A downloaded music case goes to court UPDATE

I know they're on solid legal ground.

My quibble is with the "they lost a sale" line of thinking. I say that's not necessarily true. Just because I watch a movie when it comes on free TV doesn't mean I would pay to see it at the theater. Just because I download a song for free doesn't mean I would buy the CD.

 

It is very much illegal, it's just harder to track because there's no centralized location with bittorrent -- everybody is sharing with everybody.

 

I wasn't particularly defending the practice, just clarifying the flaw in the argument. Legally it doesn't matter if they lost a sale.

To me there's a moral distinction, and why it doesn't particularly bother me to download something on BitTorrent once in a while (and I do it pretty rarely). If it's something I would buy, I buy it. If it's something I haven't heard and wouldn't buy, I may download it and see if I like it. If I do, I'll buy other stuff by the band. There's no particular legal difference there, of course, but the legality is grayer than a lot of people seem to think.

I'll ask it again: what about libraries? When does the RIAA go after them? Don't think they won't; about 15 years ago the labels tried to convince people that buying a used CD was stealing, and they tried to force used CD stores out of business. If I check out a CD from a library and put it on my iPod, am I somehow on a higher moral ground than if I download it from Kazaa? I still didn't pay for it and no one got paid. If you make a mixtape for someone should you send a check for $222,000 to the RIAA? That's how much sharing 24 songs cost the woman in Minneapolis.

The BitTorrent sites don't actually have those things stored anywhere. The users have them stored, and the bitTorrent site just connects users so they can share things. It's not illegal to use a BitTorrent site, since you can share non-copyrighted material -- sharing the copyrighted material is where the problem comes in. I know at least one major BitTorrent site has started blocking IP addresses from the US because of legal concerns. But yeah, you are correct, it's just as illegal as downloading it from anywhere else.

 

Yeah, basically. They sort of pick at random, from what I gather, but AFAIK, they can only go after people who are sharing music. If you don't share what you've downloaded, you're probably OK. Maybe not, but I don't think there's any real good way for them to figure out what you've got otherwise. All they do now is get on those sites, figure out who's sharing and go after them.

 

Because the courts, by this time, are primarily the product of 25 years of Reagan/Bush/Bush packing, are planted firmly in the jockey shorts of the billion-dollar record companies, and are dutifully coming back with the rulings they want. Anytime the billionaires whistle, the fucking courts bend over.

 

She lost the case and has to pay $220K.

 

Wow. That was the update that was posted on the previous page. But thanks for checking in without reading anything or caring.

 

Um, the woman was from Brainerd, which is 150 miles north of Minneapolis. The trial was held in Duluth.

 

I have made this comment before regarding this topic, but I’ll repeat it anyway…

Several years ago the federal government took the record companies to court for collusion. The record companies were artificially inflating the prices of CDs. The federal government won its case.

As an individual that has, over the course of time, purchased a multitude of CDs, where was my refund? Sure, record companies paid money to the government but it wasn’t close to the money they raked in due to the collusion.

We now come to today, the record companies are all pissed off that the customers they stole from before are stealing from them now. Well cry me a river. I’m not going to sit around and feel pity for the thieves that stole from me.

I do feel bad for a lot of the independent artists out there that are trying to make some coin. They aren’t the ones that really deserve to be screwed over.

 

As a librarian I say, Bring It On, RIAA!

It sure would be hard for the RIAA to sue libraries, since several years ago in a settlement of a price-fixing case it decided to distribute $75.7 million worth of CDs to public entities and nonprofit organizations. Libraries were among those receiving some of these CDs, most of which were garbage that the companies just wanted to get rid of anyway.

That would be a brilliant move by RIAA to sue libraries so they stop spending millions of dollars on CDs. They'd surely make it up in sales to individuals.

 

fuck you

 

Happy Friday to you too!