Oh my god :O (in Off-topic)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

yeah go FIAA, but the only reason why they asked for such a huge fine is to scare of other potential downloaders.

Hello ToR

I had this debate with people yesterday. Essentially the law has completely lost track of reality. I reckon that between my household we have over 2000 downloaded movies, and over 100,000 songs. And I would put the number at about 100-1000 times that for people at my university.

I don't know a single person that doesn't download music or shows, or documents "illegally". The fact of the matter is that the student population doesn't consider it to be against the law and therefore it makes it more than a little silly to prosecute people for it. I say give music away for free, and boost concert prices. Thats how they make money anyways.

Whether or not the law makes sense in a particular instance is irrelevant.

It be the law and as such all that break it are subject to punishment.

If you do not like a law, then elect those politicians that will change it.

Songs, movies, books are intellectual property. Just like your TV, radio, or furniture. How would you feel if those were stolen?

This lady may have gotten to hard a fine, however what about all those college kids that download 1000s of song like you Fatility? A harsh message has to be sent. Remember this lady had a chance to settle with the music companies and declined. And fought two times, with the 2nd time being a worse fine than the first. Sry but no pity for her. She had a chance and blew it.

This is stealing pure and simple. Does not matter if you think it is right, it is the law and as such, if you get caught and prosecuted, you deserve it.

Fatality:

"I don't know a single person that doesn't download music or shows, or documents "illegally"."

I don't. My good friends also do not. It is stealing, and being a Christian, I don't. Simple as that.

I don't download things illegally, though not for Christian reasons. *smile* Religion doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morals, at least not in my case.

What I HAVE done is download things I can't otherwise get (contrived scarcity REALLY pisses me off), then buy them when they are available. In other words, "piracy", as it would be called, puts MORE money in the content-provider's pockets than they would have had if I couldn't download stuff at all.

If your collection consists entirely of unpaid-for material. How can you feel proud of your media collection? More to the point, how can you expect the artists who generate the content to make more? Note: I don't believe the overall hype about piracy putting one content-providers or artists out of business. But I do think it is shameful to just take what you want simply because you can.

I was going to make a post on this yesterday, but got busy =P

2 Million is such a joke. For crimes that are so wide spread, it's ridiculous to have such huge penalties. The only reason the laws haven't changed is because politics is slow. She's still settling with the companies for sure. She doesn't have 2 million dollars to spend on them, nor did she harm them that much.

The way I see it the music industry is going to undergo a drastic shift towards more ad support, not total, but more so. As it's easily copyable, there's no way to realistically maintain the current standards indefinitely. The best example of this already happening is this television ad for driving safety that said, visit our website to download the song played in the ad for free.

The other good example of overcoming copyright violation through ad support is South Park. Many websites offered to stream the show for free online. After some thought to counter the copyright violators, South Park put all of their content online. Obviously this cut into their profits, but it was far easier and more effective than trying to get the content taken down.

Like the newspaper industry, music will have to follow suit. Information goods aren't protectable anymore even by laws. And technology grows far faster than Laws. Who hasn't thought record companies have been overpaid for the longest time anyway?

She made the choice to share songs illegally, she took the risk of getting caught and fined. She was caught, therefore punishment follows.

I actually though most folks who give away content for free end up seeing INCREASES to their bottom line, depending on niche, of course.

Here's how I see it, at least in America -- folks have disposable income, and are certainly not going to start saving more (saving? The HORROR!) So the money is going to go somewhere. Even someone who downloaded every South Park off the stream, at lower quality, will still be happy to get the real DVDs at Christmas and watch them in high quality. The same money exchanges hands, and the free content increases the audience. More eyeballs FAR outweighs piracy in many, many scenarios.

the debate is not that she did something illegal and was caught, but the severity of the fine she gotten. Its well out of proportion.

Is it?

It is well within the parameters of the law.

Sometimes it has to be something that will deter those in the future from doing the same actions.

I know this has certain raised a few eyebrows by those who have been downloading 1000s of files. Perhaps giving them pause to continue on their illegal behavior.

Is 2M a lot, yep?

Is it too much, don't know. She took her chances by fighting this in court when she should have settled. In fact, I really believe it were her lawyers who used her as a prop to try their unique strategy of defense.

And they all got caught.

Sometimes you have to send a statement, which this jury certainly did.

You could be right. They are definitely better off this way than if only the illegal sites were streaming them for free. They could have been better off if the illegal sites weren't available, but probably not.

I'm taking a course in Marketing currently, and I'm realizing how valuable notice is. Companies can spend up to 100 dollars just to obtain one consumer for a cell phone plan.

"It is well within the parameters of the law."

I hate that argument. Laws don't exist until someone writes them down. This is why the majority of people would be against the legalization of marijuana because they've been raised and taught as such that this is the law. The law is not some magic holy grail. This law is clearly outdated and written way back when piracy WAS something else.

I've got over 500g of music alone. Don't even know how many movies :O. I'm such a bad person, such an evil doer!!!

I actually wish we lived in a world were the artists made money off their content, but truth be told, it's a pipe dream. You think downloading music hurts the artist? NO. It hurts the industry, but in reality if anything it HELPS the artist.

The guitar player from 'The Kovenant' wrote an article regarding downloading music and the 'industry' (record companies) and it offered a lot of insight as to how things really work.

Why do you think Metallica is the band it is today? It's really funny that Lars went on an anti-downloading rant, considering Metallica gave all their original cassettes away to friends/family/coworkers/magazines etc as much as possible. They handed them out like candy at concerts to get their name out there. This was before mass media was available online for free, and is essentially the same thing considering in some cases Metallica even paid money to ship cassettes to friends in other states. Then lars goes ape on Napster, and then Metallica headlines at 'Download Festival"... Excuse me?

Buying cds from Hastings, or other media outlets doesn't support the band AT ALL, because they don't see a single penny of that sale, the only way to support the artist is to buy it directly from them via their own website, or via concert. Period. When you buy from hot-topic/hastings whatever, the people that split that money are the record company and the media outlet themselves.

So please stop claiming that downloading and sharing music hurts the bands themselves because a LOT of bands offer their music for free, and WANT you to share it.

-J

LoL!

There's a reason the vast majority of people DL stuff for free. We're (generalising here) sick of the stupid mark up on prices. ﾣ20+ for a CD that costs a pitance to make?

That's why they do it.

If media was sold at a resonable price now, I assure you the vast majority of poeople would purchase it legally. It's grown so large an act, it's pressure to change the system.

Akin to an industrial strike if you want.

As for that ruling, it's a sure case of a rule that's out of touch with the really real world, and needs to be addressed.

If you really want to get economical about it, it's your fault for the high prices.

Not me. ;)

I've not bought a CD/Cassett since I was a kid.

Lol, nice. Yeah I don't buy much music either. I've got a few CDs, but usually the radio does it for me. I'm easily pleased.

Jiraiya, The way I look at those give-aways:

most (not all) of those bands / performers allow you to get a taste of their music in the hopes that they will become more popular / known and make money from selling music later on.

But indeed, they make a lot of music through concerts and gigs also. But even that money is split somehow as well.

While a lot of people disagree with the law, it is the law.

Whether or not it is antiquated, it still applies.

And everyone who downloads full well knows the law. It is not like this is not been in the spotlight numerous times and is something so ambiguous people have no idea it exists.

Again, if you do not like the law, that does NOT give you a reason to break it.

Yes, the record companies charge far too much for their CDs.

Yes, movies cost far too much to buy new.

Yes, marijuana should be legal. It should not be a Schedule I drug but a Schedule II as it does have known medical usefulness.

However, just because you think the law is antiquated does not give you a reason to break it.

Get it changed.

But if you break it, do not cry to mommy that it was unfair. It be what it be. And there is no disputing that.

EXACTLY!

There is 0 marginal cost to sell a person a digital copy of a song you produced so why should a person pay even a dollar for it. I care for the musicians but i don't care for providing music companies with profits. Besides. companies brought this upon themselves. I remember when CD's were $25 for a 12 song CD. You think a person is going to buy that? HILARIOUSLY NO!!

This is the inherent problem with the way it works. WHy should I pay a dollar a song just to have the privelege to have a song come through the speakers. It is music made for mass consumption. If I was an artist I would be honoured to have my music downloaded 1 million times for free. There is FAR greater concert revenue there than if 1000 people purchased music.

Radiohead gave away there last album online is another example

Or use the Judicial system and appeal. There's more than one way of doing things.

If bands all tried to produce full albums, more people would buy them.
Nowadays, a lot of CDs have one, two excellent tracks (The singles) and then it's all filler. Paying up to 20 bucks for that is stupid. Especially when the biggest cut of that 20 bucks does not go into artists' pockets.

Single songs for sale are one way to go about it. But even then, they come in funky formats that are not always easy to use and sometimes have DRM. Worse, .99 cents is seen by many people as too much to pay for a song, when they can get them for free.

Song peddling is done for, as it can never be regulated online without abusive laws. Survival of musicians will depend on live performances in the future, which I don't mind.

I always look at it like this Ranger... If going 5 miles over the speedlimit was punishable by a 500$ fine does that make it fair. Heck no because almost everybody goes over the speed limit at some time. I always wonder why laws aren't changed. In Canada for example speed signs clearly read 100 MAXIMUM. And yet you read that with 50 other people going 110 past a police officer trapping who does absolutely nothing.

You broke the law...right there and yet you will not be prosecuted. Why? a large aspect is that if police actually enforced that law public opinion would crash down on politicians. Police and politicians realize that the law as it is written is not reflective of the driving habits of many people. So why don't they change it?!

I always thought, what if you're an immigrant and take it seriously and travel 90 km/hr while everybody else is going 120. WEll you are a MAJOR driving risk doing that and yet you are the one who isn't breaking the law.

another example along the same line is the US debate on guns. I watched an exec from the NRA quote the constitution when asked why citizens need assault rifles.

You can't use a written law no matter how sacred as a reason of why something should be a law.

The constitution was written during a time where citezens were called upon to protect themselves and their homes for their country. The right to bear arms should not include the right to own a 0.50 sniper rifles, machine guns, or automatic weapons. The weapons serve no purpose to society except to excite peoples egos and as a major risk to everyday people.

I don't care how sacred people believe the constitution is. It should be changed when it is so obvious that times have changed.

Fatility,

Is a 500 fine for 5 MPH over the limit fair? No. But if you break that law and get caught, you can expect to pay that amount.

If you do not like it, elect politicians who will change that law.

Just because everyone breaks it does not make it right. If there is a riot and people start to loot, does that make it right for you to do so? No.

but riots rarely happen ranger.

going 5 mph over the limit past an officer occurs how many times a day. 100,000? a million?

that tells me that people believe that they can drive 5MPH faster than the laws suggest while still being safe. As such the law should be changed. A perfect example is when you get charged for going 25 km over while everybody going 115 didn't get pulled over. I would suggest that should be reminiscent of a 10 km over fine NOT a 25 over fine.

There are current mechanisms to get laws and the constitution changed.

We should use those methods rather than blindly disregard those laws we particularly do not like.

An extreme example but what if someone decided that the law against murder was out of date? When does it end?

We are a nation of laws, rules set in place to protect people and society. We have to respect them and not disregard those that we do not like.

So Fatility,

You think it is right to break those rules/laws that you do not like?

What if everyone did the same?

I reiterate Ranger; that is exactly why we have a Judicial process and an appeal system.

At least in some states, there are rules saying speed limits have to be reasonable etcetera to prevent local government from lowering the speed limit to collect more tickets. I'd like to think we are beyond Hammurabi's Code.

ranger...I completely agree with you. Disregarding the law just because you feel like it is not what I support at all. I think the problem is that in the case of music nobody knows how to correctly implement it. I have no doubt that in ten years downloading will be completely different than it currently is. But until then the government can't just ignore the fact that millions of people operate in complete disregard for the law as it is written. Laws should represent the beliefs of society so long as those beliefs don't undermine society.

GL, comparing a labor strike as a protest to stealing as a protest? Come on. Those two things are nothing alike. Should we all go steal petrol because we think the gas companies are making a killing (which they are)? How well do you think that would go over?

And I am well aware of how screwed up the music industry is. I was reading those types of analyses way back when Courtney Love wrote her "...and nobody gets paid..." diatribe. I don't disagree with it, either.

But I think saying "piracy only hurts the industry" is patently untrue. If you look through every track you have pirated, are you sure each and every one is only from a "fat cat" label? I keep seeing these massive numbers, like 100,000 tracks -- there is no way every one of those downloads is "only hurting the industry". My legitimate, 60 GB collection (about 10,000 tracks) is definitely a mix, so unless you are being far more careful than the attitudes here are letting on, there is know way 100,000 tracks aren't having at least some effect on the actual artists.

Do I think artists deserve a free lunch? As in, writing one song and living off the royalties forever? No. Do I agree with Disney as they lobby to extend copyright laws, essentially keeping Mickey Mouse their property forever? Absolutely not. But plenty of artists and content-generators work every day for their paycheck, just like I do, and they should get paid.

I'd be nice, but no pirate hunt is going to stop piracy. It's something that has to be worked around, and there are ways. Fame is very valuable. Someone who has a song illegally downloaded 1 million times, can make that money back doing live shows, commercials, etcetera.

For or against piracy, it's where we'll end up.

Many people do support only artists they perceive as struggling as well.

Unsurprisingly, it's also more difficult to pirate songs from obscure artists; thus, even people proud of their pirating will resort to buying the music.

Ranger, I will have to firmly disagree with you about laws/breaking them. This country was BUILT on people doing what they felt is right regardless of the 'law'. I will live my life the way I see fit regardless of legality. Does that mean legality isn't taken into consideration? No, but when it comes to laws that are bogus... *snore*... Some laws are in place for safety of others such as speed limits. Some laws are in place to protect the interest of a select few, ie major corporations. I don't understand your point of argument truly, you think socialism is bad, and Obama is bad for his energy tax among other things, yet you think that because something was passed by a room of old people who you likely will never meet, you need to live your life by that? Please. Technically the 14th amendment was never legally passed, and you can become a single body individual based on the state you were born. You can "pull out" of the federal government's legal authority completely.

http://www.notmygovernment.us

If you honestly think that just because something is law you should blindly follow it is than I honestly pity you. In my state it's illegal to have sex in any other way than missionary. Sorry, that's not something I'm going to blindly follow and neither is downloading/media sharing.

Though I will say if you are willing to break the law in ANY situation, you damn well better be willing to accept the consequences.

I completely understand this woman's case from both points of view, but 1.94 million... Give me a break, they are trying to make an example out of her and that's pretty messed up. I would openly laugh in the face of any judicial 'authority' who agrees with that. Even the judge this time around moved for a retrial.

Jir,

So you obey whatever laws you feel you want to?

Imagine if everyone did just that.

That is what everyone does Ranger...

I speed.
I download music without paying copyright holders.

You feel like following more laws, so you do.

Sorry for the double post but,

No one reasonable doesn't murder people just because it's the law.

Cube,

Then do not complain when you get arrested and fined/jailed.

As this lady who got fined from ILLEGALLY downloading.

Obey whatever laws you feel like. Just be ready to suffer any consequences.

The law is not absolute.

No one is complaining here. We are saying that 1.9 million is a ridiculous number, which it is.

In reality she will not end up paying that much. I can guarantee you that.

Ranger > "Songs, movies, books are intellectual property. Just like your TV, radio, or furniture. How would you feel if those were stolen?"

I believe there is a difference in kind here in one case I can steal it but you still have it, in the other only one of us can ever have the item. Say I download 3D studio max for example, to mess around with it a bit, I was never going to buy it so no one has lost potential revenue, I'm not going to make any money out of using it so I'm happy with doing that.

"No one is complaining here. We are saying that 1.9 million is a ridiculous number, which it is."

It'd only be ridiculous if it wasn't within the limits of the law, which it is. She could have settled for much less, probably just a few thousand dollars.

I disagree. the law is slow to catch up and it is unfair that this lady be fined (regardless of the amount) for something that will likely change in 10 years on the backs of obvious public opinion.

Laws are entirely defined by what the majority of people say that they should be. With the exception when people support something that would undermine the structure of society. Bestiality comes to mind. Regardless of whether the majority of people support it (which they obviously don't) buti if they did it should not be passed into law because it would undermine the fabric of society.

While I don't believe the government should approve of all downloading which would put no value in the patent/copyright system, teh current music system is so obviously flawed that it is only a matter of time before the laws change. And honestly if it didn't take so long for lawmakers to agree on things it would probably already be changed because I would say a majority of people would support downloading.

"It'd only be ridiculous if it wasn't within the limits of the law, which it is. She could have settled for much less, probably just a few thousand dollars."

You're all too law centered. The law is just words written on a piece of paper. In this case, probably 70 years ago. It has no power on it's own. The only power comes from majority support. As Jir said, it's illegal in his state not to have sex in the missionary position. Does anyone listen to that or enforce it? Of course not. It's a useless set of words then.

Many people agree that the number ridiculous, therefore it is.

Sute, if we *all* stole petrol, soicety would change. And probably overnight.

The vast majority of people are DLing stuff, I'll wager, not becuase it's free, but because they're sick to the back teeth of paying.

People over here (who are being hit far worse than you lucky guys!) have started resorting to syphoning others, stealing farm desiel and converting thier cars to run on vegitable oil.

But there are degree to breaking the law most are comfortable with.

The whole anti piracy adverts we have before films don't work, as people don't rationisle stealing a move to stealing a TV or Car. It's a faceless, and to most people's eyes, harmless crime.

That makes it much easier to commit.

"Whether or not it is antiquated, it still applies."

Cool.

It's ok and right for me to go to Warrick castle and Kill a Welshman with a Longbow on a Sunday then.

It's the law, it still applies...

Also, I probably don't have to tell you that all over the internet there are examples from laws that are completely ridiculous.

Underage drinking is another good example. Why should 3 years make such a huge difference in punishment? Why should we make it more dangerous for kids? Shouldn't they be able to call 911 without being worried about being arrested? Plenty of college presidents agree with this as well. Alcohol safety teach would be far more effective, but what does the law say? No alcohol at all.

Of all people Ranger, conservative, supporting the free market keeping the government out of our business, I'd thought you'd be on the other side.

This seems apt as it was fathers day yesterday, a piece of wisdom from my father:

"The only positive thing about the law against underage drinking is that it promotes a healthy disrespect for the law."

The big problem with underage drinking is the driving that goes with it.

And most University Presidents are AGAINST underage drinking. I have no idea where you are getting your facts from.

Yes, I am conservative. And I obey the LAWS of the land and do not pick and choose which I will obey and disobey. But being liberal or conservative should not matter in which laws you obey.

Not to say there are plenty of laws which are downright stupid and asinine. But they are the laws and if needed, I do my best to inform my congressperson about how stupid they are, and see if they are willing to do something about it. And base my vote in the next election on their response and actions.

I cannot be more flabbergasted by those who actually think that choosing which laws to obey is the right thing.

I guess if you think a law is bad, and break it, that is a great defense to use in court just before they send you to jail.

so if the majority decides a law is bad, then we don't have to follow it? so if the majority of america feels murdering is not a crime, then we all can go trigger-happy with no consequence? I sure hope not.

If everybody followed the law on downloading it would never be changed. Downloading has gained popularity due to overwhelming number of people already using it. It wouldn't appear in the news if some small bunch of nerds who developed a method to transfer files kept it secret out of fear for the law.

As more and more people 'break' the law it will come closer and closer to being changed in legislation. If people obeyed the law and numbers of downloads went down it is less likely to ever be changed.

The big problem with underage drinking is the driving...

Every other country has 18 or less as the drinking age. If it happens anyway, it's far safer to have young people able to seek help. It would also take the thrill out of it, so people would drink more reasonably. Any foreigners care to contribute?

And most University Presidents are AGAINST underage drinking...

I never said most

Yes, I am conservative...

Traditional conservatives do not want the government to interfere with all aspects of their lives.

Not to say there are plenty of laws which are downright stupid...

Good for you. I'm serious. Most people don't have the time, initiative, or patience.

I cannot be more flabbergasted...

I have accepted that the government is never going to get it right, and it would take too long to fix all the laws perfectly. Not only that but it would be unnecessary, that's what the judicial system is for. However, to each his own.

I guess if you think a law is bad, and break it...

If you have good reasons, you aren't going to jail either because they won't prosecute you or won't try to catch you unless it's convenient for them. Many police in the middle of nowhere go after speeders for the funding.

I mentioned earlier that YES that is the case EXCEPT when enacting a law would undermine society. I used bestiality as an example. Regardless of the support for something like that it does not make it morally right or something that should appear as legal. Murder, bestiality and the like would undermine society and as such regardless of public opinion should not be changed.

The same thing goes for downloading. The only reason it is still illegal is a combination of lazy lawmaking and the consequences if it were made legal. There has to be a compromise that doesn't destory the validity of copyright, patent, and trademark law. Music is a rare example of such widespread support against the current laws and SHOULD be changed to demonstrate that widespread belief. I think the government ignoring the problem until they determine their ultimate solution is the problem.

Everybody knows the aformentioned lawsuit is bogus. If it actually goes through and if I lived in the states I would be furious. The government should step in and acknowledge that the current copyright music system is flawed and should take steps to rectify it. Ignoring the problem and allowing a lawsuit like that to continue is a massive failure of government.

Rawr: so if the majority decides a law is bad...

If that makes the majority happy, but it doesn't, and it won't for the foreseeable future. When/if we run out of resources, yes maybe it will happen. But this isn't something I'm arguing, it's a principle. If the majority of people don't like they laws, they won't follow them most likely.

So instead of using the legal methods of getting a law changed, we should break it and hope it gets changed eventually?

I would hate to be living in a world like that.

What laws should be break today because we just do not like them?

Sometimes the reasons behind the laws are flawed, others the reasons are just beyond our comprehension.

Either way, they are the laws and need to be obeyed.

Of course, in countries where democracy is not practiced, things are different. But last I checked, we are in a democracy.

I would hate to be living in a world like that.

As corny as this sounds, wake up, you are..

But last I checked, we are in a democracy.

Majority rules is democracy. Or do I not understand what a democracy is?

Yes, this is a democracy.

However, please show me that a majority wants downloading to be legal?

We have a lot of people doing it, but is it a majority of the people of the US? I doubt 150 million people are participating in this illegal activity.

But, if you only want to obey the laws that suit you, fine. If you get arrested, please do not then cry if you get thrown in jail or heavily fined. No pity here.

No real reason to continue, we both have stated our points very well. I will continue to obey the laws of the land. You can choose to do what you want.

And while I think some laws are completely stupid, I will still obey them.

I think the majority would feel overcharged for music. I also feel that the majority would think that 1.9 million is disproportionate.

I never said it should be legal. I said the industry will have to evolve, that has to come from the producers/artists.

Blindly? Likebeing able to kill a Welshman with a longbow, under certain curcumstances?

GL,
I have no idea what your typing about.

Perhaps if you give a bit more information on what your stating, I could respond with an articulate post.

Repost of GL's previous post

"Whether or not it is antiquated, it still applies."

Cool.

It's ok and right for me to go to Warrick castle and Kill a Welshman with a Longbow on a Sunday then.

Old Law of the Land, still in action.

It might not be Warrick Castle though, but the grounds of one of them.

Is it right? Of course not.

Is it legal if you choose to do it? Perhaps, I am not an expert on English law and how it applies in this circumstance.

Should it be changed? See above.

But if it is the law, why have I not read about someone doing just that? That law says you do not have to kill someone, but I assume in certain situations you can. Again, I do not state to be an expert on British law.

Not all laws are right, or even righteous. Or even up to the current times. However, they are laws and to disobey them because you do not like them is incorrect.

This lady got exactly what she deserved. She had a chance to settle, full well knowing exactly the penalty she could face. The 2 million figure was not outside the boundaries set by the law.

However, she and her legal team tried to game the system and lost. And now she is crying foul? No pity here.

But, if she won, we would have a new legal precedent and perhaps a change in the law.

But this ruling shows how the justice system is going to be for the next few years. Downloading and distributing is illegal. Plain and simple. No grey area. Do it and you are subject to heavy fines. Proceed at your own risk.

Though note, that she was tried for downloading and distributing. Not just for downloading for personal use.

GL, you state:

"The vast majority of people are DLing stuff, I'll wager, not becuase it's free, but because they're sick to the back teeth of paying. "

I am going to call massive BULLROAR on that one. In fact, it pinpoints the problem, precisely.

I don't talk to a whole lot of young people these days, but those I have, and those who are doing it, have not even stopped to ask why they are doing it. How do I know they aren't doing it because they have been tired of paying? Because they HAVE NO MONEY in the first place, just like I had no money in college. I bought maybe 6-8 albums a month (used), unless I found a great deal on used CDs down at the used CD shop. Actually, 8 CDs a month would have already required a good deal, unless my class and work load allowed me to put in 20+ hours a week at food service the month before.

Let's do some math on just a moderate 10,000 song library. What is a fair price for a song when you are allowed to pick and choose? 99 cents? 75? Let's say 50. Fifty cents a song. For ten thousand songs, that comes to five thousand dollars. For a college student. Now, I know that same student would simply have less music if they had to pay for every track. But that's my point. Even at a "reasonable" cost (unless you think any amount above zero is unreasonable), a student would not be able to have soooo many songs.

Doing it to make a statement or out of frustration, my hind end. That rationale doesn't hold up against even the slightest analysis. And as I already mentioned, it is actually worse than that, because a lot of these younger people have never even asked themselves the ethical question about it -- that is how far things have gone. The biggest shame in that is if folks WERE asking the business-ethics question, they would be more informed and would be standing up for fair use, time shifting, space shifting, media shifting, etc...things I HEARTILY believe in and pay good money every month (www.eff.org) to support. THAT'S the way to "Stick it to the man"...get the laws to support common sense (but still respect the industry).

Imagine how far $5,000 could go to help that cause! *smile*

However, they are laws and to disobey them because you do not like them is incorrect.
I'll fail a test of some sort? To be honest this ideology scares the hell out of me.

This lady got exactly what she deserved.
Questionable

Downloading and distributing is illegal. Plain and simple. No grey area. Do it and you are subject to heavy fines. Proceed at your own risk.
Completely true

heres the problem with that Sut.

I am a recent grad of university and I speak for myself when I say this. I don't pay for music because I don't feel that I get anything in return. Buying a record or a CD you have the pleasure to put it on your wall or own the actual physical music. I don't honestly believe I should have to pay money to have the privelege to have my own computer pump out a bunch of lyrics and beats that make up music. I don't own anything and don't claim to. It is simply for entertainment and has no value. It costs no money to produce, no money to download. I will not pay for downloaded music because the guy selling it is only paying the cost associated with being allowed to sell it. There are no material costs.

Sute, I don't think Claire and I have 10,000 songs between us! ;)

Students are usually a different case, the 'scrounger' stereotype is common. Students have little money, and do what they can to get by with the most amount of fun and beer. ;)

But, it's not just students that DL. I'll wager the vast majority of large scale downloaders are professionals (And IT ones at that! :P), with enough of an income to spend on luxuries. I don't doubt they have *more* becuase it's free, than they usually would, or rather should have.

;)

Quick web search as i'm only going on memory here turned up;

Strange but True British Laws
******************************
Britain has no written constitution, but rather, laws that have evolved from common custom and tradition. Well, perhaps the government should rethink that approach, given that the following laws are still legal statutes in the UK :

A bed may not be hung out of a window
All Englishmen over 14 are meant to carry out two hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy
It is illegal for a lady to eat chocolates on a public conveyance
Throughout the whole of England, it is illegal to eat mince pies on December 25
Tourists take note: It is illegal to leave baggage unattended
Picking up abandoned baggage is an act of terrorism
It is illegal for a member of Parliament to enter the House of Commons wearing a full suit of armour
In York, upon sight of a Scotsman with the city walls after dark, it is still legal to shoot him with a bow and arrow
In Chester, you can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight
In Hereford, you can shoot a Welsh person all day in the Cathedral Close, but only on Sunday with a longbow
In Scotland, you may not fish on Sundays; and it is illegal to be drunk in possession of a cow.

"All Englishmen over 14 are meant to carry out two hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy"

This one I know of, and it is still Law. Just no one does it. The whole country should be arrested. ;)

So, Fatil, you don't pay for ANY virtual content? Video games, software, operating systems, movies? I suppose if you could steal computing power, like simply running a terminal off a supercomputer, you'd do that too? After all, it's just 1s and 0s. Why pay for that (especially since half of it is zeroes! *smile*)

And what about the next step -- things that are material but much cheaper to actually make than their price: pharmaceuticals for example. You think 40 pills really cost 450 bucks to make? Yes, some drugs do cost a lot, just to synthesize and deliver in usable form. But a lot of drugs, including more mature ones, are about as cheap to make as stamping out a CD. I suppose those drugs should be free, too?

Who exactly is going to pay for any of the infrastructure supporting these things under your philosophy? Do you propose selling advertisements on pills?

I also J walk.

I should also add Sute, I think that exactly because it's so comonplace an activity, it has become culturally acceptable (well to everyone bar the record labels).

And kids are growing up with it, the new media, the ease and accessability of it. And sure, they haven't known any other way, but that's becuase it is so prolific.

I want to add, I don't DL stuff, as much as I'm tempted by companies that produce over priced, under costed materials.

If Claire and I want something, we buy it. If we can't afford it, we go without.

That's just us though. ;)

And GL, most all of the professionals you refer to that have money (that I know) do pay. They are savvy, and find the best deals, and get angry when they can't use their content as they want, but they pay (you know iTunes is making MILLIONS, right?). These folks are at the next level, realizing what is important is getting to fairly USE what you have honestly purchased. Not to steal it in the first place as some sort of bogus, rationalized rebellion.

That's the level I would like to see for everyone.

Ranger, have you ever seen Crimson Tide? if yes, which side were you rooting for?

Fatality is expressing a preference that many share, but has been overlooked by the industry. Some people aren't willing to pay for the information. This is why it would make sense for the industry to switch focus.

Yes, illegal, wrong whatever. Calling it that won't get them more compensation. This crusade is silly.

They only know how to milk a Cow; they need to learn to milk everything else.

Most of the IT professionals I know have set up Severs just to DL stuff of the net. ;)

Movies, books, music.

While they use thier own private PCs to play games and work on.

I really think society needs to change. The new media we have is changing the rules we live by, and we're not keeping up with it. This is just a symptom.

Oh and just about every IT professional I know uses OEM r licenced versions of MS software they've not pruchased themselves. ;)

After what you just wrote, GL, I am not as concerned about you and Claire as I am poor little Emma. :\ I guess she'll grow up to be a thieving little urchin, and that's just fine with you? Are you even trying to establish a thought process there, or is it all so "culturally acceptable" that you don't think you need to bother? Just give her uTorrent for her birthday and turn her loose?

There are real issues to be resolved in all of this, and the blase attitude of just "downloading because I can" is more harmful on the ignorance front than it is the actual "stealing". Am I the only one who can see that? Protesting the music industry via downloading is an epic fail when it comes to getting to the crux of the problem.

Outstanding question Henk.

Very interesting one indeed.

However, there were plenty of extenuating circumstances.

I would have waited for the 2nd message to come through. The decision of Captain Ramsey was ambiguous at best given the 2nd message was in transit when they were attacked by the Akula-class sub.

This is a different scenario as the ramifications of the decision is not just downloading music but nuclear war.

GL, I use MSDN-based OSes myself, but that is paid for in the sense that, as a developer, I am enriching Windows and selling more software for them in the long run. MS has always been on board with that. When my MSDN subscription expires, I will either renew it or buy OSes ad hoc. You appear to have a very interesting circle of friends, and in a way, I feel sorry for you.

Cube, they need to make money from everything else -- how? So you agree with taxes on CD-ROMs and such? Or believe that there is areally a lot more revenue to be generated from advertising? The advertising gravy train can only carry things so far. I am genuinely interested to hear what other business models you would put forth for virtual content of call kinds... Should we just switch everything to a tip jar (I say that in all seriousness, it can work for some things). Let's talk ideas!

And why is it that the simplest idea is being relegated to impossibility and invisibility -- education. EDUCATE. As far as I can tell, no one cares about actually figuring out what is going on. They read a few articles about how sucky the MPAA and RIAA are (and yes, they are SUCKY) and then stop. Just go ahead and start downloading. That's the solution? That's a healthy, societal reaction?

"After what you just wrote, GL, I am not as concerned about you and Claire as I am poor little Emma. :\ I guess she'll grow up to be a thieving little urchin, and that's just fine with you? Are you even trying to establish a thought process there, or is it all so "culturally acceptable" that you don't think you need to bother? Just give her uTorrent for her birthday and turn her loose?"

LoL! Only if she'll get enough guv'ner! ;)

Seriously though, I don't use Torrents and I don't kill Welsh/Scotts men. I hope to bring Emma up with a solid understanding of Right and Wrong, which transcends current legal systems and even social 'norms'.

I expect all her friends to be downloaidng everything though. Just like my mates always had 'pirated' videos we wached when I was a kid.

But, I'm still strongly of the opinion society needs to change to fully encompass digital media, and everything that brings with it.

Blu-Ray's had its day, before it even got off the ground. Streaming Media and moar wireless technology's where it's at. ;)

Claire and I have a lot of 'Burned' movies. We recorded them from Sky/Virgin onto thier own HDD recorders, and then copied them to our DVD-RW (with it's own HDD).

We don't own the movies we have, let's say backed up, and we've not DLed them illegally.

Yet, there are now claims being made that Video Recorders shouldn't be allowed to record TV programms, for the same reason DL the same movies off the internet is wrong.

Yet, I'll go out on a limb and say just about everyone in Englad (at least) who has owned a Video/Betamax recorder since they were first released, has recorded something they didn't 'own' on it.

To now make recording off of the TV illegal (as some actually want), would be such a massive culteral change, it will never happen.

It's the same as not being able to lend your mate the new book you've bought and rad. That's actually a brech of copywrite, and as illegal as DLing said book itself.

Who here has never loaned a book to a friend/family member?

I could prolly (if my attention span allowed it) type out a 3 page reply to this regarding my own ranting and raving but I'll try to sum it and make it short and sweet.
OF COURSE they're trying to make an example of her. Anyone want to take a guess at how much money would be spent on prosecuting people who wanted to fight this type of BLATANT disregard of the law if she got off with a slap on the wrist? Do you really think they'll recoup all that money, as if the people found guilty will really end up paying all the costs to the court and the fines to the "companies"? And don't think for a second that it's impossible that she's ever only downloaded TWENTY FOUR songs (or whatever). The court could just be brining only what they have the hardcore evidence of. And the way it reads, they're only going with songs she had put to share herself, NOT the total of songs she could possibly have downloaded from others.
Is it a bit like jay walking? Sure, she's not hurting anyone right? Don't think laws exist for a reason? If you get hit by a car while running across the street in the middle do you think you'll be able to sue the pants off the driver versus a situation where you get hit while in the lines of a clearly marked pedestrian crossing while you have the walk signal. Ah, maybe, but you better believe the factors start to change and drastically.
Too many people are fond of quoting the laws that they like that will protect them while at the same time disregarding the ones they don't like. Sorry, you don't get to choose. Like someone said, something you don't like? Lobby to get it changed. That doesn't work for you, move the heck out of where ever the offending laws are. But don't pick and choose and then come crying when it bytes you in the butt.

More!

Claire's added that "people these days want something for nothing". And it's such a culteral change to when I was a kid.

I'll take School Meals as an example.

Back when I was at school, you never had school dinners. You either went out with your pocket money, or went home. The only kids eating in the school canteen were those too poor to have pocket money, and had to have 'free' school meals. There was a cultural stigma attached.

Now (and I work in a secondary school), all the kids want their free food! They go so far as to try to scam/steal ticket, and some even break back into school after 'bunking' lessons, just to get thier free food.

It's a take, take, take, culture now. Gimme what I can get for nothing, I'm entiteled to it!

"It's the same as not being able to lend your mate the new book you've bought and rad. That's actually a brech of copywrite, and as illegal as DLing said book itself."

Actually it's similar but not the same. You can drive down the street in your car with your friend and share some CD with him that you just bought (or heck, let him take it home and listen to it) but he doesn't own it. You'll want it back so you can REPEATEDLY listen to it. So when he gives it back, he either doesn't get to hear it again or he goes out AND BUYS HIS OWN.
With the book it's the same. He can read your book and return it, true. But if it's something he'll want to re read over and over he buys his own. Or he takes it and makes a photocopy of the entire thing with is indeed a BREECH OF COPYRIGHT.
Thats where language of the laws come into play.

Sut you asked a valid question...if the company no longer makes money off of CD's then how do they make money. Well I ask you this. What have they done as a service that requires these millions of dollars of revenues. With digital music there is no need to have packaging costs or any material costs. It is entirely the cost to record the disc an honestly how much is that compared to the money they will make off of it.

I see music being a free resource for everything except commercial use (advertsing, movies etc.) in the future. It is too hard to control and costs have come too far down. The recording industry will leave the normal revenue from sales model and become a focused service provider to artists whereby the artists will pay for the recording and thats it or if they have no money they will levee future concert revenues to pay for recording.

Heres an example. Wikipedia took knowledge originally compiled in the world book, a large directory of knowledgeable books costing hundreds of dollars, and posted it online for free. That killed the worldbook model overnight. If artists realize that they no longer need the services of a recording company for anything more than recording then what do they care if the songs get out there for free. It's no better for them and they get much greater airtime and will likely receive larger concert appeal (where they make their actual money).





Personally I think that enforcing the current laws against copyrighting digital material are unlikely to succeed. It is too easy to copy, and too many people don't see the value in paying $700 for something that doesn't exist materially such as windows when it is so easy to do it for free.

"Actually it's similar but not the same. You can drive down the street in your car with your friend and share some CD with him that you just bought (or heck, let him take it home and listen to it) but he doesn't own it. You'll want it back so you can REPEATEDLY listen to it. So when he gives it back, he either doesn't get to hear it again or he goes out AND BUYS HIS OWN.
With the book it's the same. He can read your book and return it, true. But if it's something he'll want to re read over and over he buys his own. Or he takes it and makes a photocopy of the entire thing with is indeed a BREECH OF COPYRIGHT.
Thats where language of the laws come into play."

Then it's ok to DL a movie, or a Book. Read it once and Delete it.

Just as long as you don't keep it and keep reusing it.

I suppose we can't talk G_Beee into meeting us in York then? :P

I'll at least start with the Longbow straight away just in case they start enforcing it :D

"Heres an example. <snip>"

That's a very interesting one I've never considered.

LoL! Who you gonning to get from the Clergy to precide over it?

Then it's ok to DL a movie, or a Book. Read it once and Delete it.

Just as long as you don't keep it and keep reusing it.

Sure GL, IF YOU PAID FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I don't mind having an intellectual discussion about this (as long the the words don't get too big for me, you people usually pass me up) but let's not be silly. In the above scenario you "stole" it in the first place so it's not ok (and you knew that).
:D

And to be really clear, I'm not saying that the prices for music couldn't be a bit lower. What I am saying is that law is law. Just like the TaC here. This place is PG and that's the law. If you're in chat and you happen to be pretty gal-dern sure that there are only adults on is it ok to curse like a sailor? And if jon happens to be lurking and (kills) you then is it unfair?
The last paragraph in Sut's post at 6:04 is a great one.

What we have breeding is a bunch of lazy revolutionaries. Folks who just wanna go around the laws they don't like. Not the bunch I want in charge of the future that's for sure.

Here is an interesting article (not to defend either side, just an interesting read) about how some artists are garnering better (financial) support.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/20830491/rocks_new_economy_making_money_when_cds_dont_sell/print

"Sure GL, IF YOU PAID FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE."

Thing is, you never did.

Your mate paid for it. You never spent anything on it yourself.

So what's the diference?

You want solutions to what exactly Sut? Big business price fixing? Using their political/economic muscle to get corporate welfare laws passed? The have nots stealing stuff? These are fundamental laws of humanity arent they :P

This seems like a scopes monkey trial to me... where do they expect her to come up with 1.92 million? They'll NEVER see that money from her.

"Thing is, you never did.

Your mate paid for it. You never spent anything on it yourself.

So what's the diference?"



ok. then we'll do this slowly.
If you share something that you paid for with someone without making UNAUTHORIZED copies of it then (as far as I understand the law and if someone shows me something different then I'll recant) it's ok.

If your mate shares something with you that he/she/they paid for without making UNAUTHORIZED copies of it then (as far as I understand the law and if someone shows me something different then I'll recant) it's ok.

If you and your mate share something that the two (or more) of you split the cost of without making UNAUTHORIZED copies of it then (as far as I understand the law and if someone shows me something different then I'll recant) it's ok.

Are we seeing the common thread here.

And for the record, "making UNAUTHORIZED copies of it" can be substituted with "shared electronically without AUTHORIZATION" for the sake of relating directly to this thread topic.

Again, I'm not defending the content of the laws we're talking about. I'm defending the enforcement of the laws that exist within a REASONABLE scope. In most cases "reasonable" is the major factor in deciding culpability.
Would a reasonable person have realized that her (the person in that article) actions were against the law?
And again-again, the VERDICT might be a bit on the excessive side, but "don't do the crime if you can't do the time, yeaaaahhhh, DON'T DO IT."
HE HE HE. Had to throw a bit of light heartedness in there.

GL, you can totally loan a book to someone. It is called fair use, and is entirely legal. You can even sell used books.

This is exactly my problem. You don't seem to understand there are RIGHT ways of doing this. Loaning someone a book is fine because:

-- You aren't making money off it
-- You can't be reading it if it is across town

See? Reasonable. And if a book publisher ever tried to say I can't loan a book to someone, I could say "fair use" and be fine. They could never touch me.

Another example: I buy a CD and give it to someone without ripping it first. No problem. One is even allowed to sell a CD. There have been many cases about "first sale" and such, and fair-use has done a decent job as a defense. Now, companies are trying to stop that more and more: DMCA, DRM, etc. That all SUCKS! THAT is the enemy, and where we should be concentrating. Not simply saying "oh well, I'm pissed, I'll just download it and be done with it."

Recording TV is also entirely legal. I never said I had a problem with that. If you also made a crappy tape off the radio, I would have no problem with it. That has ALWAYS been legal, but yes, you must remain vigilant and defend that right if someone tries to take it away.

On the piracy front, real piracy, we are talking about commercial quality downloads, in large quantities, being downloaded without a single penny being paid.

The angle I am coming from is this: I used to download things more (illegally). But then, starting with music, I went all legit. I deleted a lot of things, bought others, subscribed to eMusic. I recently canned eMusic because their prices went up. That's how it works. You pay or you don't. There is no "Well, I think this is too expensive, so I get to steal now." Pay or do without. And defend the hell out of yourself in regards to what you DO may for. Stay informed, join EFF, write your law-makers.

What about streaming television shows or movies?

Technically entirely illegal however you never take posession of anything. You can listen to music on youtube for free and legally. What's the difference? Or listening to music videos on yahoo music or something?

Those two examples are too close to just downloading it to make one illegal and punishable by 1.92M or whatever and the other entirely legal.

Essentially the problem I have with the system is this: You are paying for NOTHING!!! I don't gain anything by paying for a digital copy of a song. it's 1's and 0's. Therefore I don't pay for it. End of story. And to the person who says well then don't listen to music. haha ok great plan. I think changing the law to match the times is more realistic than such bogus suggestions (not to criticize sut or any others) I don't mean to offend anyone. Music is a form of entertainment you can't exactly keep for long periods of time. There are too many free venues for music to have one where you pay a dollar to listen to a song. Doesn't make any sense. The business model is broken and instead of wasting time suing people record companies should buckle up, and reinvent themselves or go out of business. Simple. The service they used to provide is dead or at least quickly going that way.

Rubberduck, point taken. But I am striving for real solutions to media distribution. Fatil, for some reason, seems to think servers and bandwidth are free. For one, I think we need some education there. Servers and bandwidth are NOT free. They are, in fact, plenty expensive. Yes, they scale better and have better reach -- no doubt about it. But it can't be dismissed aas virtual, and therefore stealable.

I am not looking for answers to save the MPAA and RIAA. I despise, utterly and wholly, those organizations. But you know what? You don't get to steal from things you don't like. That's retarded. Pay up or do without. That's why I am also against things like taxes on CDROMs, because they are a blanket tax meant to pay for something I am not personally doing. Same with tacking DRM onto tech components. I am having to pay more, struggle with licensing more, and just having trouble overall using WHAT I HAVE PAID FOR.

So, I am looking for ideas, an open forum, on better ways of doing all this, starting with folks getting out of this entitlement mindset: "If they charge me too much it is OK for me to take it." Until that mindset is at LEAST questions, no common ground will be found (not that the MPAA and RIAA are interested in common ground, another reason I despise them.

Here is a physical example on the price issue: Let's say something gets to expensive for me to afford, a luxury item I used to be able to afford. Is anyone here saying it would be OK for me to steal that item, leaving an amount of money on the counter that _I_ think is appropriate and walking out? Is that OK?

Does anyone on this thread tip their waters and waitresses? If so, why? Quality of service is ENTIRELY virtual. You can't buy a bottle of it. A smile, attention to detail, etc... These are just things the wait staff is supposed to do, and we are entitled to it. So why tip?

Sute, would you be able to find an exmaple of where Fair use has been used in regards to a novel. I see examples for Educational purposes, but nowhere have I found a fair use defense for things like entertainment use. Maybe it's a UK thing.

Selling of second hand goods is interesting (again something I'd not considered a tthe start of this), but hasn't there recently been issues with this on things like electronic auction sites?

"Pre-owned" Games are another great exmaple. Wasn't Sony recently trying to ban the resale of thier pre-owned games?

I don't think Fair Use accuraly covers this.

"Pay or do without"

That's exactly what I do.

But the majority of people don't. And I don't see this changing. I see society changing to adapt to this.

krono, streams have a entirely simple business model -- subscribing. I watch stuff on Netflix all the time, via computer, Roku box, etc. I pay for it. Sometimes in equipment (computer, wiring, TV, Roku box, etc.) and other times on the virtual side (high bandwidth, Netflix subscription, etc.) Paid for, good delivered, everyone is happy.

That's a business model. I'm not saying it's always the best, but it works for some things.

That's a solution.

That's exactly what I am talking about instead of folks simply saying, "Can't be controlled, it's just virtual, and I hate the RIAA, therefore I don't need to pay for anything yet I STILL DESERVE TO HAVE IT!"

And j'bob, I'm afraid you might be making too much sense.

exactly...it is pointless to ask people to stop feeling entitled to steal because millions of people including myself don't view it as stealing. Society will not go backwards on this. The laws will have to adapt to realize that many people refuse to pay for songs. Just like the previous example of how people stopped paying for world books when wikipedia came out.

Too bad for world book, something better came along and suddenly your product is no longer seen to have commercial value. Whether the law says it does means nothing.


--> If society places no commercial value in what you sell you either give it away for free, accept stealing, or quit.

Take your pick

GL, why do you think Sony failed? *smile*

You really need to read up on fair use, and no, I am not going to find links. There are plenty that any bit of diligence can find, or else fgo visit EFF and see what they say about it. Fair use defends taping music off the radio (that is totally legal), taping things on VCRs (that battle has been fought numerous times, VCR-users win out).

Yes, the big boys are _always_ trying to encroach on that. My. Point. Exactly. Pay the toll or do without, and if you do pay, defend your right to use that content with all the guile and passion you can muster!

Your viewpoint makes me very, very sad, krono.

And I have never defended World Book. Can we stop building strawmen and stay on topic? Anyway, the internet beat book-form encyclopedias, not Wikipedia. Simple connectivity. There is no need for static, modular knowledge banks any more, at least not as much. I am sure a battered set of World Books is still quite helpful in remote regions of the Third World, though.

Can't I download any song that I physically own in order to transfer it to another media type? For example, if I own it on Cassette/Vinyl? But I want to listen to it on my I-Pod?

Wow, I'm at work and can't really spend the time to read through the amazing amount of posts this thread has received but after reading a few near the bottom, I will say this.

If you're honestly arguing FOR DRM then wow, you need to read up on the 'long term' DRM 'solution'.

This is only being pushed because certain companies *cough microsoft* have dumped millions and millions of dollars into it.

Digital Slavery. Bad news bears.

Never have I heard a convincing argument that simply because something is illegal, that makes it wrong. Same goes for going against socially accepted "morals".

If your idea of convincing is, "Well, it's just WRONG!" That's not going to cut it for me. And saying, "Well, you're depriving those artists of their income," isn't going to do it for me either, because I don't steal music from indie acts, i steal it from huge multi-million dollar record labels that really DO NOT NEED the money I would spend.

Seriously, take out the "Well, it's just WRONG!" argument, and the stance against illegally downloading music gets a whole lot weaker. in my opinion.

Anyone else feel the same way?

"Here is a physical example on the price issue: Let's say something gets to expensive for me to afford, a luxury item I used to be able to afford. Is anyone here saying it would be OK for me to steal that item, leaving an amount of money on the counter that _I_ think is appropriate and walking out? Is that OK?"

Ah morality. ;) How about barter based societies? Where they aren't really and fixed price, and hagling is an art form. You're trying there to pay for something with an ammount you think is appropriate, or rather the least you think you can get away with.

And that's socially acceptable, and even encouraged.

Personally, I don't like to steal. I don't think it's ok. Faceless crimes are easier to justify though. Stealing a song woth a couple of pence from a facess multi gazillion earning company is easier to live with than stealing the little family businesses last item,one they need to sell to keep paying rent.

Doesn't make it any more or less of a crime, just one that will happen more often, as it's easier for the majority of people to live with.

And then, once something becomes accustomed to a society, it becomes very hard to change. That's what I feel is the deal here.

Yes, DLing stuff is currently illegal. Society (for whatever reasons, wrong or right) has, through ease, lack of punisment (I know that's what this case is all about, but it's too late), and scale, started to embrace it. People are being bought up with it as an acceptable way of life.

It's going to be very hard to stop.

And I see sciety chnging to accomodate it instead.

"Does anyone on this thread tip their waters and waitresses? If so, why? Quality of service is ENTIRELY virtual. You can't buy a bottle of it. A smile, attention to detail, etc... These are just things the wait staff is supposed to do, and we are entitled to it. So why tip?"

I tip if I feel the service was worth the personal regonition over the price of the service provided. I don't tip if the service Charge is included in the bill. ;)

While we are entitled to good service (the type you get that doesn't make you complain), we tip for exception service. When it goes over what we expect we are entitiled to. ;)

Unless you're my Granddad, who just liked tipping young waitreses. :P

GL, I don't understand... you say you pay or do without, but earlier you said...
"Claire and I have a lot of 'Burned' movies. We recorded them from Sky/Virgin onto thier own HDD recorders, and then copied them to our DVD-RW (with it's own HDD)."

If that's like a Pay per View movie here in the US, then I believe making an unauthorized copy even IF you paid to watch the ONE TIME use movie is illegal.

I'm certainly not condemning anyone here for their actions. I just find it amusing when people put themselves on a high horse, defending illegal actions because something isn't "fair".

Krono:
"The laws will have to adapt to realize that many people refuse to pay for songs. Just like the previous example of how people stopped paying for world books when wikipedia came out."
No, they don't have to adapt. The can change if their hand is forced by people willing to get up and do more than just try to circumvent the law. But until then they can sue people for filesharing 24 songs and put them through misery as they battle against a 1.9 mil verdict.
Do you think the person in this article feels that it was all worth it right now? That'll never be you though, right... think that's what she thought maybe?

I know I agree with you Sut, It is VERY sad. However it's unfortunetely the way a broken world works. Things don't go according to fairness and in most cases societies changing views on the scale you see on an issue such as this are far too powerful to be overcome.

Matter of time before the recording industry (as anything but the service of recording and editing) is completely wiped out.

Fat1l, you write:

"Well I ask you this. What have they done as a service that requires these millions of dollars of revenues."

What is the point of this question?

If you don't think the music is worth what they are asking, then do without it. Isn't that what you were taught growing up? Pay for something, or do without.

It doesn't matter one whit if you think they are charging "too much". When they charge too much, go elsewhere. And if there is nowhere else to go, well, THEN you write your congressman and try to do something about monopolies and price fixing. And please don't give me any crap about not being able to fight city hall or that trying those things does no good -- again, if you don't want to try, you have the very simple route of doing without.

Put another way, if the product is so worthless, why are you downloading it? It must sound like crap. You listen to crap? Or, if it DOES sound good, and you like it -- well, then you've answered your own question, haven't you? Found value?

And i'm earnestly interested in how krono's viewpoint makes you sad, Sutekh. You've made it pretty clear what YOUR views are, and he made it clear what HIS views are. However to take that step onto the "moral high ground", shake your head, and say "tsk, tsk, tsk, krono!" as if someone put you in charge of what is acceptable behavior or not seems juvenile, which is something i NEVER see from you.

"Can't I download any song that I physically own in order to transfer it to another media type? For example, if I own it on Cassette/Vinyl? But I want to listen to it on my I-Pod?"

Now this isn't covered by Fair Use I think. I'm still pretty sure you can't legally 'back up' media you have purchased.

"That's a solution.

That's exactly what I am talking about instead of folks simply saying, "Can't be controlled, it's just virtual, and I hate the RIAA, therefore I don't need to pay for anything yet I STILL DESERVE TO HAVE IT!""

Oh exactly! I'm sure I mentioned it above.

TV comapnies are doing it now. No set schdule, consumers choose what they want to watch, and stream it to thier sets. Edging away from home recording by offering the same 'perks' (pausing, watchig at any time, etc) from thier feed instead.

No physical media, using wireless streams.

That's the way we're going.

And the Music industry are resisting. To thier detriment.

We need to adapt, to fully embrace the new media we have access to. And (my base knoweldge, I'm sure there's much more expert insight that can be given) wireless streaming technology, even for things like electrical power (watched a very interesting prgramme on that!) I think is the next step.

"If that's like a Pay per View movie here in the US, then I believe making an unauthorized copy even IF you paid to watch the ONE TIME use movie is illegal."

:)

Exactly.

We don't use Torrents, we don't DL mucis from the Web.

But when Virgin media shows Predator, I might record it to watch it at my leisure, and maybe even watch it multiple times.

But I never bought the original movie.

But. This is legal, and morally acceptable. Our rights to use VCRs to record programmes shown on TV are long standing, and have yet to be overturned.

But if I was to DL Predator from the 'net instead, that would be illegal...

Mikel, now we are talking... I have downloaded songs I own on other media -- media shifting is something fair use and EFF _can_ defend, but it is tricky. The reason? Value. The recording studios argue CDs are much better than tape, so you should pay again.

I say I paid for that Aerosmith tape 15 years ago with 8 bucks, so if they invested that money wisely, it is worth a whole lot more now. *smile* But by and large I have ended up doing one of two things:

- Converting the tapes/records myself, by simply recording them through the soundcard. Yep, the quality can be lousy with hiss and pops, but I am state-shifting it myself with my own equipment -- I call that fair use and have never seen anyone sued for digitizing their analog music.
- I do re-buy stuff, usually on used CD or try to find it cheap online somewhere. In that case, I am paying for the convenience -- I save time, energy, and have a good copy.

I'll mention backups, because that is where the RIAA puts the crazy in crazy. They say I am not allowed to back up my music or make copies. They have even gone as far as to say, "You can always get a replacement, no need for backups". By that they mean pay for it again. Even knowing full well they smetimes practice falsified scarcity to boost prices. Blatant greed. Hey guys, I get to back up my things all I want. That's called fair use, once again.

Badfish, I will be exactly as happy or sad as I want to be in regards to how experience a situation or someone else's viewpoint. I didn't say he was wrong or not entitled to his opinion, and he didn't tell me I wasn't entitled to mine.

But his viewpoint does make me sad.

What business is that of yours?

Uh... I guess none. I thought we were having a discussion where I could ask a question without people getting all prickly, but never mind. You be sad over there and I'll just sit here and listen to my free music.

OH I know :)
I just wanted to throw that monkey wrench into the argument ;)

The part she did that was really wrong was distribute.
She would've probably gotten away with it had she just downloaded.

There is no telling how many people pulled it from her, therefore that is where the fine(s) are coming into place.

Does her DL'ing in the first place make it right? No, the Media is making it all about DL'ing, not File Sharing, which is what I think is the basis for in court.

They don't have the resources to go after everyone that DL's illegally but they will track you down if you share illegally.

GL, backups are legal, by and large, covered by fair use. But the topic is right there in that middle grey area where the big boys are continually resisting like fat, petulant toddlers who are tired because they had too much cotton candy to eat and now feel icky..

That's why vigilance is necessary.

Enjoy, BadFish! You're entitled to it! I hope all good things come to you for free forever!

Things must be so much easier on the side of Righteousness and Good.

Uh... I guess none. I thought we were having a discussion where I could ask a question without people getting all prickly, but never mind. You be sad over there and I'll just sit here and listen to my free music.

Till YOU get slapped with a law suit... then he'll be sad over there and you'll be sad over.. there.
Oddly enough Bad, it seems to me that you got all prickly about something between two other people. Now mind you, I respect you as a "virtual" person and CB'er (virtual cause I only deal with you on the net and don't really get anything of value from you, other than some REALLY good giggles, but I can't store those physically so...) but good for the goose is good for the ... other goose?

I guess when I read, "What business is that of yours?" I picked up on something that wasn't there. That's why having these discussions over the internet are so difficult for me; I can never tell what people are trying to imply with their words.

Basically,

Do something you know as illegal and be prepared to pay the price if you get caught.

This lady discovered just that.

Will she pay the 2M fine? Obviously not. However, declaring bankruptcy will not let her off. Either she settles or a part of all her future income gets taken.

Anyone in the same situation is gambling. Gambling if they will get caught.

The key point, however, was not her downloading music, but the distribution. Which in illegal activities is a multifold more damaging scenario.

"GL, backups are legal, by and large, covered by fair use. But the topic is right there in that middle grey area where the big boys are continually resisting like fat, petulant toddlers who are tired because they had too much cotton candy to eat and now feel icky..

That's why vigilance is necessary."

LoL!

I just checked the EFF Fair Use FAQ, very interesting. Back Ups aren't realy covered by it (Space-shifting), while Time-shifting (recording a programme on a VCR for later veiwing) is.

If Time-shifting is covered by Fair Use, does it matter where the original came from? If you can Time-Shift (I like that term! :D ) something from one supplier, why not another?

I apologise for my attrocious typng tonight, it's late, and I'm being foiled by a laptop keyboard.

Mikel @ 7:35pm

Exactly what I was pointing at in my first post. These (albeit greedy) companies can legally go after every person that has every downloaded a song with out paying for it. What they appear to be trying to make a statement against is the SHARERS. Stop the sharers and the sharing shall go down. Again, don't go and put me on the wrong side of this, I want MY rights to stuff I buy but the law is the law. (sorry if you don't agree). Most of what I'm trying to say is follow the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences. Don't like the law. Do something more about it than break it. That's just lazy.

Since when is experiencing an emotion "righteous"? You appear to have some interesting definitions for some very strong words.

Look, I felt sad because it is a defeatist, dark attitude. One I often have myself, I admit. But it makes me sad (even when I have it). I personally like that, because it means I (again, personally) still want things to be fair and will still fight for it (or at least lead by example).

If such an attitude makes you feel otherwise, like happy, then more power to you. I am not denying your emotional response or saying anything to disparage you. You came on and addressed me for feeling sad about an attitude I don't share. I don't think the world sucks and is dark and is hopeless and that we are just flotsam and jetsam (that is the way I experienced the viewpoint). I think we ARE the world. So if we give up on the world, well, no one's going to do anything. Entropy wins. I know full well entropy will _always_ win in the long run, but intelligence and civilized behavior can hold it at bay for a while, if anyone cares to put forth the effort.

That's why it made me sad. I guess I still want to try.

Is there something wrong with that?

"If Time-shifting is covered by Fair Use, does it matter where the original came from? If you can Time-Shift (I like that term! :D ) something from one supplier, why not another?"

The obvious answer here, is that one supplier is supplying legally, having procured the rights to distribute, while the other hasn't.

But, the end result is still the same.

Gah! Answering myself must be one of the first signs of madness! ;)

Ya know. This is exactly why I took a break from CB in the first place!!
No, not because of the incessant arguing...
Because getting tied up in an interesting debate has now cost me the ability to burn all kinds of ba... I'm totally outta time.. for now.

CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways, as for the article, the whole thing is a joke. No point in ruining someone's life over this. They may as well take 1,920,000 one dollar bills, put them in a pile, and set them on fire for all the good this is going to do.

When I first was presented with the opportunity download music illegally, I basically ran a risk/benefit analysis in my head, and downloading music for free came out on top. By a LOT. And I have yet to see anyone poke any significant holes in my logic. Anyone is free to try, and if they succeed, if they can REALLY convince me that downloading music illegally has risks that outweigh the benefits, then you will have changed my life today.

Time-shifting is tricky too, for that very reason -- vendor lock in. Oh they do howl and gnash their teeth as they are forced to cede control!

Here's a tricky time-shift, as you said, what about the source? If I order a physical CD but it will take two days to get it, is it OK if I download the album in the man time to sate my impatience? *smile* And yes, I have done that, both with the above scenario and with waiting for a DVD to finally come out. I realize that is a gray area, and I am definitely part of the gray, but over time, I pay for everything. It's like the CB drop scheme, so it must be OK, right? *grin*

Building from there, if it's ok to loan a novel you have purchased (and Fiar Use is a case by case ruling, given to academic use primarily), it's ok for you to distribute said novel.

Then if it's ok to Time-shift, it's ok to DL said novel.

If the multiple physical copies are a problem, as you can't back-up, it sohuld be fine for someone to purchase (for example) an eletronic novel, and place that up for distribution as a single entity.

So you DLing said electronic media, but anyone should be able to 'view' it.

Even if theirs a restriction of only one veiwer at a time.

As that's only Time-shifting a single copy of something.

See, we're back to Stremaing being the way forward! ;)

I know full well entropy will _always_ win in the long run, but intelligence and civilized behavior can hold it at bay for a while, if
anyone cares to put forth the effort.

I see what you're saying there. But I don't agree: I see nothing wrong with entropy winning in the long run. It's the natural order, and resisting does us nothing but harm. If "entropy" is BOUND to win in the end, then standing against it is standing against progress, and far be it from me to resist progress.

No but seriously, I just can't seem to find a convincing argument that I shouldn't just do whatever I want, all the time. (In theory. There are exceptions, but few.) Maybe that doesn't make sense to a few people, so if you dont agree, tell me what YOU think. I learn as much from arguing with others as I do from thinking on my own.

"If I order a physical CD but it will take two days to get it, is it OK if I download the album in the man time to sate my impatience?"

No. Not unless you've purchased that elctronic copy in additon to the Physical CD. As you have now Space-shifted the material.

And the dupliation of something isn't allowed. Unless you've paid for all the duplicates.

"Digital piracy" is here to stay, and no amount of laws, trials and punishments could possibly stop it entirely.

The only chance to reduce it in frequency and "damage" is for the movie/music/whatever companies to realize their old-style business model is morally obsolete, and they should start something akin to ITunes, but for absolutely everything you could possibly want, and with ZERO DRM in place (because it doesn't help anyway).

As for "digital piracy" itself, they should view it simply as ADVERTISING COSTS :)


At least one game company (Stardock) and several artists have begun moving towards such a model, and they're doing more than great.
Also, there are (small budget) movies where the authors are actually THANKFUL to the so-called pirates for making their movie known, boosting sales far above what they have ever expected. I can't recall which movie that was, but IIRC it was "The man from Earth". By the way, great movie, and if you can't buy it anywhere, just download and watch it, then decide to scurry some more until you can find a copy to buy (if you liked it - but, really, you probably will love it).

But when a huge movie company makes a grandstanding movie, with a gargantuan budget and an insanely large advertising campaign (only problem being, the movie is UTTER TRIPE), of course they get their knickers all up in a bunch when people get to see the crummy movie for free then don't want to go see it in the cinemas anymore (or, don't even try to go to the cinema and just wait until they can download it).

Paying huge $$$ amounts for crap is what the movie/music industry wants.
Getting quality movies/music for as cheap as possible (even free) is what the public wants.
The truth, as always, is smack-dab in the middle, dictated by supply and demand, as it should have been... but for that, you need an informed public and a lack of a monopoly on the distribution side... and guess what "internet piracy" does, exactly that... no wonder the movie/music industry honchos are SO SCARED AND PANICKY.

"No but seriously, I just can't seem to find a convincing argument that I shouldn't just do whatever I want, all the time."

Society.

If you don't (at least marginally) conform to the limits of your current society, don't expect to remain in it for long.

You can do whatever you want,all the time. Just expect to be doing it alone. ;)

BadFish, if the question of "Should I be paying for this?" never enters into your analysis, then of course downloading is always going to win. How could it not? It's something for nothing, in a very literal sense.

I have never discussed this topic with anyone and tried to use the "but it is too risky!" tactic. Because it's not too risky.

However, that has nothing to do with paying for something you find valuable. That's an incredibly easy moral question, even without bringing religion into it, because it's based on simple logic. If you don't see value in something, you wouldn't download it. Therefore, you must see value in the things you download and keep. So, the question reduces to: should you pay for value you yourself did not create, whatever that value and whatever form it comes in?

Was that question part of your analysis?

Internet pirates are a tool helping in creating free market conditions in the movie/music industry :)
Heh :P

Sute, does it matter what you pay with?

Sometimes I'll watch a 'free' movie, that was (as sick posted) utter tripe.

But I paid for it with my time.

Sometimes I've really wanted those one and a half hours of my life back! :P

GL, I'll take that one further (yeah, i got a little more time).

Sometimes I'll hear a song that is "utter tripe" AND THEN it'll get stuck in my head because of a bit of genius in marketing or advertising or who knows what...

I want every moment that that song piece has been in my head to be paid for! I should be reimbursed for each second that I can not physically remove some garbage lyric from my head simply because the tune was "catchy!"

Sut:
Not if I don't have to. I know that is a demonizing statement to say, but I believe it's true.

I AM playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because I don't actually have any illegally downloaded content on my computer, but I still 100% believe that there's nothing innately wrong with downloading music illegally.

Let me try to explain in a way that will satisfy both of us. Say some day in the distant future, the earth starts running out of air to breathe. NOT TOO COOL! So, inevitably, humans will come up with to solve this problem (I believe), and we will inevitably come up with a way to make money off of it, too(Just like making money off of music: Paying for music came LONG after music itself did.) Lets say this takes the form of private businesses manufacturing large amounts of air. Well, how are they going to charge individuals for using their services? Do you see the parallel yet? Let's keep going.

Conversation between a seller of air and a consumer:

"Did you pay for that air you're breathing?"
"Um, no."
"Why not?"
"Because I shouldn't have to pay for air."
"But it costs us money to make. It's a legitimate way for us to turn a profit."
"What? Creating something with no innate value and attaching an inflated price to it, calling it yours, and prosecuting those who don't go along with it?"
"Yes. You owe us 1.92 Million dollars. Not because that's the actual VALUE of the air(music) but because we simply want to make an EXAMPLE out of you and ruin your life because we don't want other people to do the same thing."

I hope that makes sense. sometimes when I try to do a long post I get a little off track and lose my original point.

Badfish, there's nothing anyone can really tell you, no matter how much they try. All I can tell you is that my conscience tells me what I should and shouldn't do. And while my conscience was cetainly formed from a religious standpoint, I am no longer religious and haven't needed religion to defend my moral compass for a couple decades now. I can't do whatever I want because I am not entitled to do whatever I want. It's just that simple. Your default appears to be different from mine. Mine is:

"I get nothing unless I earn it, learn it, cultivate it, share it, or create it myself. I start with nothing, and will end with nothing."

Your viewpoint appears to be (correct me where I'm wrong):

"I can have anything I want, that's the default. Doesn't matter where it came from, who I am taking it from, or what the ramifications to others are."

By your viewpoint, yes: You should go forth and do whatever you want. I can find no inconsistency between your desired actions and your basis for taking those actions.

But here's another little theory that is perhaps more clear, and more physical. My brother always called it the "bonk" theory (I am sure it has a "real" name in philosophical circles):

Let's say you do what you want, and that involves bonking someone on the head. He bonks you back. No problem, right? Bonk for a bonk. But then you are around a lot more people, and what you want involves bonking them all. You bonk ten people, so they each get one bonk a piece. But they ALL bonk YOU back, and suddenly you have ten welts on your head. You pass out. You die. They don't miss you, bonker.

So I guess it's all about bonk density. Call it karma, call it civilization, call it ethics, call it morals, call it conscience. Just don't forget the bonk.

Sut, badfish : sounds to me you have very similar opinions (as in, you actually hate the current system with a vengeance and find it unfair), yet are debating on the nuances as to why it's as bad as it is :)

BadFish, a fine analogy, except the crux of everything I have stated is based on "do without if you don't want to pay".

You can't do without air.

You CAN do without content.

It's the difference between Doritos and electricity. They are called "utilities" for a reason: electricty, gas, water, etc. We MUST have them to live. That is why they are more regulated (heh, usually) and a whole different can of works than unecessary items, like Doritos.

That is the crux of ALL of this. If you say, "But I WANT clean water!" or "I want that guy to stop hitting me!" That is NOT entitlement. Those are things you should have. The water might not exactly work, but certain rights are called "inalienable" for a reason. You ARE entitled to those.

However, saying "I deserve to be able to afford a second car!" or "I should be able to afford whereever I want to live with any job I want!" is entitled whining. Now, you CAN have those things. Go out and earn them.

And Bad, the danger of the thinking/reasoning that you're using isn't in the reasoning itself.... you're not "really" doing anyone harm...
it's in the application of said thinking.
Because just like anything else it will be taken to extremes. Let's just say... you're KrAzY (I know, I know, TOTAL LONGSHOT) ;P ...
many many crazy folks have wound up doing horrible horrible things because, they didn't SEEM wrong and they figured they could get away with it.
Sadly, application of logic even doesn't necessarily apply to the breaking of laws. You're at a stop light. It's 3 AM. You are the ONLY one at the intersection and you can see in every way on the road for miles. You know this light takes 5 minutes before it changes. You go through the red light.... only to be pulled over by the cop that was eating donuts behind the billboard and you were ticketed. You put no one in danger but still you broke the law.
Where does the tier take you. Should you have not gotten a ticket because there was no danger? Are we as a society to be given the power to decide when the rules should or should not apply to us? I'm not mad at you or begrudging you what you want to do. It is simply my opinion that if you don't like something you should make an actual attempt to change it... or be completely prepared to suffer consequences.
And again, to point to the woman in this article, I highly doubt that she ever expected her consequences to be what they turned out to be.

"I want every moment that that song piece has been in my head to be paid for!"

LoL!

And Sute;

Bonkers! :D

(Emma loves it when I shout Bonkers from the new Dizzee Rascal song - Heard on the Radio only! - She runs around going "Bokkers!") ;)

"Are we as a society to be given the power to decide when the rules should or should not apply to us?"

As a society, I think we already apply this. ;) If a general rule is passed we don't like, we ignore it.

Prohibition times! :D

(Yes, I went there! Up next, linking moonshine to illegal downloads!)

I like the bonk analogy; it makes me think hard about what I said before, but I still believe in my original statements, whether or not I was able to convey those beliefs in a coherent way ;) The reason "Bonk Density" isn't able to convince me to not do whatever I wish is simply that, if What I like to do is bonk others on the head, then I will go do that. And if someone bonks me back, that may not be enough to dissuade me from bonking people in the head for no reason. But soon I will want to bonk 2 people in the head, and will get bonked twice. or more. And when that happens, then bonking people in the head won't be what I want to do to people anymore, because I realize I'll get bonked back.

So basically, I believe if you can bonk and get away without getting bonked in return, then that is what you should do. And if there are consequences for that action, well they are either severe enough to dissuade you from doing what you wish or not. After all, we're all just a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag. And like you said: I started with nothing, and will end with nothing. Nothing that happens during this life really MATTERS. With that in mind, is doing whatever you wish not the highest form of morality?

Well, that may be going a bit far. And yes, the viewpoint I'm taking is pretty extreme, and doesn't necessarily reflect my actual actions (For example, I want 10 dollars. My dad has it. I'm not going to kill him and take it. Technically, by my own words, there's no reason I shouldn't bash his head in and take every cent he has, right now.)I just think its interesting that there are these strange societal beliefs that get in the way of us doing whatever we want all day long until we die. Where do they come from? Are they right? Do they, in the end, really contribute in a "good" way to humanity as a whole?

And in the end, does ANY of this matter anyway?

"And if there are consequences for that action, well they are either severe enough to dissuade you from doing what you wish or not."

That's exactly what this fine is for...

But it's too small (not the amount in question, but the number of people), and far too late to make any impact.

It gives meaning to shutting the gate after the animals have escaped. ;)

Should you have not gotten a ticket because there was no danger? Are we as a society to be given the power to decide when the rules should or should not apply to us?

No. In fact, the police officer shouldn't have existed in the first place. "Policing" is just, in essence, trying to tell people what to do because someone who makes legislation thinks they know what is good for the people better than they do. And that's wrong, in my opinion, because it's up to each of us to decide what it is we believe is right, wrong, and in the middle. So when it's in the middle of the day, and I run a red light, and get broadsided, and kill my 3 passengers, that is a choice I made that didn't go so well for me. I should have thought harder about that decision before I followed through with it. However, at 3 AM, when there's 0% chance of there being a harmful outcome to the situation, I'll be damned if i'll sit at that red light for 5 minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshine_Music

GL, is that what you're talking about? ;p

And prohibition got a lot of people killed me thinks. gigglesnort.

"Do they, in the end, really contribute in a "good" way to humanity as a whole?"

Now this is off topic, but it really depends on if you belive in any universal truths. And whether the notion of 'good' exists outside of the society it's used in. ;)

and bad, as long as you don't cry foul when you are not allowed to drive anymore, I won't hold it against you. :D

GL: true. Nothing the jury decided on conflicts with my beliefs EXCEPT that the fine was SO excessive that it not only "Taught her a lesson" it turned her into example for others by ruining her life. Unless she's excessively wealthy (Which I don't believe she is, or they would have fined her even more) she's going to be in debt up to her eyeballs for the rest of her life because of this. The punishment does not fit the crime, and if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then you're not giving her the opportunity to LEARN from her actions and perhaps (OR PERHAPS NOT!) adjust her behavior in the future. She has no choice here- her life is going to change radically because of this because of a fairly harmless "mistake".

It's okay. We've been burning dissenters at the stake for ages. ;)

Police shouldn't have to exist. I'll agree on that. Murder shouldn't exist either... but it does.
I think you're not quite the anarchist you would like the world to believe. (IMHO, I'm not telling you what you are and are not). People (in general) LOVE pushing aside laws that they find time wasteful and/or "unnecessary" but expect every bit of protection the law can afford them when they are wronged. That I suppose is part of the "duality of man".
We have traveled far off topic but a lot of it can be pulled together in certain ways. I'm the type of person who believes that for laws to work they have to be followed. And sometimes in order to be followed they must be enforced. And to be "FAIR" as people love for things to be, if any law is to be followed, THEN THEY ALL MUST BE FOLLOWED. I'm not saying that ALL laws are right. I love some of the stuff GL came up with and here in the good ole USofA there have been similar such nonsenses. Up until the recent past (read my lifetime) it was illegal to be "ugly on a public way"!!!! Who got to enforce that one ??? The pretty police I suppose.
Again Bad, I truly have nothing against you. It's just usually people that follow a type of argument akin to yours that cry foul the loudest when the wrong is done to them.

And just out of curiosity, lets say you had 30 gig of music that you illegally downloaded. How would you feel if someone walked into your room and erased them? I'm sure you'll say that you'd just start over. But somewhere you're gonna be upset about the time and effort it took you get get them all. And you didn't even have any more right to it than the person did to erase it.

Now this is off topic, but it really depends on if you belive in any universal truths. And whether the notion of 'good' exists outside of the society it's used in. ;)



NOW you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Basically every time I have an argument like this, with ANYONE, it ends up with both parties confused and angry because the vast majority of people DO believe in universal truths, objective morality, and the notion of good outside of the society it's used in. And I do not.

Couple things, BF...

Of course the "nothing matters" philosophy nullifies any line of reasoning. It's like multiplying a number by zero. No matter how large the number, you'll get zero. It's also consistent. If that is what you believe, that nothing matters, then nothing can or will matter. The perfect, self-cleaning sentiment.

In fact, that touches back to the music downloading. If nothing matters, why download it at all? It doesn't matter. Just do without (though doing without doesn't matter either). If the music DOES matter, so you download and keep it, then, well, wait -- something matters? But nothing matters. BRAIN ANYEURISM! See how that works? If nothing matters, then nothing can EVER matter (nothing is very BIG and takes what belongs to it). But if even one thing matters, "nothing matters" must be false. You dig?

As for bonking first and worrying about it later, sure, I dig that. You think I never tested my boundaries? Our only difference is proactive vs. reactive thinking. Yes, I could test every boundary every time. But I'm not an animal (and you aren't either!). I'm smart, sentient, forward-thinking. I can realize patterns and apply them to situations without HAVING to test. I don't need to bonk people any more to know it doesn't work for me. It is a Truth for me. I CAN do whatever I want, as long I am not hurting other people (indeed, a WHOLE grey area). But it's a start. If I hurt myself, do I hurt others? Probably. Can I say, "their fault for caring." Yes. Have done. But my start is a simple "could this hurt someone else," and if the answer is in any way yes, at least it makes me take pause. It's a way of "counting to ten" I suppose, but maybe slightly more cerebral.

I guess the simpler, standard version of ALL of this is just: "Do unto others what you would want them to do onto you." or, the inverse corollary, "DON'T do to others what you WOULDN'T want done to you." That can be tricky. I have had times in my life (fortunately not many) when I didn't CARE what people did to me. So I went out and hurt people (not physically, far worse, mentally) from time to time, oblivious. "I am a rock, and if I can't be hurt, then no one else can, right? If so, too bad for them."

I'm still that way, just not as much. But in a tense work situation or argument with my wife, I'll see it. I'll feel the "screw you I'm not hurting you _directly_ so I can do what I want!" independence of GODS! That's how it feels, for about half a second before I feel guilty, hot, worthless.

One last thing to never forget, and a damn fine Flannery O'Connor short story: the life you save may be your own. Remember that.

Oh, j'bob, you are ABSOLUTELY correct. I am NOT an anarchist. I simply am arguing a point that I agree with, in theory. This doesn't reflect my actions whatsoever. I don't illegally download things. I just believe in our right do what we believe we are entitled to, regardless of what anyone else says. If you are not prepared to face the consequences, don't do it. The ONLY reason I don't believe that applies in regards to the OP is that they literally tore this woman's life apart over a fairly harmless thing. Something inside me definitely believes that is wrong.

BadFish, if you do not believe in universal, objective truths, I think that is fine. It can even serve you in good stead.

That does not preclude you, however, from having personal truths. Just ask yourself this:

"Why does there have to be something larger, something surrounding, for me to have my own personal rules to live by?"

That's why consistency is supreme. Whether large or small, if it isn't consistent, it CANNOT be true (unless it admits it's own inconsistency, thereby actually being consistent!)

Eschew the idols. I like that. But don't throw the bathwater out with them. You can still care. You can still find more than nothing in this big, crazy world. Trust me.

Our only difference is proactive vs. reactive thinking.

Damn it. I was hoping you wouldn't hit on that, but you did. You've found the only hole I could find in my own thinking. We're intelligent animals, we don't have to wait to be bonked to realize bonking isn't smart, yes? I don't have a satisfactory answer for that yet.

As for the "Perfect, self-cleaning sentiment"- (and before I say this, I'm not talking about ANYONE in particular here, ESPECIALLY not you, sut, although this post is in reply to one of yours) There's another "Perfect, self-cleaning sentiment" and that is that God decides what is right and wrong, and you simply have to believe what's in the bible, or the torah, or the quran, and you are guaranteed to be doing what is right. I'm not sure what made me think of that, but it's interesting how there are many ways we humans have thought of to wash our hands of moral obligation. Although mine's the only correct one! ;D

That's why I just said, "eschew the idols". *smile* Our thought lines are closer than ever...

Just remember, "nothing" is an idol, too. *smile*

"You can still find more than nothing in this big, crazy world. Trust me."
More than anything, my life is a quest to find just that: Something to hold onto, something that feels real and true that I can look at and say, yes, I believe in this thing whatever it is because it was able to overcome the strong arguments that convinced me for the first 19 years of my life. I have not found this thing yet. And there is a certain clarity, a real sense of peace, that comes with believing that nothing matters; dust to dust. But I might as well do whatever the hell I want along the way. If it produces a chemical reaction that releases chemicals that make me feel good, well then if another chemical reaction that follows doesn't release enough chemicals that make me feel BAD, I'm going to do whatever it is that made me feel good in the first place again. And again. Until it doesn't make me feel good anymore, or my life ends.

Sounds morbid, but it's not.

Holy CRAP that was off-topic.

BF, then it sounds like there's only one, small difference between us. I found that thing you are looking for a long time ago, and it was enough: me. I'm fricking amazing.

Sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders. Is it possible you might could be satisfied, at least as a starting point, with...yourself?

It has the advantage of being consistent and yet not nothing. *smile*

Bad: "I just believe in our right do what we believe we are entitled to, regardless of what anyone else says."
I don't believe that you believe that we are all "entitled" to free music created and marketed by others at their cost. If you do, then absolutely nothing I or anyone else says will be able to change your mind. I guess it would be just too hard for me because I believe entitlement is pretty much limited to things that are necessary for survival.
And for an interesting (though old) read on objective morality
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/

"The ONLY reason I don't believe that applies in regards to the OP is that they literally tore this woman's life apart over a fairly harmless thing. Something inside me definitely believes that is wrong."
But by someone else's (read judge and jury) belief system this woman was indeed wrong and is now suffering the consequences. I doubt the entire jury was made up of record company agents so who's realistic judgment is more right and who's is more wrong? And why do you get to say so? We have to remember, this woman was prosecuted by the record companies or whomever, but she was judged and sentenced by an "impartial party" (judge) and jury of her "peers". All of us here in CB land are merely dissenters.

"I believe in this thing whatever it is because it was able to overcome the strong arguments that convinced me for the first 19 years of my life."
With all the respect I can convey across an electronic connection I say this. In 19 years the arguments that you have built to this point will one day seem fragile. There is no teacher like experience. I have no doubt that you will learn and grow. And which direction you will travel can certainly not be decided by any of us here and now. You are indeed an intelligent animal and as such you will evolve and change just as surely as a baby will crawl and walk.
Tattoos and Scars ARE different things.
Now get out there and have some cake.

Buddy Lee be praised.

Though, BadFish has another point, about the punishment, if that was him...

Punishment _does_ have to match the crime. I know, I know, punitive stuff can go over the top, but really. Did this match the "crime"? Would killing a drug dealer be considered "fair"? Nah, the ACLU would be all over that.

Or am I blathering on about something only required in criminal court? Gah. In civil court I suppose they can take your first-born?

Badfish (and everyone else) TOTALLY has a point about punishment fitting the crime. The problem here is this (and I don't think we know enough about the particulars to say for sure).

The article states something about how much the LICENSING cost per song would be and that appears to be what was involved in her sentence. The judge and jury most likely did not have a lot of sway room in the sentencing but were bound by whether or not the felt that she was indeed GUILTY.
It is a case of laws (and sentencing) needing attention. But she is the ONLY one to blame having put herself in this predicament. No one kidnapped her children and told her to share music or they'd never play the violin again.
But not only did she break the law. Then she FOUGHT the outcome of the first trial after being found guilty of knowingly breaking the law.
I don't know. Can you say "know when to say when?"
And before more arguments about this woman's innocence or guilt and what her sentencing is worth, please please read more about the case.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars

If she's not careful she could go down for perjury as well. ;p

"And that's wrong, in my opinion, because it's up to each of us to decide what it is we believe is right, wrong, and in the middle."

Just because one believes something is wrong does not mean he is free to break (the law, in this case).

Just because one believes something is wrong does not mean he is free to break (the law, in this case).

--Rawr, June 22 10:03 PM EDT

Actually that's extremely inaccurate.

Lets make one thing clear, I've downloaded music from various places, mostly things that can't be bought, albums that record companies dont see fit to make available anymore.

But those of you who think music should be free...go and work for nothing. Send me all your money.

Of course you're not directly taking money from the artist, mostly you're stealing from the company. Which is why some artists are leaving companies behind and selling direct to their fans.

Meanwhile, the woman in the news item in the OP may have her life ruined by an excessive fine, but think on this: somewhere there is an overly sensitive musician, sitting paranoid in his darkened room wondering where his next guitar string is coming from...

"My life has no purpose, no direction, no aim, no meaning, and yet I'm happy. I can't figure it out. What am I doing right?"
-Snoopy man

I'm tired of all the existential thinking leading up to "I don't know what I want!". Existential thinking is good, but sooner or later you've got to realize that there might not be any answers to our questions, and that's ok. Sometimes you can be happy without answers, even without searching for answers. There is a certain level we should look back and ask questions about our lives, and there are times we should just do a little living.

Sorry to not have read a lot of the thread, but I just wanted to add my two cents.

In the case of mentioned in the article, the law is clearly being manipulated and used in a corrupt manner. Having $100,000 fines per violation, per song, is no more sensible a law than the one saying it's illegal to have a donkey in the bathtub in some state. The laws haven't been changed, and I doubt will be changed any time soon, because of vast lobbying and industry power directed against change. And what about the punishment fitting the crime?

The RIAA uses scare tactics and blackmail to coerce people into sending them checks- or else they get the same treatment as this lady. They do not seek to enforce any laws, bring about justice, or protect any rights, only to scare people from listening to the new Lady Gaga cd or whatever it is they listen to. They allegedly defend the artists, and yet does the settlement money ever even reach this target?

The way things stand, it is more criminal to buy cd's and support the entertainment industry than it is to pirate. You only encourage them to continue their blind unholy war against their customers. If enough customers get their music through other means, eventually the record labels will either wake up, or more likely find themselves out of work. And don't think that would be a bad thing, new companies would quickly rise to replace the dinosaurs.

Actually, Vaynard, it would be far more effective to simply do without, assuming you can't get anything you want through corporate means. That way, you certainly aren't giving anyone your money, and they can't point to your piracy and try to get laws like the one in the OP made and enforced (they'll likely inflate the piracy figures anyway, but that is a different issue -- you will have done everything you can).

So, why have you left out the option of simply doing without? It's funny how everyone glosses over that avenue.

Er, should be NON-corporate means in that first part...

Or just go to iTunes and buy each song legally for 99 cents.

But I still fail to be amazed by the thinking "I do not like this law, so I think I will break it".

What if people did that with all laws they did not like?

The pricing scheme of music has over look the people not willing to pay that much for music. My music comes from -semi legal- means but at lower quality. No I will not be caught and go to jail Ranger. What I do is akin to recording something you hear on the radio - undetectable. Beyond that I've also copied songs from friends locally - also undetectable, but harder to get what you want.

The consumer that doesn't want to shell out that much for a song has been completely overlooked by the industry. I'll gladly take a worse bit-rate to pay 20 cents a song or something/preferably ad supported.

The other thing that concerns me as a consumer is if my computer dies, I'd prefer a way to redownload everything I have already paid for - this is something that many people were talking about, how Fatality doesn't want to pay for information for example - I've heard that before.

I also said I do buy some of my music. I do attend concerts. I still partially pay, but I'm not willing to pay as much as everyone else, so I don't. It's illegal until the industry wakes up sure. As long as I'm being neglected as a consumer, I feel no moral hangups myself. In my view, it's akin to how you are willing to download something if it's unavailable by other means, such as an 'obsolete' game. To me, it's unavailable at a price that I'm willing to pay.

What if people did that with all laws they did not like?

Do you speed on the highway?
If not, you have noticed that some do, right?

The law isn't the highest authority on morality. In fact copyright laws are beginning to look like they might be one of the last barriers to really making use of technology to educate human beings as a species regardless of class or personal specialization.

Personal property rights and the Randian ideals that surround them have an immoral side to them. I'm not claiming that suburban children are suffering because they have to pay to listen to crap pop, it's the very real possibility that because of these laws important parts of future technology would be restricted to protect the industry that previously distributed information, and now just shovels crap.
________________________________________
Good men must not obey the laws too much
Ralph Waldo Emerson

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
Mahatma Gandhi

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.
Winston Churchill

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.
Abraham Lincoln

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers.
1 Timothy 1. 8-9.

Every immoral law must be disobeyed
Nuremberg Trials

"Or just go to iTunes and buy each song legally for 99 cents."


I hate iTunes and their DRM.
Besides who stops me from recording a live stream or recording any radio show for that matter?

Just because one believes something is wrong does not mean he is free to break (the law, in this case).

--Rawr, June 22 10:03 PM EDT

Actually that's extremely inaccurate.



~How so?

Basically, the industry is sorely lacking in price discrimination. Pirating has filled this function, but they could be profiting off of it instead.

Price discrimination sounds like a bad thing, but it helps greatly in extracting all the consumer surplus from a product. iTunes uses the most antiquated pricing scheme imaginable. Sure, there's consumer convenience in the sense that you already know how much a song costs, but besides that it's very inefficient and backwards. Apple is so pious about their design of everything; some things they don't get right.

As I said free/cheap versions with lower bit rates would help a lot. Why risk downloading when I can get a free legal version? This would also force people to go to the legal website, which can have ads etc. Or you could require they are connected to the internet to get the music, so they can still control whether it works. I have run into this when some band released one of their songs early online. The file would only run in my music player with an internet connection. A little annoying, but it was free. There are plenty of ways to do this, many already being used.

In the UK we're seeing the companies move away from trying to pursue people for illegal downloads and instead joining forces with the internet providers. Virgin Media will (in some unspecified manner) police the torrent sites and the like and anybody using them through Virgin's broadband who they discover may find their link to the internet shut down, with a three strikes and you're out policy in operation.

Of course customers vote with their feet at times like that and go elsewhere. But if it proves successful then other providers will follow suit and do the same. It all comes with government backing as well...

I can't think of any circumstance where one is free to do as he pleases just because he thinks a rule is wrong.

I can't think of any circumstance where one is free to do as he pleases just because he thinks a rule is wrong.

You cannot be serious. Think harder.

No, I really can't.

Cube: like what?

Isn't that exactly what happened with prohibiton though?

Or, Henk, go to Amazon.com MP3 downloads and get songs for 89 cents each (cheaper if an album has a lot of tracks and you buy the whole thing). No encumbrance, decent sampling rate (something like VBR at 256k as far as I can tell), imports right into your iTunes library, with album art. I think you can even point the downloader (works on Windows and Mac) to WMP it you wish. I have been telling people to go to Amazon for about a year now. I can't think of anything simpler.

Or, get an eMusic subscription. They now have Sony's catalog, if that matters to you, and per-song prices get down to around 60 cents, I think, even cheaper if you buy a large album (they have some funky rules based on number of tracking in the album, etc, to compete with other service's per-album prices).

Or, buy used CDs.

Or, do without.

Are those enough options? I'm still not seeing the justification for paying nothing for something which clearly has value to you (otherwise it wouldn't be downloaded and kept, right?).

As far as hijacking a stream, I have done that. I did it for every stream of This American Life (NPR show) off their web site. And when I was done, I wrote them a charitable donation of 200 dollars (and will give more as more podcasts come out).

It's not the conventional route of payment, but it certainly meets the "pay for value" litmus test. I guess a bunch of other folks on this thread would rather hijack and pay nothing, based on sentiments ranging from "I can do what I want" to "nothing matters anyway". Delightful.

or, sutekh I download my music using torrents and emule as downloading in The Netherlands is completely legal.

Uploading isn't legal, but downloading is. So I basically never bought any CD or DVD in my life.

I think you just nailed why the whole legality aspect of things is pretty meaningless. It isn't even against the law where you are, and I _still_ think you should pay for it.

The law has nothing to do with the logical argument that you should trade value for value... That sense of bartering has been around forever. Now, perhaps taxation and stuff has been subsidizing the music industry where you live, so you ARE paying for it, in a way. I'm not sure how that works. But if all you are paying for is your broadband access, and if prices for that are similar to other countries, then it seems odd to me that such a thing would be legal.

By the way, if you are using torrents, someone has to be uploading. The bits don't just come out of the ether. So if everyone has their uploading turned off, keeping it legal, how to torrents work over there?

objective morality was mentioned earlier on, but I think a better topic for this thread would be moral ambiguity.
Loads of people only do what's right because it's against the law. If it wasn't they'd be out there doing it left and right. In this case, a lot of people think that they don't have to do (or not do) something because they feel they're right. It's just the other side of the coin.
I will go out on a limb and guess that most people believe most laws are "right". And so they believe they should follow them. Until one comes along that clashes with they're own feelings.
Reminds me of a comic I heard on the radio once.
He was talking about how a friend of his (if my info is a bit off I'm going by memory, don't hang me.. it's illegal) was going to Amsterdam and wanted him to go with because it was legal to have "relations" with a 15yo. And the comic's response was that it's not the LEGALITY of it that is stopping him!!!
So that's how it is. People will pick and choose what they would like to do or say and will then grunt loudly when they are called on it.

The American revolution.
I'm sorry; you have failed history.

I sure hope you aren't comparing downloading music to the American Revolution.

Let's cover a few of the reasons behind the Revolution:

-- Inalienable rights
-- Taxation without representation
-- Oppressive occupation (also without representation)

Let's cover the singular issue behind downloading music without paying for it:

-- I want my music and I want it now, for the price I am willing to pay for it, and am entitled to have value without paying back any value in return.

I think I would rather fail history than even risk the comparison of such two, radically different things.

LOL cube cube cube... (get it, cube cubed?)
what we've been talking about though is either actions HAVING CONSEQUENCES ... (revolution = freedom and lots of DEAD PEOPLE.)
OR
Doing something more than just sitting around breaking rules hoping for change.
The revolution... EXACTLY. They didn't just sit around breaking the law, hoping for a better tomorrow... THEY MADE IT HAPPEN.
I'm sorry you paid attention to history but didn't learn a thing from it.
:(

Gosh cube, the more I think about it the more I can't believe you threw that out there.
Comparing people who felt so strongly about something that they were willing to sacrifice life to attain a better place in the world for themselves and they're children...

To people who want to have something for nothing but ultimately don't want to do anything about it other than ignore the law.

WoW.

obviously they're = their...
before someone else sticks there nose in it... (lol)

Rawr asked for an example of breaking the law being right. That is an example of breaking the law.

I'm not so arrogant to call downloading the same as the American revolution. Thanks for assuming though.

OK, then at the very least can we stay on topic, regardless of what was asked for?

Yes, there are times when breaking the "law" has been very important and probably the right thing to do.

No, such times do not have a whole lot of relation to what we are talking about, and downloading music without paying for it in places where it is not legal is not a revolution, evolution, or solution.

Yes, downloading is caused by the lack of a solution. The revolution has to come from the industry.

At least one of the reasons for the eventual revolution was

-- I want my tea and paper and I want it now, for the price I am willing to pay for it, and am entitled to have value without paying back that much value in return.

And one of the topics of this thread has been the outrageous sentence handed down. But I wonder if anyone has even bothered to look for more info on this case as to what led to where this woman is now... or have they just put on their argument hats. Forget the fine, what's your ACTUAL freedom worth. Cause if she lied in front of a judge and jury then now she should go to jail.
PERIOD.

=) I'm waaaaayyyy to busy to read the millions of lines of text in this thread. If you have any sort of thing to say to me, please cm me, as I likely missed it. I've got a few interesting conversations going via CM. =)

"Tea and paper" were accompanied by a lot of other life essentials, and BadFish and I covered that waaaaay up. There is difference between an luxury item (media) and foodstuffs. The Boston Tea Party could have just as easily been a Boston Pot Pie party or Boston Salt Pork party. EVERYTHING was getting taxed, unfairly and without representation.

And as far as the "that much", a lot of the sentiment on this thread is reporting that anything more than ZERO is too much. Some of these folks want free media, all they want, whenever they want it, and see no logic in any argument against that no matter of that argument is based on law, morals, ethics, conscience, society, or value.

So again, this is nothing close to a revolution, and calling it such belittles the real, historical revolutions that have played out based on things like human rights and genocide.

Even if you DO want to throw the "R" word around, could we at least constrain that tone to things that really deal with rights: being allowed to use what I have actually paid for? Making sure fair use stays in play? You know, more important things than, "whaaaa! I'm entitled to music!"

I read the first 100 posts or so, but I think far too much has been said at this point for me to respond to individual points. That said, this will probably respond directly to many of the points already made.

The role of the Judicial branch in government is interpretation of laws. This should and does include calling laws bullcrap if they are. While there is a tricky line there involving personal political bias of high-ranking "activist" judges and whether or not that affects certain calls, it is an important part of the system. A case can be brought before the Supreme Court by a person convicted of breaking a law, and they can be cleared of all charges if the court determines that the law in question was total bull crap.

One of the primary giveaways of a crappy law is if it cannot be fairly enforced. Music downloading and sexual actions conducted in private between consenting individuals are two examples of laws that cannot be fairly enforced. First of all, it's hard to even find out who is committing these actions without significant invasion of privacy. Secondly, the infrequency with which someone can be charged and convicted for such things equates to inconsistency in the application of the law because of the vastness of the ratio between the number of frequent offenders and the few who are caught and prosecuted.

Government, according to the social contract, exists to protect the rights of citizens, correct? That makes me wonder something: are the consequences associated with breaking the law meant to be punitive to the offender, or reparative to the victim? I think priority should be given heavily to the second. This case clearly doesn't do that. On one side is the RIAA, itself stating (and having repeatedly proved with other offenders) that it would be glad to take $5,000-$30,000 as a settlement of the wrong done. On the other side, we have a woman who most likely will not be able to amass $1.92mil in her entire lifetime stuck with this debt she will never be able to pay off. To the woman, it's an impossible penance, and to the RIAA, it's not even a big deal; they woulda taken $5k and said it was all good so long as the woman showed that she "learned her lesson." In other words, the ruling doesn't help to appease the hurt feelings of the record companies any more than a much smaller sum would have, but makes sure to burden this lady with something she'll never get out of for the rest of her life (assuming that the appeal is ineffective and the ruling stands).

Lastly, the punishment should fit the crime. Jesus said "an eye for an eye" as a description of justice, not to encourage hitting back, but as criticism of the Hebrew judicial system at the time, which tended to punish many crimes very harshly, rather than with something matching the offense. This woman has to pay $80,000 in damages per song ripped. Did she cause $80,000-worth of damage with every track? Did she cause a lifetime of financial enslavement, that she should be sentenced to the same thing? Yes, it's within the guidelines given in the law, but is it within the guidelines given by common sense?

sutekh
They could have hunted and grown their own food too. It's not as different as you think. They had alternatives. Yes, it's not noble because it's a luxury good, but in essence it's comparable.

As for zero or not zero, I guarantee you no one is paying absolutely zero as attention is worth something. Clothing, concerts, advertising all draw value from the image of the artist getting out there. Ever heard of Sean John? There is no free music.

I never called pirating a revolution. Please don't take cheap shots. However, someone needs to revolutionize the industry, and that is proper use of the term. No one's sentiment for their personal morals is going to change because of anti-piracy ads.


CC, thanks for your post as well as bringing us back to the main topic. We've been off topic for quite a while. Completely agree with all of it. Laws are just words until someone enforces them.

Where is my cheap shot? I never used the word "revolution" until others did, and then only used it to make my point. I am entirely allowed to think even the slightest use of that word in this discussion (especially when originated in the context of a REAL revolution) is inaccurate. That's not a cheap shot at you or anyone else. It's my opinion. Good grief -- I can't experience sadness over anyone else's viewpoint (BadFish's earlier observation) and now can't express an opinion without being dressed down for it. Is this a debate or a tea party?

And back on the revolution front (heh), you are the one who persists using the American Revolution as something remotely comparable to the music industry. As for the Early Americans growing their own food -- what? You don't think the pioneers were trying to do a lot of their own things, their own way, only to be stymied by British control and still heavily taxed anyway? I know it isn't as dire as some might think...not as dire as atrocious things like The Holocaust or genocide in Africa, but there is still nothing to compare to a purely first-world, purely luxury-based phenomenon like listening to a huge variety of high quality music.

I have never heard of Sean John, so I don't know what you are referring to. As for paying with "attention", not sure I understand that either... Are you saying if I really practice my sleight of hand and become famously successful at shoplifting, that I have in fact "paid" for it with my diligence and attention? There is zero value-added attention in anonymously downloading music, and plenty of folks listen to that music (deriving real value from it) without going to a single concert or buying any gear. Plus, extend that to movies... How many people download a movie and then go buy a Johnny Depp T-shirt because of it? There aren't as many concerts or accessories when it comes to acting folks, at least not in the same way. About the most an actor or actress can do with attention is get a bigger audience for their next movie -- which an entitled downloader will simply download again anyway. "$12 for a movie ticket! NO WAY! REVOLUTION!!!!" So, overall, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are referring to on the "attention" front, but perhaps I am missing the gist of your point?

another interesting read regarding this case. I will say again, I can't claim that the sentence is just when compared to the crime...
But she put herself in this situation and even when (allegedly) offered an out decided to waste more and more of everyone else's money but hers (her case was taken pro bono).
I do not wish her ill. I hope she comes out of this with minimal hurt to her and/or her family.
But... ah well.

http://www.leavethelightson.info/justice-was-jammie-thomas-rassets-copyright-fine-just

oh, and here is an entire web site dedicated to her and i believe fund raising... in case anyone wants to donate. ;p

http://freejammie.freeforums.org/

Oh my god, sutekh

I've been trying to say that downloading music isn't a revolution.
I cited the American Revolution as just violation of a law.
Beyond that I said, if you want to go there, there are some minor similarities.

Leave it alone.

Sean John was a musical artist who started a clothing line using his popularity. Just an example.

The music business will never die completely because of downloading. Easy to prove because if everyone else in the world stopped making music, I'm sure I'd start.

What exactly are you arguing for anyway? No moral crusade or police hunt is going to stop people from downloading/copying, we all know that.

Also to prove you wrong. I downloaded Pirates of the Caribbean 1, and then paid to see the other two.

I also saw a No Doubt concert last week. =)
Previously, they never saw a cent from me. Of course, if they hadn't gotten back together that wouldn't have happened, but you get the point.

Wow this is the most mind-numbingly stupid debate ever...

Just so I am reading this correctly:

It is ok to take something of value that somebody else produced for any of the following reasons:

A) I just don't want to pay for it.
B) I am entitled to it.
C) I don't agree with the laws governing ownership in the matter.
D) The laws can't be enforced on everyone so they don't apply to anyone.

So you are BBQing in the back yard and go inside for a Beer and your neighbour walks over and swipes your perfect steak. Nobody saw him do it so there is no proof, and he felt that A,B and C applied. Are you honestly telling me that you have not been wronged? What if you were crafting a commercial jingle instead of a steak?

This line of reasoning is indicitive of the pathetic piss/whine/moan mentality that seems to be invading society wherein people feel that consquences should not apply to them and the should be free to do whatever they want.

Was the fine perhaps excessive? Yes.
Is the woman in question a victim here? Oh hell no!

/rantmode

No. It's a stupid debate because morals are relative. I've been trying to avoid talking about the morality of it.

More important are the economics of the situation and what can be done about it, so we don't have to impose excessive fine on unsuspecting people. This isn't a favorable situation for the industry or the unsuspecting consumer.

She is the victim of a failed system.

"the economics of the situation and what can be done about it, so we don't have to impose excessive fine on unsuspecting people."

How in the sweet merciful hereafter is this an unsuspecting person? After 2 rounds of court proceedings countless media coverage she still decided to fight it. That's not unsuspecting, that's just stupid.

Oh, and morality be damned, did the person who took your steak wrong you?

Many are unsuspecting and settle for a few thousand dollars.

If they are starving, no.

Well, I'd feel wronged, but they wouldn't feel bad about it.

Relativity

Cube, you are right. You win.

Consider it let gone.

Or you write a novel.

You're supposed to get 2.50 for each one sold.

However, people buy a few and then download them on file sharing sites for everyone to get free.

Depriving you of your 2.50 for each one sold.

Is that wrong? Certainly.

It does not matter who gets the money when you buy a song. The record company paid/pays the artist accordingly. That money the record company gets keep them in business, employing countless people who in turn support their families.

What this woman did was stealing. No debate on that, she stole and then distributed songs.

She was given at least 2 chances to settle but decided, upon consulting these hot shot lawyers to fight it. Perhaps she or her lawyers were trying to set a precedent. But the failed. And now, she is paying the price for the chance she took.

She knew the law and the maximum/minimum fine she could get. This 2M fine was not outside those parameters.

I am certain she will now settle with the record labels for far less, but the precedent has been set for these type cases.

If they catch you, settle for a few thousand or lose millions.

Or you can stop and be worry free.

Again, no pity here as to the fine. There was no miscarriage of justice according to the law as it is written.

If you do not like it, find constructive, legal ways to get it changed. Or just obey the damm rule.

And the amount of the fine sends a very clear message to all those who would do this sort of thievery. Do it and you will lose everything.

They clearly did not settle on 2k a song but 80k a song.

This was a very clear verdict with a very clear message. This type of behavior is not to be tolerated.

And it was a jury trial, not a judge trial. A jury of her "peers" felt this was completely unacceptable. How much more debate can there be?

I agree with all of that.. for the most part.
But I'm tired; there's no point nitpicking.