Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
ok that is only 1700 of the 21,000 she admitted to sharing so what about the rest.
The RIAA chose to not go after her for the songs she could prove she owned BEFORE she downloaded the songs as well.
They did the same thing in the case of "Cecilia Gonzalez" only targeting her for the 30 songs out 1300 that she did not own.
|
yes, but you are too stubborn to understand the WHY of it all.
24 files, in her share directory, which she had no rights to in any way shape or form. They weren't required, as a result, to prove actually distribution, just intent, plus the obvious possession of music files she didn't have ANY rights to.
It comes down to "slam dunk". She doesn't have any rights, they shouldn't be on her system at all for any reason, and she is sharing them. DING DING DING!
There is no reason to take the time to prove the other 1690+ violations. $220,000 for someone like this is more than enough punishment, and shows other file leeches that they can't get away with it so easy.
=-=-=-=
Drjones, as for "old buisness models", things change all the time. A very funny story I read about is that there is a new cellphone player coming to the UK, that will give service away for free, provided you accept to view a certain number of ads each day on your phone (and make some sort of positive action to acknowledge seeing them, no doubt).
Now, some people would say "interesting new business model", and they would be right. However, it begs the question: When everything is supported by advertising alone, where is the money actually made? Cell phone companies are big ad buyers. If the cell phone business turns into an ad based model, will they still have the income to pay for advertising?
At what point do enough of the revenue streams get cannibalized that the whole process falls apart? TV networks would be great buyers of ad time on "ad for use" phones. But imagine if the TV networks no longer have ad revenue because all the advertisers have moved to "ads for play" models? We already have ads for play models for TV, radio, and such, and the public has proven to be not that overwhelmingly interested to pay for sat radio. At some point, something has to actually be sold for money for there to be money to pay.
Music is the same thing. If there is no money made, there is no money to spend. It costs money to make records, to made CDs, to pay for bandwidth for downloads, to buy instruments, to rent tour buses and hundreds of other things that most people take for granted. Without the income from record sales (and the exposure that comes from national and international record play on radio and such), the rest of it would be moot.
Unlimited open downloading doesn't hurt to start with, but over a period of time, when you make the value of your product ZERO, people won't pay anything more than the value established by the marketplace... ZERO.
It is easy to give everything away. It is harder to develop a sustainable business model based on it, where the people producing the content are fairly compensated for their work.