BF2S Forums Music piracy fines: How much is too much?

This is the home of Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica. This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it.

Come. There’s more.

Here’s Britney Spears’ private jet. Notice anything? Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she’s had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free. The Gulfstream III doesn’t even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system. Still think downloading music for free is no big deal?

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

This is the home of Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica. This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it.

Come. There’s more.

Here’s Britney Spears’ private jet. Notice anything? Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she’s had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free. The Gulfstream III doesn’t even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system. Still think downloading music for free is no big deal?

/south park.

I think that if you are 100% proven to have downloaded something, the maximum fine should be the value of the item.  If you are caught uploading, you should be charged that amount for the number of 100% uploads (or sum of partials... e.g. 2x50% of the file = 1 copy) that can be proven.  That would be logical as it's the maximum loss that you have directly caused.  Simple as that.

You should also be charged at the lowest rate you can find the item, e.g. iTunes or Napster prices, something like £1 per track here in the UK. 

As for items available through the web before they are released, they need to go after the source of the leak or the people filming in the cinema.  For prerelease material you should be charged at the recommended store price, unless you are determined to be the original source of the copy (e.g. you filmed it in the cinema).  Perhaps in this case damages along the lines of the total number of copies proven to have circulated, based on retail value. 

Destroying the evidence is bullshit, take a look at the U.S. the 5th Amendment:

"nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

Now this individual is not a corporation, so they cannot be compelled to keep records which incriminate themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Other wrote:

Corporations may also be compelled to keep and turn over records; the Supreme Court has held that Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination extend only to "natural persons." There are, however, a few restraints on the government; it may not, for instance, compel a person to keep records for a corporation if those records could be used against the record-keeper himself.

The worlds gone mad, I tell you.

kilgoretrout, it doesn't matter how many other people uploaded the tracks, you can't be tried for a crime you have no knowledge of or means to prevent.  The other people need to sued for the damages they caused, you can't just blame the person you caught.  That's like finding someone guilty of tax evasion and making them pay the fines for every one else who has evaded tax and never got caught.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I think that if you are 100% proven to have downloaded something, the maximum fine should be the value of the item.  If you are caught uploading, you should be charged that amount for the number of 100% uploads (or sum of partials... e.g. 2x50% of the file = 1 copy) that can be proven.  That would be logical as it's the maximum loss that you have directly caused.  Simple as that.

You should also be charged at the lowest rate you can find the item, e.g. iTunes or Napster prices, something like £1 per track here in the UK. 

As for items available through the web before they are released, they need to go after the source of the leak or the people filming in the cinema.  For prerelease material you should be charged at the recommended store price, unless you are determined to be the original source of the copy (e.g. you filmed it in the cinema).  Perhaps in this case damages along the lines of the total number of copies proven to have circulated, based on retail value. 

Destroying the evidence is bullshit, take a look at the U.S. the 5th Amendment:

"nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

Now this individual is not a corporation, so they cannot be compelled to keep records which incriminate themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Other wrote:

Corporations may also be compelled to keep and turn over records; the Supreme Court has held that Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination extend only to "natural persons." There are, however, a few restraints on the government; it may not, for instance, compel a person to keep records for a corporation if those records could be used against the record-keeper himself.

The worlds gone mad, I tell you.

kilgoretrout, it doesn't matter how many other people uploaded the tracks, you can't be tried for a crime you have no knowledge of or means to prevent.  The other people need to sued for the damages they caused, you can't just blame the person you caught.  That's like finding someone guilty of tax evasion and making them pay the fines for every one else who has evaded tax and never got caught.

I agree entirely.

$eXXXyCabbage wrote:

O no i have never downloaded anything using illegal P2P software       (Dont Tell)

I detect a hint of sarcasm ...

But I'm feeling pedantic so I'm compelled to point out that the P2P software is usually legal... it's just using it to download copyrighted material that's not.  So even if you had downloaded copyrighted material, you probably didn't use illegal P2P software to do it

Ikarti wrote:

I'll stop downloading when they stop putting out shitty CDs with one decent song and a bunch of shit and then price gouge it.

QFT and a +1

I'm not pirating. I'm making my money back for every 15 tracks on a 16 track CD or cassette that weren't worth a dime.

So far I'm entitled to about 6,234,772, 883 more songs.

Ikarti wrote:

I'll stop downloading when they stop putting out shitty CDs with one decent song and a bunch of shit and then price gouge it.

I always said when there were legal downloads at a reasonable price I'd make full use... true to my word I'm now a paid Napster subscriber, which works out quite well... there are still some tracks that are hard to obtain due to tightarse labels/slackness on the part of Napster, but progress in the right direction is happening.  And if you don't want to pay for a monthly subscription you can just buy the one track you want from an album and burn it/rip it/make a mix or whatever.  Sounds like more of a plug than I intended.

There are still areas where virtually no progress is being made as far as I can tell.  I'd subscribe to a monthly-fee film/tv show/divx download service if I could find one with a decent selection... maybe in another 3 years.  There's no reason why there shouldn't be something like that, you already get the cable tv services which have boxes that let you choose from a weeks worth of programs etc.  I wouldn't even care if they made you watch adverts, as long as I could just pick and choose virtually any film or show from the last 50 years on demand.  After all, you only have one set of eyes and only so much leisure time per month, and a base rate subscription could easily cover a small royalty payment to the copyright holder of each video you view, not to mention advert earnings...

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

On a related note:

MOM=1; RIAA=0

A mum that the RIAA sued for illegally filesharing has successfully beaten off the legal advances of the industry moguls.

Debbie Foster, mum to Amanda Foster (who was also sued by the nice chaps) was sued for her daughter's alleged illegal activity. The RIAA kindly offered the single-mum the opportunity to settle out of court for $5,000, but Ms. Foster declined and fought the prosecution.

When it came to court, the RIAA couldn't provide any concrete details or records of the alleged activity, and had to ask the court for permission to withdraw its complaint against Ms. Foster. The court promptly declared her the winner and instructed the RIAA to cough up her legal fees.

So it seems like the organisation was trying to extort money from a mum without any actual evidence of what it was she was alleged to have done wrong. What a spectacular public relations own-goal, and further proof (if any is needed) that the recording industry in the US is utterly failing to grasp its place in this new, digital, online world.

Full article

Wahey! We just need another couple of hundred of cases like that and they'll be too scared to take anyone to court.

Kazaa...more like spyware.

Just remember that anyone can sue anyone for millions of dollars its collecting that doesnt ever happen you cant collect what somone doesnt have

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

On a related note:

MOM=1; RIAA=0

A mum that the RIAA sued for illegally filesharing has successfully beaten off the legal advances of the industry moguls.

Debbie Foster, mum to Amanda Foster (who was also sued by the nice chaps) was sued for her daughter's alleged illegal activity. The RIAA kindly offered the single-mum the opportunity to settle out of court for $5,000, but Ms. Foster declined and fought the prosecution.

When it came to court, the RIAA couldn't provide any concrete details or records of the alleged activity, and had to ask the court for permission to withdraw its complaint against Ms. Foster. The court promptly declared her the winner and instructed the RIAA to cough up her legal fees.

So it seems like the organisation was trying to extort money from a mum without any actual evidence of what it was she was alleged to have done wrong. What a spectacular public relations own-goal, and further proof (if any is needed) that the recording industry in the US is utterly failing to grasp its place in this new, digital, online world.

Full article

Wahey! We just need another couple of hundred of cases like that and they'll be too scared to take anyone to court.

The actual concrete proof would usually reside on the end machine... your defence could go something like "I don't know enough about computers to secure my wireless network so it could have been anyone within 200m of my flat"

I used to make video games for a living . I worked on 4 titles . I know for a fact that most of the games I made were sold on the shelf in Japan as ripped copies for less then half the price . Basically about 11 percent of the market dose this . Did I care ? No . Why ? Because I was still making a living and living comfortably . I wasn't making millions but I was comfortable . If my company wanted to sue 11 year old girls and put a serious charge on her record and pretty much fucker her life up before it started I'd quit the company plain and simple . Sueing 98 year old ladies , sigh .
Since Metallica went on their hell bent safari of tossing people in jail and fining them well beyond their means I have simply written them off . I'll never buy anything Metallica related ever again and we should all do the same . Their music sucks ass since "black" so fuck'em anyhow so it's really not that hard . But I've lost all respect for them , well just Lars really , and my boycott is lifelong . F Metallica .