Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 11/4/2010 4:39:53 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That ought to teach her.

I guess she goes to Bankruptcy Court next.

Might not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. It might be considered an intentional act and not subject to being discharged in bankruptcy. It looks like this has actually been litigated a couple of times in bankruptcy court but I don't really want to spend the time right now looking all of that up.

A couple of educated guesses from skimming a few articles on this. It sounds like there was plenty of evidence beyond the IP address that she did do the downloading, despite this blogger acting like that's in doubt. If a jury believed her to be a lying sack of shit, that sometimes goes a long way towards explaining why someone got whacked with a big judgment, just a guess.

The judgment was reduced to $ 54,000 and the RIAA offered to settle for $ 25,000, which I bet is far less than their attorneys fees for the first two trials. She "almost immediatly" rejected that offer and dragged them into trial number three, lost FOR THE THIRD TIME and instead of owing $ 25k has a $ 1.5 million dollar judgment against her. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html

So even though she had been beaten twice and could have gotten out of this for agreeing to pay $ 25k she demanded another trial and now owes $ 1.5 million.

If not every day, weekly we see people post here about stealing songs, television shows and movies. 'Oh I don't like the riaa so I steal it" or 'Oh I would not have paid anyway" etc. The odds are certainly in favor of the thieves but you can download this stuff for chump change off I Tunes and not risk taking a bullet to the head. Take your chances and don't bitch if you lose, I guess.

50K is still to fucking much for the crime! Might as well be millions. Maybe if the fine were reasonable in the first place it would have gotten paid. People don't get that much for shoplifting in a fucking store!

Posted: 11/4/2010 4:46:28 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That ought to teach her.

I guess she goes to Bankruptcy Court next.

Might not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. It might be considered an intentional act and not subject to being discharged in bankruptcy. It looks like this has actually been litigated a couple of times in bankruptcy court but I don't really want to spend the time right now looking all of that up.

A couple of educated guesses from skimming a few articles on this. It sounds like there was plenty of evidence beyond the IP address that she did do the downloading, despite this blogger acting like that's in doubt. If a jury believed her to be a lying sack of shit, that sometimes goes a long way towards explaining why someone got whacked with a big judgment, just a guess.

The judgment was reduced to $ 54,000 and the RIAA offered to settle for $ 25,000, which I bet is far less than their attorneys fees for the first two trials. She "almost immediatly" rejected that offer and dragged them into trial number three, lost FOR THE THIRD TIME and instead of owing $ 25k has a $ 1.5 million dollar judgment against her. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html

So even though she had been beaten twice and could have gotten out of this for agreeing to pay $ 25k she demanded another trial and now owes $ 1.5 million.

If not every day, weekly we see people post here about stealing songs, television shows and movies. 'Oh I don't like the riaa so I steal it" or 'Oh I would not have paid anyway" etc. The odds are certainly in favor of the thieves but you can download this stuff for chump change off I Tunes and not risk taking a bullet to the head. Take your chances and don't bitch if you lose, I guess.

50K is still to fucking much for the crime! Might as well be millions. Maybe if the fine were reasonable in the first place it would have gotten paid. People don't get that much for shoplifting in a fucking store!

I don't think people get fines that large for even the worst felonies for the most part.

Posted: 11/4/2010 4:50:48 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

It's funny how many of the "artists" that are all anti-piracy are liberals.

Well, when they talk about sharing the wealth they don't mean THEIR wealth.

Posted: 11/4/2010 5:10:40 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That ought to teach her.

I guess she goes to Bankruptcy Court next.

Might not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. It might be considered an intentional act and not subject to being discharged in bankruptcy. It looks like this has actually been litigated a couple of times in bankruptcy court but I don't really want to spend the time right now looking all of that up.

A couple of educated guesses from skimming a few articles on this. It sounds like there was plenty of evidence beyond the IP address that she did do the downloading, despite this blogger acting like that's in doubt. If a jury believed her to be a lying sack of shit, that sometimes goes a long way towards explaining why someone got whacked with a big judgment, just a guess.

The judgment was reduced to $ 54,000 and the RIAA offered to settle for $ 25,000, which I bet is far less than their attorneys fees for the first two trials. She "almost immediatly" rejected that offer and dragged them into trial number three, lost FOR THE THIRD TIME and instead of owing $ 25k has a $ 1.5 million dollar judgment against her. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html

So even though she had been beaten twice and could have gotten out of this for agreeing to pay $ 25k she demanded another trial and now owes $ 1.5 million.

If not every day, weekly we see people post here about stealing songs, television shows and movies. 'Oh I don't like the riaa so I steal it" or 'Oh I would not have paid anyway" etc. The odds are certainly in favor of the thieves but you can download this stuff for chump change off I Tunes and not risk taking a bullet to the head. Take your chances and don't bitch if you lose, I guess.

Regardless, 25k or 1.5 million is an utterly absurd penalty for what amounts to something more minor than shoplifting. Now if she were selling pirated works for profit? Then it might be justifiable. Also, the way copyright/patents work today is arguably contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers anyway.

Please expound on this.

Posted: 11/4/2010 7:25:48 PM EDT

[#5]

I don't know where those damages come from, but when you get whacked like that 3 times either you deserved it, or 3 juries thouigjht you were a raving asshole or a liar

Posted: 11/4/2010 7:35:38 PM EDT

[#6]

And then they came for the lawyers...........and we all rejoiced at their demise.

Posted: 11/4/2010 7:38:31 PM EDT

[#7]

Where are the "execute the egg thrower's"

They probably want fire up old sparky. She did steal.

Posted: 11/4/2010 7:40:55 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Sucks that she had to be the one to test the law.

And that she has no chance of selling it to pay for the debt.

I mean just LOOK AT HER.

Posted: 11/4/2010 9:23:58 PM EDT

[#9]

I suspect this won't hold up in appellate.

1.5Mill for the equivalent of 2 CD's? Gimme a fucking break.

Posted: 11/4/2010 9:36:16 PM EDT

[#10]

Fuck em......I have not bought music since a cassete tape back in the eighties,now it is all ghetto rap shit and remakes of old songs with no talent to write anymore.Do not listen to radio either as it is all songs by no talents being digitally mastered to sound like they can sing

Posted: 11/4/2010 9:39:22 PM EDT

[#11]

We have bad laws about this sort of thing that need to be changed.

Posted: 11/4/2010 9:54:03 PM EDT

[#12]

People keep throwing the word 'theft' around. It's not copyright theft, she isn't claiming she owns the copyright. At worst it's copyright infringement, which is an entirely civil matter, not a criminal one. She's not a thief!

Posted: 11/4/2010 9:57:53 PM EDT

[#13]

A couple details.

- She was sharing 1700 songs. Not just downloading a couple, she was distributing.
- This rulling is still lower than the $1.72MM she got on trial #2.

It's still outragious, and the copyright laws are apparently written by people who were bought. If anyone is a better snoop than I, I'd be curious to know what law set this fine, and who sponsored it.

Posted: 11/4/2010 10:14:59 PM EDT

[#14]

The university I attended turned in students who downloaded music on campus, then told the students to let the university help them deal with the fallout.

Poor choice by the students, but the university really screwed them over while lining their pockets.

Posted: 11/5/2010 12:54:03 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

And then they came for the lawyers...........and we all rejoiced at their demise.

People and companies spent time and money creating those songs reasonably believing they would be paid for their work. I bet you'd be the absolute first to be knocking on the lawyer's office the minute your boss said he wasn't paying you this week.

Posted: 11/5/2010 12:55:59 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

I suspect this won't hold up in appellate.

1.5Mill for the equivalent of 2 CD's? Gimme a fucking break.

Stealing two CDs isn't the same thing as stealing two CDs, making a 100,000 copies of them and giving them away

Posted: 11/5/2010 1:21:03 AM EDT

[#17]

Was she actually popped for downloading them, or was she seeding/sharing them?

There is a major difference and they generally tend to go after the people sharing them vs the ones who simply download.

––From looking at the article it seems that she was sharing them.

The 1.5mil for downloading songs is a bit misleading.

It's the redistributing them that really screwed her.

Posted: 11/5/2010 2:19:12 AM EDT

[#18]

IN '06?

Damm, that's a ways back

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:45:50 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I suspect this won't hold up in appellate.

1.5Mill for the equivalent of 2 CD's? Gimme a fucking break.

Stealing two CDs isn't the same thing as stealing two CDs, making a 100,000 copies of them and giving them away

And that's an important distinction.

Most "file sharing" mechanisms require you or give you an incentive to share and allow redistribution of the files you've downloaded.

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:48:51 AM EDT

[#20]

Gotta be more to the story.

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:49:38 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That ought to teach her.

I guess she goes to Bankruptcy Court next.

Might not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. It might be considered an intentional act and not subject to being discharged in bankruptcy. It looks like this has actually been litigated a couple of times in bankruptcy court but I don't really want to spend the time right now looking all of that up.

A couple of educated guesses from skimming a few articles on this. It sounds like there was plenty of evidence beyond the IP address that she did do the downloading, despite this blogger acting like that's in doubt. If a jury believed her to be a lying sack of shit, that sometimes goes a long way towards explaining why someone got whacked with a big judgment, just a guess.

The judgment was reduced to $ 54,000 and the RIAA offered to settle for $ 25,000, which I bet is far less than their attorneys fees for the first two trials. She "almost immediatly" rejected that offer and dragged them into trial number three, lost FOR THE THIRD TIME and instead of owing $ 25k has a $ 1.5 million dollar judgment against her. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html

So even though she had been beaten twice and could have gotten out of this for agreeing to pay $ 25k she demanded another trial and now owes $ 1.5 million.

If not every day, weekly we see people post here about stealing songs, television shows and movies. 'Oh I don't like the riaa so I steal it" or 'Oh I would not have paid anyway" etc. The odds are certainly in favor of the thieves but you can download this stuff for chump change off I Tunes and not risk taking a bullet to the head. Take your chances and don't bitch if you lose, I guess.

Yeah, there was a "gotta be more to it" fact.

Idiot. Jesus Christ, just pay the nominal fee.

And yes, fraudulent acts resulting in fines are usually not forgiven in bankruptcy IIRC.

Another thing Aimless, she could probably worked a settlement by offering to "advertise" her fraudulent acts and telling people not to do it. You get what I mean.

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:53:59 AM EDT

[#22]

Fuck RIAA.

The music industry needs to wake up, understand capitalism, and join us in the 21st century.

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:56:33 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Fuck RIAA.

Why should a person be allowed to steal songs?

This woman might have done this: (Quote from article.......and who knows how many copies she made either?)

"The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing 1,700 songs––enough to fill about 150 CDs. After one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million....."

The lady is a crook IMHO. Not a dangerous one but still a crook IMHO.

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:57:56 AM EDT

[#24]

And people wonder why the RIAA is so hated.

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:58:14 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fuck RIAA.

Why should a person be allowed to steal songs?

This woman might have done this: (Quote from article.......and who knows how many copies she made either?)

"The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing 1,700 songs––enough to fill about 150 CDs. After one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million....."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html#ixzz14PbFicRC

Is stealing wrong? Yes. Is it wrong to charge $15.99 for a CD full of songs someone may not want when they only want a few? Yes.

My statement still stands. Fuck RIAA.

Posted: 11/5/2010 4:58:34 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I suspect this won't hold up in appellate.

1.5Mill for the equivalent of 2 CD's? Gimme a fucking break.

Stealing two CDs isn't the same thing as stealing two CDs, making a 100,000 copies of them and giving them away

And that's an important distinction.

Most "file sharing" mechanisms require you or give you an incentive to share and allow redistribution of the files you've downloaded.

Kazaa, if I remember right, had a preference to share or not share. I would guess that a large percentage of the people that used it wouldn't know what it meant. She's probably one of the many who understand only a fraction of what they were doing.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:01:10 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fuck RIAA.

Why should a person be allowed to steal songs?

This woman might have done this: (Quote from article.......and who knows how many copies she made either?)

"The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing 1,700 songs––enough to fill about 150 CDs. After one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million....."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html#ixzz14PbFicRC

Is stealing wrong? Yes. Is it wrong to charge $15.99 for a CD full of songs someone may not want when they only want a few? Yes.

My statement still stands. Fuck RIAA.

Then pay for downloading each song.

I ain't getting this one.

I have absolutely no problem with paying a fee to get the song I like.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:02:02 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fuck RIAA.

Why should a person be allowed to steal songs?

This woman might have done this: (Quote from article.......and who knows how many copies she made either?)

"The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing 1,700 songs––enough to fill about 150 CDs. After one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million....."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html#ixzz14PbFicRC

Is stealing wrong? Yes. Is it wrong to charge $15.99 for a CD full of songs someone may not want when they only want a few? Yes.

My statement still stands. Fuck RIAA.

Then pay for downloading each song.

I ain't getting this one.

Ok, great. But like amd_dude said, $1.5M for sharing some songs is a bit harsh. Kind of stupid of RIAA, don't you think?

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:03:14 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fuck RIAA.

Why should a person be allowed to steal songs?

This woman might have done this: (Quote from article.......and who knows how many copies she made either?)

"The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing 1,700 songs––enough to fill about 150 CDs. After one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million....."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html#ixzz14PbFicRC

Is stealing wrong? Yes. Is it wrong to charge $15.99 for a CD full of songs someone may not want when they only want a few? Yes.

My statement still stands. Fuck RIAA.

Then pay for downloading each song.

I ain't getting this one.

Fuck it, then.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:05:24 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fuck RIAA.

Why should a person be allowed to steal songs?

This woman might have done this: (Quote from article.......and who knows how many copies she made either?)

"The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing 1,700 songs––enough to fill about 150 CDs. After one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million....."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html#ixzz14PbFicRC

Is stealing wrong? Yes. Is it wrong to charge $15.99 for a CD full of songs someone may not want when they only want a few? Yes.

My statement still stands. Fuck RIAA.

Then pay for downloading each song.

I ain't getting this one.

Fuck it, then.

I edited my post, but what I guess I am trying to say is...isn't it stupid of RIAA to hit someone for $1.5M for wanting her day in court? Like amd_dude said, $1.5M for a CD an a half is a bit much.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:06:47 AM EDT

[#31]

I can't remember the last time I paid for music. Fuck the record labels; they make ALL the money while the artists get screwed. I won't support that.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:07:37 AM EDT

[#32]

Yeah, the fine is WAY too much, but they offered to settle for 25K and the douche bag didn't take it.

She could have offered RIAA an olive branch and said "I will advertise to not do this", etc. I bet they would have taken that settlement.

Either way though, if I steal 1,700 songs (and who knows how many copies she might have made, etc.,) I would expect to be fined a significant amount.

It is stealing afterall.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:08:45 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
snip

It is stealing afterall.

You won't get any arguments from me on that one.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:10:21 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip

It is stealing afterall.

You won't get any arguments from me on that one.

I hear alot of animosity against the song companies like RIAA.......what is it that pisses people off so much. I download a little bit so, the cost ain't too much.

Is there a "ripoff" aspect to these song companies?

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:13:44 AM EDT

[#35]

Punitive damages, it's a bitch to be the poster child.

Hint: Don't steal shit.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:15:11 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Oh well. It sucks when you violate copyright law and get caught.

We're all criminals of something or the other.

If you say so. Just don't get caught.

You have a fancy car in your avatar. Ever do 5-10 over the speed limit? If so I'd say your more of a criminal than this lady, as you were posing a public safety risk.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:17:29 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That ought to teach her.

I guess she goes to Bankruptcy Court next.

Might not be able to discharge it in bankruptcy. It might be considered an intentional act and not subject to being discharged in bankruptcy. It looks like this has actually been litigated a couple of times in bankruptcy court but I don't really want to spend the time right now looking all of that up.

A couple of educated guesses from skimming a few articles on this. It sounds like there was plenty of evidence beyond the IP address that she did do the downloading, despite this blogger acting like that's in doubt. If a jury believed her to be a lying sack of shit, that sometimes goes a long way towards explaining why someone got whacked with a big judgment, just a guess.

The judgment was reduced to $ 54,000 and the RIAA offered to settle for $ 25,000, which I bet is far less than their attorneys fees for the first two trials. She "almost immediatly" rejected that offer and dragged them into trial number three, lost FOR THE THIRD TIME and instead of owing $ 25k has a $ 1.5 million dollar judgment against her. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html

So even though she had been beaten twice and could have gotten out of this for agreeing to pay $ 25k she demanded another trial and now owes $ 1.5 million.

If not every day, weekly we see people post here about stealing songs, television shows and movies. 'Oh I don't like the riaa so I steal it" or 'Oh I would not have paid anyway" etc. The odds are certainly in favor of the thieves but you can download this stuff for chump change off I Tunes and not risk taking a bullet to the head. Take your chances and don't bitch if you lose, I guess.

Regardless, 25k or 1.5 million is an utterly absurd penalty for what amounts to something more minor than shoplifting. Now if she were selling pirated works for profit? Then it might be justifiable. Also, the way copyright/patents work today is arguably contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers anyway.

I probably would have taken it back to court too over the 25k. Would have shit a brick though when it went to 1.5 million. Anything over $100 in this case is excessive imho.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:17:48 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip

It is stealing afterall.

You won't get any arguments from me on that one.

I hear alot of animosity against the song companies like RIAA.......what is it that pisses people off so much. I download a little bit so, the cost ain't too much.

Is there a "ripoff" aspect to these song companies?

For what you get, the cost of CD's is a HUGE ripoff. With the exception of $6 greatest hits CD's from Walmart. You get on standard CD's(with the exception of a few, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon comes to mind) songs you want and some you don't.

I'd prefer to get individual songs.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:22:38 AM EDT

[#39]

This is why people build Killdozers.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:25:35 AM EDT

[#40]

If we had actually read the article, we would see that it wasn't 24 songs.

In her first trial, in 2007, the jury demanded she pay $222,000 for violating the copyright on more than 1,700 songs by Green Day, Aerosmith and Richard Marx, to name a few.

As is often the case, the headline is sensational and people read nothing more and get all pissed off without actually reading the article.

GIven that, 1.5 million is extreme.

GR

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:27:50 AM EDT

[#41]

The sad thing is so much music is just pure tripe these fuckers basically just take a dump in a CD box and expect people to pay good money to hear auto tuned herpa derpity dee deeda deedly dum with some not so vague sexual and violent references mixed in. Why even download that shit? Just listen to it on YouTube and chances are you'll see some garage band type unsigned artists-hobbyists who are about a million times better anyways while you're in there.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:38:50 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

I thought the RIAA burned down the file sharers, not the downloaders.

There have to be far bigger, more cash supplied fish in the sea.

She got burned for sharing. If she had just downloaded, they wouldn't have touched her.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:41:46 AM EDT

[#43]

My vinyl record collection continues to grow.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:44:43 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
My vinyl record collection continues to grow.

lol...+1. Most CD's suck these days anyway.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:52:04 AM EDT

[#45]

As are all of these cases, the only real purpose of it is to frighten others.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:53:36 AM EDT

[#46]

I hope she voted for Franken.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:55:39 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I don't like thieves, but that is pretty ridiculous.

The thieves in this situation are the lawyers.

Yep.

Posted: 11/5/2010 5:57:22 AM EDT

[#48]

Fuck RIAA, they are thieves themselves.

Posted: 11/5/2010 6:00:30 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip

It is stealing afterall.

You won't get any arguments from me on that one.

I hear alot of animosity against the song companies like RIAA.......what is it that pisses people off so much. I download a little bit so, the cost ain't too much.

Is there a "ripoff" aspect to these song companies?

For what you get, the cost of CD's is a HUGE ripoff. With the exception of $6 greatest hits CD's from Walmart. You get on standard CD's(with the exception of a few, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon comes to mind) songs you want and some you don't.

I'd prefer to get individual songs.

Gotcha.........been that way for a long, long time. I don't see that ever changing.

Posted: 11/5/2010 6:58:55 AM EDT

[#50]

I can't recall the last time I paid more than a couple bucks for a CD- we have a good used music store here in town and you can buy used CDs off Amazon.com for dirt cheap. If you don't want the whole album you can download single songs off Amazon too. It's easy enough to record a song off the radio too.

I do find it funny how some bands have encouraged music sharing and made more money for it by endearing themselves to their fans. The Grateful Dead of course being the prime example. They asked the fans not to pirate their studio albums but everything else they encouraged with tapers sections set aside at their concerts. Incidentally they were the largest grossing musical act several years during their heyday. After Jerry died a lot changed though.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us