Riaa Get Tough On File Sharer

[Guest Paul]

News reports say that a 30-year-old American woman has been fined $220,000.00 USD (approx £109,000.00 GBP) for illegally downloading and file sharing music via Kazaa.

The fine equates to $9,250.00 for EACH of 24 songs she shared. She has been ordered to pay the money to six record companies represented by the RIAA.

Meanwhile, they allow organised bootleggers to get away with mass copyright infringement, trademark infringement, mechanical royalty evasion and fraud.

Paul Mooney

[Guest Netspeaky]

News reports say that a 30-year-old American woman has been fined $220,000.00 USD (approx £109,000.00 GBP) for illegally downloading and file sharing music via Kazaa.

The fine equates to $9,250.00 for EACH of 24 songs she shared. She has been ordered to pay the money to six record companies represented by the RIAA.

Meanwhile, they allow organised bootleggers to get away with mass copyright infringement, trademark infringement, mechanical royalty evasion and fraud.

Paul Mooney

Paul problem as always the 24 songs were the companies MAIN ASSETS, they don't give a toss about a tune that is only going to sell below a couple of 1000's units. For items below that number if it's booted it doesn't make economic sense to go after them as the costs to do so don't add up. It's only when the bootlegger start taking cash of the big companies bottom line will it become an issue, so a few 100 copies of some totally obscure 45 that perhaps they have no idea they actually own is never going to future highly on the weekly agenda. Whatever your view with bootleggers some tunes would be totally lost to a wider audience without them, and in certain cases (Extremely rare) just sometimes it does wake up a BIG COMPANY to the potential of some of the material that they have LOCKED away in the vaults.

[Sweeney]

I think the real issue here is that the Music Industry¢Å¾¢ has realised that after many years of trying to ignore rather than embrace the new technologies available they've badly misjudged the situation.

Using this woman as a test case to try and scare the public into compliance is a very desperate act.

It will badly backfire on them.

[Diggin' Dave]

I think the real issue here is that the Music Industry¢Å¾¢ has realised that after many years of trying to ignore rather than embrace the new technologies available they've badly misjudged the situation.

Using this woman as a test case to try and scare the public into compliance is a very desperate act.

It will badly backfire on them.

My thoughts exactly, maybe it would be a bit more reasonable to give smaller fines, but to more people. I think just fining one woman for that amount of $$$ is just lazy. Minimal input (one lawsuit) with maximal output ($220,000.00), that's how this business works nowadays...

[Guest Paul]

I agree, the music industry tried to force some changes whilst resisting others.

Instead of embracing new methods of digital distribution it tried to fight them. Now, having made a belated u-turn, the major companies have started to heavily "punish" random members of the public for using systems that are used by many millions.

These unauthorised systems wouldn't exist if the major companies had their acts together in the first place.

People want music, it's as simple as that. If the major companies can't or won't supply it, and at fair prices, people will take advantage of other opportunities.

Paul Mooney

Edited October 6, 2007 by Paul