A downloaded music case goes to court UPDATE

The verdict is in....guilty and ordered to pay $222,000.

Duluth jury decides Brainerd woman must pay $222,000 for downloaded music files

 

At least we've got them down to six digits now.

We shall overcome ....

 

I hate ticket scalping scum but it can be argued free enterprise and the record companies aren't losing any money off it.
If someone illegally downloads an album or a song (for free), it means the record company has missed out on an additional sale. Person A bought the album/single and upped it for download, but instead of buying it, Person B downloads it for free.
In the case of scalping scum, the record company,promoters,etc. have already made the money from the sale of the ticket. If a scalper wants to resell it for hundreds (or thousands) more than face value, it doesn't effect how much the record company gets. The ticket can only be sold to one person and it was. If that person wants to resell it, the record company doesn't care. They've made their money.

 

Since when does the DNT have a registration?

Weird.

 

Thanks when you visit bugmenot.

 

I think this is a flawed argument. I download tons of shit that I would never listen to if I had to buy it, so in that case, the record companies aren't losing a sale, they're gaining a listener. I can't say that's true for everything I download, and I can't say it's true for every downloader, but it's true in many cases.

Oh, and fuck the record companies -- $222,000? Bullshit.

 

There are a ton of people that download music illegally... did they go after her because she wasn't just downloading them, she was sharing/distributing the music?

 

Completely agreed. I've often downloaded stuff from torrent sites, liked it, and ended up buying things from that artist. If I hadn't downloaded it I never would have heard itin the first place.

So at what point does the RIAA start going after libraries for loaning CDs?

 

I don't understand how that makes it a flawed argument. Just because you would never actually buy it doesn't mean it's without value. You still have a product that you didn't pay for. Just because you don't have something tangible to show for it doesn't mean it wasn't stolen.

 

That wasn't the argument. The argument was that the record company lost a sale. They didn't lose a sale if you weren't going to buy it in the first place.

 

OK, if that was the argument, then my question is this - Why does it matter whether or not they lost a potential sale? And who's to say they didn't lose a sale? The person downloading the song?

The record companies have lost many sales and they shoulder a lot of blame for that. They were too slow in adopting an online model, and they've made it easy to copy music. But that doesn't make Jammie Thomas or any other defendant any less culpable for downloading or distributing the music. Fact is, they're on solid legal ground.

 

What about these places like bit torrent? How do they get away with having the music/movie files there for downloading without purchase? I'm currently arguing with someone that regardless of what they say, it still has to be illegal if you are not paying for it.