How much do the lawyers earn with all this ?
After all , who is forcing this actions in court ? The music companies or who saw the gold mine in going to the federal courts ?

Is'nt a strange world were the record companies have Street Teams that give out demos of albums before the come out to boost there cd sales, then turn around and sue you and you friends for that were given to them!

I mean thats why the loved the internet at frist, because it was a great tool to get your music out there, and now they want to shut it down, all the while bringing down there own image.

We are looking at this all wrong. they are impending on our basic freedoms that are granted to us by many laws. The fact that they have the money to win any lawsuit is what makes them seem unstopable. What we need to do is get this out there in the public light and voice our views and start a riot so to say. Go on strike against the music industry. If we ALL do it, they would have no other choice but to give in to our demands as long as we stick together and not fall apart. IT would take a while but it CAN happen. Look at At@t and ticketmaster, people made enough noice and complained enough about them having a monopoly that the government steeped in a did something about it. WE JUST NEED TO STICK TOGETHER!

I honestly don't understand the logic of music piracy. I mean I bought a CD, I ripped an MP3 version, and I decided to share it. What's the difference between this and say lending the CD to a friend? I bought the CD. Is there some disclaimer somewhere that I agreed wherein I can't share this CD?

What also puzzles me is why can't some smart lawyer defend the consumer? Kazaa, Napster, e-Donkey are all losing their court battles!

Ripping it and sharing it is no different than say, burning a copy of a cd and giving it to a friend. Where as if you let a friend borrow the cd you'll most likely be getting it back.

RIAA bought themselves laws they want. Smart lawyer is not enough if the law actually says all that nonsense that RIAA paid lawmakers to put there.

I awlays here people talking about various things being the downfall of western civilization, our music, movies, video games. In my opinion it won't be any of those things. It will be the bottom feeding scum like the lawyers that work for the RIAA that will do anything for a quick buck.

Not just the lawyers crashoverride like here in Canada the music companies STEAL consumers money whenever they buy recordable media here they get a cut in the form of a hidden tax that goes to them and it's not just Canada there are a few other countries that do this to but not sure if it's hidden like it is here.

Doesn't matter what you buy the recordable media for data backup they get a cut you have a digital camera and want to make a photo cds they get a cut you own a camcorder and want to make dvds they get a cut so how can people feel sorry for the music companies when they steal aswell i know i don't if i pick up some cds for data back up i don't feel guilty for downloading a couple songs seeing as how i paid for them.

She would be stupid not to appeal only she needs to change tactics and claim that $22,500 is far to much for $30 worth of merchandise(thats how much it would cost at itunes) and to prove the point bring in many case files of people who have been convicted of shoplifting the same amount from stores and the small fine they get.

now, if everyone would just >>stop buying

Can they actually make her pay that amount? I mean even if she has it. What can they possibly do to make her pay, come out and break her legs?

She can always go to jail or they can reposes her car or whatever assets she has...plenty of legal ways to get the money...and they will get their money one way or another. :)

Maybe the woman was hired by the RIAA to play this "stupid downloader" role? Now she is sued and plees guilty to scare off all you US downloaders and the RIAA pays $22.500 to itsself ..

Women and 5 Kids lose their home so Britney Spears can buy a new life boat for her yacht.

This strengthens the fight for change, it does nothing else.

I don't understand why RIAA stop people from download music. Just let them download and then sue the hell out of them. For a price tag of $750 per song, they don't need any one buying their CD. Penalty for 1 song equal the cost of 10 cd. Sue 10 people who d/l 10 songs equal the profit of 10000 cd.

I guess you forgot to add lawyer/court fees into the mix...RIAA is not making much money at all in this deal....it's more meant to scare off future thieves.

So you don't think marketing cost money? You don't think retail store need to make money?

RIAA is make up of lawyers, they get a salary plus bonus. Like any corporate lawyers.

uhhhh....what does that have to do with my post?? Ofcourse marketing costs money...and ofcourse retail stores need to make money...ofcourse RIAA HAS lawyers, ofcourse they get a salary...

what is your point??????

I wonder how much RIAA paid the Judge to render this judgement against her?

First they glue you, then they sue you.

Corporations are treated like human persons before the law, but do not care about human worths at all.

Freedom's just a mockery. On every dollar bill they say "in god we trust", but the bill is all they really care about.

This is the glorious USA, built on the blood of human beings from the beginning. And even their foundation was about nothing but money - tax money. Go ahead and try a similar thing nowadays in the USA.

"Freedom" and "Democracy" is just the non existing rationalization with which they have brainwashed the whole world for ages.

Did you know that IBM not only supplied the NAZIs their early punching card systems for use in their concentration camps, but also maintained them? So they must have known about what was going in the concentration camps, but: where money is the highest worth, not even millions of corpses are bothering anybody.

So - why is anybody astonished about such laws and judicial practics...

Couldn't have said it better myself...

tipsyboy i think you need to slow down on your drinkin or smokin or whatever drug it is your takin. IBM wasnt even started until the 1950's you fool. so how could they be helping the nazis with their concentration camps when WWII ended in the 40's.
you kids should really pay more attention in school,its no wonder that America is becoming the dumbest country on the planet.
and the recording companies dont care if you burn 1 or 2 copies,its when you sit at home and burn 20 or 30 or as with that other fool 1000.
Try to think of it this way,,You loan your car to a friend.they get to where they need to be, see a friend there who needs to borrow YOUR car to get to the next town.1st friend lets their friend go ahead.2nd friend gets to thier town,sees a friend who could sure use a ride to the next town,farther away from you,2nd friend lets 3rd friend take car and on and on it goes, and before you know it your car has been Stolen buy your friend. Thats how they see it and rightly so.
but tipsyboy,i will give you this much.your right about the gov.only caring about the almighty dollar. we are just numbers the them and the corporations of the world.

Long Live Piracy !!!

N.A.P.O.

She stole the equivalent of 3 albums not 500 albums (which is roughly what you could buy with the fine - UK prices)!

I wholely agree with others in this thread that the crime in no way deserves that sort of punishment.

She would have got a lesser sentence if she had stolen some CDs from a retail store!

It seems as if a lot of people have the same opinion as you and she does, but look where it got here.

"If you cannot do the time, then don't do the crime." Claiming ignorance and acting upon it will only get you in trouble. The woman should have taken the original $3500 offer, but she thought(what a lot of you think) that she would get the sympathy vote or the "I don't like what they(RIAA) are doing either" vote.

In the end, she had over 1000 songs on her computer(then) and it is a small price to pay considering the alternatives. It is not like we haven't heard that they are coming after us.

I don't like what they are doing either, but I am not going to go up against them when the law is on their side, and rightfully so. They are changing their ways of doing business, but I guess people will still buck that system too. But think of it this way, they(others that think like you) won't be standing next to you when you are in court facing the judge for punishment. They will be hiding!

We are all going to be paying in the end.

IMO

Stupid woman. She should've taken the deal. [shrugs]

Exactly! What the H***** was she thinking?

Eeek, looks like they could have charged $150,000 for each 'work'.

http://www.copyright.gov...aq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p

Typical corporate greed interesting how this is treated like she stole the whole entire music industry, otherwise this punishment doesn’t fit the crime and lets be real people do ya think the the music industry really cares what you download, NO! There just looking for anyway to get money and that’s just the harsh cold facts. When was the last time when you bought a CD and every song on it was good or is it more they want you to spend $10.00 to $20.00 for one (if lucky 2) song per CD that are decent. Question, how did they know it was her downloading the songs, How do they know how many songs she had on her PC isn’t there something called invasion of privacy? The federal judge is a whack job and typically corrupted, ordered her to pay $750 for each song, Does that mean each CD is worth something like $7500.00...lol. Just remember it’s always about money.

I agree, the punishment should fit the crime. Stick her in a dark room with Ashley Simpson playing for a few hours. That should more then cover it.

I think that the punishment does fit the crime to an extent. For example, you rip a CD and place it on the internet. Now, 10 people take it from you and in turn they give to 10 other people respectively - and so on. Now that price of 14.99 has just lost that company thousands. So, the punishment does fit the crime in that the loss of revenue is great - same for the movie industry.

It shouldn't matter that there are songs on the CD that you dislike. That would be the same as deleting scenes from a movie because you don't like them and isn't that a form of censorship. The artists believe that the CD was compiled in a fashion that they are comfortable with and are now selling it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

I think that the Internet provides a great outlet for the music industry to cater to the downloading of music from legitimate sites.

I agree that business practices need to change for the RIAA, and they are doing so, but I think that some of the pointless arguments that the general public are making is ignorance at its best and it makes us all look stupid.

And you are right, it is all about money, from you getting up in the morning, going to work, and getting your paycheck on Friday - only to complain that it isn't big enough for you to do the things you want. It is all about money and that is whay we are made of. It is not the RIAA's fault or the individual bands for that matter.

There is not privacy when it comes to your PC or personal life for that matter. If you were caught looking at kiddie porn, they are going to be coming after your PC with a warrant. It is not invasion of privacy. It is stupidity on the part of the woman for not getting them off of her PC.

Why bash the judge for the illegal acts of the woman. He is only enforcing the laws of the land. He cut her a break too. I only see the woman here as the real whack job! She is like the criminal that goes to rob the bank(with a uniform that has her name and address on it) and is dumbfounded on how she was caught. I laugh at that.

"there just looking for anyway to get money and that’s just the harsh cold facts"

A company trying to make money...wow is that some new radical way of thinking?? Another strange thing this company decided to do was to protect its copyrighted materia which it uses to make it's money. Wow what a strange world we live in...

"When was the last time when you bought a CD and every song on it was good or is it more they want you to spend $10.00 to $20.00 for one (if lucky 2) song per CD that are decent."

Everybody has their own opinion about every CD...and if you don't want to spend 10-20/cd you always have the option of purchasing songs seperately on itunes or the like.

"How do they know how many songs she had on her PC isn’t there something called invasion of privacy?"

She lost all her privacy rights when she got sued. An officer can search your car based on probably cause (smell something strange), same thing. If you kill someone you don't get to hide the gun in your desk drawer and tell the detectives they can't look in there because it will be invasion of privacy. (not comparing murder to music theft...but the same concept applies).

"The federal judge is a whack job and typically corrupted, ordered her to pay $750 for each song, Does that mean each CD is worth something like $7500.00"

If you steal a $200 stereo from best buy and get cought...do you expect your fine to be exactly $200? I hope not...punishments like these are not only meant to cover lawyer and court fees...but also to scare other people from doing the same thing. They're basically making an example out of her.

First, that company already has more money than it can count so in that concept there doing it because they can. Secondly,it is a strange world that we live in when the same record companies that are giving out pre-release cds to boost upcoming album, then turn around and sue u for giving those songs to your friends!

First, where do they get of ordering her to pay 750.00 per song!!!!! MY GOD. Have we all gone nuts. I dont care if its illegal but make the punisment fit the crime. This is getting out of hand and people need to treat this like they are with wal-mart now. We all have to do our part to bring this machine down, not just talk about it.They one this one now there gonna think there invincible and your going to see a snowball effect happen. The RIAA is not going to stop any time soon, WE have to Stop them.

Well I see the the point that it illegal but as long as their is internet there will be some version of file sharing. For example all the P2P apps started closing then torrents became popular.

The article doesn't state, but if her claim that she has bought over 250 CDs is true, then the RIAA has shot themselves in the foot and sucessfully sued one of their best customers!!! To think she supported them finacially and then they screw her like this. What a slap in the face. Way to go, idiots! I predict she'll never buy another CD again, ever! Come to think of it, maybe I'll never buy a CD either (I don't want to support their legal department and maybe they won't afford lawsuit anymore! Buhahahaha!)

why not buy non-RIAA CDs?

there's a whole world of music out there that doesn't screw over artists and consumers, and it tends to be less expensive and higher quality. you just need to look a little harder.

They haven't shot themselves in the foot at all. You don't know how she really got them or when. They could be all outdated "oldies" that she got back in the 90s and she has been downloading since and never bought a CD since John Denver.

It doesn't make her case any stronger. She and the lawyer are using that as an excuse. She wouldn't have them if she had been buying CDs all along.

If you don't like what the RIAA is doing, then simply don't buy their products.

We don't.

Soon very soon, you won't be able to sing songs out load without getting sued! Maybe this is coming from the same people who tell me I can't wish you all a Merry Christmas!

As a memeber of the buddhist seperatist wiccan monk rabbi cross-dressing-nun movement, please Cease and Decist from using the word Christmas, instead use phrases such as "Happy Fun Nice Nice Day", or perhaps "Happy Joy Filled Personally Tailored Deity Day". Thank you!

Have a Merry Christmas Joeshmoe7.

EDIT: not that I think Christmas is on topic, but I know a lot of people who aren't christians or aren't even religious that celebrate christmas as Christmas, so I don't think that's an excuse. People have a right to believe in what they want. Me? I think Christmas is c***, but thats me. Everyone else has their own beliefs, and no one else can force me to believe in christmas.

Christmas is all about santa claus--"Ol' St. Nick"? I don't recall a "St. Nick" in the Bible. Also it has been shown that it is practically impossible for Jesus to have been born in winter--either around Aprill or in September. Not getting into a philisophical debate over it, just pointing out that as a Christian I don't believe in some of the Christmas traditions but I still celebrate it.

Oh, and Merry Buddamas Joeshmoe7!!!

ROFL.

That was awesome.

totally off original topic :-/

Christmas is the 'time of Christ'
Im sure if you look up 'mas' you will find the root of the word

Santa Claus / St. Nick may well be based on Northern European shamainism

The wandering healer would come with gifts
The 'house' was a large hole in the ground
The 'door' was also the chimney - access down a single ladder

The red and white coat is probably the mushroom Fly Algaric - which gives one a 'flying' sensation (and is poisionous!)

The Shamain would follow the raindeer who were very good and finding and eating the mushroom - the active ingredience is not destroyed by digestion - so the Shamain would collect the 'yellow snow' (pee!)... you get the idea

That's why roudolf the raindeer flys :-)

Celebrating Christmas is fine as long as you don't actually believe all that Christ nonsense.

Father Cristmas as we know him was invented by Coca Cola.

No it wasn't
Coke just did what every big name $$$ company does and capitizes on it.

That said, I don't believe in Christmas and I never will.

Have a happy ChismaHaunaKuwanza.

Says who?

Careful. You're walking on thin ice.

> Says who?

Author of every message is specified above the text in this forum.

> Careful. You're walking on thin ice.

Don't think so. Days of the Inquisition are long over.

The tax wouldn't work as I hear the music industry in Canada is still trying to get users fined for downloading! They want it all as some artist suck and there maybe a few that deserve a buck!

you know Im getting tired of all the talk

what about some solutions - some ideas

what if everyone on the planet paid a tax or had to have a licence or something - all the money put into one big pot - then any artist is paid from that pot

we want it

the artist wants to be paid, they dont work for free

a shop selling CDs can still get money - if you want a CD you only pay for the actual CD part - since you have already paid for the actual music part

P2P is seen by the big companys (music, film, software etc) as a problem.

What's the solution?

Well the big companys think it is to protect their 'product' so that it cant be copied. But any form of protection will be broken. Not to mention the pain protection systems cause customers (Sony).

Here is a possible solution...

What if I could buy a licence from a company which allowed me to copy (from any source) any item from that company.

This licence would allow me to go into the local shop, take a CD of the shelf, put it in my PC, copy it and then leave the shop. All completely legally.

With this system the world would save on plastics (for the CDs, DVD, packaging), petrol (for the distribution) and so on.

Why isnt the shop supplying 'copys', I could go to a shop with a CD-RW/DVD-RW (or other portable reuseable storage). They could then just 'stock' digital 'copys' on a server. They would be able to stock millions of disks.

How much should the licence cost?

Concider this - a Sky satelite subcription costs £20-£40 a month, or £250-£500 a year. I can video all the tv, films and record all the music.

And the companys would save a bundle on distribution costs and advertising.

"P2P is seen by the big companys (music, film, software etc) as a problem."
I recon it should bee seen as a promotion type thing.

For me, if I download something that I like, I get interested and start buying related stuff without thinking if I'd like it.

"What if I could buy a licence from a company which allowed me to copy (from any source) any item from that company.

This licence would allow me to go into the local shop, take a CD of the shelf, put it in my PC, copy it and then leave the shop. All completely legally."

The only problem I see with that is even though you may be honest, there are those who might take that legally copied-to-disk music, then make it available for free (illegally) via P2P. Thus, the vicious circle starts. Other than that, it's a pretty cool solution. Somehow there has to be an outright ban on P2P file sharing.

You can't ban P2P. It isn't legal to ban free trading.

P2P has it's legal uses (Linux is a popular example - Bittorrent mainly)

If you don't have the money to buy the cd and likely won't ever buy the cd then how can you lose money? The riaa, would do better to drop the price of a cd to a few bucks as it only cost pennies to make a cd after you got the original! I don't buy cd or dvd as I listen to the radio and I watch movies if I want to on tv. As most music sucks and one song on a cd that is over played by radio doesn't make a cd! In Canada we have a tax on cds that is paid to the music industry, even if you use those cds to backup your work files! So, they are already saying we are guilty! Boycott might be the only way to get good music and cheaper cds but remember the radio is free to a point! :)

"If you don't have the money to buy the cd and likely won't ever buy the cd then how can you lose money?"

It doesn't matter. It's illegal to download without paying for it.

It meters to us to show RIAA claims for what they really are: lies.

It's entirely possible the RIAA is lying (personally, I think that's part of their company policy), but that still doesn't change the fact that downloading copyrighted material without paying for it is illegal.

The amount of damages awarded is based on RIAA's lies about losing money due to people making free copies. That's what the original poster said. And contrary to your reply, it does matter even if making free copies is illegal anyway.

correction

copyright =/= (does not equal) money

its not illegal to download copyright material WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT

its illegal to download copyright material without permission

as a matter of fact almost everything you download has some copyright - even this text - which I hereby give you permission to download and read - but if you copy it, it must be included with the original text :-)

Are you trying to be an idiot, or does it just come naturally?

For all intents and purposes, when discussing Music and RIAA, permission = paying for it.

Hence, it is illegal to download copyrighted music without paying for it.

Okay? Go condescend somewhere else.

There is a lot of copyrighted music on web sites and on p2p networks for which copyright holders give permission to download without paying for it.

So what he said is exactly right and you are the one being an idiot.

Goddammit.

Are we talking about music given away by copyright owners? NO?

Are we talking about free indie labels? NO?

Thus the original parent comment and your reply are pointless *in reference to this article*.

Got it?

What he said may be right, but it is completely and totally irrellevant to the current article we are (or should be) discussing.

He's trying to nit-pick a point everyone here is taking for granted. Yes, copyrighted works can be given away by the holder. We all know that. It's simply *not* what we are talking about here.

"Are we talking about music given away by copyright owners?"..."Yes, copyrighted works can be given away by the holder. We all know that. It's simply *not* what we are talking about here."

I think you actually don't understand what it is about. When copyright holder allows making free copies of his material he does not "give it away". Many of them are actually making money. They simply chose a different business model, not based on "enforce charge per copy" RIAA principle.

It is that business model that RIAA is trying to defend as the only possible one, and terms like "downloading copyrighted material without paying" is an example of RIAA substituting correct term with a lie.

This tactic is purposely used by RIAA, and many people are buying into bulls***. So it is important to use correct terms, i.e. copyright violation not stealing, copying without permission not without paying, etc.

Wow. This lady's irresponsible AND retarded. How the heck did she think that defense would hold up?

She got what she deserved. The courts acted justly. The judge should have fined her for contempt for wasting the court's time.

Something that no one seems to talk about is the "quality" of a typical MP3, about 128 kbps. This is no where near the much higher digital resolution of the same song off its store bought cd. No one can convince me that the compression technology of a MP3 yields audio quality that is indistiguishable from that of the cd audio. It clearly isn't, and that is fact. Just listen to a dozen or so 128 kbps MP3's at a moderate volume, turn the music off and take note of the immediate feeling you get. Probably relief, right? Indeed, the low-level digital distortion caused by most MP3's may not be readily apparent but it does eat away at you over time, causing real physical and psychological pain on the human spirit. MP3's are, at best, good for background music only.

No, I'm not saying it's okay to download them illegaly, because it isn't. I'm simply stating an observation that most don't realize how crappy MP3's really are.

Just listen to a dozen or so 128 kbps MP3's at a moderate volume, turn the music off and take note of the immediate feeling you get. Probably relief, right? Indeed, the low-level digital distortion caused by most MP3's may not be readily apparent but it does eat away at you over time, causing real physical and psychological pain on the human spirit.
----------------------------------

wow ur wierd..i never noticed any of that stuff LOL

Well buddy, that's probably because you've already suffered damage to your inner ear and don't even know it. I wish you the best.

My mp3s are 256 kbps

Not bad! You've got the right idea.

many of you seem to be missing a major point, probably because the RIAA's "it's theft it's theft it's theft!" mantra has been repeated so often.

it's *not* theft, and it's *not* a crime. it's copyright violation, a tort. nobody stole anything, they just copied something they had no permission to copy. you can't be "guilty", only "liable", and you can't go to jail, you can only be fined.

not strictly speaking true

You forgot the 'loss of earnings' which can be taken as 'damages'

An artist can take a 'personal injuries' case against you

Yeah if I had my cds stolen they would replace them at cost and if the price was $15 when I bought them but now only $5 that is the price I would get! Seeing how they are doing this I do what a normal Canadian would do listen to the radio as it's free! I don't buy cds, don't have a cd player, don't have a dvd player and likely never will but I still have to pay a tax to the Music industry in Canada so does that make me a thief or them? In Canada if you are going to charge me to get a cd then I could see alot of Canadian getting their money back! BTW the artist is not losing money as he gets a deal to make the cd and then the music industry pays him a few cents a cd! Now I might just add going to a concert to that just to make a point and how much money does a person need? BTW if I'm not going to buy it anyway, how does the riaa lose money as I wouldn't have bought it anyway!

yes, but that's still not a criminal charge. you're just liable for monetary damages.

incorrect

'personal injuries' is equal to common assault

'tho not at the same level as ABH (actaul bodily harm) or GBH (greivious bodily harm)

if an 'injurie' is proven then the cost of the 'damagaes' (+ court costs) can be taken

Think this whole thing is pretty insane. Some poor woman did what a million trillion other people do, but she was unfortunate and has become "the example." Her situation is now a scare tactic for us. Yes, she downloaded music. She should have to pay for it. A bit over $1,700, if I did my math right; paying actual cd price for roughly 14 songs each. Maybe some $300 penalty fee. She'd still be in debt, still have over $2,000 to pay, learned her lesson AND there'd be some fairness involved. Why couldn't they do that?

Oh, right. Gotta have an example. Scare tactics. Send us "a message." We're not human beings, we're cattle. Cattle that must be trained the right and proper way to make certain people rich...

I have been following the comments on this story today with growing alarm. Most of us live in affluent countries in which staying alive simply does not involve stealing. I may not have much, but I am not so desperate to hear a song to resort to committing a crime to get it.

That people justify theft on grounds of fareness and on it hurting nobody is at best flawed logic, and demonstrates the presence of a moral vacuum.

If you believe in the justice of theft then you are also excusing the guy who steals from you.

theft = The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession, or constructive possession, of another person.

music download is NOT theft by any case, since the artists and record companies still retain the full possession of the recorded material.

it is, as mentionned earlier, UNAUTHORIZED COPY which has nothing to do with theft.

Ultimately, we are fleas arguing over the dog. Our opinions mean nothing to the people that are making (or enforcing) these decision of which we debate. If you want to really "try" to make a difference, write your congressman/woman. I doubt it will produce any meaningful results, but you'll feel like you really tried. :)

Or stop buying cd's period and hit the RIAA in their pocket. Although they are making probably more money off these ridiculous lawsuits than they are their cd's.

It would take everyone doing it though for that to happen, and there probably are too many RIAA fanboys for that to happen.

I honestly don't see how the RIAA/MPAA can live with themselves for what they are doing to peoples lives. RIAA/MPAA=Satan.

Actually, with legal costs and everything, they lose a lot and gain very little.

Yup. This case is the perfect example.

Anyone think $22,500 is enough to cover the RIAA's investigative and court costs?

Didn't think so. I'm not saying I'm on the RIAA's side. It's just a very valid point. They're not making money off these suits.

computer data was never meant to be such a physical thing as it has been posed over this year to being with

LOL uhm...what????

Agree with you. However what would you have lawmakers do? What about copying someone's bank account? About "copying" a list of the passwords you type over the Internet? Credit card number used online? We have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we can steal (sorry, I meant "copy") books, credit cards, account numbers, music, etc. without any accountability.

the problem with that is, we are talking about "artist conception" work, and its an intangible. Books, credit cards, account numbers, passwords are traceable, an artists work isn't, because its created by an invidual.

A cc, password, book, and such are infriginging on one's privacy, and you can steal their identity or their money, so its really NOT the same thing.

Copyright for books, if you plagarize a dictionary, or other literary work, can easily be twarted, UNTIL it becomes electronic. Computers make anything that's digital easily copied.

If cloning people becomes digital, that too will become an epidemic. Electronic medium is extremely difficult, if not impossible to trace. I can duplicate a CD, and no one can tell me its NOT the original work. Period. there is NO way to tell absolutely. Your CC, serial number, password, account are unique to *you*, ONLY and its your PRIVATE info.

Music and literature, once placed in the hands of public, and distributed become public domain. they just can't be copied, unless you get permission.

Yes, its ALL stealing, its just impossible to prove you stole it, there is no "stamp" on a copy, and if there were, it can easily be erased or modified. A physical item, is easy to copyright, it can't be duplicated. If you photocopy an encyclopedia, you can identify it because paper is different, ink, printing press, and each book has a unique serial attached. Even if you make one up, it can be traced as a phony.

Digital medium is way to easy for people to manipulate, that's why its so prevalent to steal. phising for a list of passwords is illegal, because of HOW you obtain it, and if its used to illegally gain further info, then you are in deep stuff.

Music and electronic books aren't utimately hurting anyone, execpt the artist, copyright company and publisher/record company that produces them. Its a tad more serious to take or steal money from a bank or individual than to simply make a copy of a song, that's how people justify it.

Someone did make an interesting point...if you dont like a cd (because of people ripping the cd is why, I understand) you cannot return it unless its defective but still get the same cd again...so no preview before you buy...plus 30 seconds is not the best way to preview a song and the radio plays the song that is going to get everyone to buy BUT may sound NOTHING like the rest of the CD (this has happened to me a few times and is very annoying) but besides that the lady was wrong and is being fined for her mistake but still I think 22,500 is still a bit excessive for the crime... especially since its going to hurt her financially and she wont have ANY money to buy cds anymore and will have to go back to stealing again!

"plus 30 seconds is not the best way to preview a song and the radio plays the song that is going to get everyone to buy BUT may sound NOTHING like the rest of the CD (this has happened to me a few times and is very annoying)"

I don't get to play an entire video game before buying it to see if I like it...what if I only like the first 10 minutes of the game? What if the demo is good but the game sucks?? I don't get to see a movie before I pay to watch it in the movie theater...and I don't get to live in a house for a few months before I buy it...etc, etc...

If you like the artist...$15 isn't that bad! If you only like some songs...guess what, you only have to buy a few songs from itunes, you don't need the entire CD! This still does not justify stealing whatsoever.

"but besides that the lady was wrong and is being fined for her mistake but still I think 22,500 is still a bit excessive for the crime... especially since its going to hurt her financially and she wont have ANY money to buy cds anymore and will have to go back to stealing again!"

I seriously doubt she'll do anymore stealing after this... trust me, if you get cought and you had to pay $22k...you'll be real scared of doing the same crime again. If she gets cought again...guess what, it'll be twice as bad as it is now for her. She knew it was illegal, she did the crime...she's going to have to pay.

I like your thinking Niro! Dead on! +

OK, the fine amount is irrelevant. Its the ONLY way to get peoples attention. The idea of punishment, is not to continually fine you, its to PREVENT future reccurence.

Lets say you are grounded for 1 week, for staying out too late. You do your sentence, and you do it again.. If your parents never increase the punishment, what's to stop you? But now you get punished a month, you can't use the phone, you lose the use of the car, you can take your girlfriend out, and you can't have any fiends over.. ok, NOW your parents have your attention.

The next time, you won't be so daring to try it again.

Same with this, 22,500 may seem excessive, but Everyone will know how serious they are taking it, plus you have to consider legal fees and ALL the other parties that want their money for taking this to court and sending the po-po after you. Its not just a simple matter of slapping your wrist, its to make SURE you realize that its very serious, and the next time it could be a lot more. 22500 she will be paying this for a while (assuming she is just an avg citizen) and with each restitution check it will serve as a constant reminder.

Not to quibble over semantics, but you can get your money back on a movie, and its legal. As long as you leave before half the movie is over, you can get a FULL refund.. so in essence you CAN preview a movie..

That's precisely why I don't buy games anymore, becuase the demo is hardly as good as the real game, and its not nearly enough content to make an informed decision. I download games, I have purchased games as a result, not everytime, but I would say 1 in 5 games I play and keep I buy.. if I feel they will keep my attention for a few hours. otherwise, I try them, find they suck, and promptly delete them and thank goodness I didn't have to pay for the priveledge.

And you are right, she won't be downloading any more songs after this.. That's the point. anyone else out there, may also think twice before downloading songs.

To that I say, it won't stop me.. but that will free up some more bandwidth for me to download... :)

You do preview a movie, its called TV

I guess you need to find yourself a solid reading comprehension course to fix your inability to understand what you read.

Reread both posts...and then see if you can repeat your statement.

I'd like to know just how stupid the woman's lawyer was.

"So you had more than 1,000 illegal tunes found on your system. You don't want to settle for $3500. Ok, let's fight this."

Oh, ok, it wasn't the lawyer who was stupid.

Nevermind...

Actually the $22,500 WAS the settled on price.. it was originally hundreds of thousands...

Its not the amount they are after, its not compensatory damage, its punitive. A few thousand dollars is piddly.. They want to woman to hurt for her actions in her pocketbook, and make an example of her and thousands more that will try it.

OK... so she was wrong. Now... justify the penalty for her 'crime.'

A new CD averages, let's say, $15.00 and has about 10 songs on it. So each song is worth about $1.50. Now I'm sure she was downloading MP3's... which can compress to about 1/10 of their original size by throwing away quality. So... the song in MP3 format is now worth about 15 cents...

Now people seem to be willing to pay 99 cents per song in MP3 format... so we'll run with that as the market value...

How does the court justify a penalty of 750 times the market value of the item? How can the RIAA show 'damages' caused by this woman for downloading the song? They lost a buck on that song... and want $750.00!?!?!?!

Are they able to show that she SHARED each song with at least 750 people? If so... then the argument starts to come together. Then her crime isn't in the 'downloading'... it's in the sharing.
This is a meaning full point that seems to get glossed over. I guess the fact that she was using a 'peer2peer' network means she's guilty of sharing.

My momma always taught me that is was impolite not to share... hehehehhhaa.

"A new CD averages, let's say, $15.00 and has about 10 songs on it. So each song is worth about $1.50. Now I'm sure she was downloading MP3's... which can compress to about 1/10 of their original size by throwing away quality. So... the song in MP3 format is now worth about 15 cents..."

All this is completely meaningless.

"How does the court justify a penalty of 750 times the market value of the item? How can the RIAA show 'damages' caused by this woman for downloading the song? They lost a buck on that song... and want $750.00!?!?!?!"

You're paying for stolen music, court fees, lawyer fees, and for breaking the law.

If the penalty for stealing was simply to pay for what was stolen...I know I'd do a hell of alot of stealing, and only pay for things when I get cought....same with everybody else. According to your logic...I stole a $200 stereo and I get cought...I should only pay the $200 that it cost?? lol

I do not support RIAA but as a general principle, punishment for a criminal act is intended to deter people from committing the act in the first place. Therefore, the penalty is not directly based on the monetary loss (as it would be if this were a breach of contract or other tort law case).

For example, let's say you rob a convenience store. You might get $200. If we value a person's time based on the Federal Minimum Wage of $5.15/hour, then you could cover $200 in a week. Yet you could get a jail/probation sentence of several years. In essence, this court is saying that $22,500 will deter this woman (and others like her) from committing the crime again, whereas $1,000 or less would not.

"If the penalty for stealing was simply to pay for what was stolen...I know I'd do a hell of alot of stealing, and only pay for things when I get cought....same with everybody else. According to your logic...I stole a $200 stereo and I get cought...I should only pay the $200 that it cost?? lol"

Excellent point!! When you get cought for stealing the pentalty is, the cost of the item, court costs, lawyer fee's, usually time in jail. Now if she is being charged with downloading 30 songs, that means she commititted the offence 30 times! If you shoplifted like that You'd definatly be looking at some majior jail time lol

"You're paying for stolen music, court fees, lawyer fees, and for breaking the law"

does that mean, since she paid for the downloaded songs, that she can keep thoise downloaded songs? I mean, it makes sense to me, a person pays 750 times what the actual song is worth, they BETTER be able to keep those songs on their hard drive :)

lol...I actually think she does keep the songs...:)

I'm still amazed the RIAA is still doing this. it's not going away. you can shut down as many as you want but there will be more places to download music illeagly.

U got it wrong man.

RIAA offered her $3500 for a settlement.
She didn't want it.

Now it's $750 x 30 songs.
She definitely didn't want that, so she appealed.

so the original deal was
$ 3,500 for 1,000 songs or $3.50 each
then the federal judge said
$75,000 for 1,000 songs or $750 each

that seems like a huge jump
$3.50 >> $750

I wonder why?!

I agree it's theft.

ok to sample, just like the radio, or going into a shop and asking to listen to. But she's not permitted to keep without paying.

They were only charging her for 30 songs and not 1000 songs. Thats where the $22,500 figure came in. You might wanna read that again :)

From Websters' Online: Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto·len /'stO-l&n/; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal. intransitive senses
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means

you are overlooking the finacial aspect

the item has a price

if 100 people go to a shop to buy something - and someone is standing outside giving the same away - then the shop (and the owner of the item) is loosing money

that is where the 'theft' 'stealing' comes from

Bravo!

One of the defs: "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully". It would fit this one. Just like a Windows XP Certificate of Authenticity, copying a CD without having a separate "Proof of Purchase" is stealing. So...can I go copy $20 bills and use them too? It's COPYING, not stealing, right? If someone gives you a counterfeit $20 bill are you stealing? Same concept. Pretty clear to me.

True also, but it is more of what I stated above.

You need to think of it more in terms of theft of intellectual property. The musical recording created by the artists (and recording studio et al) belongs to them. If you want a copy of that recording then you must pay for it.

However, charging stupidly high prices for music alienates and upsets law-abiding customers, makes them feel they are bring ripped off, and gives people a reason to say "stuff the record companies" and get the music illegally.

"One of the defs: "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully". It would fit this one. Just like a Windows XP Certificate of Authenticity, copying a CD without having a separate "Proof of Purchase" is stealing. So...can I go copy $20 bills and use them too? It's COPYING, not stealing, right? If someone gives you a counterfeit $20 bill are you stealing? Same concept. Pretty clear to me."

Actually, man- thats NOT stealing! Thats "COUNTERFEITTING" (hence the word "counterfeit"). hehe.. obviously the idea isnt too clear to you after all...

The two ideas are not at all related. I agree that this isnt stealing or theft in the definitions of the word.

COUNTERFEITTING *is* stealing. The concept is the same, whether or not it is called by the same name or not.

Using your definition of "intellectual property theft" I should have to pay for any photo I take of anything as well. Any building, any car, any house, any airplane, any person. Given that the current definition of "intellectual property" is ill-defined, it could be stretched that far. Why can I photo a custom car in public, but not record a song played over the public radio?

Check your legal textbooks again. Counterfeiting is not stealing. It is counterfeiting. It is it's own definitive term. It does not impart other criminal terms. It implies making a false duplicate for the purposes of misrepresentation and/or acquiring value on false pretenses. That is not stealing. I'm not saying counterfeiting is "right", only that it is NOT the same definition.

The term "couterfeit" also implies an outward act of misrepresentation. If you make a copy for yourself, it is not a counterfeit. It becomes a "counterfeit" the moment you present to someone else as being the authentic/original item or work.

You are correct, but only as it relates to the word "appropriate" (verb). "Take" does not apply since the original is not modified or removed in any respect. "Taking" a photograph implies a different meaning than "taking" an object.

But if your poor like me, and I see a sign in front of the store, I will take the free item. BUT I never planned to buy it in the first place because I cant afford it.

That doesn't make it right.

You know, this is sort of like when the Wild West was tamed. Lots of freedom and lawlessness, which no doubt was fun for the cowboys, but then came rules and law enforcement and the fun was over, and ultimately it was a good thing, though for many it was far less fun.

So what we're seeing, and going through, is the taming of the Wild Internet, and 50 years from now I bet historians are going to refer to it that way.

My gut reaction is to side with Gonzalez, but that's just because I generally want to see the underdog win. But I have to admit, she was in the wrong.

are things really better though? yes, there was a lot of lawlessness back in the wild west days, not because of lack of laws, but because of lack of enforcement options. the basic laws for a structured society was there, and the laws were very clear back then. you break the law, you get caught, you get punished,
western justice was swift and sure as well. steal that cow... get caught.. from catchiung the criminal -> to trial -> to execution of justice happened within a few days.
* we had no overcrowding of prisons back then
* we had no years of burden on taxpayers housing, feeding and caring for prisoners back then

sure, death came swiftly back then. and that kept all but the truely lawless from committing crime. The criminals were clearly divisible from the basic law abiding citizen back then...

back then you also had people actually working for an honest wage. they worked their asses off to get what they had.

today, we haver people doing very little and getting paid WAYYYY too much.. examples:
* big named music groups.
* sports figures
those are the top two offenders in my book. they do very little actual work if any, and they get paid more than people who work their asses off working 2 or 3 jobs just to be able to have a VERY SMALL roof over their heads and a small amount of food in their stomachs.
examples:
* Coal Miners
* Mill workers
* tow truck drivers
* sanitation engineers (garbage men)
These people work HARD LABOR to contribute to the whole of society in a positive manner, they die at young ages due to work hazards but you dont hear them complaining. they are in debt to the bank until the day they die to keep a small roof over their heads, base foods in the house, and beat up old cars running to make sure they can get to workj the next day. they work year around, 5-6 days a week, 8-12 hours a day.
the opposite side of the coin. sports figures get paid 2000 times what the above people do. they "work" a few months out of the year and make more in those 2 - 3 months than the above do in 10 years.
The same goes for "recording artists". they make a few nice songs as did the bards of old times. they get "famous" for their songs as did bards did years gone by. Bards spread their sonmgs for free. they shared their talents and work to all for free, are the modern day bards the same? no. They are greedy bas*ards who think that their meager contribution to a small section of society.

the whole mess with all these lawsuits sickens me. so what, she had songs on her computer. PROOVE that she never had ANY of those songs on legal cd's at some time in her life. CD's get scratched and unplayable. they get lost or misplaced. I personally buy a cd and the 1st thing I do is make a digital copy of that cd, so sue me. I believe in getting the most of my investment. I am on disability and poor so when i buy something I buy smart. I dont waste money, cant afford to. noit when 98% of my income goes to rent, utilities and food. you dont like that, too bad. I will not buy a copy of a cd more than once. thats wasting money. when you arent making obsene sums of money then you have to watch what you pay for because it could cost youy a meal for a day or two.

Note that it's because she kept them...

BTW; at least she didn't get a rootkit!

Downloading Music shouldn't be illegal.

I have a right to know what I'm buying before I buy it.

So what if the song is called "keep talking" (an example)... I have no idea what that means. it could be a rap song. A pop song. A country song, or a love song or something.

I agree that the songs that she didn't buy should have been deleted. She doesn't have any right to them after she's listened to them once or twice and hasn't brought them.

"No! iTunes! (example) you can download just 1 song for 99cents rather than a CD of 15 Songs for $15! Amazing! isn't it!? Download 15 songs you like for $15 and then burn 'em to CD! Legally! WOW!!"
With crappy limits, I've heard. I haven't tried it, but I've heard you usually get 3 copys free, or something. Crap. If I use P2P or buy the CD, I get unlimited copies. I lean towards buying the CD except in these latest DRM scandles.

" How do we know you even had the CD's to begin with? How do you prove you owned the CD's?"
Dockets, CD covers, etc. And, AFAIK (could be wrong), you are allowed to download/create a backup if you own the disk. Thats how it is here anyway.

"Yeah I "borrowed" the songs to see if I wanted them or not. Try that with merchandise in a store, and its "stealing"."
Usually Televisions are on display, and on.
You tell me how many CD stores allow you to walk in, pick a CD, pop it in to test it, then decide to buy it. Very few, if any. (Sanity is the only one I know of)

"She deserves to be fined."
No one deserves to be fined in this manner.

"I have a right to know what I'm buying before I buy it."

There are thousands of legal ways to preview it! mp3.com...Satelite radio...standard radio...mtv...bet...fuse...the possibilities are endless!

"So what if the song is called "keep talking" (an example)... I have no idea what that means. it could be a rap song. A pop song. A country song, or a love song or something."

Artist...Title..Genre...IT's all displayed...

"With crappy limits, I've heard. I haven't tried it, but I've heard you usually get 3 copys free, or something"

Obviously you havn't used it...Once you own the licence to that song, you can burn it to as many CDs as you want, as long as it is only YOU that owns the CD.

"Usually Televisions are on display, and on."

Yeah...walk into Best Buy, or Walmart etc. Scan the CD at the little booth and preview it before you buy it! :)

"No one deserves to be fined in this manner."

Oh, so if she broke into your house and stole everything you own, you wouldn't think she should be fined???

Correct except that in the US of A some states it is only legal to make a single copy for backup purposes, not "as many as you want".

yes it is "as many as you want" you are allowed to make another backup once the original or the orignal backup is destroyed. :)

So let me fix that, as many copies as you want under certain conditions!

Every single music store I go to (and I go to a lot) allows me to listen to a CD before I buy it.

So does the radio. The song isn't in your possesion, though, it's not your CD at the music store or your CD player.

Neither is it if you download the music. Unless you buy the CD, that is.

"There are thousands of legal ways to preview it! mp3.com...Satelite radio...standard radio...mtv...bet...fuse...the possibilities are endless!"

Excuse me? Buy it before I try?

"Artist...Title..Genre...IT's all displayed..."
It's usually listed as '01 - Keep Talking' On a CD.

"Obviously you havn't used it...Once you own the licence to that song, you can burn it to as many CDs as you want, as long as it is only YOU that owns the CD."
Own the CD? Huh?
No, iTunes gives you a limit of how many times it can be copied, and it can only go to compatible devices. I bet it's not even MP3.

"Yeah...walk into Best Buy, or Walmart etc. Scan the CD at the little booth and preview it before you buy it! :)"
What's Best Buy? What's Walmart?

"Oh, so if she broke into your house and stole everything you own, you wouldn't think she should be fined???"
Of course. She stole the stuff.

"The court said that Ceclia Gonzalez's activities were not permitted under copyright law and compared her actions to shoplifting. She argued that she downloaded the songs to decide which she would buy later, and claimed she owned over 250 compact discs."
Downloading music and shoplifting are two VERY different things.

250 compact disks? Prove it :P

Really? That sucks.

"Neither is it if you download the music."

Exactly why it is illegal--you 'have' the song/album/whatever in your possesion but you did not pay for it.

Come on people, can't we have an intelligent conversation about this case?

The RIAA may have a reputation for being a bunch of money-grabbing hypocrites, bent on savaging disgruntled customers who dare to attempt to avoid paying their extortionate prices, but I am struggling to find sympathy for Gonzalez in parts of this case.

The music she downloaded is a product that has copyright and royalties attached to it. You simply cannot copy copyrighted material without permission or payment. Having said this, if she downloaded song XYZ from the web, how was she to know that THAT version was copyrighted material? It is highly unlikely to say so in the file. Presumably the prosecutors had to compare the downloads with the originals to see if they were the same. Should Gonzalez have done this research too - with every download?

Now for the copying issue: If someone has bought a legal copy of a CD, and copies it for personal use, then that seems to me to be quite reasonable. I make copies of my CDs to protect the originals from damage. CDs are after all quite fragile things, susceptible to damage that renders them useless. I see no problem in making a copy to throw around in the car. When the music industry comes up with something more robust than the CD then I won't need to take that precaution. To me it's no different to backing up my computer.

This of course leads us to the issue of ripping music onto MP3 players. Sony and others make such devices, so presumably that kind of copying is okay with them. That being the case, they have created a hole in their own argument.

Yeah I "borrowed" the songs to see if I wanted them or not. Try that with merchandise in a store, and its "stealing".

Good luck lady, you were BUSTED!!

And the dumb a** didn't even delete the evidence.. She deserves to be fined.

"Yeah I "borrowed" the songs to see if I wanted them or not. Try that with merchandise in a store, and its "stealing". "
In a clothing store you can try the clothes on before you buy.. In most appliance stores you should be able to ask to see a working model to see if its acceptable to your standards, my uncle did it with a toaster, when you want to buy a car you can take it for a test drive. So how is this any different? If i want to see the quality of songs on a CD, i wouldnt be able to sit in the store and listen to the whole CD, because cds in aus are $20-$25 at the least for newies. I would rather download the album, see if i liked it. then if not delete it, if i did buy the album then delete the mp3s..

A real blow for the "people".
So, If I buy a CD and don't like all of the selections on the CD am I entitled to a refund for the ones I don't listen to?

No! iTunes! (example) you can download just 1 song for 99cents rather than a CD of 15 Songs for $15! Amazing! isn't it!? Download 15 songs you like for $15 and then burn 'em to CD! Legally! WOW!!

so who pays me back for all the cd's that were stolen from me ?

You had CD's stolen from you? You should call the police!

lol... i did actuly its happened tree times and they say the same thing every time. they wanted to know what ones, i documented em, and still have all the empty cases, and they said they will call me ounce they find em... i am sure thats there number one concern... i dont expect em back and i would rather my local police force worry about more important thing then my music.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. How do we know you even had the CD's to begin with? How do you prove you owned the CD's?

I lost some CD's myself, but if I get busted for "downloads" which are clearly illegal, then I guess I should be fined as well. I wouldn't be dumb enough to get caught with obvious copyrighted material....

3 times? Are you this careless or just that stupid? After the first time, you should have corrected the issue. If they were in your car, umm.. didn't anyone tell you that keeping valuables in a car is a bad idea? Its not even covered under insurance. If they were in a suitcase or with you in a backpack, and you left your backpack unnattended, then you are just either blind or not very observant.

Either way, you can't blame someone for stealing CD's, especially since its happened 3 times.. once, we can forgive and MAYBE understand.. but 3 times? Come on! Where do you keep your ATM card? I bet you keep your PIN in your wallet too . . . .

Well, just so you know, this lawsuit wasn't against her for stealing YOUR CD's, it was for her illegally downloading music and stealing from the music industry.

I'm sorry some evil men stole your CD's, I've had my car broken into before and had about 140 CD's stolen out of it....Yeah that sucked, but what can ya' do? If I ever found The guy I'd kill 'em, then sue him lol

"I bet you keep your PIN in your wallet too"

LOL! I have a friend that has it writtin in the signature tab of his Debit card! I about B*tch slapped 'em when I saw it! hahaha

no i just lived in a great community, 2 of the times i had an alarm, all the times there is a parking atendent... its not like i am going to sit watch my car all day. but now i own a car that most people would avoide

no i am not like the people you saround yourself with

Dude! Reply to the correct comments!!!! WOW! You're not the brightest light bulb in your bunch either.

i did... DUDE

Dude i'm not against you at all BUT. that is why you are allowed to make ONE BACK UP COPY. i own a mustang convertible. they are really easy to get into. all my Cd's that i keep in my car are ALL burnt. If they take them. big deal i open up my safe and remake me copy's I'm out maybe .20$ on each CD

I replied to Rjip's post, my post had absolutly NOTHING to do with you. Now rjip's post had to do with you!

this all happend about 6 years ago.. i am just complaing

sure it did, his post was directed at me

yeah it was! but my reply wasn't!

Wow, settle down kids! Sound like you're argueing over who hit who first over here :)