Advertisement
by The Imperial Navy » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:02 pm
by Sdaeriji » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:05 pm
The Imperial Navy wrote:Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.
by Maurepas » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:08 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:The Imperial Navy wrote:Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.
Not really. They offered her a settlement before trial similar to the settlements offered to other people. She refused it and chose to go to trial.
by Sdaeriji » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:13 pm
Maurepas wrote:Sdaeriji wrote:The Imperial Navy wrote:Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.
Not really. They offered her a settlement before trial similar to the settlements offered to other people. She refused it and chose to go to trial.
Wasnt the settlement still over a grand? Its still unreasonable scapegoating...
by Maurepas » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:18 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:
$5,000, IIRC, for 24 songs. $208 per song. That is not unreasonable. The point isn't just to renumerate the record companies for the stolen songs; you need to discourage her or people like her from breaking the law in the future. This cannot be accomplished when the fine for hundreds of songs is a week's pay.
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:18 pm
Heinleinites wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Stealing not only is the taking of something that doesn't belong to you, but the deprivation of that same something to the rightful owner. Copyright Infringement in the case of illegally downloading music is the making of an unauthorized copy for personal use. It's more like counterfeiting money than actually stealing it.
To my mind, illegally downloading a CD or a movie is the equivalent of going to a store and stealing the same from the shelf. In both cases, you're acquiring the material illegally. Just because you don't tuck the actual studio-produced CD or DVD under your coat and then leave the store, does not mean you are not stealing.
by Sdaeriji » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:19 pm
Maurepas wrote:Sdaeriji wrote:
$5,000, IIRC, for 24 songs. $208 per song. That is not unreasonable. The point isn't just to renumerate the record companies for the stolen songs; you need to discourage her or people like her from breaking the law in the future. This cannot be accomplished when the fine for hundreds of songs is a week's pay.
lol, that goal cant be accomplished regardless...
Like I said, id rather the RIAA lose their battles anyway...
by Heinleinites » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:20 pm
Wiztopia wrote:It just means you are wrong. Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.
by Maurepas » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:21 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:Maurepas wrote:Sdaeriji wrote:
$5,000, IIRC, for 24 songs. $208 per song. That is not unreasonable. The point isn't just to renumerate the record companies for the stolen songs; you need to discourage her or people like her from breaking the law in the future. This cannot be accomplished when the fine for hundreds of songs is a week's pay.
lol, that goal cant be accomplished regardless...
Like I said, id rather the RIAA lose their battles anyway...
Because we can't stop everyone from breaking the law, we shouldn't try to stop people from breaking the law?
We're never going to stop all murders, so we shouldn't have harsh sentences for it?
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:25 pm
The Imperial Navy wrote:Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.
by Sdaeriji » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:26 pm
Maurepas wrote:Well, youre problem is you think that downloading music is equivalent to murder...
It isnt, Murder is a fight worth fighting...Protecting a Corporate Label's bottom line, I couldnt care less about...
by Maurepas » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:29 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:Maurepas wrote:Well, youre problem is you think that downloading music is equivalent to murder...
It isnt, Murder is a fight worth fighting...Protecting a Corporate Label's bottom line, I couldnt care less about...
I never said downloading music was equivalent to murder.
If your position is that copyright law should be done away with, then argue that point.
by Heinleinites » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:32 pm
BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Ripping a CD you bought (which is legal -- "fair use") and then giving that to someone else does not deprive anyone of anything.
BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:If you want it put another way (probably not): when you steal a CD, you gain both the content and physical thing. When you copy the content, you gain only the content. How can the two things be "equivalent"?
by Robarya » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:15 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:Robarya wrote:Obviously the fine is very high to serve as a scare tactic more than anything else, to deter pirates from downloading illegally. She will probably never be able to pay the 1.9 million dollars.
Obviously, and that's just the point. I know they're never going to collect $1.9 million from this woman. They'll settle for an insignificant fraction. If the $1.9 million fine is intended to scare people, but everyone knows that there's no way to collect that much money and that the RIAA will always settle for a more reasonable sum, then why fine the $1.9 million in the first place. Its value as a scare tactic goes out the window when we hear the RIAA saying they're always willing to settle for a lot less. It just seems futile. It's bad PR for an organization that hasn't had good PR in its history and, above all, it's impotent. So I just don't see the point.
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:24 pm
Heinleinites wrote:BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Ripping a CD you bought (which is legal -- "fair use") and then giving that to someone else does not deprive anyone of anything.
The issue under discussion is not copying CD's that you bought and then giving them to people. It's about downloading music that you have not paid for from someone who in all likelihood has not paid for it either.
Seeking to head off the argument that these were all just CD rips, MediaSentry's Chris Connelly pointed to metadata in numerous songs that suggested the material had itself been downloaded from the Internet. "Bleeding Edge Ripping Crew," said one. "Uploaded by 0ff$3+," said another.
Yeah, if you trace it back far enough, someone will have eventually bought a CD, but I would be greatly surprised if it was even as close as fifth removed...it's more likely to be tenth at the very least, or more likely twentieth.
BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:If you want it put another way (probably not): when you steal a CD, you gain both the content and physical thing. When you copy the content, you gain only the content. How can the two things be "equivalent"?
Because it's the content that matters. It's not whether or not you have the plastic disc that matters, it's what on it. That's why blank CD's are sold in groups of 50 for 12.99 and Metallica's 'Death Magnetic' is 13.00. When you steal a CD from a store, you're not doing it because you want the plastic disc, you're doing it because you want the content, which is the same motive for the illegal downloading.
by Robarya » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:02 pm
BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Where did I ever say the upper limit should be .99c a song?
I think you might have me confused with some other poster.
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:38 pm
BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/sony-lawyer-150k-damages-per-song-certainly-appropriate.ars
Don't go nuts and claim that this proves your point. I'm just offering to change the subject slightly since you're losing your own claims so badly.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Wiztopia » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:30 pm
Heinleinites wrote:Wiztopia wrote:It just means you are wrong. Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.
You quoted what I said, while at the same time, completely failing to actually read it. That's impressive.
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:48 pm
Robarya wrote:BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Where did I ever say the upper limit should be .99c a song?
I think you might have me confused with some other poster.
Nowhere, and my intent is not to put words into your mouth, so do not feel concerned about that.
Due to you saying that you considered $750 too high, I simply found it suitable to quote you and state that if the fine would be too low, there would be no fear of illegally downloading music and getting caught. That said, I do not believe that you think that the upper limit should be the original price of the CDs, so you do not have to discuss details unless you're interested to.
by The_pantless_hero » Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:43 am
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by JuNii » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:42 pm
The_pantless_hero wrote:http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9172/1245456677307.jpg
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Kreushia, Neo-Hermitius, Second Peenadian, Singaporen Empire, Statesburg, Trump Almighty, Unidox, Valentine Z
Advertisement