80,000 per download!

Okay I think it's safe to assume that almost everyone has at some point used bit torrent or Limewire. Now it seems that the free-market Gestapo's are making a 32-year old mother an example by calling their mercenaries in three-piece suits, to deliver a swift and ridiculously absurd penalty upon her.

I know, someone's going to say; "Well piracy has really made it hard on the recording industry." Really? Is that why P. Diddy has over 200 cars in his garage, or why a record executive would actually sign Paris Hilton to his label? I have an idea, maybe if you fished around the talent pool to acually discover artists worth their overdrawn lifestylles, or cut the price of the half-decent content you have, who knows maybe you wouldn't lose those extra million dollars that would collect dust in your over-priced home.

God knows the drop in revenue is in no way even remotely due to poor executive decisions or lackluster content!

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

I think the ruling in this case was a little harsh, the total fine was something over $1 million. What average person has that kind of money sitting around? Not one. I don't even think shoplifters get hit with that stiff of a penalty.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Artists see a very, very small portion of CD sales. Which is why you generally don't see too many up in arms about downloading illegally (heck, some even endorse it). However, the companies that sign the artists...now they see quite a bit of those sales. Which is why it's not crazy to see the companies suing, and not the artists.

Quite frankly, consumers are being punished because these big companies didn't adapt to the widespread availability of the Internet when they had the chance. Crying shame, to be honest.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I completely agree that the ruling was unjustly harsh, even beyond absurd, and FILMFREAK087 and John have put into words exactly how I feel about the music industry at present.

However, I do think the whole system of being able to obtain artistic material free-of-charge and without penalty is dangerous, because we've seen the phenomenon become so commonplace that there's hardly a feeling among those who pirate music that they're actually committing any wrongdoing. Artists, I believe, are still entitled to the sales return on their work, regardless of its quality (or their lifestyle), if only to preserve the principle so that it doesn't become common practice.

I do think free downloads make it possible for lesser-known artists to receive mainstream exposure, and I certainly don't want to suggest that I'm discouraging that. But there are other avenues of free marketing for artists to explore. Myspace is one popular way of releasing free content in a capacity that better promotes the artist, and requires little or no marketing investment from the label or artists themselves. Amazon is another way of offering sample content with full content only an 89-cent click away, and Amazon also lets consumers browse artists by musical genres they enjoy.

People who believe downloading free music is acceptable should also remember that, by their logic, the same should apply to similar industries. While we might like the ability to get any book, for example, completely free and without reproach, I think we can all agree that authors put a great deal of time and effort into the books they write, and ought to be compensated with book sales revenue. Otherwise, what incentive is there to write, other than public illumination? I'm pretty altruistic, but even I wouldn't write for free.

Simply put, I don't buy CDs anymore. I can't justify it when there are so many better options than going out to a store to get a CD. I do buy other merchandise or see my favorite bands in concert. If LPs were more widespread I'd buy those in a heartbeat, but few artists still support them.

In the end, I know I'm doing something illegal. The day I can legally download an artist's work for five bucks and have all that cash, or most of it, go to the artists is the day I start supporting the music industry full fledged. Artists should have exclusive rights to their music and where *their* money goes for it, but many don't. I'm not going to buy into a system that rips before the consumer, and the artists. No, indie labels are the ticket for me.

I just think their reaction is disproportionate, and doesn't help to get the consumers on their side.

I know it sucks to see most of the return going to the record label, and believe me, I think most of them are money-drunk leeches same as you. But at the same time, you should remember that record labels also put up a lot of money to market and promote up-and-coming artists, who are - by the way - completely unproven. And they do this entirely upfront, before any money on record sales or concert performances has been made.

So it's not just a record label cutting a CD and reaping millions. Even proven artists like Kanye West and Miley Cyrus still require marketing and promotion (I'm trying not to vomit from calling them "artists" even as I type this), particularly where concert ticket sales are concerned.

That said, in the case of superstars like the above, I find it unfortunate that record labels would rather overpromote established artists than promote undiscovered ones enough to get them played... as if all we, the consumers, want to hear are the same artists until they're all dried up and broke.

The reaction is because she decided to go to court, rather than take the usual $2,400 fine that most of the other 30,000+ who've been fined. It's ridiculous, even for a overreaction. $2,400 for giving in but if you fight $1.9m? I know it sounds stupid, but I really hope this inspires everyone else they sue to fight them. Obviously they've got no chance of getting the money and they'll probably cost as much to drag everyone through the courts as it will in what they recoup from the fines, so it really doesn't matter. Screw 'em. And that's coming from someone who's never downloaded a song or film.

Also, to the people who don't think others should download songs or movies, did you used to record the songs you liked on the radio? How about your friends records or tapes? Maybe you've just changed you minds, but how is it any different? Another thing, do you not do it because it's stealing? Or because you're stealing from the artist? I say artist becasue I assume that no one cares about stealing from the record companies, though I could be wrong. If it's just the artist, what do you think about downloading songs from those who've died? Although the money goes to the estate, those people/organisations didn't do anything for the money, so is it ok to download those songs?

I'm not accusing, just wondering what those with a differing viewpoint think?

I hope it inspires people to download music out of spite. The executive sleezebags are the ones throwing a tantrum, at the fraction of a percent they may be losing out on. A bunch of hollow, husks of human excrement parading around in business suits, and choking on Cuban cigars, laughing their ass off as they use the legal system to coerce less financially privileged individuals, to add to the mountain of unearned wealth that they amassed on the salaries of other consumers.

I have not.

__________________
the angel stayed until something died, one more murder suicide

I said "almost."
I don't now, not because of moral objection, because I don't want a virus.

I'll admit, I've used LimeWire in the past, I've obtained items (film or music) illegally. I've since abandoned this because my brother-in-law was also doing it and the cable company cracked down on him and shut his internet off. While I can live without the internet, something like downloading movies and/or music isn't worth it.

I have found legal avenues for downloading music. I have a Zune pass, which is $14.99 a month for unlimited downloads. Once the pass expires, so does the content. A small price to pay. There are free services that allow downloading of music, but require you to re-validate every 30 days or so. I believe that might also require you to re-download the music.

With all that said, simply because someone decides to fight a decision, doesn't mean some outrageous fine should be tacked on. More time and money is wasted on a lost cause, rather than actually putting that money to use by helping a band get off the ground. Will fining one woman end illegal downloads, no. Will the industry eventually figure it all out and stop pursuing these matters, who knows. Hours after reading this story, I'm still pissed that they decided they needed to make an example out of someone. With all the households that have computers with internet connections, they could line cases up back-to-back and still not make a dent on the war on illegal downloads.

Sad to say, that's the reality. America and the world, for that matter, has an instant getification mechanism that drives their needs for content that they don't want to pay for. Sure, Apple has songs for $.99 and Microsoft has the Zune pass, but they still require you to pay, something a lot of people don't want to do (mostly kids without access to credit cards).

Good old Canada, where downloading is legal.

It's the uploading of the material that is illegal.

I haven't bought a CD in years. Why should I when all I'm going to do is rip it to my computer and never use the disc again? I use my iPods now, not a bulky discman.

Must they really target everyday average people? While the real criminals are out on the streets?

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I think that actors, singers, etc. are just way overpayed, I mean, it's not because they have a certain talent they should be making millions and millions of dollars, I mean, why aren't they payed a normal amount of cash, like the average working man, per haps a little more, say, 20.000 a month, that's still pretty generous.. then they could put the price down till an amount that people are actually willing to pay, I'm not going to pay 1 euro per song, and I think I am not the only one... Why not put movies up for download for like 1 euro per download, it doesn't cost the company a lot, no materials etc. and people would be wiling to pay it!

Greets
Spikez

__________________

Probably murderers, but they're way harder to catch, so they try to show off their authority by picking on the little man, I mean, I am not a hippy anarchist, but the police sometimes goes way to far, sueing people for millions of dollars while they know they will never be able to pay it off, it's just sick!

Greets
Spikez

I think downloading anything off the internet that's against the law is wrong. I have never used the internet for such a thing. Good for you if you've stopped pirating, but still it is illegal. Just like weed, people go around like everybody does it and think it's okay to do. Yeah right.

Wow, how eloquently put. Thanks for the negative rep, by the way. I personally don't neg-rep others just for stating an opinion contrary to my own.

I have to ask you to clarify, because it sounds like you are saying that you believe it's wrong, not because of any harm it may cause, but because it is deemed "illegal," therefore it is officially "bad." That's not the best argument to assert, that basically you are against something because it is said to be bad by those in authority. Many things are illegal, but are still some-what socially acceptable. In some Southern states it is illegal to teach the theory of evolution, and I personally disagree with that course of action. Like most people I set my moral compass based on my own thoughts and experiences, not solely on whether it is legislated or not. It's like if drugs were legalized, not everyone would immediately run to their nearest dealer and start shooting up, or at least I wouldn't. Also, I wouldn't presume some moral superiority towards those that choose to. I am sure there are things I do others find reprehensible, and vice verse.

Not only that, but there are plenty of things that are not designated as "illegal" but I would consider to be offensive, like racism, sexism, or just general stupidity. All of these things are perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean I don't personally find them offensive, in spite of their legality. What's more, I don't impose my morality onto others.

Nicely put FF.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Wow. You express yourself so well that I have learned the errors of my ways. I'm leaving the house right now to re-buy all my illegal music. Oh, I feel so ashamed for all my years of wrong doing.

It's illegal to dance outside in New York... so...are you going to blindly follow that clearly unjust law, as well? To each their own, but some laws might just be unjust.

__________________