The RIAA is so brave

[GSHL99 0]

Wow, fleecing college kids for $3,000 a pop. I'm sure this tactic is really going to end file sharing.

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/43610153

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — At first, Sarah Barg thought the e-mail was a scam.

Some group called the Recording Industry Association of America was accusing the University of Nebraska-Lincoln sophomore of illegally downloading 381 songs using the school's computer network and a program called Ares.

The letter said she might be sued but offered her the chance to settle out of court.

Barg couldn't imagine anyone expected her to pay $3,000 — $7.87 per song — for some 1980s ballads and Spice Girls tunes she downloaded for laughs in her dorm room. Besides, the 20-year-old had friends who had downloaded thousands of songs without repercussion.

[GoHawks 0]

$7.87 per song? That's ridiculous... I'd feel some pity if most of the artists that care weren't already filthy stinking rich...

[althoma1 575]

GoHawks Posted Today, 01:48 PM

$7.87 per song? That's ridiculous... I'd feel some pity if most of the artists that care weren't already filthy stinking rich...

The fact is most of the money doesn't go to the artists. Most of it goes to the record labels and distribution companies ect.

In regards to the actual case I look at it this way - a lot of the music I've downloaded over the years is stuff that is hard to find in print anyway and I wouldn't have necessarily bought on CD. I doubt the college girl would have rushed out and bought the 80s ballads and Spice Girls songs...she simply downloaded them because they were easily available for free on the net.

I started downloading in the days Napster first came out. Over the years downloading music has exposed me to groups I really didn't know about before and I've since paid to go to concerts on more than one occasion to those groups. If it hadn't been for Napster or other downloading tools I would have never discovered those groups and they wouldn't have ever seen a penny of my cash...downloading is not always a terrible thing, but yes it has certainly had a big impact on the record labels overall. I don't think suing college students individually is the best course of action to take though.

[Chadd 916]

Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation or threatens one with physical harm unless they are paid money or property. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. The simple four words "pay up or else" are sufficient to constitute the crime of extortion. An extortionate threat made to another in jest is still extortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

[GoHawks 0]

GoHawks Posted Today, 01:48 PM

$7.87 per song? That's ridiculous... I'd feel some pity if most of the artists that care weren't already filthy stinking rich...

The fact is most of the money doesn't go to the artists. Most of it goes to the record labels and distribution companies ect.

So? the record companies are part of RIAA. It's just that some musicians are spokespersons or whatever to basically be a front for RIAA. Selling albums + merch + way overpriced concerts (i.e. Metallica) + RIAA settlements doesn't add up to the musicians being poor. I'm willing to bet most underground bands like the exposure from downloading music.

I guess my point is, I'm willing to bet that every memeber of RIAA is rich already. Do they really need the extra money from suing, or extortion, especially if it's college-aged kids?

[Chadd 916]

GoHawks Posted Today, 01:48 PM

$7.87 per song? That's ridiculous... I'd feel some pity if most of the artists that care weren't already filthy stinking rich...

The fact is most of the money doesn't go to the artists. Most of it goes to the record labels and distribution companies ect.

So? the record companies are part of RIAA. It's just that some musicians are spokespersons or whatever to basically be a front for RIAA. Selling albums + merch + way overpriced concerts (i.e. Metallica) + RIAA settlements doesn't add up to the musicians being poor. I'm willing to bet most underground bands like the exposure from downloading music.

I guess my point is, I'm willing to bet that every memeber of RIAA is rich already. Do they really need the extra money from suing, or extortion, especially if it's college-aged kids?

Most bands make little, if anything, off their CD sales. They make their money from touring and merchandise.

[starscream 0]

lol, hope I don't get busted with my 47.1 GIGABYTES (about 10,000 songs) of music on my HD.

screw the RIAA, they're rediculous.

[Vapor 0]

The sad thing is that in court their cases do not hold up. They have to place you behind the computer at the time you downloaded the files. Practices as simple as keeping your wireless network open (or claiming so) can pretty much strike down their case. Most people are afraid of court, so they settle. It really is extortion.

[hockeyplaya97 0]

So what about "Limewire?" Does that fall into illegal downloading or is there some sort of exception there?

[The Stranger 0]

So what about "Limewire?" Does that fall into illegal downloading or is there some sort of exception there?

Why would there be an exception? Theft is theft, don't delude yourself.

[Alias81 0]

Theres alot of mist out there alot of people claim this is legal and this isn't, I'm not entirley sure and a bunch of Googling hasn't seemed to help me either. So can somebody in "the know" please tell me is p2p legal? And is file sharing legal?

Many Thanks!

[Vapor 0]

in the US it is illegal. If the music is copyrighted, it is illegal.

[Chadd 916]

It really is extortion.

Thanks

in the US it is illegal. If the music is copyrighted, it is illegal.

Yeah, but it's legal in Canada last time I checked.

[Vapor 0]

Yes, a Canadian court decided P2P is legal.

[daca 0]

GoHawks Posted Today, 01:48 PM

$7.87 per song? That's ridiculous... I'd feel some pity if most of the artists that care weren't already filthy stinking rich...

The fact is most of the money doesn't go to the artists. Most of it goes to the record labels and distribution companies ect.

In regards to the actual case I look at it this way - a lot of the music I've downloaded over the years is stuff that is hard to find in print anyway and I wouldn't have necessarily bought on CD. I doubt the college girl would have rushed out and bought the 80s ballads and Spice Girls songs...she simply downloaded them because they were easily available for free on the net.

I started downloading in the days Napster first came out. Over the years downloading music has exposed me to groups I really didn't know about before and I've since paid to go to concerts on more than one occasion to those groups. If it hadn't been for Napster or other downloading tools I would have never discovered those groups and they wouldn't have ever seen a penny of my cash...downloading is not always a terrible thing, but yes it has certainly had a big impact on the record labels overall. I don't think suing college students individually is the best course of action to take though.

well put. i totally agree.

[Vapor 0]

people work at the record labels and distro companies too, they deserved to be paid for what they do.