The RIAA is making enemies behaving like this. They're acting like bullies and cutting off their own two feet in the process.
How many of us have bought albums after stumbling on new tunes on YouTube that we never knew existed? I do, all the time! People posting their stuff helps them make sales. For many, file sharing leads to purchases because you can't get the same sound quality online as you do with a CD.
I could go on and on about the RIAA and their partners abusing the DMCA by claiming every mp3 on the planet belongs to them (which is my personal beef as they've made my distribution of free hypnosis sessions a living nightmare).
If the RIAA business model sucks, then they ought to consider changing it in a way that works for everyone.
Recording Industry Succeeds In Ruining a Kid's Life Over 31 Songs: Just or Unjust?
Fergie
2012/08/24 22:29:38
|
|
|||||
|
42 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
285 votes
|
|
87% | |||
In the early days of Napster, Kazaa and Limewire, I downloaded songs "illegally" (who remembers the Grey album?) almost every day. There was a period of at least a year during which I had no idea it was illegal, in fact the only risk I was concerned about was accidentally downloading a virus. Joel Tenenbaum also used these same programs I did and has now been prosecuted for illegally distributing 31 songs. His punishment: $675,000 and a character assassination.
Supposedly, he could have been hit with a $4.65 million dollar penalty, but the jury was lenient. Was prosecuting Joel for his crime just? Or are they merely making an example out of him? Seems like there were plenty of users with thousands of songs that they could have gone after instead.
GIZMODO.COM reports:
Supposedly, he could have been hit with a $4.65 million dollar penalty, but the jury was lenient. Was prosecuting Joel for his crime just? Or are they merely making an example out of him? Seems like there were plenty of users with thousands of songs that they could have gone after instead.
GIZMODO.COM reports:
Yesterday marked the end of Joel Tenenbaum's court battle with the RIAA over 31 songs he illegally distributed on Kazaa. A federal judge denied his latest appeal, and now he's on the hook for $675,000. That's nearly $22,000 per song, plus some wholesale character assassination that has now been sealed with judge's rubber stamp.
Read More: http://gizmodo.com/5937556/recording-industry-succ...
Top Opinion
-
TisSheilah 2012/08/24 23:20:50
Pirating IS theft. Do you think making a copy of Microsoft Office from someone else's CD is legal?
Theft would imply something is stolen, in piracy nothing is stolen, just illegally distributed.
"... in piracy nothing is stolen, just illegally distributed." That statement has got to be one of the best examples of double-speak I've encountered in a long time.
If I gave you a copy of a CD I have, does that make you a thief? No.
But then as Worf would say, Cardassians have little honor.
As far as this being justice, It is ridiculous. Would any judge or jury in the land have allowed the same outcome if he had walked into a Best Buy and stole 3 cds or for that matter the entire Led Zeppelin box set? What about a TV? I'm thinking they may have been more sensible about him stealing a car. But downloading music?! OMG! May as well cut off his hand as well. Or better yet surgically remove his ear drums . Why not give him $675,000 in free iTunes downloads afterwards just for the irony of it. I only hope that the bankruptcy laws in the states allow him to erase his debt in a timely manner. Still very sad for him to suffer such a setback.
The world is truly upside down when people can defend big business getting their way like this.
As for the judgment, this is after Tannenbaum turned down a $3,500 offer from RIAA and decided to fight a losing battle. He got what he deserved.
People who pirate do so because 1) they're too cheap or 2) they can't afford to buy it atm. Pirating doesn't make anyone lose anything, it's GOOD for the entertainers because a lot of people will purchase the music after pirating and both they and those who don't will spread the word for others to check them out, thus building their reputation and in turn, bringing them money. This kid's punishment does not fit the crime. Totally unjust.
Thomas Jefferson even proposed the issue be included in the Bill of Rights:
Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding __ years but for no longer term and no other purpose.
The goal, in short, was to protect the rights of the authors and their families, not to create to create an interminable profit node for megacorporations.
In the past few decades, the music industry has favored the latter course, while claiming that the illegal use of music has been the major factor in the decline in music sales. Politicians and the media have bought into this argument and helped to push the anti-Internet laws and other legal actions that have caused such a furor of late." As I previously stated some "Estates" (most notably Elvis Presley's, Michael Jackson's, etc.) have made their Copyrights perpetual. Also, "askmike" (in his/her response just below) also bri...&
Thomas Jefferson even proposed the issue be included in the Bill of Rights:
Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding __ years but for no longer term and no other purpose.
The goal, in short, was to protect the rights of the authors and their families, not to create to create an interminable profit node for megacorporations.
In the past few decades, the music industry has favored the latter course, while claiming that the illegal use of music has been the major factor in the decline in music sales. Politicians and the media have bought into this argument and helped to push the anti-Internet laws and other legal actions that have caused such a furor of late." As I previously stated some "Estates" (most notably Elvis Presley's, Michael Jackson's, etc.) have made their Copyrights perpetual. Also, "askmike" (in his/her response just below) also brings up a very good point (to quote his/her response): "Libraries from coast to coast loan audio albums for free and there are albums that have extensive waiting lists. If RIAA was serious about eliminating the illegal copying of music they would get those libraries out of the lending business. I have hundreds of songs on my MP3 that I downloaded from albums I got from my local library and there are tens of thousands of us who do so without risk. The audio industry issues a limited license to the purchaser of an audio recording and the limited license permits the purchaser to copy the contents one time only and the license specifically prohibits lending the recording to anyone. Videos are also subject to the same illegal copying from video recordings loaned by libraries." So when is the MPAA & RIAA going to go "after Libraries?"