Idiot downloads music files, gets caught, writes long whiny article about how unfair the world is...

Chat about stuff other than Transformers.
Cliffjumper
Articles: 0
Posts: 32206
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 5:00 am

Idiot downloads music files, gets caught, writes long whiny article about how unfair the world is...

Post by Cliffjumper » Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:49 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl ... c-industry

RIAA are after a preposterous amount of money, but this guy's "wah wah I did nothing wrong" shite is laughable. Especially the way he carefully neglects to mention how much he downloaded or "shared with other people" (because if it was a quantifiably small amount, it'd be all over the article to illustrate just how ridiculous the RIAA's claim is).

Me? Download stuff off the internet all the time, for the same reason pretty much everyone else does - it's free. We all have these standards about not wanting to **** certain musicians/shows/comic books series over, but let's be honest, they go out of the window if we don't have the money - we might at some point buy the CD or the TPB or the DVD, but then at the same time, we might not.

If the BBC or Sunrise ever come knocking on my front door with a bill, I'll be ****ing gutted. But I won't piss and bitch about how my explicit breaking of the law is something I should be let off for.

User avatar
Halfshell
Articles: 0
Posts: 19167
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Don't complain to me. I don't care.
Contact:

Post by Halfshell » Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:56 am

Cliffjumper wrote:But I won't piss and bitch about how my explicit breaking of the law is something I should be let off for.
And that's why you'll never cut it as a bastard. Give it up and go live on a farm, you hippy!

User avatar
Clay
Articles: 0
Posts: 7054
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Murray, KY

Post by Clay » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:27 pm

Cliffjumper wrote:Me? Download stuff off the internet all the time, for the same reason pretty much everyone else does - it's free. We all have these standards about not wanting to **** certain musicians/shows/comic books series over, but let's be honest, they go out of the window if we don't have the money - we might at some point buy the CD or the TPB or the DVD, but then at the same time, we might not.
Hmm. I actually don't do that all that much. What I'm guilty of is buying a CD, ultimately needing more money, and then making a copy of it before selling it at the local record store. I'm not sure if that's terribly different, though.

There was a time about a decade ago that I had a file-sharing program installed, and I believe I still have some odd tracks from that, but the advent of iTunes and Amazon's mp3 service to buy individual tracks quickly replaced the naughty way.

What I did notice about downloading things without paying for them is that, basically, the floodgates were open. Too much stuff too quickly leads to a short attention span. Nowadays, I just buy albums proper when I want them, and I stick with them for a fair amount of time since I've put real money into them. I'm actually happier with the smaller palette.

I will say that I've only ever pirated one computer game, and that was because the company that produced it went under before ever distributing it properly. And I did end up buying the retail CD earlier this year after I finally found it online. So I suppose that puts the delayed payment about a decade behind :o

User avatar
inflatable dalek
Articles: 0
Posts: 23996
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek » Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:02 pm

I'm downloading the BBC radio Sherlock Holmes at the moment. Though you didn't hear that from me.

User avatar
Jetfire
Articles: 0
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:50 pm

I tend to download stuff I can't find to buy and download these days because I can afford it.


Occasionally I'll download something I'm waiting for to be released and I just can't wait :o

What I find funny about that article is how the comments that support him claim what a hero he is and how evil the companies are. There are a lot of ignorant and stupid people damage the credability of people genuinely against big business practices.
Image

User avatar
RID Scourge
Articles: 0
Posts: 13262
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2001 4:00 am
Location: In ur newz forum. Reading ur newz!

Post by RID Scourge » Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:53 pm

Yeah. Definitely not a hero. He got caught doing something that he's had fair warning not to do. You get caught? Own up to it.

I hope they do drastically reduce the fine that he'll have to pay. There's no need to financially ruin someone over a [relatively] small amount of music. The lawsuit itself is vindictive, serving only to make an example of the kid in order to show that they have the legal muscle to stick it to the downloaders.

User avatar
Springer007
Articles: 0
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contact:

Post by Springer007 » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:31 pm

The kid deserves it, justly so, especially since Itunes and band websites have music to download for a cost. I would never have dreamed of truthfully just buying singular tracks for 0.99 cents on the dollar, which to me is a fair price to pay for just individual songs. Or if you are like the project bands, for free in order to spread the music around and increase popularity. I remember when I was 18 and downloading music because at the time I hadn't really discovered ebay, or found that stores had my music actually for sale. I would listen to the albums, then when I could find the albums that I downloaded, I bought them. Then lastly I would delete the downloaded copies then I was happy and set.

You would also think with viruses going around nowadays, that decimate computers at times too, that file sharing like this kid was doing would have deterred him from doing so. I always got the virus ridden music and that was another cause for me to quit using Limewire and other programs because of it. I say give the kid some community service working with the bands so that way he knows what they have to go through in order to make music, earn money from it, and then maybe he would be more appreciative of how he ripped them off a bit.

(just a thought from what I read and me opining for a short time today)
"Fear denies faith. And for the Immortal Emperor!"

-Space Marines

User avatar
Jetfire
Articles: 0
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:49 pm

RID Scourge wrote:Yeah. Definitely not a hero. He got caught doing something that he's had fair warning not to do. You get caught? Own up to it.

I hope they do drastically reduce the fine that he'll have to pay. There's no need to financially ruin someone over a [relatively] small amount of music. The lawsuit itself is vindictive, serving only to make an example of the kid in order to show that they have the legal muscle to stick it to the downloaders.

Is somebody in their late 20's really a kid?

Seriously is $3000 worth of music a small amount? That's over half my iPod thus over half my music collection.
Image

User avatar
RID Scourge
Articles: 0
Posts: 13262
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2001 4:00 am
Location: In ur newz forum. Reading ur newz!

Post by RID Scourge » Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:59 pm

Eh. Maybe not a kid kid, but kid in the slang sense.

The $3000 is consistent with what the RIAA always sends in their letters. Here's a link I found that was quite edifying about their lawsuits. The damages that the RIAA claims are highly dubious.

User avatar
Jetfire
Articles: 0
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:04 am

RID Scourge wrote:Eh. Maybe not a kid kid, but kid in the slang sense.

The $3000 is consistent with what the RIAA always sends in their letters. Here's a link I found that was quite edifying about their lawsuits. The damages that the RIAA claims are highly dubious.
Of course we all agree that the price they are asking is ridicious but their position isn't.

No doubt they throw it high so that if any neogiation is required they have a high starting point to meet in the middle to their advantage. Saying that any major downloaders I've known have rarely have below several thousand songs downloaded anyway.
Image

User avatar
Sir Auros
Articles: 0
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:12 am

The ridiculous amounts of money that the RIAA extorts in these cases is what will always make me sympathize with whoever they're reaming. I buy almost everything now that I'm not a broke college student, but if I were to get caught and had to go bankrupt trying to pay for imaginary rights? People would die.

User avatar
RID Scourge
Articles: 0
Posts: 13262
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2001 4:00 am
Location: In ur newz forum. Reading ur newz!

Post by RID Scourge » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:00 am

Jetfire wrote:Of course we all agree that the price they are asking is ridicious but their position isn't.
Definitely. I just don't like their methods. The whole thing is about pride for the most part. It wouldn't be worth their time to sue for the price of the songs. So they jack it up. The whole thing stinks of "What you've done hasn't even made a scratch, but we're annoyed so we're going to ruin you." The worst of it being that none of the money from these settlements goes to the artists.

User avatar
S_Windell
Protoform
Articles: 0
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:42 pm

Post by S_Windell » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:19 pm

Perhaps these exorbitant are intended to dissuade people from sharing. Even considering that, what an outrageous shafting!

BTW, and generally speaking here, I'd feel more sympathy for the music industry if they compensated the artists who write and/or record the songs a bit more fairly.

Also, it seems at this point file sharing is something that just has to be accepted. Fining a small percentage of sharers isn't exactly working.
Jetfire wrote:Occasionally I'll download something I'm waiting for to be released and I just can't wait :o
That I've done! I'm a bit old fashioned on this, I guess, having the files is okay but I'd rather have the disc in hand. Every album or song I've DLed I eventually buy. I wonder if that would hold up if fined?

"And then in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment. That's when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans."

But not dedicated enough Nirvana fans to buy a disc that is perpetually on clearance? :p But that isn't the point. The point here is that things aren't playing into his favor and he's pulling the "rich, evil corporation" routine. :nonono: The guy seems savvy and educated enough to know better than that. So, yeah, he's pretty much whining.

Cliffjumper
Articles: 0
Posts: 32206
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 5:00 am

Post by Cliffjumper » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:43 am

Totally forgot I posted this.

The RIAA 'damages' seem to simply be a heavy-handed way of warning everyone off... They'd get further by charging him realistically what he'd 'stolen' by both downloading and uploading (which is much the same thing I guess legally - I guess the argument is you're passing on stolen goods), which'd probably still be a "**** me!" number - how many people can lay their hands on, say, ten grand all that easily? Then there'd be no muddiness, just charge the bloke the iTunes rate for whatever he's pinched, plus costs.

Fully agree that it's a debate that gets ladden down pretty quickly by idiots on the pro-download side whose "record companies are just big corporations who owe us free music, and if it wasn't for them kids wouldn't listen to pop music" crap shames anyone with a sensible middle way.

The Nirvana justification is brilliant - I'd say it's a fair guess that anyone who even vaguely likes Nirvana has "Come as You Are". I can't stand them, and I've got "Come as You Are" (mainly for pointing out to people that visionary shotgun fellator Mr. Courtney Love stole the tune from The Damned). Like I say, the interesting thing about the article is that aside it doesn't mention how much he uploaded or downloaded, and you can bet your left testicle/ovary that if it was a non-huge amount it'd be mentioned constantly in contrast to the fine.

Agree with Clay on the overload thing too, actually. When I first got broadband and a burner, I was downloading stuff faster than I could listen to it, but you end up just getting stuff for the sake of it - I've got burnt copies of all Gary Numan's albums, and like nothing he's done since about 1983.

Personally I have a couple of standards I attempt to keep to... I tend to concentrate on stuff I've either purchased on other formats (e.g. I got most Doctor Who video releases at full price in the shops as they came out, I dread to think what the total cost was, we're probably talking somewhere between £1000 - £1500, and I don't particularly see why I should fork out the same amount again for them on DVD), stuff that's out of print with no real signs of coming out (various album, TV series, comics), or stuff that's not licensed here (why should I not see Ideon, Baldios or God Mars just because companies won't pick them out on DVD?). Of course, I'm not adverse to downloading something out of cheapness (the odd song now and then, usually pulled off YouTube), impatience (RotF) or just plain wanting to **** the producers over (IDW comics), but due to my tastes largely having solidified to a large extent I tend to stick to them...

Laziness works in favour of the manufacturers sometimes, though - I had so much hassle authoring DVDs of the first two Gundam series I just went out and bought them in the end... No, wait, I went out and bought Hong Kong bootlegs because they weren't preposterously overpriced. Nevermind.

User avatar
Springer007
Articles: 0
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contact:

Post by Springer007 » Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:12 am

if i could get away with it, i would try to find and download the 1970s Tekkaman the Space Knight series and others that haven't been released in a long time. I hated how cartoon network back before september 11th, 2001 had the original Gundam on, and after 9/11 they pulled it completely. It was redundant and I can't seem to recall any real reason given! I have pretty much half of the series, possibly and maybe, on vhs when I taped it when I would come home from school. But I am not going to pay an over inflated price for it. Another series I would download, if I could, would be Sailor Moon since I refuse to pay 200-300 usd for an entire series. I could put that money into car or something for something trivial. maybe the RIAA could actually give some of the winnings to the artists in any form instead of pocketing it. But we know they'll never do that..... It'd be too honest and nice for their own good, or hell's bells, they could ACTUALLY encourage the companies to put out the "out of print" materials again at a decent price, and maybe people would want to be honest, maybe just a little.....
"Fear denies faith. And for the Immortal Emperor!"

-Space Marines

User avatar
RID Scourge
Articles: 0
Posts: 13262
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2001 4:00 am
Location: In ur newz forum. Reading ur newz!

Post by RID Scourge » Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:27 pm

Cliffjumper wrote:The RIAA 'damages' seem to simply be a heavy-handed way of warning everyone off... They'd get further by charging him realistically what he'd 'stolen' by both downloading and uploading
Definitely. If they were to take them to small claims court and say "You downloaded $300-600* worth of songs. Pay up." When they sued people then I'd definitely be on their side.

The deterrant may make me think twice about downloading, but it also deterrs me from buying unless I really like it. I got plenty of CDs at this point that I can just rip them on iTunes and put them on my iPod. No need to buy new ones. I usually listen to a lot on YouTube.** There's a couple of CDs I wanna buy, but haven't gotten around to it. I'm more of a comic books/action figure/dvd whore.

*I had about that much back when I used to download, and I'm assuming that's pretty much all the average Joe has on his computer as opposed to the mega-downloaders who have a collection of however many thousand albums' worth of songs.

**What's the industry's official stance on YouTube btw? Seems like they're willing to take down any music that the artist doesn't want posted, but there's a ton of it that isn't removed by request. They have to know it's there, and all they have to do is type in their name.

I see it as the same thing as requesting that a radio station play a particular song, but if they have a problem with it then I can totally understand.

Cliffjumper
Articles: 0
Posts: 32206
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 5:00 am

Post by Cliffjumper » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:07 pm

YouTube a lot of them seem to be playing by thumb... I do know one company (Sony BMG?) went through a phase of blocking audio, and then stopped (not talking new uploads, I'm talking the exact same video lost sound for a few weeks, then the audio was restored, leaving to some weird stuff on comments pages). I think most of them see it as the new radio - especially as downloading and/or converting the files requires a modicum of computer knowledge.

EDIT: It's probably the guys who downloaded thousands that they should go for, but just as actual costs - 1000 albums, $10,000 or whatever.

User avatar
RID Scourge
Articles: 0
Posts: 13262
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2001 4:00 am
Location: In ur newz forum. Reading ur newz!

Post by RID Scourge » Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:12 am

Ah. Good to know. Thanks.

User avatar
Heinrad
Articles: 0
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2001 5:00 am
Location: Riskin' it all on my Russian Roulette!

Post by Heinrad » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:46 pm

I think this twerp was on CNN this morning. Or somewhere.

What I get for being half asleep when I see this stuff.

Either the trial is over, or it's still going on. If it is over, and I heard the numbers right, this kills any credibility the RIAA had.

It works out to around 25,000 per song. What I wasn't clear on is the total(and I'm not seeing the story on CNN's site), but I thought it was 450,000 total.

Which is going way overboard. Of course, at 4.5 million, it's a lot more songs.

But then, whiney-boy's not cutting that sympathetic a figure himself. He's maintaining it's his right to download and distribute whatever he wants to, and that the RIAA's demands are unreasonable.

And while 25 grand per song is unreasonable, not even the artists are on his side over this one.

If his legal team's smart, they keep him sedated during the trial.
As a professional tanuki (I'm a Japanese mythological animal, and a good luck charm), I have an alarm clock built into me somewhere. I also look like a stuffed animal. And you thought your life was tough......

3DS Friend Code: 1092-1274-7642

User avatar
Springer007
Articles: 0
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Fort Smith, Arkansas
Contact:

Post by Springer007 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:28 pm

Heinrad wrote:I think this twerp was on CNN this morning. Or somewhere.

What I get for being half asleep when I see this stuff.

Either the trial is over, or it's still going on. If it is over, and I heard the numbers right, this kills any credibility the RIAA had.

It works out to around 25,000 per song. What I wasn't clear on is the total(and I'm not seeing the story on CNN's site), but I thought it was 450,000 total.

Which is going way overboard. Of course, at 4.5 million, it's a lot more songs.

But then, whiney-boy's not cutting that sympathetic a figure himself. He's maintaining it's his right to download and distribute whatever he wants to, and that the RIAA's demands are unreasonable.

And while 25 grand per song is unreasonable, not even the artists are on his side over this one.

If his legal team's smart, they keep him sedated during the trial.
from foxnews, if i read correct, it was close to 450 grand to 600 grand, either way it is a huge figure. and either way both the teen and the RIAA itself look like asses.
"Fear denies faith. And for the Immortal Emperor!"

-Space Marines

Post Reply