Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury

[esad]

Just to clear up a misconception about this case. She was accused of sharing 1,702 songs not just 24. The case just focused on 24 songs for simplicity. It's not like this women just accidentally shared a couple of CDs worth of music. It was over a hundred CDs.

[Bump_Bailey]

so, if someone (not me) were to download a song off [censored], what are the chances of me having to pay hundreds of thousands to the RIAA?

[Fast Food Knight]

[ QUOTE ]
so, if someone (not me) were to download a song off [censored], what are the chances of me having to pay hundreds of thousands to the RIAA?

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I think it's the sharing, not the downloading, where it's enforced.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so, if someone (not me) were to download a song off [censored], what are the chances of me having to pay hundreds of thousands to the RIAA?

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I think it's the sharing, not the downloading, where it's enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah I'm pretty sure the downloading is technically 'illegal' as well, but they only go after people who are causing the problem.

I'm a selfish P2Per and I haven't shared a song or video since napster died...

[drexah]

Soon the RIAA/DMCAA will start fining people for simply downloading copyrighted stuff, nevermind uploaders.

[Sayitloudernow]

[ QUOTE ]

But bands that are popular enough to get their CDs distributed widely are taking a huge hit as the result of file-sharing, and that's really not disputable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It most certainly is. This argument is the absolute worst one that the recording industry makes. There are two MAJOR flaws with it.

a) Music isnt an object. If someone downloads the music the record company has "lost" nothing besides the ability to later sell this music to that person. The fact that the recording industry actually takes how many songs have been downloaded, multiplies them by a dollar amount and claims that to be how much money they have "lost" is just a blatant lie.

b) To call this money lost is misleading for another reason as well. Consider the following: You are starving, a guy walks up to you and offers you the most delicious cheeseburger you have ever seen for 5 bucks. Awesome, I will take it. On the other hand consider a situation where you weren't really all that hungry and I offer you the same cheeseburger for 5 dollars. In this spot, I would assume that you would be far less interested and probably decline. Now, if i said, "oh well whatever, i don't care if you want to pay, just take it for free". At this point you would probably take it simply because it is free. You could have a few bites and throw it away and have lost nothing. My point is this: If something is free, people will take it even if they aren't really all that interested in it. So for the recording industry to say "hey we lost $58475 trillion dollars last year because of people downloading mp3s" is not only not a "loss" at all because they didnt actually "lose" anything, but it is also incredibly misleading to everyone following the situation, especially congress, who is made to believe the RIAA needs all this protection that they are now asking for. (Protection like fining single mothers hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading music when they don't know how to use a computer to begin with).

/rant

[Fast Food Knight]

Sayitloudernow,

Right, I agree with you. They are making the assumption that because someone downloaded a song, it was a lost sale.... but that person most likely never would have bought the song even if he/she didn't have the opportunity to procure it for free.

[CallMeIshmael]

sayitloud,


your post does a good job of showing that RIAA/etc are retarded when it comes to how they calculate loss due to piracy, but it is lame when it comes to defending the claim that bands arent taking a financial hit because of piracy (which, given what you quoted, seems like what the main point was).


Just becuase there are albums people download now that they wouldnt pay for, doesnt mean that there arent albums that people download now that they would pay for.


Before pirating, I used to buy about 1 album/week. Since pirating I've probably average like 30/week or something. And yeah, no doubt, I woudlnt have purcahsed all of them. But I would have for some of them. And Im sure as hell not alone.


(if this wasnt the point of your post, then my bad. the part you quoted, and your first line seem a little out of place with the rest of the post, so Im really not sure).

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But bands that are popular enough to get their CDs distributed widely are taking a huge hit as the result of file-sharing, and that's really not disputable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It most certainly is. This argument is the absolute worst one that the recording industry makes. There are two MAJOR flaws with it.

a) Music isnt an object. If someone downloads the music the record company has "lost" nothing besides the ability to later sell this music to that person. The fact that the recording industry actually takes how many songs have been downloaded, multiplies them by a dollar amount and claims that to be how much money they have "lost" is just a blatant lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seriously believe something has to be an "object" before you can sell it, do you?

Music is property and is far less tangible than ideas and plans for inventions, which also receive copyright protection.

The record companies may not have lost the cost of constructing the CDs themselves, the jewel boxes, liner notes, etc., but of course that is a very small part of the value of a CD.

[ QUOTE ]
b) To call this money lost is misleading for another reason as well. Consider the following: You are starving, a guy walks up to you and offers you the most delicious cheeseburger you have ever seen for 5 bucks. Awesome, I will take it. On the other hand consider a situation where you weren't really all that hungry and I offer you the same cheeseburger for 5 dollars. In this spot, I would assume that you would be far less interested and probably decline. Now, if i said, "oh well whatever, i don't care if you want to pay, just take it for free". At this point you would probably take it simply because it is free. You could have a few bites and throw it away and have lost nothing. My point is this: If something is free, people will take it even if they aren't really all that interested in it. So for the recording industry to say "hey we lost $58475 trillion dollars last year because of people downloading mp3s" is not only not a "loss" at all because they didnt actually "lose" anything, but it is also incredibly misleading to everyone following the situation, especially congress, who is made to believe the RIAA needs all this protection that they are now asking for. (Protection like fining single mothers hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading music when they don't know how to use a computer to begin with).

/rant

[/ QUOTE ]

How then do you explain the massive downswing in CD sales that occurred at the same time file-sharing became widespread?

It's all very convenient just to declare that the downloaders wouldn't have bought the song if they had to pay for it, but if that were true, then there wouldn't have been a huge drop-off in sales AND THE RECORD INDUSTRY WOULDN'T HAVE CARED OR HAD PROVABLE DAMAGES.

Certainly, the # songs downloaded X purchase price model is too high, because not EVERY song would have been bought, but certainly many, many people who would otherwise have bought the music stole it instead.

Also your (b) analogy doesn't work, because the guy who is buying or not buying the hamburger doesn't know that the hamburger is stolen.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]


How then do you explain the massive downswing in CD sales that occurred at the same time file-sharing became widespread?

It's all very convenient just to declare that the downloaders wouldn't have bought the song if they had to pay for it, but if that were true, then there wouldn't have been a huge drop-off in sales AND THE RECORD INDUSTRY WOULDN'T HAVE CARED OR HAD PROVABLE DAMAGES.

Certainly, the # songs downloaded X purchase price model is too high, because not EVERY song would have been bought, but certainly many, many people who would otherwise have bought the music stole it instead.

Also your (b) analogy doesn't work, because the guy who is buying or not buying the hamburger doesn't know that the hamburger is stolen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the important part. There HAVE been less CDs sold because of piracy, and profits have suffered.

And definitely disagree with some of the people in this thread on the tangibility & reproduction of digital media being the reason why stealing the music is OK.