SMH story

Quote:

---

In the first US trial to challenge the illegal downloading of music on the internet, a single mother from Minnesota was ordered to pay $US220,000 for sharing 24 songs online.

---

What do you think?

I believe the fine was out of proportion to the crime.

I think the judges decision to fine the person so much was greatly influenced by the large multi-national recording companies.

Whilst I do agree that music sharing is a type of theft I also view recording companies as being a little on the seedy side themselves.

I suggest that the recording companies wanted a sacrificial lamb and the judge has given them one.

I can`t see many people posting in this thread for obvious reasons.

This topic makes me nervous. Although I don't download music, or listen to it online, I'm not sure I've seen any "rules" about this...

Well, I do sometimes look at videos on UTube...But really, is it clearly defined, what you can and cannot do?

I didnt know that sharing music online was a crime, i know that downloading it is, but i thought you were allowed to share music.

Well i dont download anyway, so i have nothing to worry about.

I don't know anything about law. All I know is that I love music, and always thought it was, in itself, a way TO share. It's really sad to me that it has come to this. Don't get me wrong, I understand and accept that people have rights to their own music, and should be able to make money off of it. Heck, that's my dream come true. But where does the line get drawn? How they get off suing for that kind of money is beyond me. If it's theft, it's theft. Alright. But what is the fine given to a first time shoplifter? Certainly less than $200,000! It doesn't make sense.

I say why should the people who can't afford to buy music be deprived of listening to it?

Ok, I was going to stay out of this, but it's time for me to sound like a spoilsport.

I think that the fine was quite excessive and think this particular person is probably being made an example of, but I totally applaud the decision.
Having been involved in creative arts as a profession, I'm a big fan of intellectual property rights. I don't think there's any difference between unauthorized downloading of music and unauthorized copying of photos or books or paintings or whatever. I don't have such a problem with just one person using it for their own use (although that is still taking money out of an artist's pocket), but music sharing is about mass distribution and that's just theft as far as I'm concerned.
If you were a furniture maker and made a chair and then someone else took it and gave it away without paying or asking permission, would you think it was ok? No difference to me, sorry.

I suppose the question is - where do we draw the line?

I have to admit to copying CD's for my son to listen to in his discman. It was never for him to give to his friends (and he hasn't done so), it was just so that if he scratched it, I wouldn't have to buy a new one. Does this count?

Is it legal to have a backup copy of a CD on your hard drive? I know that some CD's come with copy protection, but is it okay to get around this if all you want to do is put it on your hard drive so that you can listen to it on your computer (not that I'm talking about listening to it at work where others can hear) or putting it onto your own personal MP3 player (NOT an iPod, but one of the other brands)?

I am against sharing music on-line, for the record - I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that it is theft. If you can't afford it - you can't have it. It's that simple to me.

I'm an honest citizen who pays for what they want, why shouldn't others?

Edited to add If you can't afford music - do what I did as a kid. Listen to the radio! It's free! The world did actually exist before walkmans and iPods. Music is free if you look at it from that point of view - there's no need for people to steal. All that does is make sure that the artist who made the music for all of us to enjoy is as broke as the thief, and then they may not be as inclined to make music for you to enjoy in the future.

For a file to be able to be downloaded from the internet, it must have been uploaded in the first place. If Minnesota Mum was just downloading, I'm not sure I have a problem with what she's done - albeit she would have been taking advantage of someone else's illegal actions.

If she uploaded the music (or made it available from her computer through P2P), then I agree she should be punished as (as far as I understand) she is responsible for what happens to the music once it has been ripped from the original source.

Not quite clear how the fine has been reached though. Agree it needs to be try and set a precedent to prevent other people acting illegally, however US customers can download tracks at around $0.89, I'm not sure the record companies can claim that nearly 250,000 people have downloaded it. I assume single Minnesota Mum wouldn't be able to afford a fine of $22,000 (which IMHO would still have served it's purpose) let alone $220,000.

Well it is legal if you use Itunes, i mean, a $20 card is actually good value when the songs are like only $1.69, it is cheaper then getting fined for downloading it illegally.

I'm confused (what else is new ). The article states she's claiming she "never downloaded or uploaded music", but it states further down she was only partially fined, for 24 songs, because there was a total of 1702 songs in the online folder. Come on now. Did they mysteriously appear on her computer? Sorry, but I agree that this is illegal and takes away from the artists. I refuse to take part in it, but I know of 2 people who have made a lot of money selling ripped CDs off their home computers. As ecnalubma said, "I pay for what I want."

Yeah well i work at JBHIFI, a music store, so i know how important it is for people to actually by music, but alot of them would rather come in and buy blank disks, so either they all download the music, or buy it and then burn it for all of the mates.

So i agree, people should pay for what they want, i mean, 1702 songs mysteriously on the computer is alot, unless of course she happened to copy the music from CD's to her computer, then that would make sense.

I have over 5000 songs on my computer. They are mostly copied off CD's I own, though I will admit that a few have been downloaded from P2P sites for free. None of the music I have on here is shared music, and by that I mean that when I'm on one of those free file sharing sites my songs are not available for other users to download.

The music I do steal (and yes, I know it is stealing), I think of as kind of a 'try before you buy' thing. I hear a song I like on the radio, a band that I like has a new album out, or there's a band that's is getting a bit of hype, I want to hear a bit more before I go and spend twenty five dollars on the CD. So I download a couple of random songs to see if it takes my fancy. I know there are sites where I can legally listen to music for free while I am online, but I like to take my music with me. The majority of my listening isn't done while I'm sitting here on the computer, and in NZ the price of downloading a single song is around $1.70.

I'll probably buy at least one full price CD a fortnight based on what I download for free. Some of my purchases are immediate, others take a bit of time. There are some who use the free sites as their sole source of getting music, that's what the recording industry is trying to stop.

I thought there were legal sites that you could download mp3s from for free. Am I mistaken?

There are sites where you can pay a flat rate for one month or one year or similar, and then download as many songs as you want, rather than paying $1 per song. I don't think it's entirely legal, but it's better than not paying at all.

I usually only download songs that are really hard to find on CD (like European releases - I'm not about to go to Europe to find a CD with one song I like on it), or when I really don't want the entire CD. Otherwise, I use downloading to see if I like new bands and then go buy the CD. Or I download songs I already own on CD because I want it on my computer or to burn myself a mix CD and it's much easier and more efficient than to spend hours downloading one song from every single CD I own.