US file-sharer gets $700,000 fine.
 

It's the second trial RIAA ruins the life of someone. How is a student's supposed to pay those ridiculous fines? They ruined his whole life for something all teenagers do on a daily basis.

RIAA is greedy as hell, also known for their illegal way of shutting down websites like TPB (judge in the TPB trial had a copyright company himself, go figure), and how they break privacy of people to track down what they download.

RIAA has been sued for these actions before: RIAA Sued for Fraud, Abuse and Legal Sham | TorrentFreak

Not to mention this outrageous thing they did: Woman Who Owned No Computer, But Got Sued By The RIAA, 'Settles' | Techdirt

Aren't they a bunch of greedy hypocrites?

It's just another scapegoat. Of course the fine is ridiculously large, still nothing to what that other lady received, but this is really too much.

This is stupid. If you steal music physically (shoplifting from the CD store) a first time offender will get off with a slap on the wrist. How can they jack it up so much for electronic theft?

They're greeds, $22,500 for a song.

If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

You do realize that such a dismissive, high-horse response will serve only to ignite a flame war, right?

But it's true though...
So why beat around the bush?

We all know what the penalties for distributing MP3s on the Internet are. We also know the chances of actually getting prosecuted are very small. Regardless, we can't act surprised when it happens. It is a reminder that it could happen to anyone, and the reason the penalties are so high is to try and get people to stop. If it were a dollar a song pr even 10 dollars a song, it would actually encourage more illegal file-sharing.

I feel sympathy for the guy, but it isn't like he is an innocent bystander.

Don't tell me you've never torrented a mp3 in your life. RIAA can sue you 22,000$ just for that. I actually think they do it because they want moar money. Look at the ridiculous case of the woman with no computer.

I am just offering up the alternate perspective that if you are going to engage in illegal activities, and you know what the penalties are, one shouldn't be surprised when they get a knock on the door. Every time you download something you are taking a gamble.

Seems like a lot. Wouldn't it be more logical to charge the person in question an amount worth the amount of whatever it was downloaded or shared or whatever? I just couldn't see any person having $22k worth of downloaded mp3s (not ones ripped from already owned stuff) on the computer. I really couldn't see anyone having $675k worth of stuff either. So yeah, I do feel it's unfair and using these people as scapegoats.

In other words, the amount doesn't seem to suit the crime, imo.

I didn't know it was 22,000$.

I can understand that thinking, but I think people mistakenly associate downloading MP3s with shoplifting (or something less than shoplifting).

In reality it is something closer to drug dealing, and I will say why. If I steal a CD from the store, the store loses one sale and the artist/record company loses one sale.

In a way you can equate it to buying a bag of weed, as both crimes are done to enhance the pleasure of the criminal that did them (assuming the person wanted to listen to the CD).

However, as iPhantom often points out, the crime here isn't "stealing" (as I like to call it) but participating in the distribution of stolen goods. By taking and participating in the copying of these files, there is no way to know how many damages have been done. Torrents essentially force the downloader to also upload and "share" what they are taking. "Sharing" has positive connotations in English, but "spreading" or "distributing" is a more accurate word.

Almost everyone agrees that drug dealers should see more jail time time than drug users, but when it comes to downloading the downloader is also a distributor. They are distributing the files to other downloaders, who are in turn, distributing to others.

A bootleg of "Wolverine" landed on the Internet and was downloaded an estimated one to four million times. That's potentially hugely damaging to the studio that made the movie, into the 10s of millions. That is an estimate, but pirates like you to think the actual damages are zero, but any logical person will know that even if it wasn't 30 million dollars in damage, it was certainly more than zero. Just because it is impossible to know what the exact damages were, it doesn't mean there weren't any.

Neither did I.

And now you do.

Are there people in the higher place still afraid that the society is turning into a gift economy model?

Also, RIAA is delusional if they think this would make piracy fall.

If you think about the whole open source licenses for software and hardware systems, this is the very definite reason why the whole concept of copyright is going to collapse in this century, including licensed music. Why? It's because the RIAA-like organizations don't know how to deal with legal copylefted stuffs like open source programs.

I'm looking at this in a very different way but some people see it that way, of course.

The way RIAA does things is stirring up hate against them. This only fuels people to do more piracy.

Apple was smart and did the right thing with iTunes store.

I'm glad iTunes exist too. I can buy music through there. I have a couple of times. Only thing that sucks, from what I've noticed, is downloading foreign stuff through it is still a rarity unless it has a license to be sold in the US. Kind of pointless if what I want is an album by say...um...some new J-Rock group for example or for music by Stabilo. I can't buy it through iTunes since I have a US address and all that and Stabilo is a Canadian group. Heard a song through a fan-made video using one of the group's songs, and have been interested in hearing more from the group (which I've learned has been around since 1999). Nothing on American iTunes though for me to buy and sample. Anyway, since importing cds is really expensive, I'd rather have an option like iTunes to get a song or whatever (if it turns out I like the full album/single, then I'd consider purchasing a tangible copy).

Why couldn't iTunes be nice and international? As I said, it's on the right path, just needs to expand.

Based upon the first post, why did RIAA sued only 2 people over millions who share/download daily content?

I guess thats somewhat more a warning than a money-leeching. Its like "You see, thats what happens if you DOWNLOAD!"

They are trying to intimidate, nothing more. Thats why its only 2 cases.

That's because not all can be caught, they used this to catch him MediaSentry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most pirates, encrypt what they transmit, and use PeerGuardian. That way, not even your ISP can see what you are sending.

Read a more dtailed story that surfaced today US student ordered to pay $675K fine to the RIAA

I have to say I believe the charges filed against these people are totally unreasonable. It would be like a friend lending me a CD and me being charged ridiculous sums of money in turn ruining the rest of my life. Seriously, is that what we call justice? I do not understand how the jury or the judge can stand behind the charges in these cases.

Actually, in this case it would be more like your 'friend' lending you 60-70 CD's, and you burning copies and handing them out on the street.

I don't understand your logic. If they were leeches, why would they only go after two people?

It seems like focusing on two people and winning large judgments that get media attention, but will likely later be reduced is more of a warning than leeching to me.

You sure know a lot of the technical terms for downloading, MMM, considering you're such a critic of it.

Oh, snap! (finally, first time I use this phrase in a reasonable context)

I don't do downloading because I'm pop-culturally deprived, but I understand this differently via open source licenses.

In the day and age of Google, Wikipedia et al, its not hard to find out much of anything if you put your mind to it sir.

Because I know what a torrent is? Would I be a good "critic" if I didn't know what a torrent was?

Next please.

Your not a good critic though.
Your terrible, a disgrace to the great critics of our time.



Just messin with you MMM, I love ya buudy ^_^

I saw where BSI or Ascap went after a bar in Arizona because a band played a song there that they "owned". This is stupid. If you aren't recording it they should leave it alone. Funeral homes need to get licensed to play funeral CD's. Who would want a copy of that?:confused:

Perhaps my example was a bad analogy, but I stick to my point nonetheless. I still do not see the justice.

This reminds me how the South Korean national anthem was declared under a full copyright and many South Koreans were trying to brew a serious riot in the streets of Seoul or even make a full-fledge internet protest against the judiciary officials and the RIAA-like organizations in South Korea. Later the South Korean government and the Spanish family* that holds the copyright relinquished the claim of the copyright and apologize to the public.

Yeah, brutal.

*Yes, that composer was a Euro-bound Korean.

Do you see the crime?

Wow, I'm like you when it comes to US related music an artists. I haven't fully kept up with music released here since the 90s when I was still in my teens. No file sharing back then. No internet either. =P Just taped stuff off the radio or just bought the tape/cd.

For me, I have many complicated family issues that I removed myself from mainstream entertainment.

For something to be a crime, it must be something punishable by a law. Thus, I would find it rather difficult to not see it as a crime. However, I do not see it as great of crime as some would say. If I were to obtain music by torrent or music from a friend, in both cases I would be breaking the law as it stands, acquiring music through sharing. But do I necessarily agree with the law when it says that is wrong? Not completely, and I certainly do not agree with the law being able to punish average everyday people who could just as simply be one of us on these forums by forcing them to pay obscene amounts of money.

No, you understand the whole seeding and leeching business.

It isn't easy to become well versed in such things.

This is the same deal with saying I've got problems, and then you're an expert on schoolgirl fashion.

I can see you, MMM.

As I said earlier "sharing" is a term pirates use to make illegal copying and distribution sound the same as "sharing" music with a friend.

If you were a musician, would you have a problem with a fan sharing your music with a friend? Of course not. You would want your music to be introduced by fans.

However, this is not the kind of "sharing" we are talking about. We are talking about the copying and distribution (dare I say, mass distribution) of someone's work, a copyrighted material. Artists do not support illegal DLing, and have taken a variety of approaches to deal with it. Surely things cannot go on as they are, and things will change, but that doesn't make DLing any more legal or right than it was 5 years ago.

Seeding and leeching isn't hard to understand...its pretty basic actually.
Maybe to do his research MMM Wiki'd the word Torrent? Which surely has information on seeding and leeching.