File Sharing
  • In America, there is a recent law that came out in attempt to hault the file sharing (music downloading) use. It reads that you will be charged at least 700 dollars per song you download and could get in trouble for copyright infringement. Now, I am curious...I am not sure if any other countries have tried to bring about this...but as for those who have heard about this lawsuit and fine you could recieve...what do you think?

    This subject has been opened to debate for over a few years and I think it is perfectly fine to charge for the songs you download since you are not buying a CD and these people you are downloading are entertaining your ears to make money...not to be exchanged and lose money. But for songs such as videogame MP3's which cannot exactly be purchased in your local Best Buy....why should you be fined because you liked a videogame song that was written and you can't exactly travel over to Japan to get ahold of the CD?

    Tell me what you all think.
  • I don't see how filesharing music is much different from taping a song off the radio, except the DJ isn't talking over the beginning. That is the way I used to get music I couldn't afford to buy when I was younger. They used to sell 45's of popular songs if you really wanted a song but couldn't afford the album.

    The RIAA is out for money. The fines seem awful steep for songs that are getting radio play, and even some songs that don't get radio play anymore.

    What's next? Will they come into your home and check to see if you are taping songs off the radio? What about taping music videos off MTV?! :bash:

    If I'm not mistaken, the music industry is making more money now than ever. Perhaps Billions of $$$$$ is not enough.
  • The RIAA is thinking more along the lines of driving people to the legit subscription download sites such as PressPlay or iTunes (for Mac).All news I have seen regarding the lawsuits have just been in the US-no word of going after MP3 downloaders in other countries.One note is they have been going after some extra-heavy downloaders,who have upwards of GigaBytes of MP3's grabbed from various file sharing programs.More or less they are trying to make examples of these people named in an attempt to scare everyone else straight.

    I'm in full agreement with you regarding charging for downloading songs-however,the recording industry's way of driving people that way is most likely to backfire big time.In fact,there is an investigation underway regarding the tactics they have used to this point.Might be an interesting time for them depending on the results there.
  • I agree to pretty much everything, but I download music just to listen to instead of burning batteries on my MP3 player. And If I want to buy a CD from a certain artist, I'm going to see what the songs are like first. So I use it a bit, but as a Canadian, I guess I don't have to worry........ yet........

    They could just delete all of Kazaa or Morphius couldn't they? They already took Napster to court. I don't over-use this ability though. So yeah, the lawsuit makes sense. But $700 a song????
  • if i want to listen to songs from an artist, then i buy the CD or other material. simple as. You have to understand that these artists put there own money into producing an album and support many other jobs also. I know im not going to work for free so why shoud musicians and game developers.
  • Originally posted by oddish182000@Sep 11 2003, 02:55 PM
    put there own

    Nope, that's the record companys money.
  • Originally posted by gabriel knight+Sep 11 2003, 08:35 AM-->QUOTE(gabriel knight @ Sep 11 2003, 08:35 AM)
    [quote] <!--QuoteBegin-oddish182000</i>
    @Sep 11 2003, 02:55 PM
    put there own

    Nope, that's the record companys money. [/b][/quote]
    An even better reason for record company's to want to sue to keep people from downloading the music.

    Basically, it takes money out of people's pockets so no matter how you look at it, you're stealing. Whether or not people should be sued is another thing. Personally i don't think that it'll stop people from doing it. Actually, i think it'll make people want to do it even more. Being sued will be just another thing "that won't happen to me".

    Well, i hope that you all enjoy posting and have fun gaming.
  • America is doing what!!! :blink: Down with America, screw Irag bomb America.... O s**t thats me...

    Man this stuff sucks, why 700 dollars per song. I would be ok for a dollar or two but s**t man thats way to much! :swear: Also what happans to the rest of the world. Just the land of the FREE is getting screwed. Any Canadian's i could become friends with? Im near the border.
  • Originally posted by oddish182000@Sep 11 2003, 04:55 AM
    if i want to listen to songs from an artist, then i buy the CD or other material. simple as.

    Yes, but also keep in mind oddish...some songs that are downloaded off the internet cannot simply be bought at your local music store. An example for me would be Dance Dance Revolution songs...I can't get those at a music store ANYWHERE around I download them, but why get fined for downloading a song I can't get at a record store or something?
  • Originally posted by tonygillis@Sep 10 2003, 03:01 PM

    ...They could just delete all of Kazaa or Morphius couldn't they? They already took Napster to court...

    Actually, Kazaa is based on an island just out of America's juristiction, therefore we cannot simply shut them down or take them to court. This allows them to continue to pirate copyrighted programs and songs without any punishment.

    As for what I beleive about this, I think that people should try going to websites such as or for music videos. Most of the songs you hear on the radio are played there. I do not think that people should be permitted to download full music albums, though.
  • are you willing to pay the same price for downloading the music of the net than u would if you was to get it from a shop? if so then i think you shouldnt be fined. but if you arent paying for it then you should be fined