Court Confirms $675,000 Fine For Downloading Music

[normano]

how do the RIAA prove that the record company lost out on revenue from this guy - he may have just wanted to see if he liked the songs, but that is often not enough to make him go out and buy them.

Basically - there are possibly millions of people that download the stuff illegally because they can, but possibly 90% of those people probably would not have gone out and purchased it if they could not have got it illegally. So how does the RIAA prove that by downloading the material illegally, the downloader has deprived anyone of revenue? Of course they can't!!!! Okay - they can suggest that by using torrent software, a downloader then becomes a sharer meaning that many others are then able to get the material illegally - but yet again they cannot prove that those people would have purchased the material if they could not have got it for free.

See what I am trying to say?

So RIAA - start proving your clients are really losing revenue, not just suggesting the possibility!!!! When one is arrested for committing a crime, the authorities must prove the criminal's guilt before punishment is metered out - so prove it!!! Forgive me if I do not hold my breath while you try to prove it.

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]normano[/nom]how do the RIAA prove that the record company lost out on revenue from this guy - he may have just wanted to see if he liked the songs, but that is often not enough to make him go out and buy them.Basically - there are possibly millions of people that download the stuff illegally because they can, but possibly 90% of those people probably would not have gone out and purchased it if they could not have got it illegally. So how does the RIAA prove that by downloading the material illegally, the downloader has deprived anyone of revenue? Of course they can't!!!! Okay - they can suggest that by using torrent software, a downloader then becomes a sharer meaning that many others are then able to get the material illegally - but yet again they cannot prove that those people would have purchased the material if they could not have got it for free.See what I am trying to say?So RIAA - start proving your clients are really losing revenue, not just suggesting the possibility!!!! When one is arrested for committing a crime, the authorities must prove the criminal's guilt before punishment is metered out - so prove it!!! Forgive me if I do not hold my breath while you try to prove it.[/citation]

They don't have to because judges are stupid. The RIAA's math is way off, they can't prove lost revenues (in fact most experts agree the impact on revenue is likely very small). Basically the only thing they have is unauthorized distribution to people who may not have the right to acquire the material you're sharing for free. This should have a fixed fine to it, like drunk driving. Drunk drivers get a fixed fine, instead of being sued for the possibility that they might push a school bus full of children off a cliff, with that school bus falling on top of a chemical plant and exploding, killing thousands of people. Downloaders are being sued for the possibility of a worst case scenario and then that gets multiplied by the number of leechers (hundreds, or thousands) because of the fuzzy math RIAA lawyers confuse the judges with.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]normano[/nomSo RIAA - start proving your clients are really losing revenue, not just suggesting the possibility!!!! When one is arrested for committing a crime, the authorities must prove the criminal's guilt before punishment is metered out - so prove it!!! Forgive me if I do not hold my breath while you try to prove it.[/citation]
The crime happened when the copyrighted material was illegally copied. The law is very clear. It is not as though you can say you didn't eat or didn't like the candy bar you shoplifted, so it wasn't stealing. It's simple: You cannot reporduce copyrighted material without paying the royalties for it. If you do, you are stealing and therefore clearly breaking the law.

 

[junixophobia]

[citation][nom]keczapifrytki[/nom]Does anyone know what we have to do to close down the RIAA forever? God damn it, I hate these people so much. They must be the lowest form of life in the universe, right under the amoeba.[/citation]
Don't insult the amoeba! :-D

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom][citation][nom]normano[/nomSo RIAA - start proving your clients are really losing revenue, not just suggesting the possibility!!!! When one is arrested for committing a crime, the authorities must prove the criminal's guilt before punishment is metered out - so prove it!!! Forgive me if I do not hold my breath while you try to prove it.[/citation]The crime happened when the copyrighted material was illegally copied. The law is very clear. It is not as though you can say you didn't eat or didn't like the candy bar you shoplifted, so it wasn't stealing. It's simple: You cannot reporduce copyrighted material without paying the royalties for it. If you do, you are stealing and therefore clearly breaking the law.[/citation]

And you cannot equate music, movies or software with physical goods. It's not comparable to stealing candy from a shop (not in the least because you deprived the shopowner of the money he paid to the manufacturer and shipping company of the candy, nothing of the sort happens when you download music). You can't pick and choose laws as you see fit. The industry keeps telling us downloading is exactly the same as stealing a physical good but when we respond and equate Sony removing Linux support from the PS3 to Toyota breaking into your car and removing the tires, or when we equate copying a file to building a replica of a car you bought (which is legal as long as you don't sell it), then suddenly they tell us intellectual property is very different from physical goods. Goddamn hypocrites! Don't fall for their lies, boycot these thugs!

 

[Gulli]

F*ck, something went wrong in the last post: to clarify. I wrote the part starting with "And you cannot equate [...]"

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]junixophobia[/nom]Don't insult the amoeba! :-D[/citation]

Yeah, the amoeba actually contributes something to this world while the RIAA are parasites.

 

[Gulli]

Well, some amoebas are bad, but others aren't.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]And you cannot equate music, movies or software...[/citation]
You missed a couple of words:
"I BELIEVE you cannot equate music, movies or software with physical goods THOUGH OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS IS THE SAME. I INCORRECTLY BELIEVE It's not comparable to stealing candy from a shop (not in the least because you deprived the shopowner of the money he paid to the manufacturer and shipping company of the candy, AND I INCORRECTLY THINK nothing of the sort happens when you download music). You can't pick and choose laws as you see fit. The industry keeps telling us downloading is exactly the same as stealing a physical good but when we respond and equate Sony removing Linux support from the PS3 (ACCORDING to the user agreement, which is perfectly legal) to Toyota breaking into your car and removing the tires, or when we equate copying a file to building a replica of a car you bought (which is legal as long as you don't sell it) (BUT: I'm forgetting that a replica is not an exact copy), then suddenly they tell us intellectual property is very different from physical goods (if you ignore the legality of user agreements)."

"Don't fall for their lies, boycot these thugs!": That's the whole idea. If you don't like the material provided by a source, don't use/touch/listen/steal it. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

 

[Gulli]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]You missed a couple of words:"I BELIEVE you cannot equate music, movies or software with physical goods THOUGH OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS IS THE SAME. I INCORRECTLY BELIEVE It's not comparable to stealing candy from a shop (not in the least because you deprived the shopowner of the money he paid to the manufacturer and shipping company of the candy, AND I INCORRECTLY THINK nothing of the sort happens when you download music). You can't pick and choose laws as you see fit. The industry keeps telling us downloading is exactly the same as stealing a physical good but when we respond and equate Sony removing Linux support from the PS3 (ACCORDING to the user agreement, which is perfectly legal) to Toyota breaking into your car and removing the tires, or when we equate copying a file to building a replica of a car you bought (which is legal as long as you don't sell it) (BUT: I'm forgetting that a replica is not an exact copy), then suddenly they tell us intellectual property is very different from physical goods (if you ignore the legality of user agreements).""Don't fall for their lies, boycot these thugs!": That's the whole idea. If you don't like the material provided by a source, don't use/touch/listen/steal it. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?[/citation]

Are you some kind of corporate robot? Or a Ferengi? A replica is exactly the same as a copy, even if the RIAA or you don't like it. No user agreement may supersede the law: if I sign a contract that you'll give me $3000 so you can shoot me 10 years from now then I do not have to hold up my end of the bargain and let myself be shot by you. Almost everything about intellectual property is different from physical goods, including the laws. None of this RIAA bullshit would stand up in a court with a knowledgeable judge who won't be fooled by the Chewbacca tactic and fuzzy math.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]Are you some kind of corporate robot? Or a Ferengi? A replica is exactly the same as a copy, even if the RIAA or you don't like it. No user agreement may supersede the law: if I sign a contract that you'll give me $3000 so you can shoot me 10 years from now then I do not have to hold up my end of the bargain and let myself be shot by you. Almost everything about intellectual property is different from physical goods, including the laws. None of this RIAA bullshit would stand up in a court with a knowledgeable judge who won't be fooled by the Chewbacca tactic and fuzzy math.[/citation]
No to all questions. I'm just a straight thinking person who doesn't believe in stealing even if the person really, really wants something, or wants to believe it's not stealing, or thinks 'everybody does it', or believes the price it too high, or 'hates' the company selling it, etc. If you don't like the RIAA, don't be a hypocrite and don't acquire anything that is their property. Hate does not change ownership. Hypocrites cannot be right, because they contradict themselves by definition. And by the way, how come every judge agrees with the law and precedent forwarded by the RIAA? (hint: because the hold the correct position) I am amazed by the lengths people will go to to defend their stealing. Put that energy into profitable engagement and you can afford all the copyrighted materials you want.

 

[rohitbaran]

Someone needs to slap RIAA hard. Real hard.

 

[killerb255]

[citation][nom]nordlead[/nom]The reason they don't charge $3/song is because they usually tack on a charge to make people think twice before wronging another party. However, 20k/song is excessive and the sad part is they are just trying to ruin this guys life. 60k will still ruin hurt for quite a few years, make a point not to pirate music, and allow him to rebuild his life. I mean, they are going to push him into filing for bankruptcy and they'll get nothing.[/citation]

Pretty much. The RIAA is not a secured creditor, so they won't get jack after a Chapter 7 or even a Chapter 13...

 

[killerb255]

[citation][nom]carnage9270[/nom]Actually he can claim bankruptcy all he wants, it doesn't remove the debt.http/www.bankruptcystrategiesus. [...] judge.html[/citation]

Bankruptcy cannot discharge criminal restitution, but can discharge civil restitution.

 

[Marco925]

I can kill someone for a smaller fine than that.

 

[antilycus]

Welcome to the United States judicial system, where whomever bribes the judge the most, wins.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]You missed a couple of words when you were typing:"No, if I paid money for a Michael Jackson tape in 1985 I WISH TO have the right to access those songs any way I can, AND I WISH for the rest of my life. I WISH 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 ALSO NOT THE law."[/citation]

actually this was the law untill the dmca...
you know ripping music off a cd to put on your mp3 player is illegal by the dmca?
you know that making a coppy of a movie for personal use was legal till the dmca? a dvd gets damaged easily, and dont give me that "take care of it" crap, heavily used dvds get scratched no matter what, and some cds i have had are unreadable now.

just because the "law" says something isnt ok, doesnt mean that law is right.
and sadly we live in a world of presidents. if something wrong is upheld by the wrong judge it could be decades before its over turned, because judges are a reputation job, and going against a president... that could ruin your reputation.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]...sadly we live in a world of presidents...[/citation]
I didn't know there was a President of precedents.