Woman Fined $222,000 for Sharing 24 Songs

[tangman99]

It depends on the corporation. Big corporations obviously pay their CEO's rediculous amounts. If you really knew what they made, you would be really sick. What you see reported on the news is just what they are allowed to know. There other means of compensation that easily double or triple what you see reported. And then there are the Golden Parachutes. Pretty much the "no way you can lose" attraction to take the job in the first place. You can come in, mess up the company, leave and they will have to pay you millions to leave.
Don't classify all CEO's in this bracket though. I've been a CEO of a small consulting company and I wasn't making millions. I have however dropped a grand at dinner with friends and associates a few times. That is part of the game and it's an investment that you hope pays off in the future in either good work or business opportunities. It's called networking and you have to fork up the money sometime to do it. I'm at a Gartner Expo right now that between Hotels and Expo cost is about a $5000 investment. However, yesterday I sat 50 feet from Steve Ballmer (CEO of Microsoft) and Micheal Dell (CEO of DELL). Better yet, my company is paying all expenses.
I agree that big corporation CEOs are paid rediculously compensated, but offer me the job and I think I could learn to overlook it.

 

[zman1]

It's stealing period. I will come over to your house and set your property in the street and give it away to anyone that wants to load it and carry it it off. You shouldn't whine or care, correct? Since you may have more money than the person taking your property. Or let's try the same, if you own a business and someone sets your goods on the street...

 

[sambasam]

people know its wrong when they steal/download music. all i can say is they know the risks of doing it and i dont think its worth the risk. just buy CD's.

 

[jovial]

Originally Posted by TangMan99
It depends on the corporation. Big corporations obviously pay their CEO's rediculous amounts. If you really knew what they made, you would be really sick. What you see reported on the news is just what they are allowed to know. There other means of compensation that easily double or triple what you see reported. And then there are the Golden Parachutes. Pretty much the "no way you can lose" attraction to take the job in the first place. You can come in, mess up the company, leave and they will have to pay you millions to leave.
Don't classify all CEO's in this bracket though. I've been a CEO of a small consulting company and I wasn't making millions. I have however dropped a grand at dinner with friends and associates a few times. That is part of the game and it's an investment that you hope pays off in the future in either good work or business opportunities. It's called networking and you have to fork up the money sometime to do it. I'm at a Gartner Expo right now that between Hotels and Expo cost is about a $5000 investment. However, yesterday I sat 50 feet from Steve Ballmer (CEO of Microsoft) and Micheal Dell (CEO of DELL). Better yet, my company is paying all expenses.
I agree that big corporation CEOs are paid rediculously compensated, but offer me the job and I think I could learn to overlook it.

Wow that how much dialysis costs for the 4th grade kid that lives down the street. Too bad his parents cant afford health insurance. Hope Steve's yacht is running good though.
I know it's capitalism but some priorities just don't sound right to me. This bothers me because I know the parents, they arent lazy and work hard but we continue to make people like this wealthier. Why?

 

[dinogeorge]

Originally Posted by Jovial
Karma. I believe bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Nah, it only seems that way sometimes Jovial. You and I, and the other 23 billion good people on earth, have our ups and downs. But at the end of the day, we still have our souls. Truly bad people are like empty husks. They have nothing inside and, try as they may, they can never fill the void. Money, power, drinking, drugs...they try it all and yet nothing works. They never figure out that what is missing in their lives is courtesy, integrity and decency towards their fellow man. They will crush anyone that stands between them and their goals, but once they reach them, they are back to where they were before; miserable.
This is why slime ball CEO’s steal millions of dollars from their workers. They figure if they can just get their hands on a little more money, everything will be fine. They may wear $1000 suites, live in huge houses and drive nice cars, but they have nothing...truly nothing.

 

[jovial]

You think so? I guess your right. It makes a little more sense now that you put it that way. I just dont see too many of these kind of people suffering. They're really discrete about it you know.

 

[hattrick58]

"The RIAA, along with the labels they represent, is very willing to take people to court and demands apeloads of money. We all know this and have seen it play it most dramatically in recent cases. Of course, they sure are happy when they win. When they lose, however, it seems they get cold feet when it comes to owning up to the responsibility.
The RIAA dropped a case against Tanya Andersen quite a while ago, prompting her to retaliate and ultimately seek not only a class action suit against them, but compensation for legal fees. The courts agreed with her, and said the RIAA should pay. They are unwilling to do this, however, and are fighting to avoid paying the fees. Even though the fees could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA feels that since there is still a “chance” she could be guilty, they don't feel justified in paying. "
I can't post on this board what I think about this.

 

[bjoe23]

so everyone who is download songs on limewire (including me) could be fine almost a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS!

 

[ty williams]

I'd say 75% of the bands I listen to are not on the radio or MTV. How would I "discover" these bands besides sharing music with friends or P2P software? And don't tell me that stealing music has hurt the music industry. Tape decks with recording capabilities have been around since the 80s and 90s. I'm pretty sure the music industry was thriving then. If someone likes a band or artist alot they will buy the CD, if they sorta like them, they will either borrow their friend's CD or d/l the song off Limewire.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bjoe23
so everyone who is download songs on limewire (including me) could be fine almost a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS!
Not downloads... Shares.
They are going after the people who are sharing songs. They currently are not going after the folks who only download, but that's not to say they can't in the future.
I'd say 75% of the bands I listen to are not on the radio or MTV. How would I "discover" these bands besides sharing music with friends or P2P software?
The independant labels are not what the RIAA is pursuing. If you are honestly downloading what you describe, then more than likely the bands you are downloading songs of are using the Internet as a part of their distibution scheme and you aren't doing anything wrong.
The RIAA is suing people who are sharing THEIR stuff. They aren't just going after all music sharers.
Tape decks with recording capabilities have been around since the 80s and 90s
Tape decks cannot make perfect digital copies of music without some kind of loss. There was always a theoretical limit. If I buy a tape, make a copy, give it away and they make a copy and so on, after a few copies the quality gets really bad. When Sony released the Betamax, the MPAA went after them for the same reasons the RIAA is angry. The courts determined that since they could not make perfect copies, then that limited the ability to distribute copied works, thus limiting their mainstream use to what is defined under "fair use."
Digital copying, via DVD or CD Burning, etc is a whole different ball game because they can be copied millions of times in sequence with 0% loss of quality or content.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a fan at all of the RIAA or MPAA's approach, the apparenty way they want to do business by rejecting innovation in by using the courts to implement a monopoly centered around a distribution method with a higher profit margin, the way they "bought" the DMCA, etc, but it is their legal right to do it. I'm certainly not a fan, but rather a vehement enemy, of their practice of installing rootkits onto your computer to keep you from copying their CDs (which IS illegal). I'll admit that I've downloaded and shared music to certain degrees.
However, it's not in any way right or appropriate to suggest that just because they have lots of money or vague promises of buying a CD you've already stolen because you like it, then it's okay to take from them.
Say you went to Best Buy and stole... nay... transferred to your home ... a TV. You liked the picture, so you went into the store and said "I transferred this to my home, I like it, so I'm here to pay for it." Do you think they'd happily accept your payment and send you on your way, or would they have you arrested?
We all need to understand that just because it's bits on a hard drive and not tangible product that you can carry off, that it doesn't make it okay.

 

[ty williams]

Throughout my experience the songs I have downloaded from the internet for free are close to the original but very often lack the 3D(ie dolby 5.1 or 7.1) sound that a CD would produce. If I wanted the true bass or highs I would have to buy the CD. This may fall under the limits you are referring to.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by Ty Williams
Throughout my experience the songs I have downloaded from the internet for free are close to the original but very often lack the 3D(ie dolby 5.1 or 7.1) sound that a CD would produce. If I wanted the true bass or highs I would have to buy the CD. This may fall under the limits you are referring to.

Well you have to think of it in terms of the technologies capabilities, not the way people choose to use it.
The court ruled in the case of VCRs, that because tapes had a limited shelf life and it was not possible to create recordings without some loss.
Furthermore, the Internet provides an incredibly easy means of distributing the pirated works on a enormous scale. Back in 1985, if you copied a video cassette, how do you get a million copies into the hands of a million people? Not easily without getting noticed, and without getting around the limits of the technology. Ergo, to use the technology of the day illegally took a lot of effort and required easily traceable methods.
In contrast, making an illegal rip of a CD and getting it into the hands of a million people is incredibly easy, fast, and hard to trace.
However, in the case of music sharing, the technology is capable of doing what you describe. It's just that most people don't do what you want. To be completely technical, the CD format standard does not support anything other than 2 channel stereo. To gain 5.1 or 7.1 digital surround, you have to leap to the SACD or DVD-Audio format. In any case however, it is possible to do what you are talking about, there is not an inherent limitation to the technology, but rather the people who are originally ripping the content of CD/SACD/DVD-Audio to share over the internet (because it all starts from one person), are choosing not to do this. However they can, and sometimes do.
That's the music industry's beef in a nutshell. They are upset because people can and do share perfect, 100% reproductions of the original content, and can do it quickly and easily.