|
|
#21
10-04-2007, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
Amazon will now let you dl un-DRMed mp3s that work on any and all players. If you buy music online, you should buy from them. It's only 89c per too, so you save a dime each time!
|
|
#22
10-04-2007, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right? Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, it must be a dictatorship when you are not free to give away what isnt yours. [/ QUOTE ] Do you understand that the RIAA did not prove she did anything you are assuming she did? Do you understand what 'innocent until proven guilty' means? [/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that she shouldn't have to pay the judgement because they didn't prove she did it? I don't get what you're saying here, they DID find her guilty.
|
|
#23
10-04-2007, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
To the standard of proof required for civil cases, it's pretty clear that the RIAA did, in fact, prove that she was liable for copyright violation. Do you understand how the law works in civil cases?
|
|
#24
10-04-2007, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Im pretty sure there are lots of songs that are worth way way more than 9250$. Wonder how much money Beatles "Yesterday" is worth, or what about Bing Crosbys "White Christmas"? This woman gave away stuff she didnt have the rights to. Are you against copyrights and patents? [/ QUOTE ] They didn't prove she did this at all. Are you against due process? *edit* obviously due process isn't technically the correct term her, but you get the point. [/ QUOTE ] I responded to OP who said she had done it, and ridiculed how the songs were valued at 9250$ each. To answer your question; No, I am not against due process. My answer was in response to whether this sentence can be justificed for someone who is guilty of doing what she supposedly have done.
|
|
#25
10-04-2007, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
What greedy bastards people in the music industry are. I mean, they allowed there songs to be sold individually for 99 cents, when a "single" disk used to cost $4. Now they went so far as to allow "subscription services" that you can pay $10 a month for all the music you can handle.
And Radiohead doesn't allow all of their songs on these music services. In fact, it took them a long time to come around to it, and then they took most of their stuff off. So much for waving the banner. I just mention this because they are apparently gods for allowing "naming your own price."
|
|
#27
10-04-2007, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
To the standard of proof required for civil cases, it's pretty clear that the RIAA did, in fact, prove that she was liable for copyright violation. Do you understand how the law works in civil cases? [/ QUOTE ] People can get convicted of stuff and we are allowed to say the jury was stupid and made the wrong decision, aren't we?
|
|
#29
10-04-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
this thread is going to be LOL with all the "im not a lawyer but i play one on the innuh-nets" [/ QUOTE ] Either RJ is going to post in this thread with a new account (if he hasn't already), or he is chomping at the bit because he can't post in this thread because he's IP banned. Maybe he'll PM his posts to kipin. t0ne, interesting. The file type was another issue I had with iTunes. I would come over from the dark side at $1 per MP3, but the reality is I very rarely download music and have been lazy about looking into it.
|
|
#30
10-04-2007, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Im pretty sure there are lots of songs that are worth way way more than 9250$. Wonder how much money Beatles "Yesterday" is worth, or what about Bing Crosbys "White Christmas"? This woman gave away stuff she didnt have the rights to. Are you against copyrights and patents? [/ QUOTE ] They didn't prove she did this at all. Are you against due process? *edit* obviously due process isn't technically the correct term her, but you get the point. [/ QUOTE ] I responded to OP who said she had done it, and ridiculed how the songs were valued at 9250$ each. To answer your question; No, I am not against due process. My answer was in response to whether this sentence can be justificed for someone who is guilty of doing what she supposedly have done. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, I agree with you that the sentence for distributing the songs is fair. Someone who is illegally distributing someone else's property has not place to complain if they get caught. I was arguing for this specific case where the woman was at a clear disadvantage financially and could not prove that she DIDN'T do it. If she did do it then she can't complain about the punishment. It may seem steep to us, but I'm sure the losses the RIAA have sustained over the last 10 years seems steep to them....
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
