• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Student ordered to pay $650,000 for downloads

Coolguy said:
The news report is misleading.

He was not found guilty of "downloading".

His crime was in making it 'available for others', allowing them to download the files from his computer.

Some people would turn that firing around and attempt to sue their employer for that amount if they felt they were wrongly terminated.


Regardless the fine imposed on the individual is excessive.
Click to expand...

I agree that the fine is excessive, but there does need to be something in the way of punishment. Distributing the works of artists without paying for them is theft of their intellectual property and livlihood.
 
And to add, the excessive fining is a shining example of how bad lobbyist can bend the legislation to allow the RIAA to use courts to serve as financial bullies.
 
danarhea said:
I agree that the fine is excessive, but there does need to be something in the way of punishment.
Click to expand...


Since this is a civil matter then make them pay market price for the song they illegally downloaded. If they are not getting them on downloading but distribution instead. Then the record company should have to prove in a court of law how many people this person illegally distributed whole songs too and if it partial songs then then multiple partials can be added up to a whole song(for example ten people download 1/10 of a song,then those ten make up a whole song). This solution ensures they get what the person owes them instead of trying to make one person pay for the misdeeds of other people.

Distributing the works of artists without paying for them is theft of their intellectual property and livlihood.
Click to expand...

Theft requires depriving someone of their property against their will. The artist still has his property unless he signed his rights away to the record company then it is the record company's property in that case.Calling it theft is blatantly dishonest.
 
Last edited:
It's sad that the record industry has to resort to this kind of fear mongering in order to try and desperately save their dying industry. The fact of the matter is that there are too many people to go after so they have to pull publicity stunts like this and make an example of one guy in an attempt to scare the other downloaders out there. Unfortunately for them, it's not going to work.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
It's sad that the record industry has to resort to this kind of fear mongering in order to try and desperately save their dying industry. The fact of the matter is that there are too many people to go after so they have to pull publicity stunts like this and make an example of one guy in an attempt to scare the other downloaders out there. Unfortunately for them, it's not going to work.
Click to expand...

If these people they excessively fine can not pay then what happens, is the record company still out what ever fines the court awarded them?
 
jamesrage said:
If these people they excessively fine can not pay then what happens, is the record company still out what ever fines the court awarded them?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. The large fine is their way of making a statement, nothing more. The record industry in its current form is doomed and they know it. This is why bands like Metallica are even embracing free downloads now. The band Nine Inch Nails are also giving their latest album away from free. It's an unstoppable tidal wave.
 
Music should be free. Period. The idea that a company can own the words to a song or the chords of a melody for 100+ years is utterly preposterous. These companies are turning art into their own personal profit machine and I don't agree with it. Furthermore, they are abusing the legal and lobbying systems for their financial gain.

A $20,000 fine does not equal the cost of a song if bought. The quantity is completely inflated and arbitrary, and is only reflective of their cruelty, and nothing more.
 
Orius said:
Music should be free. Period. The idea that a company can own the words to a song or the chords of a melody for 100+ years is utterly preposterous. These companies are turning art into their own personal profit machine and I don't agree with it. Furthermore, they are abusing the legal and lobbying systems for their financial gain.

A $20,000 fine does not equal the cost of a song if bought. The quantity is completely inflated and arbitrary, and is only reflective of their cruelty, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

By that same token they should still have the cd package available for sale. MP3s are fine, but nothing really beats owning the package itself. I usually only buy cds if I enjoy the artist. Then again, if I don't enjoy the artist I usually delete the MP3s. A lot of lower budget indie bands rely heavily on CD sales and I'm more than happy to contribute.
 
sam_w said:
You know what grinds my gears is that almost the same exact ground that defends pirating and downloads is the same crowd that whines about DRM and copy protection.
Click to expand...

That's a very tall accusation.

There are, of course, very legitimate gripes about DRM, and oftentimes those in support of copyright reform/opposing DRM separate from the die hard pirates just because of this simpleton lumping of the two parties together.



sam_w said:
The whole reason we have expanding DRM and CP schemes is a result of increase in un-authorized distribution of media. They act as if this is also some devilish new scheme by evil corporations.
Click to expand...

Well, when they [media corporations] start talking about DRM'd products expiring on the user forcing them to re-purchase something not bought as a rental in the first place, when groups like Sony start doing stupid stuff like putting spyware in their CDs, when copy protection inhibits legitimate use of digital media, it really isn't hard to see what all the bitchin' is about.

It. Doesn't. Work. It. Just. Pisses. Consumers. Off. While. Pirates. Work. Around. It.

How hard is it for them to understand that?


sam_w said:
What most fail to understand is that their is an economic impact that can come right back to hit them on the @$$. The best example are TV shows popularly downloaded. This last spring on FOX they had two Scifi shows; Terminator series and Dollhouse. Both with equally dismal ratings. Yet one was canceled, the other given a new season for one simple reason. [/WUOTE]

Of course one can argue that if correlation is not equal to causation, than to say one failing because of bad ratings is due to piracy in of itself is a stretch. There has to be more to it.


sam_w said:
The spread of pirating also limits the ability now of small/independent developers in making an actual living.
Click to expand...

Really? How can you substantiate this soundly? It makes it more challenging, but most independent artists I know are smart enough to at least try to tackle the issue instead of hiding with his tail behind his legs. Many indie artists even USE P2P/Torrents/Youtube to promote their works.
Click to expand...
 
Orius said:
Music should be free. Period. .
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. The music artist should be able to package cds,sell concert tickets and cds at those concerts. In this regard the music artist is no different than someone with actual talent who paints a picture or makes a table or chair. They should be free to profit from their work just like the landscaper who trims the bushes for a living or the business man who increases profits for his company.

The idea that a company can own the words to a song or the chords of a melody for 100+ years is utterly preposterous.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.



These companies are turning art into their own personal profit machine and I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons for art is profit, not every artist promotes him or herself.

Furthermore, they are abusing the legal and lobbying systems for their financial gain.
Click to expand...

That I agree with

A $20,000 fine does not equal the cost of a song if bought.
Click to expand...

I agree with that as well. A fine in a civil matter being paid to a private company should be no more than what the market value of a song is.


The quantity is completely inflated and arbitrary, and is only reflective of their cruelty, and nothing more
Click to expand...

I am not sure if that has anything to do with it other than simple greed and the record company trying to make a handful of people pay for the actions of millions of other people.
 
Lerxst said:
I always wondered about this from a property rights stance. I buy the CD, it's mine. Period. If I want to make a copy and give it to my son, that should be my right.

What's next? Cars? "Well sir, YOU bought the car, not your son. He cannot drive it unless you pay an additional fee."

Not the same, I understand, but in my mind this is simply too heavy handed. I like jamesrages solution. At least limit the fines to that of what the song can be legally purchased for. The punitive side of this thing is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the record companies hold copyright, practically intellectual property, and they see as you reproducing (copying it for your son) as an infraction of the copyright because you are not allowed (for example) film a rehearsal of Wicked, and open up your own Wicked performance without misusing what is considered intellectual property.

The problem for the record companies, which usually turns into more of a blessing for consumers, is that you will be "under the radar" if you launch your performance, or if you duplicate a CD for your son, as long as there is no evidence of you busting into the companies' market; basically, if there's no money to be gained, the CEOs would rather not waste the resources.

Now, if the record companies were to patch the intellectual property, thus ownership, of the material on a CD, then they would have to worry about you duplicating and setting up a stand and selling the CDs for much cheaper than it took the company to record and pay the talents involved.
 
Lerxst said:
I always wondered about this from a property rights stance. I buy the CD, it's mine. Period. If I want to make a copy and give it to my son, that should be my right.
Click to expand...
It is. Its either fair-use or not protected by IP.

Not the same, I understand, but in my mind this is simply too heavy handed. I like jamesrages solution. At least limit the fines to that of what the song can be legally purchased for. The punitive side of this thing is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
but it is NOT equivalent to simple theft. Its not like this guy took one song. Its the equivalent of him stealing a warehouse full of CDs which is one reason why the fine is so much greater.
 
Orius said:
Why would I do something so stupid as to engage the secret service? lol.
Click to expand...
I did not say you should, and in all actuality you shouldn't.
The point was that you are not as secure as you think you are in using an anonymizer. By your response, I am sure you realize that.


Orius said:
The moral argument is insufficient in the democratic world. The vast majority of people download and see nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
The vast majority of people download? Where do you get that stat from?
Just because people do it, doesn't make it right.


Orius said:
It is illegal because of a minority that is lobbying government to do it. Democratically, the majority do not agree with this assessment of the situation. Patenting and copyright law both need reform in the modern arena. The people have spoken. They have defined the modern trend.
Click to expand...
It is illegal because it is wrong to do.


Orius said:
I realize this, but I'm saying that this should be factored into their profit losses. One download does not always equal one lost sale.
Click to expand...
Honestly. That doesn't matter. But it is how it must be computed, because they those who have downloaded have taken possession of something that they are not legally allowed to take possession of.


Orius said:
If you're going to start dishing out insults in substitution of rational arguments, then this debate is over.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that isn't an insult. It happens to be true.
Justifying ones actions when they are engaged in illegal activity is part of the criminal thought process.


Orius said:
I'm not taking anything. I'm copying. They still have their product in hand.
Click to expand...
You still are taking possession of something that you have no legal authority to possess.


Orius said:
Once again, continue with the ad homs and I won't be replying to you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but once again, that isn't an insult. It happens to be true.
Justifying ones actions when they are engaged in illegal activity is part of the criminal thought process.
So if you actually thought that I insulted you, I apologize for the impression. I am only stating what is true, it is part of the criminal thought process.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
Music should be free. Period.
Click to expand...
I disagree. And I'm glad IP laws exist so people can easily become professionals so they can:
1) Produce better quality products. Freeware and free music is overwelmingly ****ty.
2) Specialize in their area of interest.
3) Develop their area of interest faster and better with the funding they receive.
4) Get kicked out of the market if their product sucks and dominate if it their product iis valueable.

The idea that a company can own the words to a song or the chords of a melody for 100+ years is utterly preposterous.
Click to expand...
IP laws are very specific. This dishonest over simplification of IP is repeated over and over again by those who wish to brush aside the very consistent and reasonable protections and extent of IP.

These companies are turning art into their own personal profit machine and I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. Because that's how people specialize, become professionals, advance the industry, and produce quality.

A staggering majority of freeware and free products are ****. Why you would want this to become commonplace boggles the mind. You want to turn art and other industries that rely on IP into hobbies!!!!!????

Furthermore, they are abusing the legal and lobbying systems for their financial gain.

A $20,000 fine does not equal the cost of a song if bought. The quantity is completely inflated and arbitrary, and is only reflective of their cruelty, and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Its not equal to the price of a single song because he didn't steal a single song. He stole the equivalent of a warehouse of songs. Furthermore the price is inflated to deter crimes because they are particularly prevalent.


Also you keep saying it isn't illegal for Canadians to upload or download. Uploading and downloading isn't illegal for people in the US either. Its only illegal when you violate IP laws. That is, not all uploading and downloading of IP is illegal. Are you trying to say Canada has no IP laws or are you just being dishonest?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If these people they excessively fine can not pay then what happens, is the record company still out what ever fines the court awarded them?
Click to expand...

What happens? Depends. What happens for sure is that for the next 7 years the kid isn't getting any form of credit. There is a $650,000 judgment on his credit report, after all. What happens next depends on the record company. The judge can order assets seized. He can order garnishment of wages. But will they ever collect $650,000? No. Do they even want to? I doubt it. They are merely trying to make an example of random thieves to discourage other thieves. But they cannot collect what someone does not have. And I doubt they will bother collecting anything. They already got what they wanted.
 
Orius said:
You already know I'm Canadian, so this is either a bait question, or you honestly forgot. In any case, downloading and sharing are not illegal yet in Canada, and to ensure that it stays that way, I have already written to my MP several times.
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't remember that, my apologies.

My advice was targeted toward those in the US who hold that view.

Is there really no law in Canada against copyright infringement? That seems a bit odd.
 
RightinNYC said:
Is there really no law in Canada against copyright infringement? That seems a bit odd.
Click to expand...
There is but its in flux. Canadians tax CD-R's which profits go to the music industry.

In a previous ruling in 2004 it was ruled that uploading and downloading music was legal (BMG canada inc v john Doe). However the case was appealed and the decision set aside. Since then bills have presented to address this issue but all have failed. The issue is simply waiting for a lawsuit for the courts to clarify.

Downloading books, movies, or software that is not covered under "fair dealing" (slightly different than fair use) is still illegal. Music is just a more complex issue.

That's what I dug up in about an hour of searching and reading.
 
scourge99 said:
1) Produce better quality products. Freeware and free music is overwelmingly ****ty.
Click to expand...

Given the quantity of freeware, I doubt that you have tried enough to actually quantified that accurately.

scourge99 said:
2) Specialize in their area of interest.
Click to expand...

You need IP to do that? :confused:

scourge99 said:
3) Develop their area of interest faster and better with the funding they receive.
Click to expand...

That I'll agree with

scourge99 said:
4) Get kicked out of the market if their product sucks and dominate if it their product iis valueable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Look at the **** the RIAA is cranking out lately. Soulja Boy? *gag*

scourge99 said:
IP laws are very specific.
Click to expand...

Yeah, trademark, copyright, and patent are simple, the issues behind them, and the ways they have been manipulated/broken (Patent and Copyright specifically) and the ways to fix it are not that simple.

scourge99 said:
...repeated over and over again by those who wish to brush aside the very consistent and reasonable protections and extent of IP.
Click to expand...

Bull****.

Most of the people I've seen explain copyright/trademark/patent law - who had a beef with it as it is - covered all the basics quite well, and was able to articulate an argument against how the system is right now... oh wait, everything relating to corporate manipulation of IP law is a conspiracy to you, right... :doh




scourge99 said:
A staggering majority of freeware and free products are ****.
Click to expand...

Again, have you really tried enough freeware to actually be able to come even CLOSE to a generalization quite that absurd?

scourge99 said:
Its not equal to the price of a single song because he didn't steal a single song. He stole the equivalent of a warehouse of songs.
Click to expand...

Actually, he didn't steal anything, he violated the exclusive monopoly of distribution over XYZ songs he had. Since you like to talk about crime, apparent in this topic post, it would be important to get the crime right first. :roll:
 
Dr_Patrick said:
By that same token they should still have the cd package available for sale. MP3s are fine, but nothing really beats owning the package itself. I usually only buy cds if I enjoy the artist. Then again, if I don't enjoy the artist I usually delete the MP3s. A lot of lower budget indie bands rely heavily on CD sales and I'm more than happy to contribute.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, and as I've said in past threads, I support local artists in my area who I like by buying their material. What I don't support is corporate tripe.

I support a market where there is the free option as well as the packaged CD option. There is always the advantage of owning the CD with the cover art. If you really love the artist, it's memorable.

What we are seeing are big corporations getting upset because they can't make as much money anymore. Instead of $10 billion they are making $4 billion. I would say that given the choice between a market that includes both free and purchasing options which allows them to profit $4 billion versus a market where they want to eliminate the free option and alienate their customers, I would settle for the compromise.

But these companies have proven that they don't give a damn about art and only care about money, and they will attack people like the student in the OP just to prove a point. I bought CDs before but now I won't buy any because I won't support the unethical behavior of these companies.
 
scourge99 said:
Also you keep saying it isn't illegal for Canadians to upload or download. Uploading and downloading isn't illegal for people in the US either. Its only illegal when you violate IP laws. That is, not all uploading and downloading of IP is illegal. Are you trying to say Canada has no IP laws or are you just being dishonest?
Click to expand...

I will only respond to this since the rest is just moralistic subjectivity. I don't agree with extremists who think that artists should not be allowed to profit at all, but by the same token I don't agree with the opposite side of the coin who thinks that free distribution should be illegal across the board. I think both can co-exist while still allowing artists to make money.

The issue is profit maximization. Corporations aren't happy with the billions they are already making, so they are attacking the public. This tactic will fail.

As for Canada... no, mp3 distribution is not illegal. As for Canada's IP laws, I don't know if they have been revised since I read about them a few years ago, but you are allowed to download and possess ANY copyrighted material as long as you delete it within 24 hours. The law refers to "demo" and "sampling" purposes. If it is for educational purposes, you can obtain it indefinitely.

This is long enough for me to watch a movie I want to see and then be done with it. Though, I, of course, don't care about the 24 hour rule and I will keep it if I want.
 
Last edited:
Ipod Classic holds 30,000 songs

they sell them for $1 each

so they expect a person to pay $30,000 to fill up the Ipod

considering that an average Ipod user is a teenage girl it is a perfectly reasonable price :doh

only a bit over 100X the price of the Ipod itself :rofl

perhaps if you are late returning a tape to blockbuster they should take away your house because *GASP* you might have willfully let your spouse watch the film and she didn't pay for it !
 
Last edited:
stekim said:
What happens? Depends. What happens for sure is that for the next 7 years the kid isn't getting any form of credit. There is a $650,000 judgment on his credit report, after all. What happens next depends on the record company. The judge can order assets seized. He can order garnishment of wages. But will they ever collect $650,000? No. Do they even want to? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I think in the long run it will cost the record more money going after these these people.

They are merely trying to make an example of random thieves to discourage other thieves. But they cannot collect what someone does not have. And I doubt they will bother collecting anything. They already got what they wanted.
Click to expand...


Theft requires illegally depriving someone of their property, these people were not deprived of their property.What these people have done is no different than someone who records a song off the radio or someone with some carpentry skills who made a copy of a table he saw in the store or a painter who made a copy of a picture he saw hanging in a museum or someone who uses a VCR or digital video recorder to record a tv show.
 
Orius said:
I will only respond to this since the rest is just moralistic subjectivity.
Click to expand...
There was nothing about morals in that at all. You claimed Americans can't legally upload or download. I explained why that statement is wrong. Americans can upload and download. We can even upload and download IP. We just can't upload and download IP in violation of IP laws. So I can upload content for my family to a server or as backup, I just can't upload content for the entire world without the permission of the IP holder.

Additionally I showed how its illegal for Canadians to upload and download IP in violation of "fair dealing", though music is currently an exception because of levies and ambiguity in the court ruling. However, software, movies, and art are still protected with laws similiar to that in the US.

I don't agree with extremists who think that artists should not be allowed to profit at all, but by the same token I don't agree with the opposite side of the coin who thinks that free distribution should be illegal across the board. I think both can co-exist while still allowing artists to make money.
Click to expand...
The problem is if I can get something for free instead of paying for it then I'm not going to pay for it.

The levy system in Canada attempts to address this but it has several serious flaws.

The issue is profit maximization. Corporations aren't happy with the billions they are already making, so they are attacking the public. This tactic will fail.
Click to expand...
I'm not a corporation and I think IP should stay as it is. Furthermore, even IF the corporations wanted it for whatever strawman you wish to knock down, the rationale for IP continues to stand..

As for Canada... no, mp3 distribution is not illegal.
Click to expand...
Actually it still is. From what I read you can download whatever the hell is on the net but you can't upload except if it falls under "fair dealing", which if you are uploading to torrents or sharing sites would be illegal. However, I doubt they'd come after you but it still clarified as illegal in Canada.

As for Canada's IP laws, I don't know if they have been revised since I read about them a few years ago, but you are allowed to download and possess ANY copyrighted material as long as you delete it within 24 hours. The law refers to "demo" and "sampling" purposes.
Click to expand...
I looked for this and found nothing about sampling or demo and this 24 hour grace period. Got a link?

If it is for educational purposes, you can obtain it indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Same in the US. Non-profit educational purposes falls under fair use.

This is long enough for me to watch a movie I want to see and then be done with it. Though, I, of course, don't care about the 24 hour rule and I will keep it if I want.
Click to expand...
Assuming this demo and sampling you are doing is even legal in Canada. So far I've found nothing that suggests anyone for whatever reason can violate Canadian copyright law.
 
jamesrage said:
I think the individual should be fined no more than the market value of the songs if he paid for them at a store. And if they are going to fine people for distribution. Then the record company should have to prove in a court of law exactly how many people this individual distributed this song too and still make him pay market value of this song.For example he uploads to 70 people and this song can be purchased for dollar on a legal download site then that fine for distributing that song should be 70 dollars assuming those each of those 70 people fully downloaded a whole song from that individual and not just partial download. If they can't prove this then they have no business making people pay these excessive fines.
Click to expand...

That I agree with. I think that fits the crime more than the obnoxious amount they are charging him.

That said, he did break the law.
 
NEUROSPORT said:
Ipod Classic holds 30,000 songs

they sell them for $1 each

so they expect a person to pay $30,000 to fill up the Ipod

considering that an average Ipod user is a teenage girl it is a perfectly reasonable price :doh

only a bit over 100X the price of the Ipod itself :rofl

perhaps if you are late returning a tape to blockbuster they should take away your house because *GASP* you might have willfully let your spouse watch the film and she didn't pay for it !
Click to expand...

Well, for one, many people out there are into more music than is available on itunes. I for one get a lot of free music from artists around the world that allow people to have their music. Much of what I listen to is ambient music (while reading) and there are tons of artists around the world that produce ambient music for free. Anyway, the itunes model is not the only model and ipods are not the only players (I refuse to buy one for a number of reasons).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom