Corporate Fascism: Woman shares music online, fined $220,000

[mudesi]

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2200570/riaa-wins-file-sharing-test

Did I mention that this woman is poor? And a single mother, to boot?

WHAT IN THE WORLD HAS HAPPENED TO THE ONCE FREE COUNTRY KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

[FiveGoodMen]

1. A bunch of Amurkins handed it over to a bunch of Nazis because Jesus told them to

[indepat]

44. And Jesus must love these latter-day Nazis

Edit to add day

[FiveGoodMen]

47. Thing is, I've read the gospels many times and I KNOW the Jesus described there wouldn't go for this

He'd have his whip out at the very least.

But that doesn't phase the supporters of this war and this corruption. (Which reminds me of whitewashed tombs for some reason...)

[indepat]

48. Me thinks it would be hard to find a single thing this administration has done that Jesus would take

a liking to.

[Donnachaidh]

2. so when can we expect the prison's to start filling with debtors?

What are they going to do to get their money?

[tritsofme]

3. Don't steal and you won't penalized.

Its a pretty easy concept.

[redqueen]

5. Steal? She didn't steal! This same BULLSHIT was started

when cassette tapes came out... and VCRs... but guess what? Back then we WEREN'T completely taken over by corporate assholes.

Thanks, DLC, for making the sale of America complete. :puke:

[Beaverhausen]

11. Not the same thing

back when we taped albums for our friends, they were given out to hundreds of people at a time.

[redqueen]

16. So?

So what if they were? The vast majority of the people downloading are NOT going to buy the music if they can't download. It's just not worth the money they ask for.

It's STILL a bullshit argument.

[mudesi]

6. And it begins...

Stop! Just stop!

How can you possibly justify this?

[Beaverhausen]

37. Are you under the impression that recorded music appears out of thin air?

for your information, the artists who create it probably spent years in music lessons, practicing and honing their chops, hours and hours writing, then recording the songs, then spent money manufacturing and promoting it. This goes from the smallest indie doing it themselves to the biggest "rock star" who ends up beholden to the record company for the thousands of dollars they spent, and the hundreds of people who's job it is to get the music out there.

There are hardworking people involved in all aspects of creating the music you think you are entitled to for free.

But go ahead, I'm done with this arguement.

[Pithlet]

14. True.

However, I think there should be limits as to what penalty is allowed. Some proportion is called for. I think 10,000 dollars per song is outrageous. Wal Mart can't seize your house if they catch you trying to lift a tube of lipstick from their store. I don't see why record companies are allowed to get away with such disproportionate punishment. I don't think stealing songs should result in absolute financial ruin.

[question everything]

25. She could have agreed to a plea

as others have done, and paid a few thousands dollars. As it was, her legal cost alone were going to be $60,000.

Intellectual property is like a real property. Many people work hard to create music, most of them are not rich. Why should they not be paid for the efforts of their work, just like, say, someone who works on a car?

[mudesi]

29. The issue here is that a corporation can SPY ON YOUR INTERNET USE...

...and then put you out on the street.

All because the politicians pass laws that protect them instead of the people.

I don't know how anyone can take the RIAA's side on this. It's horrifying.

[Pithlet]

33. I'm not arguing that it's right.

I don't see anywhere in my post where I claimed artists shouldn't get paid for their work. I'm arguing that the punishment is disproportionate. I don't care if she decided to plea or not. I don't think getting caught downloading music should result in financial ruin.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beaverhausen]

26. No, it's stealing of a finished work of art

who's the stupid one?

[Solon]

30. Uhm, no, no one was deprived of the use of the music due to her actions...

her crime was distributing a copyrighted work, that's copyright infringement, NOT STEALING, argue that in a court of law, and you will be laughed out of court.

[Beaverhausen]

32. If you walked into a store and stole a CD -that's stealing

how is this different?

[Solon]

35. Because you actually stole the CD...

And deprived the store from a sale of that CD. Look, the problem is that the terms are mixed up, copyright infringement can occur without any other crime taking place, ripping the tracks from a CD you bought isn't theft, hell, it isn't even copyright infringement, that's fair use, however, allowing others access to those tracks, on the Internet, is copyright infringement.

[Pithlet]

36. The difference is the store can't utterly ruin you and bankrupt you for stealing a CD.

It isn't the fact she was caught and charged that bothers me. It's the ridiculously large fine that will ruin her.

[Solon]

38. This is what annoys me most...

Theft and Shoplifting have penalties ranging from a couple hundred dollar fine to maybe up to 10,000 dollar fine, depending on jurisdiction, and some jail time, usually anywhere from 90 days to a year.

Copyright infringement can have penalties up to several hundred thousand dollars, easily, and jail time as well.

[mudesi]

31. No it is not

This particular art form is an intangible asset. You can't steal an intangible asset.

And do you think a corporation should have the power to literally put a poor woman on the street?

[Feron]

39. According to the litigator in the case (Sony BMG),

ripping CDs you own and downloading songs from CDs you have already purchased is theft.

In essence music companies have defined anything that isn't in a pay for play model as theft. Forget about fair use or the fact that mp3s are an excellent promotional tool. It's not about the money, it's about control.

Like the failed Divx model, they want you to be a long term renter being forced to repay the tariff at prescribed intervals.

Let's hope that the Betamax decision is never overturned. Unfortunately corporate shills on both sides have been relentless in chipping away at consumer's rights regardless.

And I'm tired of the BS loaded language. It's only theft when you make money off of music you don't have a license to sell. For many people downloading is a way to preview an album before spending money on it. Artists like NIN leak songs to generate buzz.

Suing your customers is boneheaded move. In my day people swapped cassettes and made mixtapes. Music sharing will never go away.

So instead of spinning their wheels trying to put the genii back into the bottle, their efforts would best be spent adapting to the market and finding ways to stay relevant. Unfortunately for them, the internet,self-publishing ,and distribution are making it easier than ever for artists to avoid big record companies entirely.

[redqueen]

41. Many people who want to come down on the 'law and order' side

seem to miss that little factoid.

"ripping CDs you own and downloading songs from CDs you have already purchased is theft."

Kind of a big point, IMO... but oh well.

[Solon]

42. I find it interesting that, even though the Sony BMG rep and some posters here are factually wrong..

that just doesn't seem to register with them, at all. They continue to repeat this lie as if it were significant, when in reality it isn't.

[redqueen]

4. It's now a gov't of, by, and for the corporation.

All hail the ownership society!

And screw anyone who doesn't own stuff!

[LakeSamish706]

7. This is a very serious judgement and I sure hope that it's appealed...

to the highest court and I hope that she has allot of Pro Bono assistance out there.... Many Americans stand to have this as a test case come down on their heads.

[RavensChick]

8. I don't know

but one thing's for sure--I have more than enough music to last me a lifetime, and I got it the old fashioned way: Buying them from the store!

$220K is way too much for anyone to pay. How is this girl going to support her family?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Maybe if the recording industry would put one tenth that effort into putting out quality music

they wouldn't be in so much trouble.

Funny that the best bands- The Grateful Dead, Pearl Jam, etc. follow(ed) a formula of allowing and encouraging taping of their live shows. They grasped that broadening a happy fan base is long-term WAY more valuable than keeping the "product" under strict lock and key.

[Beaverhausen]

13. If the music is so bad, why are people stealing it?

give me a break.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Don't ask me. I'm fortunate in that much of the music I like is widely available for free.

And I have no problem with paying for good music.

Don't get me wrong, as an artist I understand the necessity for strong intellectual property rights. However, I think most fair-minded observers have come to the conclusion that the Recording Industry's response to new technology over the past 10 or so years has been nothing short of pathetic. Instead of adapting and giving people what they want, they called in their lawyers and started suing. Bad fucking PR, if you ask me.

Apple was on the ball, they developed a workable, useful interface with lots of material available, and now pretty much all the music I buy is through itunes.

But the big Record Labels have been constitutionally incapable of "getting it". And most of the music they're putting out is cheez whiz shlock and shit, developed in boardrooms. So they're hurting right now. But suing music consumers is not going to solve their problems.

[Solon]

43. Its even worse than that, Sony crippled thousands of computers...

all in the name of copy protection. Plus, the RIAA isn't the only one looking like asses, I remember installing a new DVD recorder at my grandma's house, a combination with a VCR. I wanted to test it, and turned it to a random station(Encore), and hit record. About a second later a message came up saying that this station is copy protected! What the fuck? What I was happily able to do, years ago, on regular cable and a VCR, which was also legal, I can't do anymore on digital cable and a DVD recorder? Even worse, if I wanted to correct the "flaw" in the hardware, I'd have to violate a federal law to do so? That's even more fucked up!

[Solon]

19. Before starting an argument, it would be best to actually get the terms straight...

To steal something, you would have to deprive someone else of the possession of said object. Unless this woman actually shoplifted the CD from a store, and then copied it and started distributing it on the internet, she is not guilty of stealing. I swear, for once, just once, I wish people would think before they started posting stupid shit.

[Beaverhausen]

24. She 'shared' it with people who didn't pay for it

[Solon]

28. And that's copyright infringement, not theft...

No court of law would call that theft, why conflate two unrelated crimes, hell, copyright infringement actually has a more severe penalty!

[RavensChick]

27. It must be real bad for them to steal it

Besides, most of the music today is so jacked up I can't follow it anyway. Just give me the old school and I'm happy.

[LakeSamish706]

10. My take on this sort of thing is... If you download music, movies, or

whatever and do not, do not do it for profit... Not certain I see it as stealing... And to have it done supposedly in your account with no proof it was you... That is setting a very dangerous precedent in my view.

[maxsolomon]

12. home taping is killing music!

was once the cry of the recording industry.

but somehow, it didn't die.

read about the future: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/technology_internetcritic/2007/10/how-much-is-a-c.html

How much is a CD worth to you, and, bigger picture, how much is the effort musicians put into making a CD worth?

Those provocative questions -- a direct challenge to the evolving Internet and cultural norm of treating music as a free commodity -- are posed by Radiohead, the critically-acclaimed English band, in making its new disc, "In Rainbows," available for download Oct. 10 at whatever price you want to pay.

And with this brilliant move, the band strips away all the rationales people come up with for downloading music, free, from file-sharing sites or for getting friends to burn CDs for them.

You can't say your song grab is a blow against the evil record companies, because Radiohead, despite selling millions of discs, no longer has a record company.

You can't say they're millionaires and don't need the money because, whatever their economic status, they're being stupendously decent about the whole thing and to not pay them something would make you a cad and a thief.

You can't say the price is unfair, because the price is whatever you want to pay. "It's up to you," says the page that confronts you when you click on the question mark after being greeted by the blank price box.

"No, really. It's up to you," says the second page, if you click on the question mark again.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. I beat their whole system, I don't download, buy or listen to any

of their shitty music anymore.

[redqueen]

20. I think more and more people are doing that,

which is why the music industry is crying so hard about it.

It's pretty much ALL crap.

[Az]

21. Copyright law is the most abused law by Corporations around

When originally placed on the books copyright law was only supposed to cover a work for 7 years. After that it was intended for the work to enter into the public domain. The intended purpose was tro contribute to the public good. But the idea of the public good is repulsive to corporations and thus as it stands today they have pushed back the copyright law so that nothing ever comes out from behind its protection. Every time the deadline approaches they lobby congress and push it back another decade or two.

RIAA, the group that sued this woman, is in large part responsible for the continued abuse of this law. And they are on a crusade to extract every penny they can out of the general public and they do not care who suffers as a result. RIAA steals from us and then cries foul when someone steals a few crumbs back from them.

With Corporations writing the laws there is no public good. There is only Corporate profit. That is the only measure of value of a thing.

[Drix]

22. Recording Industry Death Knell

So after decades of ripping off artists and consumers it's come down to this? I doubt this woman has made that much money in her life, let alone any profit she made from her infringement. If this is the recording industry's answer to their dismal sales and outdated distribution model it won't be long before they've gone the way of door to door encyclopedia salesmen and buggy whip manufacturers.

[Az]

34. RIAA went after a 13 year old girl

If that didn't do it nothing will. The Corporations are our new Feudal Lords. Its gonna take a revolution to get rid of them again.

[Drix]

45. RIAA is Delusional

The recording industry will not require a revolution to be corrected. It's over. They're already dead. What you see now is their last spastic spasms of greed before they take their well earned corporate dirt nap.

[NuttyFluffers]

46. patently stupid. they want to kill the MP3 player essentially.

good luck with that, i know there's quite a lot of companies who'd be quite pissed if you tried to make their products obsolete.

the ironic part is that it was Sony and their REC button lawsuit that allowed such technology to be fine and dandy. and now they want some jackass lawsuit from Sony to say it's not OK to make a backup of your own property -- something that has already been decided decades ago? they want a reversal on their own ruling because now they're on the other side? if i were the judge i would've laughed at them, thrown out the case on precedent AND general unmitigated gall, atop slapping a fine on the litigants for wasting my time.

can't keep a record of your OWN PURCHASED PROPERTY? what's next, i don't get to keep files from my digital pictures? all of this is about as insane as saying you can't make copies from your own negatives and prints on your own. anyone who thinks this is 'all about stealing' first never read the article, second needs to get their head outta their ass and wake up to the 1980's at the very least, and third start thinking very hard how to child-proof that computer of yours.

guilty for shit she didn't do, didn't know that was done, and likely unaware how to even do the damn thing in the first place. you'd think there was no constitution in this day and age. oh wait, w/ this WH there isn't. damn people, stop supporting your own destruction, this shit ain't right and you know it --WAKE THE FUCK UP!

[Crabby Appleton]

49. They must have been really good songs!!1!! nt