Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, online, Copyright Act, Joel Tenenbaum, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Kazaa  
•       •       •

8453 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2013 at 10:45 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2013-06-26 12:54:12 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: One is competition to legitimate purchase options, one is not.


The penalty isn't necessarily based on potential benefits to the criminal, as it could be based on potential damages to the victim.

The point is that when all this crap was going many of us chose not to dip our toes in that water b/c the theft is egregious that it was not difficult to see the record companies going ape-shiat over it. And they did.
 
2013-06-26 12:54:48 PM  
English is my first language. Honest.
 
2013-06-26 01:05:47 PM  

Jument: No, you! ;) My point is that music is no more free than it was.


Free to whom?
All of us humans who listen to music get to *listen to it free of charge* through certain streaming services.  The fact that the provider of those services is paying somebody means nothing to the consumer--it's free to all of us.  And this is the entire point.  And no, seeing ads on the website does not constitute "paying."  Even hearing ads in the stream can't be considered "paying" for the content.  If you want to redefine "free" to mean something different just to make some tenuous, weird argument about the value of time or ad-watching... just save it for a forum that gives a shiat.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking maybe you were just uninformed, but you had to go and prove you were being purposely obtuse.  Stupid me for being generous.

/yeah, why am I a cynical bastard now?
 
2013-06-26 01:06:37 PM  

waterrockets: TuteTibiImperes: One is competition to legitimate purchase options, one is not.

The penalty isn't necessarily based on potential benefits to the criminal, as it could be based on potential damages to the victim.

The point is that when all this crap was going many of us chose not to dip our toes in that water b/c the theft is egregious that it was not difficult to see the record companies going ape-shiat over it. And they did.


Except that there aren't egregious damages to the victim.  A downloaded song is not a lost sale, and studies have shown that P2P users actually buy MORE music than non users.

It's also not theft - theft implies something of value was taken from someone else.  It's copyright infringement, and our legal system managing it is out of date compared to today's technological reality.  When the laws were written it wasn't conceivable that they would, or could, ever be used against average citizens copying a handful of songs for personal use - the technology to do so wasn't widespread and the technology to track such use didn't exist at the time.  Laws and regulations that govern technology need to be updated to reflect huge changes in technology and how things operate.

This has also been a huge problem with a lot of streaming services and remote-DVR services - obscure interpretations of laws written before any inkling of such technology existed have created a bizarre legal minefield that is stifling innovation.

FWIW both Spain and the Netherlands have seen the light and have ruled that non-commercial sharing of media for personal use is not illegal.
 
2013-06-26 01:15:50 PM  

waterrockets: 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.


Prove that millions of people downloaded it from him.
 
2013-06-26 01:35:46 PM  

ReverendJasen: Jument: No, you! ;) My point is that music is no more free than it was.

Free to whom?
All of us humans who listen to music get to *listen to it free of charge* through certain streaming services.  The fact that the provider of those services is paying somebody means nothing to the consumer--it's free to all of us.  And this is the entire point.


It's the entire point because you say it is? My point is that the RIAA is still getting paid and that from that perspective music is still not free. Your point is something different. The fact that third parties pay the cost of the music and choose to let you listen for "free" is great. But the RIAA is still getting paid and music piracy is still as illegal as ever. The music industry has not really changed one jot. New players give consumers new options on top of the existing (unchanged) music industry.

IMHO TFA implies that what this guy did is no longer illegal. That is what I was originally pointing out.

But please, feel free to call me obtuse because you feel that I am arguing something I am not. It's the internet so that is your right.
 
2013-06-26 01:37:23 PM  

Jument: 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.


For what it is worth, I understood what you were saying and agree.

*shrug*

/Stopped file sharing about a decade ago, not worth the risk, and helps keep the conscience clear
 
2013-06-26 01:38:14 PM  

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

Some thieves are such pussies.


Stealing suggests an item has been removed from an owner's possession.  The arguement here is about pirating.  Stealing and pirating are not the same.
 
2013-06-26 02:04:45 PM  
Good luck collecting.
 
2013-06-26 02:08:36 PM  

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

Some thieves are such pussies.

Stealing suggests an item has been removed from an owner's possession.  The arguement here is about pirating.  Stealing and pirating are not the same.


And, on top of that, I think most people agree that piracy is a legitimate thing to go after.  But $675k for sharing 30 songs?  That's just crack inspired.  That's like claiming anyone stealing a pack of gum should pay $20,000 in restitution.
 
2013-06-26 02:19:38 PM  
 
2013-06-26 02:25:09 PM  
omeganuepsilon:  It's all about the money, here's an idea to make them STFU.

It's a good idea, it's one I suggested years ago in fact.  The problem is... it won't work.

You could (probably still can) buy tapes and CD's that were for 'music' they cost more than a stack of blank media and the quality of them was neither better or worse than the cheaper item.  The additional cost was purely to send money to the rights organisations to cover any potential infringement that might happen.

You're still gonna get sued though regardless, hence nobody brought them.   So even if there were a 'pirates package' from ISP's that sent money to the rights organisations they'd take that money and still sue for stupid amounts of currency.
 
2013-06-26 02:36:15 PM  
How do they expect him to gather up $675k? Arms dealing? Intl. black market? Human trafficking? Become a hitman?
 
2013-06-26 02:39:03 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Except that there aren't egregious damages to the victim.  A downloaded song is not a lost sale, and studies have shown that P2P users actually buy MORE music than non users.


That's irrelevant, this was clearly illegal at the time

TuteTibiImperes: It's also not theft - theft implies something of value was taken from someone else.  It's copyright infringement, and our legal system managing it is out of date compared to today's technological reality.


Semantics for the purposes of this discussion. As a symbolic analyst myself (Reich definition), I know that I experience a loss in earnings when many of my product rights are infringed. It's a product of our current commerce laws, licensing, and distribution, but it's real. Just because it isn't made of molecules and fenced for money doesn't mean there is no loss.

TuteTibiImperes: When the laws were written it wasn't conceivable that they would, or could, ever be used against average citizens copying a handful of songs for personal use - the technology to do so wasn't widespread and the technology to track such use didn't exist at the time.  Laws and regulations that govern technology need to be updated to reflect huge changes in technology and how things operate.


Irrelevant, unless the laws had changed at the time of the crime.

TuteTibiImperes: FWIW both Spain and the Netherlands have seen the light and have ruled that non-commercial sharing of media for personal use is not illegal.


Hopefully we'll get there soon, as well

Satanic_Hamster: waterrockets: 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.

Prove that millions of people downloaded it from him.


That's clearly not necessary at this time. Asked and answered.
 
kab
2013-06-26 02:40:15 PM  

Vaneshi: 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.


Clueless, or missed the point entirely. I'm not sure which.
 
2013-06-26 02:41:00 PM  
www.piccer.nl

/Obligatory
 
kab
2013-06-26 02:42:56 PM  

chuggernaught: Stealing suggests an item has been removed from an owner's possession. The arguement here is about pirating. Stealing and pirating are not the same.


Both equate to acquisition of an item without monetary compensation.
 
2013-06-26 02:52:28 PM  

kab: Both equate to acquisition of an item without monetary compensation.


I steal and wreck a brand new Jaguar and I'm liable for the cost of the Jaguar.

I pirate music, which doesn't take away the ability of the producer to sell it, and I'm liable for twenty-five thousand percent the cost of the item?

I'm VERY anti-piracy.  Christ, I have a good 1950 cd's, plus vinyl.  But make the fine/cost sane and reasonable.
 
2013-06-26 03:16:00 PM  

waterrockets: TuteTibiImperes: Except that there aren't egregious damages to the victim.  A downloaded song is not a lost sale, and studies have shown that P2P users actually buy MORE music than non users.

That's irrelevant, this was clearly illegal at the time

TuteTibiImperes: It's also not theft - theft implies something of value was taken from someone else.  It's copyright infringement, and our legal system managing it is out of date compared to today's technological reality.

Semantics for the purposes of this discussion. As a symbolic analyst myself (Reich definition), I know that I experience a loss in earnings when many of my product rights are infringed. It's a product of our current commerce laws, licensing, and distribution, but it's real. Just because it isn't made of molecules and fenced for money doesn't mean there is no loss.

TuteTibiImperes: When the laws were written it wasn't conceivable that they would, or could, ever be used against average citizens copying a handful of songs for personal use - the technology to do so wasn't widespread and the technology to track such use didn't exist at the time.  Laws and regulations that govern technology need to be updated to reflect huge changes in technology and how things operate.

Irrelevant, unless the laws had changed at the time of the crime.

TuteTibiImperes: FWIW both Spain and the Netherlands have seen the light and have ruled that non-commercial sharing of media for personal use is not illegal.

Hopefully we'll get there soon, as well

Satanic_Hamster: waterrockets: 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.

Prove that millions of people downloaded it from him.

That's clearly not necessary at this time. Asked and answered.


I'm not saying that he didn't break the law, and that the consequences he received weren't the ones on the books.  Rather, I'm saying that such high penalties for a minor offense are an indication that the law and the consequences in the statutes are broken and in need of reform.
 
2013-06-26 03:19:26 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.


It is a different ball game. Driving a car unsafely can actually hurt someone.

$625K is literally years if not decades of earnings for most people. If all crime was handled using the same "punishment to harm" ratio as this, the standard sentence for most crimes would be instant execution.

Your comment about speeding, however, does bring to light your attitude. You don't care about crime because harm is being done, you just care about rules being followed.
 
2013-06-26 03:27:28 PM  
Good luck getting blood from that turnip...
 
2013-06-26 03:40:48 PM  

theBigBigEye: How do they expect him to gather up $675k? Arms dealing? Intl. black market? Human trafficking? Become a hitman?


Prole problems...
 
2013-06-26 03:41:04 PM  

AUAIOMRN: Your comment about speeding, however, does bring to light your attitude. You don't care about crime because harm is being done, you just care about rules being followed.


This is a pretty classic ethics argument. Pretty lame trolling method though, extrapolating like an imbecile.
 
2013-06-26 03:55:35 PM  

waterrockets: AUAIOMRN: Your comment about speeding, however, does bring to light your attitude. You don't care about crime because harm is being done, you just care about rules being followed.

This is a pretty classic ethics argument. Pretty lame trolling method though, extrapolating like an imbecile.


No extrapolation, you said it. You speed because the fine is small. You don't file share because the fine is big.
 
2013-06-26 04:54:51 PM  

envirovore: 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.


YouTube has ads? Who knew?  God damn I loves me some AdBlock
 
2013-06-26 04:57:30 PM  

Vaneshi: still sue for stupid amounts of currency.


The problem lies in our court system and bought/paid for laws, even political power of the music industry.

When they arrested the guys who ran pirate bay, the did so at the request of the US.

That's when I first realized I don't want to live on this planet anymore.  When the government does that for someone that's not involved in violent crime/espionage, wasn't even directly responsible for anything, you know it's a sign that we're approaching bottom.
 
2013-06-26 05:07:57 PM  

AUAIOMRN: waterrockets: AUAIOMRN: Your comment about speeding, however, does bring to light your attitude. You don't care about crime because harm is being done, you just care about rules being followed.

This is a pretty classic ethics argument. Pretty lame trolling method though, extrapolating like an imbecile.

No extrapolation, you said it. You speed because the fine is small. You don't file share because the fine is big.


<whoosh>
 
2013-06-26 05:09:57 PM  
The only thing more amazing than cop math; RIAA math.
 
2013-06-26 05:11:34 PM  

Resident Muslim: The only thing more amazing than cop math; RIAA math.


And magnets.
 
2013-06-26 05:13:58 PM  

kab: 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.


Subsonic
Plex
XBMC
PS3 Media Server
Serviio
PlayOn
etc

Also
Justin.tv
Ustream
Twitch.tv
 etc
 
2013-06-26 06:16:48 PM  
Is this the guy who was given multiple warnings about his sharing file but continued to do so anyway?

You have to be dumb as a rock to ignore that stuff.

Also, if had just taken the judgement and walked across the hall and filed bankruptcy it would be off his credit by now.
 
2013-06-26 06:53:34 PM  
I'm curious what happens if one refuses to comply with a court order. Like, say this guy just doesn't pay. Do they dock his wages or imprison him or what? And what if he leaves the country?
 
2013-06-26 07:05:00 PM  

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?


It says "from", not "to".  I can't set up a stream from my machine, open to the world, not pay any licensing, and be on the right side of the law.  They probably intended to use "to", such as "anyone can listen to Spotify or Pandora", but those services pay license fees.  It's not "Free".
 
2013-06-26 10:04:23 PM  

kazikian: I'm curious what happens if one refuses to comply with a court order. Like, say this guy just doesn't pay. Do they dock his wages or imprison him or what? And what if he leaves the country?


Well we don't have a debtor's prison here, they can garnish his wages but if he claims bankruptcy I think it all just goes away. but I am no lawyer.
 
2013-06-27 12:20:30 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.


Yep. The key word here is from. They seemed to have missed that word. Spotify is streamed to your computer.

But then people don't know the difference between upload and download either. I don't download to another computer on the net. I upload. Pages download to mine.
 
2013-06-27 12:23:42 AM  

ReverendJasen: 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.


But you can't share it legally on the public internet. In house is ok. That is the point.
 
2013-06-27 12:32:06 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.


Don't be surprised... I've read they've gone after taxi drivers playing songs on their FM radios.
 
2013-06-27 08:17:27 AM  

kab: Both equate to acquisition of an item without monetary compensation.


. . . which has nothing to do with any of this.  Court fines aren't imposed for what someone has received, they're (supposedly) compensating for what the other party has lost, or as a punitive measure.
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report