Stop illegally downloading music

[kenny]

Court won't reduce student's music download fine


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has refused to take up a Boston University student's constitutional challenge to a $675,000 penalty for illegally downloading 30 songs and sharing them on the Internet.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., who was successfully sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally sharing music on peer-to-peer networks. In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 for each song he illegally downloaded and shared.

A federal judge called that unconstitutionally excessive, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston reinstated the penalty at the request of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc. and other record labels represented by the RIAA.

The judge will have a new opportunity to look at the case and could again order the penalty reduced, using different legal reasoning.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the high court's consideration of the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-wont-reduce-students-music-download-fine-144922490.html

 

[kenny]

I'm delighted by this ruling.

I can't stand how in recent years people think just because the Internet and iPods have made it so easy to file share and download "for free" that is not a crime.
I even hear the argument that they have a right to it because for years the record companies have been ripping us and the musicians off.

I have also noticed that it is older people, like me, who are more likely to recognize that downloading is a crime, at least per the US Supreme court.

 

[Imdanny]

A $675,0O0 penalty is freaking absurd. Boy, I sure hope that he didn't download Rihanna's music. I'd hate to think that she made $50,000,000.00 minus $24 last year.

We've talked about this many times, Kenny. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. The RIAA represents just the same corporate influence that's impoverishing our country and stealing our democracy.

 

[ame]

I absolutely agree he should be financially punished, though I don't think over half a million is necessary.

 

[kenny]

A bigger fine, whether it is against a kid or Exxon Mobile, makes more of a point than a small fine.

The problem is not this one kid.
The problem is the new mentality of millions of kids who sincerely believe "free" music is as much of a birthright as air.
The bigger the fine the louder the message and greater the deterrent to what is criminal activity.

I grew up paying for music, whereas today's kids got it "for free", hence the two sides.
Bank robbers also get their money for free.

 

[stargurl78]

I definitely agree with you that people should have to pay for their music. But damn, that is an excessive fine for one single person! $22,500 per song, really????? People have done a lot worse and been charged a lot less.

 

[Rhea]

I just get around this by not listening to music. Or going to the movies. I refuse to pay what the music industry demands for music. I do hope that other people do the same, but I'm not naive enough to think that the small minority of us non-buyers would put them out of business.

Theater and concerts are much less expensive and often you can buy from the box office, thus not supporting ticket master either.

 

[Maisie]

Where would he get half a million dollars to pay this fine anyway?

 

[stargurl78]

I just get around this by not listening to music. Or going to the movies. I refuse to pay what the music industry demands for music. I do hope that other people do the same, but I'm not naive enough to think that the small minority of us non-buyers would put them out of business.

Theater and concerts are much less expensive and often you can buy from the box office, thus not supporting ticket master either.

I can't imagine life without music

 

[monarch64]

I just get around this by not listening to music. Or going to the movies. I refuse to pay what the music industry demands for music. I do hope that other people do the same, but I'm not naive enough to think that the small minority of us non-buyers would put them out of business.

Theater and concerts are much less expensive and often you can buy from the box office, thus not supporting ticket master either.

Yup, this. We support local musicians by attending live shows often and buying the band's CD or merchandise if we really like them. There is a huge music community where we live and several recording studios, etc. We still listen to the radio for current music/pop, and my husband is a musician so it isn't like we just live without it. I was a pianist for many years (still am, just no piano at the moment) so I have plenty of music in my head, heart, soul all the time! I don't need buds in my ears every time I take a walk...sometimes it's nice to hear the music of nature instead.

 

[kefira]

When I was a kid, we recorded from the radio and gave our crush/friend/whomever a mixtape, so I don't find the issue to be a particularly new one. It's just that now it's on a bigger, more public scale.

 

[Imdanny]

A bigger fine, whether it is against a kid or Exxon Mobile, makes more of a point than a small fine.

Yes, and the same Supreme Court that just sided with large corporations ruining this man by imposing a fine of $22,000 a dang song thinks that Exxon Mobile is a person. That's where they're coming from.

Maybe they should have given him life in jail or even the death penalty. That would have sent an even bigger statement. I don't object to punishment being a deterrent, but shouldn't it at least pretend to fit the crime?

 

[VRBeauty]

Where would he get half a million dollars to pay this fine anyway?

He puts up a facebook page and solicits contributions from like-minded kids. Even with $1.00 contributions, i imagine he'd have that puppy paid off in no time!

 

[kenny]

Where would he get half a million dollars to pay this fine anyway?

He puts up a facebook page and solicits contributions from like-minded kids. Even with $1.00 contributions, i imagine he'd have that puppy paid off in no time!

That is an excellent idea.
Zillions of people are on his side.
Heck, if he plays his cards right he could spin himself into a celebrity over this and eventually could run for president.

 

[iLander]

I buy CD's.

I can download and pay via iTunes, but I want the music to be MINE, no matter how many computers I put it on, no matter how many times I want to play it. Period. The country of France agreed with me, and sued Apple for just that; restricting the number of song copies made.

I also would like some money to go to the artist. It's my understanding that they get a couple of pennies more for a real CD.

But in a diabolical glitch that I believe to be an evil Apple plot, several of the songs that I've downloaded from my CD's, are now locked on my computer, and I don't have "permission" to access them. They're my F'ing songs!!

So, do I think pirating music is wrong? Yes, I do. You're just taking money from the artists that you supposedly love/support.

Is the fine justifiable? Hell, no. The music corporations are just messing with the little guy because they can, meanwhile, they screw the artists every chance they get (I know a guy who's in a band that's pretty popular in Europe. His record company says he owes them money for tour expenses, meanwhile they're pocketing his record royalties).

As far as messing with people, I think I should sue Apple for "pirating" my songs since I can't access them anymore!!

End of music rant.

 

[Imdanny]

The powers that hope to be are trying to steal the Social Security and Medicare YOU paid for from the time you were 18 until 65. I'd be a lot more worried about that and not some teenager downloading 30 songs. Really, there's bigger problems in the world.

 

[MissStepcut]

Too bad his argument wasn't the proof problem of IP addresses. That evidence issue is a lot more interesting than this excessive fines issue.

 

[Maria D]

I have no sympathy for this guy. According to his own website, http://joelfightsback.com/#/about-the-case/overview/,, he could have settled for as little as $3500 when first caught. He chose to take this case to its extreme end and, imo, enjoys the notoriety.

 

[innerkitten]

I've never done that. But my grandfather who is in his late 80s now was heavy into downloading music a while back. There was an article in the New York Times in about 1998 on the subject and he was on the cover!

 

[Haven]

I fear that the publishing industry is following the same terrible path as the music industry, and people will soon believe that it's preposterous to have to pay to own a book.

I believe in supporting artists whose work I appreciate, so I'm happy to buy music and books and other beautiful things.

 

[Karl_K]

I fear that the publishing industry is following the same terrible path as the music industry, and people will soon believe that it's preposterous to have to pay to own a book.

I believe in supporting artists whose work I appreciate, so I'm happy to buy music and books and other beautiful things.

current prices for books are insane.
Which is why I used to buy used for $.50 a book.
Currently my kindle has over 500 books and my wife's over 1500, all free from amazon and legal.

Music prices are also insane, I just don't buy it.
Movies I wait until they are less than $5 a disk or hit the legal streaming sites.

You would not believe the number of people who ask me to help them get free books, movies and music.
I tell them I do not believe in copyright infringement and will not help them other than pointing to legal resources to get them.

That said suing your customers is stupid and the awards in this case and others are downright immoral in my opinion.

 

[rainwood]

I fear that the publishing industry is following the same terrible path as the music industry, and people will soon believe that it's preposterous to have to pay to own a book.

I believe in supporting artists whose work I appreciate, so I'm happy to buy music and books and other beautiful things.

And beautifully said. I totally agree.

 

[Deia]

I think 675K is a joke. Sure, don't download music without paying for it, but the fine is absurd. It reeks of greed. People get fined much less for hurting other human beings, animals, etc. 675k for downloading 30 songs? Please, get real.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

He wasn't just downloading songs - he was also uploading the songs. I imagine a huge part of this fine is caused by the upload part, where he gives thousands of other people access to the illegal copies.

The difference between taping a radio song and downloading a digital copy is quality. A taped radio song sounds either bad or awful. A listener may "make do" with it, but it clearly doesn't replace a good quality commercial tape, vinyl or CD (choose your decade). A digital download, on the other hand, sounds just as good as the CD and is a perfect replacement. In other words, the radio taping teen would buy the vinyl/tape/CD as soon as possible. The person who downloaded will probably never buy a legal copy (yes, I know some people download to see if they like it, etc, and then buy but this is really a minority).

Do I think music and books are very expensive? Yes! Specially classical music and opera ($40 for a single CD!). That doesn't give me the right to steal it, just as I don't have the right to steal anything that is too expensive just because it is. But I am also well aware that a classical CD sells a lot fewer copies than rock, for example, and that it can get very expensive to record.

While easy download is a great way for new bands to be discovered, it can kill a professional one. A new group should make downloads available for free - it is the best marketing tool they have. However, professional bands are often not turning a profit on albums. My cousin is the manager for a hugely successful Brazilian band. These guys are iconic to my generation. 10 years ago, they started recording a lot less often. My cousin explained that all a new CD brought in was more public for their shows. Now, the guys are basically retired, since it was no longer worth the effort of creating new songs.

 

[justginger]

I was astounded at the different attitude between Americans and Australians (on the whole) regarding downloads/torrents/etc when I moved down under. Aussies are THIEVES! I'm not sure I know a *single person* here who doesn't own at least ONE terrible Bali/Thailand ripoff DVD. Perhaps 25% of my friends here either ONLY download their moves or they ONLY own bootlegged copies picked up for 20 cents each on holiday. Music? Pay for it? Yeah right. If it's out there and it's free, they're taking it. i find the friends I grew up with in the States would never do that - either a study in country culture differences, or perhaps the difference between country town vs city culture.

Regardless, my husband is a downloader. I've told him to stop because if he gets pinged, I'll be going down with him. The fines quoted here are ridiculous and I tend to agree that MUCH more serious crimes are awarded lesser financial penalties. But, I think in every case of someone being picked up for illegal downloading/sharing, they've all rejected a much, much lower fine at first. So in that sense, they're getting what's coming to them - if you're gonna do it, be prepared to pay for it.

 

[Rhea]

I just get around this by not listening to music. Or going to the movies. I refuse to pay what the music industry demands for music. I do hope that other people do the same, but I'm not naive enough to think that the small minority of us non-buyers would put them out of business.

Theater and concerts are much less expensive and often you can buy from the box office, thus not supporting ticket master either.

I can't imagine life without music

I suppose its not so much not listening to, as not buying what Sony, EMI, and Universal produce. I do occasionally buy from smaller records labels, but I mostly attend concerts - cheaper and live! There are some incredible bands and orchestras in this area. Why buy from an unethical label who treats their musicians poorly and rips off the public when there are plenty of other options out there?

 

[kenny]

I was astounded at the different attitude between Americans and Australians (on the whole) regarding downloads/torrents/etc when I moved down under. Aussies are THIEVES! I'm not sure I know a *single person* here who doesn't own at least ONE terrible Bali/Thailand ripoff DVD. Perhaps 25% of my friends here either ONLY download their moves or they ONLY own bootlegged copies picked up for 20 cents each on holiday. Music? Pay for it? Yeah right. If it's out there and it's free, they're taking it. i find the friends I grew up with in the States would never do that - either a study in country culture differences, or perhaps the difference between country town vs city culture.

Regardless, my husband is a downloader. I've told him to stop because if he gets pinged, I'll be going down with him. The fines quoted here are ridiculous and I tend to agree that MUCH more serious crimes are awarded lesser financial penalties. But, I think in every case of someone being picked up for illegal downloading/sharing, they've all rejected a much, much lower fine at first. So in that sense, they're getting what's coming to them - if you're gonna do it, be prepared to pay for it.

If you are judging based on posts in this thread they are NOT representative of a randomly selected cross section of Americans.
How many illegal downloaders are going to admit they illegally download music in a thread about a US Supreme Court decision against it?

 

[Haven]

He wasn't just downloading songs - he was also uploading the songs. I imagine a huge part of this fine is caused by the upload part, where he gives thousands of other people access to the illegal copies.

The difference between taping a radio song and downloading a digital copy is quality. A taped radio song sounds either bad or awful. A listener may "make do" with it, but it clearly doesn't replace a good quality commercial tape, vinyl or CD (choose your decade). A digital download, on the other hand, sounds just as good as the CD and is a perfect replacement. In other words, the radio taping teen would buy the vinyl/tape/CD as soon as possible. The person who downloaded will probably never buy a legal copy (yes, I know some people download to see if they like it, etc, and then buy but this is really a minority).

Do I think music and books are very expensive? Yes! Specially classical music and opera ($40 for a single CD!). That doesn't give me the right to steal it, just as I don't have the right to steal anything that is too expensive just because it is. But I am also well aware that a classical CD sells a lot fewer copies than rock, for example, and that it can get very expensive to record.

While easy download is a great way for new bands to be discovered, it can kill a professional one. A new group should make downloads available for free - it is the best marketing tool they have. However, professional bands are often not turning a profit on albums. My cousin is the manager for a hugely successful Brazilian band. These guys are iconic to my generation. 10 years ago, they started recording a lot less often. My cousin explained that all a new CD brought in was more public for their shows. Now, the guys are basically retired, since it was no longer worth the effort of creating new songs.

Exactly! I think diamonds are expensive too, but I'm not going to start stealing them because of it.

I wonder if people who are not in the habit of creating things are more likely to feel they have a right to steal music or books or movies. Maybe it is a lack of respect for the actual value of the product since they don't understand what goes into creating it.

 

[ksinger]

He wasn't just downloading songs - he was also uploading the songs. I imagine a huge part of this fine is caused by the upload part, where he gives thousands of other people access to the illegal copies.

The difference between taping a radio song and downloading a digital copy is quality. A taped radio song sounds either bad or awful. A listener may "make do" with it, but it clearly doesn't replace a good quality commercial tape, vinyl or CD (choose your decade). A digital download, on the other hand, sounds just as good as the CD and is a perfect replacement. In other words, the radio taping teen would buy the vinyl/tape/CD as soon as possible. The person who downloaded will probably never buy a legal copy (yes, I know some people download to see if they like it, etc, and then buy but this is really a minority).

Do I think music and books are very expensive? Yes! Specially classical music and opera ($40 for a single CD!). That doesn't give me the right to steal it, just as I don't have the right to steal anything that is too expensive just because it is. But I am also well aware that a classical CD sells a lot fewer copies than rock, for example, and that it can get very expensive to record.

While easy download is a great way for new bands to be discovered, it can kill a professional one. A new group should make downloads available for free - it is the best marketing tool they have. However, professional bands are often not turning a profit on albums. My cousin is the manager for a hugely successful Brazilian band. These guys are iconic to my generation. 10 years ago, they started recording a lot less often. My cousin explained that all a new CD brought in was more public for their shows. Now, the guys are basically retired, since it was no longer worth the effort of creating new songs.

Exactly! I think diamonds are expensive too, but I'm not going to start stealing them because of it.

I wonder if people who are not in the habit of creating things are more likely to feel they have a right to steal music or books or movies. Maybe it is a lack of respect for the actual value of the product since they don't understand what goes into creating it.

Absolutely! We've pretty much become an culture with a majority of people who don't make anything at all.

But I see bewildered looks and get disdainful comments all the time about the jewelry I make. "Well, yeah, your chain is beautiful, but I can get a machine-made one so much cheaper." And that's with a tangible item. If people don't appreciate the skill or time to create a tangible good, how much less do they value it when "content" is so ephemeral and easily copied? Although stealing IS a bit of an extreme length to go to, but then they don't see it as stealing, or morally equivalent to swiping a piece of artwork off the wall. It's why exclusivity is still able to get people to cough up money.

 

[Gypsy]

I fear that the publishing industry is following the same terrible path as the music industry, and people will soon believe that it's preposterous to have to pay to own a book.

I believe in supporting artists whose work I appreciate, so I'm happy to buy music and books and other beautiful things.

And beautifully said. I totally agree.

Agree as well.