P2P File Sharer to Pay RIAA $80,000 Per Song

[wdmso]

Go to a used record\CD store and buy 1 or 100 CD's the RIAA gets nothing from those sales! I know why they cant track those sales
but can track ip addresss love big brother

 

[ThePatriot]

Only in America.....
You get what you deserve.

 

[gorehound]

"However, many bands that are "starving artists" make so little of CDs and MP3 sales that they often give away their music (or encourage pirating it) so you will come to concerts and buy stuff they really make money off of . . . like tickets and t-shirts. Fans make bands more money than CDs ever will."

I agree with this being an artist and playing in rock bands since 1972.I have lots of free 320k mp3 on my main website www.bigmeathammer.com
you are free to file share anything on my site.I also give out for free a professional 5 1/2 hour long documentary i personally made on Carpathian Jews before,during,and after WW2.this is given out as master quality DVD' with high-res scans of cover art.
Heck I give it all out and people hear us and then some actually pay me for physical records.
I do not ever buy large label music nor do i buy any music from any label/artist who has signed with the RIAA.
Buy all your music from the artists like me and you can be assured we will get the money for our art and you will be supporting artists not corporations who ripoff their own artists.

 

[macer1]

[citation][nom]twisted politiks[/nom]and the people who first uploaded the songs she downloaded paid for them? so now where is your 2-second thought logic[/citation]

Get into the business before you speak. When you know what a promo only track is and its cost then quote me.

 

[r0x0r]

Let me download 1441kbps WAV for 99c/track DRM free, then I'll pay. Otherwise I'll buy CD's and utorrent the stuff I can't get easily (ie 95% of what I have).

 

[tayb]

[citation][nom]Master Exon[/nom]tayb, a large majority of illegal music downloads are by people who would not have paid for it anyways. Therefor, no potential sales were lost in those cases.[/citation]

That is such a line of BS. What would you do if the music wasn't readily and easily available online? You say that you "wouldn't buy it anyways" but of course you wouldn't when the alternative is absolutely free. If you had no medium to acquire that music other than iTunes the story might change.

 

[talys]

And the RIAA wonders why people don't like them.

 

[oxxfatelostxxo]

um.... hmm... im f*****d i owe the RIAA 5.76billion..
loan from bill gates maybe?

Also technically if we deleted the songs after, isnt it fine? kinda like previewing before you buy or dont buy type of thing?

 

[rhino13]

This discussion is first a little misguided because no one is actually reading the true court report.
You can check out a little more information on wired dot com.
The woman was actually sharing 1702 files on Kazza. She was only sued by the RIAA for 24 of those, as she replaced her hard drive before investigators seized what was left of the evidence. At that point only the 24 songs remained.
She was offered much lower settlement outside of court and figuratively spat in the face of the RIAA.
Her actual conviction was not just on stealing 24 $.99 songs, but on actively distributing them. So while what she still had in her possession when seized was relatively worthless, the distribution count on her songs was very high.
She didn't just steal them for herself she stole them and helped a significant number of other people steal them as well.
She could have been convicted for as little as $18,000 or as much as $3,600,000. In that range $220,000 certainly seems kind. Especially for someone who figuratively spat in the face of a settlement.

By the way her defense? Somebody else could have gotten on my computer and done this.
Unfortunataly for her this isn't a criminal trial. This is copyright infringement trial. It isn't required to have "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt". Only "reasonable and justifiable proof".
Her attorneys are trying to defend her as though she is in criminal court and that's just plain stupid. They need to be defending her character saying this isn't the kind of thing she would do. Unfortunatally the woman has just been trying to make a mockery of the trial, saying its no big thing. And that makes the character argument very hard to pull.
Frankly I think that giving the woman only 6% (220000 / (3600000 - 18000))of the maximum fine seems pretty reasonable.

 

[mdillenbeck]

[citation][nom]chripuck[/nom]And that's why I don't buy CD's anymore. If I do, it's used, thus no money to the RIAA.[/citation]
Sorry, but when you buy used it means someone before you bought new and so the RIAA still got some money from the transaction. Also, that person selling the CDs might not be buying as many if they had no resale market to fund further CD purchases.

 

[mdillenbeck]

My problem is with how the RIAA is their "double dipping" method - they want a person to pay for the songs based on the number of downloads and uploads. However, if a person pays for the uploading, why do they also get paid when it is downloaded too?

The issue is there are ways to quantify the value of the music distributed. For downloaded songs, most are available on iTunes for 0.99USD. For uploaded and shared songs, there are licensing fee structures based on the number of listeners to the broadcast. I believe you can recoup up to 3x value and legal costs in court.

Optionally, they could sue for copyright infringement - but the user violates this only each time they copy the file. When they are on Kazaa and someone requests it, two copies are not made - they are merely allowing someone access to their hard drive and that remote user is copying the file. Thus, there should be no upload violation fee, only download or disk transfer fee.

It is not a question of whether people should have the right to pirate works without consequence. Of course they should be sued - they are breaking the law! After all, when you go speeding in a car, you know that you might get caught and have to pay a fine and loose some points on your license. However, the punishment must fit the crime. No collecting lost income from the distributor AND the recipient (thus recouping your losses TWICE), no assessing new values for products that had an established value already (internet radio license fees that existed already versus asking a full value "per song" charge), and no activities that amount to extortion ("pay us 3000-5000USD or we'll sue you for millions").

That is my final point - it is extortion when you are trying to create outcomes to use as a pressure to get randomly accused users to pay up $3000-$5000 out of court (especially in cases with no evidence was gathered or from parents in cases against MINORS).

 

[formin]

lol
more effort and lawyers fees for nothing
but i love how they keep trying

 

[xyzionz]

There are over 6 billion people on this planet, almost half of us had downloaded at least 1 songs over the internet, so catch us all if you can.
The real rippers here is the RIAA, rip off people's hard earn money just like that.
Next time, if I got too much money, I won't need some monsters that can eat my money away, just download 240 songs and get a 19.2 million fine

 

[megabuster]

I just need a quick clarification. If I buy a CD/DVD in a store copy it then sell it on ebay for 40% off then the next guy does the same thing. Is this pirating? I mean if the next guy sells it for 40% off then the next guy 40% off eventually everyone will just pay the shipping fee and none of the subsequent dealings will benefit the Music Industry.
-Just a thought

 

[eklipz330]

if the RIAA caught me at $80k/song, i'd be paying enough to pay off the national debt and get the entire country out of recession

 

[nachowarrior]

i think i'm going to sue the riaa for 80g's for every ignorant f-ing lawsuit that i've been subjected to reading about...

 

[nachowarrior]

*wait a tick... you can check out dvd movies at the library... for free... Those f-ing butt pirates, they're totally pirating books too! giving out media for free!!! zomg!!! this fags are going to get charged so much for giving out media that the riaa will own the world!*

**sarcasm

 

[Guest]

If i got nailed with this, i'd shoot my self in the head. send a message back. the end of a life over greedy music companies

 

[dest]

Here's the thing, and this was bound to happen. Artists normally get payed for physical work done by them, when you start to copy works and artificially inflate the price of said work then you are setting yourself up for a collapse, lawyers or not.

 

[siunit]

What an epic waste of peoples time and money. How about using all that legal 'skill' on tackling issues that really matter like getting criminals in jail or reforming laws on banker's bonuses. And they have the cheek to call us thieves.