Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mom fined $22,500 for music downloads

crazytom said:
Personally, I'm appalled at the support of this RIAA witch hunt victory.

A simple cease and disist order would have accomplished the same thing.

Instead, it's stuck a family with what could be financial ruin. For what? Vibrating air from a crappy mp3 replication?

I wish that I could return all the crappy songs that I've purchased in the past and sue them for pain and suffering from having to listen to them.
Click to expand...

she had the option of paying 3000, and she decided to fight. she downloaded (and kept) music she didn't buy. music that costs money to own.

so yeah, the family may be facing financial ruin. but not because of the RIAA (though I despise them, in this case, they're in the right) - it's because of stupid decisions that this woman made.

She *might* have gotten away with the notion of 'trying before buying' if she had deleted the songs she didn't buy, and if she had not distributed the songs.

I have to agree with the judge on this one - her actions were like shoplifting - taking something that costs money (without paying for it) to see if she liked it. There are plenty of legal alternatives out there available to try songs out before you buy them. But really, her argument fell apart when she kept the songs that she was 'trying out'.

So yeah, the RIAA sucks, but they're right (this time).
 
crazytom said:
I don't understand...I'm not familiar with the Verizon case. I don't see what would stop the 'industry' from sending a letter (not necessarily serving notice) to someone who's in violation telling them to stop.
Click to expand...

How do you send a letter to an anonymous party? It used to be that one could get a court order to an ISP for the contact information, before doing a full-fledged suit, and hopefully avoid the worst of the nastiness. Verizon Online didn't like giving out the information and the matter ended up in court. The matter went all the way up to the Supremes in 2003, and the requirement to file a suit first came out of it.

Verizon and their supporters hailed this as a great victory for privacy (and the general principle probably does help there in some way), but for the copyright stuff it doesn't really change anything except to make sure that it's a much more expensive proposition for a file trader who gets caught.
 
Yo ho me hardies yo ho.... what can I say the life of a pirate is dangerous. Thats why I use my neighbors internet... shhhhh
 
zap2 said:
I bet John would support filesharing , if he was here. He would be the man to fight for us.
Click to expand...

Yeah right.

The same man who wrote "imagine no possessions" and then had an entire apartment set aside in the Dakota for his fur coat collection... :rolleyes:
 
Blue Velvet said:
Yeah right.

The same man who wrote "imagine no possessions" and then had an entire apartment set aside in the Dakota for his fur coat collection... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sounds like yet another stellar example of do as I say, not as I do.
 
seabass069 said:
I think that since CD sales are down, they have found a way to capitalize and make some of that money back. It really has nothing to do with copy protection, it's all about regaining those lost dollars due to crappy CD sales.
Click to expand...
Doubtful since they probably paid the lawyers ten times as much and it will take forever for them to get their money, if they even get it.
 
840quadra said:
I gurantee that the musicians that actually RECORDED those songs see nothing from that settlement. I would have less of an issue with this ruling, if each musician was given a good chunk of that $750 per song fine, but I am sure it all goes to the record companies. :mad:
Click to expand...

Where would it be going then? To the government?? To catch more illegal downloaders???

The lawsuit is just absurd.
 
eva01 said:
Hate to say this but i am happy for this one.

I don't care if you are "sampling" go to a borders and listen tothe song or use iTMS and use the sample, don't download it and steal it, especially not distribute it.

Gets what she deserves in this case.
Click to expand...
I think if prices weren't so outrageous maybe I wouldn't buy them. But, face it CDs aren't $7 like the typical Jazz bin specials I buy, they are triple that. Its insane. At $7 I still split it among 7 people, so I only pay a buck per CD. I would only start legitamely buying my own copies of every CD when they reached $5 a CD. It is possible too, if you get rid of CD, packagin, shipping, stocking... you come down to maybe $12-14 online, but that is still a bit too much for me seeing that none of them sell their music at a good recording bit rate. Bands should sell their music for relatively nothing and turn around and make money off Gigs. I think thats a genius idea, then they don't have to worry about copyright and all that and they could just raise the price of a concert ticket.
 
840quadra said:
I gurantee that the musicians that actually RECORDED those songs see nothing from that settlement.
Click to expand...
A $22K award won't even cover legal fees. There's nothing in the original judgement or the appeal about awarding costs on top of that.
 
CanadaRAM said:
No, for downloading 1000 (or 1300) songs and THEN SERVING THEM BACK OUT to other people, and then not settling with the much lower offer, but rolling the high-stakes dice and taking it to court. Not ridiculous at all.
Click to expand...
ahh thats what happens when you don't read the entire article ;)

so is the RIAA only going after people who are sharing right now?


i always get confused with these things
 
Phat_Pat said:
so is the RIAA only going after people who are sharing right now?
Click to expand...
That's all they can easily prove, so basically yeah. If they set up their own machines to serve out files, it would be kind of tough to argue that they weren't authorizing those downloads.
 
Not to veer this off track too much, but I just read this thread and had to say that the following post had me rolling on the floor. Thanks for the laughs, Tom. My stomach still hurts..........LOL :D . And I'm not be sarcastic. That was really funny...................

crazytom said:
Instead, it's stuck a family with what could be financial ruin. For what? Vibrating air from a crappy mp3 replication?

I wish that I could return all the crappy songs that I've purchased in the past and sue them for pain and suffering from having to listen to them.
Click to expand...
 
Chef Medeski said:
Bands should sell their music for relatively nothing and turn around and make money off Gigs. I think thats a genius idea, then they don't have to worry about copyright and all that and they could just raise the price of a concert ticket.
Click to expand...
im guessings your not a muso.

following prices are in australian dollars
good guitar/bass - depending on guitar/bass, $2000 to $10,000 each (most artists have about 10 guitars on stage, so about $20,000 to $100,000)
guitar/bass amp - maybe $2000 per head, $600 to $1200 per speakerbox
good drum kit- $10,000 per kit (artists may have a few kits)
drum sticks - at least $20 each for good sticks (drummers have sometimes a few dozen sticks around
mics - $500 minimum per mic (one for each band member, say 4 mics, plus 4 for drum kit = $20,000)

thats just a sample of equipment the players need. To record for albums, if they record through their own pocket, it could cost well over $100,000 to get all the stuff needed for recording.

musicians have possibly the mose expensive career path to follow. It is not an industry to enter lightly. They cannot fund this huge cost through gigs alone. Quite often, artists have to get a second job to support themselves. Sarah Blasko is a fairly well know artist, she was nominated for 4 ARIA Awards and has had her album in the top 10 in iTunes, and she still stuggles to suport herself. Even bands which have taken off recently. like Green Day, have been around and near collapse for a decade or more.

I cannot understand why people download music, when it is stealing, and there are such inexpensive alternatives out there, such as iTunes, at $17 an album. Sure $22,500 is a lot of money, and she probably shouldn't have been fined that much, but it should stop her from stealing music
 
Just some information concerning the Copyright Statute. The $750.00 is a fine in the staute for copyright infringement, per occurance. It is a minimal fine that the plaintif has the right to request vs. actual damage. If the Judge had found her to be willfully infringing on the copyright it would have been $30,000 to $150,000 per occurance, plus attorney's fees. The items in question must have been registered with the copyright office prior to the infringment. She got off light....

I'm a photographer in the middle of a similar situation right now, suing an old GF who screwed me over. She's been using some images I shot, for self promotion of her business. I should get a check from her every month for the rest of my life, if all goes well! (It's court, anything can happen, but my attorney says I own her.)

This is my first post to the Forums, but in the past I've stopped by and read alot, so hello!

Jim
 
Yes, the RIAA is evil. Unlike every other industry, all they care about is making money.

They produce these overpriced CDs with only one or two good songs on them, and expect people to pay money for that.

Too bad the RIAA doesn't allow people to legally download only the songs they like for a reasonable price, say, 99 cents a song...
 
Bands typically don't make much on a record: about $.07 per track per copy. So, from a Gold Record (500,000 copies), the band gets $355,000. That's not much...they aren't wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, for sure. The real money comes from concerts and merchandising, where they get a much higher percentage of the profits. Most small bands WANT filesharing...that's the only way they can gain popularity without gigging 24/7 all over the country. It is a tough business and it's really hard to make money at. You need a lot of things going your way. If people don't share music, that leaves only the big players to shove it down your throat like they currently do, it's their way of life and they want to protect it. The RIAA is NOT about the music, it's ONLY about the money. It sounds like a bad business model to me.


To go off topic: about photographers (Jimbowe). This issue is even murkier, in my mind. A studio engineer records a bands album; captures all the sound through his mic's onto his tape machines and mixes through his speakers, but this engineer DOES NOT OWN the recording, but he only was PAID for his SERVICE of doing such. Now on the other hand, you have a photographer who captures light and now he has been PAID for his SERVICE, OWNS those images of light, and will SELL you those images if you want it. There's a huge dichotomy between business models here and I don't think you can reasonably compare the two.

I had a run-in with a wedding photographer some time back. I wanted a small (not original) digital copy of an image (for personal use). He got all huffy and steamy spouting that the images were his and violation of copyright would meet the wrath of the courts..... Hmmm. It was MY image he owns? I don't recall giving him the rights to MY image?!?!?! He did nothing more than capture my image with the press of a button. Fortunately, I know that my image won't fetch top dollar on the market, so I did the next best thing : I didn't buy anything from him.
 
crazytom said:
Bands typically don't make much on a record: about $.07 per track per copy.
Click to expand...
Correct insofaras the songwriting royalties are concerned. The performance or mechanical payment is on top of that, and depends on the deal the band cut with the record company. The songwriting royalty is over and above the 'bands' deal -- which is why it is so important for a band to write their own material. Doing cover versions takes a longer time to break even. The other revenue sources are from sheet music, ringtones, and syncronization rights (when the music is used along with TV or movies.)

A studio engineer records a bands album; captures all the sound through his mic's onto his tape machines and mixes through his speakers, but this engineer DOES NOT OWN the recording, but he only was PAID for his SERVICE of doing such.
Click to expand...
Typically the engineer is paid a contract price for the recording - some 'name' engineers also negotiate royalty points on the album.

I had a run-in with a wedding photographer some time back. I wanted a small (not original) digital copy of an image (for personal use).... It was MY image he owns? I don't recall giving him the rights to MY image?.
Click to expand...

In fact, you did when you signed the contract or invoice. Read the fine print next time, and if you want specific uses and rights, negotiate that up front. Now, he SHOULD have been able to give that digital file to you at a modest price, with limitations on how it can be used. Instead, he was a B~^^#=@d and p!$$=d you off. Bad business practice.
 
i think that RIAA abuses people from file sharers to the artist themselves.
they really only care about making money, and that is all. period.

i hope sony gets their a$$ sued off for their involvement with "illegal
downloads" (aka rootkits) to the same ratio that this lady's downloads to
fine is imposed. then lets hear them whine about blah, blah, "illegal
downloads", blah.
 
a kid that was in my class in the 4th grade just got busted by the riaa and is in deep *****. Crazy to have someone in my small town get busted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back