Woman Ordered to Pay $220,000 for Illegal Downloads

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up

pounce

New Member
Jul 20, 2007
25
0
0
#3
illegally taking any intellectual property without compensating the creators (whether music, software, movies, games, etc.) is obviously illegal and unethical. things like iTunes are out there, legal, and provide a perfect opportunity to actual support the creators of these things that enhance your life.

the woman willfully downloaded and uploaded a large quantity of songs, and she knew what she was doing. she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar, it's that simple. the jury agrees. she was wrong and she got caught. of course anyone who wants music should buy it.

this is pretty off topic from the iPhone, so i'll stop here and suggest we all leave this one alone.

however, i will say that i create music. please do not practice digital looting and take my songs without paying. my music is available on iTunes and other legal places, so please practice patronage. if you like something enough to download it you like it enough to pay .99 for it.
 

whale_hunter

New Member
Bronze
Sep 11, 2007
207
0
0
#4
It's a shame the courts are so stupid. This lady is a mother of two!

Doesn't that give her the right to steal things?
 

Indy

Zealot
Gold
Jul 29, 2007
2,921
5
38
38
#7
illegally taking any intellectual property without compensating the creators (whether music, software, movies, games, etc.) is obviously illegal and unethical. things like iTunes are out there, legal, and provide a perfect opportunity to actual support the creators of these things that enhance your life.

the woman willfully downloaded and uploaded a large quantity of songs, and she knew what she was doing. she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar, it's that simple. the jury agrees. she was wrong and she got caught. of course anyone who wants music should buy it.

this is pretty off topic from the iPhone, so i'll stop here and suggest we all leave this one alone.

however, i will say that i create music. please do not practice digital looting and take my songs without paying. my music is available on iTunes and other legal places, so please practice patronage. if you like something enough to download it you like it enough to pay .99 for it.
What's some of your songs, maybe i'll download a few..
 

scandalex

Member
Silver
Sep 16, 2007
771
0
16
#8
This is ridiculous; just the whole concept of downloading music for a fee. Its like TAPE RECORDERS have been completely forgotten about. never existed, or just never mentioned in anything I've read regarding illegal downloads.

I'm sure many of you are old enough to remember YOUR song playing on the radio. What did you do? Run out and buy the 8-track or throw a tape in and hit record?

Downloading music is just an advanced stage of evolution; its just illegal now when it wasn't then. How is the concept (record/download) that much different?
 

Indy

Zealot
Gold
Jul 29, 2007
2,921
5
38
38
#11
There was also someone who said they play MLB on a thread recently, If I can find it I'm gonna ask him who he plays for.
 

Darkfox

New Member
Aug 6, 2007
23
0
0
#12
This is ridiculous; just the whole concept of downloading music for a fee. Its like TAPE RECORDERS have been completely forgotten about. never existed, or just never mentioned in anything I've read regarding illegal downloads.

I'm sure many of you are old enough to remember YOUR song playing on the radio. What did you do? Run out and buy the 8-track or throw a tape in and hit record?

Downloading music is just an advanced stage of evolution; its just illegal now when it wasn't then. How is the concept (record/download) that much different?
Actually I'm pretty sure that it was illegal back then as well, they just didn't have any efficient method of tracking down and arresting offenders.

As for paying for music being ridiculous; put yourself in the artists' shoes. Sure big bands like Metallica have no right crying about the loss of revenue, but the small-timers do. I may not have a record deal but I'm sure that recording companies take a LOT of the profit made from albums that are sold, then there's the split between members of the group, and the cost to maintain/update your equipment. The more songs that are downloaded without being paid for, the less money those artists make and if their profits drop low enough or even put them into debt then they'll likely stop making music and you and the rest of the world misses out on what could potentially be the next 'big thing'.

And if that doesn't sway you then I ask you this: Is paying a single buck per song really any worse than being charged WAAAAAY more money that you'll see in several decades if you get caught? Not to mention having your entire music collection deleted and your personal computer(s) riddled through by government geeks?
 

ipod classic

New Member
Bronze
Sep 24, 2007
80
0
0
#14
This is ridiculous; just the whole concept of downloading music for a fee. Its like TAPE RECORDERS have been completely forgotten about. never existed, or just never mentioned in anything I've read regarding illegal downloads.

I'm sure many of you are old enough to remember YOUR song playing on the radio. What did you do? Run out and buy the 8-track or throw a tape in and hit record?

Downloading music is just an advanced stage of evolution; its just illegal now when it wasn't then. How is the concept (record/download) that much different?
Precisely! Limewire and all that other stuff is just basically modern and easier way to tape record, if you will. Keyword here is modern!
 

pounce

New Member
Jul 20, 2007
25
0
0
#15
This is ridiculous; just the whole concept of downloading music for a fee. Its like TAPE RECORDERS have been completely forgotten about. never existed, or just never mentioned in anything I've read regarding illegal downloads.

I'm sure many of you are old enough to remember YOUR song playing on the radio. What did you do? Run out and buy the 8-track or throw a tape in and hit record?

Downloading music is just an advanced stage of evolution; its just illegal now when it wasn't then. How is the concept (record/download) that much different?
so your tape recordings of the radio are exactly the same as the no cost instantly available identical digital copies distributed worldwide via software?

you might be missing a few points of comparison including the cost of the tape, the extreme limits to your distribution of said tape, the loss of quality in the tape (and in the fm or am transmission) as compared to the lp, the fact that you have to record one at a time in realtime, etc.

also, something played on the radio at least compensated the artist once. radio play is totally cool for bands. it gets the artist compensation for the song placement and may encourage further sales. just putting stuff up on a torrent or p2p network doesn't get an artist money immediately and almost assures that those who download said tracks won't buy them later - why would they, they already have the tracks!

my point is that those two things are in fact extremely different. hope my explanation helps.
 

pounce

New Member
Jul 20, 2007
25
0
0
#16
Precisely! Limewire and all that other stuff is just basically modern and easier way to tape record, if you will. Keyword here is modern!
how is limewire a tape recorder?

(that's a leading question, i know that limewire isn't a modern recorder at all. it doesn't record, it distributes material. according to recent surveys over 95% of the material moved around via p2p and torrent sites voilates copyright)

see my above post and let that sink in a bit.
 

OJsakila

New Member
Jul 15, 2007
3,021
1
0
Jupiter's sulphur mines
#17
I certainly agree with the fact that I should buy the music I want to listen to. However, if I want to then take that music that I purchased and burn it to another disk to take to the beach or even burn a disk for every day of the week then thats what im going to do. And to any "secret" self loathing no-talent hacks out there, i would DARE you to stop me. Since the beginning of time, as music knows it, greatest hits tapes were made by people. The politically correct world obviously reaches it's filthy fingers into the creases of my brain for trying to guilt me into thinking it's wrong to listen to MY music the way i want to. You do know that soon all cds will be sold with a "limited" amount of burns on it. Like five times is what i last heard. If they do that , fine, most of you "artists" suck anyway. I gotta go back twenty years to hear anything worth a crap anyhoo. You guys gotta sue listeners... Thats how bad YOU are...
 

pounce

New Member
Jul 20, 2007
25
0
0
#19
I certainly agree with the fact that I should buy the music I want to listen to. However, if I want to then take that music that I purchased and burn it to another disk to take to the beach or even burn a disk for every day of the week then thats what im going to do. And to any "secret" self loathing no-talent hacks out there, i would DARE you to stop me. Since the beginning of time, as music knows it, greatest hits tapes were made by people. The politically correct world obviously reaches it's filthy fingers into the creases of my brain for trying to guilt me into thinking it's wrong to listen to MY music the way i want to. You do know that soon all cds will be sold with a "limited" amount of burns on it. Like five times is what i last heard. If they do that , fine, most of you "artists" suck anyway. I gotta go back twenty years to hear anything worth a crap anyhoo. You guys gotta sue listeners... Thats how bad YOU are...
everything you are talking about is still fair use. it's cool, and anyone would agree.

while my position on piracy is clear, i also happen to hate drm. i want consumer friendly mediums for delivery of my works.

frankly, piracy is a behavioral problem and as such there will be no technological change (that i can see) that will affect that. thereforee i am not expecting more drm in the future. it wouldn't work, and i hope enough of the music industry realizes that. Apples move to introduce non drm higher quality songs was a good move. radiohead took things a step farther with their current album. you might want to check that out.

even with drm, iTunes lets my keep music on my iPhone, ipod, computer, burn cd's, etc. frankly the drm in it has been invisible to me as an ordinary user. i've been able to do everything i want to any other discussions about how horrible and restrictive drm is are strictly hypothetical with me. i suspect that is true for most folks really. folks are arguing hypotheticals. nonetheless, the move away from drm as a technology is a good thing. although with a move away from protection schemes comes a sort of responsibility for the consumer to not do things like put those same tracks up on a p2p network. respect for the digital rights of the creators of those works is always part of the equation. drm was a response to all of the music piracy, it was a "it takes two to tango" measure. i never liked it. i'd love to see even higher quality downloads available for more music with no drm on it. and i'd love to see folks buy whatever music or other IP that they use and enjoy in their lives.
 

tharmsen

New Member
Silver
Jul 5, 2007
873
0
0
#20
I think everyone has downloaded copyrighted music at one time or another... especially in the early days when it was all new technology. I always said that if the record companies stopped the BS practice of forcing me to buy an entire album and let me purchase only those songs that I wanted, I would pay for every song I download.

When iTunes (and a few others like Rhapsody) came along I tried them all. Some had a great selection of music and others had very little I wanted. iTunes evolved into the best music store ever, and for many-many years I've been buying my music there. I have not and will not download a single song from a freeware service. The music industry has given me what I asked for and at a very reasonable rate ($.99 a track). If you can afford a PC, power at your house, an internet connection, and an iPod, you can afford to buy your music.

I have no sympathy for the lady. I've read enough to be convinced that she was aware of the music downloads/uploads and she's just trying to get one over on the industry by claiming ignorance. Sorry, you're busted. You should have taken the settlement offer of a few thousand dollars, now you're out 1/4 of a million. Oops. That will teach ya a lesson.