$10 Music Piracy Fine: Fair or Extortion?

33

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Zyx

Until it becomes impossible to spoof an IP I'd say it's impossible to pay.

 

Maybe this would cause a final shift to IPv6.

avatar

FreeJet

The bottom line is if you pay those folks the $10, they will DEFINITELY know who you are, whether you are guilty or not.  I prefer to wait for them to make the next more.  This is a scare tactic and will probably get them some money from people who really don't understand what their rights are.  If enough people stand up to this EXTORTION, those folks will have to either clean up their act or disappear. 

My advice:  Do not, under any circumstances outside of a court of law, give those folks any information about you or voluntarily give them any money without solid legal advice first.

avatar

bowei006

Has anyone realized where the DRC believe the source to be comming from? It's Limewire....last I checked it, and it's software should be defunct by now.... will Limewire still work if it was installed on your computer?? I have no idea, but I thought it didn't. 

avatar

someuid

No return from address in the email.

No name either in the signature block (just says CEO).

You know, someone should just file a spam email claim against them.  The landslide of judgements against them would stop this fast if they had to fork out, what is it, $800 for each person they send this to?

avatar

kris79

What MPAA RIAA doesn't get:  http://www.techi.com/2010/04/the-riaa-and-mpaa-have-failed-to-understand-a-cultural-shift/

What we don't get: Stop buying the music/movies and the musicians/actors will not go away. Writers will not stop writing. Artists will not stop creating. Anyone remember MP3.com? Free music from all over the world - much of it very good. If you liked it, you could buy more directly from the same artist. Totally out of the control of the media masters. Didn't take long for them to shut that down, did it? Doesn't that smack of a monopoly?

What will disappear instead, if there were a movement to boycott all music/movies, is the abusive misappropriation of power by media moguls. They will get the message when they can no longer afford a gallon of gas for their Mercedes - much like the rest of us. Then maybe things like MP3.com will flourish again.

avatar

Holly Golightly

Sounds cheap enough. But is that $10 per download or just $10 for every song posted there illegally? If it is per download, I say that is extortion!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I were the pirate, I say F-U to the record company and tell them to go broke on the litigation to hurt them more. This is for their greed! Tell them to get bent while going broke.

avatar

szore

Get bent. LMAO!

avatar

warptek2010

Here's the thing as I see it... in the old days before the internet, people would buy albums, cassettes, 8-tracks and CD's and sometimes lend them out to friends and family. In the case of cassette's they were many times duplicated then returned. This was technically illegal but absolutely just about ZERO enforcement cause how would they know unless someone ratted you out to the Feds which was highly unlikely.

Nowadays, we have the modern equivalent of loaning out an album or CD except it's to someone anonymous on a file sharing network, this time they know about it (though not exactly who in many cases). So now they want to reclaim all that lost money that they never got because afterall, if the person hadn't borrowed your CD or downloaded the file they would have DEFINITELY gone out and bought it. Based on this very rationale of the record industry (or any industry for that matter), they can still go f*** themselves.

There is another distribution model that is never talked about anywhere it seems... the public library. You can borrow a music album from the library, listen to it and the record company or artist never sees a dime from the listener. My point is why do they choose to throw good money going after file sharers to make bad money? It just doesn't make sense.

avatar

Teeebs

How about instead of a cheque, you send them a photocopy of your sphincter and call it even....lol

avatar

Eoraptor

So, "pay up now or something... unfortunate... might happen to yous" is suddenly legal now? well Halleluja, excuse me, I have a few gas stations I need to go shake down.

Because let's be honest, that's all this is. a Shakedown. It's not realistic, it's not "a fresh new manner in which to tackle piracy," it's a bunch of lawyers running a racket. You CAN'T challenge the veracity of the charge, you can't defend yourself, in fact, you're not likely to even be the guilty party unless you live alone and are the only person in your geographic area with that IP address. (sorry, IP's are rolling addresses, it;s almost impossible to verify the PERSON behind them)

and of course, having read the originating article, there's not even a way froms topping them coming back on you later for the same infraction.

it's a RICO violation and nothing less or more.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Umm... yeah... I don't think so. Nice try tho.

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

$10 is still technically extortion, but not as bad. Aren't songs downloadable for .99 each?

avatar

Scatter

It doesn't matter how much it costs to download the music legaly once a person decides to break the law and pirate it. 

avatar

aarcane

It sounds fair, providing the following are true:

1) the $10 settlement is binding.  As in they legally cannot come back at you again for those infringements.

2) There's a dispute process, wherein you say "I didn't steal your music" and they have to prove that whatever they believe you did constitutes actual material losses.  (Similar to the credit report process now.  you say "It's not mine", and they have 30 days to prove it is or it's off your record)  (IE: they have to prove you don't own a copy of the CD, or haven't previously purchased a copy of the music)

3) They allow a payment plan for those people who either 1) have more than 1 outstanding album to pay for, or 2) can't afford the full $10.  (I'm personally so poor I could maybe pay $1/mo for ten months)

4) The $10 settlement INCLUDES a license to the material IN PERPETUITY.  IE: once you pay the $10 you own the album, and get a printable reciept proving that you own it in case they (or another entity) comes after you again for the same IP.

5) They start putting out high quality music.

 

Now admittedly I stated my conditions for considdering this reasonable in the context of music albums, but they also apply in the context of movies and television serries as well.

avatar

Scatter

I find it funny that you're trying to negotiate the terms of your fine for breaking the law. 

avatar

Sovereign

Because if it's legal, it's right and defensible.  Suuuuuuuure.

People in suits who refuse to adapt their businesses to the not-so-new reality of the internet try to abuse the legal system which has not yet caught up.

But it's legal, so bend over!

avatar

livebriand

How about this: It's JUST $10/song. And I can appeal to it if I didn't actually commit the crime. $10 is an amount that most people can actually pay. $3K or more is unrealistic.

avatar

chipmunkofdoom2

Well, what they're asking for isn't extortion. The way in which they're doing it? Eh. Questionable.

What's extortion is asking for $3,000 a song. That's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to have no idea who you're asking to "settle" with and taking their credit card number, and money. It completely ignores due process, and in fact you are admitting guilt by "settling", even if it is a steal. Now, if you went to court, were found guilty and ordered to settle? At that point, yes, $10 a song is reasonable. However, the catch 22 is that once it gets to court, they want big bucks for each song. They're back up to $3k a piece instead of $10 a piece.

 

It's by no means a perfect solution.. I don't even thing I'd call it a solution. Maybe a step in the right direction?

avatar

tornato7

I remember the good old days when the internet was a wild and unsafe place and wasn't regulated by laws and it was like an early human villaige in a way. Now the internet is getting more and more controlled and regulated. I don't know which I like better.

avatar

Nimrod

Right, because EVERYONE cheks their comcast email account all the time right? I cant even remember what mine is. For all i know its already over flowing those protection money demands. Or at least for all i CARE it might be any way.

avatar

aarcane

forward it to your proper gmail account.

avatar

bpstone

"Destory the honest even if they aren't guilty. As long as we get paid." Things on the internet are, in some manner, getting out-of-hand. There are those who have taken certain steps in the right direction, but illegal sites still run rampant along with numerous questionable activities. Using someone's IP address doesn't mean it was that person, period.

Companies are standing beyond the white line. They know what they are doing is wrong. Storing and throwing around people's personal information like it is no big deal. Time for a petition to give people back their rights online. I wish our government would stop playing pussy foot.

avatar

nealtse

It's still extortion, but this sounds to me like they are getting extra-desperate.  Maybe they'll get so desperate they'll end up destroying themselves from the inside out.  One can only hope.

avatar

Captain_Steve

If this is real and done properly, the RIAA would probably go a whole lot further in stopping piracy than with the current method. When they start sending out demands for $150,000, they completely destroy the effect they have. For most people that isn't "real" money. That's the kind of figure that get's tossed around in buying homes, not in every day talk. For all the good that does, they might as well ask for eleventybillion dollars; it's all fake to us poor people.

 

Now, when you start asking for $10 a song, that becomes real money. That's an amount I can put a value on; that's a meal, a couple gallons of gas, or a month of WoW. If people wear seatbelts because they don't want to pay a $50 ticket for getting caught not wearing one, they sure as heck aren't going to want to bay $150 for downloading the latest Lady Gaga album.

 

Though, as shoddy as this sounds it's probably a scam. Shame though; the RIAA might have really been on to something.

avatar

don2041

$10.00 per song is far too much. $10.00 per album maybe. No song is worth more than $1.00.

avatar

TommM

Well fine, don't steal it then and pay the $1.00.  Guarantee you won't have any problems getting notices like this then.

avatar

don2041

I have never pirated any music at any time, however the record labels should never be awarded more than a song is worth.

avatar

haboh

says who? If I steal your car do I only have to pay the cost of the car? I burn down your house do I just pay to build a new one? 

 

Agree with most people here though that the method is scetchy at best, but on the other hand if you didn't do it you can appeal it, and if you did do it most likely it's much cheaper to pay the $10 than fighting it. 

avatar

szore

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

       Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, -77

avatar

Nimrod

yeah because tyranny is such a great thing. GTFO

avatar

Eoraptor

redacted

avatar

Eoraptor

Yes, because the Lawyers have obviously been so helpful here too... cast not the first stone.

avatar

don2041

This sounds like extortion. Pay us $10.00 or we will ruin you finantually if you don,t, even if you are not guilty.

Sounds like some asshole lawyer dreamed this one up

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.