Forums | MacLife

barrfid_od wrote:

It drives me crazy that a copyright holder has more rights on the internet than I do if for some reason im defaced. This is just a storm of smurf and it is absolutely crazy

What the smurf point is a copyright if it doesn't give you more rights?

ah, but let's separate the two things here. The fine is excessive. She was found guilty and the copyright was upheld.

The fine is excessive and could fall under cruel and unusual punishment. If I were her I'd challenge the fine under constitutional grounds.

You mean, besides Bill Gates?

There is no justice in this.  You would get a petty theft charge for stealing the CDs from the store.

But then they'd argue that it isn't in the taking, it's in the making available.

elpato84 wrote:

But then they'd argue that it isn't in the taking, it's in the making available.

Each person in a P2P network makes an average of one copy available for every one copy that they download.
The penalty for $24 songs should be $48 at a maximum, unless they can actually PROVE that they "made available" more copies than the average.

~Coxy wrote:

elpato84 wrote:

But then they'd argue that it isn't in the taking, it's in the making available.

Each person in a P2P network makes an average of one copy available for every one copy that they download.
The penalty for $24 songs should be $48 at a maximum, unless they can actually PROVE that they "made available" more copies than the average.

Thats like saying you need to prove someone wasn't going to return the car the stole. or like saying they should base the punishment on how long they stole it ... If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

maybe we should reduce the sentencing for rape while we are at it ... I mean come on it only affects one person.

sturner wrote:

you missed the import of my statement. The damage done must be commensurate with the punishment.

no I didn't


Oh he stole one song ... no big deal... bullsmurf.   Does one illegal download effect anyone? Not really ... but the point is that millions of songs are being downloaded. which does effect a lot of people in a big way. It effects everyone from the artist to the retailer who could have sold the music.  If the punishment was simply a $50 fine or whatever ... would that really stop anyone? You have to make the punishment huge to stop people from doing it.


like I said before maybe we should reduce the sentencing for rape while we are at it ... I mean come on it only affects one person.

It's still excessive. Massively so.

Mr. T wrote:

mrreet2001 wrote:

maybe we should reduce the sentencing for rape while we are at it ... I mean come on it only affects one person.

I understand perfectly what you're saying.  I mean, for all we know, this dude's file sharing might've cost Eminem his morning cappuccino.  Eminem's probably thinking, "smurf man, I got raped!"  Which is just as bad as actually getting raped, if not worse.

MMM.. Coffee

sturner wrote:

Who benefits?

If it deters just one person it benefits the industry as a whole. Everyone from the artist to the retailer selling the product.


Making music is expensive. equipment... studio time / production ... tour time and costs... retail costs... promotion... The artist barely sees any of the profit from one song after everything is paid for.

When you have little smurfs who don't give a crap about the law stealing and giving away your music it's bullsmurf. It's taking away from the funds to make more music.  Go ahead ... destroy the industry... say good bye to arena tours... say good bye to radio as we know it ... say good bye to the produced bands that your children like. Say good bye to a lot of things. Yes indie bands will continue... but not at the level of major label bands. Screw all of it just so some little bitch who was either to lazy or to cheap to buy a smurfing cd.

Anyone who thinks they deserve all music for free should pick up a instrument and make there own friggen music.

again I ask are you an artist?

Last edited by mrreet2001 (2009-08-18 9:59 am)