• Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs
    122 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;25859713]Let me get this through your head:[/QUOTE] Great way to make a point, I'm gonna take you super seriously now. [QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;25859713]Movies make money from people viewing them in the theaters and people buy them on Blu-Ray. Video games make money because pirated copies cannot play multiplayer servers or because fans think its something worth spending money on. Singers / Bands make their money when people go to their concerts (ticket sales) and from people buying music from places like iTunes (which even with piracy they still make tons of money). The music industry just posts projected sales loss but in reality it is far lower. If people like what they see then they are going to purchase it and money will be made.[/QUOTE] All of this is a bad justification for stealing something because it's easier. Completely irrelevant if they still make plenty of money. It'd be irrelevant if they made the SAME amount of money. [editline]4th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;25859777]You people don't seem to understand what I am saying. Imagine we have a jewelry store selling $400 watches. Now imagine that it is well-known that if you are caught stealing one, you will ONLY be made to pay the price of the watch ("AT THE MOST hurr durr"). If someone goes to get a watch, and he's a good boy, he will purchase it, yes. But if the penalty for being caught is not higher than the purchase price, and there is a 100% chance you will pay if you BUY it, whereas there is only a smaller chance you will be caught, and then have to pay, if you STEAL it, there is no real benefit to buying. Therefore the less moral among the population would say "Well I might as well TRY to steal it", and there'd be no real non-moral reason not to.[/QUOTE] He said it should be at most the cost of the ALBUM the song came from, the watch analogy doesn't really hold. [editline]4th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;25859777]source that people actually do this, piracy-is-good.org is not a good source[/QUOTE] Even if people do it it's completely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;25859777]You people don't seem to understand what I am saying. Imagine we have a jewelry store selling $400 watches. Now imagine that it is well-known that if you are caught stealing one, you will ONLY be made to pay the price of the watch ("AT THE MOST hurr durr"). If someone goes to get a watch, and he's a good boy, he will purchase it, yes. But if the penalty for being caught is not higher than the purchase price, and there is a 100% chance you will pay if you BUY it, whereas there is only a smaller chance you will be caught, and then have to pay, if you STEAL it, there is no real benefit to buying. Therefore the less moral among the population would say "Well I might as well TRY to steal it", and there'd be no real non-moral reason not to. [editline]4th November 2010[/editline] source that people actually do this, piracy-is-good.org is not a good source[/QUOTE] Yeah lets instead force him to pay 1 million for 10$ candy. [editline]5th November 2010[/editline] In simple, they're doing this because they failed at shutting down distributors. So they go for consumers.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;25859880]Yeah lets instead force him to pay 1 million for 10$ candy.[/QUOTE] Not $1 million. I dare you to go to your local jewelry store and steal a watch but do a really [b]shitty[/b] job so you get caught, and see what you get. [editline]4th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;25859838]He said it should be at most the cost of the ALBUM the song came from, the watch analogy doesn't really hold.[/QUOTE] Oh, I misunderstood him.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;25859777]You people don't seem to understand what I am saying. Imagine we have a jewelry store selling $400 watches. Now imagine that it is well-known that if you are caught stealing one, you will ONLY be made to pay the price of the watch ("AT THE MOST hurr durr"). If someone goes to get a watch, and he's a good boy, he will purchase it, yes. But if the penalty for being caught is not higher than the purchase price, and there is a 100% chance you will pay if you BUY it, whereas there is only a smaller chance you will be caught, and then have to pay, if you STEAL it, there is no real benefit to buying. Therefore the less moral among the population would say "Well I might as well TRY to steal it", and there'd be no real non-moral reason not to. [editline]4th November 2010[/editline] source that people actually do this, piracy-is-good.org is not a good source[/QUOTE] I have never heard of that source. Also your analogy is incorrect. If someone steals a $400 watch the store no longer has that watch and it is no longer projected loss, it is actual loss. When someone downloads a music file, nobody loses anything. So when you finally pay them back what you really are paying for is the price of the copyright.
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;25859930]I have never heard of that source. Also your analogy is incorrect. If someone steals a $400 watch the store no longer has that watch and it is no longer projected loss, it is actual loss. When someone downloads a music file, nobody loses anything. So when you finally pay them back what you really are paying for is the price of the copyright.[/QUOTE] By this logic a watch stolen from a store is worth the cost of the store to obtain the watch and not its retail price if their loss is only the loss of the physical item. Criminals should be paying wholesale prices for what they stole.
[quote]Also your analogy is incorrect. If someone steals a $400 watch the store no longer has that watch and it is no longer projected loss, it is actual loss. When someone downloads a music file, nobody loses anything. So when you finally pay them back what you really are paying for is the price of the copyright.[/QUOTE] Disregard this Johnny knew how to say it better Why do I get into internet forum arguments
THIS SUCKS CAMEL DiCKS
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;25859965]By this logic a watch stolen from a store is worth the cost of the store to obtain the watch and not its retail price if their loss is only the loss of the physical item. Criminals should be paying wholesale prices for what they stole.[/QUOTE] The criminal that stole the watch should pay the store whatever the retail price plus the damages of being unable to sell the watch because they don't actually have it. Also in my previous post I was trying to say that if something is popular regardless of how many people steal it, it will still make money.
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;25860145]The criminal that stole the watch should pay the store [b]whatever the retail price[/b] plus the damages of being unable to sell the watch because they don't actually have it.[/QUOTE] which is not in line with your policy on filesharing Retail price is an attempt to make a profit. If you charge him retail price and not wholesale you are charging him for [b][i]LOST SALES[/b][/i] and we all know those don't exist amirite
Uhh, no cruel or unusual punishment? That's a little bit too excessive of a fine.
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;25860145]The criminal that stole the watch should pay the store whatever the retail price plus the damages of being unable to sell the watch because they don't actually have it. Also in my previous post I was trying to say that if something is popular regardless of how many people steal it, it will still make money.[/QUOTE] Therefore the stealing is clearly justified by this.
And the music industry wonder's why people hate them.....
its not stealing though, it copying, if anything it should be plagiarism
Why do they charge so much per-song? I don't understand the reasoning behind this. $24 worth of songs = $1.5 million fine? Makes no goddamn sense.
There must be a way to deter pirates without ruining somebody's life.
[QUOTE=Ali Legend;25858365]They're just trying to set an example to scare people. I mean shit, 1 person out of millions. Your chances are pretty good in terms of getting away with stealing. If anything, this encourages excessive theft because the thought process incurred would be "Well, if I've downloaded a few songs and getting caught will bankrupt me, then really there's nothing to lose if I steal a lot more music". Also, it unduly makes those suing look like cocks.[/QUOTE] If they want to spend 4 YEARS and all that money suing a single individual when there's millions doing it, they're going to end up wasting a lot of time and money
Does nobody at the RIAA care about the damage that will do to her family? If she's under constant weight of debt for this, it's going to hurt the kids.
Just made this. [img]http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8348/ss20101104211745.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Micr0;25861222]Just made this. [img_thumb]http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8348/ss20101104211745.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Again, she also distributed. IIRC just downloading gives you a less ridiculous fine.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;25861446]Again, she also distributed. IIRC just downloading gives you a less ridiculous fine.[/QUOTE] Just downloading is legal where I live, but to get back on topic, she's not distributing for personal gain.
Over 62 thousand dollars per song, that's a little to much...
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;25859593] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA[/media][/QUOTE] By the way Johnny, did you get permission from the copyright holder to distribute his works like that? If not that'll be a $60000 fine
This is just downright cruel and unusual punishment.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25861543]Just downloading is legal where I live[/QUOTE] To get back off topic where is this I need to get off Facepunch and do homework
I'd love to know how much money one could lose if they had 300 songs
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25861614]By the way Johnny, did you get permission from the copyright holder to distribute his works like that? If not that'll be a $60000 fine[/QUOTE] I feel bad for wanting to say everything wrong with this Bye guys it's been fun love you all
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;25861692]To get back off topic where is this [/QUOTE] Canada. At least until C-32 passes (if it does, only the conservatives seem to want it and they have a minority)
I saw this on the news this morning, it's pretty depressing shit that the music industry would do that
Okay. I'll shoplift instead of pirate as the consequences are much less severe. (Sarcasm implied.)
This case has been passed around for some time now. It's pretty disgusting what RIAA would do, I'm not sure what they are trying to get out of it beyond sending a message. But that message they're sending is a pretty dumb one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.