| reply to MalibuMaxx
Re: Make him pay said by MalibuMaxx:The amount owed to the record label..
not this fake number but a real amount...
99 cents or 1.29 or whatever it is on itunes now... as well as the lawyer fees/court fees and some of the salary for those who caught Joel...
But if you ask me this is one big joke...
He wasn't sued for downloading them, as this implies, he was sued for making them available for download from himself after downloading them.
So the costs are from how many times it could have been downloaded from him. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by skuv :said by MalibuMaxx:The amount owed to the record label..
not this fake number but a real amount...
99 cents or 1.29 or whatever it is on itunes now... as well as the lawyer fees/court fees and some of the salary for those who caught Joel...
But if you ask me this is one big joke...
He wasn't sued for downloading them, as this implies, he was sued for making them available for download from himself after downloading them. So the costs are from how many times it could have been downloaded from him. Yes. How many thousands did he share these songs with. That is what the high fine is for.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Somehow, I don't think the music industry took a $600k loss from his sharing of those songs. They're ordering him to pay *way* above the costs to simply "make things right".
Of course, trying to get the recording industry to give you an honest number about the cost of piracy is a whole different can of worms. |
|
|
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| said by Thaler:Somehow, I don't think the music industry took a $600k loss from his sharing of those songs. They're ordering him to pay *way* above the costs to simply "make things right".
Of course, trying to get the recording industry to give you an honest number about the cost of piracy is a whole different can of worms.
It's hard to say that
suppose it was 50,000 downloads for each and maybe 10 percent would buy if not downloadable, so 5000 x 30=150,000 songs, potentially albums depending on the selection uploaded at say $10 it could be $1.5 million even at bargain prices.
but their is also the cost of pursuing downloaders including a lot of lawyer time, plus accountants, and so on.
then because he reduce the sales figures by 150k those artists don't get as much play time on radio and the next album draws less sales, lots of indirect costs.
but all in all penalties are SUPOOSED to be PUNITIVE, because you went around the legit method of the walmart or amazon or iTunes download you now MUST pay more that the actual obvious cost,.
many civil crime matters work this way, take cable theft
It's not what you actually watched, it's what you potentially could have watched, so they go after the cost of the highest package you had access to, even if you never watched it.
The IDEA is to make it too expensive to be caught to make it worth trying, but criminals are those that believe somehow they CAN"T be caught, and that somehow they are ENTITLED to whatever they can take.
Those two factors apply to EVER criminal ever caught or not, which is why some of the (mostly) older people are so concerned over the scofflaw ENTITLED aditude displayed are and elsswhere on line, no just downloading but thats and obvious one.
We're worried we'll have to pay for all the prisons for so many of you, when you decide that the next step is ok too.
There was a time that many remember when you KNEW you need to contribute to the world BEFORE you demanded anything and you didn't take unless you earned it, and what you made you might often choose to share, but it was your choice. |
|
| said by tshirt:said by Thaler:Somehow, I don't think the music industry took a $600k loss from his sharing of those songs. They're ordering him to pay *way* above the costs to simply "make things right".
Of course, trying to get the recording industry to give you an honest number about the cost of piracy is a whole different can of worms.
It's hard to say that suppose it was 50,000 downloads Not hard to imagine if you just make up numbers is it?
Why not make it a billion downloads?
Do you have any evidence that it was more than 31? |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| He uploaded 31, the actual number of downloads is unknown.
Everyone else here recognises this is about the sharing not just the downloads.
It's too bad you fail to face the issues involved directly ignoring the hours of discussion that have alreay taken place. perhaps you particapate sooner in the future. If you are still confused I suggest you read the whole thread. |
|
| When one user uploads another user is downloading.
This is what I was referring too.
So to make it more agreeable to you: why not make it a billion uploads?
Since we are making numbers up, why not go with a good one? |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:It's hard to say that
suppose it was 50,000 downloads
Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually isn't it a task of the damaged party to come up with an actual amount for damages? Or even a means to compose an educated guess based on evidence? Pretty sure I couldn't claim damages from a person and just "guess" the compensation value to be $500k.
Otherwise, crap, next time I'm in an accident and not at fault, better ask the courts for a kabajillion dollars. Best guess, after all. |
|
