amk-aka-Phantom
Distinguished
- Mar 10, 2011
- 653
- 0
- 18,940
- Status
lp231
Distinguished
- Mar 24, 2006
- 147
- 0
- 18,640
I don't remember this article as there is another one that gain more spotlight.
It's Jammie Thomas which was at once time fined for sharing 24 songs at a staggering
$1.92 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
It's Jammie Thomas which was at once time fined for sharing 24 songs at a staggering
$1.92 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
Thor
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2004
- 51
- 0
- 18,580
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/joel-tenenbaum-riaa-music-downloads-court-trial,news-12585.html
Just normal.
They are no justice. Or if you prefer Justice is for rich. Normal since it’s rich who build “justice” and law.
So it’s normal to steal the People but it’s not normal that People try to not pay something sell at 2000% or more of his real value.
It’s normal to sell one Operating System $100 when his real value is $0.01.
It’s what Rich call Democracy even if in fact just Capitalist exist.
Rich have their puppet: Politicians
They are economic Nobel Price who find very good to sell one kidney for $15,000; of course not their own kidney but kidney of poor people.
So put somebody to prison because they don’t pay some music is just wonderful.
And why not soon put this bad person on electric chair.
Btw prisons are private in USA.
The difference between Capitalist vs. Communist:
Capitalist is how to put the power between the hands of companies and steal people and put money in tax havens and say
To talk all time how companies are so poor. To talk all time about deficit, debt, globalization.
During this time companies go at China, India to use their slaves and make more and more billions.
Communist is how to put the power between the hands of government but in fact government doesn’t exist but just despot.
Just normal.
They are no justice. Or if you prefer Justice is for rich. Normal since it’s rich who build “justice” and law.
So it’s normal to steal the People but it’s not normal that People try to not pay something sell at 2000% or more of his real value.
It’s normal to sell one Operating System $100 when his real value is $0.01.
It’s what Rich call Democracy even if in fact just Capitalist exist.
Rich have their puppet: Politicians
They are economic Nobel Price who find very good to sell one kidney for $15,000; of course not their own kidney but kidney of poor people.
So put somebody to prison because they don’t pay some music is just wonderful.
And why not soon put this bad person on electric chair.
Btw prisons are private in USA.
The difference between Capitalist vs. Communist:
Capitalist is how to put the power between the hands of companies and steal people and put money in tax havens and say
To talk all time how companies are so poor. To talk all time about deficit, debt, globalization.
During this time companies go at China, India to use their slaves and make more and more billions.
Communist is how to put the power between the hands of government but in fact government doesn’t exist but just despot.
Thor
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2004
- 51
- 0
- 18,580
It’s funny to see that RIAA is more powerful (well more rich) than millions of people.
RIAA people are just criminal, scum, who have money and so laws their side.
RIAA want program people so they think sharing is criminal.
But It’s not sharing who is criminal. What is criminal is miserliness !
RIAA people are just criminal, scum, who have money and so laws their side.
RIAA want program people so they think sharing is criminal.
But It’s not sharing who is criminal. What is criminal is miserliness !
Azn Cracker
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2009
- 158
- 0
- 18,660
poxeniummm
Distinguished
- Aug 23, 2011
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
There's a 1 million dollar reward for Muammar Gaddafi, dead or alive. According to the EU and USA justice systems, a music downloader is just as bad as a wanted dictator or terrorist. I think it's time to reexamine our values and laws!
ithurtswhenipee
Distinguished
- Mar 6, 2010
- 57
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]I'm no stranger to p2p but I have yet to encounter a torrent with hundreds of thousands of leechers (even popular tv shows usually have thousands, sometimes tens of thousands). Also this line of reasoning (multiplying by the number of leechers) is fundamentally flawed because people only send each other tiny pieces (in total they rarely upload more than they download) so chances are that for every song he downloaded he only uploaded one song. Also, when it's about multiple torrents chances are some of the leechers are the same. To illustrate: if there were 1001 leechers linked to the torrent, and all 1000 of them are arrested and fined for sharing files with 1000 people, then they'd be fined for sharing 1 million files even though only 1001 copies were created, so justice has not been served because they are actually fined 1000 times too much. This is the fuzzy math I was talking about and I suspect judges to be susceptible to.[/citation]
Lets not forget that with a torrent one person is only sharing parts of the complete song to any one person. If they could determine exactly what seeder A shared with leacher B, it would be bits and pieces of a file that doesn't add up to a song. That is the flip side of the fuzzy math that these senior citizen judges have to try and understand. The result is that they just say for the sake if simplifying it, that ip address owner A shared X number of songs with 1000+ people
so fine him $XXX,XXX.
Lets not forget that with a torrent one person is only sharing parts of the complete song to any one person. If they could determine exactly what seeder A shared with leacher B, it would be bits and pieces of a file that doesn't add up to a song. That is the flip side of the fuzzy math that these senior citizen judges have to try and understand. The result is that they just say for the sake if simplifying it, that ip address owner A shared X number of songs with 1000+ people
so fine him $XXX,XXX.
I will never understand why digital theft has penalties 100's of times more excessive than physical theft. At worst this should be like a $500 fine or something.
carnage9270
Distinguished
- Oct 21, 2008
- 19
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]aftcomet[/nom]He'll just declare bankruptcy, ruin his credit for 7 years, but be on his merry way. Be happy he didn't get jail time. Can't declare bankruptcy at that.However, that doesn't mean that the charges are beyond absurd. People who rape children get away with less.[/citation]
Actually he can claim bankruptcy all he wants, it doesn't remove the debt.
http://www.bankruptcystrategiesus.com/doesbkelimjudge.html
Actually he can claim bankruptcy all he wants, it doesn't remove the debt.
http://www.bankruptcystrategiesus.com/doesbkelimjudge.html
Gulli
Distinguished
- Sep 26, 2008
- 85
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]StuFuss[/nom]I just paid $26 to watch the Lion King with my kid, you don't think I have a right to then come home and download it so she can see it again? Bullshit! That movie made close to half a billion dollars and stands to make even more. In my view, the price of admission equals the price of ownership and repeat viewings.[/citation]
You are in fact legally entitled to download a movie or a song you have previously purchased in another format. The industry likes to tell us that buying a song or a movie is different from buying a car and that they are therefore able to sue for copying or reselling said movie or song, but they never tell you that this difference also means you purchase the rights to watch the movie or listen to the song in any way possible: you don't buy the ones and zeros on the disk, you buy the right to access a piece of intellectual property. If you want to watch that movie again on your computer screen then you are legally entitled to do so because it's the exact same piece of intellectual property that you already paid for when you went to the theater.
P.S. If you ever get busted for filesharing or having certain files on your computer, just say you stole the computer, it'll save you a lot of trouble. Yeah, I know it's perverted but that's how the system works.
You are in fact legally entitled to download a movie or a song you have previously purchased in another format. The industry likes to tell us that buying a song or a movie is different from buying a car and that they are therefore able to sue for copying or reselling said movie or song, but they never tell you that this difference also means you purchase the rights to watch the movie or listen to the song in any way possible: you don't buy the ones and zeros on the disk, you buy the right to access a piece of intellectual property. If you want to watch that movie again on your computer screen then you are legally entitled to do so because it's the exact same piece of intellectual property that you already paid for when you went to the theater.
P.S. If you ever get busted for filesharing or having certain files on your computer, just say you stole the computer, it'll save you a lot of trouble. Yeah, I know it's perverted but that's how the system works.
Gulli
Distinguished
- Sep 26, 2008
- 85
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]It baffles me how none of you even have a clue as to legality and what you're doing.Downloading songs off torrents is illegal unless the artist has given consent to it, and sometimes even when they have given consent to it since the record label owns the recordings.[/citation]
No, if I paid money for a Michael Jackson tape in 1985 I have the right to access those songs any way I can, for the rest of my life. I don't have to pay money to get the same songs on a different medium. This is not just my opinion, this is the law.
No, if I paid money for a Michael Jackson tape in 1985 I have the right to access those songs any way I can, for the rest of my life. I don't have to pay money to get the same songs on a different medium. This is not just my opinion, this is the law.
carnage9270
Distinguished
- Oct 21, 2008
- 19
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]No, if I paid money for a Michael Jackson tape in 1985 I have the right to access those songs any way I can, for the rest of my life. I don't have to pay money to get the same songs on a different medium. This is not just my opinion, this is the law.[/citation]
This is actually NOT the law. The ruling states that you can take your 1985 tape and make a copy of it to a CD, bluray, or even an 8 track if you want. But you do not have a license to get that music from illegal sources (which would be the only method available).
This is actually NOT the law. The ruling states that you can take your 1985 tape and make a copy of it to a CD, bluray, or even an 8 track if you want. But you do not have a license to get that music from illegal sources (which would be the only method available).
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]It baffles me how none of you even have a clue as to legality and what you're doing.Downloading songs off torrents is illegal unless the artist has given consent to it, and sometimes even when they have given consent to it since the record label owns the recordings. You haven't been fined yet because they randomly hunt people down for it. Wait your turnThere's a reason Youtube doesn't have a download button, you're making unauthorized recordings, which is no different legally than doing it from a CD. Many songs on Youtube are themselves breaking copyright laws, which is why videos are taken down when the content owner whines to Youtube about it.I'm against the RIAA and what they're doing, but if you think the cost of music should be nothing then feel free to start going to work and refusing pay. If you think musicians should do their job and get paid nothing then I'm sure it's fine for you to be paid nothing as well. If you think that music is terrible these days, then don't risk a lengthy court battle downloading anything. If it's bad then you don't want it, right?This guy explained it BTW, so I don't know why he's getting marked down. Taking a single CD is Theft, they aren't being charged with Theft. They are being charged with Piracy. These people are being equated with the guys in China making and selling hundreds of bootlegs for a profit, so legally they are costing the artist more than one sale. Even if it's a tiny piece, the courts consider every person who you're sharing with on a torrent to be a lost sale. The laws of piracy are outdated and need to be changed, but until that happens, the RIAA is allowed to make up ridiculous amounts of money for every song, because they're making the case that you aren't just taking a single copy, but costing them numerous sales. It isn't walking into the store and taking a CD, it's taking that CD, copying it, then passing it around on the street to anyone with an interest in it. I don't like it, the RIAA is abusing the legal system, but that's where they're getting their numbers from.[/citation]
ok, from the artist prospective.
lets say i make music all day long.
lets say in a given year, i make 10-20 songs.
lets say those songs are good.
lets say that i get payed 60-80k yearly, from my music, and that compounds as i make more and more.
personally, i think that record companies should get a 5-10% cut of music sales, as they are basically necessary anymore. seriously, the only hard thing to record anymore is a drum kit, and classical instruments, otherwise, everything else can be recorded for sub 2000$
i believe that youtube, through advertising, should pay 80% of the net profit to the artist, and 5% to the record label.
i believe that most of the artists money should come from live shows, and again, the label makes 20% off the net profit, the stage hands get a fixed amount, and the band gets the rest.
i honestly believe that if you are a music artist and your only motivation is money, than the world doesn't need your music.
if i was a music artist, and i wasn't struggling, as in needed more money, i would be happy. you ever notice that the artists that complain about piracy are always the multimillionaires? or how its the lable and the riaa?
back, pre digital, lables deserved a bigger cut than the musicians because they realy did provide a needed resource, and sholdered a heavy burden.
but now? i can buy a microphone for my pc that is so good that i need 300$+ headphones to actually hear all they have to offer.
i could build a sound room for i believe under 500$ for singing, and probably for under 2000 i could house a decent drum kit.
and for editing and mixing, all digital, so another 500-1000$ for the computer.
if i want to burn the discs, i can find an automatic cd burner
i can go digital, and sell the songs through itunes, my own site, or post them to youtube with partnerships and get a cut of the advertising.
and if i realy want to go big, higher a pr firm, higher a promoter, and book my own venues. rent the big speakers i need, and off i go.
hell at some point you get payed just for useing certain equipment.
i got off on a bit of a tangent there.
ok, from the artist prospective.
lets say i make music all day long.
lets say in a given year, i make 10-20 songs.
lets say those songs are good.
lets say that i get payed 60-80k yearly, from my music, and that compounds as i make more and more.
personally, i think that record companies should get a 5-10% cut of music sales, as they are basically necessary anymore. seriously, the only hard thing to record anymore is a drum kit, and classical instruments, otherwise, everything else can be recorded for sub 2000$
i believe that youtube, through advertising, should pay 80% of the net profit to the artist, and 5% to the record label.
i believe that most of the artists money should come from live shows, and again, the label makes 20% off the net profit, the stage hands get a fixed amount, and the band gets the rest.
i honestly believe that if you are a music artist and your only motivation is money, than the world doesn't need your music.
if i was a music artist, and i wasn't struggling, as in needed more money, i would be happy. you ever notice that the artists that complain about piracy are always the multimillionaires? or how its the lable and the riaa?
back, pre digital, lables deserved a bigger cut than the musicians because they realy did provide a needed resource, and sholdered a heavy burden.
but now? i can buy a microphone for my pc that is so good that i need 300$+ headphones to actually hear all they have to offer.
i could build a sound room for i believe under 500$ for singing, and probably for under 2000 i could house a decent drum kit.
and for editing and mixing, all digital, so another 500-1000$ for the computer.
if i want to burn the discs, i can find an automatic cd burner
i can go digital, and sell the songs through itunes, my own site, or post them to youtube with partnerships and get a cut of the advertising.
and if i realy want to go big, higher a pr firm, higher a promoter, and book my own venues. rent the big speakers i need, and off i go.
hell at some point you get payed just for useing certain equipment.
i got off on a bit of a tangent there.
Gulli
Distinguished
- Sep 26, 2008
- 85
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]carnage9270[/nom]This is actually NOT the law. The ruling states that you can take your 1985 tape and make a copy of it to a CD, bluray, or even an 8 track if you want. But you do not have a license to get that music from illegal sources (which would be the only method available).[/citation]
There is no such thing as an "illegal source". Every source can be legal or illegal depending on the circumstances (are you paying or not, do you own the license or not). The Pirate Bay is a legal source if own the license to the material and disable uploading.
There is no such thing as an "illegal source". Every source can be legal or illegal depending on the circumstances (are you paying or not, do you own the license or not). The Pirate Bay is a legal source if own the license to the material and disable uploading.
carnage9270
Distinguished
- Oct 21, 2008
- 19
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]There is no such thing as an "illegal source". Every source can be legal or illegal depending on the circumstances (are you paying or not, do you own the license or not). The Pirate Bay is a legal source if own the license to the material and disable uploading.[/citation]
False again.
False again.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Solved
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
-
Facebook
Twitter