Court Slams Music Pirate With Huge Fine – of $41.00 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BigHeaded B;25734754]piracy is killing every piratable industry there is no desputing that fact if you pirate you are a criminal and that is a crime my friend[/QUOTE] Main source of income for musicians: concerts and merchandising.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25734558]How about no fine at all? Downloading music does shit all to hurt the industry. Anyone who thinks downloading a CD is ruining music doesn't know the first fucking thing about music. Music is leaving the "Industry" that we have now simply because there's no fucking reason to go about things with that archaic model, and yes, it's very archaic. You want to talk about economic damages from CD downloads? You can't. There simply isn't any. The artists that "suffer" piracy are actually making money off the fact that their music has circulated so well, and spread so far, and offered new tour destinations, and new fans quicker than CD selling EVER did. Tours are how they make money, so the artists have always been fine. The only people "suffering" are the record companies which [b]should[/b] suffer seeing as they're going extinct, and that's part of what going extinct is. They're no longer a relative business model, do away with it already. They're only trying to line their own pockets based on false ideas.[/QUOTE] I agree, but at the same time it is against the law. Hell I'd love it if there was no fine, but since there is I still stand by the fact that it should definitely be higher than the price of the album to discourage piracy. It can't be exorbitant though. [B]Edit:[/B] But yeah the record companies are the bad boys here, and the RIAA is it's bitch. :sigh:

Motherfuckers... I hate this shit, I swear to Zeus

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;25728556]That's probably the amount of money they actually lost, as is the same with most music sharers.[/QUOTE] Think about it... Would he have actually gone to the store and bought it instead, eventually? If not, did they lose money anyway? At least $41 is more reasonable than $1.5 Trillion

and this is why the fight against piracy is stupid as fuck

I would have the smuggest look on my face after 5 years in and out of court over some pirated music tracks, and then having to only pay about 2 cd's worth of cash. Wasted a lot of lawyers time and a lot of corporate money. :smug:

[QUOTE=Baldr;25736386]Main source of income for musicians: concerts and merchandising.[/QUOTE] I have news for you: Bands are not the only types of musicians that exist, and neither is music composed by bands the only kind of music that exists. Just think about it for a second. What if there is a need to release old recordings of something? If music was "free", how would - for instance - old movie soundtracks be released? Someone has to dig up the tapes and remaster them and so forth. Not every piece of music is by some famous singer or something, but there are also niche markets, the forementioned soundtrack businness for one. It is the small labels that cater to such needs. This "we must not give greedy corporate executives any money" -excuse is just so stupid. Do you people not realise that by pirating, you are actually destroying the small labels (as the loss of profit can be fatal to them, while only denting the large ones), thus destroying the competition of the larger ones, enabling them to be as greedy as they please? (= the existance of competition forces companies to please the public, right?) I do agree however that many of the punishments for piracy are rather excessive.

This is good, I'd like to see more reasonable punishments akin to this.

[QUOTE=juhana;25740273]I have news for you: Bands are not the only types of musicians that exist, and neither is music composed by bands the only kind of music that exists. Just think about it for a second. What if there is a need to release old recordings of something? If music was "free", how would - for instance - old movie soundtracks be released? Someone has to dig up the tapes and remaster them and so forth. Not every piece of music is by some famous singer or something, but there are also niche markets, the forementioned soundtrack businness for one. It is the small labels that cater to such needs. This "we must not give greedy corporate executives any money" -excuse is just so stupid. Do you people not realise that by pirating, you are actually destroying the small labels (as the loss of profit can be fatal to them, while only denting the large ones), thus destroying the competition of the larger ones, enabling them to be as greedy as they please? (= the existance of competition forces companies to please the public, right?) I do agree however that many of the punishments for piracy are rather excessive.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't buy the tracks if they where very old. I would if it would support the artist, but I don't have anything left for such companies as the RIAA or the likes. If the tracks were too old (ie. the artist is dead), then who gets the money? The RIAA.

The people who pirate who spend more on music than most that stay legal deserve the praise. At least interest in music isn't decreasing like it would've been.

[QUOTE=smallfry;25729332][img_thumb]http://cubeupload.com/files/800a351275615562747.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] As stupid as the RIAA fines are, that's very bad logic. [editline]30th October 2010[/editline] Hahaha 5% [editline]30th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Ayra;25741680]I wouldn't buy the tracks if they where very old. I would if it would support the artist, but I don't have anything left for such companies as the RIAA or the likes. If the tracks were too old (ie. the artist is dead), then who gets the money? The RIAA.[/QUOTE] Er no the artist's estate gets it.

[QUOTE=Ayra;25741680]I wouldn't buy the tracks if they where very old.[/QUOTE] But some of the rest of us do. Who would cater to the niche markets if piracy was legal? The big companies would have no interests to release things like soundtracks to old movies, as they are more concerned about profit than pleasing small groups of people. The small businnesses would have gone bankrupt due to the legalisation of piracy, so they wouldn't be able to do it. The big companies would be very greedy and affluent without all the competition. There would basically be a homogenised market where only things like songs from popular singers would be available, and nothing else. Of course all the previously released niche market stuff would still be available (because it would be legal to download it), but the rest would never be released, because the big companies would consider it a profit loss, and there would be no small labels (who might instead have a passion for the products they put out).

[QUOTE=juhana;25742304]But some of the rest of us do. Who would cater to the niche markets if piracy was legal? The big companies would have no interests to release things like soundtracks to old movies, as they are more concerned about profit than pleasing small groups of people. The small businnesses would have gone bankrupt due to the legalisation of piracy, so they wouldn't be able to do it. The big companies would be very greedy and affluent without all the competition. There would basically be a homogenised market where only things like songs from popular singers would be available, and nothing else. Of course all the previously released niche market stuff would still be available (because it would be legal to download it), but the rest would never be released, because the big companies would consider it a profit loss, and there would be no small labels (who might instead have a passion for the products they put out).[/QUOTE] What makes you think absence of record labels would mean niche music would become unavailable? Profiting business aren't the only ones with a passion, you know.

at least the fine is acceptable.

- Resist Arrest

[QUOTE=Jsm;25731353]I think if you are being fined the value of the item that you have pirated then you should be able to keep it as you would effectively be buying a licence for it. Hopefully other courts in other countries will see this and in the future if companies demand stupid amounts they will be pointed in the direction of this case.[/QUOTE] The thing is that you are being fined for breaking the law, not that you are being forced to pay for the songs.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/ZrbNs.png[/img]

[QUOTE=juhana;25742304]But some of the rest of us do. Who would cater to the niche markets if piracy was legal? The big companies would have no interests to release things like soundtracks to old movies, as they are more concerned about profit than pleasing small groups of people. The small businnesses would have gone bankrupt due to the legalisation of piracy, so they wouldn't be able to do it. The big companies would be very greedy and affluent without all the competition. There would basically be a homogenised market where only things like songs from popular singers would be available, and nothing else. Of course all the previously released niche market stuff would still be available (because it would be legal to download it), but the rest would never be released, because the big companies would consider it a profit loss, and there would be no small labels (who might instead have a passion for the products they put out).[/QUOTE] You're REALLY dumb. I'm not insulting you, it's the truth. You believe that the music industry is keeping niche afloat... It's not. It never has. If anything, it kills niches. It has to, it wants to expose niches. Free music will encourage niches. [editline]30th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;25742082]As stupid as the RIAA fines are, that's very bad logic. [editline]30th October 2010[/editline] Hahaha 5% [editline]30th October 2010[/editline] Er no the artist's estate gets it.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. It goes to whoever it said in the contract, and the artist will make a small amount of money from that post mortem, but majority of it does go to the RIAA, or studio he signed with.

[QUOTE=Haxxer;25728488]Reminds me of when TPB was prosecuted and had to pay a fine of $5.5 million or something. It was 80 torrents. $71110 per torrent. If they were to prosecute them for every torrent on the site, they would have to pay the equal amount of Sweden's entire workforce's income until year 2300. I call corrupt :/[/QUOTE] Considering the pirate bay's collection of torrent files alone is about 15TB, which are the .torrent files, I'd say that would be enough money to solve the entire world's debt over quite a few times. The system is significantly corrupt. Like that lady who downloaded 11 songs and they tried to sue her for $3.3 million. And she's a single mother.

I hope it sticks like this. In fact, if they "steal" a game, I think they should be able to charge them with the price OF THE GAME, not something crazy like $8000+