http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading does anyone think this represents actual justice? please read before you post.
Poll: Justice?
- Thread starter magnuslion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
She should have been found guilty but GEE HAS ANY ONE HEARD OF... OH I DON"T KNOW [b/] PUNISHMENT FITTING THE CRIME[/b].
EDIT: Never mind, the RIAA is willing to settle for $5000, a lot but more fitting.
EDIT: Never mind, the RIAA is willing to settle for $5000, a lot but more fitting.
Oh wow. It's not really cruel and unusual punishment, but it IS a high and unreasonable amount. Much cheaper to get an iPod + iTunes. ;D
Karma will come back on the music industry before too long. Its already dying, and this only proves how desperate they are for income. I have to give props to Radiohead and the like, who are already moving on in the world without the huge record companies.
ok now ill chime in. Im not saying its ok to pirate things at all, ((alllthough 100.00 for a freaking game is F%^&*(ng highway robbery as far as i am concerned)) bu is this really justice? could a mom of four ever hope to pay all that off? more to the point, where the fuck does the industry get of thinking each song is worth 80,000 dollars? lets assume for a second each song got pirated/illegally loaded, etc 100 times. how much is a single song worth? 99 cents according to almost every download sight available, 1.29 at the freaking max. how the fuck do they come up with 80,000 as a figure, and why am I not allowed to simply sack these peoples homes when I want to and take their shit? its insane. I hope the judge gets hit by a fucking bus.
derr, I have a lot more than 24 songs, so would they fine me over a billion dollars? That is plain ridiculous, and I am not sure how a judge could actually pass that judgement without thinking it was absolutely ridiculous.
Okay I don't mind if they fine her - but that MUCH?
$5000 dollars is okay - that is payable, and, I suppose, if you get fined 5000 dollars you aren't going to try to pirate again. $5000 dollars for a first time offence, and they aren't going to want to pirate again for the rest of their lives.
I suppose the music industry (and the jury) were feeling particularly vicious, because the woman also uploaded the song as well, so they claim that she didn't just steal the music, she helped others steal it.
But 1.2 MILLION!?! That's insane. If they are willing to settle for 5000, well okay - but a lot of people download, if they want to sue all those people for 1.2 million dollars, well, hah, good luck - they'll inevitably waste more money on the lawyes than they'll ever get back.
$5000 dollars is okay - that is payable, and, I suppose, if you get fined 5000 dollars you aren't going to try to pirate again. $5000 dollars for a first time offence, and they aren't going to want to pirate again for the rest of their lives.
I suppose the music industry (and the jury) were feeling particularly vicious, because the woman also uploaded the song as well, so they claim that she didn't just steal the music, she helped others steal it.
But 1.2 MILLION!?! That's insane. If they are willing to settle for 5000, well okay - but a lot of people download, if they want to sue all those people for 1.2 million dollars, well, hah, good luck - they'll inevitably waste more money on the lawyes than they'll ever get back.
It was justice but it wasn't fair. It was probably the harshest I've ever seen. Suprising, but not unwarranted.
Obviously the amount of the fine is absurd. As for fining piraters in general I have to agree that it's a bit draconian.
And while I will never see this day my vision of utopia when it comes to music and the internet goes a little something like this:
Let bands release their albums Radiohead style, garnering a profit determined by the fans. Sure, people will still pirate the music and people will pay less than the price of a CD in-store for it. However, I maintain that there would be a higher ratio of purchasers to pirates. As long as they make back the cost of recording the music, then I think they have been compensated fairly. Painters don't get to charge people to set eyes on their work. I think this set up would encourage artists to tour more often, making it a necessity to be active live performers and possibly expand touring areas. Anyway, that's my opinion.
And while I will never see this day my vision of utopia when it comes to music and the internet goes a little something like this:
Let bands release their albums Radiohead style, garnering a profit determined by the fans. Sure, people will still pirate the music and people will pay less than the price of a CD in-store for it. However, I maintain that there would be a higher ratio of purchasers to pirates. As long as they make back the cost of recording the music, then I think they have been compensated fairly. Painters don't get to charge people to set eyes on their work. I think this set up would encourage artists to tour more often, making it a necessity to be active live performers and possibly expand touring areas. Anyway, that's my opinion.
No, it bloody well isn't.Clashero said:
I could go through a whole number of arguments stating why pirating music isn't bad in all cases. (In my opinion, in a huge proportion of cases), but instead I'll say this.
Don't make broad sweeping generalisatons. It isn't always bad, you can say it's usually bad.
Umm, no!? I can see paying a maximum of $80 dollars per illegal song, but sure as hell not $80000!
Guys, it's not worth the risk. iTunes is the best way.
Then again, I'm in Canada, where this type of thing is legal.
Guys, it's not worth the risk. iTunes is the best way.
Then again, I'm in Canada, where this type of thing is legal.
I don't think you and me agree on the word "Justice", justice being inherently fair.Mrsnugglesworth said:
Well. Glad I only pay $0.99 for a song rather than $80000.
Clarify, when is it not?Arcticflame said: