Girl, 12, Settles Piracy Suit for $2,000

[Sauron]

Personally, I still don't understand how its all stealing. Think about it. Its like someone went out and bought a pencil, then passed it on to a friend or neighbor and he passed it on to someone else. Sharing is exactly that, sharing, one isn't selling it, they are freaking copying it. Its not being sold or bought. And somewhere, someone bought that CD to copy everything...

This may sound stupid, but its how I am seeing it.

[glc]

Pencils aren't intellectual property and aren't covered by copyright laws.

[Iman74]

Well to make things more understandable, it would help if people use the correct terminology. Much like people saying screensaver when they are talking about wallpaper, this is not stealing, it's copy infringement. Using the correct terminology will help rule out most of the confusion.

So back to the basics; when you own a movie, cd, and game by law you have the right to copy it for the sole purpose of a backup. Now if you distribute those backups to others that did not purchase it, that is copy right infringement. Now if you take money for selling those copies, I am sure the charges just escalate from there.

Now using a pencil to prove your point; how does one have anything to do with the other?

[sdkfz]

OK, I have written this response about 10 times, so far I have written nothing that would enable me to stay a member of this site after submission....

Hows about this- Anyone want a copy of windows XP? I'll 'share' my copy with you. Its OK, I am just sharing it....

[Strider]

Originally posted by malek OK, for those who think what the RIAA is breaking your rights of privacy. I will remind everyone of the 4th ammendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So yes you do have a right of privacy, BUT NOT WHEN THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. They can then search your computer for that activity (and only that activity, and arrest your sorry $$$. Oh and the argument, "but aren't the big bad record companies stealing from us", will only work if you also plead insanity!

So it would be ok for the government to put a tap on your phone without probable cause to see if you're participating in an illegally activity? (I THINK NOT). Basically that is what they're doing when they see that you're using peer to peer software.

[Iman74]

Please state my posts for what they are. I am not saying what is okay and what is not. I am stating what the RIAA is charging for right now. They are not saying downloading 5000 songs is okay if you do not share. They just choose to focus on the larger distributors.

Originally posted by Radioactiveninja "First, OEM you gave an example of the girl being asked about how come she did not pay for .79 cents for the song; well first she is NOT being charged for downloading, she is being charged for distributing. " So what your saying Iman74 is that I could download 5,000 songs from various artists heck whole cd's even, but that would be ok if I took them imidiatly out of my shared folder? Woo hoo I'm going to go start downloading now. Look how far behind I've gotten on my collection.

[Iman74]

Yes they should pay for it again, because they are the stupid ones that let it get scratched. I have a few hundred CD's for many years which I have listened at home, in cars, on vacation, etc. and they still yet to be scratched. The only time I came across a scratched music CD of mine is one I just bought which I exchanged for a new one. So if the person chooses to be careless and does not take precautions to prevent damage, then they should be responsible for paying for it again.

Originally posted by Radioactiveninja and now for a Second point. What about the people who bought the CD and then it was scratched, lost, or stolen. Should they have to pay an outragoues price for something they already had. I say nay. And to those of you that say they should of backed them up on there hard drive in the first place. I have a collection of 743 CD's I'm not going to go buy the hard drive space to back all that up.

P.S.

I see you are too a fan of the movie, "Hackers"

[Iman74]

Originally posted by sdkfz OK, I have written this response about 10 times, so far I have written nothing that would enable me to stay a member of this site after submission.... Hows about this- Anyone want a copy of windows XP? I'll 'share' my copy with you. Its OK, I am just sharing it....

Trying to make a point?

[sdkfz]

Absolutley, the CD case has a warning that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed, be it music or software, what is the difference?

[Jester]

uanauthorized REPRODUCTION. It doesn't state wheather or not the reproduction of the whole cd or part of the cd is considered unlawful. I'm just arguing samantics now please dont hurt me

[Iman74]

That may be true, but I bet there isn't anything about it being illegal to make a backup; making backups are not illegal as long as you don't distribute your copies. If you keep your backups for the sole purpose of serving as a backup, then you are not breaking any laws. Once you hand that backup to someone else to use, then you are breaking the law.

Originally posted by sdkfz Absolutley, the CD case has a warning that unauthorized reproduction is not allowed, be it music or software, what is the difference?

[GhostRecon]

The Rules Must Apply to Everyone!

[i3OSS]

Hmm, i do i understand its basically "stealing" songs, but honestly don't stars make enough money to go out and do better things like making new albums or concerts then complaining and start suing kids for downloading music? I myself, when i find a good cd i go and buy it. the only reason i download songs because only 1 or 2 songs are actually good. I think we're just going to have to accept the fact that we are breaking rules and the RIAA are money hungry.
watch out guys...

[RenegadeKing]

You can't justify using p2p by saying you only want one or two songs from a cd anymore, not that things like the new napster and iTunes are out.

[i486]

kazaa k++ has an anti-riaa firewall.

[ric449]

Little late on posting in this thread i486 . Thats true, but it hasn't been updated for so long I would expect the RIAA have found a way around it.

[Punked Out Comp]

I know this is an old post but i have to say my opinions:

1) Did the kid actually download $2000 worth of music??!!

2) Is it right for the cd companies to charge 20 bucks a cd when somebody only wants one song, really theyre being charged 20bucks for a song not for a cd because they're not benefiting from the rest of the cd.

3) Why dont they put some of this effort on finding downloaders into finding ists? I think that would be alot more useful.

4) The artists hardly if at all get anything from thier cds anyway and they deserve it more than the record companies. Why should I pay the record campanies? They dont do nearly as much as the artists. If anything I should pay the artist, but scince the artist isn't getting anything why should I pay?

5) Has it really made a noticable difference in the record companies profits scince ppl sarted downloading music??

[ric449]

1) I don't think so, but it must be the standing fee for the offence.

2) No, but there is always music singles. Also the online services where you can download a song is meant to be good.

3) Typo there?

4) Because without the companies the CD you want wouldn't even be there.

5) Not sure about that one.

[Spartan]

I didn't read the entire thread, so bear with me if it was answered. How does RIAA track how many songs you have? Are they issueing warrants solely based on the fact that you have P2P software? K-lite has a feature that let's you block searches of your collection by others, would this protect you?

-Spartan