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

RIAA Wins First Jury Case Against File Sharer

And that is why I don't buy music from these ****ing scumbags.

**** THE RIAA
 
Come on, these little snap tactics aren't going to work. A shame they had to make an example of a single mother really, it's not like this is going to stop the millions who pirate music.
 
Its ***** like this that makes me want to go and share all my music.

Problem is that alot of it is indie music so the record companies wont give a hoot.

Pisses me off that demonoid is banning canadian IP's.

Just because it is a torrent does not mean it is illegal.
 
And how much of this settlement is going to the artist?




Hmmm....nothing? Yeah......f**k the RIAA. And that's why I don't buy music from these thieves.
 
I think it is time for musicians to realise that the traditional music industry is failing. There is nothing they can do about piracy. They will never be able to stop it.

Remember when DVDs came out and they said they had some super secret encryption method? How long did it take someone to break that? Where there is a will there is a way.

Musicians need to embrace the technology that is available to them (cheaply) and start distributing and promoting their own music rather than relying on these corporations which just end up taking a massive slice of what they would have earned anyway.
 
No one cares if it's going to the artists. The point here is a court agreed with the RIAA. So they've done two things here:

1. Proved they have a case winnable in a court of law in the United States
2. Set precedent.

So that's for all the forum lawyers arguing copyright law and what they can do over p2p networks.
 
zioxide said:
And that is why I don't buy music from these ****ing scumbags.

**** THE RIAA
Click to expand...

EXCellent logic, there. Don't like the industry lobby organization actively enforcing copyright, therefore you'll refuse to pay the artists for the product.

You don't buy records or iTunes from the RIAA.

the artists will see none of this
Click to expand...
Hrm? is this an assumption or is this backed up with anything?

single mother with 2 kids
Click to expand...
What is the relevance, please?
If someone had racked up 24 speeding tickets, would their family status give them different treatment?
Did the Kaazaa library with 1700 copyrighted songs in it have a title on it "I'm a single mom with 2 kids" so the copyright owners could go easy on that particular IP address?

for sharing 24 songs.
Click to expand...
1700 shared. 24 brought suit on
"The jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, after finding that the infringement was "willful,""
The jury could have awarded $300 per song. They brought back $9,250. The jury.
 
Cromulent said:
Musicians need to embrace the technology that is available to them (cheaply) and start distributing and promoting their own music rather than relying on these corporations which just end up taking a massive slice of what they would have earned anyway.
Click to expand...
You mean like the bajillion bands on MySpace? Proper recording and mastering equipment costs money. Touring costs money. Marketing, advertising and distribution costs money. Paying rent and eatings costs money. Management costs money. Lawyers cost money. If artists had the money to cover all these things themselves they wouldn't need a label. But they don't so they do.

Yes, technology has lowered the bar for entry level costs so now you can record your songs in Garage band and put them up on your MySpace page for the world to see. Of course so can everyone else. The lowered bar of entry has opened the flood gates and replaced one obstacle w/another of arguably equal size.

Same goes for movies. The cliché 15 years ago was that everyone in Hollywood had a script. The cliché today is that everyone in Hollywood has an indie movie.


Lethal
 
LethalWolfe said:
You mean like the bajillion bands on MySpace? Proper recording and mastering equipment costs money. Touring costs money. Marketing, advertising and distribution costs money. Paying rent and eatings costs money. Management costs money. Lawyers cost money. If artists had the money to cover all these things themselves they wouldn't need a label. But they don't so they do.


Lethal
Click to expand...

Well put Lethal, but obviously you and I know this fact. It's because we're musicians. Non-musicians are blissfully ignorant that artists do need to make a living.. are not born super rich, etc.

Downloading illegally costs the record companies money in unsold albums (via cds or legal mp3s) What's wrong in them trying to stop this? Everyone here who just blatantly says "F**k the RIAA.. this is why I will share more music" SHARE more music? How would you like it if someone stole your software that you created .. distributed it for free.. and if you complained .. "Oh screw you.. this makes me want to distribute it more!"

I would LOVE to see one of you complaining folks.. try and make an album - buy music instruments.. buy a little personal home studio. If it sounds like crap, then spend the money on a recording studio. Can you afford it? No? So what do you do? Go to a record label who will 'invest' in you. They spend tons of money on the whole process - from making the album, legal issues, marketing, etc etc.

It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to listen to that tune that you hear on the radio. And what do you do? "F**k the RIAA.. I am going to download this tune from kazaaa.. hahaha " Great. It's because of all this downloading that record companies are going down the drain.. and so is the music with it.

Oh no.. everyone's al excited and starts gushing when Apple comes out with an iPhone or an iPod. They do make profit on the product, right? The record companies make profits on the artists as well. Same thing. The only difference is that you can get an album for free, so why pay money for it?
 
So what's the difference if I choose to boycott RIAA-member labels and their bands completely and not listen to them, or download their music? I REFUSE to give those labels my money, and either way, they're not getting it. At least with downloading, I can get to know the artist, like their music, and support them by going to concerts and buying other merchandise, which means they'll actually see my money.
 
rockosmodurnlif said:
No one cares if it's going to the artists. The point here is a court agreed with the RIAA. So they've done two things here:

1. Proved they have a case winnable in a court of law in the United States
2. Set precedent.

So that's for all the forum lawyers arguing copyright law and what they can do over p2p networks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the forum lawyers no more than the courts and the RIAA. :rolleyes:

Even though I dislike the RIAA intensely. People who are flippant about piracy irritate me more.
 
yg17 said:
So what's the difference if I choose to boycott RIAA-member labels and their bands completely and not listen to them, or download their music? I REFUSE to give those labels my money, and either way, they're not getting it. At least with downloading, I can get to know the artist, like their music, and support them by going to concerts and buying other merchandise, which means they'll actually see my money.
Click to expand...

Lol.. there's plenty of opportunities to get to 'know the artist' You can visit their site, listen to their song on the radio all the time.. etc.

An artist would rather you buy their album/song than buy a t-shirt. Seriously, support their music. So a part of it goes to the record label.. that pisses you off? Wow, whatever. Don't drag corporate politics into this. Every corporation is out there to make money.

You download illegally - you're stealing. Period. How about I go to a clothing store.. and 'borrow' a shirt.. just to get to feel the shirt.. you know, how it feels when I go to work.. or how it would feel in the summer/winter. :rolleyes: In the end, just because it's easy to download, people do it.

What's more shocking is that they've come up with ways to actually defend themselves "oh the RIAA blah blah" "Oh music sucks" "Oh i don't support their record label's lawyer so i download the band's songs all the time" Sheesh..
 
Music_Producer said:
Well put Lethal, but obviously you and I know this fact. It's because we're musicians. Non-musicians are blissfully ignorant that artists do need to make a living.. are not born super rich, etc.

Downloading illegally costs the record companies money in unsold albums (via cds or legal mp3s) What's wrong in them trying to stop this? Everyone here who just blatantly says "F**k the RIAA.. this is why I will share more music" SHARE more music? How would you like it if someone stole your software that you created .. distributed it for free.. and if you complained .. "Oh screw you.. this makes me want to distribute it more!"

I would LOVE to see one of you complaining folks.. try and make an album - buy music instruments.. buy a little personal home studio. If it sounds like crap, then spend the money on a recording studio. Can you afford it? No? So what do you do? Go to a record label who will 'invest' in you. They spend tons of money on the whole process - from making the album, legal issues, marketing, etc etc.

It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to listen to that tune that you hear on the radio. And what do you do? "F**k the RIAA.. I am going to download this tune from kazaaa.. hahaha " Great. It's because of all this downloading that record companies are going down the drain.. and so is the music with it.

Oh no.. everyone's al excited and starts gushing when Apple comes out with an iPhone or an iPod. They do make profit on the product, right? The record companies make profits on the artists as well. Same thing. The only difference is that you can get an album for free, so why pay money for it?
Click to expand...

I presume that Britney Spears banging a keyboard for $124000 tab is worth it? That way I stick to the old jazz from the 1960's. It's the only thing worth saving.
 
yg17 said:
So what's the difference if I choose to boycott RIAA-member labels and their bands completely and not listen to them, or download their music?
Click to expand...

The difference is that one is illegal.
 
jersey said:
Just simply sad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's sad when people who commit illegal activities are held responsible for them...

jersey said:
This is a single mother with 2 kids.
Click to expand...

And as we all know, single parents are immune from the law and can do whatever they want... For another example, my friend has a terminal disease so it's okay for him to sell drugs to children.

On a related note, my friend stole a car and can you believe it, they actually took him to court for it! The nerve of them! Can you believe it? He stole something and they’re prosecuting him just because he committed a illegal activity! What is the world coming to...

:p :cool:
 
I'd *love* to see the MacRumors user ratio of:

Illegal Downloaders : People arguing for the RIAA's right to Legal Action

to

iPhone Unlockers and Hackers : People arguing for Apple's right to brick iPhones via firmware
 
Music_Producer said:
You download illegally - you're stealing. Period. How about I go to a clothing store.. and 'borrow' a shirt.. just to get to feel the shirt.. you know, how it feels when I go to work.. or how it would feel in the summer/winter. :rolleyes: In the end, just because it's easy to download, people do it.
Click to expand...

I hate when people use comparisons like that. Here is a more realistic one:

I walk into a store. I like a t-shirt I see, so I pull out my magical copy machine. I make a copy of that t-shirt in the store. When I am done copying, I put the original t-shirt back onto the shelf, and walk out with my magically copied shirt.

If you're going to bitch about people doing something, don't misrepresent the facts and argue those. At least get it right.
 
bartelby said:
"right to brick" is adding bias to the comment.



You forgot to mention Apple warned that the update might not play nice with hacked phones
Click to expand...


How is it adding bias to the comment?

It is a very valid comparison.

Kudos to you if you're against file sharing and iPhone unlocking. At least you have a consistent viewpoint that way.
 
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