Minnesota woman hit with $1.9 million RIAA lawsuit judgment

[Themightytom]

Radio listeners are patronizing the radio station. The radio stations pay to broadcast the music and you get to listen to their adds. Don't pretend the idea of radios stations is new to you.

Way to miss the point there. If you're going to argue that piracy is bad because it causes the producers to lose sales, then that logic should extend to anything that causes potential sales loss. Guess what? If I decide not to buy an album based on what I hear over the radio? That meets this definition because the record company just lost a sale.

Radio stations pay to play the music that you listen to...

[General Zod]

Radio listeners are patronizing the radio station. The radio stations pay to broadcast the music and you get to listen to their adds. Don't pretend the idea of radios stations is new to you.

Way to miss the point there. If you're going to argue that piracy is bad because it causes the producers to lose sales, then that logic should extend to anything that causes potential sales loss. Guess what? If I decide not to buy an album based on what I hear over the radio? That meets this definition because the record company just lost a sale.

Radio stations pay to play the music that you listen to...

But I don't. Thanks for missing the point.

[Themightytom]

Way to miss the point there. If you're going to argue that piracy is bad because it causes the producers to lose sales, then that logic should extend to anything that causes potential sales loss. Guess what? If I decide not to buy an album based on what I hear over the radio? That meets this definition because the record company just lost a sale.

Radio stations pay to play the music that you listen to...

But I don't. Thanks for missing the point.

...so it is not "Stolen" it was purchased by the radio station and disseminated with permission of the record lable.

[General Zod]

...so it is not "Stolen" it was purchased by the radio station and disseminated with permission of the record lable.

The point of radio stations is to promote record sales. By not purchasing the album after listening to the station, a lost sale has been caused. Is this any clearer or do I need to illustrate it in crayon?

[jcow79]

Radio listeners are patronizing the radio station. The radio stations pay to broadcast the music and you get to listen to their adds. Don't pretend the idea of radios stations is new to you.

Way to miss the point there. If you're going to argue that piracy is bad because it causes the producers to lose sales, then that logic should extend to anything that causes potential sales loss. Guess what? If I decide not to buy an album based on what I hear over the radio? That meets this definition because the record company just lost a sale.

Ummm...no. The music you hear on the radio is bought and paid for through licensing fees paid for by the station. The stations recoup that money through adds. When you download music illegally it's not paid for. If you want free, listen to the radio, watch MTV or go to the library.

[jcow79]

...so it is not "Stolen" it was purchased by the radio station and disseminated with permission of the record lable.

The point of radio stations is to promote record sales. By not purchasing the album after listening to the station, a lost sale has been caused. Is this any clearer or do I need to illustrate it in crayon?

The point of a radio station is to generate revenue...Through ADVERTISEMENT.

[Themightytom]

...so it is not "Stolen" it was purchased by the radio station and disseminated with permission of the record lable.

The point of radio stations is to promote record sales. By not purchasing the album after listening to the station, a lost sale has been caused. Is this any clearer or do I need to illustrate it in crayon?

Who defined that purpose for radio stations??? I would have thought a radio station's "purpose" would be to generate income for its owners through the sale of ads. (Unless we are talking about NPR, whose purpose is to produce FANTASTICALLY well modulated voices talking about "Lake Woebegone" or whatever)

The purpose to a recording artist would be partially to disseminate music to icnrease sales, but does not the radio station have to pay to play the music over the air? Thus a sale has been made, and royalties are paid whenever the song is aired.

[General Zod]

Radio listeners are patronizing the radio station. The radio stations pay to broadcast the music and you get to listen to their adds. Don't pretend the idea of radios stations is new to you.

Way to miss the point there. If you're going to argue that piracy is bad because it causes the producers to lose sales, then that logic should extend to anything that causes potential sales loss. Guess what? If I decide not to buy an album based on what I hear over the radio? That meets this definition because the record company just lost a sale.

Ummm...no. The music you hear on the radio is bought and paid for through licensing fees paid for by the station. The stations recoup that money through adds. When you download music illegally it's not paid for. If you want free, listen to the radio, watch MTV or go to the library.

So you're arguing that whenever someone hears something off a radio and decides to not purchase it, a sale has not been lost?

[Themightytom]

So you're arguing that whenever someone hears something off a radio and decides to not purchase it, a sale has not been lost?

Can you lose what you don't have?

[General Zod]

Who defined that purpose for radio stations??? I would have thought a radio station's "purpose" would be to generate income for its owners through the sale of ads. (Unless we are talking about NPR, whose purpose is to produce FANTASTICALLY well modulated voices talking about "Lake Woebegone" or whatever)

Yes, the point is to generate revenue, but it's also to promote sales for record labels. If the radio stations can't convince advertisers that they'll be able to attract a lot of listeners with a popular artist, who wants to have their albums sold, guess what? Their income starts to wither away.

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/knab/art ... labels.htm

The purpose to a recording artist would be partially to disseminate music to icnrease sales, but does not the radio station have to pay to play the music over the air? Thus a sale has been made, and royalties are paid whenever the song is aired.

One sale. For something that reaches thousands of listeners. Kind of like torrenting really. Oh, and there's a tax on recordable media, like blank cds, to offset the effect of piracy too. Sort of like royalties.

[General Zod]

So you're arguing that whenever someone hears something off a radio and decides to not purchase it, a sale has not been lost?

Can you lose what you don't have?

I hear pirates weren't necessarily going to wind up purchasing the album either.

[Themightytom]

Oh and no, I am arguing that everytime you hear a song on the radio a sale has been made.

And argument completely contingent I admit, on the assumption that radio stations pay for the right to air music.

ooops we crossed posts, you already acknowledged that, but pointed out it was a small sale.

[General Zod]

Oh and no, I am arguing that everytime you hear a song on the radio a sale has been made.

Based on the figures the media cartels have put out for damages caused? Bull fucking shit. I don't think the radio stations pay anywhere close to $1.9 million for 24 tracks.

[jcow79]

Based on the figures the media cartels have put out for damages caused? Bull fucking shit. I don't think the radio stations pay anywhere close to $1.9 million for 24 tracks.

I'm pretty sure they pay penalties if they violate their licenses.

[Themightytom]

Oh and no, I am arguing that everytime you hear a song on the radio a sale has been made.

Based on the figures the media cartels have put out for damages caused? Bull fucking shit. I don't think the radio stations pay anywhere close to $1.9 million for 24 tracks.

it DOES seem unlikely. I suspect they are factoring in a projection of some sort to account for encouraging piracy.

[jcow79]

I suspect that 95% of radio stations aren't playing music illegally.....

[General Zod]

Oh and no, I am arguing that everytime you hear a song on the radio a sale has been made.

Based on the figures the media cartels have put out for damages caused? Bull fucking shit. I don't think the radio stations pay anywhere close to $1.9 million for 24 tracks.

it DOES seem unlikely. I suspect they are factoring in a projection of some sort to account for encouraging piracy.

There's absolutely nothing to indicate the media cartels got those figures from anywhere but their own crusty assholes.

[jcow79]

There's absolutely nothing to indicate the media cartels got those figures from anywhere but their own crusty assholes.

Actually, i believe federal statutes allow for penalties up to $150,000 per incident.

[Themightytom]

There's absolutely nothing to indicate the media cartels got those figures from anywhere but their own crusty assholes.

Actually, i believe federal statutes allow for penalties up to $150,000 per incident.

That doesn't mean those are justifiable damages

http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA-Pi ... 1163182272

My faith in a justification for ballsiness goes unrewarded...

Judge J. Trager agreed, noting that the amount is some 1,071 times the actual damages suffered, which are approximately 70 cents per song. "[The plaintiffs] can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act," he wrote in his ruling.

[General Zod]

There's absolutely nothing to indicate the media cartels got those figures from anywhere but their own crusty assholes.

Actually, i believe federal statutes allow for penalties up to $150,000 per incident.

Since when does legal translate into equitable?

[jcow79]

There's absolutely nothing to indicate the media cartels got those figures from anywhere but their own crusty assholes.

Actually, i believe federal statutes allow for penalties up to $150,000 per incident.

Since when does legal translate into equitable?

According to the statutes I was reading earlier I believe when you can prove intent. If you can prove they KNEW they were violating copyright then additional penalties can be added. I'll dig up the statutes and post a link.

[General Zod]

According to the statutes I was reading earlier I believe when you can prove intent. If you can prove they KNEW they were violating copyright then additional penalties can be added. I'll dig up the statutes and post a link.

Seeing that file sharing technology has repeatedly been ruled to not be illegal, the idea that merely having file sharing technology is sufficient proof of intent the way the douchebags in the OP claim is ridiculous.

[jcow79]

Seeing that file sharing technology has repeatedly been ruled to not be illegal, the idea that merely having file sharing technology is sufficient proof of intent the way the douchebags in the OP claim is ridiculous.

Most file sharing sites contain agreements that state downloading copyrighted material is illegal. IIRC Kazaa did.
Here's a link to the copyright statutes. I'm going to bed. I'll check in on this thread tomorrow.

[General Zod]

Seeing that file sharing technology has repeatedly been ruled to not be illegal, the idea that merely having file sharing technology is sufficient proof of intent the way the douchebags in the OP claim is ridiculous.

Most file sharing sites contain agreements that state downloading copyrighted material is illegal. IIRC Kazaa did.
Here's a link to the copyright statutes. I'm going to bed. I'll check in on this thread tomorrow.

I fail to see what that has to do with my point. Many file sharing programs will automatically make certain folders available for anyone to look at unless you tell them not to. If you aren't aware of this it's incredibly easy to let it happen, which makes intent extremely difficult if not impossible to prove without very shady bullshit.

[jcow79]

I fail to see what that has to do with my point. Many file sharing programs will automatically make certain folders available for anyone to look at unless you tell them not to. If you aren't aware of this it's incredibly easy to let it happen, which makes intent extremely difficult if not impossible to prove without very shady bullshit.

The point is that it's difficult to claim that you don't know that downloading music unauthorized is illegal when it's typically plastered all over the file sharing software that you are using. Or they could just simply ask "Are you aware that downloading music without paying for it is illegal?" If their answer is yes, then it's pretty apparent what the intent was. If they say no, well then you have to prove otherwise. Judging by the sum awarded it appears they were able to prove intent....And I don't know but maybe she even admitted to knowing it was illegal. I'm simply pointing out that the statutes appear to allow even higher penalties than what she already has IF intent can be proven.