
JamBase
|
6/19/2009 12:00 AM
|
RIAA Verdict: $1.92 Million
|
|

jkuss80
|
6/19/2009 09:56 AM
|
RIAA can eat a fat one.
|
|

SCIcane
|
6/19/2009 10:14 AM
|
thank god I haven“t had to go to a jury trial before. how anyone could believe that the damages are worth 80k per song is unimaginable
|
|

Benji 2ill4u
|
6/19/2009 10:16 AM
|
It's just posturing, the RIAA is trying to scare you. She will never pay and they probably will never ask her to
|
|

WidespreadMule3
|
6/19/2009 10:25 AM
|
that's ridiculous! she should counter sue the RIAA for being outrageous greedy bastards. bunch of fat pricks sitting around screwing the music industry. how can someone sleep at night knowing they stole that much money from someone.
|
|

phalluscooper
|
6/19/2009 10:39 AM
|
RIAA = Union for millionaires
|
|

rastarusty
|
6/19/2009 11:11 AM
|
At least there's still some artists out there who realize its about the music. They've dropped their major labels, and started their own. Then they can actually produce the music they want and not me constrained by the labels wishes.
Also some of the bands that are putting out albums for free download online. Support these guys, make sure to see the ones you like live.
It just sucks that everything becomes about the money. I mean 2 million bucks for 24 songs? are you kidding me? There people out there sharing millions of songs, and that punishment still wouldn't fit. It's obvious their trying to make an example but this is insane.
|
|

OurBandCouldBeYourLife
|
6/19/2009 11:38 AM
|
Though the verdict is excessive, people shouldn't be allowed to break the law by distributing copyrighted material. It's made it very difficult to make a living as an artist in the 21st century due to internet thieves. Let's call a spade a spade here. If you walked into a department store and took a shirt off the rack and walked out of the store without paying for it, you'd be a thief. If you painted a painting and someone came into your house and took it off your wall they'd be a thief. If someone takes your recorded music and distributes it to millions online for free without your permission, also a thief. If you enjoy listening to recorded music you should start telling friends it's wrong to steal it.
|
|

OurBandCouldBeYourLife
|
6/19/2009 11:45 AM
|
Also don't get me wrong -- the labels are scoundrels, no doubt. But just because they behave like jerks doesn't give people the right to also behave like jerks. The folks getting screwed at the end of the day are the developing artists stuck in the middle of all this.
|
|

TimMorrison
|
6/19/2009 12:12 PM
|
The RIAA supporters are a bunch of hypocrites. How many companies have been busted using pirated software?
|
|

Benji 2ill4u
|
6/19/2009 12:18 PM
|
The market is there for live music and self-published or independent record company material, the RIAA is just throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't adapt their business practices when the internet showed up and now they've lost millions. Even their own internal business predictions had them losing massive market share 1995-2000 but it went ignored. Fuck them.
|
|

daveapaug
|
6/19/2009 02:51 PM
|
Fuck Them, They have been pushing the worst crap down our throats for years. Then, when the sales drop off, they come up with crazier schemes to make money. Like American Idol. I liked it before, when bands would work hard, tour excessively, then make an album. If it was good, you got a contract for a second. If it sucked, too bad. Nowadays, you get really popular by being in our face on TV all day, on the front page of every website, babbled about by morning talk radio deejays that have no input in the content of their shows; then you get a record deal regardless of your talent level. By now everyone knows who you are, so your record must be good, right? Sorry, I havent bought a studio release by a band in over ten years, and I never will.
|
|

carlosara
|
6/19/2009 02:59 PM
|
I think that 2 million dollars for 24 songs is just ridiculous. Western society in general has come to worship the almighty dollar. I think it's time to change the laws- there is no sense in punishing people for downloading music anymore. Consider this: If I get on Google, and type Picasso- Guernica, then the painting will pop up on the search results. When I save it to my computer, does that mean I am a thief? Music is art, and although the law says it's a crime to "steal" from these record companies who could really care less about good music. In fact, what they care about is the almighty dollar. I believe that support for the artists nowadays should be based on the money that you pay to go see them live, and if you want to buy their music, great. Now, when you do that, do you really believe that the artists are getting all the profit? Well, if you think that, then you are very naive about this Western society.
|
|

phalluscooper
|
6/19/2009 03:46 PM
|
I'm curious to know exactly which artists and songs that she downloaded. Irrelevant I know, but I bet we would all piss ourselves laughing.
|
|

al
|
6/19/2009 04:19 PM
|
"Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow."
-CNN.com
|
|