If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   You shared 30 songs online? That'll be $675K please   (opposingviews.com) divider line 88
    More: Asinine, online, Copyright Act, Joel Tenenbaum, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Kazaa  
•       •       •

8423 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2013 at 10:45 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-26 10:47:07 AM
Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.
 
2013-06-26 10:48:00 AM
RIAA DIAF
 
2013-06-26 10:48:29 AM
Was that Coldplay and DMB really worth it, dude?
 
2013-06-26 10:50:40 AM

Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.


Spotify is illegal?
 
2013-06-26 10:50:56 AM
So if I set a toll free conference bridge, post the bridge number in the internet and start playing some of my old tapes over the phone, will the RIAA will go after me too?
 
2013-06-26 10:53:34 AM
if he was stealing items from a store at the rate TFA reads he stole online he'd be in a cell. as is he'll have to own cash business(es) to have some income to show and some income to hide. still beats being locked up.
 
2013-06-26 10:54:49 AM

Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.


Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.
 
2013-06-26 10:55:16 AM

Jairzinho: So if I set a toll free conference bridge, post the bridge number in the internet and start playing some of my old tapes over the phone, will the RIAA will go after me too?


This isn't Slashdot. Dumb analogies aren't how we hash things out here.
 
2013-06-26 10:56:41 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Spotify is illegal?


You're being glib. Spotify pays for the music they stream and in turn earns revenue through ads and premium accounts.
 
2013-06-26 10:57:49 AM

SovietCanuckistan: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.


They are aggressive about not leaving copyrighted content up.
 
2013-06-26 11:01:13 AM
99 cents to buy one song.
$22,500 to give one song away.
 
2013-06-26 11:02:56 AM
Yeah, there are penalties for stealing shiat and helping people steal shiat. Deal with it.

Some thieves are such pussies.
 
2013-06-26 11:03:46 AM
b.vimeocdn.com: It's OK, Anonymous will find money to help him
 
2013-06-26 11:09:25 AM
He should reference Pandora and their business model.  Using how they pay royalties to artists should reduce that award to less than 10 bucks.

It's not like this guy broadcast the songs to tens of thousands of terrestrial listeners.  It was shared with individual users with audiences of one for each time he shared, or someone else downloaded that song.
 
2013-06-26 11:12:39 AM

waterrockets: Yeah, there are penalties for stealing shiat and helping people steal shiat. Deal with it.

Some thieves are such pussies.


Do you believe the punishment fits the crime?
 
2013-06-26 11:12:45 AM
Hasn't the US government just underlined that "if its on the net its fair game" and "it only counts against you if you get caught"?
 
2013-06-26 11:12:52 AM
At this point he should just share millions of songs, video, etc.
 
2013-06-26 11:16:28 AM

Jument: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Spotify is illegal?

You're being glib. Spotify pays for the music they stream and in turn earns revenue through ads and premium accounts.


So... you CAN legally stream music from your computer for free.
 
2013-06-26 11:19:09 AM
borgdotcom.files.wordpress.com
I'm not really a Captain. I'm on the run from the RIAA ...
 
2013-06-26 11:19:54 AM

KrispyKritter: if he was stealing items from a store at the rate TFA reads he stole online he'd be in a cell. as is he'll have to own cash business(es) to have some income to show and some income to hide. still beats being locked up.


I'm not sure I follow. If he stole a cd with 30 tracks, I doubt he would see much jail time, and he dfinitely wouldn't have to pay almost $700k.
 
2013-06-26 11:23:59 AM

Jument: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.

They are aggressive about not leaving copyrighted content up.


True, but I have listened to Thrift Shop about a 1000 times and Macklemore has never gotten a penny from me.
 
2013-06-26 11:24:22 AM

Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.


Grooveshark.com
 
2013-06-26 11:27:24 AM

Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.


From, or to?
There are several free-to-the-consumer streaming services to stream to your PC.
Using software like TVersity, you can also stream music and video from your PC.  I can stream it to any other device I want.  And yes, that is legal under fair use.  If I bought the music, I can play it on my computer, PS3, or Android, or on my Android through my computer.
 
2013-06-26 11:33:38 AM

AUAIOMRN: waterrockets: Yeah, there are penalties for stealing shiat and helping people steal shiat. Deal with it.

Some thieves are such pussies.

Do you believe the punishment fits the crime?


That's tough to say. I don't think it's an order of magnitude unreasonable. $22K per song, to intentionally provide someone's owned material for millions of people to steal. It's high, but it doesn't raise an eyebrow. I didn't participate in Kazaa/Napster/whatever for just this reason, as at the time, I believed the penalties for any prosecuted cases would be extremely high. I'll speed a little every so often on open roads b/c I'm not all that concerned about $200 and safe driving course. Theft at an Internet scale is an entirely different ball game.
 
2013-06-26 11:35:20 AM

SovietCanuckistan: Jument: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.

They are aggressive about not leaving copyrighted content up.

True, but I have listened to Thrift Shop about a 1000 times and Macklemore has never gotten a penny from me.


Yeah, but advertisers have gotten your eyeballs, and/or your ears, so they pay for it. Time is money. You paid.
 
2013-06-26 11:38:48 AM

Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.


Heard of Pandora? It is 100% legal and free to me. They do play audio commercials about every 30 minutes, but I do not pay anything out of pocket for the service.
 
2013-06-26 11:41:08 AM

Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.


Don't waste your time; trying to explain to the n00bz is pointless. Life; does it work?
 
2013-06-26 11:42:02 AM

waterrockets: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.

They are aggressive about not leaving copyrighted content up.

True, but I have listened to Thrift Shop about a 1000 times and Macklemore has never gotten a penny from me.

Yeah, but advertisers have gotten your eyeballs, and/or your ears, so they pay for it. Time is money. You paid.


AdBlock+ FTW.
 
2013-06-26 11:42:06 AM

wruley: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Heard of Pandora? It is 100% legal and free to me. They do play audio commercials about every 30 minutes, but I do not pay anything out of pocket for the service.


They pay for the music they stream and make the money back through ads. You may not be paying cash money but someone is. Next.
 
2013-06-26 11:45:11 AM

waterrockets: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.

They are aggressive about not leaving copyrighted content up.

True, but I have listened to Thrift Shop about a 1000 times and Macklemore has never gotten a penny from me.

Yeah, but advertisers have gotten your eyeballs, and/or your ears, so they pay for it. Time is money. You paid.


Yes but the positive thing is that he learned that he does not need to buy expensive T-shirts, instead he can go to a thrift shop, so the music pays for itself. It's a win-win.
 
2013-06-26 11:45:41 AM

Jument: wruley: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Heard of Pandora? It is 100% legal and free to me. They do play audio commercials about every 30 minutes, but I do not pay anything out of pocket for the service.

They pay for the music they stream and make the money back through ads. You may not be paying cash money but someone is. Next.


OMG, your argument is pedantic and lame. Of course anything online will cost money for servers, etc. Dumb point. Next.
 
2013-06-26 11:47:29 AM

Jument: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.

They are aggressive about not leaving copyrighted content up.


Aggressive? That's cute. I've had the same playlists up for years and maybe MAYBE two or three songs have ever been removed.
 
2013-06-26 11:49:09 AM

stewbert: Jument: wruley: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Heard of Pandora? It is 100% legal and free to me. They do play audio commercials about every 30 minutes, but I do not pay anything out of pocket for the service.

They pay for the music they stream and make the money back through ads. You may not be paying cash money but someone is. Next.

OMG, your argument is pedantic and lame. Of course anything online will cost money for servers, etc. Dumb point. Next.


It's not just the money for the servers. Any commercial streaming service is paying for the music they stream. The article implies that this poor sap is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that we can all do for free now. That's not true. The music is no more free today than it was in 2004. See the part emboldened above. That's the point I was making originally.
 
2013-06-26 11:50:30 AM

Jument: wruley: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Heard of Pandora? It is 100% legal and free to me. They do play audio commercials about every 30 minutes, but I do not pay anything out of pocket for the service.

They pay for the music they stream and make the money back through ads. You may not be paying cash money but someone is. Next.


Don't be obtuse. If I can stream it to me with out costs, that's free to me and satisfies the intent of the article. You're intentionally missing the point. The examples provided of Spotify, Grooveshark (youtube, soundcloud, OC remix etc, on and on) are examples of 'free' streaming. You do not submit money to them to use the content. There is money exchanged, it is not between you and the party streaming you the music. Don't be obtuse.
 
2013-06-26 11:55:13 AM

envirovore: AdBlock+ FTW.


It's very helpful, and I use it, but I will not believe that you go through a day without some sort of advertising hitting you and being noticed.
 
kab
2013-06-26 11:56:04 AM

Jument: They pay for the music they stream and make the money back through ads. You may not be paying cash money but someone is. Next.


The wording here is what's causing the argument. Streaming music FROM your computer implies that you're acting as a server, which is afaik still illegal. Spotify youtube, etc let you stream TO your computer.

Your average artist won't make a dime from either scenario, so it really doesn't matter.
 
2013-06-26 11:59:01 AM

waterrockets: envirovore: AdBlock+ FTW.

It's very helpful, and I use it, but I will not believe that you go through a day without some sort of advertising hitting you and being noticed.


No doubt there probably is. Only site I can think of off the top of my head that I see it on is one of our local news stations sites though, oh and RockPaperShotgun have a couple that slip through. Haven't seen ads on Youtube in years, nor on most other sites I tend to regularly visit otherwise.
 
2013-06-26 12:01:35 PM
How much does a legitimate streaming service pay for their songs? Does radio or pandora etc really spend 20 grand each?
 
2013-06-26 12:04:53 PM

Acharne: Jument: wruley: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Heard of Pandora? It is 100% legal and free to me. They do play audio commercials about every 30 minutes, but I do not pay anything out of pocket for the service.

They pay for the music they stream and make the money back through ads. You may not be paying cash money but someone is. Next.

Don't be obtuse. If I can stream it to me with out costs, that's free to me and satisfies the intent of the article. You're intentionally missing the point. The examples provided of Spotify, Grooveshark (youtube, soundcloud, OC remix etc, on and on) are examples of 'free' streaming. You do not submit money to them to use the content. There is money exchanged, it is not between you and the party streaming you the music. Don't be obtuse.


No, you! ;) My point is that music is no more free than it was. The music industry is still getting paid. You may think that ad-supported and optional premium accounts means that a service is free. It doesn't cost you money out of pocket but money is being made from your use of the service to pay for the music. Whether or not you consider that truly "free" is besides the point. The point is that the RIAA is still getting paid for the music you listen to, same as it ever was. If you think that the music is truly free now, please replicate the offenses in the article and tell the RIAA what you are doing, and see how that goes for you.

Possibly this is a pointless argument but this is the internet.
 
2013-06-26 12:06:46 PM
When are some of these artists going to stand up to the RIAA? The money they sue for that is supposedly taken from the artists......never makes it to the artists.
 
2013-06-26 12:16:52 PM

Jument: SovietCanuckistan: Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.

Youtube? You might have heard about it, it's kind of a big deal.

They are aggressive about not leaving copyrighted content up.


Obviously not aggressive enough. I usually use Youtube to download my songs (VDH is my friend). On another note, they are ad-supported.
 
2013-06-26 12:17:32 PM

waterrockets: AUAIOMRN: waterrockets: Yeah, there are penalties for stealing shiat and helping people steal shiat. Deal with it.

Some thieves are such pussies.

Do you believe the punishment fits the crime?

That's tough to say. I don't think it's an order of magnitude unreasonable. $22K per song, to intentionally provide someone's owned material for millions of people to steal. It's high, but it doesn't raise an eyebrow. I didn't participate in Kazaa/Napster/whatever for just this reason, as at the time, I believed the penalties for any prosecuted cases would be extremely high. I'll speed a little every so often on open roads b/c I'm not all that concerned about $200 and safe driving course. Theft at an Internet scale is an entirely different ball game.


The ruling just shows how out of date our copyright laws are. The fines were created to deter commercial piracy, the intent was never to punish non-commercial minor infringers. The record labels would have never thought about going after someone making a mix tape for a friend, or burning a couple CDs and handing them out. The ability to track P2P users doesn't mean that sharing music in that fashion is any more nefarious than making a mix tape or copying a friend's CD.

The argument that his seeding of the sounds created thousands of copies is flawed - he didn't put anything out there that wasn't already loose in the wild. If he hadn't been available to seed from, the same songs would have been downloaded from somewhere else.
Some minor penalty would have been appropriate - the cost of the songs he downloaded plus a fine of a couple hundred dollars to discourage him from doing it again.
 
2013-06-26 12:22:20 PM

Petroleum Oligarch: I'm not sure I follow. If he stole a cd with 30 tracks, I doubt he would see much jail time, and he dfinitely wouldn't have to pay almost $700k.


In the UK at least it's pretty much a slap on the wrist, a caution from plod about being naughty and MAYBE a small punitive fine (like £50 or so) and perhaps you have to apologise to the store and actually give them money for the goods you tried to rip off.  For a first time offence obviously.   So the total fine, assuming he didn't end up in front of a magistrate and have to pay costs would be £70ish and perhaps £200 at most if he did have to go and see the magistrate due to the store being total dicks (which is their right and you did try ripping them off).


It's why I'm always quick to point out that Copyright Infringement isn't theft and falls under a wholly different set of laws.  If it WAS theft you wouldn't get insane fines like this.

kab: Your average artist won't make a dime from either scenario, so it really doesn't matter.


shiats given: 0.
Should a, could a, would a.  BUT YOU DIDN'T.  Most certainly applies in this situation, artists were well aware that the world was changing and that there were better deals to be had (that may of included more ball ache management or the need to hire staff sure) but instead they passively stood by whilst the RIAA butfarked both THEM and their AUDIENCE!   So now if some artist says "I don't see a dime from YouTube or Spotiffy" I point, laugh and hit "play" on the client.

Could a, Should a, Would a.
 
2013-06-26 12:26:21 PM

TuteTibiImperes: waterrockets: AUAIOMRN: waterrockets: Yeah, there are penalties for stealing shiat and helping people steal shiat. Deal with it.

Some thieves are such pussies.

Do you believe the punishment fits the crime?

That's tough to say. I don't think it's an order of magnitude unreasonable. $22K per song, to intentionally provide someone's owned material for millions of people to steal. It's high, but it doesn't raise an eyebrow. I didn't participate in Kazaa/Napster/whatever for just this reason, as at the time, I believed the penalties for any prosecuted cases would be extremely high. I'll speed a little every so often on open roads b/c I'm not all that concerned about $200 and safe driving course. Theft at an Internet scale is an entirely different ball game.

The ruling just shows how out of date our copyright laws are. The fines were created to deter commercial piracy, the intent was never to punish non-commercial minor infringers. The record labels would have never thought about going after someone making a mix tape for a friend, or burning a couple CDs and handing them out. The ability to track P2P users doesn't mean that sharing music in that fashion is any more nefarious than making a mix tape or copying a friend's CD.

The argument that his seeding of the sounds created thousands of copies is flawed - he didn't put anything out there that wasn't already loose in the wild. If he hadn't been available to seed from, the same songs would have been downloaded from somewhere else.
Some minor penalty would have been appropriate - the cost of the songs he downloaded plus a fine of a couple hundred dollars to discourage him from doing it again.


The record companies certainly would have gone after someone making CDs and tapes for millions of listeners. They would have gone after the individual copiers too, if it was cost-effective to do so.

To say that one criminal isn't doing anything that all these other criminals aren't doing is a straw man. That's like saying you don't deserve a speeding ticket on a highway full of speeders. You can roll it back to the first seeder if you want to, but they all contributed. If the labels had wanted to back in 2004, they could have gone after every single western seeder for the same kind of money. They went after a few as a deterrent. Just because they only went after a few doesn't mean that those few didn't break laws and contribute to millions of stolen songs.
 
2013-06-26 12:31:18 PM

kab: Jument: They pay for the music they stream and make the money back through ads. You may not be paying cash money but someone is. Next.

The wording here is what's causing the argument. Streaming music FROM your computer implies that you're acting as a server, which is afaik still illegal. Spotify youtube, etc let you stream TO your computer.

Your average artist won't make a dime from either scenario, so it really doesn't matter.


The artists do get a minuscule amount of money per play on Pandora, Spotify, etc (usually fractions of a cent per play).  If you have a song that's being played millions of times, it can turn into real money, if not, it doesn't.  Of course, the label, managers, studio, etc, get their cut out of that as well.

However, both the legitimate streaming services and the P2P networks have been proven to increase real purchases.   P2P users in particular actually buy more music than non users.

The big problem with the RIAA and MPAA arguments about the problem of P2P and piracy is that they're built on the false premise that every download is a lost sale.  Most people downloading a ton of music would never have bought it in the first place, but there's a good chance that after downloading something they'll find a new band or style of music they enjoy, and then turn to traditional or legitimate digital music sources to buy more of that music.
 
2013-06-26 12:34:49 PM

waterrockets: TuteTibiImperes: waterrockets: AUAIOMRN: waterrockets: Yeah, there are penalties for stealing shiat and helping people steal shiat. Deal with it.

Some thieves are such pussies.

Do you believe the punishment fits the crime?

That's tough to say. I don't think it's an order of magnitude unreasonable. $22K per song, to intentionally provide someone's owned material for millions of people to steal. It's high, but it doesn't raise an eyebrow. I didn't participate in Kazaa/Napster/whatever for just this reason, as at the time, I believed the penalties for any prosecuted cases would be extremely high. I'll speed a little every so often on open roads b/c I'm not all that concerned about $200 and safe driving course. Theft at an Internet scale is an entirely different ball game.

The ruling just shows how out of date our copyright laws are. The fines were created to deter commercial piracy, the intent was never to punish non-commercial minor infringers. The record labels would have never thought about going after someone making a mix tape for a friend, or burning a couple CDs and handing them out. The ability to track P2P users doesn't mean that sharing music in that fashion is any more nefarious than making a mix tape or copying a friend's CD.

The argument that his seeding of the sounds created thousands of copies is flawed - he didn't put anything out there that wasn't already loose in the wild. If he hadn't been available to seed from, the same songs would have been downloaded from somewhere else.
Some minor penalty would have been appropriate - the cost of the songs he downloaded plus a fine of a couple hundred dollars to discourage him from doing it again.

The record companies certainly would have gone after someone making CDs and tapes for millions of listeners. They would have gone after the individual copiers too, if it was cost-effective to do so.

To say that one criminal isn't doing anything that all these other criminals aren't doing is a straw man. That's li ...


Which still doesn't change the fact that the penalties in the statutes were never intended to be used against individual non-commercial infringers.  There's a huge difference between a guy downloading some songs here and there, and a guy with a big CD or DVD burning set up creating thousands of discs per day and then selling them out on the streets.

One is competition to legitimate purchase options, one is not.
 
2013-06-26 12:35:44 PM
Nearly the same 'street value' as that marijuana stuff I keep hearing about.
 
2013-06-26 12:40:11 PM

Acharne: There is money exchanged, it is not between you and the party streaming you the music.


The bands(lol) get paid because the Streamer is making money via ads.

It's the concept that someone cannot profit off of other's works. That's what supported the copyright law to begin with.

I would be interested in a streaming case that is not for profit, where it was all paid out of pocket for pure public service.

IMO, the solution is to make the internet qualify as a library.  Add a couple bucks to every internet bill.

-funnel the 2$/ per connection per month to copyright holders
-prosecute people who host files that would not be available in the traditional library yet, protecting new works for a set amount of time so that they have a chance for profit.

Pros-
-witch hunts stop, people don't have to worry, and we can get back to news about the Kardashians
-no money is shelled out for court costs
-time in courts is saved (we have quite the backlog)
-no overhead
-volunteer librarians(ie filehosters)  manage content
 -riaa doesn't get∞ money on each and every shred of work (still would for radio and jukeboxes, which is what the royalty's purpose was) [yeah, they'd list this as a con]

Cons?

__________

I don't know, it is just a shot in the dark, a novel idea I've been tossing around for a while.

With Hollywood and the music industry tainted by organized crime, the "right" to make∞ money off single performances just really rubs me the wrong way.  We as a people have bought into it wholesale, and are left with things like dirty EULA's and "licensed/leased/rented" media(to include softare and video games), instead of actual purchased goods.

Downloaders are not making starving artists, they're maybe causing the rich extortionist middle men to make a little bit less.(RIAA(obviously), hollywood(our movies never make a profit)

All the dirty accounting, money laundering, and general scheisterism has gotten out of hand and stands to really stomp on the consumer.  And that consumer still fights tooth and nail to protect them.

The whole system is disturbing.  Give the consumer back his rights one way or another.  Be it The Library(compensatory) or stop treating actual consumers like thieves or people who are forever in debt for what they've already paid a decent price for.
 
Xai
2013-06-26 12:43:00 PM
I would say this was fair if record companies paid 22.5k/song when they ripped off people's songs - which they do on a regular basis.

Just remember though, laws are only for poor people in america.
 
2013-06-26 12:50:39 PM

Jument: Now anyone can stream music from their computer for free.

Um, no, they can't. Not legally, anyways.


You're confusing "Stream" with "Share" and/or "Broadcast".
We can enjoy our own music on our computers remotely using the internet tubes as ultra-long headphone wires... we just can't share said content with others.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report