Topic: Woman Ordered to Pay $1.92 Million for Sharing 24 Songs | |
---|---|
MINNEAPOLIS (June 19) - The $1.92 million verdict against a Minnesota woman accused of sharing 24 songs over the Internet could ratchet up the pressure on other defendants to settle with the recording industry — if the big fine can withstand an appeal.
|
|
|
|
This is the third time this stiry has been posted.
|
|
|
|
MINNEAPOLIS (June 19) - The $1.92 million verdict against a Minnesota woman accused of sharing 24 songs over the Internet could ratchet up the pressure on other defendants to settle with the recording industry — if the big fine can withstand an appeal. Wonder if they will ever realize that it isn't going to work? |
|
|
|
I think its about setting precident. Four songs could also be four hundred- I think that its important to protect the artist's creative domain. We all know that there's nothing you can say that cant be said,
the right to protection of property is basic; constitutional. At the root. As for the lawsuit, it is frivolous in any other respect. |
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Sat 06/20/09 09:45 AM
|
|
This is the third time this stiry has been posted. i did not see it in current news this is news is it not??????? oh well maybe thats why they try to get you to post in correct forum??? it woulds be nice if you could post the links to the other threads i still did not see them |
|
|
|
I think its about setting precident. Four songs could also be four hundred- I think that its important to protect the artist's creative domain. We all know that there's nothing you can say that cant be said, the right to protection of property is basic; constitutional. At the root. As for the lawsuit, it is frivolous in any other respect. they did not sue ya when ya recorded from the radio back in the day but i probably have thousands of legal cd s so oh well if ya want it ya should buy it but they should make full cd s as well not put two new songs on a cd then fill it with re releases |
|
|
|
the saaad part is that they have decided not to open new cases on those who do not profit from their downloading. however, they also chose not to close the cases that they were also litigating.
soooo...i myself am safe. i have absolutely no problem with downloading music. none, whatsoever. they aren't losing money by me, as i wouldn't have bought the CD anyhow. i also do not profit from such. *shrugs* i think that the fine was totally inappropriate and a joke. |
|
|
|
Let's get serious for just a minute, How in the blue fart is this woman actually suppose to pay this?? I mean give me a frockin break
|
|
|
|
This is the third time this stiry has been posted. i did not see it in current news this is news is it not??????? oh well maybe thats why they try to get you to post in correct forum??? it woulds be nice if you could post the links to the other threads i still did not see them Just scroll down the page a little. There are two right next to each other. |
|
|
|
Edited by
singmesweet
on
Sat 06/20/09 11:35 AM
|
|
Adj, the other was posted a couple days ago. With a link, too.
|
|
|
|
Adj, the other was posted a couple days ago. With a link, too. Yup, done twice, one by Queene and uh...uh...I can't remember the other one. A couple of hours apart in the correct forum. Kat |
|
|
|
I don't see any musicians on the brink of starving to death because of illegal downloading. Sure the days of multiple diamond albums are probably over, but that's probably more due to itunes and what not. It's just another case of corporate greed gone to far. Are any record labels in danger of closing? no they are not. And as for more obscure musicians and what not, illegal downloading is actually beneficial to them, as there cd's, songs, are usually not available to some people commercially, and thus they gain more recognition.
|
|
|