woman fined 200,000$ for 24 songs

Same goes for shoplifting a CD, or any other piece of merchanise, no?
A CD costs less than a lithograph to produce (a litho is actually not very cheap at all).
So, it is OK to steal if it doesn't cost very much?
By downloading a CD instead of buying it, you are costing the company about $19 that they would have made if you bought it (times how many thousands of other people who may have download it from your PC if you are filesharing).
So, where is your cut-off?
More than $19, obviously.
What if somethign costs $30? Is that OK? $100?

And we are not talking about one CD, we are talking about millions.
If someone steals many thousands of lithographs that the artist is trying to sell for $60 each, do you think that wouldn't affect him?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some of them do.
Those that don't should have that right, just as you have the right to not buy from them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

who says that this woman would have bought the music if she hadn't "downloaded" it?

nothing stolen.

 

I think sci forums must house all the do gooders of the world. It seems as though
everybody is so honest about everything. It must just be outside these walls where all the cheaters and theives are lol

 

No but there are some serious howdy doody heads about, to be sure!

 

How about 170,000 packs of gum?

 

Open access is the future.

Artists should just put their songs on their websites for a small pittance.

People will download and the middlemen will be eliminated.

 

I agree with you 100%. But do you remember the days of the home stereo system and tape deck? Press record during a song, and it's yours. Completely legal. Same thing with VCRs. Today's medium is the internet and DVR, and you have to pay for pressing record. Philosophically speaking, what the hell is the difference??

 

Wrong. It has always been illegal to copy intellectual property without the express permission of the copyright owner, even for personal use at home.

 

if that is true you are also not allowed to quote posts. Emails, whatever you write on the internet is copyright protected.

 

Actually, it is legal to record radio broadcasts on tape and TV shows on VCRs. US Supreme Court decided that way back in the 80s, and is a staple decision in any Copyright Law course in law school. I'll give you the official US Reporter citation if you'd like.

Learned Hand, J.D.

 

No, that's not true. That type of thing is what's called "public domain". The only way it's protected is if it specifically denotes the copyright protection, as many news agencies do (I'm sure you've seen the little notice at the bottom of articles, etc.).

Baron Max

 

no, you don't need to establish copyright. THat goes automatically.

 

Record/software companies get their way: good for a few people
They don't: good for the other 100's of millions.

 

Do you have any legal substantiating evidence for that assertion?

Baron Max

 

The whole “copying songs is stealing” thing is absolutely retarded, and I’m amazed that people are actually gullible enough to fall for it. Has everyone suddenly forgotten the definition of simple english words that we all learned in grade school? Suppose I go to a friend’s house and see that he has a nice table in his living room. I decide that I want a table like his table. Now, if I were to break into his house while he was away and carry off the table without his permission, I would be stealing the table. If I went to the store that sold the tables and carried one away without paying, I would be stealing. If I go to the hardware store, buy some power tools and wood, and build myself a table just like it in my garage, I would be copying the table. If I had some sort of fantastic automated wood-working machine that I could feed wood into and have a finished table pop out 1 minute later, I am still just copying the table.

Hopefully now everyone is clear on the definitions of the words “steal” and “copy.” Try not to get them mixed up in the future.

 

I’m pretty sure we’ve had this discussion before. Any work is automatically copyrighted as soon as it’s recorded into some sort of permanent media (paper, film, a computer file, etc.) No copyright notice is necessary, and you don’t loose your copyright just because you publish/distribute it for free on the internet or anywhere else.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html#copyright

 

Simple point:

Artificially Inflated Materialism
When you enter this world, you start with nothing apart from that of the aspirations of your parents and what they do the aid you in your development. If you were to lead a life care free, you'd have no burden's of the need of money or the need of any material artifact other than the roof over your head and the bed in which you sleep. (Of course clothing is a necessity for the majority of social networking, although some people would invite you over even without the clothes.)

However in these troubled times (which as a tangent seem never to cease), we are force fed Materialism through Capitalists. Our society is no longer built on the basis of achieving a rank within some hierarchical topology in the sense of what 'work' you put in can shape your own destiny, through the Mass Media engines and Commercialisation we are now bound to a Topology that follows a simple rule pattern:
"[/i]If you can't keep up with the Jone's, at least get the model in front of the one they just got.[/i]"

It's obviously said it's a "Dog eat Dog world", where everyone is thinking of their own egotistical nature above that of everyone else and this is shown with the current cases of the music industry. Let me just get this straight for those of you out there, the music industry is really a bunch of firms that front the cash for artists to record songs. They then get rights to the distribution of that song through their various outlets, The money they make is through packaging, Advertising (even paying radio stations to play the song), the artists by this point too can still gain royalties but only if they've truly hawk-eyed the contract for legal loopholes. (Believe me, Such firms don't just shaft the public through the inflated costs of their recordings, but the artists to who they tend to think they own the 'Soul' of, which is probably why those artists under contracts lose their artistic inspiration because they become another 'souless corporate sellout'.)

There are hundreds of thousands of talented Singer/Songwriters out there (as well as entire bands) however due to a number of reasons (poor management, Lacking the seriousness of commitment and the fact that most bands now a days are 'Vat grown' for the pure purpose of sales.) they go little known in only the town's and cities in which they play. They are offered a pittance by public houses and clubs to play and the limited 'live' turnout can undermine their entire hopes, dreams an inspirations.

Simply if the argument that copying a music track is not supporting an artist, then support the artists by going out and going to their live gigs, support then entire live music industry by doing so (and for the most part such live music is rarely controlled by the large commercialised ganking machine that we currently refer to as the RIAA.)

There is one song I would openly copy, and I'm hoping the artist will not be offended, but should the RIAA ever find anything on me (which they probably wont for the most part because they deal with 'POP CRAP'.) I will sing it in the court room, I will sing it during trial and I would sing it in prison and it goes a little something like this:

"I know a song that gets on your nerves,
gets on your nerves,
gets on your nerves.

I know a song that gets on your nerves,
gets, gets, gets on your nerv-es."

(Rinse and repeat ad infinitum)

 

Oh no, maybe Metallica will have to wait a month to install that gold shark tank! These record companies have been screwing people out of so much cash for so many years, it's about time we liberated the industry. Their goal is to narrow availability of music so you have to buy their crappy artist of the moment. These days, I can hear so many more artists than I could in the past, and be exposed to genres I never knew existed. I still buy albums from time to time, but without music sharing I would never know about them.

There is nothing illegal about copying material for your own use.

According to this ruling I owe about $33 million dollars? Fuck 'em. Let the artists tour and play locally and stop being so lazy. Radiohead is giving their new album away, they make more on T-shirts.