All though pirating is wrong. $80,000 per song is harsh. 24 songs x $80,000 for that fact.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
She lost her case :( - Must pay $80,000 per song.
- Thread starter 24788
- Start date
The sheer size of the judgment doesn't seem very logical. I doubt that she cost the recording industry $80,000 per song. That's like a judgment amount similar to what some people have to pay for civil cases where people are murdered, so it doesn’t make sense in the punitive aspect either.
What I don't get is why aren't porn companies and music companies going after *******, youtube, and hosting sites like those?
<_< i guess people really need to learn about IPblockers like PeerGuardian2 and Proxies like tor. . .
Jane Burgess
Official Checked Star Member
This just shows how stupid the American people are. It was a jury that decided that penalty and her guilt, despite the fact there was no evidence against her.
Since she is not being charged with illegal downloading. She either legally purchased those songs and put them on her computer, which is her right to do, or it is so inconclusive that she Dled them that they didn't even press charges against her for it...
And that is the entire basis of their case! She had the songs on her computer and her IP log showed that her computer (no evidence to prove that it was her and not someone else using it) visited a file sharing site. That's fucking it! The site doesn't keep track of files exchanged so there is no record that anyone actually downloaded those songs from her, it just "seems likely that they did."- pretty much the exact words of the prosecution.
She laughed when they read the verdict. She said, "Ok. go ahead and fine me a million dollars. They'll never get that money because I don't have it."
Since she is not being charged with illegal downloading. She either legally purchased those songs and put them on her computer, which is her right to do, or it is so inconclusive that she Dled them that they didn't even press charges against her for it...
And that is the entire basis of their case! She had the songs on her computer and her IP log showed that her computer (no evidence to prove that it was her and not someone else using it) visited a file sharing site. That's fucking it! The site doesn't keep track of files exchanged so there is no record that anyone actually downloaded those songs from her, it just "seems likely that they did."- pretty much the exact words of the prosecution.
She laughed when they read the verdict. She said, "Ok. go ahead and fine me a million dollars. They'll never get that money because I don't have it."
Jane Burgess
Official Checked Star Member
That seems pretty harsh.
proxies don't work
No matter what a good hacker can still get through to your computer and find this information.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
what a crock of shit. Why are they prosecuting these people. This is what now? The second time this shit has made it to court? Slap her with a simple couple thousand dollar fine and call it a day. Fuck. Raping people like this isn't gonna discourage illegal downloading of anything. A $5,000 fine on the other hand...maybe, but even then I doubt it. But this shit is just ridiculous!
Not me. They won't go out quietly. They'll take radio with them.
Since no one buys cd's anymore the record companies are trying to make radio pay them money every time they play a song.
And radio can't afford to do that.
Totally agreed. All the court, jury, and record company are trying to do by fining this woman this ridiculous amount and making it public knowledge is making an example out of her.
The record companies are idiots, though. I have many, many friends who work in the music industry here in Hollywood and they all say the same thing; "The record companies are cutting their noses off to spite their faces". They all agree that each company is pretty much making every wrong decision possible and all it's doing is dooming them to become obsolete.
Take the example of certain bootleg albums available on the Internet. The record company can sue you for downloading "illegal" music which ISN'T available in album form because they're too stupid to put out an album or commercial recording of said music even though there is a fairly large public demand for it. So, even though they weren't going to make any money off of the music to begin with because they refuse to put out a CD or iTunes download...they're STILL allowed to sue you if you download it from the Internet? That's pretty ridiculous. I have a friend who plays on tons of film score recordings and he agrees; "They can sue you even though they're not even really losing money? Idiotic."
And of ALL the cases that should be taking up the court system's time and money...THESE are the ones that get passed through? Don't we have bigger fish to fry, America?
weird but this is all that i wanted to say ... and not only for America, this goes for all the others as well. It's a waist of money, they took again a small catch, the rich go out free and everybody is happy again ... Court and lawyers, it needs to excist but why don't they bother with something that benefits everybody and not only a few, who don't need it anymore ...
:eek: :eek:
Record companies aren't doing as well in part due to pirating, but I think another large part of it is that music is available to listen to now before you actually buy it.
Does anyone remember the days where you'd go into a music store and you wouldn't be able to listen to a tape or CD before buying it? I remember the first time I saw a store that headphone booths where you could listen to a CD before buying it, and I remember thinking it seemed amazing. You used to know 1 or 2 songs on an album, and you'd gamble by spending $15-20 on the album and hope that the rest of it was good too.
It used to be that you'd go over to a friend's place and flip through their CD collection and they'd have maybe 10% or more of their CD's that they don't listen to because they say that they got it and it sucked. People don't really gamble on buying full CD's these days. Today people can listen on iTunes and figure out if they're going to like an album before they buy it. And if it sucks (and it usually does), they can pass, or just buy the 1 song they like. That is a big reason why the record companies are doing bad... They're still trying to base what their profits should be on a formula from decades ago, which ripped people off.
Does anyone remember the days where you'd go into a music store and you wouldn't be able to listen to a tape or CD before buying it? I remember the first time I saw a store that headphone booths where you could listen to a CD before buying it, and I remember thinking it seemed amazing. You used to know 1 or 2 songs on an album, and you'd gamble by spending $15-20 on the album and hope that the rest of it was good too.
It used to be that you'd go over to a friend's place and flip through their CD collection and they'd have maybe 10% or more of their CD's that they don't listen to because they say that they got it and it sucked. People don't really gamble on buying full CD's these days. Today people can listen on iTunes and figure out if they're going to like an album before they buy it. And if it sucks (and it usually does), they can pass, or just buy the 1 song they like. That is a big reason why the record companies are doing bad... They're still trying to base what their profits should be on a formula from decades ago, which ripped people off.
Spleen
Banned?
You'd think so wouldn't you? It seems obvious, but it isn't true.
Heres just one article, but do some googling and you'll find lots more.
http://www.p2pon.com/2009/01/28/study-reveals-piracy-does-not-hurt-music-industry/
bandanoantri
Banned
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...the land of the free and the home of the brave, you gotta be shittin me.
Similar threads
