woman fined 200,000$ for 24 songs

Antartica.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

North America wasn't inhabited before the Native Americans were here so they owned the land, so to say, before anyone else did. Same holds true with Africa where many tribes have been where they are for tens of thousands of years never taking anything but inheriting the land from their ancestors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree. Works of art, music, literature, etc., should be given very lengthy protection. It encourages the proliferation an imagination of the human mind and subsequently society. Classic songs, or classic literature or paintings/photos, etc., are extremely valuable assets to society and are generally distributed at a very low cost (19.99 for a CD or $8.99 for a soft copy of a book vs. $399.00 per month for a life saving medicine), and to write them off only after a handful of years would dissolve legal policy in encouraging people, and thus society's, intellectual and social growth.

Learned Hand

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suggest you check out www.jamendo.com

Any way, I think the oposite, art belongs to the people. Only by sharing with his creation artist is contributing to the growth of the society. Locking an artwork in a chest is of no use.

p.s. Can you please quote the US law which says that copyright infrindgement is stealing?

 

What laws? She didn't steal anything, rather she copied, copying isn't stealing, this ruling is based completely off hypotheticals "well you know I could've sold and made $200,000 if she hadn't been sharing" wtf? She should've only had to pay $40, the price of the 2 CDs, the rest is just pure hypothetical nonsense, go sue the other 10,000 people then and get your money, innumerable studies have shown that downloading has no correlation to sales....

For instance Kanye West sold MORE albums this time (920,000) than he did with his last album...do you think no one was downloading this time in the year 2007 than with his last album? Kanye West sold more albums than he ever has. Jay-Z also sold more albums then he ever did (and he's had albums out since 1994)....were more people downloading in 1994 than in 2006? Exactly.

 

She didn't steal anything, but by sharing thousand songs (1700) online, the
website owner gets the benefit from the visitation, isnt (s)he? Otherwise
why youtube is exist? Also there must be some market lost for the artist.
How will you compete in the market when your creation could be obtained for
free

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And why people download for very cheap price or even free (if they use flat
rate internet) whereas they could have bought for cheap price as well. Aint
$ 19 per each is very cheap compared to if you have to create yourself?

To be fair and makes everybody happy, I would prefer that we are still able
to download for free but not a complete version, says a demo version. Then
those who wants to share somebody else's work online must share the "royalty"
with the creators.

 

something is copyright protected when it has a sales value. Do you want to
pay to read my posts? :bugeye: Even if I give for free you won't bother to read

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Things that has a sales value comes from extra effort & time spent, and
sometimes those are very hard one (hard effort, long time)

 

art is not freely belongs to people like free public goods (air, water,..),
because to produce them it takes time and effort. Even fresh air isnt
completely free. One pays to prevent pollution or to pollute.

 

But it can!

 

After some reasonable time, I will agree. Means, art should be protected so
long it has a considerable sales value, unless the creators themselves are
willing to give it away. I dont really understand copyright law, but let says
after 5-10 years, arts creation could be given away (not only the demo
version but also complete version). The time period of protection should
allow the creators to get what they deserve.

 

No, it is not theft, unless you are using some strange definition of "theft" that's different from the definition that everyone else uses. There are plenty of laws against theft, and no one is ever charged with theft for illegal copying. It's simply a copyright violation, which is

1. Not the same as theft, for reasons that have already been gone over many time.
2. A civil offense rather than a criminal offense. Unlike theft, which is a criminal offense.

 

Well, no. As has been said before, every creative work (a song, paragraph, painting, etc.) is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's written/recorded/painted/whatever regardless of whether or not it has "value".

 

Invalid answer since there aren't any current inhabitants either.

 

You'll have a great deal of difficulty getting anyone to accept your claim about Africa without some supporting evidence. Because there's every likelyhood that there were tribal wars over territory many, many times in the past.:bugeye:

 

Most of the great artwork does. Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., are all public domain. Visual art, as there is only one original, is extremely valuable, which is why lithographs are made. An original sonnet penned by Shakespeare himself is so rare that it is indescribably valuable. Nevertheless, you can get a copy for free as public domain.

As for the starving artist thing -- sure, many post their work on the internet for free hoping for a big break. That's their (the copyright holder's) prerogative. But if you want good music, and to continue to have good music, paying a small little price for a download or two, or $20 for a great album, will hardly leave society in the dredges.

As for your PS:

Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. 17 USC 201. Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 [17 USC § §106-122] or of the author as provided in section 106A(a) [17 USC 106A(a)], or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602 [17 USC 602], is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. 17 USC 501(a). Subject to sections 107 through 122 [17 USC § §107 through 122], the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1)
to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2)
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3)
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6)
in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. 17 USC 106.


Or, to paraphrase, copyright is an "intellectual property right." Since the owner has the exclusive right to reproduce this intellectual property, anyone else who does so without consent steals from the exclusive owner of the right of duplication.

Learned Hand

 

It is theft. Criminal codes of various states and the Model Penal Code define theft as taking an object belonging to someone else. The US, through the Commerce and Supremacy Clause, enacted the Copyright Act to deal with thefts of intellectual property. In other words, theft of the mind and talent of the artist or designer. The Copyright Act also provides for criminal prosecution, not just civil infringement cases.

Ever heard the phrase, "you stole my idea!!!!?????"

 

Well said

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, sure, ...everyone knows and understands that. But, see, most everyone here does it, so they're all just seeking to find excuses to do it.

Baron Max

 

Very true. Just like in the 'looting during a blackout' thread, they are actually admitting they are nothing more than low-life crooks and COWARDS, too.

They aren't brave enough to go rob a bank (which would be fine by THEIR standards because banks have plenty of money they've made by ripping off the public) but do their stealing in the dark and through the Internet.

They are just punk, crooked cowards who would steal anything if given a chance to get away with it. The world would be FAR better off without any of them - they are the REAL leeches of the world!!

 

Well, it just goes against my programming to preach to the choir on how to get around a law . . .