[Scotty]

This just in, illegally downloading two CDs worth of songs is worth a fine ten thousand times greater than that for drunk driving.

Yay, we've got our priorities straight.

[Kosh]

This just in, illegally downloading two CDs worth of songs is worth a fine ten thousand times greater than that for drunk driving.

Yay, we've got our priorities straight.

But in the case of drunk driving you could actually kill some no named soccer mom whereas if you pirate a song you deprive a rich person of potential bonus money, which do you think the politicians are going to find more valuable?


Actually come to think of it, since the MPAA was busted pirating software a few years back why weren't they fined a million dollars? Better yet, can we use the same BS they did, that they were only testing it?

[Mikes]

All this is required you see, because that's the law we have, so it is by definition morally correct, Ghostavo.

That sentence doesn't even work as a sarcastic remark for me. Law =! Morals is just too obvious.

again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If i do something illegal and get busted for it, its my own damn fault, plain and simple. Unlike some people, i'll take responsibility for my actions, what ever they may be.

If you lived 70 years ago... then one week in Nazi Germany would quickly have cured you of such blind trust in "the law".

As others have pointed out, you need history lessons, badly.

[Vertigo 7]

All this is required you see, because that's the law we have, so it is by definition morally correct, Ghostavo.

That sentence doesn't even work as a sarcastic remark for me. Law =! Morals is just too obvious.

again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If i do something illegal and get busted for it, its my own damn fault, plain and simple. Unlike some people, i'll take responsibility for my actions, what ever they may be.

If you lived 70 years ago... then one week in Nazi Germany would quickly have cured you of such blind trust in "the law".

As others have pointed out, you need history lessons, badly.

if i lived 70 years ago in germany, i wouldn't be here today. thats just stupid. Also, i never once said i had blind trust in the law. You're suffering from a problem that most of you net nerds suffer from and are making too many assumptions on how i live my life. I obey the law, i pay my taxes, i vote. I understand that adult life means responsiblity and consiquences. Why don't i break the law? You think its because i'm ascared of the police? You think maybe its because I don't wanna go to jail and get fined... Well to answer the first question, no, why the **** would i be afraid of the police? If i don't do anything to break the law, i'm not going to have any official dealings with them.

To answer the 2nd question... hell no i don't want to go to jail or get fined. I've got too many other things id rather be doing with my time, and i don't need to do anything illegal to enjoy myself either. I think you folks need a lesson in reality. You do stupid ****, you may end up paying for it.

Really... none of this is hard. Be a decent f'n person and you won't have trouble.... atleast in my life experiences, thats always been the case. I can't speak for anyone else. I do know that if you end up on the wrong side of the law, you'll get **** on.

So please mr man, give me a history lesson that will show me the error of my ways so i can be a ftard like all these other folks that are getting sued, cuz... hell yeah, why not, let me join in all the fun. You seem to have all the answers. Or... is this a case of trying to fight the system cuz its the cool thing to do?

[Spicious]

Also, i never once said i had blind trust in the law.

You never said it, but it's fairly obvious from your other statements, e.g.

If i don't do anything to break the law, i'm not going to have any official dealings with them.

It really isn't that hard to find examples of how unfounded that assumption is. Just from today: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml.

i don't need to do anything illegal to enjoy myself either.

Do you have a complete understanding of the laws in your country? As you said

again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Luis Dias]

I thought you were done with the thread.

[Vertigo 7]

Also, i never once said i had blind trust in the law.

You never said it, but it's fairly obvious from your other statements, e.g.

If i don't do anything to break the law, i'm not going to have any official dealings with them.

It really isn't that hard to find examples of how unfounded that assumption is. Just from today: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml.

i don't need to do anything illegal to enjoy myself either.

Do you have a complete understanding of the laws in your country? As you said

again as ive stated, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Nope, I don't. I doubt anyone does... however, I know claiming "i didn't know" in court wouldn't get me forgivness for comitting a crime. I'm not part of some activist group, so its not an unfounded assumption, its a fact... FBI won't show up at my door, and even if for some odd reason they did, i don't have anything to worry about. I don't do things that could be misconstrued as terrorisim. I don't look at kiddie porn... i don't pirate software, movies, music, etc. I don't steal from folks, i don't break into peoples houses/businesses/cars. I don't harass folks... I could sit here for days listing things that I don't do that would cause attention from the authorities to be brought to me.

I can sit here and say with 100% assuredness that i will never end up in jail for committing a crime. Is it possible that I get arrested cuz of mistaken identity? sure... anything's possible... i could also build a rocket in my back yard and take a weekend trip to the moon, but both scenerios are pretty damn unlikely.

If you live under constant fear of the police kicking down your door, that's your life. I don't.

[Klaustrophobia]

how did you get onto fear of the police?  no one said anything about that.  for someone calling us all "net nerds," you're displaying an awful lot of net rage symptoms yourself.

[General Battuta]

If you live under constant fear of the police kicking down your door, that's your life. I don't.

Well, to be fair, if SWAT can accidentally raid the mayor's house and shoot his dogs, it could happen to you...

[Mikes]

In any case, back on topic.

Anyone remember this little gem? http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

Nothing shows more clearly how hypocritical the music industry and the laws they lobby for really is in my humble opinion.
Law? Guess that only applies to defenseless/poor citizens and not to the record companies themselves.


I'm curious how you want to justify that one Vertigo. I.e. How is it ok to ruin that woman's life on the one hand, but give the record companies a free pass for the same crime - actually worse crime, as the record companies used copyright infringement for profit on a large scale - on the other?

It's as nonsensical as the difference in punishment for shoplifting and downloading the same songs in my eyes.

Double standards. That's justice huh?

[Luis Dias]

Forget about Vertigo's radical opinions, if you want a real good debate about this subject .


But I guess that would be boring, since I can see that we are all (except Vertigo) on the same page give or take a few notches.

[Vertigo 7]

In any case, back on topic.

Anyone remember this little gem? http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

Nothing shows more clearly how hypocritical the music industry and the laws they lobby for really is in my humble opinion.
Law? Guess that only applies to defenseless/poor citizens and not to the record companies themselves.


I'm curious how you want to justify that one Vertigo. I.e. How is it ok to ruin that woman's life on the one hand, but give the record companies a free pass for the same crime - actually worse crime, as the record companies used copyright infringement for profit on a large scale - on the other?

It's as nonsensical as the difference in punishment for shoplifting and downloading the same songs in my eyes.

Double standards. That's justice huh?

What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.

BTW that woman was offered a chance to settle out of court for a pittance and refused. http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415.

[Luis Dias]

According to Timesonline, the RIAA has sued thousands of people for illegally downloading or sharing music, but most settle for $3,000 to $5,000.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415#ixzz1PwmrSFcA

This is outright extorsion and oppression and these corporate crooks should be shot in their heads.

[Vertigo 7]

Forget about Vertigo's radical opinions, if you want a real good debate about this subject .


But I guess that would be boring, since I can see that we are all (except Vertigo) on the same page give or take a few notches.

Yes, im totally radical cuz i disagree with you... give me a break.

[Vertigo 7]

According to Timesonline, the RIAA has sued thousands of people for illegally downloading or sharing music, but most settle for $3,000 to $5,000.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415#ixzz1PwmrSFcA

This is outright extorsion and oppression and these corporate crooks should be shot in their heads.

Really? thats your answer? Ya know, from what i gather from your posts it just seems to me you want to defend the underdog and damn the man for coming down hard on folks that piss in their cherios.

[Luis Dias]

I don't think you would understand me. You think that copying a cd music and being fined 1.9 million dollars is all part of a just system. Reaching this level of absurdity, nothing more is left to say really.

[Vertigo 7]

Hrm... lets see, she was sued for distribution, on a case which alleged over 1000 songs and could have initially been a fine of millions (btw this was a federal trial so minnesota statutes wouldn't have applied) and was found guilty for 24 of them after refusing settle out of court. she then appealed this and the court awarded damages of 1.whatever million.

It's not like they came at her with the intention of getting that much money... but she forced their hand and they fought back. They were well within their rights to do so, as was she well within her rights to try to fight them. Either way, that doesn't excuse her actions, never will, so i'll sit back here in my comfy air conditioned home and lawl at the results of her illegal activities.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah I know she forced them to make her pay basically two million dollars.

For copying 24 songs.

And you still don't get it. I'm astonished at that, that's all.

[Mikes]

What? Who said they're getting away with it?

Oh they very much got away with it.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/
http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music

They ended up paying 45 Million (instead of the 6 Billion they would have owed by their own standards set for copyright infringement.)
That's for over 300.000 songs... in Canada alone. And mind you... they not only downloaded/copied them... they actual sold them and made a profit .

The best part (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/11/0615258/Record-Labels-To-Pay-For-Copyright-Infringement):

"Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., EMI Music Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. have agreed to pay songwriters and music publishers $47.5 million in damages for copyright infringement and overdue royalties to settle a class action lawsuit. 'The 2008 class action alleges that the record companies "exploited" music owners by reproducing and selling in excess of 300,000 song titles without securing licenses from the copyright owners and/or without paying the associated royalty payments. The record companies knowingly did so and kept a so-called "pending list" of unlicensed reproductions, setting aside $50 million for the issue, if it ever arose, court filings suggest.'"

See... they actually set aside the money "in case the issue ever arose" and not only profitted from selling the pirated songs the whole time but also collected interest on the money they set aside "just in case"... and they ended up paying even less than they set aside in advance, all the while fully knowing that they were engaging in illegal behavior as part of their "regular business practice". It took a class action suit to make them pay anything. The amount they had to pay is insignificant. It doesn't hurt them. It's even less than they already set aside. They'll prolly call it an unexpected net 5 Million profit.

Finally, from the second article (http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music):

The major issues that led to this dispute are not resolved though. After paying off a small part of their debt the labels can continue to ‘pirate’ artists’ music as usual, using their work and placing the outstanding payments on a pending list for decades. A real solution would require the licensing system to change, and that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.

So yeah... I guess that picture in the second article applies to you as well.


But yes of course... the woman who downloads 24 songs for private use - i.e. not even for profit - needs to have her life permanently ruined... because... ?

[Vertigo 7]

oh no, i get it. you feel like its proportionately out of whack. If we do the math here... say she was offered to settle for 5000, that would have ended up less than $5 per song that the record company discovered on her PC, maybe a little steep but she was cought with her hand in the cookie jar so to speak and in all good sense, prolly should have just paid it and been done with it. instead, she took it to court, they obliged her... could only prove 24 songs were distributed, jury assesed damages of 220,000. I don't know if that requires a unamious jury verdict or not, either way, other folks out there thought she should have to pay. she then appealed this and another jury assessed damages of nearly 2 million. Again, other people out there thought this was fair and she needed to pay even more money.

If you're trying to get me to say its too much money, id give up now because i wont say that. This case was fought and she lossed twice more than 2 years ago and no matter what i say can change that.

If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.