Well I hate to say it but if she’s downloading music and sharing, it’s illegal.
My problem is that the music industry is so late to the digital party that they’ve missed an opportunity to come up with a way for people to do it legally. Instead, they’ll just create a lot of ill will with consumers with lawsuits and the refusal to allow people to listen to music however they want to.
Yeah, but a single mom who traded 24 songs. Doubt she should even be on a target list other then she probably doesn't thave the money to defend herself.
Exactly. When I want a song or an album, I should be able to go online to the music industry's site and download an mp3 file for a price... without having to join a club, without having all sorts of restrictions on how many times I can play the file, what format the file is in, etc, etc, etc. I'm convinced that most people download - not because they want to steal something or get it free but because it's just easier to get the music quicker.
You don't even have to download it to run afoul of the law. Using your own brain, as in listening on the radio to a tune, committing it to memory and then playing it back on your own guitar or singing it---is illegal.
Recently I was ordered by ASCAP to either pay money to them or stop playing the tunes they represent, even though I did not download or record those tunes. I guess if you repeat what I just told you, you are breaking copyright law.
Certainly, but what's the morality of charging $9,250 per song? The RIAA is getting away with it because they got a special act rammed through on their behalf.
This woman is guilty of downloading, but so far as I'm concerned any misfortune that comes to the RIAA, whether it be market extinction or some berserk plaintiff, will be richly deserved.
The courts are a pitiful way to come up with a "fix".