$750.00 per song???

Wow, the RIAA sure got their pound of flesh from this person........

Quote:

---

Music downloader loses appeal
Must pay $22,500 in damages
By Tony Smith
Published Monday 12th December 2005 11:58 GMT
Get breaking Internet news straight to your desktop - click here to find out how

The US Court of Appeals has rejected a Chicago woman's claim that she only downloaded music tracks to see whether she wanted to buy them.

The Court told Cecilia Gonzalez, 29, she must pay the $22,500 damages won by the music industry at an earlier District Court hearing.

At her appeal, Gonzalez' lawyers argued that her activities were permitted by copyright law. However, the court rejected such claims on the grounds that she had kept the downloaded copies of songs she did not intend to buy.

"A copy downloaded, played and retained on one's hard drive for future use is a direct substitute for a purchased copy," the judges said. Gonzalez' argument is "no more relevant than a thief's contention that he shoplifted only 30 compact discs, planning to listen to them at home and pay later".

Gonzalez was one of thousands of computer users sued by the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA). She rejected a $3,500 settlement proposal, and was taken to court. There, the judge ruled she should pay $750 each for 30 songs she allegedly distributed over the Internet - a total of $22,500. ®

---

Should have settled for the $3,500.00 (still over $100.00 bucks per song) maybe a little stiff...or are they trying to send a message (check the Judges bank account after this one
:cool: ).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12...peal_rejected/

The US Copyright Law provides for up to 5 years in prison and $250k in fines - you can also be held civilly liable where they can ask for $100k PER INCIDENT... that makes $750 per song sound like a good deal ;)

Quote:

---

Ass. of America (RIAA).

---

Just sprayed coffee onto the keyboard.. ;)

Anyhow i bet that she is spewing that she didn't take the proposed deal to settle matters out of court, and i wonder if she is able to get some sort of payment plan for this fine, or are they expecting the whole amount in a lump sum in cash..?..

As i'm not into this whole p2p thing, i am finding it more and more amusing with each case of people going to court and getting taken to the cleaners..

front2back

Where justice is supposedly blind, is there some sort of "means" test applied to individuals that the RIAA target.....

Say if I drew down a 6 figure income, would my fine be on the high end of the scale, or if I was near poverty and could barely pay for the ISP charges would I get the same fine, at what point is the fine over doing it?

You would think that possible jail time and a hefty fine on top of it would be enough of a deterrent to halt this practise, but on the contrary, it seems to keep on chugging along. Is this considered a misdemeanor or is it a felony, if it is a felony, then everyone caught should be placed in jails, right? (not that the prisons are overflowing or bursting at the seams as it is anyways).

How much of this "witch hunting" is actually costing the Taxpayers (court time,court staff, judges)? What are the benefits of persecuting those that cannot hire a bank of lawyers to protect themselves,....... chump change.....the message is not getting through, as long as someone has internet access they are going to download what they want, when they want...

Also, where it really hurts the most of course is "PR" for the recording industry, everyone loves an underdog, or a Robin Hood, the little guy getting it over the big guy (Mac over MS, etc)

Heck that women who lost the judgement can probably write a book on how the RIAA went after her, and then there will be a made for TV movie on it and she will come out ahead, just gotta love "Capitalism". :p

I can see both sides - I mean really...if the artists got no income since everyone was downloading britney couldn't afford her Gulfstream V right? Get real.

This all amounts to the almighty dollar - artists need to be 'starving'. Said condition stirs their creative juices and incites them to produce better works. Perhaps if we starved a few they'd be able to produce something more entertaining than the corporate drivel that's been spewing out since the 1960's. I say let everyone download it as much as they want, no charge. Sure, Michael Jacko wouldn't be able to afford the legal team next time his child molestation charges came up, but hey...is he REALLY contributing anything anyway? C'mon.

I'm thinking on changing my signature to:

Steal a few songs today! Make these self-proclaimed idiots in the entertainment industry concentrate on something besides Bush bashing and Al Quaida sympathizing!

Well,

Quote:

---

There, the judge ruled she should pay $750 each for 30 songs she allegedly distributed over the Internet

---

That is where she got caught................DISTRIBUTED ...............that was stupid, by making them publicly available she is openly flouting the law? By attempting a defence she is openly disobeying it?

If I sent you songs individually and privately, they would have far less grounds to go on, in fact they would never detect it. These people are basically saying that "I do not agree with the law, so I shall break it"?..................drug dealers and child prostituters say the same, but take their sentences without whining.............................if you do not like the law, fine, you have a vote and elected representatives.................go use that fact ;)

No sympathy here............my verdict: "died of an overdose of stupidity" :D

Just like the theif who thinks and convinces himself...' I'm not hurting anyone, they'll just write it off on their taxes ' or ' they got millions, they can afford it ' etc...
theft is theft...whatever excuse a person wants to give to try to excuse it...
we're turning into a society where theft is becoming acceptable behaviour as long as we can find an excuse to try to justify it...
in my opinion they're trying to send a message...and I think it's a good one.

The message...

If you steal...and you get caught...you have to pay!

Unfortunately...for every time someone gets caught...they've probably gotten away with it hundreds of times before...so...penalties should be high...to make up for all the times a person didn't get caught.

I don't want to raise my children thinking it's OK to steal...as long as you don't get caught, and you can justify it in your own mind...that, to me, is the wrong message to send.

If you have to steal food to eat, that's one thing...stealing items that are luxuries ( eg, you want to have an extensive music collection ) is a whole different matter.

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

Just like the theif who thinks and convinces himself...' I'm not hurting anyone, they'll just write it off on their taxes ' or ' they got millions, they can afford it ' etc...

---

I believe if the general public could see more action gainst "White Collar Crime"(Enron is a start) then the overall attitude may change, but as long as joe schmoe sees the rich get off with a slap on the wrist, then why should they get a stiffer penalty, boils down to "Who you Know" and "Who you can Afford"................!

Everyone knows that "OJ" did it, but heck thanks to some general distribution of monies, he got off :rolleyes:

I agree about teaching the kids right from wrong, and that downloading music can be considered "stealing", but you are missing one key ingredient to this and unfortunatley has the same name as the P2P programs......"Peers" if the other kids are doing it, then why can't I do it, and good luck convincing them that if "johnny wants to jump off of the bridge do you have to???" been there done that got the T-shirt... :p

I do not download music or allow my children to for that matter....I have several friends who make thier living off music royalties

But they go to thier daddys and burn thier own compilation cds off his vast music library stored on 2 terabytes of harddrive space....using his Mac

Every cd he owns is backed up to those hard drives and the system is actually mirrored at another site....impressive setup..i must say. He doesnot share this on the internet...and uses it for his own purpose. He makes compilations of music every christmas to give to his friends and family...and AFAIK...that is still legal in Canada.

Its like when we used to make mixed tapes from our album collections....

Now if he shared that vast library on the internet...that would be illegal

I have taught my children ...because daddy has gone out an purchased these cds already...they are not "stealing"....but if they were to sell those cds...they would be.

Being brought up in the Canadian music industry...they understand...when you buy a cd..it supports the artist,...as well as licensed merch at concerts...sure you can get that Avril poster outside the gates for a dollar....but you are stealing from the artist when you do that

I think they get it......(I hope) :(

MLF

Quote:

---

Unfortunately...for every time someone gets caught...they've probably gotten away with it hundreds of times before...so...penalties should be high...to make up for all the times a person didn't get caught.

---

Hey there Egaladeist that would be a long time since I know that most likely each and everyone of us has broken the law before .... But yet we fail to realise that ... So lets all walk to our local jail hand ourselves in and sing Hakuna Matata while we're at it ...

:duh:

Hi AS,


I suppose in one way or another we have all broken the law, or at least stretched or scratched it...however...

let me ask you a question...can I, in your opinion, go to HMV and buy 1000 CDs copy them, open a store, a sell my copies to the public?

or...

how about...download 1000 videos or CDs from the net, make copies, and sell them?

or...

how about...download 1000 CDs, make copies, and without selling them, just stand out in front of HMV and give them to customers?

or...

theft is theft...this isn't just about the artists, or the record companies, it's also about the small franchise outlets, and other people who are adversely affected by this.

excuses run rampant every time a criminal cries foul.

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

how about...download 1000 videos or CDs from the net, make copies, and sell them?

---

You can, but you had better move to another country which allows this... :cool:

China and most former Eastern Bloc countries do, as well as most of Southeast Asia, not saying it's right, but hey...this may be a bad analogy but they spend millions of dollars to bust the guy with 5grams of weed in his pocket but yet turn a blind eye to the major drug traffickers, they know who they are......wether it's the local gangs moving this sh*t or the cartels, or for that matter the tons of heroin moving through Afghanistan now that security is better? or the opium coming from our new friends China.

Far too much effort is wasted on the minnows and not enough is put out to catch the major users/abusers, you want Columbia to stop importing cocaine, then shut their country down, blockade everything, nothing gets in and nothing gets out, their Government will soon see the nescessity to remove the bad guys in a hurry.....

Same with the pirated CD's DVD's from these other countries, when the RIAA and customs get moving on these people, then you may have less cynisim among everyone else.

I am concerned over the concept that it is acceptable to steal by using technology. It is dillusionary at best to state that the downloading of music without payment is not theft. Anyone with a basic understanding of right and wrong knows the difference here. This case really boils down to individual morals and ethics, and what actions an individual can convince themselves is justifyable vs. a corporations right to demand payment for goods produced.

I seem to remember in the late 70's & 80's the screams of the UAW and other unions over job loss due to automation. Seems to me that stealing of jobs by technology was bad back then and probably would still be so today. So many people have this belief that it is ok to steal as long as "I" am not the one being stolen from. Hmmmmm.......... I guess we can compare this to identity theft; IF someone becomes the victim of identity theft, it is because they made the mistake of using a check or credit card as payment for goods or services. The individual who stole the identity, or is using the stolen the identity, is not at fault because they just grabbed an available resource off the internet. (Albeit they may have had to pay a small fee.) Either way it is a case of stolen property and your morals will either justify the theft or make you feel guilty enough to not commit the theft.

The funniest thing i see about all this copy right crap is it has been gone over, although not as intensly by the media, before. Anyone remember ROM's? It was decided that as long as you had originally bought the game cartridge that you posessing its rom and console emulator was ok for backup reasons. The same applied to you copying a video onto a blank cassette for backup. It only became illigal when you started using said copies for profit, like it says on all movies on that opening copywrite warning. Or if you didn't buy it in the first place and its not a backup. If you notice the biggest common factor between everyone that has gotten nailed with the music industry is the fact that they are sharing thier downloads. Now i realise that there are probably differences between copywrite laws for music vs video, but the way i understood video copywrites was this, once you buy it you can do what you want with it, copy it, show it to friends, lend it to people, blow it up, feed it to your dog, WHATEVER you want as long as you do not do anything with it for money, such as holding a private screening and chargin people at the door. Now if i buy a movie and bring bob over who has never seen it or bought it, then it is not illegal for him to watch it. But this is still taking away monies from the people the benefit from the movie if bob had bought it as well. So why is it illegal for music to be shared in this same way? is it only the letter of the law that makes this difference? and if so why, is it because of the time the laws were written?

Quote:

---

I am concerned over the concept that it is acceptable to steal by using technology

---

If you have "Cable" coming in to your home, how many connections do you have and how many are you actually paying for...........? This has been going on since Cable came out, install the first connection and as soon as the tech leaves, out come the "splitters" and the extra cables and away you go, cable in every room, now are you "stealing" in a sense, yes you are, but!! shouldn't the argument against that be, well I am paying for the cable to come into my home via the first connection from the outside, so basically what I do with it afterwards should be my right?

Or is it the fact that it is the signal you are paying for, and any increase in the signal shows more then one connection and so should have a charge applied to it???

So this being the case I would have to say that with over 250 Million in the US and 31 Million in Canada and say overall... that 100 Million have more then one cable connection that they are paying for, then boy the prisons are going to get full in a hurry...(just approximations) ;)

Edit: how many of you actually have more then one connection for cable and you are only paying for the one.....fess up, I do and I always have, as for those in the UK, I remember my Dad putting slugs into the power meter to keep the juice going. Everybody does it, or am I truly alone in this....how many of you members live in "Glass Houses".

Sure telling little susie and joey it's against the law to download music whithout paying for it is the right thing to do, it's the moral and ethical thing to do...but how many of you who state this, have extra cable outlets and are only paying for the one eh!!! 'Don't do as I do but do as I say" :rolleyes:

The RIAA is just suing people to keep their dead business model alive,,

Times have changed.. the RIAA has not..

The distribution part of their work has been obsoleted.. they should instead be thinking of other licensing methods..

But no .. they want to keep their little Monopoly going..

I remember a time when the only thing that would come up in my mind when hearing RIAA was the 'correction filter' for 45 and 33 RPM records..

Quote:

---

how many of you actually have more then one connection for cable and you are only paying for the one

---

I will admit to this. When my mother got cable in her house back when i still lived there as soon as the cable guy left the first thing she did was have me go up into the atic and start splitting the signal so we could have it in all of the tv rooms.

I guess it all boils down to what exactly are you paying for. With video games, at least all the ones i have bothered looking at, you don't actually own the game or any of the contents of the box it came in. All you have bought is the right to install it on your machine and use it. The company in theory could come to your house for ne reason and with no prior warning and take that game back from you.

Now with the cable if you are paying for the right to watch it, then i would have to say yes the splitting is illegal. But, if you are paying for the signal, then i would have to say split that **** all you want.

I still don't see the some of the reasons behind all the music industries copywrite laws. Like i had posted earlier, why is it not illegal for me to let george come over and listen to my cd that he hasn't bought, yet as soon as i allow him to do the same via the internet it becomes illegal.

Steal cable that way? Heavens no!

In all honesty I'd never steal cable TV, although at the prices they're charging these days it's becoming more and more tempting...

BUT if I were going to do it, being a renter such as I am, living in a privately owned duplex managed by a 'management company' (meaning I never see my real landlord, and rarely see their (idiotic) maintenance man), and having the coaxial cables running outside the walls all down the front of both sides of the building (my connections and his both), it'd be truly easy to 'splice' into his cable (at one of the mfm connections) with said splitter, thereby adding my household's cable to his own. In order to appear 'more invisible' on their tracing circuits I'd pick up a 'signal booster' amplifier at radio shack for about 10 bucks, and *voila*. If he had broadband, all's the better, I already own that wonderful 'cable modem' to get access, or I'd offer to 'set up' his wifi inside for him so I'd have his key.

In reality - he's paying for his own cable. I've got digital cable which permits no theft (you gotta have the box) beyond the basic channels (which is what you see without the box even if digital's turned on) and broadband both. I pay out the nose for these services for two teevees in my household.

I do find it *very* odd that they charge per television for their tv signal, but don't charge per computer for their broadband (thank heavens for that) - cable > modem > hardware firewall > wired/wireless router > 2desktop and 2laptop systems all sharing the one 3meg broadband I'm paying for. BTW to you wardrivers out there, good luck phishing my key, most especially without me detecting and slamming you.

There are times when stealing is acceptable in my opinion...it is acceptable to steal food for instance if you have no other means available to you at the time...it is acceptable to steal clothes if that's the only means you have available to you at the time to clothe yourself or your family...it is acceptable to break into an empty house ( vacant ) if you have no other place to go to get out of "severe weather" as long as you intend no harm...it is acceptable to steal a gun from a friend who intends to use it to cause mischeif or harm to himself or others...

there are times it's acceptable to steal...and in my opinion they should not be considered criminals...and it's ridiculous that we prosecute them...

and then there are times that it's unacceptable...

eg. you want to increase your record collection.

Eg ;)

IMO the only thing you own as an artist is the live performance.
A recording belongs to whoever wants to make one. The entire
"recording business" is hopelessly obsolete, and doomed.
:cool:

Quote:

---

Hi AS,

I suppose in one way or another we have all broken the law, or at least stretched or scratched it...however...

---

To me if one breaks the law one breaks it not scratch it or tickle it or whatever people wanna call it to not be held accountable for what they did ...

Quote:

---

let me ask you a question...can I, in your opinion, go to HMV and buy 1000 CDs copy them, open a store, a sell my copies to the public?

or...

how about...download 1000 videos or CDs from the net, make copies, and sell them?

or...

how about...download 1000 CDs, make copies, and without selling them, just stand out in front of HMV and give them to customers?

---

In my opinion it's for you to decide what you would or should do ....

Quote:

---

excuses run rampant every time a criminal cries foul.

---

Humm excuses run rampant with just about everyone ...

Hi AS,

Yes...you can stretch without actually breaking the law.

Quote:

---

In my opinion it's for you to decide what you would or should do ....

---

Now...that's a little off-the-wall...if it's up to me to decide then I can stop paying taxes and declare Banff to be my Kingdom...it's NOT a matter of personal choice...you can't set your own personal guidelines or what laws you're willing to accept.

At best you can separate the spirit of the law against the letter of the law.

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

Now...that's a little off-the-wall...if it's up to me to decide then I can stop paying taxes and declare Banff to be my Kingdom...it's NOT a matter of personal choice...you can't set your own personal guidelines or what laws you're willing to accept.

---

What I mean is you do what you believe is moral and right ... If you choose to do the wrong thing well there's consequences ... People do make it a matter of personal choice when it comes to what laws they choose to follow and what not ...

Remember you did ask me what my opinion was and I did state my opinion ...

Dont take this offensively Egaladeist but why would you ask me a question in which the answer is totally up to you to decide ??

Hi AS,

Quote:

---

What I mean is you do what you believe is moral and right ... If you choose to do the wrong thing well there's consequences ... People do make it a matter of personal choice when it comes to what laws they choose to follow and what not ...

Remember you did ask me what my opinion was and I did state my opinion ...

Dont take this offensively Egaladeist but why would you ask me a question in which the answer is totally up to you to decide ??

---

Absolutely...if you break the law you also have to accept it's consequences.

Yes...I did ask you the question...but you skirted over it ;)...instead of just answering them in the negative as I knew you would.

I'm never offended by you AS...you've never given me any reason to be.

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

Yes...I did ask you the question...but you skirted over it ...instead of just answering them in the negative as I knew you would.

---

I squirted over them because to me they were trick questions ... A win-win situation in your favour ... I tend to not fall into those ...

It basically boils down to what you do and or think is right might be different then what I believe and or do is right .... But I think that in the end we are more closer to and agreement then a disagreement ... It's all good ...

Quote:

---

Death by overdose of stupidity

---

I like that :)

"I downloaded them to see if I wanted to buy them" ....>ROFL...






Apple seems to get it...why can't the RIAA?....but they DO!

Your 99c belong to the RIAA – Steve Jobs

iPod & iTunes Music Store Both Number One in Japan


iTunes Music Store Downloads Top 50 Million Songs