Woman fined $1.9 million for illegal downloads

As someone who has technical experience and understands on a much deeper level on how P2P networking programs like Kazaa and Napster work, I would just like to bring to your attention some facts, especially to those who are siding with the RIAA on this. In order to find the people who are partaking in these "illegal" file sharing programs, the RIAA and the INTARNET POLICE must be on these networks as well, actively searching for content to download, and then successfully download just a portion of the song in question.

The article I posted a link to above notes that this is the process that was followed in this suit and trial.

Note this section:
Although the plaintiffs weren’t able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it’s only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that’s what Kazaa was there for.

This was the prosecution's claim, and to me it holds some truth. If you have a program designed to share peer-to-peer files, chances are that you have used it to share and obtain files, and other people have used it in conjunction with you. Especially when you have 1800 files shared under your username.

It's a very fair inference to make. If you keep a can-opener in your house, you use it to open cans. If you have file sharing programs installed on your computer with 1800 MP3's shared, it's a pretty safe bet that it's used for the purposes of sharing and illegally downloading music.
 
Because you're opening a big can of worms in the racket of fixed games, series, and the integrity of championships. Not that there's a whole lot of it left in baseball with steroids, or football with criminals, but it's still a can of worms.
I suppose you can argue that the more money riding on the outcome of a game, the greater the likelihood of it being fixed. However, it seems that's not the argument used for keeping it illegal. Typically, the underlying argument for that is, gambling is a sin. Unless it's state sponsored, like the lottery, than it's OK.

Zod
 
i still say people shouldn't download from bands trying to make it, that just sucks...but if you do at least support them in other ways like merchandise, concert tickets, etc.
Let's just make sure we distinguish from those who download then buy, and those who just download. I download several hundred CDs a year. I buy about a 100. If everyone followed that model, the record company wouldn't be suing anyone, they'd be too busy hiring accountants to count their money.

Zod
 
Hey Brian... I actually agree with Pelata on this.

:lol:...I figured you would Zod.

I really don't understand why we continue to view drugs, especially marijuana, so differently than we view alcohol. Well... actually I do understand why, I just disagree.

As odd as it may sound, I'm not so much referring to "mary jane" when I'm thinking of drugs. Granted, I don't want some jackass sitting behind me, while smoking a joint at this fall's UT football game, but I don't think it's the worst thing out there either.

By the governments own estimates, the "War on Druugs" (sp intentional to get past filters) has been a monolithic failure.

That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, considering the government can't manage anything, much less the war on drugs.

All we've managed to do is spend billions in tax payer dollars to clog up the courts and jails and create a black market for law enforcement to deal with, where none needs to exist.

The government will continue to waste tax payer's money no matter what. Look at the current administration and look at the one prior. That's simply what most politicians do, waste money.

If someone wants to smoke a joint at home, I have no idea why that should be the business of the government, short of collecting the tax revenue from its sale.

I honestly don't think the government should earn money off of someone else's addictions, whatever those might be.

People will always use drugs. Will will always go to prostitutes. These things will never end. We can either tax and regulate, or waste time and money enforcing Bronze Age standards of morality, and live in a prison nation.

It's true that people will always use drugs and prostitutes. With that said, that's still not an excuse to give up trying to maintain some standards in this country. The majority of prostitutes are tied into drug rings in one form or the other. Most of them are junkies themselves. Prostitution isn't a pretty or glamorous thing. Most of those girls are runaways or been kidnapped, etc. A person such as yourself can't possibly think that we can legalize Marijuana and not leagalize heroine and meth. If you make one ok, then you'll have to make the rest ok too. You can't possibly want your future children having such easy access to these items. They're all addictive and alter one's use of judgement no matter how you look at it.

Spending billions to fence off Mexico, so that they can't sell us the drugs we want, and shoot each other with the guns we sold them, seems somewhat heartless to me. While I agree there are valid reasons to secure our borders, fighting the war on the drugs is not one of them.

Zod, most of us don't want drugs. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the guns, but America isn't to blame for Mexico's poverty and them shooting one another. The Mexican government needs to take some responsibility for their citizens, make the country more appealing and livable to them, and quit blaming the U.S. for everything. Sealing off the boarders won't be a 100%sure way of dealing with America's drug problem, but would hurt the so called industry in a big way.

By the way, I realize you'll come out of this thread looking like a hero, so be it. In addition, I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but not overall in our country. With that said, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I said yes to leagalizing hard drugs or prostitution, bottom line. :kickass:

~Brian~
 
Typically, the underlying argument for that is, gambling is a sin. Unless it's state sponsored, like the lottery, than it's OK.

The argument is that gambling is detrimental to the economic health of people and families. The government is afraid that people will gamble all their money away and not have any left to afford shelter and feed their children. (The second part of your statement still applies.)

I'm not sure how the government gets off making gambling illegal, when pretty much ANYTHING done in excess rather than moderation can be detrimental. I'm not sure why tobacco, alcohol, Big Macs, the internet, and sunbathing are still legal.

I'm thinking of starting the War On The Internet. Who's with me? IM me or Twitter me if you're interested.
 
Prostitution isn't a pretty or glamorous thing. Most of those girls are runaways or been kidnapped, etc.

This is caused by prostitution being illegal, not an effect of it. In places like Nevada, where it's legal, women *choose* to become prostitutes, make a DAMN good living off it, and don't pass around STDs like the rest of the sexually-active population.

A person such as yourself can't possibly think that we can legalize Marijuana and not leagalize heroine and meth. If you make one ok, then you'll have to make the rest ok too.

Why not? As long as you're hurting yourself and not someone else, what's the problem? The trafficking of drugs, and the crime caused by it, hurt more innocent people than the drugs themselves.

You can't possibly want your future children having such easy access to these items. They're all addictive and alter one's use of judgement no matter how you look at it.

You mean, like booze?

Zod, most of us don't want drugs.

We don't have to "want" drugs, or prostitutes, to realize that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to themselves. When they start hurting other people, THEN you can hold them accountable.

I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but not overall in our country. With that said, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I said yes to leagalizing hard drugs or prostitution, bottom line.

That's fine, but your morality shouldn't be allowed to legislate everyone else's behavior, whether you're in the majority or not. In fact, this was the main reason this country was founded in the first place.

But then, I sense that this thread has become completely derailed. Anyone who wants to take it to the Pub, I'm game.
 
By the way, I realize you'll come out of this thread looking like a hero, so be it. In addition, I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but not overall in our country. With that said, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I said yes to leagalizing hard drugs or prostitution, bottom line.
It's more respectable to stick to your guns, than follow the crowd. I'll just PM you.

Zod
 
Here is my full take on downloading, the music industry, and whatever else.

When it comes to me personally, I don't spend less money on CDs due to illegal downloading, I just put it in the right places. A few years back, before I was heavily into downloading, I spend a lot of money on shitty CDs that didn't deserve to get purchases in the first place, bought just because of the band name or the first song or single was really good, as often happens. Thanks to the amount of downloading I do, I check out much more music than I used to, but I still buy about the same amount. Illegal downloading allows me to weed out the dud releases without paying $15-ish and then having to try to sell them back for half of that. It merely cuts out the bullshit. I'm not hurting the industry collectively by downloading, I'm just giving my money to the artists who most deserve it.

As for the bigger picture, downloading is a big problem, but I don't think it's a big problem because of people like you and me, people on this forum, or people into metal or real music of any kind in general. The problem with illegal downloading (and even legal downloading via iTunes or whatever) is that it feeds the pop consumer-mentality of only caring about one song. The value of a great album has been completely destroyed, because for the consumers of today's popular music, they don't care about the album. They want that one song that they heard on the radio or MTV, so they can put it on their iPod and listen to that song. They don't care about the album, they don't care about the artist. They just want their favorite song that week to be their ringtone, or what have you. This sort of mentality is not new, but it's certainly been growing over the past few years with the increased popularity of downloading in general.
This, more or less, is why the format of CDs is failing like it is these days. I own hundreds of them, and I'm sure there are many around these parts with much bigger collections than I. We still buy CDs. The problem is that there is absolutely no way to convince the general public that it is somehow better supportive or more ethical to pay $17.99 (average FYE price) for a CD, when they can just log onto the computer and get that song for $0.99, or even free. There's no way to do it. Though it certainly wouldn't solve the problem, the record indsustry could do itself a big favor by chopping the price of CDs in half. These days, it's starting to become an outdaed format, but the problem is that prices aren't reflecting that. CDs are still priced in most places as they were 10 years ago. If you could walk into Best Buy or FYE and get the music you wanted for $8.99, things would be much better, and I personally know I'd buy a fuckload more music.
As I said though, it's almost an incurable thing. The next 5 years are going to be an interesting time, that's for sure.
 
They don't care about the album, they don't care about the artist. They just want their favorite song that week to be their ringtone, or what have you.

Last year sometime, I began referring to pop music as "ringtone music", so I completely understand and agree with your entire post.

Places like Best Buy have proven that a CD can be sold for less than $10 new...but they buy up a lot more to be able to sell than your average indie store or online distro, so they don't pay as much for them. I know when my first Line Of Fire album came out, with pressing, art, mixing, mastering, drums (we recorded everything else) a 1,000 count pressing ended up costing my label about $4.25 per CD...I don't know if I should say all that, but it is what it is. A CD at this rate can be sold for $8 and still turn a profit.
 
Another case of "Big Brother".

I do NOT agree with Illegal downloading, but honestly, a lot of people did this shit in the 1980's... Borrowing a tape from a friend and then dubbing it onto a blank tape. Hell how many tape players were DESIGNED to dub one tape to another?

With the internet though, it's more easily traced and trackable.

I'd be more opposed to illegal downloading if it hurt the artists directly, but I think it helps them to a small extent. (Getting new bands out, etc). Everything I've downloaded has been legal, but if the fat cat execs at record companies would pay their bands their fair share, I would be up in arms more. Don't believe me? Let me show you the bands who are travelling around in a broken down bus, paying for their own hotels, parking, etc. Yeah I know it's part of the biz and I understand it, but if the illegal downloading was hurting the artists as much as they say... they wouldn't be paying all their own expenses in the first place, losing money on ever tour.

Where is this 2 million going and how much are the artists who were illegally downloaded going to get? I'd almost place my life savings on a whopping $0.00 going to the "hurt" artist.

-MetalRose
 
Let's just make sure we distinguish from those who download then buy, and those who just download. I download several hundred CDs a year. I buy about a 100. If everyone followed that model, the record company wouldn't be suing anyone, they'd be too busy hiring accountants to count their money.

Zod

This is the ABSOLUTE crux of the downloading issue, right here. The record labels and bands are losing 75% of probable sales because you only purchase 25% of what you have heard.

They wouldn't be counting any money, because what successful busines makes a profit if a customer only pays 25% of the time?

Downloading a full album prior to a purchase is completely unnecessary when you can usually find enough material on myspace, youtube, and other streaming websites. Hell, bands now put their entire new albums up for streaming about a week before its release.

I don't see any reason for someoen to brag about the fact that they buy 100 cd's a year, supporting bands and the industry, when they freely admit to having illegally obtained 4 times that amount.
 
Another case of "Big Brother".

I do NOT agree with Illegal downloading, but honestly, a lot of people did this shit in the 1980's... Borrowing a tape from a friend and then dubbing it onto a blank tape. Hell how many tape players were DESIGNED to dub one tape to another?

How many of those tapes sounded like shit compared to the original recording? Nobody had a problem with it because the people that did obtain them had an inferior recording.

The technology now allows for near perfect copies to be duplicated and distributed illegally online, thus enabling people to avoid buying the real thing.
 
How many of those tapes sounded like shit compared to the original recording? Nobody had a problem with it because the people that did obtain them had an inferior recording.

The technology now allows for near perfect copies to be duplicated and distributed illegally online, thus enabling people to avoid buying the real thing.

Tapes sounded like shit anyway. If you copy a cd 8-15 times, the 15th copy still isn't going to be perfect. (As long as you keep them in the same generation and don't deviate). At that point, some CD's wont play in older machines. Yes, it is a better sound quality, but it's a moot point, IMHO.

-MetalRose
 
The future music sales will happen in device bundled packages like the Comes With Music by Nokia.

On December 4, 2007, Nokia unveiled their plans for the "Nokia Comes With Music" initiative, a program that would partner with Universal Music Group International and Sony BMG to bundle a year's worth of unlimited, DRM-encumbered downloads with the purchase of a Nokia phone. Following the termination of the year of free downloads, tracks can be kept without having to renew the subscription. Downloads will be both PC and mobile-based

In practice the customer will select a certain phone model and will be tied to pay monthly fee for 12 months for the rights to download any tracks they like from a huge pool of music consisting of Universal's and BGM's back cataloghs. Millions of tracks to choose from.

When you think of it, first thought might be "wtf" free downloads for a year and all yours to keep for only - say $10 a month - but the beauty of the plot lies in the huge volumes of cell phone owners. Make them pay $10 (just an example) each a month for the music and no CD sales will ever top that steady income. And the costs of delivery: virtually nothing. Now, how many cellphones there were in the world? Let's start with getting 0.1 % of them in our pool this year and then proceed from that...
 
Last year sometime, I began referring to pop music as "ringtone music", so I completely understand and agree with your entire post.

Places like Best Buy have proven that a CD can be sold for less than $10 new...but they buy up a lot more to be able to sell than your average indie store or online distro, so they don't pay as much for them. I know when my first Line Of Fire album came out, with pressing, art, mixing, mastering, drums (we recorded everything else) a 1,000 count pressing ended up costing my label about $4.25 per CD...I don't know if I should say all that, but it is what it is. A CD at this rate can be sold for $8 and still turn a profit.

Off topic here, but when are we going to see a second Line of Fire disc? I know Nikki has had some health problems.
 
If you have file sharing programs installed on your computer with 1800 MP3's shared, it's a pretty safe bet that it's used for the purposes of sharing and illegally downloading music.

Of course, you realize, that speculation that a crime is happening isn't proof that a crime is happening. The idea that the jury seems to think it is is absolutely appaling to me, and should be to anyone else. I'd also like to know where mediasentry gets the legal right to invade my privacy.

I suppose you can argue that the more money riding on the outcome of a game, the greater the likelihood of it being fixed. However, it seems that's not the argument used for keeping it illegal. Typically, the underlying argument for that is, gambling is a sin. Unless it's state sponsored, like the lottery, than it's OK.

Well that's stupid.

Where is this 2 million going and how much are the artists who were illegally downloaded going to get? I'd almost place my life savings on a whopping $0.00 going to the "hurt" artist.

This is a good question that comes up a lot. And you're right. The Artists never see a dime of this lawsuit money.
 
Of course, you realize, that speculation that a crime is happening isn't proof that a crime is happening. The idea that the jury seems to think it is is absolutely appaling to me, and should be to anyone else. I'd also like to know where mediasentry gets the legal right to invade my privacy.

In this case, Mediasentry downloaded illegally hosted MP3's from a file sharing program. You give up your right to privacy when you upload items onto the internet for sharing with others. She didn't put them into Kazaa for private use. It's not like they hacked into your bank account to see if you actually used a debit card to buy the cd.

The quote that I showed above completely admits that while there is no proof to be offered that someone else downloaded an MP3 from this person, the fact that they have MP3's loaded into a file sharing program on their computer is sufficient enough to suspect guilt (i.e. MOTIVE.). Obviously the jury agreed, and rightfully so.