Poll: Justice?
- Thread starter magnuslion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True enough, there are some quality free songs available.ThrobbingEgo said:
Free podcasts or radio shows streamed online are also a nice bonus.
Many movies and games are usually never legally free and are much less common to find.
In case other people reading this thread just read this post, not my longer one:
I don't like piracy at all, but I'm not prepared to send the pirates to the gallows.
Yeah, but there are movies and games which are made for free. Some of them are quite good. There are alternatives to just seizing someone's creative work.Iori35 said:
I think he's trying to make the point that IP address does not guarantee a particular user.
Perhaps her lawyer should have tried making some defence.
Anyways, the facts that she had 1,700 tracks and they decided to press charge on 24 actually shows a lot of common sense on the RIAA's part.
The damages awarded by the jury are beyond fuckwittery however, why not just award $80 bazillion per song? It's not like it's going to get paid, whether it's $80,000 or 80 *madeup number here* dollars.
Still, she should have seen she was caught red handed, and just accepted the punishment, applying to pay the $5000 over time, and to be honest, having to pay $100 a month for 50 months is going to remind her every month not to do it again.
I'm going to repost an idea of mine from earlier in the month too, as I feel it's relevant.
---------------------------------
SO we all know piracy hurts the industry, and we're probably going to see fewer and fewer millionaires being made in popular music.
Here how I think, and hope the future will go.
As time goes on, people will come around to buying music online, leaving behind the 'top 20' selection in supermarkets and the constant flow of 'hits' compilations.
As this happens, of course piracy will not stop, but, here's the thing about piracy, the most popular things get pirated most.
To me this suggests there's a law of diminishing returns on success in the industry, and over time hopefully it'll stop being seen as a cash cow and a way to show up, be famous with a cute ass and a few catchy tunes and then disappear into obscurity with a million bucks.
so I suggest that pop will not die, but it will stop being so relevant, and as more and more music becomes easily available, the artists that want to create, and want to make music because they can, rather than for pure profit, may end up making a reasonable living out of selling their work, while no-one will rise to the top and take a huge percentage of the total market.
Wouldn't it be great if it ends up that 10,000 bands are doing 'quite well' and earning enough to commit to being artists, instead of 10 or 20 singers that earn enough to buy pink helicopters and gold plated Bentleys.
I say this because, yes, piracy is bad, but I believe it affects the huge bands far more than the little guys, and people who 'sometimes' pirate stuff, are less likely to pirate some little upcoming band than they would grab an old Metallica cd, knowing Metallica already have a few million each. After all, try to find a Jonas Brothers torrent, ok? now go try to find a Peeping Tom torrent, I'm sure you could find both, but the popular one will be easier to locate and much faster to get. I chose Peeping Tom as someone I knew and liked, who's not 'obscure' but not a top 20 kinda band.
I think this may be more likely as a British thing than worldwide as we already resent success, heh.
I'm sure Simon Cowell will find ways to market and prepackage rubbish to idiots but I feel as the cd market withers and fades over time it will become harder, as people get online and realise there's more than 20 bands in the world, and a lot of them are more interesting than Susan Boyle and Miley Cyrus. I rate the escapist population as smart and well informed, but I'm fairly convinced there's a good proportion of the world who think the stuff on Radio 1 and MTV is all the music there is.
Anyways, do you think music could end up with the bubble bursting and being just a place for artists to sell their work, with no more superstars bathing in money? or are we doomed to forever worship the idols created for us? ( I fully understand the people in the background generally cream off far more cash than the artists btw, one more reaons I hate Cowell.)
Perhaps her lawyer should have tried making some defence.
Anyways, the facts that she had 1,700 tracks and they decided to press charge on 24 actually shows a lot of common sense on the RIAA's part.
The damages awarded by the jury are beyond fuckwittery however, why not just award $80 bazillion per song? It's not like it's going to get paid, whether it's $80,000 or 80 *madeup number here* dollars.
Still, she should have seen she was caught red handed, and just accepted the punishment, applying to pay the $5000 over time, and to be honest, having to pay $100 a month for 50 months is going to remind her every month not to do it again.
I'm going to repost an idea of mine from earlier in the month too, as I feel it's relevant.
---------------------------------
SO we all know piracy hurts the industry, and we're probably going to see fewer and fewer millionaires being made in popular music.
Here how I think, and hope the future will go.
As time goes on, people will come around to buying music online, leaving behind the 'top 20' selection in supermarkets and the constant flow of 'hits' compilations.
As this happens, of course piracy will not stop, but, here's the thing about piracy, the most popular things get pirated most.
To me this suggests there's a law of diminishing returns on success in the industry, and over time hopefully it'll stop being seen as a cash cow and a way to show up, be famous with a cute ass and a few catchy tunes and then disappear into obscurity with a million bucks.
so I suggest that pop will not die, but it will stop being so relevant, and as more and more music becomes easily available, the artists that want to create, and want to make music because they can, rather than for pure profit, may end up making a reasonable living out of selling their work, while no-one will rise to the top and take a huge percentage of the total market.
Wouldn't it be great if it ends up that 10,000 bands are doing 'quite well' and earning enough to commit to being artists, instead of 10 or 20 singers that earn enough to buy pink helicopters and gold plated Bentleys.
I say this because, yes, piracy is bad, but I believe it affects the huge bands far more than the little guys, and people who 'sometimes' pirate stuff, are less likely to pirate some little upcoming band than they would grab an old Metallica cd, knowing Metallica already have a few million each. After all, try to find a Jonas Brothers torrent, ok? now go try to find a Peeping Tom torrent, I'm sure you could find both, but the popular one will be easier to locate and much faster to get. I chose Peeping Tom as someone I knew and liked, who's not 'obscure' but not a top 20 kinda band.
I think this may be more likely as a British thing than worldwide as we already resent success, heh.
I'm sure Simon Cowell will find ways to market and prepackage rubbish to idiots but I feel as the cd market withers and fades over time it will become harder, as people get online and realise there's more than 20 bands in the world, and a lot of them are more interesting than Susan Boyle and Miley Cyrus. I rate the escapist population as smart and well informed, but I'm fairly convinced there's a good proportion of the world who think the stuff on Radio 1 and MTV is all the music there is.
Anyways, do you think music could end up with the bubble bursting and being just a place for artists to sell their work, with no more superstars bathing in money? or are we doomed to forever worship the idols created for us? ( I fully understand the people in the background generally cream off far more cash than the artists btw, one more reaons I hate Cowell.)
Sure. Even I know my mother's password although I don't live with my parents anymore.ThrobbingEgo said:
I think I can even remember my father's, though I might get the capitalization wrong.
And some people don't even have passwords for their accounts/several accounts on one computer.
No single drop of rain belives that it is to blame for the flood.mcgooch said:Music is my favorite art form (along with gaming of course). I find it sad to see it's artists constantly being cheated out of what they deserve. So yes I think she deserved what she got. I know CD's are too expensive but so are games and movies. Her punishment was harsh but you have to remember that just because something (downloading music) is done a lot it doesn't make it OK. In New Zealand High school students smoke a lot of pot "In the 1998 National Drugs Survey, 43 percent of males and 27 percent of females aged 18 to 24 years had used marijuana in the preceding 12 months. Most of those who stated that they had tried marijuana had been introduced to the drug at between 14 and 18 years of age." from, http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/130 I can assure you it has gone up since then but that is the most recent survey I could find. Dose the fact that it is common place make it OK?
Each induvigual action is extremely minute and has little to no impact if isolated, the issue is when you have all of these action happening on a massive scale.
I belive that she should be charged with $5000 dollars (the amount the record companies are more then willing to settle for), however the intaill 1.2 million dollars sum is simply out ragous. She can really only becharge by the intial damge she did, you can convit the women for the whole damn cascade.
No. Copyright infringement includes distributing someone's creative work without purchasing a license. You can't buy a CD, burn 1000 copies, and hand them out in front of HMV.NoMoreSanity said:
Look, if the kids were capable of setting up Kazaa, why wouldn't they use their own screen names? That just sounds so incredibly convoluted.Skeleon said:
Yes, I understand this, seizing someone's creative work isn't excusable.ThrobbingEgo said:
People just like to pretend that their own decisions or cause is justified.
In case other people reading this thread just read what's quoted above, not my longer post:
I don't like piracy at all, but I'm not prepared to send the pirates to the gallows.
Hes just trying to plant seeds so doubt...ThrobbingEgo said:
Leave him be.
Not to be offensive or anything, but you (and your very agnry looking icon) are making the tread very tense. Back off a little.
Dont worry, I agree with most ao what your saying. Just not the intesity and air of your delivery
What about her ISP and modem?[SenseOfTumour said:
Look: If it helps, pretend I sound like Dan Ackerman.Lazzi said:
I sneak the odd weasel word or two into my phrases, but I do my best to represent my opinions well. If you don't like it, feel free to look up YouTube videos of pygmy goats. They're adorable.
I'm just stating, in today's culture of being guilty depending a lot on how good your lawyer is and not whether you actually did it, that claiming there's holes in the case where, for instance, someone could have parked outside with her laptop and used her wifi, for example, or that her kids or other visitors may have been using her internet without her knowledge.
Of course, along with that culture has come the culture of not admitting it when you're nailed, which has made it worse for her.
Again, if you're gonna fine a working mom of four, it doesn't really matter if the award is $5000 or $37 gazillion, you're only gonna get maybe $50-100 per month.
Of course, along with that culture has come the culture of not admitting it when you're nailed, which has made it worse for her.
Again, if you're gonna fine a working mom of four, it doesn't really matter if the award is $5000 or $37 gazillion, you're only gonna get maybe $50-100 per month.
With her known alias and her computer's IP address. Come on, is this reasonable doubt or loose change?SenseOfTumour said: