Topic: RIAA Wins $1.92 Million In File-Sharing Lawsuit (Read 21925 times)

scarred · « **on:** 19 Jun 2009, 12:27 »

The best part? The "woman" (read:

) in question only downloaded 24 songs.

http://pitchfork.com/news/35669-riaa-wins-192-m-in-file-sharing-suit/

Koremora · « **Reply #1 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 12:30 »

<3 RIAA

JD · « **Reply #2 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 12:32 »

That's crazy.

Tehz · « **Reply #3 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 12:34 »

What a fucking joke.

rynne · « **Reply #4 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 12:35 »

I hope some musician pipes up and goes, "Hey, if songs are wroth $80,000 each, I need to be getting paid a lot more."

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #5 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 12:37 »

actually, she downloaded something like 8,000 but they reduced the number of songs to be representitive of the whole and increased the fee per song.

still think it's wrong and horrible but at least it's not quite as insane as it initially sounds.

Cire27 · « **Reply #6 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 19:21 »

I thought they quit doing this?

billiumbean · « **Reply #7 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 19:36 »

Who can remember what the fuck the RIAA is actually for? They seem to be the music industry's equivalent to pedophilia.

Zingoleb · « **Reply #8 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 20:54 »

Record Industry Assholes Anonymous

fish across face · « **Reply #9 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 23:45 »

Quote from: Cire27 on 19 Jun 2009, 19:21

I thought they quit doing this?

Yep, this particular case has been going on for a long time. They have stopped. They also say (in the billboard article linked to in the pitchfork article linked to in the first post) that they're not going to ask the woman to pay this amount, they're just looking for settlement. Must be a PR nightmare for them.

I'd thought a big chunk must just be the judge awarding legal fees, given it's the 2nd trial in this case, but if the courts are allowed to fine you up to $150k per infringement in the States then... maybe not.

gospel · « **Reply #10 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 00:03 »

Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine on 19 Jun 2009, 12:37

actually, she downloaded something like 8,000 but they reduced the number of songs to be representitive of the whole and increased the fee per song.

still think it's wrong and horrible but at least it's not quite as insane as it initially sounds.

So, what, 1 920 000 / 8 000 = $240/song?

Oh dear, I guess I'm cruising for a bruising. I better start collecting the ~4.8m now.

Patrick · « **Reply #11 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 00:14 »

I love living in another country with no law enforcement, sucks to be her

Zingoleb · « **Reply #12 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 00:22 »

I've downloaded about 300 songs total. Out of my entire 6,000 file library.

And as much as that is, that's almost nothing compared to most of you people.

Radical AC · « **Reply #13 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 00:30 »

Quote from: Zingoleb on 20 Jun 2009, 00:22

I've downloaded about 300 songs total. Out of my entire 6,000 file library.

And as much as that is, that's almost nothing compared to most of you people.

What do you mean, "You people?"

I love the bald faced lies on the RIAA website such as

Quote

Q: Should devices such as CD burners be outlawed since they are an easy way of making illegal copies of others creative efforts?

Devices and technology are not the problem. It’s when people use technology to break the law that we take issue.

Again and again, we have embraced the technological advances that have allowed millions upon millions of people around the world to enjoy the music we create. We want fans to enjoy their iPods, CD burners, and other devices, but we want them to do so responsibly, respectfully, and within the law.

Which is completely untrue when you look at it's lawsuit against Diamond and other companies.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #14 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 01:11 »

Quote from: rynne on 19 Jun 2009, 12:35

I hope some musician pipes up and goes, "Hey, if songs are wroth $80,000 each, I need to be getting paid a lot more."

That's the angle that some of the anti-RIAA artists should be taking. Start demanding more money if the RIAA gets to claim damages that big, raise a big stink over it. The news loves a controversy, musicians claiming the RIAA is cheating them ought to get some attention. Would it stop the RIAA? Probably not. Would it give them a headache? Yes.

Or just blow up every RIAA building, but that wouldn't really be effective in anything but catharsis. Very very good catharsis, with a side dish of entertainment.

Zingoleb · « **Reply #15 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 01:15 »

Quote from: Radical AC on 20 Jun 2009, 00:30

Quote from: Zingoleb on 20 Jun 2009, 00:22
I've downloaded about 300 songs total. Out of my entire 6,000 file library.

And as much as that is, that's almost nothing compared to most of you people.

What do you mean, "You people?"

Black people, of course. I am an incredible racist.

</sarcasm>

Looking at a lot of audiophiles on here, especially ones who frequent the mediafire thread so much. Y'all (you people!) would have downloaded far, far more than I have, especially with your fancy high-speed internets.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #16 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 01:21 »

Quote from: Zingoleb on 20 Jun 2009, 01:15

audiophiles

I do not think this word means what you think it means

Zingoleb · « **Reply #17 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 01:28 »

Means different things in different places. The general accepted meaning here is someone who places high importance on audio quality - amongst people I talk to, it's someone who has a passion for music.

Tom · « **Reply #18 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 02:12 »

I for one don't usually illegally download albums that are associated with the RIAA.

Zingoleb · « **Reply #19 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 02:58 »

Tom, I love you.

Thrillho · « **Reply #20 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 04:38 »

The RIAA may be assholes, but what a lot of people tend to miss is that they have a point.

Illegally downloading is breaking the law (hence the 'illegally' part) and yeah, they come on too strong. I'm not siding with the RIAA here, but if you break the law and you get caught, then you're probably going to prison. And if you try to defend your actions, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's not like you're stealing bread to feed your family or something. This is why I've stopped doing it and I'm steadily buying up the stuff I had illegally.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #21 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 08:34 »

Laws are so silly.

gospel · « **Reply #22 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 12:15 »

Quote from: DynamiteKid on 20 Jun 2009, 04:38

The RIAA may be assholes, but what a lot of people tend to miss is that they have a point.

Illegally downloading is breaking the law (hence the 'illegally' part) and yeah, they come on too strong. I'm not siding with the RIAA here, but if you break the law and you get caught, then you're probably going to prison. And if you try to defend your actions, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's not like you're stealing bread to feed your family or something. This is why I've stopped doing it and I'm steadily buying up the stuff I had illegally.

It's always good to have a backup plan.

EDIT: It's okay, we have Moby on our side.

Thrillho · « **Reply #23 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 19:53 »

I'm not saying laws can't be bullshit, I'm just saying if you get arrested for downloading 100,000 songs I'd expect to go to prison.

I don't think it's the ownership of the song itself necessarily, so much as the ownership of that recording of it. I mean I can see why when you've put a lot of hard work into a recording to get fuck all in return for it.

Although come to think of it, it's not like it's the sequence of notes that is everything. Songs with lyrics people put their heart and soul into them to try and make something unique and I think it's fair enough if they don't want that to be open source.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #24 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 20:22 »

It is important to note though, that in this case no artist is suing this lady and no artist is benefitting from this move.
What we have here is a third party that sues someone in order to profit from somebody else's work.

Tom · « **Reply #25 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 20:29 »

Man, America;

Thrillho · « **Reply #26 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 20:34 »

Tommy, I respect your principled nature, but this ideal you seem to have, also expressed in threads outside of this one, that anyone who wants to make money from making their music is 1. a dick and 2. probably making bad music, disturbs me.

Anyway I think America has bigger problems than this. The media has a seizure if you see a boob on TV. If a film's rating states that anyone older than 17 should see it, no-one sees it. There's probably a few more hurdles before we get here.

fish across face · « **Reply #27 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 23:22 »

I look at spending money on buying some music as saying thanks to artists who I like. If they've already said they're happy for me to have their recorded music for free, then, OK, cool, but if they haven't made that explicit then I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, out of respect. Even if I thought they were crazy for asking for money for data over the internet, I don't think this would change much - I like the idea they're getting some dollars that will make it easier for them to keep on doing what they do when maybe they're sweating over feeding their kids, etc.

My views would probably be very different if I liked more music by apparently famous and rich people.

fish across face · « **Reply #28 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 23:59 »

Yeah, true, I just thought you were already off on a different tangent by talking about zeroes and ones and so on... do you think it would've been right to sue this woman if she'd got pirated CDs containing these songs?

Avec · « **Reply #29 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 08:58 »

Am I the only interested in what the 24 songs were?

fish across face · « **Reply #30 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 14:18 »

I've seen the list in other news articles. The only ones I remember are Guns n Roses songs. As Scandanavian (always have to think twice about the spelling) War Machine said upthread, the 24 are a sort of specified slice of thousands of downloaded songs, anyway.

fish across face · « **Reply #31 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 14:22 »

Quote from: Ptommydski on 20 Jun 2009, 20:48

If you want to charge people to see you play music live - I can understand that. You're putting on a show. I understand why money changes hands in this situation. Likewise, if you make a record and decide to have it printed to vinyl or compact disc and you give it some artwork and it's a tangible thing which people can own if they like - I can still understand that. At the point where it's a bunch of ones and zeros which don't in any way diminish or prohibit either of the above, forget it. I've heard all the arguments under the sun. It's nonsense.

What's your evidence for the bit I've put in bold, btw?

Be My Head · « **Reply #32 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 14:29 »

A piece of vinyl or a compact disc is just a bunch of particles, why should I pay for it?

Sox · « **Reply #33 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 14:45 »

It's kinda self evident. When I download music, I am not diminishing profit from a performers live show or their stock of physical merchandise. When I download music, I am also not preventing an artist from performing live or selling merchandise in any way, shape or form.

I don't really see that why that statement needs evidence behind it.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #34 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 14:59 »

Just to illustrate it a little bit further.

Imagine these two scenarios:

1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.

2) I steal a CD or vinyl froim a store.

Would you say these two are equivalent?

fish across face · « **Reply #35 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 15:12 »

Hang on, I don't think this is self-evident at all.

Quote from: E. Spaceman on 21 Jun 2009, 14:59

Just to illustrate it a little bit further.

Imagine these two scenarios:

1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.

2) I steal a CD or vinyl froim a store.

Would you say these two are equivalent?

No, I don't think those are equivalent.

How about these two?

1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.

2) I download a music album to my computer. I would have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, a sale is lost.

What I was asking Tommy for evidence of is that 1) is occurring, not 2).

Just in case this goes astray, I'd like to make it very very clear lest things go astray I don't agree with punishing people for downloading music.

Radical AC · « **Reply #36 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 15:14 »

According to some people/entities(RIAA) both are breaking the law the same as running over the homeless.

There is a tangibility issue to some extent with owning a vinyl as opposed to sound files, not just a particle/matter transfer issue. I can use my CD to put the album on as many of my computers as I want, but I can't use a legal program such as bittorrent to get it off the net? I've spent money seeing bands, and buying merch for acts I either wouldn't have even heard of, or wouldn't have bothered with had I not heard their music for free on a recommendation. I think the biggest problem is with the current copyright system that needs a modern overhaul. Unfortunately there is no pressing push for reform, and it would be opposed by all the wrong, and powerful lobbying groups.

Thrillho · « **Reply #37 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 15:35 »

Quote from: E. Spaceman on 21 Jun 2009, 14:59

1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.

No sale would be lost if you stole it from a store because the chain stores buy them off the label. Once the units are in stores, the money's already gone to the label.

Whether or not it is in physical is not irrelevant per se, but it is being a stickler for details that don't really matter. It's semantics.

I agree that the RIAA are dickheads, and that the crime people are being charged with is not strictly speaking the one they should be.

However, if a band has chosen to sell their music in a physical form, and not put it out for free on the internet, then if you download it instead, that is you being a dick, because if it was their choice to charge people to listen to it, then you should either pay for it or not listen to it. They have not chosen to put their music on the net, it is illegally copied, and whatever crime it may be semantically, it's still some sort of crime even if I can't construct what it is.

There's not really an equivalent situation that I can use as an example, because there's not really anything like it.

Also, I would argue that buying a pirate CD is worse, because not only are you not buying the CD from the artist who made it and giving that money or whatever, you're giving someone ELSE the money, which is ridiculous. I mean, how much of an asshole do you have to be to instead of giving your money to the artist whose music you like, but to a criminal instead. Where's the moral high ground in that?

...You know, aside from the one I'm standing on. Or rather, that my high horse is standing.

gospel · « **Reply #38 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 16:48 »

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html

fish across face · « **Reply #39 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 17:25 »

Quite a bit of research in the intervening 5 years contradicts that. Certainly not all of it, and there are millions of different questions not being addressed and things to mull over, I reckon.

Here's a paper from this year by one of the same bods. Table 5 near the back has a summary of some findings. There's all kinds of murkiness. The tenor of their paper is, unsurprisingly, positive for big name acts.

Quote from: DynamiteKid on 21 Jun 2009, 15:35

However, if a band has chosen to sell their music in a physical form, and not put it out for free on the internet, then if you download it instead, that is you being a dick, because if it was their choice to charge people to listen to it, then you should either pay for it or not listen to it. They have not chosen to put their music on the net, it is illegally copied, and whatever crime it may be semantically, it's still some sort of crime even if I can't construct what it is.

Yeah, basically this is me, as I guess I already said. Except the "illegally" bit - it being a "crime" - is not really what I think or care about. It just seems ungrateful... churlish? Heh, churlish is a pretty cool word.

Tom · « **Reply #40 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 17:45 »

Quote from: Ptommydski on 31 Dec 1969, 16:00

Most people in the world cannot afford such a luxury.

Oh hey, that's me.

Usually I don't say anything in these threads because Tommy is usually around to express the beliefs that I share in a more articulate manner. Anything I say is merely a purposeless reiteration of the much finer expression of others.

fish across face · « **Reply #41 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 17:55 »

Heh, when I was at high school I used to borrow CDs for free from my local library and tape the fuck out of them. I totally get that. When I had a bit more expendible income I went berzerk on buying shit.

Thanks for taking the time to lay this out, all. Very interesting.

I can relate to the dick moves... that's what it comes down to in my mind. Like singing along loudly and out of tune during quiet songs at a gig, always leaving the pub just before it's your round, breaking something and not sacking up to the fact you did it...

The increased revenue thing, to me, makes sense in the big picture, but I still see how certain kinds of people would lose out. Mostly thinking of older, poorer, or more geographically isolated people. The latter being a factor for live stuff more than merch, but maybe for both.

Also people who make anything electronic, which happens to be most of what I listen to... doesn't exactly translate to hot merch and live shows. Even if it did, really it's the recorded stuff that's worth saying "thanks" for, I guess. Still, if some kind of recompense happens indirectly, that's cool.

Tommy, I totally agree with you that this will all become irrelevant from a legal perspective.

MadassAlex · « **Reply #42 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 19:35 »

Quote from: DynamiteKid on 21 Jun 2009, 15:35

Also, I would argue that buying a pirate CD is worse, because not only are you not buying the CD from the artist who made it and giving that money or whatever, you're giving someone ELSE the money, which is ridiculous. I mean, how much of an asshole do you have to be to instead of giving your money to the artist whose music you like, but to a criminal instead. Where's the moral high ground in that?

This is so ridiculously close to what a major label already does.

When you buy a band's CD, they get absolutely minimal profits from it. Most actual money comes through live shows.

Thrillho · « **Reply #43 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 19:43 »

True, but then the bands get even less - another reason I'd be hesitant to risk them losing any of that income.

Jimor · « **Reply #44 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 20:20 »

This is why some major record companies are now demanding to not only get a piece of the pie from touring, but to pretty much act as the manager for it.

Tom · « **Reply #45 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 21:20 »

Quote from: fish across face on 21 Jun 2009, 17:55

Heh, when I was at high school I used to borrow CDs for free from my local library and tape the fuck out of them. I totally get that.

But I'm into bands like Animal Collective, Codeine and Tortoise. My local library, or in any library in Sydney for that matter wouldn't ever have that in stock.

fish across face · « **Reply #46 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 16:47 »

Oh my point was that I made my own copies of music I wanted when I couldn't afford to buy it. The means were different, but I get why people do it.

Quote from: Ptommydski on 21 Jun 2009, 20:07

Think of it this way. Like Alex said, artists only get maybe a buck or two here and there for the sales of the actual albums, depending on the contract they signed.

All contracts I've signed have been for 80% of profit. These were standard contracts for the labels that have released my CDs.

Quote from: Ptommydski on 21 Jun 2009, 20:07

However, they can make a reasonable amount from touring, especially if they have the benefit of major label exposure and all the things that go with it.

What if they don't (or no longer) tour / play shows?

Zingoleb · « **Reply #47 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 20:51 »

I find every situation you bring up incomparable to what's happening to the music world.

In those three situations, you're naming professions that were simply outdated and became worthless. Music is still worth something to a lot of people, they're just not paying for it anymore because they know that they don't have to.

I can see the movie business taking the next hit...

fish across face · « **Reply #48 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 21:56 »

Quote from: Ptommydski on 22 Jun 2009, 20:45

I am guessing the contracts you signed were for independent record labels, no?

Yeah, for sure. The argument that musicians don't get much income from CDs is, anecdotally, not very relevant to a lot of the music I like. It may well be true for a lot of other QCers.

Quote from: Ptommydski on 22 Jun 2009, 20:45

On the one hand, I'm sure that sucks for them but on the other, they chose to participate in music as a method of obtaining income when realtistically, it should be a labour of love in the first place.

I understand that, but, taken to its extreme, the argument that people should be allowed access to participate in media based on how much money they have available to spend is thoroughly distasteful to me.

scarred · « **Reply #49 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 21:58 »

Quote from: Zingoleb on 22 Jun 2009, 20:51

I can see the movie business taking the next hit...

Wouldn't it be television? I mean, I know beyond the cost of cable/satellite and commercials it's free anyway... but with the advent of Hulu, I think that industry is going to be in need of heavy revamping too, sooner than the movies. But in terms of straight-up piracy, point taken.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: RIAA Wins $1.92 Million In File-Sharing Lawsuit (Read 21925 times)

Zingoleb

Zingoleb

Zingoleb

Zingoleb

Zingoleb

Zingoleb