As I understand it, the judge didn't allow testimony regarding how much the record labels were actually harmed. That's why it is the big issue on appeal. I don't know if they are even appealing the verdict (or putting much emphasis on that).

It really is bizarre. There aren't many things that have a calculative value that we don't force juries to calculate.

The answer in your last post, why are they bothering, is because they can get $10k a song without proving they had $10k in damages. Chalk that one up to your Congressman.

But would you say the system is broken if the actual damages were $10k? What if she did deliver the song to 7,000 people. Would you have a problem with that damage then?

Am I the only person that thinks comparing cassette swapping with a buddy to be even remotely equivalent to hosting a FTP on gamingforce that has over 50GB worth of music is kinda ridiculous?

The funny thing about the two cases you presented the former actually gave music with a measurable harm, while we have no idea if the latter shared anything at all.

Has the RIAA actually done any kind of study that says "Here are our sales for this record to date. Here is the trend change after we released it for free?"

I've seen posts by artists in all sorts of different media that say they actually experienced an increase in sales of either the older stuff which was released for free, or stuff that was just coming out, which coincided with a free release of older material.

The only rhetoric I've heard has been in aggregate and very hand-wavy and unspecific. ie. "Sales are dropping by billions and the internet started, therefore there is causality!"

I remember going over some logic and there was a specific fallacy concerning this situation (that the existence of the Internet is the sole reason for the drop in sales). I think a lawyer would be wise to use that fallacy, and (as we all have said) challenge them to see whether the defendant really cost the organization THAT amount of money.

Let's do some simple math. Let's pretend it costs 2 dollars per song on the album. Now, she had to pay a total fine of 9,250 per song for the full amount of monetary reimbursement required for sharing that song that the industry lost. Well, that means that she had to share it with 4,625 individuals, correct? That's kinda a bit high, no? And that has to go for all 24 files. Unlikely? Definitely.

The industry would need to prove that she actually shared the files with enough people to cost that much money. That doesn't mean that she should get some sort of pro-rated rate, but certainly it should not equal out to a quarter of a million.

As for the industry's rep, well, right now it won't hurt them. There are a lot of older customers who will say, "She got what she deserved" without thinking more about it. However, twenty, or thirty years from now, this generation, and the next generation will remember what they did, and simply not buy any music any more. And they definitely won't be able to pay the amount required in court cases. I'm not saying that no one will buy music from the industry, but the cash flow will definitely continue to drop, and not because of people sharing files, but rather their dislike of the industry itself.

Pretty much.

You most certainly do. If they have no money to spend to buy the item but take it anyway, your preventing someone else the chance to purchase it and for the company to make money.

The longer run is that you're hurting the artist. Lets say a new artist with a big CD comes out and everyone torrents it. The CD label suddenly has less revenue to pay their bills, legal fees, staff, insurance - and of course, the artist themselves. And while the arguement that "Dur, most artists don't make money from CDs anyway" (which is only slightly true) - promotion departments won't back an artist who's CD doesn't sell as well - and how do they determine that, boys and girls? Ill give you a hint - its not with a torrent.

We're talking about virtual copies here.

Let's do another one of those silly analogies. There's this Ferrari you really want, but you don't have the cash. So you hit upon a brilliant plan: you scrape off a bunch of atoms each from a few gazillion identical Ferrari models which are legitimately owned (or still unsold), then somehow assemble those atoms into the original object. The original owners lose nothing of discernable value, and you've just gained a shiny new sports car.

Sounds absurd? Well, scraping off atoms isn't exactly the same as making a partial virtual copy of a few digital bits, but the result is close. And collecting those atoms from many different sources, then reassembling them, is a concept similar to torrenting. Can you see it now?

Of course, there are plenty of horrible problems with this analogy. It's still better than comparing filesharing to stealing physical goods.

Negative publicity, eh? I'd be willing to wager that, comparatively, major protesters to the RIAA, knowledgeable ones at that, they may be vocal on the internet or in the industry, but they're probably pretty scant in the big picture. The RIAA has a target to scare. People only informed in the matter that using p2p programs let them obtain for free what they otherwise would have had to pay for, casual media piracy. Fear of randomly being plucked as they next Jammie Thomas could cause this number to decline. Whether or not more discerning individuals hate them more than they already do, who cares. This seems to be exactly the publicity intended and I'd think they'd want the news shouted from the rooftops.

And a Ferrari dealer slowly goes out of business because fewer and fewer people buy them, while more and more people have them. Supply, demand and all that shit.

As time goes on and more material is Torrented, eventually people will start losing jobs. Recording engineers, graphic designers for album art, agents, contract negotiators and people up and down the line from custodians who clean toilets to CFOs will be unemployed because people can have what they want without having to invest anything into it.

A counter analogy, far more simpler - "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free" has been tossed out to countless 18 year old girls by suspecting mothers since time forgotten. And it stands to this day - the fact that you want it doesn't suddenly supersede the fact that can't afford to buy it. I think too many people are focused on their personal wants, as opposed to the function of how the industry works.

This is exactly why I love piracy. People losing jobs! Bands going out of business and shitty musicians and producers committing suicide! All because of me, a guy at his computer! I am destroying a whole INDUSTRY without leaving my home. How. fucking. badass. is. that.

And your taste in music has left the classical world stagnant for almost a century. :p

The problem with the argument that it isn't stealing is that you don't get to have other things in life that you can't get without paying for them. You don't get to get a Ferrari unless you can pay for it or steal one off the street. You don't get to have a television unless you can pay for it or steal one off the street.

Now we're saying, "Well, you can have music without paying for it, as long as you just download it."

It might provide no actual harm if someone who wouldn't have otherwise purchased it downloads it, but how can you tell the difference between someone who would have paid for it and someone who wouldn't have? How do you say, "No, no, I think this guy would have paid for it, so let's prosecute him, but not this guy."

You can't separate the two classes, which is why the act is what is punishable, not the intent.

I really don't think the music industry is losing sales because people are downloading. I know most people I talk to, only download music because they can't afford to buy the cd's and still wanna here the music. I'm the same way. If I didn't download the music, I still wouldn't go buy the cd. So no loss of sale there.

You're compairing apples and glassware sets.

The fact that you can get it without paying for it is probably the best definition of stealing you can find. The fact that you didn't have intent to pay for it even if you had the money just equates to premeditation to the crime.

I never said it wasn't stealing. Of course it's stealing. It's someone else's song. I'm obtaining it without permission. Yah. It's theft. I was merely stating that the music industry isn't losing money from my anyhow. The fact that it IS stealing is why I don't download much music these days. Unless I wanna sample something I am considering buying.

The last time I heard about a "victimless crime" it was in an article from Housatonic University that rape was good for fat women.

Hey, at least they're getting some form of action. But seriously. If I wasn't gonna spend money anyhow, and still get their music. How can they lose money they never had?

They are losing their copyrights.

There are damages in this world other than monetary damages, you know.

If I hit you over the head with a stick, you didn't lose any money, so does that mean you aren't harmed at all?

Besides, downloading torrent music by artists you like is akin to inviting friends to your house and then robbing them

Fine I'm a theif. Just a second whilst I go to the local church and confess.

Well, I am too. But you're trying to excuse yourself by some bullshit reasoning that you aren't harming anyone. You are. The truth is you don't care that you are because you find the RIAA reprehensible.

Yah, that's pretty much it. I could care less if I'm stealing.

So now heres something I'm wondering. Since Radiohead is basically offering their CD and music for your own price and people are downloading without paying anything...is it stealing?

Uh.

No.