Sir Stewart Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 truth. i can get behind any analogy that involves someone named jamal. sorry ction, you lose. I think you made a similar case concerning joss ackland's spunky backpack's username.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think you made a similar case concerning joss ackland's spunky backpack's username.. it's a double e-whammy. for sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I could also claim that maybe people don't want to buy the music on his label as much as they did a few years ago, seeing as how musical tastes change; and the fact that he is incapable of knowing how many people are downloading his bands music for free in fact makes his claims, at least, a touch questionable from a scientific point of view. The fact that he releases relatively unpopular music is irrelevant. He's not arguing that in a perfect world his artists should sell millions of albums - he's asking the couple thousand people who are interested in the bands to maybe buy the records instead of stealing them so he can continue to put out records that appeal to a couple thousand people. Or something...I haven't actually read his blog post since I posted the link a couple of months ago. P.S. If anyone has access to Oink, could they see how many people have downloaded the Tim Barry solo album? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 truth. i can get behind any analogy that involves someone named jamal. sorry ction, you lose. Btw, thanks again for that ysi of the new Cult album! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Rivanna Junction by Tim Barry Variable Bitrate = 212, 320bps = 106 on oink. Now we need to find out, somehow, how many of those people bought the album. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 three Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 So, if i removed the first sentence from the quote you'd understand what I said? Seeing as how that seems to be where the confusion has arisen from, rather than the second snetence, which was the question I was answering. I think I understand your overall position - that you are entitled by birth to download other people's music for free and that they should just learn to at least accept it, if not thank you for it like they should because you are in fact helping them. That I've got. Then there's the apples, which is where you lose me...mostly because you use metric money and I have no idea what that equals. My position is that maybe, I don't know, you could read the first hand account of a guy who claims to be negatively impacted by illegal music downloading. Which you semi-kinda quoted and responded to in the first place. Then you can either continue to maintain your original position or perhaps realize that maybe it's not as simple as you make it out to be with your apple story. You could also decide to claim the guy is lying, and that his bands and label are actually more successful than they otherwise would have been. That would help me kill the rest of the day. what I don't understand in all of this is how ction's posts fit inside my minimized window, but spunky backpack's do not, thereby necessitating my use of the scroll bar down at the bottom. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 That's because I'm being more rational and I'm better at the internet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 what I don't understand in all of this is how ction's posts fit inside my minimized window, but spunky backpack's do not, thereby necessitating my use of the scroll bar down at the bottom. The moral there is: don't try putting Jamal in a box. He's so much more than that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 How's that Otis thing coming along master of the internets? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 [quote name='JUDE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Btw, thanks again for that ysi of the new Cult album! what'd you think? i have yet to hear from heyyypeterwhatshappening if he liked it or not. i dug it, so i'm buying the mac-daddy 2 disc special edition tomorrow over lunch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 what'd you think? i have yet to hear from heyyypeterwhatshappening if he liked it or not. i dug it, so i'm buying the mac-daddy 2 disc special edition tomorrow over lunch.For some reason I've yet to give it a spin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 For some reason I've yet to give it a spin. well get on it, jamal. jesus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 By JOSHUA FREED, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 2 minutes ago DULUTH, Minn. - The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her. The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights. Thomas and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined comment as they left the courthouse. Jurors also left without commenting. "This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," said Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies. In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account. Record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars. The RIAA says the lawsuits have mitigated illegal sharing, even though music file-sharing is rising overall. The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March 2007. During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas. Toder said in his closing that the companies never proved "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things." "We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this." Gabriel called that defense "misdirection, red herrings, smoke and mirrors." He told jurors a verdict against Thomas would send a message to other illegal downloaders. "I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said. Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that Thomas's infringement was willful but awarded damages of $9,250 per song; Gabriel said they did not explain to attorneys afterward how they reached that amount. Thomas, of Brainerd, works for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe's Department of Natural Resources. Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial. Illegal downloads have "become business as usual, nobody really thinks about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits. "This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights." Thomas' testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Whoa. That's a pretty stiff judgment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Thats ridiculous. Holy shit, $220,000 for 24 songs? What the fuck. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Attorney for the plaintiffs must have been something else. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
W(TF) Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Yep.....seriously fucked up. They're making an "example" out of a single mom. God Bless Big Oil. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 God Bless Big Oil.Wha? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
W(TF) Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 It's a cartel thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
augurus Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Yep.....seriously fucked up. They're making an "example" out of a single mom. God Bless Big Oil. It's a cartel thing. You've jumped one too many chasms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco LP #7 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 This fear-mongering is so lame. I keep forgetting that OiNK is safe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 This fear-mongering is so lame. I keep forgetting that OiNK is safe. Unless you're sharing files with someone who is capturing your IP address for the RIAA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Alan Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Unless you're sharing files with someone who is capturing your IP address for the RIAA.Comcast doesn't even allow anyone to share anymore. I can download all i want but i can't upload any torrents at all. i've got enough ratio room that i can download about another 70 gigs before oink kicks me off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.