Pages
About Me
Links
Tags
PERSONAL 520
SPIRITUAL 416
LDS 312
BOOK OF MORMON 237
SCRIPTURES 154
STUDIO-JOURNEY 129
RELIGION 112
LINUX 79
COMPUTERS 65
LIFE 60
GENERAL CONFERENCE 46
GENTOO 39
MISCELLANEOUS 37
MUSIC 37
PROGRAMMING 33
CARS 29
MICROSOFT 23
FAMILY 23
AUDIO 21
I LOVE MY JOURNAL 18
FUN 15
CHILDREN 12
CURRENT EVENTS 10
NATURE'S WAY 10
VIDEO 9
DRM 9
CONEXM 7
BABBLINGS 7
PROVO CITY CENTER TEMPLE 6
FRIENDS 6
HEROD THE FINK 5
GAMES 5
COMPUTER HARDWARE 5
DRUMS 4
HAND OF GOD 3
ADVERSITY 3
KDENLIVE 3
AUDIO HARDWARE 3
GENERAL INSANITY 3
STUDIO 3
THANKS4GIVING 2
CATS 2
MY JOURNAL 1
POETRY 1
FOREVERGREEN 1
EVERYDAY THOUGHTS 1
GOSPEL 1
PARENTING 1
YOUTH CONFERENCE 1
CHURCH NOTES 1
POLITICS 1
RSS Feed
Subscribe!Thu - Oct 18, 2007 : 02:30 pm
caffeinated
 |
|
|
|
|
rated 0 times |
Thoughts on the RIAA
Those who know me will find this post a bit ... unlike my typical post.
This is mainly because I have a pretty passionate stance on DRM, OSS, Microsoft, Linux, and religion. (I hate DRM, love OSS, hate Microsoft, love Linux, and I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Anyway... I have a few words to say about the RIAA suing people for illegally downloading music off the Internet.
....ahem.
Recently there was a case between the RIAA and a woman named Jammie Thomas. Evidently, there was enough evidence testifying that Thomas had downloaded a number of songs illegally, and was therefore fined for her crime.
Right about now is where people would expect me to start ranting and raving about how wrong it is for the RIAA to be doing such things, but in this case - I think exactly the opposite - almost.
I personally do my best to uphold the law. I'm far from perfect and as such, I'm sure I break the law almost daily in some manner, however, I do strive to do my best. Anyway... Taken in that context, I'm sure some will consider what I'm about to say a bit hypocritical, but what the hey. I'll say it anyway.
I think the jury was right. I think the correct precedent has been set. It's obviously against the copyright law for people to be distributing copyrighted music through p2p networks, and so people who knowingly do so should be punished.
Maybe $222,000.00 for 24 songs is a bit harsh, but I really think people should start paying attention to what is legal, and what is not.
Maybe, if people didn't pirate so much digital media, companies wouldn't do what they're currently doing with DRM and such, but that's a story for a different day.
Anyway... I just think the piracy is wrong, and that people such as Jammie Thomas who think they should get away with it for whatever reason, shouldn't. They should be held to the law.
Is it horribly wrong to pirate stuff? Probably not to the tune of $222,000.00, but it still definitely is wrong.
Good job, jury.
Let's make sure we keep the value of digital media at least on par with what it's really worth.
This is mainly because I have a pretty passionate stance on DRM, OSS, Microsoft, Linux, and religion. (I hate DRM, love OSS, hate Microsoft, love Linux, and I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Anyway... I have a few words to say about the RIAA suing people for illegally downloading music off the Internet.
....ahem.
Recently there was a case between the RIAA and a woman named Jammie Thomas. Evidently, there was enough evidence testifying that Thomas had downloaded a number of songs illegally, and was therefore fined for her crime.
Right about now is where people would expect me to start ranting and raving about how wrong it is for the RIAA to be doing such things, but in this case - I think exactly the opposite - almost.
I personally do my best to uphold the law. I'm far from perfect and as such, I'm sure I break the law almost daily in some manner, however, I do strive to do my best. Anyway... Taken in that context, I'm sure some will consider what I'm about to say a bit hypocritical, but what the hey. I'll say it anyway.
I think the jury was right. I think the correct precedent has been set. It's obviously against the copyright law for people to be distributing copyrighted music through p2p networks, and so people who knowingly do so should be punished.
Maybe $222,000.00 for 24 songs is a bit harsh, but I really think people should start paying attention to what is legal, and what is not.
Maybe, if people didn't pirate so much digital media, companies wouldn't do what they're currently doing with DRM and such, but that's a story for a different day.
Anyway... I just think the piracy is wrong, and that people such as Jammie Thomas who think they should get away with it for whatever reason, shouldn't. They should be held to the law.
Is it horribly wrong to pirate stuff? Probably not to the tune of $222,000.00, but it still definitely is wrong.
Good job, jury.
Let's make sure we keep the value of digital media at least on par with what it's really worth.
Comment by Orson Jones on Oct. 18, 2007 @ 06:53 pm
I think a lot of people don't realize what a lot of stuff costs because they are used to getting it "free". Then when they want more, they just get more of it the "free" way.
Some people are willing to give stuff away for free. Others want to be paid for their stuff. This is fine as long as we don't get the two confused. There are some things that we need to pay for, or not have, and there is some stuff we can get legally without giving up money.
Some people are willing to give stuff away for free. Others want to be paid for their stuff. This is fine as long as we don't get the two confused. There are some things that we need to pay for, or not have, and there is some stuff we can get legally without giving up money.
Comment by Kevin Mark on Oct. 18, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
I would expect that if it was proven that billions of folk download those songs and she was responcible, then she should be punished with a 200k fine. Most folks would agree with that if it was proven. But the case was based upon the 'making available' argument which is a mile away from actual proof of distribution. Then there is the idea of proportionality and most folks would say she should pay something like the few thousand that the RIAA originally offered in their ex-parte offier. So i think most folks think she should pay a few thousand.