|
United States22883 Posts
On August 03 2009 22:21 Charlespeirce wrote:
Is there any evidence that 30k per song is the most likely cost to the company? Some guy at UPenn (Wharton Business school; can't remember who right now) estimated that filesharing actually increases record sales, which means they owe this guy money. Our legal system is based on archaic ideas of morality and punishment, rather than consequentialism as it should be.
What? Why the fuck should it be based on consequentialism? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, besides your equally ridiculous post on the "threat" of a Manchurian candidate.
Are you getting a PhD in English or something?
The guy is clearly in the wrong and deserves to pay. The only thing that's questionable is the amount of the penalty, and it was awarded by a JURY.
|
I think that was sarcasm to my post 
|
The internet will eventually cause the population of the earth to realize that money isn't real, and is only an instrument of slavery.
|
Uhh, that threat post was meant to be ironic, but whatever.
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
|
United States22883 Posts
And he continued to infringe, even after his father warned him in 2002 that he would get sued, even after he received a harshly-worded letter from the plaintiffs’ law firm in 2005, even after he was sued in 2007, and all the way through part of 2008.
And when he took the stand on Thursday, Tenenbaum admitted it all, including the fact that he had “lied” in his written discovery responses and at his first deposition in September 2008.
...
Judge Gertner previously announced that she will hold a post-trial proceeding to determine whether the size of the award violates the US Constitution’s guarantee of due process of the law. While no federal court has ever invalidated an award of copyright statutory damages as constitutionally excessive, the record labels’ litigation campaign has spurred arguments that the Supreme Court cases imposing limits on punitive damages should be extended to statutory damages, which may contain a punitive element.
The fee is bound between 750 and 150k, which I believe was determined by the number of people you might connect to while sitting on a file sharing network.
|
On August 03 2009 22:32 A3iL3r0n wrote:
The internet will eventually cause the population of the earth to realize that money isn't real, and is only an instrument of slavery.
LMAO hero post
|
Just a few quick points.
1. The fine seems like a lot but it's probably a form of punitive damages. Most filesharers don't get caught, so they make the fine big so that the expected cost of piracy is bigger than the cost of paying for music. If the fine was only $30, no one would pay for music since they could just pay the $30 if they got caught.
2. The intellectual property system is set up so that people who wish to make money from their products can choose to do so. If not for this system, there would be much less music/inventions/novels in this world, for better or worse. There is probably a better way to do this than the way it's implemented now, but one can argue that if you don't want to pay, then don't consume the product.
3. The fact that you usually can't full judge an information good without purchasing it is known as the Arrow Information Paradox. Things such as radio, demos, and low-res pics are attempts to circumvent this. Record companies need to find a better way around this, such as giving away low-fidelity mp3s
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 03 2009 22:38 Charlespeirce wrote:
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you? I drive my car into your house, and accidentally uncover a treasure chest hidden in a wall worth millions. There's any number of examples that show how absurd this would be, and what if the person never asks for help to begin with? You help someone on your own accord, and then sue them because it positively benefited them?
And time frame? Consequentialism comes with a time frame that can be extended as long as you'd like to make the outcome good or bad. Can I sue in 1 month, and then sue again in 3 months?
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
So punitive damages are thrown out the window? No longer used?
|
i read an article form CNN that a 32-year old woman was also charged because she downloaded music and she was fined more than a million dollars!!!
the fine is really ridiculous imo.
may be someone should invent something that no one could rip any cd/dvd.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 03 2009 22:48 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote:
i read an article form CNN that a 32-year old woman was also charged because she downloaded music and she was fined more than a million dollars!!!
the fine is really ridiculous imo.
may be someone should invent something that no one could rip any cd/dvd.
Jamie Thomas lied on the stand and destroyed evidence, plus she downloaded Green Day.
|
They do give away mp3 samples. Check Amazon for example.
The expected per-capita losses to record company is about $25:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/waldfogj/jle_piracy.pdf
Downloading is estimated to increase social welfare by reducing dead weight loss by $38/person.
I'm unaware of any estimates that relate the probability of getting caught to the total industry expected loss. I also see no reason for punitive damages unless a deterrent effect is established.
|
You really only get in trouble for sharing the music not downloading.
|
On August 03 2009 22:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2009 22:38 Charlespeirce wrote:
So how do you determine right and wrong? If I commit an action that brings you profit, have I hurt or helped you? I drive my car into your house, and accidentally uncover a treasure chest hidden in a wall worth millions. There's any number of examples that show how absurd this would be, and what if the person never asks for help to begin with? You help someone on your own accord, and then sue them because it positively benefited them? And time frame? Consequentialism comes with a time frame that can be extended as long as you'd like to make the outcome good or bad. Can I sue in 1 month, and then sue again in 3 months? Show nested quote +
Also, confer post on jury awards. They have absolutely no relationship to the cost to the company. I know of no estimates of the magnitude of an award having a deterrent effect (actually I remember some research showing no effect, but can't identify the source off the top of my head).
So punitive damages are thrown out the window? No longer used?
Right, lets base policy on extremely unlikely scenarios. You really didn't understand the sarcasm of my Manchurian Candidate post.
To make it simple, the point is this:
Suppose the probability of crashing into someone's house and finding a million dollars (or a successful Manchurian Candidate) approaches zero. The expected cost of this to society may be large (although in the crash example, it is clearly positive for both parties). However, the expected cost of using a non-consequentialist policy for dealing with this infinitely improbable circumstance (and of course, the infinitely many other infinitely improbable circumstance) is immensely larger than the insurance we buy by having non-consequentialist policies to protect us.
Also, I've got a bunch of negative expected value bets you might want to purchase. Want to buy some lottery tickets?
|
On August 03 2009 22:18 Jibba wrote:
I'm guessing 99% of the people in this thread didn't actually read what happened so are just using this thread as a sounding board against the RIAA (which is perfectly understandable) but for those who want to move beyond being a sheep, this is what happened:
Guy leaves Kazaa open and gets caught sharing music. He is NOT in trouble for downloading music. No one has ever been sued for downloading music.
The RIAA issues him/his ISP a statement telling him to stop and ordering him to pay some relatively minimal fee, usually like $500-1000. Guy decides he has some legal merit to stand on and doesn't pay it, therefore they take him to court.
He obviously loses because he's in the wrong, and a JURY OF HIS PEERS choose the damages. The judge may still lower it.
Moral of the story? If you get caught, just pay the fucking fine. The RIAA might be terrible, but there is no legal or moral ground to stand on if you're downloading music. That and don't be an idiot and use Kazaa/Limewire/public trackers/etc.
I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Seriously, pirating music IS illegal. If you're dumb enough to get caught, you should go ahead and pay the fine. If you don't, it's your fault that the "big bad RIAA" take you to the cleaners in court with their "big bad group of lawyers".
Seriously, trying to fight the music industry in court is asking to be raped unless you're a billionaire yourself.
Still though, I hate the RIAA. They make it sound like everyone who download illegally would've bought a legitimate copy if pirating weren't available, when they cite their numbers. Which is of course just a bunch of baloney.
|
This is why The US sucks, everyone here is a moron. The court system, and even the little douchey kid getting fined.
|
It's been eternities since I've last bought an album. Why? Because it's overly expensive and such a small amount of the money I pay go to the actual artist: between 2 and 10 %. I can't do the math any other way than it being the record label reaping some 60-70 % of the profits. (You think the studio man and CD facility are making big bucks?) Are there any other industry where the company can claim such a ridiculous mark-up? Also supporting companies that openly sue parts of their customer base is just a bigger disincentive.
A had a friend visiting a couple of days ago, who had been to the Metallica concert in Copenhagen af few days before. (OT: Guess who owns a pick James Hetfield has played with now  ) When he left he forgot his used ticket which I kept: pricetag on it reads 650 kr, equivalent to 4½ CD's or 110 $. My mother and big brother paid 130-140$ to see Bob Dylan. Seriously what the hell? Now let us assume I want to try and keep my music and movie collection up to date - 1 new of each per week -, while going to, say, a concert a month. Hardly unreasonable.
For a year this totals to:
12x4x150kr = 7200 kr.
12x4x250kr = 12000 kr
12x400kr = 4800 kr
Total = 2400 kr ~ at little less than 5000 $.
I don't have that kinda money lying around, hence the '1 DL = 1 lost sale' is just so fallacious it pains me to see people still using it as a serious argument.
I went to Roskilde festival this summer, and saw Oasis, Coldplay, Slipknot, Nine Inch Nails, Malk de Koijn, Mew, Volbeat and a few minor bands for 350 $. That's about 50 $ per concert, which is reasonable, if not cheap. The most I'd ever pay to see any concert would be 100$ - anything above that is just scrupulous.
On 675k to a damn student? Get a grip RIAA, this is neither a good approach to the piracy 'problem', nor is it rational.
|
This is epic fail.
I'd stop right now, but I had something to say that I forgot after reading 6 pages. The Artists shouldn't work with other companies. Each concert, say there's about 1000 people, with ticket at an average of $50.that's $50,000 for one night JUST from ticket sales. Now lets say they have 1 concert a month. Nothing else, just one concert a month. That's $600,000 a year. When you're making $600,000 a year from once a week work, I don't think you need a company to control what you're doing. I'd personally hate having a company telling me what to do if I can get along fine on my own. Then lets say they sell their music. Instead of $15-20 an album, they decide to sell it for $10. Assume they sell 10,000 albums. That's another $100,000. You get TV commercials, product endorsements, fan signings, and a whole lot more. Sure the 1st few years will be tougher, buying all the equipment, but seriosuly, in the long run, they'll be making shitloads more. Do they really need that extra money from a company?
|
this is stupid when you go and buy a cd how much money from that do you thnk actually goes to the artist? like 2 $ a cd :/ over time yes this will add up but 30 songs would be like 4$ for the artist but hes getting sued for 675k :/ ( this is assuming you buy the cd at a store such as best buy FYE wal mart etc.)
if you really want to support an artist buy their merch from their site or go to their shows.
alot of bands one being bring me the horizon has even said they dont care if people pirate their music.
|
On August 03 2009 16:54 cUrsOr wrote:
I write music, and I am against "sharing".
I find that most people who are for it, just want to justify not paying.
My wife, and my brother in law, both of who I respect very much, happen to dissagree. It's someone else's time, effort and ideas. I'm essentially a socialist and think lots of things should be public property, but since I live in America and have to pay to eat and drive and do anything- damn right I think Music should have the same costs. In a better system, maybe not though.
Are you for real? I take huge exception to what you say.
If you write music then ummm you should know how the industry works. Okay for one, if you're a song writer and NOT an artist (as in, you write songs that record companies use for pop artists that can't write songs but are the image of their act.. a top tier example would be Britney Spears), then you do get a small share of CD sales, but not huge. Your main money income will come from radio play which gets publishing rights, whenever the song is played in a public place such as a night club or a restaurant too. Basically, if this were the case, you would want people downloading your music 'cause uhhhhh file downloading has enabled artists to become more popular than ever, EASIER Than ever.
Same logic basically goes if you're an artist that's not hit it big yet and writes their own music. Dude, if you're a small act trying to get big with the help of a record label (that pays for your producer, engineers, stylists, publicists, promotion team, etc), this is how much money you're going to make from CD sales with or without people downloading your music: zero. that's right, absolutely nothing. Unless you basically sell enough CDs to overcome the debt that went into making the CD, which is extremely hard to do because that is AFTER the record companies take away 88% of the money made off your CD (and you don't even make 12%, you make more like 3%, i won't get into detail but basically you'd have to sell 100,000 CDs to overcome a 30,000$ deficit, which is not that unrealistic deficit when it comes to how much work has been put into making your CD). Well, after that the money that you make from CD sales onward is your profit, but at that point, if you're selling that many CDs, you're probably doing pretty well in the first place.
Basically, most of your money would come from live revenue, and publishing rights, SOME OF WHICH DO COME FROM THE CD, but most of it comes from your songs being played on the radio, TV, night clubs, restaurants, public places, movies, etc etc etc. It's a tough tough life being an artist (theyr'e the ones that work the hardest but make the least money), but if you're a song writer or an artist that is trying to work their ass off to get known and get signed by a top tier label and make the money that comes with it, well, you want people downloading your music because that's how you get popular these days. Believe me, it's much easier, because of the internet, to be successful with music.
Besides, if you're making music simply because you want to make money off of it, find a different job.
(sources are post secondary schooling (audio engineering), and the book Confessions of a Record Producer which basically in depth explains each position, producer, artist, song composer, engineer, that goes into making a CD and how record labels treat each one).
|
and with that in mind, 99.9999999% of artists do not support the record labels and RIAA trying to sue people like this or trying to stop people from downloading music. The artists aren't the ones that have anything to lose from people downloading music, it's the record labels and the publishing companies that already have billions of dollars.
oh and also:
if you think "oh shit well music downloading is going to eventually kill the major/corporate record companies" well
1.) it's not, these record companies are still making huge profits, increases in every year
and 2.) if it does, that's fucking great. I'm SICK of the fact that four guys basically own the music industry (Sony, Warner, Universal, EMI) and the fact that artists are releasing their albums independently and bypassing the corporate music world is awesome.
so download all the music you want. lets make it easier for artists trying to make an impact on this world and independent record labels that just want to help musicians get known get successful
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
