What do you think of the recent music file sharing case where a jury ordered a m

1. 79

   copywriter31posted 13 years ago

   What do you think of the recent music file sharing case where a jury ordered a man to pay $625,000?
   
   This person could have simply paid .99/song. Instead, he illegally stole the music from the Internet and shared the songs online.

   replyreport
2. 60

   FatFreddysCatposted 13 years ago

   It's a ridiculous amount but the recording industry needed to make an example out of somebody.

   replyreport
3. 79

   copywriter31posted 13 years ago

   Totally agree FatFreddy! I'm a recording artist, and the material I compose is MY property. I put my music on the Internet to sell. When someone steals it, it's akin to breaking in my house and taking my valuables . . . No difference between the 2.

   replyreport
4. 80

   Georgie Loweryposted 13 years ago

   I think the amount is ridiculous, too. Comparatively, if someone gets caught shoplifting, their restitution is usually the cost of the item they stole. Does this dude have to pay the money to the music companies he lifted the music from, or is that mostly fines?
   
   Seriously, though, it has to stop somewhere.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      copywriter31posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure where the money goes. I would bet half goes to the publishers and half to the record companies. The excessive amount is enough to scare most people from even thinking about file sharing in the future.

      replyreport
5. 83

   John Sarkisposted 13 years ago

   The amount is ridiculous, but that's what happens.  The law always uses someone as an escape goat to prove their point.  So happens that it was this individual's unlucky---should say very unlucky day.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      copywriter31posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The amount is excessive for this reason: ANYONE now thinking of bypassing the 99 cents at iTunes, will think long and hard about file sharing (stealing) music for sale on the Internet!

      replyreport
6. 61

   Kiss andTalesposted 13 years ago

   I think it is a another way to keep people from taking and not buying, a lesson out of the pocket!

   replyreport
   1. 79

      copywriter31posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yep! A huge lesson!

      replyreport
7. 75

   Cobrafanposted 13 years ago

   I think the fine amounts are ridiculous. While I agree that he was breaking the law and he should be punished, the amount he has to pay is beyond absurd. $625,000 for downloading 30 songs? This is just corruption at its finest. In my opinion, he should have to pay what the songs cost online plus a fine, but nothing near 6 figures. We should all start recording songs and hoping someone illegally downloads them if courts are going to order offenders to pay out over $22,000 per illegally downloaded song. 3 illegally downloaded songs a year and you can live pretty comfortably.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      copywriter31posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting take ...

      replyreport
8. 0

   Larry Wallposted 13 years ago

   I have been having this argument with people for years. There is an attitude that if its on the web, I can have it and do what I want to.
   
   WHen we checked out real books at the library, and purchased LPs or eight tracks tapes, we would loan the to people. It was not practical to copy. Now, you download an I Tune, pay the 99 cents the make a 1,000 copies for your closent friends and charge 25 cents. In turn, they do the same thing.
   
   I think the fine was appropriate. Once you steal an electronic recording, there is no telling how many times it will be resold or how many times the second layers of recipients will sell, thus robbing the Artist, the writers, the musicians and producers of income. I am not a musician in any way, shape or form. I have had people take some material I had written and called it their own and I did not like that.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      copywriter31posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Very well said, Larry. I am a recording artist and I could not have worded your contribution any better! I remember walking into a record store, choosing a vinyl 33 1/3 album, walking to the checkout stand AND PAYING FOR IT...Imagine that!

      replyreport
9. 60

   Bob Ferreiraposted 13 years ago

   I think the fine is outrageous, but it was not levied to him for downloading - it was the UPLOADING (file sharing) that they got him for. Illegally sharing music is the problem, not downloading it.
   
   I have been downloading music for years. I have found out about many, many artists from doing this, and in turn have gone to their concerts, bought merchandise from them, and also (on occasion) full albums. If it wasn't for "illegally downloading" their music in the first place, I wouldn't have given them the money I had purchasing their other items.
   
   And since artists make almost NOTHING on album sales (especially those that aren't at the level of U2 or Metallica, etc) then downloading their songs are only going to HELP them in the long run. It is that way that will lead to more ticket and merchandise sales, and that's where bands make their real money.
   
   I know artists signed to major, international record labels who still make nothing on their albums, and are all for sharing their music and giving it away for free. It's called exposure, and that's how people find you. And people finding you is what is going to make you money.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      copywriter31posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Some good thoughts, Bob. You are correct in saying signed artists make a laughable % on CD sales. But there are 1000s of independent artists (like myself) who can't afford to tour. We indies are taking the brunt of file sharing, aka stealing.

      replyreport