Student fined $675,000 for sharing 30 songs

Zidane24 said:

what is really funny is that at WCU if your found to have downloaded and distibuted songs than your internet is turned off....a max of $500 for a fine and you have to take an online web course (you could finish it in an hour). Also you have to write a 5 page essay on copyright law and the penalities for breaking it...eventhough that is a bit of work...it is much better than $675,000

are copies of these essays to be found on the small star?

i hope the RIAA starts going after Amazon soon. they sell used CDs which means neither the record companies nor the artists receive further commissions. it's the same as piracy, but on a smaller scale...

garbanzo said:

i hope the RIAA starts going after Amazon soon. they sell used CDs which means neither the record companies nor the artists receive further commissions. it's the same as piracy, but on a smaller scale...

How the heck is that piracy? When the first person bought the CD, he paid the record company for the costs in producing and manufacturing the CD. Record companies don't produce infinite amounts of CD's where everyone can go buy one. Eventually, you are gonna have to buy a used CD, especially if you're trying to get some rare CD (especially the oldies). How is buying a used CD different from going to a bookstore and buying a used book?

how is download a copy of a cd that someone else bought different than buying a used one? it's just a matter of scale...

and apple. let's sue apple for empowering people to use mp3s. most people who own an ipod didn't rip their own music!

garbanzo said:

how is download a copy of a cd that someone else bought different than buying a used one? it's just a matter of scale...

When someone sells a used CD, the CD is given to the guy who bought it, no copy is made unlike a download. It's a transfer of possession. There is no net loss for the record company if the CD is given to another person. According to your logic, if I bought a "used" home, I should pay all those carpenters and architects again, even if it was paid before. Now, why should I do that? I thought I was just buying the home...

When selling a used CD, only one guy keeps the music. One guy paid the record company already for that CD, so there is no loss. However with a download, now two people have the music. In economics, there is really no difference in selling a used CD or giving the CD away as a gift. One person paid for the CD and only one person gets to keep it. When you're paying for a CD, you're paying the cost of allowing one person to own that CD.

How is buying a used CD different from buying a used game? A used car? Or used clothes? Nothing. You don't see people making a copy of their car and giving away now do you?

don't be silly, you can't make a copy of a car.
but when you buy used music, movies, games, and software on ebay, you can be pretty certain the seller has kept a copy for posterity.

and have you ever been to a library that didn't have a room full of photocopiers? i have a few copied books myself - rare and out of print titles that would cost me $500 online, but instead just cost me $20 and half an hour of work.

ok, so i took my argument to the edge of absurdity. but you have to draw the line somewhere. personally, i think the whole idea of intellectual property rights is absurd. if artists/developers/producers/etc don't like the fact that their digital media can be easily copied, perhaps they should stop making it. it's like running around downtown without any clothes on and being mad when people stare at you. it's just inevitable...

wait until quantum computers become a reality and someone makes a replicator. then we'll be in trouble...