Monster Fine For Pirating

[Rocky4]

Minnesota woman hit hard with a 1.5 million dollar fine, and Limewire has recently been shut down.

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-million-dollar-verdict-music-piracy-case.html

[Artie Owl]

Tman5923 better take down his recommendations on limewire then, before they come for him.

[albertjohn]

Harsh decision on the face of it, but it's been "cool" to break this law for many years. Perhaps it won't be for too much longer. Sometimes only a well publicised firm decision like this one will go some way to getting a message across.

 

A victory for all those here who make a living, however small, from creating and performing their own work. More power to your elbows fellas.

[TommyK]

So where do they come up with the $62,500 per song?

 

Does this mean that since she's paid the 'royalty', she can burn them and sell the albums to recoup her losses.

 

I would think the greater crime would be uploading the files for others to take willy nilly.

 

Does she deserve a fine? Yes. $1.5 million? No.

[BigKahune]

Tman5923 better take down his recommendations on limewire then, before they come for him.

 

. . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

Glad to see punishment in this case. And that's a very hefty fine.

 

But I'm not sure if any of the idoits out there participating in illegal file sharing will even take notice. * sigh * :huh:

[Bowdiddley]

People will not learn, this is one reason I refuse to do home PC's because there is no money in it and generally most people have P2P programs and see nothing wrong with them. Hell I have seen programs on the P2P and most are jacked up and have viruses in them etc.... A few years ago a 12 year old girl was fined with her parents because she down loaded Xmas tunes on a P2P. They fined the little girl and her parents and it was like 13 tunes for a Xmas CD; its some cold hearted stuff but for those who made the media its their lives thats being stolen. I was a paying member of Napster when it became legal and now Rhapsody and I use it as a tool to learn material I have not purchased yet. Its only 12.00 a month for all the listening I can do; and I can store tunes on my PC or phone to listen when the net is down. Being in a active band its cost effective for me to pay for the music and while I do not understand how the royalties are given out via programs like this I know every little bit helps. I also have friends who have material on these pay sites like Rhapsody.

 

I would be willing to bet this woman (a single mom with 4 children; hopefully its the same dad but in todays society its not) thought I can use the "Oh poor lil me, I'm a single mom and can do anything I want. They will never convict me or find me guilty".

 

Maybe the next person won't think that. But I do think the fine is ridiculous and would likely be reduced on appeal.

[sparky scott 29]

Everybody has been warned many, many times in the past, But that much..... Geezz.......

[Rocky4]

It's interesting that they nailed her for sharing, not downloading.

[Rocky4]

I was thinking about how they got her for sharing. What if you buy a cd and share it on a P2P site? Is that illegal? Downloading is the crime. Stealing music is the crime. I'm sure she stole the files she shared, but what if she didn't. Maybe that's why she never settled.

[milod]

For what it's worth, I think the instant that inexpensive home recording equipment came available, all the old music copyright law became extinct - but the "licensing organizations" formed with the beginning of radio and at the heyday of "Tin Pan Alley" selling sheet music have preferred to maintain an early 1900s status quo.

 

Bottom line is that let's even assume a fine like this can and will be paid, does anybody really think the artists with the music involved will get more than a dollar or two if that?

 

If one considers how determinations are made for paying artists through these special corporate entities, there's little question that nobody except those promoted by major recording/entertainment companies will see beans. It's not how they "sample" for royalty purposes. Period.

 

Consider that latter point. The modes of determining royalties to artists are heavily weighted to those who already have heavy corporate support - and the winner is the corporation as opposed even to the artist. In fact, if the artist has been increasingly popular due to "sharing," he/she is more likely to make more on concert gigs.

 

Them as has, gets. The system is not at all weighted in favor of the artist, but rather of the "licensing firm" bureaucracy and the "publisher."

 

Yeah, I'm cynical. But them as has, gets. Them as ain't, are stuck with luck or...

 

BTW, for what it's worth I've never been considered a "left winger." Never. OTOH, that doesn't mean I favor bureaucracies that get lots, but haven't modernized to see more than a few favored artists to truly get what's due them.

 

m

[ChanMan]

Sharing is a crime the same as downloading. Putting your cd out on a a file sharing site only has one purpose, as far as the courts are concerned.

[TommyK]

....

I would be willing to bet this woman (a single mom with 4 children; hopefully its the same dad but in today's society its not) thought I can use the "Oh poor lil me, I'm a single mom and can do anything I want. They will never convict me or find me guilty".

 

That seems to be the Badge of Honor du jour.

[Rocky4]

Sharing is a crime the same as downloading. Putting your cd out on a a file sharing site only has one purpose, as far as the courts are concerned.

 

So having friends over to listen to your music collection is a crime? Loaning a cd to a friend can land you a hefty fine?

[ChanMan]

Listening to a cd in your home is not a crime. Having others listen to it, too, is not a crime (yet). Loaning the cd to a friend is a gray area, unless you have no copies and your friend does not make a copy of the material. If you have copied the material, and "loan" it to your friend, and you are both able to listen, that is illegal, as I understand the laws as prosecuted.

 

Listening to a cd in your business- or sometimes even the radio- does require licensing in some cases, unless the laws have changed in respect to that, and certain court rulings have been overturned.

 

My information is dredged from the multitude of music rights cases I've seen come through the Nashville press in my lifetime, by the way, not any personal experience with the RIAA

[milod]

As I have written before... it's the way these folks got the laws written somewhere around a century ago.

 

Let's see... Articles I've written for magazines should have people other than the subscriber reads it or the purchaser arrested for letting others read it?

 

I had a back office in one business place and ASCAP came after me for running a radio nobody else would ever hear?

 

BMI shuts down some of the few places that pay singer-songwriters in more than a few towns nationally on grounds that maybe, just maybe, those folks would sing a "licensed" song including folk songs that have been around for centuries and nobody knows who wrote them? The bully game goes on, since the venue is given a choice of stopping live music, paying a chunk of cash or being hauled into federal court. Sheesh. And for what it's worth, BMI doesn't even have a way to monitor such places to pay royalties anyway. This is good for musicians?

 

Naaaah. I don't think so.

 

m

[EVOL!]

Might as well throw in my two cents too.

 

- This person knowingly broke the law and got caught. We have laws in this country. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

- That fine is f'ing ridiculous. Sounds like the dying whine of bloated industry that got left behind. The record industry failed to embrace digital formats and now they are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Most of this could have been avoided. Record companies and their financial monopoly partners like Live Nation-Clear Channel and Ticket Master built a corrupt and unsustainable business model and now they are reaping what they sowed. You can include payola and crappy, over compressed media into that pile.

 

- Even if the woman could pay the fine in full tomorrow the artists will see zero cents of it.

[Rocky4]

A lot of gray area here. We're talking about a digital file that can be duplicated over and over instead of something like a can of corn that is bought by a store owner. If it is stolen, the thief gets fined for stealing, if caught. The store owner doesn't get fined for making his product easily stolen.

[EVOL!]

The store owner doesn't get fined for making his product easily stolen.

 

That was one of the points I wanted to make in regards to the record industry not embracing digital formats. They left the doors unlocked and the windows wide open when they went on vacation and now they are up in arms because their tv, stereo, and fine jewelry got stolen.

[cavsrock08]

That was one of the points I wanted to make in regards to the record industry not embracing digital formats. They left the doors unlocked and the windows wide open when they went on vacation and now they are up in arms because their tv, stereo, and fine jewelry got stolen.

[cavsrock08]

True but I wouldn't walk into a place like that and steal. It's not mine. Sure the fine is harsh but I grew up knowing it was never right to take anything without paying. That's why I pay. I do it for morals. Not to avoid a fine.

Sorry I double posted. If someone would like to remove the quote I made behind me go ahead. It was an accident. Sorry guys.

[TommyK]

You can have people over to listen to your CD or other recorded medium. If you charge admission you have a RIAA problem. You can play recorded media which has not been pirated, i.e. original purchased copy, for your own personal pleasure. You can re-record that media to preserve the original or to change formats, say from LP to Cassette, but you can only play it for yourself and un-paying guests in your home or car since you have possession of the original which is your de-facto license to play it. You can loan the original to whomever you wish, as long as you don't play the copy at home. The holder of the original has the license to play it. You cannot loan, give, sell the copy to anyone. You can loan, give, sell an original to whomever you please, but your license to play any copies you may have is null and void.... you just sold it.

 

You cannot play any recorded media for the listening pleasure of paying customers, restaurant, or other business; office, retail store to name a few, unless you pay a fee to ??? ASCAP?, BMI?, RIAA? You cannot play radio broadcast music through a public address system for the enjoyment of your customers. You might be able to play the radio for your own use in an office.... this is a gray area. What if a co-worker or employee hears it? Then it comes under ASCAP rules.

 

I worked for a nation wide chain of lumber yards. We were several times admonished to not play music through our PA system. The thing that made it difficult for the home office to control was that the PA system they purchased had an AM/FM tuner, part and parcel with the PA system. Eventually we were given notice to box up the PA systems, base unit and microphone, and send it back to the home office where they were all turned over to... I guess the RIAA as settlment of rebroadcasting of copyrighted music suit.

 

After which, we had to go to the back yard to holler requests to the loaders.

[sparky scott 29]

I always said, America has the best Justice system in the world, as long as you have lots of money, that is.

[TommyK]

I am suspecting the 'single mother of 4' will not be paying the $1.5 million. Getting a judgment is one thing. Collecting on it is another. I suspect RIAA and / or the judge may mitigate the fine. But RIAA accomplished it's goal. Well at least at this forum. It got attention that they ain't fooling around.

[feldkeen4]

My children grew up with a deep, deep, respect for classic rock. Thank you Napster.

[milod]

What bothers me...

 

There's not a word on the bullying practices of an industry that cares about itself and not the artists that make it possible.

 

As I noted earlier, even a few coffee houses with singer/songwriter gigs only and/or true traditional folkie venues get shut down due to open threats that it doesn't matter, they'll be sued and then destroyed.

 

Where's the artist in this?

 

At the back of things unless they're "big" and have music played on the "proper" radio stations that them are "sampled" for play time.

 

Bottom line? This is anti artist using some special-interest permissive federal legislation that dates back long before any of us were born. Worse, they're now using the law to terrify the general public and music venues since that's about the only way that in a digital age they figure they'll keep their bureaucracy going.

 

Yeah, I'm kind passionate on this one and I make my living producing copyrighted material.

 

Good grief, you go into any greasy spoon cafe in the country and there's a newspaper and/or magazines on the counter for paying customers to read. Ditto doctor's offices, etc. Why should music be different than words I might write?

 

m