By stopping illegal downloading, people will have to PAY for the music they want to listen to. So by the RIAA sueing downloaders, they are trying to discourage people from downloading. Thats why they aren't taking everyone to court for the $100,000 per song, or whatever the max is. They just want to scare everyone, make them pay a little. That way they will goto the store and buy music, and everyone gets their normal cut.
I can't see how we can fault a group for sueing people that are knowing violating a copyright that they own.
Its just how it is. When you steal something from the store, its 1 copy for you. When you are convicted of copyright infringement you are being convicted of distributing it in mass when you don't own the copyright on it.
So the copyright fine is more.
Email is not considered a real time communication, like a phone is. When the government wants a warrent to tap a phone it is scrutinized much more then simply a warrent to monitor email.
And anyway.. if you sign a piece of paper when you get hired saying they will be monitoring your calls, I can't see how its illegal for them to do so.
And assualt != murder... doesn't mean its not also illegal. There is just a lesser charger. Your not going to be thrown in jail for downloading, just sued.
I just don't understand how people justify... violating a copyright, stealing, ect....what ever you like to call it, because the company charges too much.
Just don't buy the product, and they will have to fix their ridiculous prices. By stealing it and getting caught you are stuck giving them more money then if you bought it.
While I agree that the artists are underpaid. The money won in court/a settlement for violating a copyright, goes to the person that owns the copyright, which in most cases is the record company.
If someone is concerned about the artist they buy music and give the arist, i agree, an pitifully low percentage. Because downloading it the artist gets zero.
Neither one of us knows all of the facts to decide what is going on. My original reply was because the original poster sounded like he was under the impression that someone shouldn't be in trouble for downloading illegal material, only for sharing it.
They didn't pick her name out of thin air. The only way they coudld know that she downloaded songs was for her to be connected to some kinda of p2p network that they were watching.
And I think a large number of songs plus regularly connecting to a p2p network, possibly searching for song titles is the way they saw what she was atempting to download, is enough of a reasonable belief she may have songs that she doesn't own the license to.
But if she has a song on her computer, even if she isn't sharing it, and she does not have the original purchased copy, she is listening to a song that she knowingly did not purchase a license the listen to.
I fully agree with you that the RIAA has to prove that she didn't pay for the song. But most people here are under the impression they shouldn't get in trouble for have 5,000 songs as long as they don't share them.
They want to scare her into settlement so they don't have to go through all that. The way to prove it is to file a lawsuit. The police will get a warrent to seize her computer. Then will will analize every cache and log they can find to see if she did the downloading or not.
Its much easier to just get her to settle first.
Ok. Thomas Jefferson was in France the entire time the Constitution and the Amendments were written. I don't understand why people use him as the primary source, and treat his opinion more valid then all of the other founders that were actually there.
" Guarranteeing that freedom, that right, to every citizen was to acknowledge that belief cannot and will not EVER be regulated. "
So how it is ok for a court to tell the religous students that they are not allowed to say "under God"?
Slashdot Mirror
By stopping illegal downloading, people will have to PAY for the music they want to listen to. So by the RIAA sueing downloaders, they are trying to discourage people from downloading. Thats why they aren't taking everyone to court for the $100,000 per song, or whatever the max is. They just want to scare everyone, make them pay a little. That way they will goto the store and buy music, and everyone gets their normal cut. I can't see how we can fault a group for sueing people that are knowing violating a copyright that they own.
Yea... I'm sure every single person that downloads music would never buy music, if they couldn't download it.
Its just how it is. When you steal something from the store, its 1 copy for you. When you are convicted of copyright infringement you are being convicted of distributing it in mass when you don't own the copyright on it. So the copyright fine is more.
Its the fault of who ever downloaded the music that the RIAA is getting all of the money, and none is going to the artist.
Email is not considered a real time communication, like a phone is. When the government wants a warrent to tap a phone it is scrutinized much more then simply a warrent to monitor email. And anyway.. if you sign a piece of paper when you get hired saying they will be monitoring your calls, I can't see how its illegal for them to do so.
and someone downloading music, instead of buying it and giving the artist their normal percentage is concerned about the artists?
And assualt != murder... doesn't mean its not also illegal. There is just a lesser charger. Your not going to be thrown in jail for downloading, just sued.
I just don't understand how people justify... violating a copyright, stealing, ect....what ever you like to call it, because the company charges too much. Just don't buy the product, and they will have to fix their ridiculous prices. By stealing it and getting caught you are stuck giving them more money then if you bought it.
While I agree that the artists are underpaid. The money won in court/a settlement for violating a copyright, goes to the person that owns the copyright, which in most cases is the record company. If someone is concerned about the artist they buy music and give the arist, i agree, an pitifully low percentage. Because downloading it the artist gets zero.
Of course they are making money from it. They are collecting the money for songs, that people had downloaded illegally and not paid for.
Neither one of us knows all of the facts to decide what is going on. My original reply was because the original poster sounded like he was under the impression that someone shouldn't be in trouble for downloading illegal material, only for sharing it.
They didn't pick her name out of thin air. The only way they coudld know that she downloaded songs was for her to be connected to some kinda of p2p network that they were watching. And I think a large number of songs plus regularly connecting to a p2p network, possibly searching for song titles is the way they saw what she was atempting to download, is enough of a reasonable belief she may have songs that she doesn't own the license to.
But if she has a song on her computer, even if she isn't sharing it, and she does not have the original purchased copy, she is listening to a song that she knowingly did not purchase a license the listen to. I fully agree with you that the RIAA has to prove that she didn't pay for the song. But most people here are under the impression they shouldn't get in trouble for have 5,000 songs as long as they don't share them.
They want to scare her into settlement so they don't have to go through all that. The way to prove it is to file a lawsuit. The police will get a warrent to seize her computer. Then will will analize every cache and log they can find to see if she did the downloading or not. Its much easier to just get her to settle first.
If she is listening to music that she doesnt have a license to listen to, she shouldnt be charged for the license if she is caught?
It doesn't make a differnce if she downloaded or uploaded the files. Either way she is making a "copy" of "copyrighted" material.
Ok. Thomas Jefferson was in France the entire time the Constitution and the Amendments were written. I don't understand why people use him as the primary source, and treat his opinion more valid then all of the other founders that were actually there.
" Guarranteeing that freedom, that right, to every citizen was to acknowledge that belief cannot and will not EVER be regulated. " So how it is ok for a court to tell the religous students that they are not allowed to say "under God"?