple edged sword....

    The Record company RAPES you when you buy music from them. You are probably paying about a 99% markup on a $12 CD or itunes purchase. HOWEVER. A record label loses money on approx 90% of the bands they sign. Most labels break even or semi-profit on only a handful of acts. Its really a mis-mis-mis-HIT-mis-mis Biz.

    Bands tend to get screwed by labels in initial contracts, artists rights, merch, and recoupable advances etc. Most labels have the power and infrastructure to make or break bands.

    Fans tend to pay WAY too much for copies of music to a label that doesnt pay the band/artist until the 3rd or 4th album, because the label is hedging its bets on a wide spectrum of artists.


    Solution: make music free to own and download (we all do it and/or have done it). but MOST IMPORTANTLY: if you want to support a band/act. Go see them in concert! The band makes a majority of the tour and merch money on the road. Thats the best way to show your support.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2010

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>