US file-sharer gets $700,000 fine. - Page 2

SSJup81 · (#11 (**permalink**))

Seems like a lot. Wouldn't it be more logical to charge the person in question an amount worth the amount of whatever it was downloaded or shared or whatever? I just couldn't see any person having $22k worth of downloaded mp3s (not ones ripped from already owned stuff) on the computer. I really couldn't see anyone having $675k worth of stuff either. So yeah, I do feel it's unfair and using these people as scapegoats.

In other words, the amount doesn't seem to suit the crime, imo.

iPhantom · (#12 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM

I am just offering up the alternate perspective that if you are going to engage in illegal activities, and you know what the penalties are, one shouldn't be surprised when they get a knock on the door. Every time you download something you are taking a gamble.

I didn't know it was 22,000$.

MMM · (#13 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Seems like a lot. Wouldn't it be more logical to charge the person in question an amount worth the amount of whatever it was downloaded or shared or whatever? I just couldn't see any person having $22k worth of downloaded mp3s (not ones ripped from already owned stuff) on the computer.

In other words, the amount doesn't seem to suit the crime, imo.

I can understand that thinking, but I think people mistakenly associate downloading MP3s with shoplifting (or something less than shoplifting).

In reality it is something closer to drug dealing, and I will say why. If I steal a CD from the store, the store loses one sale and the artist/record company loses one sale.

In a way you can equate it to buying a bag of weed, as both crimes are done to enhance the pleasure of the criminal that did them (assuming the person wanted to listen to the CD).

However, as iPhantom often points out, the crime here isn't "stealing" (as I like to call it) but participating in the distribution of stolen goods. By taking and participating in the copying of these files, there is no way to know how many damages have been done. Torrents essentially force the downloader to also upload and "share" what they are taking. "Sharing" has positive connotations in English, but "spreading" or "distributing" is a more accurate word.

Almost everyone agrees that drug dealers should see more jail time time than drug users, but when it comes to downloading the downloader is also a distributor. They are distributing the files to other downloaders, who are in turn, distributing to others.

A bootleg of "Wolverine" landed on the Internet and was downloaded an estimated one to four million times. That's potentially hugely damaging to the studio that made the movie, into the 10s of millions. That is an estimate, but pirates like you to think the actual damages are zero, but any logical person will know that even if it wasn't 30 million dollars in damage, it was certainly more than zero. Just because it is impossible to know what the exact damages were, it doesn't mean there weren't any.

SSJup81 · (#14 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom

I didn't know it was 22,000$.

Neither did I.

MMM · (#15 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom

I didn't know it was 22,000$.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Neither did I.

And now you do.

komitsuki · (#16 (**permalink**))

Are there people in the higher place still afraid that the society is turning into a gift economy model?

iPhantom · (#17 (**permalink**))

Also, RIAA is delusional if they think this would make piracy fall.

komitsuki · (#18 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom

Also, RIAA is delusional if they think this would make piracy fall.

If you think about the whole open source licenses for software and hardware systems, this is the very definite reason why the whole concept of copyright is going to collapse in this century, including licensed music. Why? It's because the RIAA-like organizations don't know how to deal with legal copylefted stuffs like open source programs.

I'm looking at this in a very different way but some people see it that way, of course.

iPhantom · (#19 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by komitsuki

If you think about the whole open source licenses for software and hardware systems, this is the very definite reason why the whole concept of copyright is going to collapse in this century, including licensed music. Why? It's because the RIAA-like organizations don't know how to deal with legal copylefted stuffs like open source programs.

I'm looking at this in a very different way but some people see it that way, of course.

The way RIAA does things is stirring up hate against them. This only fuels people to do more piracy.

Apple was smart and did the right thing with iTunes store.

SSJup81 · (#20 (**permalink**))

I'm glad iTunes exist too. I can buy music through there. I have a couple of times. Only thing that sucks, from what I've noticed, is downloading foreign stuff through it is still a rarity unless it has a license to be sold in the US. Kind of pointless if what I want is an album by say...um...some new J-Rock group for example or for music by Stabilo. I can't buy it through iTunes since I have a US address and all that and Stabilo is a Canadian group. Heard a song through a fan-made video using one of the group's songs, and have been interested in hearing more from the group (which I've learned has been around since 1999). Nothing on American iTunes though for me to buy and sample. Anyway, since importing cds is really expensive, I'd rather have an option like iTunes to get a song or whatever (if it turns out I like the full album/single, then I'd consider purchasing a tangible copy).

Why couldn't iTunes be nice and international? As I said, it's on the right path, just needs to expand.