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  
•       •       •

8435 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jun 2013 at 10:45 AM (1 year 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 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 38 of 88 comments

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

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