first of 26000. 30 yr old mother of 2 up to $30000 a song. 1702 songs. On trial

[anox195]

Why the hell are these record companies suing this mother? I'm tired of this sh!t. This is childish, sueing her for 30g's a song. ROFL. I would tell them to suck my hairy c*ck. I wouldn't pay them a dime. They think this is the way to stop piracy? This has made me convinced to boycott buying CD's all together. This is just plain sad.

For one the price of the new "hit" cd's that are coming out are in the 18.99 range, who the F#@& wants to pay 20$ for a cd??? Same price for a DVD that took ALOT more money to make. To fix some of the piracy, cut about 70% of that down and I MIGHT buy cd's. But right now the price is a joke. Why buy a CD for a 2-3 songs that I only like anyways. I mean, cmon'.

the actual story...source link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201029_pf.html

http://digg.com/tech_news/First_of_36000_30_yr_old_mother_of_2_30000_a_song_1702_songs_On_trial

[fr0stbound]

got a link to this news? sounds interesting. what did she do anyway?

[Roco]

OK Bro don't buy the Cd's , so the record company staff work for free ? the company don't need to show a profit to there shareholders ? . and the musicians live only on fresh air ? , their food and drugs are free ? lol get real Bro .

BTW I don't fancy your hairy C**k  have you tried Inmac ? I heard it stings a bit , but removes unwanted hair  

[anox195]

Ya sorry bout no link, haha. here it is. http://digg.com/tech_news/First_of_36000_30_yr_old_mother_of_2_30000_a_song_1702_songs_On_trial

[anox195]

OK Bro don't buy the Cd's , so the record company staff work for free ? the company don't need to show a profit to there shareholders ? . and the musicians live only on fresh air ? , their food and drugs are free ? lol get real Bro .

BTW I don't fancy your hairy C**k  have you tried Inmac ? I heard it stings a bit , but removes unwanted hair  

I would say that alot more goes in to making a DVD and an album runs about the same price. Why is that? Btw, I wasn't pointing any fingers at you, nor anyone on this forum.

[tdawnaz]

i'm adding the link to the story in the first post...and fixing the title of this topic

this really is a bit much...maybe they could have warned her...

[resopalrabotnick]

i agree with roco.

the price of an album or dvd is set by the consumer. if enough albums sell for x dollars then the price is ok. simple economics.

as for the amount she is being sued for: she got caught. deal with it.

stealing the music for her own use is bad enough but she offered it to others to download it from her. that is why the sum is so high.

and the "but someone hacked my wireless internet...." defense:  tough.

you set up a hotspot, you have to make sure noone else can use it. otherwise you are giving access to your connection to others. ignorance does not absolve thee of responsibility.

if you buy a dangerous device and leave it sitting in the yard for everyone to use you are also liable.

[anox195]

i agree with roco.

the price of an album or dvd is set by the consumer. if enough albums sell for x dollars then the price is ok. simple economics.

as for the amount she is being sued for: she got caught. deal with it.

stealing the music for her own use is bad enough but she offered it to others to download it from her. that is why the sum is so high.

and the "but someone hacked my wireless internet...." defense:  tough.

you set up a hotspot, you have to make sure noone else can use it. otherwise you are giving access to your connection to others. ignorance does not absolve thee of responsibility.

if you buy a dangerous device and leave it sitting in the yard for everyone to use you are also liable.

But why attack a mother of 2? Why not end stupid crap and give up on the war on drugs and this stupid stuff. And lets worry about serious crap like ACTUAL crime.

[tdawnaz]

u think the war on drugs is stupid??...say it's not so

[resopalrabotnick]

if you stop persecuting theft and drugs, what is there left? babyrape?

ultimately, all crime is theft. be it the theft of life, the theft of health, the theft of money, the theft of time or the theft of items.

and why not attack a mother of two. just because britney spears is a mother of two means she should ge away with drug abuse, dui etc.?

[coknuck]

I would rather see harsher prosecution for white collar crimes! Its just not done because the whole judicial system would be on trial. If you really want to see the scerge of the earth wait until the cops,layers, and judges come out of the court house.

[Roco]

Reso .and Tdawnaz you have my 100% support on this issue , enough warnings have been given, so as mother of 2 she should have been more responsible IMO, because she has 2 kids and is bleating  an exception is made ?  were is the Logic in that , so she steals my car, but it OK coz she is a mother of 2 , ?

Give up the war on drugs , yeah, lets let all the immature kids F**k up their minds , we can pick up the tab , no problem , until about another 20 years time , then who picks up the tab then ?

[resopalrabotnick]

the jury found Jammie Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, liable for willful copyright infringement and awarded the RIAA plaintiffs $222,000 -- that's $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was alleged to have made available on Kazaa

[tdawnaz]

oops...r ya payin attention boys n girls...

stealin ain't nice

and it just ain't funny

so if u steal

it'll cost u money

[mudmanc4]

I feel as if my time has been stolen from me , in reading this thread. So who should I sue?  It's all a bunch of bullshit! They realize it's a dieing industry , and there milkin it for what they Think it's worth. Jays us, if they cared that damn much, think of all the damn records that we recorded onto cassette tape,  and the copies of cassettes we gave to all our friends, and we chose what songs we liked the best , and puttem together and made more copies and gavem away!    This is stupid!  You all fall for it, like reso said, it's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  So keep shellin out the dough, and you'll keep gettin prosecuted!

[tdawnaz]

wow...u got a point there...and all the heavy metal stuff i taped over...hahaha...where the cussin would start i'd tape over with humpback whale songs...hahaha...my kids still laugh about it...ridin along and jammin to some headbangin song and all of the sudden oooooo ooo oooooooooooo hahaha

did i tell u that i've got a fever...so yeh whale songs

that's why they made those cassette decks with two thingys side by side...one for dubbing...put a little tape over the hole in the cassette and record away...or get a blank tape...sharing...

but doing it on the internet i think is stealing cuz u never actually bought one...

[resopalrabotnick]

So keep shellin out the dough, and you'll keep gettin prosecuted!

misquote there. if you shell out the dough you're safe. if you steal you get buggered.

and the big difference, like momma t said is that back in the day you would share some songs with some friends. i remember the law in germany actually being that you could make copies that way as long as you didn't charge for them.

the problem is that with filesharing you get hold of a copy or original, mark it as shared on your comp and leave the box running overnight on a broadband link and everyone and their sister can copy it from you, you don't have to know them or do anything for them. and that is what leads to the uncontrolled sharing that does real financial damage.

[mudmanc4]

misquote there. if you shell out the dough you're safe. if you steal you get buggered.

NO, I simply underscored what you stated! which is the truth, the more people buy that crap, the more they are going to  worry about people stealing it, because they see it as profit lost.

So as Tdawn stated, how do we go in one generation from most if not all of the companies that manufacture electronic equipment consisting of dubbing devices, to BAM, $220,000 ? 

I don't think there is any type of jargon malarky that  could be run past my ears that would convince me that these companies are doing this for nothing more than advertisement.

Think about it, they are manufacturing  mass hysteria,  you make a few believe there is something to be had, by drastic means of manipulation, and propaganda, and viola, you have sales due to mental control. get it?

[resopalrabotnick]

i disagree. but i see your opinion as valid.

as you say, the technology has something to do with it. back in the day you needed to dupe every single tape by hand. the music companies could figure that for every copy sold the song would get x number of copies. and that number i would place as somewhere around 4 or 5. and of those copies of one song one or two might even entice someone to buy the whole album. added to this is the fact that all those copies were analog. hence lossy. nowadays a pimply faced kid can throw a rip of the latest album out there as a torrent and a week later the whole world has a perfect bit for bit copy. to me, that is a significant difference.

[mudmanc4]

No I hear ya, but in reality,  theft has been what the world has come this far on. Think about it, Now i'm not sayin it's right , nor good, or just, but by far theft is the foundation humans have laid for themselves as a terrace for inclining onlookers, And wannabees.

So when the takee see's an opportunity to make an example of, and get a bit back, they grasp hold till death may come, by all means they do have them........

Thinking of the millions they may recover, and the civil masturbation that is thrust on society in any given judjement , do ya really think thats a drop in the bucket for these companies? Hell no! they spend more tryin to get so little to do what / Prove a point , I don't think so. Simplicity at it's best . a false false !

[resopalrabotnick]

Thinking of the millions they may recover, and the civil masturbation that is thrust on society in any given judjement , do ya really think thats a drop in the bucket for these companies? Hell no! they spend more tryin to get so little to do what / Prove a point , I don't think so. Simplicity at it's best . a false false !

i have to say you have completely lost me in that paragraph. it could be i need to head to bed but i don't get where you are coming from or where you're going with the argument.

[mudmanc4]

i have to say you have completely lost me in that paragraph. it could be i need to head to bed but i don't get where you are coming from or where you're going with the argument.

  What I was saying is, they recover money or get a judgment from "stolen " music, or videos, and they have a circle jerk amongst them selves, until it spills over into the media, and we all have these conversations.

I see the music industry as simply advertising there product by telling all when they prosecute someone, who care's?  Do you hear when subject #1 gets jailed for stealing an armload of cd from subject #2? Hell no. You say it's not the same, but it is. Stealing is stealing. If you make copies and put it on the internet, it stops there! Now, if you see a song for free some where on the net, you know it's stolen, so why would you steal it? then there is the second crime. You cannot lay it all on the first person.

[RTB]

the jury found Jammie Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, liable for willful copyright infringement and awarded the RIAA plaintiffs $222,000 -- that's $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was alleged to have made available on Kazaa

I don't know about you, but I can't see the logic in granting the RIAA 9,250 dollar per song per person. iTunes generally sells single songs for 1 dollar (which I still consider quite a lot), so for the RIAA to lose 9,250 dollar in profit that woman would've had to upload 9,250 times a considerable part of the a song per song.

Say about 4 MB per song, that's 36 GB per song. In other words she uploaded 864 GB. Good luck pulling that kinda bandwidth on a residential account that is most likely cheap and slow and capped. The numbers are obviously not accurate, but whatever numbers you pick (that still make sense, unlike the RIAA piracy reports), they still add up to something that just doesn't make sense (like the RIAA piracy reports).

Sueing with big numbers ain't the way to counter piracy. Currently the recording industry has no interest in competing with piracy, when the digital world had been doing so for ages and did quite well. The general public will prefer the easiest way, and right now pirating has become so much easier, while legally doing stuff has become so much harder, because it seems that the top executives are convinced they can make more money by handing a much bigger part of the budget to 'countering' piracy, and thus the quality of the program becomes less, and thus is worth less money.

[resopalrabotnick]

now i get you mudmanc4, and i think you are saying something like rtb, why should she be responsible for the copies others make of the copies she uploads? first off, because the judge and jury decided she was. secondly i think she should be held liable because she is enabling those that downloaded from her to upload to others, kinda like she is sitting on the top of a pyramid of piracy. you'll proably say that those that uploaded her copy would have uploaded the same song even if they hadn't gotten it from her because they would have downloaded it from someone else. but the fact remains that she /did/ make the songs available for download and thereby assisted in the distribution of stolen material.

as to the armload of cd's being physically stolen not making the news, well, an armload or even a couple boxes of cds ripped off from the back of a truck isn't worth all that much. and they can only be sold once, unlike the copied file which keeps on spreading.

[RTB]

And thus it is assumed that a single person sharing a single song will result in thousands of copies of that song. That can't be right. There are plenty more people sharing that same song and at some point saturation occurs and the numbers of copies per original drops. You can also assume a percentage of the people downloading it own the CD, but are unable to copy it thanks to DRM and have to download a DRM-free song to play it at places where the DRM is not allowing it. Of course, it'll be a minority, but I bet that the RIAA includes it in the extremely complex calculations for their random number generator.