Woman fined $1.9 million for illegal downloads

[dcowboys311]

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.

Would you purchase a new car without taking it for a test drive?
Would you buy a house without going inside and taking a look?
Would you pick up a suit without trying it on?

So what makes music any different?

Zod never stated that he enjoys the albums that he downloads and doesn't purchase, yet you've jumped to the conclusion that he does.
Maybe he doesn't and then deletes them?

I'm not here to justify his or anybody's downloading habits, but I fully support downloading an album before you buy it to see if you would actually like it. Often times, youtube rips and myspace streams are very poor quality. Hell, I don't even listen to myspace rips because it's easier for me to download the album and I get a better picture of the true essence of the album. If I like it, I might buy it (although these days, I don't really buy CDs anymore since I'd much rather pick up a vinyl).

 

[edgeofthorns]

We have the means to cut Mexico's water off?

...trust me Ratanda, don't drink it!

Let's just hope they don't retaliate by cutting off our supply of tequila.

Zod

~Brian~

 

[nailz]

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.

Holy crap, I get it now, you're totally right. Lets start locking people with guns up too, cause they probably want to kill people, Because owning a gun is sufficient enough to suspect guilt.

Oh and we should be able to search people's houses who leave their doors unlocked to find these gun owners, too.

Please. :Smug: If they can obtain what I'm doing on the internet without a legal search warrant, what's stopping them from monitoring and policing EVERYTHING? I hate to be the slippery slope guy, and I haven't used P2P since WinMX, but the fact that you're behind this illegal snooping is abhorrent.

 

[ICEDEARTHFAN]

Holy crap, I get it now, you're totally right. Lets start locking people with guns up too, cause they probably want to kill people, Because owning a gun is sufficient enough to suspect guilt.

Oh and we should be able to search people's houses who leave their doors unlocked to find these gun owners, too.

Please. :Smug: If they can obtain what I'm doing on the internet without a legal search warrant, what's stopping them from monitoring and policing EVERYTHING? I hate to be the slippery slope guy, and I haven't used P2P since WinMX, but the fact that you're behind this illegal snooping is abhorrent.

Nailz,if you're toting,please unload before it goes boom!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[J-Dubya 777]

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.

As Boob said, in some places, it's legal. Not every prostitute is a victim of slavery. The movie "Taken" isn't a blueprint for the world's "oldest profession".

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.

Bullshit. Sure you could. Just because Jack Daniels is legal doesn't mean true, honest to goodness moonshine is, or has to be..... Cannibis is at least natural, where meth & heroin are processed before hitting the street....

They're all addictive and alter one's use of judgement no matter how you look at it.

If you're even hinting at cannibis with the blanket statement of them being "...all addictive" You just pegged my bullshit meter. Cannibis can be used recreationally just like having a beer after work. Some people can't stop drinking once they start, some people can't stop smoking pot once they start, some people are addicted to masturbation, but these people have other "issues" that fuel their addictions. I have nothing personally against you, but every time I see the circa 1930's Refer Madness mentality, it makes my blood boil. I know you mentioned MJ maybe not being as bad at the beginning of your post, but I just had to reply. :Smokedev:

 

[Rycher]

Would you purchase a new car without taking it for a test drive?

You don't get to take the car home and keep it before you buy it.

Would you buy a house without going inside and taking a look?

You don't get to move in until you buy it.

Would you pick up a suit without trying it on?

You don't get to take it home without buying it. See a pattern here?

So what makes music any different?

There are plenty of legal ways to sample music through myspace, youtube, and any other site that allows streaming samples. Who cares if it's poor quality or not? It's good enough to give you an idea as to whether or not you like it.

The problem with illegally downloading music is that it isn't a test drive, or a temporary situation. You can keep those files for as long as you want. It's not a fair comparison to talk about test driving cars or trying on clothes, because you can't leave the grounds with the product in hand.

Illegally downloading music gives you the chance to do so, and have a 99-100% quality copy of the final product without paying a cent for it - and that is why it's wrong.

 

[adaher]

The part I dispute is how much sales they are actually losing. A downloaded album does not equal an album that would have been bought otherwise. If someone was buying 5 albums per month and downloading nothing in 2000, but buys 5 albums per month and downloads 20 in 2009, the record company and artists have not suffered a net loss.

While I don't think there is any question that downloading is wrong, I do question whether it's actually doing damage that would justify the kinds of enforcement efforts the RIAA favors.

I'm also not sure that even the ease of downloading has increased piracy. Back in the day, I used to tape off the radio, an activity that has actually been upheld as legal by the Supreme Court. I must have owned the entire Def Leppard Hysteria album. While downloading an album is certainly not "fair use", how about if I downloaded an album that's being streamed for free on an artists' web page? Although the artist doesn't want me to download a stream, the artist also wouldn't want me taping off a radio show and I fail to see much difference in those cases.

If an artists offers something for free, it's not just going to be used under the terms the artist desires, and courts have upheld that they cannot enforce the limited use they desire through the court system.

 

[General 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.

You missed my point.

I bought 100 CDs out of the 400 I downloaded, because the other 300 CDs were crap. I delete those files, as hard drive space is at a premium. Do you really think I would have bought 400 CDs blind? In the pre-digital age, I never bought more than 30 or 40 releases a year. Your argument that my downloading habits caused a 75% reduction simply isn't true.

Without MP3s, I probably would have bought 25 CDs, as I have no desire to buy CDs blind. The ability to download, with respect to my buying habits, increased CD sales by 400%.

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

I'm sorry. This suggests you're missing the "crux" of the issue.

The act of downloading, in and of itself, doesn't impact sales. The decision not to purchase CDs, because you now have the digital files, impacts sales.

If every man, woman and child bought 100 CDs last year, as I did, CD sales in the U.S. would have totaled 300 billion. As t is, the industry sold one tenth that number in 2008; 363 million. So... you're argument is, the record industry would not be pleased by increasing their sales tenfold?

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.

It would be unnecessary if these files didn't sound like crap. If sampling in this manner works for you, that's your call.

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.

I wasn't "bragging". Why would I brag about buying 100 CDs, when I know people who buy twice that number? I was merely using myself as an example. I can't speak to anyone else's purchasing habits, so I use myself. As I said, the net result of my downloading represented a 400% increase in sales for the record industry. And if everyone followed suit, the industry would be rolling in money.

Zod

 

[ICEDEARTHFAN]

I wonder who would have been "the band that first sued" if not for Metallica? It's strange some people say if you download our type of metal,you don't have to worry because they don't care about it,yet it was a Metal band that started the suing.........maybe all the artists that sue and win should have to pay Metallica a portion of the winnings=)

 

[lady_space]

im not a big fan of downloading just any bands song, but it happens. i think bands have to come to terms with reality and try to use the internet/downloading thing to their advantage rather than just complain about it.

You'd think more people would realize that makes sense.


Also, on a tangent... how many people think buying a used CD is wrong? The artists don't make a dime off that either. But somehow that's not only legal, it's acceptable. Why is that??

I am in the boat with Zod--downloading makes me buy (though sometimes it may take a while) more than I would buy otherwise. The stuff I download and don't buy I wouldn't have bought anyway, so there is NO LOSS to the label, artist, whatever. While I do have sympathy for artists, I have zero for the big record labels. But in the end, how much money does your typical metal band make off album sales? Really? It's next to nothing. Buy a T-shirt.

I doubt anyone here will change their opinion because of this thread. No one ever does.

Shaye

 

[General Zod]

Here's the other aspect people may not to recognize... not all artists take an antagonistic view of what's going on. Many of the artists I've spoken with feel the wide availability of their music has helped them get their name out there. And many recognize that Metal fans are more likely to buy the CDs they download, than a Pop music fan.

Zod

 

[booB]

If every man, woman and child bought 100 CDs last year, as I did, CD sales in the U.S. would have totaled 300 billion. As t is, the industry sold one tenth that number in 2008; 363 million. So... you're argument is, the record industry would not be pleased by increasing their sales tenfold?

Those babies still don't know how to download music! Although I think they're using Twitter in the womb now.

 

[General Zod]

Those babies still don't know how to download music! Although I think they're using Twitter in the womb now.

Zod

 

[Stingray11214]

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

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

Spending billions to fence off Mexico, so that they can't sell us the drugs we want, and so they can 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.

Cheers...

Zod

Zod, I agree with you on the legalization point. The problem is what are you going to do with all the unemployed cops, correction officers, counselors and whatnot because of the legalization of narcotics? That is all what the "War on druugs was: A WPA jobs program for law enforcement.

 

[ICEDEARTHFAN]

Zod, I agree with you on the legalization point. The problem is what are you going to do with all the unemployed cops, correction officers, counselors and whatnot because of the legalization of narcotics? That is all what the "War on druugs was: A WPA jobs program for law enforcement.

I hear McDonalds is hiring........

 

[OrbWeaver]

Zod, I agree with you on the legalization point. The problem is what are you going to do with all the unemployed cops, correction officers, counselors and whatnot because of the legalization of narcotics? That is all what the "War on druugs was: A WPA jobs program for law enforcement.

Wow, this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. If drugs became legal, it is highly unlikely that these people would be out of a job. People don't stop driving drunk because alcohol is legal, they won't stop driving high because pot may one day be legal. Crime will not stop if drugs are made legal, so there will always be a need for police and corrections officers. And guess what? Addiction sure as hell won't go away just because drugs are made legal. So addictions counselors will still be in demand.

 

[No-Mercy]

You'd think more people would realize that makes sense.


Also, on a tangent... how many people think buying a used CD is wrong? The artists don't make a dime off that either. But somehow that's not only legal, it's acceptable. Why is that??

But in the end, how much money does your typical metal band make off album sales? Really? It's next to nothing. Buy a T-shirt.

ha yea, more people should realize that. technology is going to advance, step up to the curve and make it work for you!

and yea, that used cd thing is true. i know some people who buy one cd and pass it around for everyone to burn it to their computer...though alot of companies now are encrypting them so you can only do it once...LAME.

 

[General Zod]

Wow, this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. If drugs became legal, it is highly unlikely that these people would be out of a job.

I think he was being facetious.

Zod

 

[Magius]

I also use downloading as a sampler method, and buy the albums I like and discard the rest. I've been burned too many times by CD's released with a single or sample that is in no way representative of the album as a whole. So yes, used in this manner downloading does help artists in niche markets like the underground Metal scene.

However, there needs to be some distinction between those who use downloading, let's say "responsibly" for lack of a better word, versus the vast majority of downloaders. I know a lot of teenagers and tweenagers who have iPods and various MP3 players full of music they never paid a dime for. I also know parents in their 60's who have players full of music that their kids loaded up for them.

These aren't people looking for new bands or to sample CD's from established artists. They are downloading the exact same songs they hear on the radio, MTV, or VH1. They know exactly what they're getting, and they know they want it for free. As mainstream music far outstrips the underground metal scene, so too do the vast majority of downloaders outstip sampler users. Undoubtably those users are hurting the large labels.

Arguements abound about the reasons for decreased CD sales, including the fact that there are far more media options on which to spend disposable income. This is especilly true amoung the younger population, who mostly have limited funds to spend, and also happent to be major target customers. Without downloading buyers would at least have to make a choice. That being the case they may well decide on the CD instead of a game or movie tickets. As it is they can have both for the same investment.

Nintendo may be benefitting from higher sales of game and receiving a larger percentage of pocket money. However, one can harldy blame the music industry for being upset as it's their business that's become the sacrafical lamb in the competition.
Also it's not just "Fat Cats" that suffer from financial losses. Clerical, technical, engineering, and warehouse workers suffer also. Distribution, and marketing companies lose too. From the top of corporate down to the Mom and Pop record stores, which are almost extinct, a lot of people lose money. Those people have families to provide for, and they ain't happy.

As for the legality of the tactics of the RIAA, the Big Brother argument doesn't hold up. Private interests are not held to the same standards as the State. This isn't the FBI or FCC prosecuting cases in criminal courts. The State may be restricted by the 4th Amendment, but not individuals or companies. Anyone who suspects another of illegal activities can hire private investigators to gather evidence, and use said evidence in civil court.

In my opinion the RIAA really mishandled their problem at the start of all this. They really only succeeded in generating a lot of animosity towards themselves. I don't appreciate their tactics, but I understand why they chose to use them. In the long run it may prove to have been a big mistake; Nevertheless, it does seem as they found the support of at least 12 people in this case.

To those who think I shouldn't sample before I buy I would point out that I can buy a suit, take it home, try it on, decide I don't like it, and return it. Ever try that with a CD?
To those who think that downloading as a whole benefits the music industry... well... no.

 

[Kimavir]

Has anyone noticed that the gaming industry is a lot smarter than the music industry? This a growing, prosperous industry that is adopting viable digital distribution methods BEFORE piracy really starts to hurt it. All three current consoles have excellent means of purchasing and downloading games (not all games, not yet), and services like Steam give computer games an alternative to pirating... and, really, you've got to be really cold to pirate a $60 game when Steam says "hey, we'll put it on sale, you can have it for $10". Heck, these services even help small, independent studios (think new artists) by exposing their products to tons and tons of the exact people that might want to buy it.

I won't get into the moral aspect of pirating, but I think it's important to keep in mind that an industry can cope and even prosper in the current environment. Condemning a pirate for destroying the music industry is ignoring contrary evidence. Because, believe me, it's just as easy to steal a $60 game as it is a $13 CD. It just takes a little longer.