RIAA Wins First Jury Case Against File Sharer

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by jersey, Oct 4, 2007.

  1. jersey macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2007
    #1
    Just simply sad. $222,000.00 for sharing 24 songs. Even worse, the artists will see none of this.

    When will all of this stop? This is a single mother with 2 kids.

    I hope the RIAA sleeps well tonight.
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    And that is why I don't buy music from these ****ing scumbags.

    **** THE RIAA
     
  3. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Leareth macrumors 68000

    Leareth

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #4
    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.
     
  5. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #5
    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.
     
  6. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #6
    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.
     
  7. twoodcc macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #7
    exactly.

    i've wrote papers about this crap in college. horrible. when i wrote one paper, they were after a 12-year-old girl
     
  8. rockosmodurnlif macrumors 65816

    rockosmodurnlif

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #8
    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.
     
  9. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #9
    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.

    Hrm? is this an assumption or is this backed up with anything?

    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?

    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.
     
  10. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    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
     
  11. jng macrumors 65816

    jng

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
  12. Music_Producer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    #12
    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?
     
  13. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #13
    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.
     
  14. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Music_Producer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    #15
    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..
     
  16. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Maui macrumors 6502a

    Maui

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #17
    The difference is that one is illegal.
     
  18. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #18
    Yeah, it's sad when people who commit illegal activities are held responsible for them...

    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:
     
  19. Unspeaked macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #19
    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
     
  20. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #20
    Let me applaud you on your use of emotive and biased language.:)
     
  21. Unspeaked macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #21
    Was that biased? I wasn't trying to be biased. I mean, I would have worded it a lot differently if I *were*

    ;)
     
  22. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #22
    Fixed this for you.
     
  23. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #23
    "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
     
  24. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #24
    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.
     
  25. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #25

    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.
     

Share This Page