MPAA/RIAA Logic

1 reply [Last post]
Mordeux
Mordeux's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2004
Posts: 93

I'm sure many of you know about Kim Dotcom. While doing some reading about his ongoing legal problems, I couldn't help but think about the fallacies of the arguments used in court cases by the MPAA and the RIAA.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was caught torrenting music, twice. She downloaded over 1700 tracks but was only charged for 24 of those tracks. Lucky her, right? She had to pay damages of $9,250 per song or $222,000. Why? While most of you know, she became responsible for not only the songs she downloaded, but also the songs that she uploaded to other people and songs those people uploaded to other people and so on and so on... and we are now watching Wayne's World:

Are they right? I don't think it is completely true. Torrenting normally involves a lot of people. One person may have to acquire one file from over 1000 people before it is finally complete.

A little logic:
Whenever someone purchases alcohol, they directly support an alcohol company by keeping it in business and allowing that business to expand. Just like a file that is being downloaded, they are keeping that file alive. Let's say the alcohol company was able to provide their bubbly brew to a large many people thanks to the wide popularity it was recently getting. With all the hype on that brew, everyone was purchasing it. Its new found popularity has lead to an increase in DUIs across the country. Are you responsible because you purchase their brew? Of course, not. You are responsible for the direct and immediate damages you cause. The person who had the accident would be responsible.

More Logic:
If everyone that downloads files illegally were found guilty, would it make sense if they all had to pay for each others' violations as well as their own? No! Obviously, it is the industries way of saying "This could happen to you. Crook!" Why does it happen within the legal system? I was under the understanding that a person could not be convicted for someone else's crime. I am clearly mistaken.

An Accurate Analogy:
If you sell drugs, you are not found guilty for any criminal acts of the people who purchased your drugs or any of the criminal acts of the people who purchased their drugs. There are probably exceptions, here.

X-Mas 2012 (most of it):
Coolermaster CM Storm || SeaSonic SS-660XP || ASUS P8Z77-V PREMIUM || Intel Core i7-3770K || 16 Gigabytes Corsair-Veng. || eVGA GTX 560ti || Audigy 2 ZS Platinum || 240GB Intel 520/ 2TB Samsung HDD || Liteon Blu-ray || Logitech G700 || Microsoft SIDEWINDER X4 || 20.1" NEC WMGX^2 || Onkyo TX-SR702 Receiver (with Bowers & Wilkins Speakers) || Sennheiser HD600 Headphones

eire1274
eire1274's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2003
Posts: 1159

How much money has been paid to artists from these "lawsuits"? Do you know?

$0.00

The groups operate as a legal group, but outside of the law itself. Their terms are that their own costs are first paid for, and then involved artists will receive their share of the remainder; yet the amounts paid to their "lawyers" and data collectors always consumes every penny taken.

This is essentially one of the many scams running wild in our legal world. "We fight for the artists," so they say, but all it is is a way to have a "legal means" to take money for individual profit, disguised as a non-profit organization.

Nick McDermott