Downloading 24 songs costs woman 1.9 million

[vz-r_dave]

Ok I know its illegal and wrong but come on 1.9 million for 24 songs. If they care that much they should be chasing after the big players here. If her appeal fails her family for the next two generations will be completely screwed because of this. A total injustice imo. Go and catch the real fking criminals FFS.


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota....

[Hub]

This shocks me - haven't they gone after the file sharers before, not just downloaders?! Ridiculous fine!

[Elysium]

She stole something prices at $24 and has been fined $1.9 milllion?

[Hyperion]

Hub said:

This shocks me - haven't they gone after the file sharers before, not just downloaders?! Ridiculous fine!

I think she was sharing as well.
I wouldn't worry too much. I think these headline grabbing stories are there just to frighten people into stopping downloading.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

This is another example of the bullying music industry.

They can't be bothered to go after the real players, the people UPLOADING the songs......so they go after the little man (or woman in this case) who they can bully and scare.

It's pathetic if you ask me.

[tegwin]

I would find it hard to believe they would spend a lot of time and effort on downloaders...

Its those who actually upload and distribute the music that should be punsished....

Rather like Drug dealer/Drug user... big differenece!

[Dave^]

this is where Last.FM and Spotify reign supreme.....

Edited by Dave^ on Friday 19th June 09:31

[Neil_H]

I remember reading this during the first trial. She was initially offered a settlement of a few thousand dollars but decided to fight it instead, despite being bang to rights.

That's the reason she's been hit with this punitive amount, she appears to have been badly advised by her brief, or not advised at all.

Although I agree that it's grossly unfair. The recording industry needs to wake up and accept that this is the digital age.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

This is disgraceful. I wonder if they asked the artists what their feelings were before imposing such a ridiculous fine?

I wonder if the music business will go the way Trent Reznor of NIN predicts - all music is available free and bands/artists make money from touring?

The last few releases by NIN have been given away as free downloads with the option of purchasing the physical media.

trent reznor said:

You can spend a year making a record and the second you put it out it will be stolen and you will make no money, but do you really hate the guy who loves your music so much he stole it?

[Dave^]

trent reznor said:

You can spend a year making a record and the second you put it out it will be stolen and you will make no money, but do you really hate the guy who loves your music so much he stole it?

if people are 'stealing' music, slapping them onto CD/DVD and flogging them on fleamarket/carboot sales, they should be hung by the b0ll0cks....

there are many ways of listening to music free, radio (be it internet radio, commercial radio, DAB etc), last.fm, spotify etc.... what difference does it make if people are downloading for their own use?

most people (me included) wouldn't mind paying a flat (reasonable!) fee to be able to d/l stuff legally, so long as it goes to artists and they don't call it a tax and give it to GB and his cronies.....

who listens to the same songs all the time anyway? most get bored after a dozen listens on so, unless it's really good and then it's worth buying the CD....

Edited by Dave^ on Friday 19th June 09:52

[Uncle Fester]

The majority of stuff downloaded is stuff that people are vaguely interested in, but wouldn’t actually buy. It’s just the same as TV or radio. Just because I record and watch a film on TV doesn’t mean a lost DVD sale. Quite the opposite, if I liked it enough then I will buy the DVD.

In essence, the media industry is trying to impose a ‘buy before you try’ ethos, while I want a ‘try before I buy’ system.

The system should perhaps be free download with limited number of plays, then an option to keep and play indefinitely upon payment.

Trying to bully me with tactics like this produces the opposite reaction. I just get stubborn and bloody minded when pushed around. I simply stopped buying music on CD in protest when the industry attacked Napster. When they stop trying to bully me then I will start buying music again, and not before.

Perhaps if all the internet users got together and boycotted music sales until the industry provides a model that is acceptable to the public, then they would soon come into line.

[Plotloss]

Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Aerosmith "Cryin’"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Green Day "Basket Case"

Strikes me that it wasnt worth it...

[ludo]

Uncle Fester said:

In essence, the media industry is trying to impose a ‘buy before you try’ ethos, while I want a ‘try before I buy’ system.

It already exists in spotify (and very handy it is to, I am probably going to buy a copy of "Script for a Jesters Tear" next, for largely nostalgic reasons, thanks to spotify).

[ludo]

Plotloss said:

Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Aerosmith "Cryin’"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Green Day "Basket Case"

Strikes me that it wasnt worth it...

perhaps she could countersue for "goods not fit for (any) purpose"

[Neil_H]

Uncle Fester said:

The majority of stuff downloaded is stuff that people are vaguely interested in, but wouldn’t actually buy. It’s just the same as TV or radio. Just because I record and watch a film on TV doesn’t mean a lost DVD sale. Quite the opposite, if I liked it enough then I will buy the DVD.

Definitely, the music industry just doesn't seem to accept this and regards all downloads as copyright breaches that should be paid for.

If I download something and really like it, I'll buy it.

[Plotloss]

Home taping is killing music...

[Dave^]

Plotloss said:

Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Aerosmith "Cryin’"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Green Day "Basket Case"

Strikes me that it wasnt worth it...

most seem to have a deeper meaning relating to the case

[Jasandjules]

A tiny bit over the top I'd say.

[Sarkmeister]

tegwin said:

I would find it hard to believe they would spend a lot of time and effort on downloaders...

Its those who actually upload and distribute the music that should be punsished....

Rather like Drug dealer/Drug user... big differenece!

Anyone downloading files using P2P software is also distributing those files at the same time. Your computer is sharing the file with others before you have even finished downloading it.

[scorp]

Uncle Fester said:

The majority of stuff downloaded is stuff that people are vaguely interested in, but wouldn’t actually buy. It’s just the same as TV or radio. Just because I record and watch a film on TV doesn’t mean a lost DVD sale. Quite the opposite, if I liked it enough then I will buy the DVD.

In essence, the media industry is trying to impose a ‘buy before you try’ ethos, while I want a ‘try before I buy’ system.

I can agree with most of that but what about say, cinema movies, you would only pay once to watch a film once right, i mean, for the majority of people, it's a one-shot deal. I guess a lot of people go to the movies to watch movies they know little about, if they somehow had the foresight to realise the film was perhaps a waste of money then they wouldn't waste their money, conversely, if they really enjoyed the movie they might not be inclined to watch it again for a good while anyway... You could argue that by seeing the movie, the cinema would certainly see a decrease in sales from people who both liked and disliked the movie. Do you think it would be fair that everyone would be allowed to watch the movie for free before deciding to visit the cinema ?

Edited by scorp on Friday 19th June 13:46