[jedi228]

Quote:

---

Tell me again. For every dollar people spend on music, how much goes to the musicians and how much goes to the RIAA?

---

The answer is none of your business. Does it make the RIAA more evil or more good if this amount is higher or lower?
Also, the RIAA represents the music companies that represent the musicians. So before you make ridiculous statements like "RIAA=bad, musicians=good" you should remember that musicians willingly enter into contracts with record labels and get paid money in return. Any musician can chose to be independent and not use a record company if he doesn't agree. Any musician can distribute MP3s for free without any RIAA protection if they desired to do so.

Quote:

---

If musicians can sell their music over the web, why do they need the RIAA?

---

They don't need the RIAA, they choose the RIAA because they like it. I like the RIAA too because it ensures that record companies and artists make more money and this leads to better music in the long run.
The RIAA has done nothing wrong. They have followed the procedure of the law and have a right to protect their product. As has been pointed out previously, this pirate is not a consumer. You cannot be a consumer if you have not purchased the product.
Users do not have a "right" to obtain music or movies in the manner they want at the price they want. Pirates are the greedy ones because they want something for themselves. Music companies do not owe you free music. Music companies do not owe you cheap music.
Entertainment is a luxury not a human right.

[nyip11]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Tell me again. For every dollar people spend on music, how much goes to the musicians and how much goes to the RIAA?

---

The answer is none of your business. Does it make the RIAA more evil or more good if this amount is higher or lower?

---

It is my business if I'm paying for the music. Just like taxpayers having a right to know where their tax money goes, I'd like to know how much of what I'm paying goes where.

Quote:

---

Also, the RIAA represents the music companies that represent the musicians. So before you make ridiculous statements like "RIAA=bad, musicians=good" you should remember that musicians willingly enter into contracts with record labels and get paid money in return. Any musician can chose to be independent and not use a record company if he doesn't agree. Any musician can distribute MP3s for free without any RIAA protection if they desired to do so.

---

Now tell me what would these altruistic musicians live on if they "distribute MP3s for free"? The millionaire musicians can do this, but most musicians are not millionaires and they have to pay the rent too.
Musicians entered into contracts with record labels because they had no choice. How else could they sell their music? Now they have more choices because of the internet.

Quote:

---

The RIAA has done nothing wrong. They have followed the procedure of the law and have a right to protect their product.

---

You have conveniently left out my post saying we should push for the law to be changed. Be honest now, do you really think what the RIAA is doing with all these lawsuits can reduce copyright infringement or "lead to better music in the long run"?

---

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Your analogy of the cost of a CD at original launch in the 80's is completely irrelevant. Of course the cost would be higher as the technology was newer. However, as I state, as technology improves, the cost should theoretically go down (as the industry said they would but never have).

---

I don't believe you have any degree in economics. You are being way too simplistic and you keep ignoring inflation.
Movie tickets are less expensive today than in 1980, adjusted for inflation.
Audio CDs are less expensive today than in 1980, adjusted for inflation.

Quote:

---

Capitalism, like all other forms, has a life cycle when placed into a framework of a society

---

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[pixelcruncher]

Quote:

---

As has been pointed out previously, this pirate is not a consumer. You cannot be a consumer if you have not purchased the product.

---

That's not what was ruled, you can own the music and not download anything and still be convicted:

Quote:

---

Michael J. Davis of Federal District Court, ruled in the industrys favor on a hotly contested technical question, saying that for jurors to find her liable, the record labels did not have to prove that songs on Ms. Thomass computer had actually been transmitted to others online.

---

If your music files are anywhere that someone else can access them (uploaded to your Public folder on dotmac, for instance) then you can be held liable according to this ruling. Even if you have never downloaded a pirated song in your life, own every single file on a legitimate CD, and no one downloads a single file from you, if you put a file where others MIGHT see it, you have broken the law.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

No like when I explicitly asked you not to discuss the race issue in my first response to you but you keep harping at it.

---

Yeah, you wrote "Are you implying her race didn't have anything to do with it or that the legal system is not known for dispensing different levels of justice for different races?"
That would be you "jumping on the racism sensationalism".

Quote:

---

You are trying to hold up a poor position you chose to defend your argument by reaching beyond and hypothesizing a fantasy behind the meaning of what I said.

---

LOL. I'll state it again, public education in the USA is lousy.

Quote:

---

Good point.

---

Thank you. She could have just settled, but instead, she tried to hide the evidence by swapping out her hard drive after the RIAA contacted her and decided against settling for what would have been a lot less money. BTW, she was "sharing" over 1,700 songs. The RIAA was gracious, I guess, by only suing her for 24.

Quote:

---

BTW, for the record, being at the lower range of the median income is not considered poor. (not according to the US government anyway)

---

Yeah, you said "minority". Have you even seen the picture of this woman with a Bachelor's degree from Minnesota? What does being a minority have anything to do with it?

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

It is my business if I'm paying for the music. Just like taxpayers having a right to know where their tax money goes, I'd like to know how much of what I'm paying goes where.

---

You may be curious, but nobody owes you an explanation. You might be curious how much money of an iPod goes to the hard drive, how much goes to technology licenses, and how much profit Apple makes, but nobody owes you an explanation and you do not have a right to find out.

Quote:

---

Musicians entered into contracts with record labels because they had no choice. How else could they sell their music? Now they have more choices because of the internet.

---

Musicians can choose a label that isn't RIAA. A big musician could choose to create a label that isn't part of RIAA. Small musicians could band together and create something that isn't RIAA affiliated. If there was really an incentive to get away from RIAA, it could happen. But the truth of the matter is that RIAA benefits all and musicians like the benefits they receive from it. Small musicians especially need a country-wide attitude that respects the property of others, since small musicians have no means to go after perpetrators themselves.

Quote:

---

You have conveniently left out my post saying we should push for the law to be changed. Be honest now, do you really think what the RIAA is doing with all these lawsuits can reduce copyright infringement or "lead to better music in the long run"?

---

But I don't agree that the law should be changed. I am being honest. Blaming the laws is like blaming the alarm company for burglars. Lawsuits are unfortunate and wasteful, but blame the pirates not the law.
Once again. Nobody is entitled to free entertainment. Users who pirate music aren't under a gun to do what they do.

[Mac007]

This woman will either proclaim bankruptcy or disappear into the night with her kids until the statute of limitations passes. As for the message sent by RIAA, I'm more interested in what message the consumers send RIAA. Anybody want to guess what that's going to be. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Felix001]

Quote:

---

.... As for the message sent by RIAA, I'm more interested in what message the consumers send RIAA. Anybody want to guess what that's going to be.

---

Not going to change my record-buying habits one iota.
This'll likely be the last time I'll even think about this woman. She's off my radar screen because I don't do the things she was convicted of.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

Anybody want to guess what that's going to be.

---

I can guess exactly what the result is:
Users who like to pirate will use this as an excuse to pirate even more. These pirates like to view themselves as heroes who are fighting the big bad evil companies. The reason they label the record companies as evil is to fit their own agenda of getting as much for themselves and paying as little as possible.
Normally we call these peoples leaches or criminals, but because pirates can hide behind the anonymity of internet, they call themselves heroes.
Musical entertainment is a luxury not a human right. Nobody owes you free (or cheap) entertainment. If you are taking someone else's property what does that make you?

[Macdaddyphat]

Here is the truth.
1) Companies are allowed to charge whatever they want for their products (With a few regulatory exceptions). Pricing is designed to capture the most money for the company, not to make the product universally accessible, although when you get both, that's the sweet spot.
2) Consumer's are not forced to purchase these products. They are not neccessities. No special regulation on pricing is neccessary. (People aren't going to die cause they didn't get the new Nickelback CD. But listening to it might kill you. =) )
3) Copyright laws protect this content and the industry. I'm not saying the laws are good, fair or just, but it's the law right now and breaking it has consequences. I think many laws are poorly conceived, completely wrong, etc, but that doesn't mean squat.
4) Fining some poor schmo 200k regardless of sex, marital status, ethnicity, etc for low level file piracy is morally pathetic, even if it is technically correct. Sure, 24 songs times multiple share adds up, but she's a pretty small fish. The long term impact for her family may not be recoverable. Does this really solve anything?

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

4) Fining some poor schmo 200k regardless of sex, marital status, ethnicity, etc for low level file piracy is morally pathetic, even if it is technically correct. Sure, 24 songs times multiple share adds up, but she's a pretty small fish. The long term impact for her family may not be recoverable. Does this really solve anything?

---

The reason the amount goes up so high is because she allows it to. Rather than accepting responsibility, she keeps fighting the charge. The same principle applies to other crimes as well. A $20 parking ticket can grow ridiculously large if you scoff at the ticket.
Truth be told, if the RIAA does as it has with other young pirates, it doesn't actually follow through on getting paid. They are more interested in the principle and publicity, not getting the money. So don't worry that some young woman and her children have been ruined.
The RIAA spends millions on the lawsuit and even if they got $200,000 this doesn't begin pay for costs. We really need to be more concerned that pirates are hurting everybody.

[Dig]

Wow thanks for some sanity Macdaddyphat! It's getting ugly in here.
To me it's just a bad PR move. It certainly hasn't changed my life but I do find myself buying less music and putting that money toward watching more movies. I know people also don't like the MPAA but that issue doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth like this does. I also don't mind paying $15-40 to see a great movie at the theatre or get the special edition dvd.
It will be really interesting in the next 10-20 years to see what happens with the next generation of consumers and the RIAA. Is the RIAA so important that they must the middle men? If the kids now are used to downloading off the internet it will just help online stores like iTunes and Amazon which are much easier for smaller bands and labels to get distribution to. I wonder what DRM will be like in 10 years. It's a very interesting time to watch.

[pixelcruncher]

Quote:

---

If you are taking someone else's property what does that make you?

---

I'm not arguing the morality of piracy, I work in the entertainment industry, piracy is wrong. What I wish people would do (this is not meant to be a confrontation with you Jedi), is to listen to what was said at the trial:

Quote:

---

Gabriel [lead counsel for the record labels] asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. [Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG] replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

---

That's the lead counsel for a major record label. That's not something she just made up, she has likely spoken to the Sony BMG executives at length about this as part of her job. If the record industry wants to start saying that any copying of music off of a CD is stealing (to your computer, to an iPod), would you say that was reasonable? Is it reasonable to have to buy the song for every device you want to play it on? This woman was guilty, but the music industry may want to take this much farther, and this ruling gives them something to build on.

[bastion]

If the record industry wants to start saying that any copying of music off of a CD is stealing (to your computer, to an iPod), would you say that was reasonable?
They have been saying precisely that for decades. They've asserted on multiple occasions that when you purchase a license to "their" content, the license actually applies to the combination of content and medium. The reason CDs cost substantially more than LPs and tapes in the late 1980s is that the medium itself was claimed to have higher value to the consumer despite being substantially cheaper to manufacturer (and it does, given that it doesn't degrade with use or, generally, age). The courts have yet to agree with them, and it's not really relevant to the case.
This woman was guilty, but the music industry may want to take this much farther, and this ruling gives them something to build on.
It doesn't, really, because it wasn't about shifting media. It was about usurping rights of distribution.