Evil downloaders beware.....

A recent award in a civil case brings illegal downloading back to front page news:

http://www.kctv5.com/entertainment/14273183/detail.html?rss=kan&psp=news

How many of us know people that have downloaded more then this lady?

Where do you guys stand on this issue and how does the law see it in other Countries?




My own views tend to lean tword protecting companies that invest the money to make things like movies and songs. Without them spending many millions to prodice the stuff, it is not there for anyone to see, or to steal.



I don't think there is any question about the companies losing money because if we can download it for free, we will not buy.

 

I agree with the idea behind the prosecution. But the figure of $222,000 is a violation of logic. This woman was unfairly targeted, singled-out and made an example of. If anything, she should have been charged a dollar or two for each song she "stole".

Thats way to much. They have ruined this womans life in order to make an example and scare people into discontinuing the practice of downloading music. If they weren't such lazy money hungry ****ing jerk-offs, they would have invested the time and money to pool together a large conglomeration of offenders and sue them all together. But that would cost too much money and it would be too difficult. So they just picked one lady and destroyed her alone to get their message across.

A good point to be made here. Most people that download music/movies, weren't going to buy the **** anyway. They only downloaded it because it was free. I have a friend like this. The 20 years I've known him he very very seldom ever purchases CD's. Only if its his favorite band. But he'll download music just because its free. So, the estimated amount of money that they think they are losing, they are not.

If I stole a Rolex watch that I saw sitting on a park bench, it doesn't suggest that I was going to buy one, but decided to steal one to save the money. Its a crime of opportunity. I stole it because it was there. Not because I wanted one enough to buy it.

Its seems as though maybe they should be doing something to diminish the opportunity, instead of the opportunist.

 

Just got done listening to an interview with a recording industry rep on CNN. They were surprised at the amount, too. They hadn't asked for a specific dollar amount and the jury set the award.

 

Yep. $9,250 for each of 24 songs in question. The jury arrived at this figure on their own. The judgment will be overturned and thrown out on its ear. No way this will hold up. They are attempting to recoup losses that cannot be shown to have occurred.

 

You make a very good point but I don't believe we can say everyone that downloads a song feels buying the song is like buying a rolex. Sure, there are some people that would never buy any songs because they don't have the money so I say your right on that front, but many people like me rarely watch tv and instead listen to lots of music and will buy it if they can't get it for free.

I rarely buy an album, I tend to use the services where you just buy the songs you want.

They have done some of that too but it is harder to go after them, they only make the tool, like guns, people have to misuse them.


I agree that they just went way overbord on this case and are trying to make an example but when you look at the overall picture, will anyone be discouraged by this one person being busted so hard?

We see stories about drung driving killing people all the time but nobody pays attention, I don't think even one person will stop just because of this case.

 

Actually P2P software is misused for everything from stealing movies, computer software, songs, entire CD's and child pornography. Actually, I can't think of very many legal things that people do with it. Its one of those things that people act like they're using for legal means, when they really aren't.
Again, its far easier and cheaper to prosecute some lady in Minnesota then it is to actually fix the problem.

Myself, I want the original cover art and the real thing. I have never downloaded a song, paid for or not. I'm stuck in the 90's.

 

Money hungry is right. These peole get payed way too much for way too little.

 

I am a child of both worlds. I still have a huge collection of records including collector picture discs but I also liked almost all the songs included in each album where these days, it seems like the artists put two good songs and the rest is filler on their albums so why pay 15 bucks for two songs?

My music interests cover most of the spectrum these days (was a metal head when I was young) so to cover everything I like, I need to keep it simpler. Even with only being selective on the music I collect, I still have over 150 GB of songs, I consider that a lot.

 

I think that the record companies are just getting what they deserve. It was common knowledge that long before p2p became an issue that the record companies were charging 12 - 15 dollars for cd's, when it only cost them less than one dollar to produce, market and distribute the damn things. Sounds like karma to me.

If they think they should get money from the file downloaders then maybe they should give some of the ungodly amounts of money they raped us for over the years by way overcharging on their products.

For the record, I'm not a person that downloads files from p2p sites.

 

good job of covering your butt...

 

This isn't my first time at a debate forum.

 

The companies still invest millions of dollars to produce these songs and if anyone downloads them for free, then they are stealing.


I am not sure what kind of work anyone here does but consider working for a few hours and being told that someone stole your hours so you cannot get paid for that time, would you just let that happen or fight to get your hours back, to get paid for what you earned.


Profit margin has nothing to do with anything. A Mercades Bens has a very high profit margin, does that high margin mean you have the right to steal one?


I believe it is the fact that music is now just a blip of info on our computers that let's some people believe the song has no substance or real value like a car or a piece of jewelery so that makes it easier to steal it.

 

Recording studios are just another commodity that can come and go. Like the horse and buggy gave way to the train and then the planes. Artists should record and market there own music. Cut the record companies out all togther. This gives the artist a bigger profit margin. Also they should to live tours. You know like in the old days. People have been recording music as long as we?ve had the media on which to copy it to.

 

But who pays the bills for these artists while they develop new songs?


Even if the artist did do it themselves, they still have the same problem, they create the songs, one person buys it and shares it with million sof other people so the hard work these artists went through was for nothing because everyone stole their songs instead of buying them, at least this way, the artists get something for their work because without the record company, the artist gets nothing.

 

I guess that means you wouldn't mind if your local gas stations all agreed to charge $9 for a gallon of gas then. Since profit margins don't mean anything.

 

Free enterprise.

There is nothing stopping them from raising the price on anything we buy. Gas, bread, songs, apples, everything costs something to bring to the consumer and there must be a profit added to make all that work worth it to that supplier.

Many new products come to market every year and fail miserably because consumers don't feel the price if reasonable for it. The same is true for songs. If everyone stopped buying the high priced albums, then the record companies would change something, either adding value to promote sales or reducing their prices.

The domino effect would be to pay less to the artists as well but again, it is simple economics.

There is a good arguement that those stealing music are the ones keeping the prices so high. Think of it like hospitals. They over charge those that can pay to offset the loss from those that do not pay.

 

You really have no idea how wrong you are, and evidently what you are talking about. That would be price fixing, and is illegal.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement_x.htm

http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/price_fixing.htm

 

Is it?

Have you ever heard of the MSRP?

What makes it illegal is when people conspire to set prices at a certain level, not if they find a certain level based on consumer buying.

Go to the grocery store and look at what a certain kind of thing costs. Bread for example, a basic loaf of breead will cost about the same amount with generic names being a tad cheaper than the name brands. This is what I am talking about.


Free enterprise says anyone can ask for any price they want and it is up to the consumer to decide if that price is worth it or not. Obviously the record companies find lots of customers to buy at their current prices so the consumer has spoken. This high price is why the artist can make so much money from their work.


Again, is it right to take something you did not earn or pay for? Stealing is stealing, no matter if it is a piece of candy or a Mercades.

 

Apparently you didn't read the articles.

 

No, apparently you don't understand basic economics.

Yes, there is price fixing in many areas and the conspiracy is a criminal act, but you are not understanding the basic idea that prices have a balancing point without anyone doing anything.


Again, things like bread find a common price point based on consumer spending. It is consumers that set most prices.




But we go astray of the point, stealing music is still stealing no matter how you try to justify stealing.