Quote:

---

the jury fournd Jammie Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, liable for willful copyright infringement and awarded the RIAA plaintiffs $222,000 -- that's $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was alleged to have made available on Kazaa, for those of you keeping track at home, and probably something like, oh, say, $222,000 more than she should have had to pay, since the RIAA plaintiffs weren't required to show that Thomas had a file-sharing program installed on her machine or that she was even the person using the Kazaa account in question.

---

Quote:

---

kotik said:
just another reason not to use p2p

---

no.. just another reason not to SHARE your music. Leech all you want though

Screw being fair. I ain't gettin fined 200k

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
And there's at least 3 douchebags in this thread who are paying nothing for the new Radiohead, in spite of the fact that absolutely none of the money would go to an eeeeeevil corporaaaaaation.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/7493829/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD

---

Quote:

---

demius said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
And there's at least 3 douchebags in this thread who are paying nothing for the new Radiohead, in spite of the fact that absolutely none of the money would go to an eeeeeevil corporaaaaaation.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/7493829/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD

---

so I'm a douchebag for not wanting to potentially waste my money on an album chances are I won't be satisfied with?

you're fucking crazy

not to mention, I stated that if it's good I'd buy the box set. as well as if they weren't aware some people wouldn't pay for it, they wouldn't offer it for free

---

Quote:

---

Hegg, a married father of two who said he formerly raced snowmobiles, said he has never been on the internet. He said his wife is an administrator at a local hospital and an "internet guru."

---

Quote:

---

But Hegg said the jury in U.S. District Court in Duluth would have found her liable even if the plaintiffs had been required to establish that Kazaa users had actually downloaded the music.

"It would have been a lot harder to make the decision," he said. "Yes, we would have reached the same result."

---

Coming from a guy who has never been on the internet before that is a bold statement to make.

Whats funny is this guys wife probably pirates music as well as most of the other people on the jury.

Quote:

---

BrAiN said:
If you think about it economically, there is no "Cost of Goods Sold" that is lost when someone pirates music. People compare mp3 leeching to shoplifting. In shoplifting, you (the store owner paid 10 bucks for this item that sells for 30 bucks). Sure you only lost the 10 dollars you paid for it, but you also have an opportunity cost of 20 bucks. That item, which is in limited quantity) COULD have been sold to make 20 MORE dollars.

---

Quote:

---

When you're pirating music, there's no lOPPORTUNITY COST because (a) you're not getting a physical product, just information really and (b) there is an unlimited quantity. I guess there would be some negligible cost of goods sold like the studio time in making the album. But anyways... You don't miss out on making 20 bucks profit because you COULD have sold that cd to someone else. So because you're not technically LOSING any mony (through COGS or OCost), then if that "download" would have triggered you to buy something else which made them a profit (tshirt, poster, etc) then the pirating, in this situation, actually caused profits to balance out.

---

Quote:

---

If you hadn't downloaded those cd's (just any arbitraty cd), you probasbly never would have gotten into that group and bought their tshirt for 20 bucks (so the label gets 10 bucks profit off the shirt instead of the cd).

---

Quote:

---

It would be interesting if the RIAA released sales reports not just for music, but for band related merchandise. I bet one could almost justify the loss on CD sales. The money's still flowing, just somewhere else. The RIAA needs to figure that out and get into THAT business instead of the business of just trying to scare ppl straight, making their cause that much LESS supported.

---

Quote:

---

The fines imposed by the RIAA are completely ridiculous when you think about the real "COST" to the record companies of having their music "Stolen".

---

Quote:

---

How the hell do you "sell" music anyways?

John Cage is rolling over in his grave... uhh... if he's dead... I have no idea :P

I'm babbling

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

BrAiN said:
If you think about it economically, there is no "Cost of Goods Sold" that is lost when someone pirates music. People compare mp3 leeching to shoplifting. In shoplifting, you (the store owner paid 10 bucks for this item that sells for 30 bucks). Sure you only lost the 10 dollars you paid for it, but you also have an opportunity cost of 20 bucks. That item, which is in limited quantity) COULD have been sold to make 20 MORE dollars.

---

I'm not interested in what people compare it to. I don't care. I will make my own argument, if you don't mind. Thank you. No cost of goods sold? Bullshit. Are the only costs of pharmaceuticals those directly related to manufacture? No. There are tremendous research costs. Let's make that analogy, since it is exactly factually and legally correct. It is called intellectual property. All the effort of composing and practicing is naught to you? With a great risk that it will net nothing in the end? Simplistic and false comparisons (see straw man) to wood dowels are irrelevant. What about creative use of said wood dowels in a truly unique and clever toy. Does the inventor deserve nothing to you? Very little of the value of that toy is directly related to manufacturing costs.

Quote:

---

When you're pirating music, there's no lOPPORTUNITY COST because (a) you're not getting a physical product, just information really and (b) there is an unlimited quantity. I guess there would be some negligible cost of goods sold like the studio time in making the album. But anyways... You don't miss out on making 20 bucks profit because you COULD have sold that cd to someone else. So because you're not technically LOSING any mony (through COGS or OCost), then if that "download" would have triggered you to buy something else which made them a profit (tshirt, poster, etc) then the pirating, in this situation, actually caused profits to balance out.

---

This is all very nice but it fails to take into account what the OWNER of the intellectual property wants, which in most cases is for you to pay him for his work. If he chooses to give it away, that is fine. If HE/SHE deems it in his interest to allow you free access to his product that is HIS/HER decision alone to make. NOT YOURS. Who the fuck do you think you are? (aside from an acknowledged thief by the laws of the land). YOU have zero rights to his product. Except to do without.

Quote:

---

If you hadn't downloaded those cd's (just any arbitraty cd), you probasbly never would have gotten into that group and bought their tshirt for 20 bucks (so the label gets 10 bucks profit off the shirt instead of the cd).

---

Bullshit. And, once again, not your decision to make.

Quote:

---

It would be interesting if the RIAA released sales reports not just for music, but for band related merchandise. I bet one could almost justify the loss on CD sales. The money's still flowing, just somewhere else. The RIAA needs to figure that out and get into THAT business instead of the business of just trying to scare ppl straight, making their cause that much LESS supported.

---

Not your justification to make. They have made a different judgment. You are nobody. The RIAA doesn't NEED to do anything of the kind. Your years of Business studies and MBAs and Nobel Prizes in Economics give you exactly zero right to determine their business model. Sorry.

Quote:

---

The fines imposed by the RIAA are completely ridiculous when you think about the real "COST" to the record companies of having their music "Stolen".

---

They are what is called punitive. It's a concept. If you want to avoid them you have a simple recourse. DO WITHOUT. Here's what you CAN do. Sing the song over and over again in your head. THAT is free.

Quote:

---

How the hell do you "sell" music anyways?

John Cage is rolling over in his grave... uhh... if he's dead... I have no idea :P

I'm babbling

---

Pretty much.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
It's called punative

---