Woman fined 1.9 million for downloading 24 songs | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Woman fined 1.9 million for downloading 24 songs

Ummm, a mother of four kids getting a fhine this big? She probably just took bankruptcy and got it over with, her kids will have to pay it down the road. (grand kids too with how much it is)

Basicly, fines like this fuck everyone, not just the person getting the fine, yet it still happens.
 
Eniko said:
Far as I know most artists make most of their money from doing gigs, and you can't download the atmosphere of being at a live show. (well you can but it doesn't really work)
Click to expand...
I hate gigs for anything other than jazz, blues, or classical. Everyone always shows up and competes to drown out the music by screaming at the top of their lungs.

Much prefer to download the studio recorded versions of songs.
 
Shai Gar said:
I hate gigs for anything other than jazz, blues, or classical. Everyone always shows up and competes to drown out the music by screaming at the top of their lungs.

Much prefer to download the studio recorded versions of songs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that I should never go to a regular concert sober.
 
Nemo said:
This is bullshit! Sure what she did was illegal, but she's a single mother of four! I'd image she'd be struggling enough as it is to provide for her children without having to pay this asinine fine. Is there no compassion left in the world?
Click to expand...


No compassion in the music industry I guess.
 
Tamagochi said:
Why not just fine that woman for 1.9 trillion ?? America would get out of financial crisis.
Click to expand...


Isn't the debt closer to 3 trillion?

Edit... I jsut looked it up... it says 11 trillion...
 
Last edited:
Those who make their money off of intellectual property realize that the rug is quickly being pulled out from under them, and thus are panicking to do whatever they can to prevent it.

http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
"Copyright laws, in a world where any individual can instantaneously make thousands of copies of a document and send them out all over the planet, are as obsolete as laws against voyeurs and peeping toms would be in a world where everyone had x-ray vision."
 
Please! A jury gave her this fine, not the music industry.

If the music industry wanted 1.9 million for downloading 24 songs then I'd agree it's excessive however they gave her an offer of $3,500 to settle but she refused as she claims she did nothing wrong, as far as I'm aware that offer is still available to her, the $1.9m is what the jury gave her. She also didn't just download songs for her own personal use, she put them up online for others to access for free.

Sorry to tell you but music isn't freely yours to do that with.

Anyway, the music industry stopped going after individuals in December and is now focusing on internet service providers.
 
I'd like to hear this debate :D
 
That article ignores completely that fact that someone formed the words and phrases into creation, like the poem example from the arguement. Sure you can rewrite the poem but you sure as hell didn't come up with the poem, you made a copy. By using the same argument, that ideas are intangible, one could justify cheating on a spouse our emotionally abusing a child. Emotions are universal, so we all have the right to use them as we wish? Just because something is not physical does not mean that it should not have rules pertaining to its use.

How is music freely yours to distribute as you wish? Music you did not create
 
Lurker said:
Problem is it’s too easy to take what you want for free and it seems many people from your generation believe that’s how it should be.
Click to expand...
I also find this comment very interesting in particular.
Trading tapes, making copies of them, creating mix tapes, etc... was an omnipresent trend through the 70's to 90s.
And, even more historically, laws regarding "unauthororized" distribution of vinyl records are far pre-dated by the existence of massively distributed vinyls themselves.

It has less to do with generational change, than it does with copyright simply being less and less practical as time goes on.
One major factor, usually overshadowed by the Internet, is China.
My friend mused to me that it was rather ironic for freedom of information to be accelerated by iron fisted communists.

minority funk said:
That article ignores completely that fact that someone formed the words and phrases into creation, like the poem example from the arguement. Sure you can rewrite the poem but you sure as hell didn't come up with the poem, you made a copy. By using the same argument, that ideas are intangible, one could justify cheating on a spouse our emotionally abusing a child. Emotions are universal, so we all have the right to use them as we wish? Just because something is not physical does not mean that it should not have rules pertaining to its use.

How is music freely yours to distribute as you wish? Music you did not create
Click to expand...
Roderick T. Long said:
It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is a universal, existing in other people's minds and other people's property, and over these the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. You cannot own information without owning other people.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand your article, I read it. All it is saying is creation is not unique. Sure, we could have a group of monkeys sit in a room with a typewriter and after an indefinite amount of time the monkeys would type Shakespeare. Given enough time the monkeys would also create a book and an engine.

The arguement that thoughts are not to be owned because they are universal is arguing that nothing can be owned, because the world is universal. Your computer is as much yours as it is mine because it came from the earth, something one has no claim over because it is universal.

If my thoughts are not my own, than we are nothing but a collective conscious, which if is true, we have no ownership over anything because we are all parts of a whole.
 
Copyrights are placed so that someone cannot claim something as their own work. It saves High School teacher's problems when their kids turn in something Shakesphere wrote and claim it as their own- they didn't write it, so they shouldn't get the grade for it. The same logic, I would think, applies for music/videos/books. Piracy usually isn't a problem because the people who are pirating them online with shareware aren't making that much money. It's different when someone in China takes a copy of your DVD, decodes the protective measures, and mass markets it for his own prophit on a blackmarket.

Do I think that patents and copyrights are a nessesity? Of course not. They were created as a market to serve people who write novels, produce films, and release albums. It's quite difficult to maintain control over digital information unless people are punished for using it, so that's why the laws are in place. I enjoy there being copyrights in the sense that there aren't 40 different chains of fast food dubbed 'McDonalds' because anyone who wanted to could use it. But at the same time, it's a word. There are conflicting arguments for both sides, but patents and copyrights will never be let down. Not in this day and age. It's an industry, you see.
 
BenW said:
I also find this comment very interesting in particular.
Trading tapes, making copies of them, creating mix tapes, etc... was an omnipresent trend through the 70's to 90s.
And, even more historically, laws regarding "unauthororized" distribution of vinyl records are far pre-dated by the existence of massively distributed vinyls themselves.
Click to expand...

So tell me, just because something happens makes it ok?
 
minority funk said:
Yes, I understand your article, I read it. All it is saying is creation is not unique.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how it states that creation isn't, "unique", or what that even means...
It has to do with property rights, and more specifically, how IP "rights" are like the equivelent of positive property rights.
(see: Wikipedia: Negative and positive rights)

minority funk said:
The arguement that thoughts are not to be owned because they are universal is arguing that nothing can be owned, because the world is universal. Your computer is as much yours as it is mine because it came from the earth, something one has no claim over because it is universal.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how the Earth is universal, it's just a glob of matter. Many people do own the Earth, in part.

Humans are sovereign beings (hopefully, you agree with this much).
The distinction between having the right to control the thoughts in ones head and the contents of ones hard drive is impossible to see, for me.

If my thoughts are not my own, than we are nothing but a collective conscious, which if is true, we have no ownership over anything because we are all parts of a whole.
Click to expand...
Are we still talking about property rights, or did we move into existentialism?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

slant said:
Copyrights are placed so that someone cannot claim something as their own work.
Click to expand...
Not true.
It's completely legal to pop a CD into your CD player, and tell the nearest person that you wrote the music which is playing. It's also completely illegal to sell copies of a CD, or even give them away for free, even if you don't claim yourself to be the original artist.
Copyright only pertains to distribution, and in some cases, public performance.

slant said:
It saves High School teacher's problems when their kids turn in something Shakesphere wrote and claim it as their own- they didn't write it, so they shouldn't get the grade for it. The same logic, I would think, applies for music/videos/books. Piracy usually isn't a problem because the people who are pirating them online with shareware aren't making that much money. It's different when someone in China takes a copy of your DVD, decodes the protective measures, and mass markets it for his own prophit on a blackmarket.
Click to expand...
That is an important distinction to make, for sure.

Claiming something somebody else created as yours is stupid.
Do I think it should be illegal? No.
Claiming something somebody else created as yours, and then selling it under those pretenses, is fraud.
I definitely think that should be illegal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

minority funk said:
So tell me, just because something happens makes it ok?
Click to expand...
I was addressing his claims that it was a generation phenomenon, when I don't think that's true at all.
Either by ignorance or intent, copyright laws have always been broken.
It's just a lot easier to do it, today.

But, for the record, I think it is indeed completely OK to violate copyright laws.
 
Last edited:
How is the physical world not universal and our thoughts are? How can you own a piece of the earth and not your own ideas? What makes the earth yours to own and your thoughts to be shared by all?

Are you for patents? What about trademarks?

How is it alright to take claim over something you didn't do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back