Single mother fined $220,000 (£108,000)

[mosaix]

As on previous occasions Jacko brings us back to reality with some actual knowledge of the situation.

I also found the 'single mother' bit hard to swallow - what difference does gender or marital status make?

And I don't get the being 'ripped off' and 'fleeced' arguments either. It's not like it's food or heating for your home now is it? This music belongs to someone else, you can either buy it for the asking price or steal it. You choose.

Some of us here write and some of us get published. Imagine how you'd feel if there were people photocopying your stuff and distributing it free to friends and strangers. Who's being 'ripped off' and 'fleeced' then?

However, there do seem to have been some dangerous precedents set here that are worrying.

[Sephiroth]

The fact is, that most of the money does not go to the artists.

So, the people making most of the money are not the people who deserve it, IMO. The same is true with writing. This is not a system I can accept as fair.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The fact is, that most of the money does not go to the artists.

So, the people making most of the money are not the people who deserve it, IMO. The same is true with writing. This is not a system I can accept as fair.

But even less goes to the artists if the stuff is stolen. It's not a valid argument Sephiroth.

By all means argue for better contractual terms for the artists - that's another thread.

[Sephiroth]

My whole point is another thread, really, which is why I haven't said any more, I don't want to drag this one off-topic.

Put like that, it's not a valid argument, no. But I have an issue with our whole economic system, which is why, as you say, it's another thread.

[daisybee]

Originally Posted by mosaix

And I don't get the being 'ripped off' and 'fleeced' arguments either. It's not like it's food or heating for your home now is it? This music belongs to someone else, you can either buy it for the asking price or steal it. You choose.

Some of us here write and some of us get published. Imagine how you'd feel if there were people photocopying your stuff and distributing it free to friends and strangers. Who's being 'ripped off' and 'fleeced' then?

However, there do seem to have been some dangerous precedents set here that are worrying.

I understand your argument mosaix-but I disagree with the specifics of this case-I am not saying that you should go to HMV and load up on a stack of CD's and that is fine.

The fact is, she denied doing it-and refused to settle as all the others did. The fact that no proof was required to find her guilty is awful-and yes I think that the bands mentioned in the article have got even more free publicity off the back of her problems, how much is that worth to the record companies?

What if file sharing software was imported on to your computer without your knowledge? That's hardly new is it? It appears that you would be liable if it were found and be subject to the same fate as her-simply because the possibility of file sharing existed on your personal pc.

The fine is ludicrous, and the time and resources spent by the record industry in pursuing this case would be better spent on dealing with those guilty of non virtual piracy-not least because of the links between piracy and organised crime. That would have been a far more worthy and moral victory.

Artists have a right to expect that their work's copyright is respected-however musical artists also make money from live performances, which must surely benefit positively from more people knowing who they are as side effect of file sharing? We aren't talking about plagerism-they still recieve recognition for the work.Musicians in history have never had it as good as those at the successful end of the spectrum these days-I won't feel sorry for them.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Lith

Ursa Major, can you translate the quote? My French isn't good enough to make anything but hash out of the meaning.

I have to admit, within the sight of many masters of languages both extant and not, that I simply copied the quote from Wiki (). It's from, I believe, Candide, and states:

"in this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."

I only used the French version because the words usually quoted are "pour encourager les autres" rather than its English translation. (And I think it's fitting to use French here, as Les Bleus joined the English in defeating a southern hemisphere team in the World Cup. I don't hold up much hope for the Scots, so the way things are going, they should win! We may even rescue this network from those Aussies who wish to take it over, if some of their posts are to be believed. )

As to the court case.... If you steal (and that is how the law sees it), you can't expect to get away scot free; but as I said before, the fine seems excessive. On the other hand, if I ever get my books published, hanging will be too good for people copying them for free ().

Good Grief, post 100! Originally, I only popped in to take a look.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by daisybee

I understand your argument mosaix-but I disagree with the specifics of this case-I am not saying that you should go to HMV and load up on a stack of CD's and that is fine.

The fact is, she denied doing it-and refused to settle as all the others did. The fact that no proof was required to find her guilty is awful-and yes I think that the bands mentioned in the article have got even more free publicity off the back of her problems, how much is that worth to the record companies?

What if file sharing software was imported on to your computer without your knowledge? That's hardly new is it? It appears that you would be liable if it were found and be subject to the same fate as her-simply because the possibility of file sharing existed on your personal pc.

The fine is ludicrous, and the time and resources spent by the record industry in pursuing this case would be better spent on dealing with those guilty of non virtual piracy-not least because of the links between piracy and organised crime. That would have been a far more worthy and moral victory.

Artists have a right to expect that their work's copyright is respected-however musical artists also make money from live performances, which must surely benefit positively from more people knowing who they are as side effect of file sharing? We aren't talking about plagerism-they still recieve recognition for the work.Musicians in history have never had it as good as those at the successful end of the spectrum these days-I won't feel sorry for them.

Daisybee I agree with you about this specific case. But I can't agree about the copying.

[Sephiroth]

Post 100?! Pah! Dude, you've been here for months!


Uhhh, I mean....congratulations!!!!!

[Lith]

Daisybee- I should have read more attentively. I'm by no means an expert in the law, but don't people sometimes get convicted on circumstantial evidence? If she was convicted solely for having Kazaa on her computer, that would be worrisome. But I wonder if there wasn't more that wasn't mentioned in the article?

As for the record industry and our whole economic system- it's not that difficult to simply opt out of it, rather than take to stealing stuff. Probably a lot healthier for you, too, as you now have a lot of free time and cash with which to visit friends and family. I find it a simpler moral issue than legal one, actually.

Ursa major- thanks. I've never heard the quote.

[dustinzgirl]

You know, there are ways around stuff nowadays, easy ways, so getting caught for dling music is like robbing a store without a mask or gloves.

However, I don't see how sharing music files can be a lawsuit unless the person is making a profit off of it. She is not selling or leasing it, she is not saying it is her intellectual property.

[Ursa major]

If a latterday Robin Hood broke into your home and took your goods, but then put them on a stall by the side of the road, marked "Goods for Free", I don't think you'd be too pleased about it. I know it's difficult to comprehend with something that can be endlessly duplicated, but that'll be true of anything that can be stored elctronically, including eBooks. While I don't expect to become rich from my fiction books (chance would be a fine thing!) and I enjoy the writing of them, I wouldn't be too happy to publish into a world where intellectual property is fair game and so there's little or no reward for the creator.

Let's face it, I know what my story's about; the effort I put in - not enough, I know - to make it coherent to someone not privy to my thoughts and not au fait with my (let's say) unique take on grammar in draft 1 ought to (though probably won't) be rewarded financially.

By the way, the woman's name was Jammie. In the UK, someone is called a Jammy B*****d (or some other expletive) when they've got away with something. Ironic, eh?

[Bel_Azad]

Yep - it's too much and should be reduced to something she can afford - looking at what is written so far - she looks to be guilty.

What I dont like about the music industry and film industry is that when you buy a product - you should be able to have access to it forever - free - it should become yours to play for your personal use.

I don't like these so many technicalities and rules that only allow you to play it only on CD, prohibit you from making back-ups- transfer it to other mediums etc

If you pay for something legally - you should be entitiled to some consumer rights and customer service and protection -

At the moment - everything is so far in favour of the industry - no wonder many people are downloading stuff illegaly.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

If a latterday Robin Hood broke into your home and took your goods, but then put them on a stall by the side of the road, marked "Goods for Free", I don't think you'd be too pleased about it. I know it's difficult to comprehend with something that can be endlessly duplicated, but that'll be true of anything that can be stored elctronically, including eBooks. While I don't expect to become rich from my fiction books (chance would be a fine thing!) and I enjoy the writing of them, I wouldn't be too happy to publish into a world where intellectual property is fair game and so there's little or no reward for the creator.

But that's not really the same thing, since I still own my goods---she didn't steal from the record company, she retained a copy. Also, I bet you would want your readers to share their books. They are not sharing it as something they made, they are not making money off of it, they are not trading for it, nor selling copies of it. All they are doing is reading it.

I'm not defending, I just don't see how they can sue for what they are suing. There is no proof of harm.

[Ursa major]

The fact that it's copying, rather than depriving of use, is what I meant by saying it's difficult to comprehend; but even if only one percent of those consuming a shared product would have bought that product, then there is a financial loss to the creator, or the publisher. And before we all get on out high horses to say that the publishers can afford it, think of the rest of us trying to get ourselves into print.

I can't remember the exact details, but I'm sure I've read somewhere in these forums that when a publisher takes on a new author, they know they'll lose money on the first book, perhaps break even on the second one and make money on the third (and so cover their expenses on the first). Now a big publisher may have a pot of cash to wave at new authors and may choose to give out free copies to generate a bit of interest; but that's their decision, because it's their money. Often it will not pay off (which is why it's rarely/never done). Under these circumstances, any loss of revenue is going to hit a project hard, perhaps nipping a promising authorial career in the bud.

So then why not let any John Doe on the planet with the technology - and aren't there close on a billion (milliard) PCs - and some free/cheap software make that decision for them? It simply isn't right. It's not right because it's not John Doe's decision; it's not right, because John Doe wouldn't be able to guage whether it would work or not; it's not right because it's not John Doe's money that's being risked. And the preceding sentences assume that John Doe is an angel, which he's probably not.

And now to enter the real world. Actually it's not right because it is destroying potential revenue. It's not right because John Doe is not doing it for the benefit of the creator; John Doe just wants to give his internet-friends a free lunch at someone else's expense. Many would call that stealing.

(And may I reiterate: I myself thought the fine was too high.)

[jackokent]

I am not up on music sharing so even if I wanted to break the law I wouldn't know how to go about it.

However sharing a book is lending that particulary copy of the book, not photocopying it all, giving the photocopies away and keeping the origional. I understand music sharing means just that (correct me if I am wrong).

This is where the difference lies. Yes if you buy something you own it, not the copywrite to reproduce it.

In law also, you don't have to prove harm you have to prove unlawfulness. The very fact that the law is there is meant to imply that by breaking it you are committing a social harm.

I don't want to sound anal though, there are lots of laws I don't agree with and I agree the fine seems a whopper for the transgression. There is also a legal principal that damages should be proportionate and this doesn't feel at all proportionate.