[U.S.] Major copyright bill boosts penalties, creates new agency

[Ænima]

Who's stealing? What's being stolen?"

Incidentally, the rights of distribution of the music otherwise distributed by the RIAA is being stolen. Assuming the right to distribute that music freely deprives the R*AA money, the extent of which is unforeseeable without complete surveillance. That is also why these fines are so high. They are giving the R*AA the benefit of the doubt. If those 24 songs were likely to have been copied by ~915.67 (22,000/24 - 1; or more clearly (22,000-24)/24) people, and since that woman is held responsible as the distributor, it is perfectly reasonable to sue that woman for 22,000 dollars.

[Aaxel21]

I still don't think they any right to sue somebody that much money. How can they actually prove that because this lady was sharing 24 songs that the label lost somewhere in the means of $222,000. How do they actually prove losses in court?

[Ænima]

I still don't think they any right to sue somebody that much money. How can they actually prove that because this lady was sharing 24 songs that the label lost somewhere in the means of $222,000. How do they actually prove losses in court?

With the premise that those who pirate a song would otherwise buy it. Although this is only true circumstantially, I guess the court of law must assume it...
Do not forget that as a distributor, one is responsible for that which one distributes.

[orfik]

I still don't think they any right to sue somebody that much money. How can they actually prove that because this lady was sharing 24 songs that the label lost somewhere in the means of $222,000. How do they actually prove losses in court?

The verdict had little to do with her. She's a sacrificial lamb -- that amount is a warning to us. It's supposed to be so outrageous that we stop pirating out of fear. It has failed.

[tusks]

You know what the irony is? I've bought more CDs since I started pirating music than ever before. People don't want to go out and buy a CD not knowing if they're going to like the songs on it. This just proves they'll never understand pirating from the consumers point of view. If I really enjoy something, I'll go out and buy the product. If its sh*t and I'm never gonna use it, I feel I should have the right to not spend money on it. So they can sue these fools out of their minds but they're only making enemies and creating more pirates out of spite.

[orfik]

You know what the irony is? I've bought more CDs since I started pirating music than ever before. People don't want to go out and buy a CD not knowing if they're going to like the songs on it. This just proves they'll never understand pirating from a consumers point of view.

I couldn't agree more.

[Ænima]

If I really enjoy something, I'll go out and buy the product.

I call BS on this. Why would you buy the CD when you can download it in FLAC and create and Exact Copy using EAC?

You would go to the artists' concerts and buy their merchandise, however, as a way to support them. But buying their CDs after having downloaded them is completely impractical.

I won't assume your particular reasons, but it's logically unsound to assume that the general population of music pirates engage in the same economic practice; and then posit that as a reason why "they'll never understand pirating from the consumers point of view," which then you use to deduce that this lawsuit somehow generates spite among the entire population - thereby creating more pirates.

If anything, this lawsuit evokes fear out of the pirates and displays justice to rest of the population. Will that stop piracy, lol? Not when the risk is low...

[orfik]

If I really enjoy something, I'll go out and buy the product.

I call BS on this. Why would you buy the CD when you can download it in FLAC and create and Exact Copy using EAC?

You would go to the artists' concerts and buy their merchandise, however, as a way to support them. But buying their CDs after having downloaded them is completely impractical.

I won't assume your particular reasons, but it's logically unsound to assume that the general population of music pirates engage in the same economic practice; and then posit that as a reason why "they'll never understand pirating from the consumers point of view," which then you use to deduce that this lawsuit somehow generates spite among the entire population - thereby creating more pirates.

If anything, this lawsuit evokes fear out of the pirates and displays justice to rest of the population. Will that stop piracy, lol? Not when the risk is low...

While I think you're right about his argument not being a real justification for file-sharing, it brings up an important point: consumers want to consume. If we can do it for free, fine, but we're not against spending money on something we feel is worth it. I prioritize music more highly now than ever not because I can get it for free, but because its availability allowed me to discover more artists in more genres at a rate that would have been impossible if I were paying for it. Now I go to more concerts, buy more CDs, and faithfully support the artists I care about because their survival is important to me, and I don't think that attitude is rare.

Frankly, the RIAA isn't profiting off of the artists I listen to. They're protecting their cash cows; the cookie-cutter pop garbage that's in danger of capsizing precisely because even the people who genuinely enjoy it aren't stupid enough to buy it.

[Ænima]

While I think you're right about his argument not being a real justification for file-sharing, it brings up an important point: consumers want to consume. If we can do it for free, fine, but we're not against spending money on something we feel is worth it. I prioritize music more highly now than ever not because I can get it for free, but because its availability allowed me to discover more artists in more genres at a rate that would have been impossible if I were paying for it. Now I go to more concerts, buy more CDs, and faithfully support the artists I care about because their survival is important to me, and I don't think that attitude is rare.

Frankly, the RIAA isn't profiting off of the artists I listen to. They're protecting their cash cows; the cookie-cutter pop garbage that's in danger of capsizing precisely because even the people who genuinely enjoy it aren't stupid enough to buy it.

I was only arguing against the notion that piracy encourages more CD sales, which most worries the R*AA because they have the right to control and make profits from the distribution of the music, which is intellectual property, whether it be in the form of CDs or through the internet.

Your last paragraph may be true, but it incorrectly reflects the general population, whether you intended it to or not. The "pop garbage" you call those under the wing of the R*AA produces the most popular music, which produces the most CD sales and also the most snatches on a torrent tracker.

[Aaxel21]

While I think you're right about his argument not being a real justification for file-sharing, it brings up an important point: consumers want to consume. If we can do it for free, fine, but we're not against spending money on something we feel is worth it. I prioritize music more highly now than ever not because I can get it for free, but because its availability allowed me to discover more artists in more genres at a rate that would have been impossible if I were paying for it. Now I go to more concerts, buy more CDs, and faithfully support the artists I care about because their survival is important to me, and I don't think that attitude is rare.

Frankly, the RIAA isn't profiting off of the artists I listen to. They're protecting their cash cows; the cookie-cutter pop garbage that's in danger of capsizing precisely because even the people who genuinely enjoy it aren't stupid enough to buy it.

I agree with you consumers wanting to consume, but I think they are not keeping up with current demand. Yes there is a demand for cds but not like there use to be. Cds are going the way of the dinosaur like the black vinyl records. The demand is for mp3, which the record industrie is not supplying at all. Sure there is iTunes but the quality lacks. I believe they are forcing the consumer to resort to pirating to get a mp3. Why carry several cds around when you can carry an 80gig ipod with all of your music. And now that cars are starting to come with built in hard drives who wants to carry a bunch of cds that are bound to get scratched in the car. Plus the price for an mp3 on iTunes, taking in mind the quality, is outragous. It makes you wonder why they don't get with the game. All they do is go hide in a corner and let there minions do there dirty work. Someone should sue them for not getting with the times. It seems like instead of selling cds they now profit from lawsuits. Not a great way of doing business with your customers.