Though we do it all the time without hesitation, file-sharing has hit everyday people like us pretty hard in the wallet. A girl I know was facing a 10K lawsuit for the files that she downloaded during college. Thanks to a thorough lawyer, a team of students that were also served the legal papers, and a class-action suit, she wiggled their way out of it. With the use of Mediafire, ZShare and other software, getting anything you want from the net (ahem: Blind I) is super easy, and the boundaries have been blurred. While leaking an album is clearly taking money directly from an artist in a flailing industry, what makes sending a song to a friend any different than playing a CD aloud at a get together, or burning a copy?
My whole philosophy is that they shouldn’t randomly pick people to sue when there are millions of people doing it. It’s like punishing and arresting one person in a group for violating a law. I say if they need to attack someone, they should go after the major companies behind such software. Tackle the root of the problem and not just the beneficiaries. I wanted to share this NYTimes article about a Harvard professor that has launched a constitutional assault against a federal copyright law at the heart of the industry’s aggressive strategy. Charles Nesson is challenging the The Digital Theft Deterrence Act, the law at sets damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, and as much as $150,000 for a willful violation. Nesson said his goal is to, ”turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency.” I cosign! What do you think?
DROPPED BY *Maiya*
Tags: FILE-SHARING, LAWSUIT, RIAA
November 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I couldn’t agree more. Hitting a recent college grad for $30K for downloading David Bowie catalogue is ridiculous, and doing it for the sake of proving a point within the file sharing community is pretty low brow. And anything over one or two grand for people who make less that 40 a year in my opinion is rather excessive. ESPECIALLY when the value of those very singles or albums they download don’t add up anywhere near that amount at present OR future value.
As an artist myself, I understand the concern from THE ARTIST that these downloads take away from the little bit that they get in their pockets, and I understand that the RIAA is supposed to act as something like a protection agency for the artists, but I feel like they’re more representative of the same record companies that are dicking the artists around in a similar fashion that is being implied that the music downloaders are (…did that make sense…shit I hope it did…)
But this is just bullying, and its bullshit. I agree, hit the people with deep pockets. Music is an art, not a fucking luxury item. When you tax people for trying to add color their oftentimes monochromatic lives through this art you’re f’ing yourself in the a. You mad? Swing on the nigga that’s actually pushing you, not the guy you bump into when you stumble.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I download stuff all the time and I agree with you guys, but on the other side, if they legalized file sharing, people wouldn’t buy music anymore. I feel like the RIAA should just run a scare campaign and fake that they’re fining a lot of people, but not actually do it. That’d dissuade enough people and still keep the music flowing.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
whos crusty ass finger is this? lol
November 18th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Twas my nail Rio. LOL. JK. Better pic, no?
November 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
yeah