Senator calls for end to excessive fines against music file sharing

I just posted the article Senator calls for end to excessive fines against music file sharing..

  The US Senator  Norm Coleman claims that the current fines of between $ 750 and $ 150,000 per  illegally downloaded song are excessive.   These excessive fines would force anyone with a...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6811-Senator-calls-for-end-to-excessive-fines-against-music-file-sharing_.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/6811-Senator-calls-for-end-to-excessive-fines-against-music-file-sharing_.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

A single individual allowing another single individual to upload a copywrited file from his computer – in a personal transaction – might be more legally culpable than a Kazaa freak who allows thousands of uploads from his collection – on a file swapping network shared by tens of millions – because if other sharers did not get upload files from him they would acquire the very same files from someone else. File swappers are all guilty together or nobody is guilty individually. On the average it is a mathmatical necessity that all sharers allow as many uploads as they take downloads. As for damages caused by free downloads: Real One’s Rhapsody service will sell just about any song you can name for 80 cents, so, assuming every single download costs a single sale, damages to the artists of a 1000 might not add up to the costs fo a dinner out. Loss of profit to recording companies for what they might have gained were the same songs were bought over a legit service might be limited to a few cents a tune. Congress did not have in mind individual song swappers when it wrote those humongus fines into law. Congress had something 100 times worse in mind: profit making pirates. Witness that no individual has ever been prosecuted for copying a friends cassette tapes. File sharing networks are 10 times more damaging than individual sharers to copyright owners – but 10 times less damaging than professional pirates were they free to purloin. But though all network participants are guilty together – no damage may be personally ascribed to any one of the nearly 20 million individuals who once participated in Kazaa alone. Clearly, network sharing does not really fit under the conceptions of current law – which can constitute a legal defense. Denis Drew San Francisco ddrew4u@aol.com

Why are p2p services dangerous in your opinion? Ok we’re talking about copyright infringments BUT do you think that stopping p2p networks will raise music sales? IMHO NO, because of HIGH CD prices AND BAD MUSIC! These are the two major causes that are killing modern music. And big companies prefer to ignore these dangerous alarms and condemn only other minor things! It is definitely necessary to take another way if the music world wants to take off from this crisis.

The mathematics and legal issues will be irrelevant soon anyway. Consider: Before Napster was shut down, p2p networks started to appear, and gained popularity when the rocording industry “won” their fight against Napster. Now they’re going after Kazaa, and we’re seeing new methods pop up to replace it. Guess what’s going to happen before the end of the year? p2p users will flock to a new service, and it will take the RIAA another year to find a way to go after it (while they poison the well with bad files). Regardless of the law, and regardless of the math behind it. The model breaks down because the model keeps shifting. This is good news, that Congress may change the law, but it won’t matter. This conflict will keep going as long as the antagonists think that technology or the law are the main issue…sooner or later, they’ll have to realize that the issue is one of economics, and law and technology will not apply, Downloading will cease to become an economic issue (never cease entirely) when it will be easier or more worthwhile to buy the music online than to share it.

I quoted something in another post but not in depth like this. I am sure you some of you will agree with me after reading this. Go and look at a new album such as a good dance album like the Clubland collection(I buy all these originals) and then look at 3 similar dance albums and see how many tracks are duplicated!! On one of those duplicated albums there might be 2 songs that are not on the Clubland album. There might be 15 good tracks on the Clubland album so why spend another £15 for 2 tracks. Who is robbing us?, it been the same for years producing albums with duplicated tracks. :frowning: So how would the RIAA react to that? If they dropped the price of a CD down to a more reasonable price such as £10 then piracy of music would drop. Its the artists and their managers etc, that are doing the damage with their high prices. :frowning: Not everyone has £15 to pay for an album and look how much a blank CD costs, pennies :B So if the RIAA forced the music industry to lower their prices, then lots of people will go and buy the album they want and the increase in sales would go up by 50% +(possibly). They are moaning as they are losing money due to piracy, well I hope they read this and have a good think. Only then will they realise they are shooting themselves in the foot, and it’s not the consumer who is in the wrong.:g I rest my case :smiley:
[edited by intercept on 04.10.2003 01:59]

Lets not forget the boycott affect. No one I know complains that CD’s are too pricy. My friends use to buy them all the time but we’re all boycotting the RIAA because we don’t by products from people that sue 12 year old little girls, and senior citizens. I don’t download music since napster either, just porn. I do boycott though. A lot of people are boycotting the RIAA, and it is having an effect but nobody knows what that total effect is yet. Maybe small maybe not but everytime they lose sales they blame it on the downloaders. Well it’s not all the downloaders some of your lost money is because people aren’t buying your product or downloading it. And unfortunately the file sharers can be hurt by the boycotts and the boycotts can be hurt by the file sharers. The RIAA tries to turn us against each other, I don’t buy CDs for I must be a filesharer. Which isn’t always true. and when I boycott well they must be losing money because of the filesharer’s even though maybe that day they didn’t. The RIAA has lost it’s freakin mind.
[edited by chsbiking on 04.10.2003 17:40]

Ill never buy a CD, or what I call a $ 20 silver fresbee/coaster, again… Music today sucks!! Sh!t, Im sounding like my father! LOL! :g
[edited by Hypnosis4U2NV on 05.10.2003 08:49]