I think they are just using scare tactics in the hope that people will stop downloading music illegally.

 

Which will only work against those downloading a few songs, not albums like most who use bittorrent do.

I thought we were talking about 24 songs?

 

The case focused on 24, but apparently there were far more downloaded and shared.

I thought we were talking about 24 songs?

 

The case focused on 24, but apparently there were far more downloaded and shared.

 

it gave the number she was said to have downloaded/shared, even factoring every song it still equals to over $1,000 per song.

80k$ per song.... what the hell... Make her pay like... 10 or 20$ per song or something, not 80k$! That's more then what she earns each year (I would assume)

80k$ per song.... what the hell... Make her pay like... 10 or 20$ per song or something, not 80k$! That's more then what she earns each year (I would assume)

 

Definitely more than what she would be able to save in a year with that many kids. Unless she makes a LOT.

Someone should sue the industry for this, im sure in America this could happen.

Stories like these absoloutly sicken me to such an extent that it's hard not to swear.

 

 

 

These "companies". No, these "extorsionist, selfish, fat cat Nazis" is more appropriate. Sue anyone and everyone for allegedly "costing the government billions of £ each year".

 

 

 

Lies. Bullcrap and lies. Where do you get these dreamed up figures from?

 

 

 

Where did you lose all of your morales so that you think it's OK to hunt down a single mother of 4 for £1Million?

 

 

 

Where along the line did anyone lose money?

 

 

 

Christ, this enrages me beyond beleif. It's the same principle as lending a book to someone, or lending a game to someone, yet, WHSmith is not after me yet for lending out my books and posting scans on the Internet.

 

 

 

The reason why I, personally download crap is because it costs £40 for a video game here. Or about $70USD, whereas if I went to the us, I can get the same game for a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

 

 

I'm 14. I don't have the damned money to buy a new game every day. I don't have the money to buy the new Maxïmo Park album.

 

 

 

Just leave me with my warez-bb.

actually, it is illegal to scan a book then put it on the internet. Maybe they should sue her for $34 plus a fee of about, say $100, since They cant prove how many times her song was downloaded. the worst part is that a "jury of her peers" found this extortionate amount reasonable

actually, it is illegal to scan a book then put it on the internet. Maybe they should sue her for $34 plus a fee of about, say $100, since They cant prove how many times her song was downloaded. the worst part is that a "jury of her peers" found this extortionate amount reasonable

 

 

 

Yeah, I know it's illeagal. But you only live once, no?

 

 

 

By the way, if those "jury of peers" were warez folk i'd be disgusted.

actually, it is illegal to scan a book then put it on the internet. Maybe they should sue her for $34 plus a fee of about, say $100, since They cant prove how many times her song was downloaded. the worst part is that a "jury of her peers" found this extortionate amount reasonable

 

 

 

Yeah, I know it's illeagal. But you only live once, no?

 

 

 

By the way, if those "jury of peers" were warez folk i'd be disgusted.

 

Every jury is going to have a bit of bias. I for one am more sympathetic to the woman because she's being made into an example that really won't change a thing. I'd assume it'd be that or you support the company because it *is* illegal in the US, and being a single mother does not change that a law was broken and that . If there's a middle ground, I'd like to hear it :lol:

 

Then again, a single mother isn't going to have the money for as high a quality of lawyer that the company is, isn't she?

I think that it is the uploading and sharing they are stricter on rather than simply downloading.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

 

 

 

On the one hand, 24 songs, 2 million dollars? Ridiculous, especially as very little harm was done.

 

 

 

On the other hand, it certainly is stealing and I suppose they wanted to make an example of her...

My only issue is the SIZE of the example they are making. I mean, 2 million for 24 songs (I know it was supposedly about 1700 or whatever, but the case dealt with 24) IS flat-out ridiculous like you said...

I think that it is the uploading and sharing they are stricter on rather than simply downloading.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

 

 

 

On the one hand, 24 songs, 2 million dollars? Ridiculous, especially as very little harm was done.

 

 

 

On the other hand, it certainly is stealing and I suppose they wanted to make an example of her...

 

How many times have we stated that it is not stealing?

I think that it is the uploading and sharing they are stricter on rather than simply downloading.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

 

 

 

On the one hand, 24 songs, 2 million dollars? Ridiculous, especially as very little harm was done.

 

 

 

On the other hand, it certainly is stealing and I suppose they wanted to make an example of her...

 

How many times have we stated that it is not stealing?

 

 

 

STEAL

 

1.to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

 

 

 

It falls under that category, in my opinion. If you had permission from EVERYBODY who owned the rights to the music, then it would be stealing.

Serephurus lmao you find some random stuff each day :twisted:

I think that it is the uploading and sharing they are stricter on rather than simply downloading.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

 

 

 

On the one hand, 24 songs, 2 million dollars? Ridiculous, especially as very little harm was done.

 

 

 

On the other hand, it certainly is stealing and I suppose they wanted to make an example of her...

 

How many times have we stated that it is not stealing?

 

 

 

STEAL

 

1.to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

 

 

 

It falls under that category, in my opinion. If you had permission from EVERYBODY who owned the rights to the music, then it would be stealing.

 

This here should explain the differences well.

 

Ive seen that pic like 10 times on these forums.

 

:lol:

actually, it is illegal to scan a book then put it on the internet. Maybe they should sue her for $34 plus a fee of about, say $100, since They cant prove how many times her song was downloaded. the worst part is that a "jury of her peers" found this extortionate amount reasonable

 

 

 

Yeah, I know it's illeagal. But you only live once, no?

 

 

 

By the way, if those "jury of peers" were warez folk i'd be disgusted.

 

Then again, a single mother isn't going to have the money for as high a quality of lawyer that the company is, isn't she?

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

The music companies are going to have about 20 lawyers a piece, whereas this woman might get 1 better than a state attorney if she's lucky.

I think that it is the uploading and sharing they are stricter on rather than simply downloading.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

 

 

 

On the one hand, 24 songs, 2 million dollars? Ridiculous, especially as very little harm was done.

 

 

 

On the other hand, it certainly is stealing and I suppose they wanted to make an example of her...

 

How many times have we stated that it is not stealing?

 

Really? How so? You take something without paying for it and give it to other people for free when it isn't yours to give? I think that's stealing.

I'm 14. I don't have the damned money to buy a new game every day. I don't have the money to buy the new Maxïmo Park album.

The record companies ("the selfish nazi's") want more money than they can get. You want more digital entertainment than you can pay for ("fourteen year old without money").

 

 

 

Greed's greed. Since survival without more digitial entertainment than you can pay for is still perfectly possible, I fail to see any argument in regards to the record companies greed that couldn't be turned against you. I mean, [cabbage], if you break copyright on a textbook or two to further your own education, that's one thing. But music? Video games? Movies? They're luxury products. Not a neccesity, and certainly not a right.

I think that it is the uploading and sharing they are stricter on rather than simply downloading.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

 

 

 

On the one hand, 24 songs, 2 million dollars? Ridiculous, especially as very little harm was done.

 

 

 

On the other hand, it certainly is stealing and I suppose they wanted to make an example of her...

 

How many times have we stated that it is not stealing?

 

Really? How so? You take something without paying for it and give it to other people for free when it isn't yours to give? I think that's stealing.

 

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

 

 

 

[hide=]intransitive verb

 

1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

 

2: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly

 

3: to steal or attempt to steal a base

 

transitive verb

 

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b: to take away by force or unjust means c: to take surreptitiously or without permission d: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of

 

2 a: to move, convey, or introduce secretly : smuggle b: to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner

 

3 a: to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring bof a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard[/hide]

 

 

 

Now, tell me how making a perfect copy relates to stealing?

 

 

 

and after that....read this http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... 04.105.pdf and then tell me the difference.

 

 

 

[hide=]§ 1322. Injunctions

 

(a) IN GENERAL.A court having jurisdiction over actions

 

under this chapter may grant injunctions in accordance with the

 

principles of equity to prevent infringement of a design under

 

this chapter, including, in its discretion, prompt relief by temporary

 

restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.

 

(B) DAMAGES FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WRONGFULLY

 

OBTAINED.A seller or distributor who suffers damage by reason

 

of injunctive relief wrongfully obtained under this section has a

 

cause of action against the applicant for such injunctive relief

 

and may recover such relief as may be appropriate, including damages

 

for lost profits, cost of materials, loss of good will, and punitive

 

damages in instances where the injunctive relief was sought in

 

bad faith, and, unless the court finds extenuating circumstances,

 

reasonable attorneys fees.[/hide]

 

 

 

I'm willing to bet they didn't provide a shred of evidence on any accounts for this particular section of the DMCA.

Its legal here in holland, i lol at all you guys

I'm 14. I don't have the damned money to buy a new game every day. I don't have the money to buy the new Maxïmo Park album.

The record companies ("the selfish nazi's") want more money than they can get. You want more digital entertainment than you can pay for ("fourteen year old without money").

 

 

 

Greed's greed. Since survival without more digitial entertainment than you can pay for is still perfectly possible, I fail to see any argument in regards to the record companies greed that couldn't be turned against you. I mean, [cabbage], if you break copyright on a textbook or two to further your own education, that's one thing. But music? Video games? Movies? They're luxury products. Not a neccesity, and certainly not a right.

 

Heard of supply and demand? It's what our entire market is based on, more supply than demand and the price drops, more demand than supply and the price rises. With computers the supply of a game, song, movie is theoretically infinite. Yet the price hasn't dropped to nothing. It's run by a monopoly, as ONLY one group are selling the object, they could charge you $100 a song and you can't go elsewhere as that place will also have to charge you $100 a song or they won't be allowed to sell you the song.

I'm 14. I don't have the damned money to buy a new game every day. I don't have the money to buy the new Maxïmo Park album.

The record companies ("the selfish nazi's") want more money than they can get. You want more digital entertainment than you can pay for ("fourteen year old without money").

 

 

 

Greed's greed. Since survival without more digitial entertainment than you can pay for is still perfectly possible, I fail to see any argument in regards to the record companies greed that couldn't be turned against you. I mean, [cabbage], if you break copyright on a textbook or two to further your own education, that's one thing. But music? Video games? Movies? They're luxury products. Not a neccesity, and certainly not a right.

 

Heard of supply and demand? It's what our entire market is based on, more supply than demand and the price drops, more demand than supply and the price rises. With computers the supply of a game, song, movie is theoretically infinite. Yet the price hasn't dropped to nothing. It's run by a monopoly, as ONLY one group are selling the object, they could charge you $100 a song and you can't go elsewhere as that place will also have to charge you $100 a song or they won't be allowed to sell you the song.

 

 

 

You can consider me "for" piracy, but this is the most [developmentally delayed]ed piece of logic I've ever read. Do you even know what a monopoly is?

That's why you are supposed to use proxy chains and VPN servers while doing "illegal" stuff.

 

 

 

25,763 songs and counting \