woman fined 200,000$ for 24 songs
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
- Status
It might be worth it to call you a cocksucking leech too.
There is a limit to how much "justice" should be served for an "offense." These recording industry people have persuaded the courts to punish people for fighting it when they sue. This breaks our constitutional rights.
What gives a person the right to take a picture of it, pass that picture around, and give the artist free advertising?
A lot of people, like yourself, accept the most outrageous ideas as long as they give a big corporation a chance to destroy people.
I would not have expected anything better from you.
Incidentally, it's been very pleasant to not have seen you around very much for several weeks now. We've been blessed indeed - may it long continue.
The problem is that an artist makes their painting and sells the only one they make. On the other hand a musical group makes one song and gets paid not only once but every time that a COPY of it is sold. The price a musician gets is about three to five cents per dollar cost of the CD or record. The rest, 95% , goes to the recording company. So is it fair that the musician gets so little for their endeavors but a recording company makes all the profits? Since the musician made the recording, wrote it and performed it why is it they get so little and the rest goes elsewhere, where's the justice in that? That being said if we download music we aren't hurting the musicians as much as we are taking something away from those who steal the musicians profits away from them.
strawmen? You think 9,000$ dollar fine per stolen song is reasonable?
Can't you buy it for 1 or 2$ online?
A packet of gum costs 1 or 2$ here. Should the punishment fit the crime than indeed the kid stealing a packet of gums should get a 9,000$ fine.
Dude you can't take the money from these poor people aftherall the work real hard for it and it's not like they get any extra's on the job yeah... fuck them I hope the verdict is overruled and a new version of theft is made. What those compagny's do are far worse then what the lady did if compagnies would drop the prize of a cd or dvd to a decend prize then perhaps more people would buy legally, personally I'm not wouldn't pay anybody any extra's that already make 100 thousands of dollars for what no offence is yust a hobby
Definitely worth it.
And the more times a song is copied the more people buy the album and make money for the artist. The recording industry is punishing people for stealing that actually benefits the artists who are stolen from. Bill Gates makes billions because people stole his software. Grow up, people.
What about recording programs on TV to watch later.
Is that equally as bad, or not?
And what if the TV program contains music?
Is that equally as bad, or not?
And what if the TV program contains music?
I think I'll go to the public library and borrow a book for which I haven't paid for and read it. I enjoy borrowing videos, recordings and books for free from the library so what's the difference if I just stay at home and download it?
Your assumptions couldn't be more wrong about me.
I'm about as anti-corporate as you can get.
That still doesn't justify stealing.
Rather than jump to conclusions about me, please read my above post about boycotting big money music and supporting independent artists.
Wrong.
Most artists make their living from selling lithographs and reprints.
That's their choice to make.
They can put their songs on the net to download for free if they want to - there are plenty of legal sites for that purpose.
Record stores can also give away promotional CD's - that doesn't give you the right to shoplift other CD's.
Justify it to yourself however you wish, but it is theft, plain and simple.
Last edited:
Then why would they miss one or two lithographs if they are only cheap, machine replications of their work? It would seem they will make a tremendous profit from just doing their work for the artistic expression moreso than from actuall sales.
Do you shoplift CD's?
If not, then I don't see your point.
They will make a tremendous profit from painting, and not from sales? :bugeye:
Perhaps you worded that wrong. I don't get how they will make a tremendous profit from not selling their work.
Nuff said.
No, but I do download many things for free.
They will make a tremendous profit from painting, and not from sales? :bugeye:
Agreed, they will make profits from the sales but they won't miss a few stolen lithos for lithos are cheap to reproduce.
Perhaps you worded that wrong. I don't get how they will make a tremendous profit from not selling their work.
I didn't say that, my intents were that if a million lithos were sold and one was stolen the profits won't be affected very much.
They will make a tremendous profit from painting, and not from sales? :bugeye:
Agreed, they will make profits from the sales but they won't miss a few stolen lithos for lithos are cheap to reproduce.
Perhaps you worded that wrong. I don't get how they will make a tremendous profit from not selling their work.
I didn't say that, my intents were that if a million lithos were sold and one was stolen the profits won't be affected very much.
Marketing costs a fortune.
Theft costs a fortune.
When you illegally download songs, you are contributing to why the artist sees such a small share of the profits.
As I said earlier, if you don't like how the industry works, don't support it.
Only buy from independent labels that pay their artists well, or buy directly from the independent artist and go see them live.
If you don't like the way Wal Mart does business, you should boycott them (I do) not steal from them. Shop elsewhere.
I'd rather see the artists just bypass the record companies and go online with their material as some of them are doing today. That way they reduce the costs to themselves and us the consumers.
- Status