Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading songs

[Atreath]

For those who cannot tell, this is an exercise in fear. The idea is for people to see this lawsuit and think to themselves, "gee...99 cents isn't all that much". I am certain that the RIAA do not expect to get even a visible fraction of the 1.9 million from this woman. Their real profit is in the terror of those who may think twice now about downloading and distributing music illegally. While I agree that the price tag is absurd and the punishment far outweighing the crime, I can appreciate, and on some levels admire, the tactic.

I dont, I think it is a poor tactic to the point of being laughable...

all this can do is incite hatred for the RIAA and their constituents, and in many would even foster sympathy for the the person committing the illegal act, as the RIAA has now turned them into the Victim in this scenario...

But whether or not she is "the victim" does not matter in this situation. People will be angry, of course, but these people already hate the RIAA, and what this does for the RIAA is set a legal example of what they can do to you if you don't play by their rules. This is not about who is a victim and who is a monster. This is about making people so shit-your-pants terrified of being sued that they won't illegally download and distribute.

Thing is. It won't work. Actually it might even have the opposite effect. I'd love to see piracy jump over this. I think that would be hilarious.

[Maurepas]

But the sheer number of people who do get away with it means that this is an impossible task, no matter how big the sentence is...

If they wanted real success they would actually try and win the PR campaign, and, unfortunately for them, they blew that chance 20 years ago...

Now that the Internet facilitates mass distribution, I dont see how Labels are really necessary to Artists these days, I foresee the day when tracks are released freely over the net and are primarily used for the purpose of selling Concert Tickets...taking the major label out of the equation entirely...

It doesn't matter how many people DO get away with it. The message is "Every so often, ONE of you will get burned, HARD. Are you willing to risk getting your number called in that lottery?" 1.9 Million is nothing at all to the RIAA. They probably wipe their asses with that kind of chump change. It is, however, more money than the average Joe Downloader will see in his entire life. The whole point is fear, and the threat that maybe it will be YOUR life that is destroyed.

And that is why they will fail, no one cares about them losing their shit...

Joe Downloader simply isnt going fear something that happened hundreds of miles away, the disconnect is too great and it will always be too great...

Especially when no one feels any attack of conscience when downloading music...

EDIT: Hell, Id even go so far as to say that not only will they not have an attack of conscience, but will probably feel a sense of pride at "sticking it to the man", so to speak...

[Megaloria]

But the sheer number of people who do get away with it means that this is an impossible task, no matter how big the sentence is...

If they wanted real success they would actually try and win the PR campaign, and, unfortunately for them, they blew that chance 20 years ago...

Now that the Internet facilitates mass distribution, I dont see how Labels are really necessary to Artists these days, I foresee the day when tracks are released freely over the net and are primarily used for the purpose of selling Concert Tickets...taking the major label out of the equation entirely...

It doesn't matter how many people DO get away with it. The message is "Every so often, ONE of you will get burned, HARD. Are you willing to risk getting your number called in that lottery?" 1.9 Million is nothing at all to the RIAA. They probably wipe their asses with that kind of chump change. It is, however, more money than the average Joe Downloader will see in his entire life. The whole point is fear, and the threat that maybe it will be YOUR life that is destroyed.

And that is why they will fail, no one cares about them losing their shit...

Joe Downloader simply isnt going fear something that happened hundreds of miles away, the disconnect is too great and it will always be too great...

Especially when no one feels any attack of conscience when downloading music...

EDIT: Hell, Id even go so far as to say that not only will they not have an attack of conscience, but will probably feel a sense of pride at "sticking it to the man", so to speak...

As long as they can own up to their decision when the Man sticks them back, then there is no issue.

[Gauthier]

As long as they can own up to their decision when the Man sticks them back, then there is no issue.

It's Zombie Math. They can sue one individual for a bullshit amount, but can they sue everyone who downloads illegally in return? Plus, this is like fighting terrorism in the Middle East by blowing up random mosques. You're just going to get a bunch of people pissed off and joining the side of the enemy.

[Vault 10]

One thing I can tell about myself, before these RIAA lawsuits, unauthorized copying for me was something I did with shame, being a student and far below able to afford to buy *every* CD or DVD I'd like to check out (mind you, I bought those of the bands I actually like).

After these, unauthorized downloading and distribution is a matter of honor for me, I have to do it, and I do it a lot, because then I don't feel helpless rage against the RIAA, but rather actively participate in and expand an organized boycott.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Here are the songs she was found to have infringed:

* Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
* Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
* Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
* Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
* Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
* Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
* Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
* Aerosmith "Cryin’"
* Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
* Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
* Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
* Bryan Adams "Somebody"
* No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
* Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
* Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
* Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
* Green Day "Basket Case"

I'd be interested if someone knows of a register of which bands/artists are signed with which label.

It would be interesting to know if any of the above have changed label since the dismissed trial of july 2007, and if any of them have spoken out against the RIAA's tactics.



A boycott of four major labels doesn't seem practical to me.

A boycott of artists might be necessary, to make a more clearly deliniated effect. Most people don't know or care what label a CD is, they buy by artist and song.

Still reading about the case here. I don't know why I paid so little attention to the original trial ...

[Vault 10]

A boycott of four major labels doesn't seem practical to me.
A boycott of artists might be necessary, to make a more clearly deliniated effect. Most people don't know or care what label a CD is, they buy by artist and song.

A boycott of artists makes limited sense. It's in order if the band in question has openly supported the RIAA actions. Not otherwise.

To see what label the CD is, look at the box. It will have a label displayed prominently on it. EMI, Sony, UMG, WMG? Don't buy it, unless you're buying it to upload it. That simple.

[Heinleinites]

Here are the songs she was found to have infringed:

* Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
* Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
* Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
* Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
* Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
* Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
* Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
* Bryan Adams "Somebody"
* No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
* Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
* Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
* Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
* Green Day "Basket Case"

Even if what she had done weren't illegal, she should still be penalized for bad taste. None of those songs are worth .99, much less 1.9 million.

Threatening to boycott record labels(or anything, really)is a lot like a toddler threatening to hold his breath until he gets his way. No one with any sense pays attention to them, because they know it's a pointless threat.

[Arroza]

Now that the Internet facilitates mass distribution, I dont see how Labels are really necessary to Artists these days, I foresee the day when tracks are released freely over the net and are primarily used for the purpose of selling Concert Tickets...taking the major label out of the equation entirely...

We already almost have that system in place in the rap part of the industry. Mixtapes are distributed freely and most rappers put out many more mixtapes than they do commercial albums. Getting an industry record deal us mainly used solely for the signing bonus, and to get onto radio, most of which is monopolized in a way that even the RIAA wishes it could imitate.

[Vault 10]

Threatening to boycott record labels(anything, really)is a lot like a toddler threatening to hold his breath until he gets his way. No one with any sense pays attention to them, because they know it's a pointless threat.

Not exactly. I know probably about a hundred people I've personally convinced to quit buying any RIAA labels. These include some of my high school class, a lot of my recently fellow college students, and my current colleagues at work. For many, it took first supplying them with any CD they'd ask for, then explaining them how to download their own, and why they should upload whatever CD they buy.

A hundred boycott supporters per activist is not much, but then, I don't spend all that much time on this.

[Heinleinites]

You managed to convince a hundred people not to purchase a trivial luxury good? Wow, you're really sticking it to The Man. I'm sure GreedTech Inc. is about cry uncle, the way their arm is being twisted.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

A boycott of four major labels doesn't seem practical to me.
A boycott of artists might be necessary, to make a more clearly deliniated effect. Most people don't know or care what label a CD is, they buy by artist and song.

A boycott of artists makes limited sense. It's in order if the band in question has openly supported the RIAA actions. Not otherwise.

Yes. That's what I'm thinking. But I would reverse the onus of proof.

The artist's names are getting exposure in the reporting of the case. If they have nothing to say about that (and aren't dead already obviously) they implicitly support the RIAA's action.

To see what label the CD is, look at the box. It will have a label displayed prominently on it. EMI, Sony, UMG, WMG? Don't buy it, unless you're buying it to upload it. That simple.

Sure, but how does the label know that you're NOT buying for that reason? They would just have fewer sales and blame it on piracy.

This is what I mean by "clearly delineated." A drop-off in sales of a particular artist (particularly old music with a long record of sales) would send a message the label cannot miss.

There is nothing wrong in principle with what you suggest, but it's more of an "ethical buying decision" than an effective boycott.

[Triniteras]

I can see only one solution. You must nationalize the RIAA.
Oh, and send them to reeducation camps.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

You managed to convince a hundred people not to purchase a trivial luxury good? Wow, you're really sticking it to The Man. I'm sure GreedTech Inc. is about cry uncle, the way their arm is being twisted.

Don't bother voting, one vote won't change anything.
Don't bother spending extra on fair-trade goods, that much spending won't change anything.
Don't bother boycotting, the Man is so much bigger than you.

You can think quite well at times. This isn't one of them.

You're a bit of a free-marketer, aren't you? Less government regulation, economy works better when individuals are free to make their own spending choices? But when you see a spending choice you don't like the effect of, it's time for the above dodge!

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I can see only one solution. You must nationalize the RIAA.
Oh, and send them to reeducation camps.

Victory is in sight comrades! Our land will ring with the joyful sound of free music from the gulags!

[Vault 10]

You managed to convince a hundred people not to purchase a trivial luxury good? Wow, you're really sticking it to The Man. I'm sure GreedTech Inc. is about cry uncle, the way their arm is being twisted.

My small contribution to the cause. I haven't spent any real time on it - some talk during smoking breaks, occasionally recording a few more CD-Rs.

I wouldn't, however, exactly entirely discount the possibility that some of these people have convinced the others to do the same. Just like the way I was originally convinced.

[Triniteras]

Victory is in sight comrades! Our land will ring with the joyful sound of free music from the gulags!

Oh no, no. Ultimately the bands need money. See, the RIAA has to be nationalized and reeducated because they're just getting in the way of the process. Monetary system will make much more sense after being reformed, after everything collapses from being free. Really the only alternative I can think of is for the government to monitor or shut down the internet, and we don't want that.

But they will be good reeducation camps.

[Vault 10]

Yes. That's what I'm thinking. But I would reverse the onus of proof.
The artist's names are getting exposure in the reporting of the case. If they have nothing to say about that (and aren't dead already obviously) they implicitly support the RIAA's action.

"Implicit support"... That's a weak call. The question here is, "wouldn't I do the same?".
For instance, IRL, I develop armament systems of naval vessels, the point being for them to defend our country and all that. When they end up being used to bully smaller countries to get their oil for free, I'm disturbed. But since protesting and refusing to do my job won't help anything, I don't do that. And my position is way less shaky than that of the bands who only rise and fall at the whim of the marketing departments.

Sure, but how does the label know that you're NOT buying for that reason? They would just have fewer sales and blame it on piracy.

The point is not for them to know - it's for them to file Chapter 7.

These companies have long gotten the message. They just don't care. They won't settle for any compromise. They've shown the intention to pursue their idea of fully monopolized and controlled market to the bitter end.
Who will win, I don't know, but I'm doing my part for my side. A double-proxified home computer on a high-speed connection seeding over Darknet and bt 24/7 and a server-side seedbox, that's a fair contribution.

[Triniteras]

These companies have long gotten the message. They just don't care. They won't settle for any compromise. They've shown the intention to pursue their idea of fully monopolized and controlled market to the bitter end.

Comrades, or whatever, you must stop this madness. You must nationalize the RIAA.

[Wiztopia]

Where was she even buying them from? I mean why pay money from something that isn't Itunes?

[Heinleinites]

You're a bit of a free-marketer, aren't you? Less government regulation, economy works better when individuals are free to make their own spending choices? But when you see a spending choice you don't like the effect of, it's time for the above dodge!

Yes and yes to your questions. But I'm not a bit of a free-marketer, I'm the free-marketer (not to mention humility champion).

The last sentence is close, but no cigar. Simply choosing not to buy a good is a spending choice, yes. It's up to you, it's your money, spend it(or not) as you wish. Buy fair-trade or not, buy CD's or not, that's your choice. However, stealing a good is not a 'spending choice' it's 'breaking the law.' You can dress it up however you like, bitch and moan about the Evil Corporations, say you're striking back at The Man, call it a boycott, or 'direct action', or 'activism', or whatever cute little euphemism you like.

But in the end, when you strip all the facile rationalizations off it, you are stealing something from somebody else because you don't feel like paying for it, or feel entitled to get it for free. Children steal things, or are given them by the people in charge of them. Adults, on the other hand, identify what they want, and then pay for it, with their work or their money or their time.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Victory is in sight comrades! Our land will ring with the joyful sound of free music from the gulags!

Oh no, no. Ultimately the bands need money. See, the RIAA has to be nationalized and reeducated because they're just getting in the way of the process. Monetary system will make much more sense after being reformed, after everything collapses from being free. Really the only alternative I can think of is for the government to monitor or shut down the internet, and we don't want that.

But the RIAA does.

Pretty simple choice, isn't it?

But honestly I don't think the government should even take a side. When they did, they took the wrong side (protecting old industries based on copyright, by strengthening copyright laws in so many countries.) They took the side of business against the side of free speech!

The internet, even as we have it now, has vastly increased the scope of free speech. There are still economic barriers: not everyone has access, much less equal access.

Once a person has the internet, they have the power to publish for no money! That's what I call free speech, though it should probably have a better name than the old idea, which was based in a system of big assets like printing presses, radio stations, vinyl pressing factories, television stations.

I guess government didn't feel so threatened by the "free" press when it was owned and operated by relatively rich people. Funny that.

But they will be good reeducation camps.

I've never seen a re-education camp I didn't like. The inmates were very well-behaved.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

*snip*

Yes and yes to your questions. But I'm not a bit of a free-marketer, I'm the free-marketer (not to mention humility champion).

*snip*

I pointed out an error in thinking which distorts your judgement about economics. If you don't want to consider the contradiction between the two ideas, and benefit from a clearer understanding of what you profess to care so much about, that's your business.

This hijack ends here.

[Kamsaki]

I'm thinking about how to [stage a boycott]. I'll post again if I think of anything.

Isn't there a point to be made that illegal download effectively is that boycott? Perhaps if a political point to that effect could be made by a representative group - that people download in protest at the poor management of the music industry and the needless expenses this management confers on the buyer - we might be able to actually progress beyond this self-sustaining war between "rights holders" and "end users".

For those who cannot tell, this is an exercise in fear. The idea is for people to see this lawsuit and think to themselves, "gee...99 cents isn't all that much".

lol terrorism

[Brijesnica]

Viva la Torrentz,the artists get to much money,a "coal miner" works his ass off everyday to make civilizied life possable,but a singer sings a few songs and gets millions,the songs should be very cheap like 25 cents,so the singers arent to wealthy and the ordinary guy saves a few bucks,if you illegaly download a few songs i thik you hould olny pay 2 bucks per song