Fined 1.9 million for dowloading 24 songs

url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html – A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each – a total of $1.9 million – for 24 songs. Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.[/url]

Ouch! I’d be in serious debt if I was busted… Seems a bit strange. Everyone except Big Fluffy Matthew is doing it and everyone knows it. But this girl has to pay 1.9 million. :unamused: The convicted freeloader plans to appeal the court’s decision.

marboulette

I don’t do it. It is a cunt move, show some respect to the artists.

You telling me you can’t afford the 1 USD for the song? please.

1.9 million is crazy, the record companies are assholes, most major label music is shit, artists get fucked on royalties…blah blah blah All true but downloading is still a cunt move called stealing. I am just wondering when it became culturally acceptable to steal just because it is downloading, when exactly was that monumental shift in the paradigm of acceptable behavior?

Now… it is when the moralizing and justification comes in: mixed tapes, recording from the radio, sharing LPs with your friends ad naseum… Downloading is not the same and you know it. Maybe the artist does get fucked on their royalties but they do get paid something for every cd sold.

You think pop music is full of shit? well your right, you want to know why? Record companies are huge soulless machines whose sole reason for existence is to make money. If you fuck with that model of profit they WILL find a way to adapt and bring it back to the money machine. Downloading cut into album sales so the industry responded by dropping all the indies and fringe artists and only supporting artists that could get corporate sponsorship deals: Pepsi, coke KFC etc,

You want to know where the industry is heading? They are moving towards artists who live and die by the single, no more lps, free downloads and songs that are just tools to promote products and get placement deals. You are looking at an industry populated entirely by flavor of the month meat puppets Nsync and Miss Spears times 1000.

Well done! now sit back open your mouth really wide so we can shove our corporate sponsored shit down your willing throats.

It seems to me that the problem they had with the plaintiff wasn’t just that she had downloaded sings, it was that she was sharing the songs on kazaa.

Still, it seems excessive and entirely disproportionate to the weight of the “crime”.

Word! :bravo:

I used to download. Not much, but I did. And I still borrow from people’s CD collections. But shifty gave me the same talk in person, and I see it differently now.

I’d like to see music cheaper to buy, though. It’s cheaper to produce, and those mainstream poppy artists make way more money than they really need, methinks.

The huge fine is ludicrous - to us. But I bet you all think twice about file-sharing now, so it’s having the desired effect. She can’t pay, but it scares the bejeezers out of the rest of us.

It doesn’t scare me. To be honest, a 20k (NT) fine would be scarier, because I could potentially afford to pay it. They might as well fine her 190 million dollars - it’s not going to make a difference to her.

I’d say probably 75% of the music I’ve downloaded is stuff that I’ve already got, purchased on CD (and in some cases LP/cassette, then CD). Unfortunately, those hundreds and hundreds of albums are in storage in a box in Australia. Of the ones I’ve downloaded but haven’t previously bought, it’s mostly obscure stuff that I can’t buy here.

Good points.

I’d love to download the music from the hundreds of CDs I own back in the U of K.

You might want add my name to that list too.

Why do you need to download music when you have youtube? FFS

I download TV shows, would probably even pay for it if their was a mechanism to do so. I also don’t want any censorship, so Taiwan’s TV is out.

I must have my Breaking Bad(My favorite), True Blood, Fringe, Tudors, Dexter, Damages, South Park, House, Heroes(has jumped the shark), and Supernatural.

Everyone with her taste in music should be punished.

How about a five or eight year watershed: pay for such songs before that time, and then free downloads after that time. Suits me fine: the older I get, the older the music I listen to gets.

the idea that you can’t download an obscure song from an obscure band thirty years after it’s been released (when it is simply not available anywhere anymore, and generally when half the band members have died of overdoses anyway) is ludicrous.

But then again, I agree with the idea that new music should be paid for, and with the sentiment that anyone with her taste in music should be shot.

I doubt she would have been fined for doing that. Or for downloading the songs which skip on a CD she had already purchased.

The fine is ludicrous, though. Punishment should fit the crime, and this is a clear violation of that principle.

The difference between stealing and downloading (copying) is that if I steal a car, the owner no longer has it; if I copy a file, the owner still has it.

Imagine if the “replicator” machines on Star Trek became reality, and you could just replicate your neighbor’s Ferrari…

This is why I object to the “stealing” analogy: it’s not analogous. Still, doesn’t make it right. But consider these scenarios:

If I download a song that I would never listen to if I had to pay for it (e.g. something by the Spice Girls or Jolin), the artist loses no money.

If I download an obscure song that’s unavailable in my market, the artist loses no money. They should have released it into my market.

If I download a song I already have in my CD collection in the US, the artist already has my money.

If I decided to download a song to see if I like the artist’s work, and I find I do, I might end up buying CDs by the artist. This “try before you buy” scenario can help boost sales.

The recording companies could have prevented piracy by reducing the prices of CDs. Back when CDs first came out, they cost about US$15, whereas a record or tape cost about US$7.50. But they cost no more to manufacture. It was predicted that the price would come down. It never did…they still cost an average of US$15 per CD. This opened the way to piracy, something that always happens when a product is grossly overpriced. And now instead of accepting piracy as part of the territory and a natural reaction to overpricing, the greedy companies, afraid of that instead of making billions and billions of dollars they’d only make billions of dollars, decided to act like assholes and sue 12-year-old girls and old grandmas. They made their own situation worse instead of doing the right thing: reducing their prices.

I wish there was a way to pay the artists directly and bypass the greedy recording companies altogether.

If I go to a movie theater and sneak in the back door to see a movie without paying it is ok because the owner still has the theater… :unamused:

GOD please tell me that you read that online somewhere and you didn’t come up with that masterpiece of critical thinking all on your own? That might be one of the most profoundly asinine things I have ever read, …are you friggin’ serious that is your argument?..wow!

[quote=“Okami”]Why do you need to download music when you have youtube? FFS

I download TV shows, would probably even pay for it if their was a mechanism to do so. I also don’t want any censorship, so Taiwan’s TV is out.

I must have my Breaking Bad(My favorite), True Blood, Fringe, Tudors, Dexter, Damages, South Park, House, Heroes(has jumped the shark), and Supernatural.[/quote]

THere is a legal mechanism, it’s called satellite TV, where you pay subscriptions and yes these programs are available.

[quote=“Chris”]The difference between stealing and downloading (copying) is that if I steal a car, the owner no longer has it; if I copy a file, the owner still has it.

Imagine if the “replicator” machines on Star Trek became reality, and you could just replicate your neighbor’s Ferrari…

This is why I object to the “stealing” analogy: it’s not analogous. Still, doesn’t make it right. But consider these scenarios:

If I download a song that I would never listen to if I had to pay for it (e.g. something by the Spice Girls or Jolin), the artist loses no money. If I download an obscure song that’s unavailable in my market, the artist loses no money. They should have released it into my market. If I download a song I already have in my CD collection in the US, the artist already has my money.

If I decided to download a song to see if I like the artist’s work, and I find I do, I might end up buying CDs by the artist. This “try before you buy” scenario can help boost sales…[/quote]

Wrong on all points. Regardless of whether you listen to the song or not the artisit is not paid any royalty fees. So you are affecting the artists income. I’m sure if some clever people found a way to take money from your pay packet you wouldnt complain, after all it’s there for the taking right?

You can try the artists work by listening to the radio or visiting a music store and listen to the albums there. So you can try before you buy. You just dont want to and all your excuses are just to make yourself feel better about ripping off other peoples work.

If I go to a movie theater and sneak in the back door to see a movie without paying it is ok because the owner still has the theater… :unamused:[/quote]

Not a fair argument. You would be physically on his property, possibly occupying one of the seats.

A fairer argument would be, if you could see through a window from your own property and watch the movie, would that be OK?

If I go to a movie theater and sneak in the back door to see a movie without paying it is ok because the owner still has the theater… :unamused:[/quote]
Poor analogy…I’d be paying for the experience of seeing it on the big screen.

It’s not an “argument” in defense of the practice: it’s merely pointing out that the “stealing” analogy is flawed. It’s not stealing; it’s another kind of illicit activity.

When you “steal” something, the person you stole it from no longer has it in his possession.

If I had a Star Trek replicator and replicated a neighbor’s Ferrari, the neighbor would lose nothing (except maybe his sense of prestige for being the only Ferrari owner on the block).

If I go to a movie theater and sneak in the back door to see a movie without paying it is ok because the owner still has the theater… :unamused:[/quote]

Not a fair argument. You would be physically on his property, possibly occupying one of the seats.

A fairer argument would be, if you could see through a window from your own property and watch the movie, would that be OK?[/quote]

I often felt extremely guilty watching the races at Happy Valley from my uncle’s friend’s window without paying the HK$0.20 entry fee. I hope the Jockey Club isn’t reading this… :blush:

If I go to a movie theater and sneak in the back door to see a movie without paying it is ok because the owner still has the theater… :unamused:[/quote]

Not a fair argument. You would be physically on his property, possibly occupying one of the seats.

A fairer argument would be, if you could see through a window from your own property and watch the movie, would that be OK?[/quote]
Yes, like living in a highrise that overlooked a sports stadium.