Self-deprecation is worth its weight in smoldering phoenix-ashes and baby unicorn tears.
or; nine thousand dollars a song?!?
Published on October 5, 2007 By SanChonino In Music
News today is that there's a lady in Minnesota who finally stood up to the record companies' ridiculous and draconian copyright rules.

And what does she get for it?

220,000 dollars in fines. For 24 songs she supposedly downloaded.

Yeah, that's a little over 9,000 dollars a song.

Now, I understand that the record companies' goal was to make an example of the single mother of two, but she maintains her innocence - that she was neither involved in downloading or uploading music. And besides, 9,000 dollars a song? Seems a bit ridiculous.

But I only see this as making those of us who may or may not participate in file sharing becoming more brazen. I'm sure that more sites will become more ardent in their desires to stick up to the big corporations, like the Pirate Bay does so very, very well.

But nine thousand dollars a song is bullshit.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Radiohead has it right. Pie in the face of those fools.

Comments (Page 1)
on Oct 05, 2007
I'm totally with you on this!
on Oct 05, 2007
The recording industry is all but guaranteeing its own demise. And that will be a good thing. I know several artists who refuse to sign with labels because they want to retain creative control over their own work.

The RIAA's become a serious organized crime racket. I would not be surprised if they start going after musicians who refuse to participate in their little scam. On a micro level, this is already happening, as the organized crime rackets that run New Orleans' music scene are trying to ban street musicians because they take money away from the bar musicians.
on Oct 05, 2007
Yep, the record companies days are numbered and it's no one's fault but their own. 
on Oct 05, 2007

Ok, I'll take the devil's advocate role here and ask those that are complaining just why someone that had a supposed preponderence of the evidence against them, creating an appearance of liability in a civil liability case, why that individual shouldn't be slapped hard to sharing music with other individuals?

Not that I like the record companies at all, and not that I don't think that the amount of damages that was awarded wasn't completely ridiculous, but sharing music with others -- short of giving them the CD, record or originally recorded tape you purchased -- is not permitted and does steal income that belongs to the artists (and, sadly enough, to the stupid record companies).

I agree that the record companies are evil, their view of customer rights to move music between formats for consumer convenience is absolutely crazy (see recent comments by Sony that say ripping music from a CD to put on an MP3 player is stealing.  IDIOTS! {record company, not consumers, readers here, etc.}), but anyone that is dumb enough to run Kazaa or similar software is thumbing their noses at record companies in a way that they shouldn't.

If you have hooked a computer up to the net and are sharing music files from it, then you are absolutely breaking the law, no matter how screwed up we think that the law is.  If you want the law changed, lobby the idiots and morons in Congress that were already bought and paid for by the record business and see if you can make them change the law.  Good luck with that though as it isn't bloodly likely to change.

on Oct 05, 2007
short of giving them the CD, record or originally recorded tape you purchased -- is not permitted and does steal income that belongs to the artists (and, sadly enough, to the stupid record companies).


Umm, actually this is not entirely true, terp. If I copy a CD or tape that I LEGALLY purchased and GIVE you the copy, with no money changing hands, that is considered "fair use". That was the law Napster originally tried to use as its loophole, arguing that "friends" meant "anyone with access to the net".

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but this judgment is insane, and an overreach. Do you really think the RIAA will compensate the artists whose work was downloaded? Doubtful. They'll pocket the money themselves.

I've seen too many good musicians locked out of the industry by the RIAA and their thugs. You can't just go out, book a concert hall, and sell tickets anymore. You have to go through these goons to get anywhere. And that needs to change.

Look at Prince for an example. While I'm not a fan of the man's music, I sympathize with the guy. For several long years, his original record company stole EVEN HIS NAME (which is his BIRTH name) so that he could no longer use it. This is why he used the symbol all of those years.

The RIAA is no better than the mafia, in my estimation. The chief difference is, tha mafia makes better cannoli!
on Oct 05, 2007
is not permitted and does steal income that belongs to the artists


Simple question....Bottom line everyone: Did she steal or not?


on Oct 05, 2007
Did she steal or not?


That's the problem, Lula. This is far from a cut-and-dry case. Is sharing stealing?

You could make the argument that if I buy a case of Spaghetti-Os and then distribute them among my friends, that's stealing, because then I'm robing Franco-American the money that they would've gotten if all those people had bought their own cans of Spaghetti-Os. Do you see why this is hard to define?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the record companies are completely full of bullshit. That's why there are SO many artists who support the consumer when it comes to these things - they themselves have realized the ridiculousness of the behavior of the record companies.
on Oct 05, 2007
on Oct 05, 2007
Arrgh, I'm tyring to embed the new video by the Pirate Bay about file sharing . . . it's not working.

Go here to see it. It's pretty cute.

And remember: sharing is caring.
on Oct 05, 2007

Umm, actually this is not entirely true, terp. If I copy a CD or tape that I LEGALLY purchased and GIVE you the copy, with no money changing hands, that is considered "fair use". That was the law Napster originally tried to use as its loophole, arguing that "friends" meant "anyone with access to the net".

Sorry, not true.

You can duplicate for YOUR OWN personal use, but not to give to another individual.  It could possibly even be a stretch that you would purchase a copy for your use and share with a family member, but I don't think the law really gets that specific, nor have the decisions regarding fair use (that I am aware of).  Fair use, though, as I understand it covers the personal use of the original licenser/purchaser of the product.  If you want to share with another individual (i.e., loan a book type thing), you must give away the original and any and all copies you have made as you may not keep copies.   At least that is how things have been seen so far and I really don't expect them to change.

on Oct 05, 2007

Simple question....Bottom line everyone: Did she steal or not?

If she didn't buy the copies she had then simple bottom line answer is yes.

If she shared copies that she obtained, no matter where from, then the fairly simple answer is that she was conspiring to steal and/or aiding and abetting (spelling?) other individuals that were stealing.  Still a crime.

on Oct 05, 2007
If you want to share with another individual (i.e., loan a book type thing), you must give away the original and any and all copies you have made as you may not keep copies.


Draconian, stifling, and ridiculous.
on Oct 05, 2007
Not draconian, stifling, or ridiculous. See, you don't buy CDs. You buy a license to listen to the music on a CD. And only from the CD. Anything else is illegal. You cannot play it at a party. You cannot let anyone else hear it at all. It's only for you, unless they've all bought the CD too, and forget about putting it on your computer. That's not legal.

See, with the spaghettios, you're not buying a license to eat spaghettios. You're buying the actual product. Anything electronic, you aren't buying the product, just a license to use it.

Which is why I DLed Capitalism 2. I have the license to it, I just can't find the CD. So that's not stealing, even though I probably can't prove that I did buy it.

If you give away your license to listen to music, you can't keep a copy of any of it.

on Oct 05, 2007
You buy a license to listen to the music on a CD. And only from the CD.


Draconian, stifling, ridiculous, and F***IN' STUPID.
on Oct 05, 2007
Besides, there's a difference between software and a CD. Your software came with a rather hefty "End User License Agreement". Remember that thing you have to read and check "I agree"? There, you are told, explicitly, exactly what you can do with that product.

Same with movies. They've got that big "FBI warning" on it, telling me exactly what I can and can't do.

I've looked at ten different CD cases and booklets now, while just sitting at my desk. No "End User License Agreement". No license anything. And that's why it's draconian, stifling, and ridiculous. I am given no restrictions, according to the CD itself (and I just looked at 10).

If they're going to play these silly games, I suggest they actually tell people the archaic, foolhardy laws.