Really? Really Music Industry?

[klunderbunker]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...LOADING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

In short, a man has to pay $675,000 for downloading and sharing 30 songs on the internet. That works out to $22,500 a song. These songs cost .99 on iTunes, but somehow them being shared is worth 22,000 times that much apiece.

 

[Gelgarin]

Except he didn't just steal 30 songs; he stole thousands.

 

[klunderbunker]

Which still shouldn't ring up over half a million dollars in fines.

 

[Davi323]

And they originally offered him a settlement of $5,000, which he rejected.

 

[Gelgarin]

Apparently a jury disagree.

This guy had a chance to settle the cease for only $5,000 and he instead decided to go to jury. He made his bed.

 

[klunderbunker]

And they originally offered him a settlement of $5,000, which he rejected.

Apparently a jury disagree.

This guy had a chance to settle the cease for only $5,000 and he instead decided to go to jury. He made his bed.

That's true on both cases and he's an idiot for not doing it. I think jumping up 135x the settlement is a bit much though.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

But that doesn't excuse the music and movie industry suing people via their IP adresses which they did. This case wasn't just about the fines. it was about those groups suing Jane and John Does.

 

[Davi323]

They might be penalizing him for each of the songs that others downloaded from him. It may not just be because he put them online, if he takes a 99c song and posts it for free, and only 100 people download that 99c song, the court may have held him accountable for each of those too, making it $99 just for the one song. Multiply that by the thousands of songs he made available, and that shit adds up REAL quick.

One problem, Doug. The guy admitted to it. He didn't try to hide behind others with same IP or anything like that. His defense was that it was unconstitutional or something. He didn't deny doing it.

 

[Nate DaMac]

What a dummy. He downloaded shit you can get for dirt cheap used at FYE.

 

[Davi323]

If he didn't turn around and share the songs he downloaded, I wonder if they would have even gone after him? They seem to prefer going after the sharers more so than downloaders.

 

[Gelgarin]

That's true on both cases and he's an idiot for not doing it. I think jumping up 135x the settlement is a bit much though.

a) That has nothing to do with the music industry you're trying to blame.

b) This guy is never actually going to pay the majority of his fine.

c) What is an appropriate fine then? Since you're apparently better equipped to calculate it than the jury who actually listened to the case.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

They might be penalizing him for each of the songs that others downloaded from him. It may not just be because he put them online, if he takes a 99c song and posts it for free, and only 100 people download that 99c song, the court may have held him accountable for each of those too, making it $99 just for the one song. Multiply that by the thousands of songs he made available, and that shit adds up REAL quick.

One problem, Doug. The guy admitted to it. He didn't try to hide behind others with same IP or anything like that. His defense was that it was unconstitutional or something. He didn't deny doing it.

I agree. It was stupid for him to admit it. Regardless of how "unconstitutional" it may have been (which I also agree with) it's still not an excuse for them to sue. These groups should go after the warez groups that profit from it.

 

[klunderbunker]

They might be penalizing him for each of the songs that others downloaded from him. It may not just be because he put them online, if he takes a 99c song and posts it for free, and only 100 people download that 99c song, the court may have held him accountable for each of those too, making it $99 just for the one song. Multiply that by the thousands of songs he made available, and that shit adds up REAL quick.

One problem, Doug. The guy admitted to it. He didn't try to hide behind others with same IP or anything like that. His defense was that it was unconstitutional or something. He didn't deny doing it.

I haven't done the math but getting up to 675,000 sounds like a big jump. If they're fining him .99 each, I'd find it hard to believe it got that high that fast.

 

[klunderbunker]

a) That has nothing to do with the music industry you're trying to blame.

b) This guy is never actually going to pay the majority of his fine.

c) What is an appropriate fine then? Since you're apparently better equipped to calculate it than the jury who actually listened to the case.

Something that the guy can actually pay, which again is his fault for not paying it when he had the chance.

 

[Gelgarin]

Why the fuck would they fine him .99c a song?

"Hay everyone; you can steal as much of our product as you want, and if you get caught all that will happen is that you'll be made to pay for it". Not much of an incentive not to steal really. It's like saying that you can steal as much money from a shop as you like; and if you get caught you just have to give it all back.

 

[klunderbunker]

Why the fuck would they fine him .99c a song?

"Hay everyone; you can steal as much of our product as you want, and if you get caught all that will happen is that you'll be made to pay for it". Not much of an incentive not to steal really. It's like saying that you can steal as much money from a shop as you like; and if you get caught you just have to give it all back.

Because it's what they cost?

Most of the time when you rob a store, you don't pay a fine. You go to jail.

 

[Lee]

Exactly, if he went into HMV and stole '30' CD's he'd get a huge fine/jail.

 

[Davi323]

I haven't done the math but getting up to 675,000 sounds like a big jump. If they're fining him .99 each, I'd find it hard to believe it got that high that fast.

I agree, since they only went after him for 30 songs being shared, not his entire library. 1,000 shared songs is a LOT easier to explain that way, it only works out to about 681 downloads per file at .99 each. 30 songs would require over 22,000 downloads per file, which is a lot harder to believe, considering the availability of those songs elsewhere...22,000 people ALL downloaded from him? Call me skeptical.

I have no idea if that was the logic they were using or not, it was purely speculation on my part anyway. I am sure that Gelgarin is right, there necessarily would have to have been a punitive amount included as well, above the "value" of the shared songs.

 

[klunderbunker]

I agree, since they only went after him for 30 songs being shared, not his entire library. 1,000 shared songs is a LOT easier to explain that way, it only works out to about 681 downloads per file at .99 each. 30 songs would require over 22,000 downloads per file, which is a lot harder to believe, considering the availability of those songs elsewhere...22,000 people ALL downloaded from him? Call me skeptical.

I have no idea if that was the logic they were using or not, it was purely speculation on my part anyway. I am sure that Gelgarin is right, there necessarily would have to have been a punitive amount included as well, above the "value" of the shared songs.

Yeah I didn't even notice the hundreds part because it said he was going to trial for 30. At hundreds or thousands.....yeah maybe, but he was on trial for 30 songs. That's where my skepticism came in.

 

[Gelgarin]

Because it's what they cost?

Most of the time when you rob a store, you don't pay a fine. You go to jail.

You have a very warped impression of what civil law should be. The business suing this guy didn't just lose the cost of their goods; they've also had to fight a protracted and complex legal battle through multiple courts and has lasted for multiple years.

 

[klunderbunker]

You have a very warped impression of what civil law should be. The business suing this guy didn't just lose the cost of their goods; they've also had to fight a protracted and complex legal battle through multiple courts and has lasted for multiple years.

Yeah, and those costs aren't listed as being part of the fine. If the guy has to pay those too then that's fine but if we're talking about just the fine for the music, it's excessive.

 

[Dave]

I agree that it is excessive. It seems that the courts these days want to scare off internet piracy and that is where the exorbitant fees arise. Realistically, this guy has no way of paying over $600,000 for downloading songs. They just want to prove to people that they are serious about stamping out piracy.

However, it is not the music that is leading the fight. It is the government. They know how much revenue, and therefor: tax, is lost in downloading and it is becoming an ever-growing problem. People are not paying VAT on their purchases. They are not going to see movies, or listening to music. They don't pay for television licenses and all of this adds up. When people lose their jobs in the entertainment industry, income tax is lost and the government goes into a fit of rage.

The problem is, that downloading torrents is so widespread that they'll never be able to stamp it out completely. This guy will never have the money to pay that fee and it just becomes ridiculous that all of these companies want him to pay them that amount of money. Then again, they can't be seen to be doing nothing about the problem. There really isn't any winner when it comes to downloading. People are always going to share in this time and the companies will never be able to track everyone down.

And here we are.

 

[Gelgarin]

This guy was never going to pay anything anyway. He'll declare bankruptcy and walk away more or less unscathed.

People are still acting like it's the record company's fault that the fine came in at this level. It's not. The decision was handed over the a jury of informed citizens who were able to choose from $10,000 to $4,500,000 depending on what they considered reasonable.

The people complaining about how we should replace trial by jury with trial by uninformed people on the internet are almost universally doing so because they are massive thieves themselves.

 

[Dave]

This guy was never going to pay anything anyway. He'll declare bankruptcy and walk away more or less unscathed.

People are still acting like it's the record company's fault that the fine came in at this level. It's not. The decision was handed over the a jury of informed citizens who were able to choose from $10,000 to $4,500,000 depending on what they considered reasonable.

The people complaining about how we should replace trial by jury with trial by uninformed people on the internet are almost universally doing so because they are massive thieves themselves.

And you think that $650,000 is an "informed" sum of repayment?

I don't. I would much rather he paid something towards the decision at some level. Having him pay $100,000 would have been more suitable. At this rate, he is going to pay nothing. You said it yourself. So then, why is that "informed"?

 

[Gelgarin]

He was going to pay nothing whatever the verdict. We're here in the first place because he refused to pay a $2,500 fine. He appealed a verdict of ~$60,000, and announced his intention to file for bankruptcy then.

And I call the $650,000 figure the jury reached "informed" for a very simple reason.

Because the people who came to that number actually listed to the details of the case and had the information at their disposal to make a decision they considered to be reasonable. They didn't read 200 words on the subject then pull a figure out of their ass; which is pretty much how I would define an "uninformed" decision.

I support trial by jury - actually I'm not wild about it, but it's the best system we've got - so I support the juries verdict unless a good reason is provided not to.