













Comments     Threshold


RE: Really....
By bah12 on 1/11/2011 11:54:27 AM , Rating: -1
Ironically now everyone is FOR piracy fines, as long as the RIAA are the defendant. Where are all the "pirates wouldn't pay for the songs anyway so its not wrong" posters?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for F$ck the RIAA (as I sincerely hate them)! I just found it humorous that when it is them involved everyone is all...hold them to the letter of the law, burn 'em at the stake, throw the book at them. But when a few million people do it it's "no big deal", and there is no harm done right.

IMO you are either pro piracy or not, regardless of the perpetrator. I'm equally angry at the millions who think downloading a "free" song is OK.

RE: Really....
By tastyratz on 1/11/2011 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 4
Ironic? I think not you just are not viewing the situation whole.
Ironic would be if the RIAA kept the songs as pending and listened to them in their homes.

The situation is that they stole copied and made a profit from all of these songs. That is seperate from your standard issue college kid piracy.

This is equivalent to basement cd presses selling counterfit music that looks legit in stores.

What the RIAA did was wrong, and they should absolutely be held accountable for it.
They profited from the works of others, they did not steal for personal use because they did not find it worth full price in store.

45 million is absolutely a joke for just Canada even. (note its 47.5mil CAD)
Also this is a settlement to be approved in Feb, this is not an agreed upon one.
A proposed settlement of approximately CDN $47.5 million dollars was reached with four major record labels

Class action members could still reject it

(Src) n/Cases/Pending_Lists_New

RE: Really....
By Invane on 1/11/2011 12:25:42 PM , Rating: 5
I would hope they definitely don't agree to this and run the RIAA into the ground with it. With all the groundwork the RIAA has layed, they would seem to have a very strong argument for steeper penalties in light of the fact that the RIAA's infringement strongly appears to be both willful and for profit.


RE: Really....


RE: Really....
By Invane on 1/11/2011 12:21:04 PM , Rating: 5
I think you're missing the point. They aren't 'pro' fines or 'for' larger penalties. These people are rightfully pissed off that when the SAME companies that are laying millions of dollars in fines on some guy making 30k a year commit the exact same crime on a far grander scale, they are suddenly paying a small percentage of what they demand from everyone else. The utter hypocrisy displayed by the RIAA is appalling.

You shouldn't have one measuring stick for meting out punishment when other people infringe your copyrighted works, and a second much smaller measuring stick for when you decide you want to infringe others' copyrights.

RE: Really....
By acer905 on 1/11/2011 12:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, copying something for private use has long been accepted, if not actually legal. For instance nobody ever complained (much) when VCR's came out and people started recording TV shows for personal use. However, selling copied movies was actively fought.

These companies have been actively selling and profiting off of copyrighted material. This is violating the copyright in the worst way possible.

Ultimately, the only reason that personal use copying ever came into the spotlight was when the internet allowed unlimited access to vast collections of music. Loss of potential profit became a driving force for the RIAA to attack the so called "pirates"

In copyright law, fair use should cover instances which do not involve profit as a result of the copying. Even now the RIAA and MPAA do not attack DVR's, even though people can use them to record and store as much content as they would like, unless the person is caught selling the content. Whether or not a person makes money by violating a copyright is actually a major point and should not be dismissed

RE: Really....
By nolisi on 1/11/2011 1:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
Along with the previous comments, the problem is exacerbated when you realize the Industry used legitimate means to move and profit from stolen goods because they have control over the market. You and I can't make and take a large number of legitimate looking copies of the latest Beyonce CD to Walmart and have them sell it for you without question. This practice has made other companies potentially liable for moving stolen goods.

The four facts that make this different than the average file sharing case:
1)They have control over legitimate distribution channels and used it to distribute stolen goods
2)They did it before the *mass* market gained the ability to make copies of music
3)They profited off of the lawsuits they issued against others as well as the pirated music
4)They advocated and instituted the laws and disproportionate penalties against regular people

I have no sorrow for faceless businesses that creates and enforces double standard. People would not have entered the black market that the Industry created had they not artificially controlled prices; ironically, the Industry was in the black market before any filesharers ever dreamed of entering it.

