Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
I will agree with you that the judgment in this case it crazy. That is just way too much money to award them in this case. I have no idea if they have a way of knowing how many times those songs were shared, but if not I don't think you can just assume it was 80,000+ times each (I picked that number because you could buy those songs for $1 each and the RIAA was awarded 80K per song so maybe the jury assumed she shared each on 80K times, but I don't really know for sure what they were thinking.)
I have heard that she downloaded these songs and I have also heard that she bought them on CD seperatly. I don't know which is true.
|
both are true, she downloaded the pirate group ripped version from kazza and she bought a cd that happened to have the song.
Basically she got convicted because she choose to simple click a link and start a download rather then hunt thru her cd collection (very close to a 1000) to find the song
and then rip it using the software.
That btw is what i find most offensive about this ruling, she actually did buy the songs, no one lost a penny of royalties from her so called infringement.
Quote:
Here is my personal opinion on how it should work.
1. If you download a song you have not paid for in some way that is wrong and illegal.
|
i agree with this whole hardly, as long as you understand that i don't have to buy the cd to pay for the song, i can pay for the song thru a piracy tax as canadians like myself do every time we buy blank cd.
Quote:
|
2. If you take a song you own (either through paid download or purchased CD) and you share it via p2p or torrent that is wrong and should be illegal. I don't buy the argument that people are only sharing a tiny bit of the file so it isn't illegal because they aren't sharing the full file. I also don't buy that uploading it to a torrent is "backing up via the cloud." To me it is encouraging pirating because there are going to be many people out there who are now downloading your stuff when they haven't paid for it. There are tons of ways to back stuff up without uploading it a torrent or p2p program.
|
you show me one that provides the same level of redundancy at the same cost (free) and i will use that one instead.
Until you do arguing their are other back up alternatives is a sherman anti trust violating abuse of the copyright monopoly, because you are simply trying to use your copyright monopoly to force dominance in another market (backup).
Quote:
|
3. The most obvious is if you download something you haven't paid for then you share it. To me this should be the most harshly penalized because you are taking something you don't own and distributing it to others.
|
well the penalty for download is good enough here, because quite simply punishing them for the "sharing" again acts as a sherman anti trust violating abuse of the copyright monopoly (see backup arguement above).
but that being said with statutory damages as high as they currently are, it more than enough anyway.
Quote:
|
For me that is it. I don't think asking people to purchase the music they want to own and then not share it with tens of thousands (if not millions) of other people via p2p and torrents is too much to ask.
|
again downloading without paying absolute go after that person hard
sharing (especially in a way that in and of it self is not a copyright violation) simple takes away people rights.
golden rule of the law should always be
your rights end where mine begin.
taking your content without paying for it violates that golden rule because it prevents you from making money on your content.
taking away my right to use torrents as the most cost effective back solution after i have bought your content, takes way my fair use right to choose the most effective backup solution.