Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Record companies win music sharing trial

JOSHUA FREED

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 8:34 PM EDT 04/10/07

Jury finds Minnesota woman violated copyright law, record companies awarded $220,000 for 24 songs ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Let me tell You How It Is from Seattle, Washington, United States writes: Guess I better stop downloading then. See American Justice works. Canadians better be really careful...as Canadians have real dollars the record companies will go after you.
  2. Peter Cox from Toronto, Canada writes: Well she did steal the music!
  3. Tim Bee from Canada writes: Good luck collecting. It's not illegal in Canada. We pay extra when buying CDs so we can download all we want. Thanks Sheila!!
  4. Vasili Yeremenko from Canada writes: Record companies have to realzie that the buck a song days are gone. Maybe they should offer their product at a reasonable price. When the price is out of whack with how easy it is to produce and sell thern people avoid the market.

    It's good to see they nailed a rich white kid with lots of money.....oops.
  5. Bake McBride from Vancouver, Canada writes: What a ridiculous & gratuitous ruling.
  6. Michael Doyon from Canada writes: What a crock!! I don't download music but I think that the whole copy write system is outdated and totaly unworkable. A car dealer or house only gets paid for once. Not every time you go into the house or drive the car. If I want music I'll buy it or listen for free to any one of the thousands of radio stations.
    Perhaps everyone who owns a computer can start a class action suit against Sony for spreading their computer virus a while back.
  7. ward benedict from Canada writes: We went from album to 8 track to cassette to CD. I have bought some recordings numerous times. Now that the age of digital is here record companies will have a tough time selling music to consumers like me multiple times.

    Also there are albums I have purchased that are really no longer playable (worn out) that I have not replaced. do I get to download those recordings for free from a file sharing site since I have already paid the record company for it?
  8. Paul G from Calgary, Canada writes: Thats it - they will never get another dime from me - permanent boycott until this sueing stops.
  9. Ryan Sadler from Boston, United States writes: Another win for corporate America. Here's a tip, instead of going against your consumer base in stupid lawsuits try sorting out the bigger problem --> stop shoving crap down peoples ears. People arent buying music for 2 reason, one is of course downloading, its hard to compete with free. But the larger issue is the overall state of music and what the big record companies trying to sell us.

    Take a look at the flourishing independent scene. A place where money is less of objective and vinyl is still commonplace.

    With all this downloading how are all the executives going to afford their luxury cars and yachts. They really just seem petty and small with suits like this
  10. Keith Stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: Well.

    Ironically, the songs that she stole were:

    'A Criminal Mind' by Gowan

    'I Fought the Law' by The Clash

    'Criminal' by Eminem

    'All These Things That I've Done' by The Killers

    'Smooth Criminal' by Michael Jackson

    'Tramps and Thieves' by Cher

    and

    'Little Criminal' by Randy Newman
  11. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: The thing I find funny is that there are studio executives that actually believe this will inspire people to start buying CDs again. I haven't bought a music CD in over a year, and I have no intention of doing so anytime soon.

    If anything, this just inspires me to call up my friends and begin trading copied CDs. Anything to screw the greedy studios...
  12. Peter McGillivray from Toronto, Canada writes: Despicable. Absolutely despicable.

    These jokers (if only they were joking) actually think they can save their business by suing.... well at this point were talking about every human alive and with internet access for copyright infringement.

    Why don't they stop wasting time and energy suing little people who don't have the ability to pay anyway, and channel that into coming up with a new business model that actually makes sense in the digital world. The recording industry hasn't been around 100years and already they seem to be doomed to fall the way of the telegraph and the horse & buggy.

    Better yet, why don't they start recording and promoting music that doesn't suck (new Britney Spears album, anyone?) so that it is actually worth buying a hard copy of it.
  13. Bill McWilliams from Montreal, Canada writes: They've proven that they are dinosaurs in a digital age once again. I hope she appeals. This is not right at all.

    I will never ever buy a CD again. Nor will my kids and their friends. I will supply them with what they need. Wait, it's already been 14 years since I've bought a CD, thank you Mr. Internet for saving me thousands.
  14. Captain Picard from Canada writes: If I bought a Metallica (as an example) tape in 1989, according to copyright law, I should not have to pay full price to buy the CD now, because I already payed for their intellectual property. Technically, if I already owned the right to use the intellectual property (which I did when I purchased the tape), I should not have to pay full price for the CD. I should only have to pay the price of manufacturing the CD (a few dollars at most). This is a key argument against the recording companies.
  15. Captain Picard from Canada writes: Furthemore, It is most certainly not impossible to copy 1702 songs from CD on to a computer, in a relatively short period of time. If you have the right equipment it can be done very quickly. Even if all you have is a regular computer, this could still be done in a week tops.
  16. Peter Cox from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Captain Picard from Canada writes: If I bought a Metallica (as an example) tape in 1989, according to copyright law, I should not have to pay full price to buy the CD now, because I already payed for their intellectual property. Technically, if I already owned the right to use the intellectual property (which I did when I purchased the tape), I should not have to pay full price for the CD. I should only have to pay the price of manufacturing the CD (a few dollars at most). This is a key argument against the recording companies'!

    Wow! Using this logic Captain, I could buy a paperback version of any book and then later walk into a bookstore and demand a hard cover version for free!
  17. OZZY RULES THE WORLD! from Canada writes: This is stupid and disgraceful. The RIAA will get enough people angry they will see that eventually nobody will bother with their 'artists'.
  18. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: It's amazing the lengths that people will go to, to try to wriggle out of the fact that they are petty thieves. Many people seem to think it is their right to help themselves to the property of others, especially when the others are large corporations or government departments. A nation of petty thieves!
  19. Captain Picard from Canada writes:
    Peter Cox,
    No not for free, but, just for the price of producing the hardcover book. And yes this is correct, ask any lawyer.
  20. dan leo from guelph, Canada writes: I fail to see the rationale of having her pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs they focused on. She can easily buy each at $1.99 from iTunes. 9k a song is ridiculous... is she buying the full ownership to the songs?!?!?!?!
  21. Captain Picard from Canada writes: I am not saying it is against the law for them to charge you more, I am saying that it would not be against the law (infringement on intellectual property) for the book company to do what I am saying.
  22. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    Does this mean that the people who downloaded the subject songs are guilty of accepting stolen property?
  23. D W from Halifax, Canada writes: Good lord many of you are ignorant. Is it really your contention that because 'everybody' else is stealing why can't she? Ahhhh, the educational system is a failing us :(
  24. sonny l from Toronto, Canada writes: I buy loads of CD's (and download) the trick is, I buy almost all used. There are great stores all over that sell used CD's and DVD's, I buy three sometimes four for the price of one 'mall bought' CD. If the price is right, I'll pay.

    Indie bands have been recording their own stuff for years, music will be fine, however, the music (record) business is doomed. Hopefully, also doomed is the crap music they churn out. Can you picture Britney types, 10 years from now, selling their own shirts and doing local gigs to raise money to record their album?

    Good riddance
  25. Peter Cox from Toronto, Canada writes: Captain Picard from Canada writes:
    Peter Cox,
    No not for free, but, just for the price of producing the hardcover book. And yes this is correct, ask any lawyer.

    Captain, I just spoke with a lawyer who practices in the area of intellectual property law who just laughed out loud when I suggested that as the owner of a paper back I could demand a hard cover version (Even if I paid for the costs of printing)!
  26. Winifreed Pugnacio from Canada writes: Typical corporate thinking: People don't buy our plastic crap like they used to, who can we sue?
  27. Al Matthews from Canada writes: Gee Peter that was fast, are you married to that lawyer?
  28. One Of Forty Two from Canada writes: The judgment is ridiculous, but she did break the law... so...

    As for the rationale that the music companies are acting unethically and so it is right to steal their stuff... no. Two wrongs don't make a right. The moral way to change the companies' behavior is to boycott buying from them, not steal from them.

    As for Canadians, we're safe, since downloading and uploading are both legal here. ;)
  29. Matt M from Victoria, Canada writes: Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.
  30. stand up mimi from Canada writes: There's something a bit disturbing about huge corporations targeting very small individuals in lawsuits, when millions of people are downloading and sharing files. Doesn't the magnitude of the issue suggest that the entire system is flawed? Instead of trying to ruin one or two unfortunate individuals to teach everyone else a lesson, how about trying to make a real change? For starters, recognize that there must be a paradigm shift in the way people regard stealing in a virtual world, and that this takes time. You can get songs for free into your house just by pressing a button. This is theft of a murky, abstract sort, because what is being stolen is not physical goods but the opportunity for people to profit from sales of copies of songs. Those who download are not in the same category as the rat bastrd who stole my flower pots off the front porch. Record companies who think they are the same will never win this fight. Targeting average joes with their wrath will only create more hostility among the people who could be their customers if they offered a reasonable product. But they aren't offering reasonable products. They put out CDs with one good song on them and nine crappy ones because they are only interested in pumping out as much as possible, as fast as possible. Why would anyone buy a new CD? With a few exceptions, I gave that up long ago. I suppose the obvious answer is to pay for your downloads, but even then, what are you getting? The CDs you burn often don't last that long. Sometimes you accidentally delete them from your hard drive. Are you supposed to just keep paying for the same song over and over? The recording industry is made up of rigid, unimaginative executives that are incapable of seeing that the industry has changed and they need to change their way of thinking or become obsolete.
  31. Jo Blow from Canada writes: I am confident that one day these record labels will go out of business. Their actions and stupidity pretty much guarantee it. Nothing will please me more than to see that day arrive. Suing people to keep a flawed business model going is not the way to survive. Get with the program and realize that the days of charging for music are over. Going forward, money will only be made through live performances. That's the way it once was and that's the way it will be again.
  32. Bill Smith from Saskatchewan, Canada writes: Stealing is stealing. Just because you can download and not pay doesn't make it right. Radio stations pay for each song they play that you hear for free until, in Canada, the song has been released for longer than 25 years when the royalties stop. Ever wonder why there are so many 'Classic Rock' radio stations.

    I don't mind paying a buck a song, and I now buy my music on-line, but I don't like paying $14.99 for a couple of songs on a CD that also has 10 others that I don't like. So I don't buy CDs.
  33. Andrew Skujins @ www.skuj.com from Aurora, Canada writes: Peter Cox from Toronto, Canada:

    Captain Picard makes a perfectly sensible point. You just don't understand it because you've processed it through the moronic filter of your weak mind.

    If you can't follow the conversation, don't contribute.
  34. Joe Public from Antigonish, Canada writes: As the owner of hundreds of Cds, and not thousands of illegal downloads, I am disgusted with this shameful lawsuit and the greedy record companies that have bankrupted this poor woman. Let's face facts: she is a scapegoat for poor record company performances, the inevitable result of flimsy AOR staffers who sign horrendous talent. If the record companies put out quality CDs, they will be purchased. If they continue to foist second-rate pop, emo, rap, and such on the buying public, then how can they be surprised if no one actually buys the product. Caveat Emptor! And remember: Napster did boffo business while CD sales boomed less than a decade ago. Downloading is not the problem--pathetic AOR decision-making is the culprit. Bust as many lower middle-class housewives as you want, but you will still lose in the end! In fact, you have already lost my 30-40 purchases per annum. I quit!
  35. Bill Smith from Saskatchewan, Canada writes: Matt M. By your logic, borrowing a car for which the owner refuses to give permission , isn't stealing either.
  36. Captain Picard from Canada writes: Peter Cox,

    You need to reread my post. I never said that you could demand the hard cover. I said that the publishing company would not be in violation of copyright law if they only charged you the price of making the hard cover book, so long as you already purchased the paperback.
  37. Ryan Sadler from Boston, United States writes: The people seeing their industry's demise will always scratch and claw to keep their lifestyles. And dont be fooled, there will always be music. Record companies are obsolete, they just havent come to accept it yet.

    take for example, radiohead's big F U to the record companies

    http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1666973,00.html
  38. John Longshot from Canada writes: This will surely encourage forwarding thinking individuals to devise business strategies and models that will forever put these large entertainment conglomerates out of business.
  39. Peter Cox from Toronto, Canada writes: Andrew Skujins @ www.skuj.com from Aurora, Canada writes: Peter Cox from Toronto, Canada:

    Captain Picard makes a perfectly sensible point. You just don't understand it because you've processed it through the moronic filter of your weak mind.

    If you can't follow the conversation, don't contribute.

    Andrew: Unlike yourself, I can follow the conversation! Captain Picard is incorrect!
  40. Captain Picard from Canada writes:
    Peter Cox,

    When you buy a cd, you are paying not just for the price of making the CD, but also for the right to listen to the intellectual property on that Cd.
    Think about it, if you buy a tape, you are paying for the authors intellectual property. Now, if you want to upgrade to CD, you have already payed for the right to use their intellectual property, so you do not legally have to pay for it again. This does not mean you can demand they only charge you such a price. It means, legally, they could do what I am saying, if they wanted to.
  41. bob gervitz from United States writes: So not only is this woman a cheat, she is also a liar, having denied she had an account, and a thief, denied having maliciously distributed copyrighted material without permission. A fair verdict in my book. --------Not that it will stop the self-centred masses who have convinced themselves there is nothing wrong with stealing as long as it is in their own best interest and involves someone else's rights. ----------That is until a 'scab' tries to take their job, or a thief tries to steal their identity, or their car, or their university thesis, or their music. Only then will we hear the self-centred ones screaming for justice!
  42. Zapp Brannigan from Kingston, Canada writes: Bill Smith from Saskatchewan, Canada writes: Stealing is stealing. Just because you can download and not pay doesn't make it right.

    --

    Baby, I don't wanna be right. I wanna rock out!
  43. M T from Canada writes: ' Bill Smith from Saskatchewan, Canada writes: Matt M. By your logic, borrowing a car for which the owner refuses to give permission , isn't stealing either.' Sorry Bill, but Matt's right. It's a civil issue, not criminal.
  44. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Bob Gervitz - she didn't distribute copyright material without permission. She put copyrighted files in a shared folder on her computer to which other people helped themselves. It's a big difference. It's like putting donuts in the coffee room - they're going to get eaten. Did that mean you distributed them to everyone? No. Everyone helped themselves.
  45. bob gervitz from United States writes: Ah, one of them has shown up. Devil's Advocate says she's innocent of EVERYTHING. It wasn't her that did anything wrong, it was all those other people. She just put the files in an open forum for others to take. Is there no depth to which you won't sink to justify your self-interest. How silly!
  46. J R from Vancouver, Canada writes: Brian Toder must be the worse lawyer in the world. How can he loose a case where the plaintiffs present no solid evidence, only speculation? The defendant seems to be Native American, maybe that is why she lost the lawsuit regardless of the (lack of) facts presented in court. There is also the assertion in the article that this was the first case of music downloading to make it to trial. This is not true. In recent cases the courts ordered the plaintiff to pay the legal expenses of the defendants, as they were suing people before they had any solid evidence against them, fishing for evidence during the trial.
  47. Wulfher SkullSplitter from Winnipeg, Canada writes: American woman, stay away from me
    American woman, mamma let me be

    Don't come hangin' round my door
    I don't wanna see your face no more
    I got more important things to do
    Than spend my time growin' old with you

    Now woman, stay away
    American woman, listen when I say

    American woman, get away from me
    American woman, mamma let me be

    Don't come knockin' on my door
    I don't wanna see your shadow no more
    Colored lights can hypnotize
    Sparkle someone else's eyes

    Now woman, get away
    American woman, listen when I say

    American woman, I said get away
    American woman, listen when I say

    Don't come hangin' round my door
    Don't wanna see your face no more
    I don't need your warm machines
    I don't need your ghetto scenes
    Colored lights can hypnotize
    Sparkle someone else's eyes

    Now woman, get away
    American woman, listen when I say

    American woman, stay away from me
    American woman, mamma let me be

    I gotta go,
    I gotta get away
    Babe, I gotta go
    I wanna fly away

    I'm gonna leave you woman
    I'm gonna leave you woman
    I'm gonna leave you woman
    I'm gonna leave you woman

    Bye, bye
    Bye, bye
    Bye, bye
    Bye, bye

    American woman
    You're no good for me
    And I'm no good for you
    American woman
    I'm looking at you right in the eye
    Tell you what I'm gonna do
    I'm gonna leave you woman
    You know I gotta go
    I'm gonna leave you woman
    I gotta go
    American woman
    I gotta go
    I gotta go
    American woman, yeah.
  48. bob gervitz from United States writes: Just to enlarge on why Devil's Advocate justification for this thief's innocence is silly - since it is unlikely his type gets it - there is only ONE donut, either I eat it or someone else does. The issue here is a digital file which can be easily DUPLICATED and DISTRIBUTED without any compensation to the creative or business entity that created it. Carried to it's logical conclusion (though logic seemingly never enters the minds of people like Devil's Advocate), only ONE song need be sold in order to distribute free copies to the ENTIRE world. But it seems that's just fine in your book. I repeat, how silly.
  49. A Calgarian from Canada writes: I will never buy a CD again or a protected download again from the big record companies.

    I believe artists should make their living by performing - I can vote with my dollars and I choose to buy live music and empower the artists.

    This was the old business model and it will be the new business model.

    It is wrong that the big studios choose to bankrupt a individual, THAT IS THE REAL CRIME!!
  50. zen rainbow from here there, Canada writes: Not much music seems worth downloading anyhow.

    My brother just gave me his guitar, and how much better it is to make your own music than listening to 1's 0's of someone elses.
  51. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Well I think we already pay for it in Canada due to that good ol' Sheila Copps and her levy's (taxes) on absolutely anything and everything that could possibly hold music, so download away, friends.
  52. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Bob Gervitz - have you even read anything about this besides the G&M? Here's an article for you...

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071003-defendants-counsel-hammers-away-at-piracy-picture-painted-by-riaa.html

    She wasn't a large scale pirate. Her only crime was putting those files in the wrong folder (shared) on her computer, whether deliberately or not.

    As you'll notice, from the article about, BestBuy is on the record confirming her purchase history of buying hundreds of CD's and DVD's from them from before this whole music piracy investigation. Does that sound like a full-scale pirate to you? BestBuy has also confirmed her technical troubles (i.e. not trying to cover her tracks) were valid.

    The only thing the RIAA has was her putting files in a shared folder, which technically competent people including judges in Canada have declared does not constitute copyright infringement.

    Now let me ask you... does leaving a book in a library on a table near a photocopier (where it can be easily copied by anyone in the public) constitute copyright infringement. That's the same thing that's going on with music. It's put in a location where anyone can copy it. Again, technically competent people have said no. RIAA and MPIAA have said yes.

    By the way, were you aware the RIAA was found to be distributing copyrighted music online last month, so that they could log people who download it and go after them for damages? I guess it nevers enters into a small mind like yours there are two sides to an issue and it's never black and white.
  53. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Stay tuned for a massive increase in sales of CDs, as music downloaders see the error of their ways and rush to pay exorbitant prices for the junk (er, intellectual property) marketed by Sony Music, et al. End of sarcasm.

    File sharers will always be one step ahead of the music industry. Today's ruling is just a temporary setback.
  54. Wulfher SkullSplitter from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Perhaps reading a story to children should also fall under such rules. When you buy a book. I think that people should be charged for memorizing songs as well and replaying them over and over in their head for free!! Only a fool (bob gervitz) would compare downloading music to being a thief. And only a religious fool (bob gervitz) would pounce on this woman to brand her a liar too. We should burn this witch at the stake! Burn her! Buuurrrnn her! Fortunately in Canada we have no such law, and downloading music is legal. Too bad creating garbage music and cramming it with one good song on a CD in order to steal $20-30 from each of a million people is not illegal. Who's the real criminal??
  55. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: BOYCOTT - BOYCOTT - BOYCOTT. Now is the time to boycott the major labels, until they stop their ugly tactics. Just stop buying CD's from any of the major labels. As of today, I will never buy a CD from a major label again, as they are out of control. Even in Canada, they want to start suing hairdressers who play a CD in their store! They are morons, they should GIVE hairdressers FREE CD's every month, and set up displays, and let the hairdressers sell the CD's in the store. The major label are run by $900 hr lawyers, so let them cut their own throats. They don't care, they make more money with lawsuits, they couldn't care less about the 'product'. Just buy music direct from the artists, that is the way of the future. Buy direct from the artists, you like, go to their shows. and BOYCOTT the major labels. Let those scumbag RIAA lawyers rot in their $900 hr, $800,000.00 a year incomes. That'll teach 'em.
  56. C C from Canada writes: Can't wait for the record industry to lose the appeal.
  57. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: Wow. Now that's a verdict I didn't expect. Guess it boiled down to the difference between 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which would have been the case in a criminal trial, and 'on the balance of probabilities', which was the level of evidence required for this civil litigation.

    Glad I live in Canada, where we have a much more reasonable business and legal model for such things. I've paid my blank media fees, thank you.
  58. marge kelvin from Toronto, Canada writes: Is it time to raid used-CD stores, round up bands in bars (and buskers on the street), and dismantle juke-boxes to ensure that 'intellectual property' is paid for in full?

    The whole downloading mess is an ethical and legal mess, but isn't it time to re-tool the format(s) for music distribution? If people want to listen to Corporate Bilge, let 'em. But get with the times, already.

    I remain unaffected by all this, but it's fun to watch the big guys show just how low their greed will drag them, raging against the dying of the light ...
  59. Mike Mike from writes: So what would I be charged with if I downloaded songs from a CD that I have already purchased, jsut cause I want to have them in mp3 format on my cell phone?
  60. Tom W from Taipei, Taiwan writes: The industries greed knows absolutely no bounds.

    Why just the other day the lead anti-piracy lawyer for Sony BMG claimed that just ripping a CD you bought for use on your computer/MP3 player should be considered piracy !! Delusional morons.

    'When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.' Making 'a copy' of a purchased song is just 'a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy',' she said.'

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html
  61. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Bob Gervitz - I notice you copied and pasted one of your above comments into another comments section, instead of contributing something new and intelligent. Does the RIAA/MPIAA pay you by the post?
  62. No use for a name from Toronto, Canada writes: Wulfher, are the record companies forcing you to purchase a $20 to $30 cd full of garbage music?

    I see both sides of the argument - you have record companies ripping people off with overpriced cd's, and you have people getting their music for free without paying for it.

    Myself, I only pay for the music I download - People who are downloading it for 'free', in my opinion, are stealing.
  63. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: the RIAA/MPIAA does HIRE flunky flacks to go and make posts on the internet, to try and do some spin-control. So there are people who get paid a small hourly wage to go and cross-post their nonsense trying to do some spin. The reality is that the RIAA is insane, in a way. But it isn't. The lawyers are OUT FOR THEMSELVES. All these lawsuits make them tons of money, and lawyers control that business, they run it. They love lawsuits, of course. Really, they could not care less about the damage to music, as they will just move into other entertainment law, or work for the porn industry law, or whatever. They don't care about music. BOYCOTT - BOYCOTT - BOYCOTT. All we have to do is BOYCOTT the major music labels, and they will lose almost all their power in just a few more years.
  64. True North from Canada writes: Guilty without any smoking gun nor hard evidence. US justice is all about how expensive your lawyers are.
  65. Always Right from Calgary, Canada writes: As has been mentioned above, this is a non-issue in Canada. It is perfectly legal to download music in Canada. The record indutry here fought to have a levy applied to all CD's, blank CD's, DVD's, blank DVD's, and all MP3 players to compensate them for piracy. It was expected that if you bought any of these items you would pirate them. Since we already pay this levy the record industry has no recourse against sharing of music since they already receive compensation for pirated music.

    I was at a meeting with the lead Federal Prosecutor and his quote was 'download away'.
  66. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
  67. Bart Farquart from Calgaria, Canada writes:
    I read a story on this site about record companies planning to expand their levies on purchases of recordable media in Canada. Such as MP3, Ipods, flash media, CD, DVD, and computer hardrives.

    This would be akin to an oil company get a levy imposed on vehicle purchases because you might use stolen gas to fuel it.

    My takeaway from the 'Tax-me-I'm-Canadian' approach is to become an inveterate downloader of free music (since I have already paid).

    As for the U.S. approach this is a victory the record companies may eventually rue.
  68. Norman Dupuis from Calgary, Canada writes: Theft is theft is theft. If you think that paying a few cents to purchase a CD is enough to compensate thousands of artists whose music never hits a CD but exists in hundreds of thousands of copies all over the world, you're just fooling yourself.
  69. bob gervitz from United States writes: Devils Advocate wiggles and wiggles but still can't bring him/herself to admit that this woman was RESPONSIBLE for theft of copyrighted material. It doesn't matter what her lawyer thinks happened, it doesn't matter that she wasn't (in your opinion) a large scale pirate, it doesn't matter that she bought hundreds of CDs, it doesn't matter that you think it's wrong for big bad music corps to sue her. It just doesn't matter. She was RESPONSIBLE for the transmission of thousands of copyrighted songs into the hands of hundreds of people WHO DID NOT PAY FOR THE SONGS. ------------- And it is black and white. Very. You buy a song, you buy the right to play it yourself for yourself. Period. You do not buy the right to distribute it to thousands of other people. I don't find it hard to understand. Others are having more trouble getting it I guess. ----------As for the double posting, the article is in 2 places, one where there was only one comment (mine), and one (this one) where there was a conversation going on. What would you have done?
  70. garlick toast from mill village, Canada writes: what's to stop record companies scanning for music files,uploading them and then suing?
  71. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Captain Picard and Andrew: Buying the cd of music allows you to listen to it in the privacy of your home or car. Technically it is not meant for you to share it with others as that constitutes playing it to an audience. The piece of music you purchase is for your enjoyment but not for you to copy and give it to others. As well, buying a piece of music in one form does not entitle you to expect to get it a later date in another form. Your examples are absurd.
    Perhaps the two of you should check out the Socan website. You'll get an eye-opener when you learn just how restrictive usage of music in Canada is.
  72. Brian A from Canada writes: A little consistency in reporting would be nice. This article claims that the recording industry has been hurt by a loss of sales. That's all well and good, but doesn't anybody remember the story G&M ran early this year (or late last) which stated that the loss of sales was statistically indistinguishable from zero?
  73. bob gervitz from United States writes: Wulfher writes that 'Too bad creating garbage music and cramming it with one good song on a CD in order to steal $20-30 from each of a million people is not illegal. Who's the real criminal??' and calls me a fool for agreeing that this woman a thief. -----------Since when is it a crime to create something that YOU Wulfher (in your infinite wisdom) think is too expensive? So, if you can't afford a Beamer for $60,000, buy an Echo for $25,000. Is BMW a criminal for making a car they decide to charge $60,000 for? And does that make it o.k. to steal it? ----------If you don't want to pay $20-30 for a CD then don't! I sure won't. But don't whine that 'It's o.k. to steal it because it's too expensive'. -------------Come on folks, you're justifying theft for something (a song) that can be had legally for a buck. Just how cheesy can you folks get.
  74. Say it ain't so... from Cambridge, Ontario, Canada writes: What a ridiculous reward for the music industry. The musicians only smoke up, drink, or 'blow' there money and end up in rehab. Perhaps the financial gains from the rulings can go to the Betty Ford Clinic to try and get them clean.
    Just shows how foolish the American justice system is.
  75. stand up mimi from Canada writes: What a huge waste of time, energy and resources this is. Record companies are clogging the legal systems in the US and elsewhere on these kinds of cases and it will not slow their inevitable demise. A few months ago the British police stormed in and raided the Scottish office of the company I work for to break up a file sharing 'ring' (as they put it). What a joke. This happened right when the Glasgow bombers were plotting death and destruction. Something is sadly out of scale, here.

    No, it is not a black and white issue. When millions of people are subverting a system, you have a problem with the system, regardless of the legalities involved.
  76. E Bar from Toronto, Canada writes: It is truly remarkable the nonsense people write about the 'state of the music industry' or that they 'will never buy another CD again'.... This trial was not about the state of the current music industry or whether the studios are greedy. This is simply about theft. Downloading material that is copyrighted is theft. By the same argument that people state they are not going to give money to the greedy record companies,does that mean that they are not going to pay at the checkout lines at Wal-Mart becasue the Waltons have too much money? The only difference between this theft and the one online is that most people think they can get away with online theft. Unfortunately for this woman, she found out that there really is no difference.
  77. Jim B from Montreal, Canada writes: I'd love to see what would happen if record companies put as much effort into improving their product offerings (as well as pricing) as they do into frivolous lawsuits. The first company to do that will be on top of the game.

    Treating music lovers like criminals is NOT the way to drum up business, imho.

    Oh, and HMV reducing their prices from 25.00 to 20.00 is just laughable. Haven't bought a CD in 5 years, and I can guarantee I never will again.
  78. gaetan diotte from ottawa, Canada writes: Wow, what happens if I whistle a tune in front of a RIAA lawyer?
  79. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: The RIAA have sent their hired-hacks out to make posts pro-RIAA about 'theft'. you can tell by the language patterns they use, they use the same terminology....let them wreck the music industry. Suing a few housewives is not going to do anything, the techies will now work harder to make more P2P systems that are harder to trace. BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT. Personally, I will never in my life buy a new CD from a major label due to their arrogance and mafia-like behavior. They are also behaviing like criminals, as they hire hackers to flood the Torrent networks with bogus files, and malware. That is criminal behavior to knowingly put malware onto people's machines. So keep suing soccer moms and hairdressers, you RIAA morons and hacks. The more you sue, the more the public HATES you, and will BOYCOTT you, and sales will contineu to fall, and hopefully they will cut staff, and FIRE loads of people from the major labels. Let us pray...
  80. M P from Ottawa, Canada writes: Wow. What a bunch of crock postings.
    At the risk of being on the side of the record producers, when you download a song without paying for it you are cheating the artist and the song writers out of their royalties.

    As for A Calgarian who writes 'I believe artists should make their living by performing - I can vote with my dollars and I choose to buy live music and empower the artists.' Nice. If you're a salesperson, how 'bout I pay you only for the time you spend making your salespitch to me? If you're a teacher, how 'bout I pay you only for the time you are in front of a classroom? If you're a firefighter, how 'bout I pay you only for your time fighting an actual fire? If you're a cop, how 'bout I pay you only for your time arresting someone?
    Give you're head a shake!
  81. George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes: Just death spasms of the recording industry and a foolish judge make interesting times. Dont get me wrong I would support every artist every time.
  82. I B from Canada writes: Disproportionate amount for what she has done.

    It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy when a record company only reimburses you for the price of the CD when they slipped a trojan to your computer, yet they get $9K per downloaded song in damages.

    I guess it is time to go after Sony and sue them for $millions per rootkit.

    But 'Let me tell you how it is' is right. American justice works. For some.

    To us Canadians, we just pay the copyright levy for our blank media and keep downloading. That is a way more consumer friendly solution than the extortion racket the RIAA is running which is now reinforced by the American courts. Good going guys...

    Personally, I would have awarded the record companies $1 per song.

    IB
  83. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: By the way, I have always been a HUGE music buyer. I bought zillions of records, tapes, and CD's in years gone by. I have a huge collection, even have all my hundreds of old cassettes, I still use them. But due to the mafia-like abuse by the RIAA over the past few years, and their outrageous falsehoods, I stopped buying almost any CD's. You see, its NOT downloading alone that killed sales, its HORRIBLE MUSIC. They release GARBAGE, and that's why sales are falling. Also, CD's have been 'price-fixed' for decades, and they engage in all sorts of thuggery like forcing radio stations to play their releases, etc. (modern version of Payola). One could go on and on. But recently, due to their horrible behaviors, and their seeding of malware, attacks on hairdressers, etc, I considered never buying a CD again. Now with this outrageous attack on a person, and obscene ruling, I have decided to BOYCOTT and NEVER EVER buy a CD from a major label. I will buy music from a small indie artist direct, but the major labels are literally Evil Corporations. So eat that, RIAA. I used to buy hundreds of cassettes and CD's, and now DUE TO YOUR FALSEHOODS and mafia-like behavior, I will never buy one of your CD products again for the rest of my life. YOU HAVE LOST A LARGE CUSTOMER FOR LIFE. Multiply that by 10's of thousands. (and they won't get new customers, as kids don't buy CD's). Nice work RIAA, hope you all get laid off, and lose your jobs. Go work for the porn industry next.
  84. Veritas Canada from Canada writes: Time to eliminate the dirty middleman that tries to dumb us down with crap music. See ya!
  85. doug mcdannold from Canada writes: call me crazy, but isn't downloading a piece of electronic information preferable to buying a piece of plastic within a plastic container, which is in turn wrapped in more plastic? downloading is the only way to go!
  86. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: M P from Ottawa: Good post and you were able to express it in a context that some of these cyber thieves might understand.
  87. bob crier from Toronto, Canada writes: Screwed up American justice system. I am sure I can find any movie or music downloaded amongst the people I know. No one is arresting them!! There are millions of people downloading stuff for free, but instead of controlling piracy at the source, US justice system is just catching the small fish.
  88. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: these RIAA hacks are truly pathetic. Watch how they use the word 'thief' like they tried in those horrible and useless commercials they run. Hey RIAA hacks!! Those words don't work, no one is listening. All you do is make people more angry at you. The RIAA is literally socially retarded.
  89. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> True North from Canada writes: Guilty without any smoking gun nor hard evidence. US justice is all about how expensive your lawyers are.

    Please tell me that people from the True North are actually smarter than to think that Canadian justice is any different. Please.
  90. Regis C from Toronto, Canada writes: Reading this discussion confirmed my supicion that people have lost their moral and ethical compass. Since when not paying for someone's work become acceptable? Do you people not get paid for your work? Why not pay for the artist's work? Is a loonie too heavy of a financial burden for a song you will hear perhaps hundreds of times and enjoy for many years? Why do you feel entitled to enjoy somebody's work without remunerating him for it? Or maybe you think that just because you can and everybody is doing makes it right? I will tell you, there is no hope left for some of you people.
  91. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: I find it VERY odd that one of the record companies arguments was that she MUST have illegally downloaded the songs because of how quickly she got them and that she couldn't have ripped the songs that fast!

    The other night I ripped 24 CDs I owned, 274 songs. It took me about 3 hours in total. I don't know of any file sharing program that would let me download that many songs that quickly!
  92. Not right or left from Canada writes: Radiohead is putting their next album on their website and you can pay any price you want for the digital version. They have a box set that costs money but this is the way CDs should be. Give the consumer some cool stuff with the CD. Make it worth buying.
  93. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: I B from Canada writes: 'I guess it is time to go after Sony and sue them for $millions per rootkit.'

    Millions of dollars is the LEAST that Sony should have been charged for their rootkit incident! What they did was FULLY against computer fraud laws in every way. It was a criminal offense that SHOULD have landed someone in jail for 5 to 10 years!

    How they ever got away with that without so much as a fine is totally beyond me! If an individual had done that instead of a company that individual would be behind bars now, guaranteed!
  94. David Stanley from montreal, Canada writes: Bob Dylan is an American Icon and she steals that garbage lol
  95. C D from Victoria, Canada writes: WOW> I think she would be better off doing an armed robbery than downloading music.
  96. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: Wow. I will never spend another dime on products made by those record companies listed in this lawsuit. Not one.