If I own Metallica’s black album and break the cd… I cant just get a free or less than new cost replacement - so if I download the cd again — THERE IS NO LOSS … because I already bought the damn thing.

Those kinds of situations are not taken into consideration.. and that’s why the world has actuararies to come up with better numbers but a 1:1 loss is not a realistic number to look at..

Anyway, this case isn’t about 99 cents a song its about $750 a song.. which unless they can prove uploads occured (and in this case they cant, all they have is a snapshot that she had either ripped her own cd’s and placed the songs in share or downloaded but since they are contesting no violation there’s no way to prove she downloaded or ripped - no violation.. and since they cant show she uploaded a single song, no violation either.

Case dismissed.

However when somebody DLs a song LIKES it, three things happen:
1 > They play it for thier friends, who go out and buy the CD or get it from iTunes if they like it.
2 > They puchese the song themselves.
3 > They do not show it to anybody and avoid buying it for fear of possible ruinious litigation.

In two of the possible scenarios the RIAA makes money. In the third the RIAA screws themselves out of money.

In other words, as EVERY SINGLE MARKETTING CLASS IN THE WORLD says: “Free product produces free publicity, which directly equates to increased sales”. Otherwise nobody would ever bother with “advanced screenings” or “reviewer copies”.

What the **AA is doing can be summed up in one phrase: Protection Racket.

Every download CANNOT be equated to a lost sale. Most of the people who may have downloaded may NOT have ever decided to buy. Many download to sample music. Many download because they like ONE song, but don’t want to pay for an entire CD to get it, since the music industry decided to kill the single. Many are taking advantage of not paying for music, true, but who says they would have bought if that were the only other option?? Many buy BECAUSE they downloaded music and enjoyed it and wanted it for their own in the higher quality CD type package.

A downloaded song DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL a lost sale.

So the total loss would be the amount of sales lost because people got the song for free from this person rather than going out and buying the CD.

If you pay for the copy on your computer and for every copy that you’ve uploaded, RIAA is getting paid twice for every song shared.

RIAA would make 2*(price/song)(# of shared songs)

How does RIAA measure the number of songs shared anyway?

How do they determine what portion of those shared copies went to receivers who own CD’s or purchased the song in other legitimate ways?

It is LESS than 99 cents because

1. If you were to extract more than 99 cents per copy shared, you’d be charging more than (cost)*(total # of copies). This would mean that RIAA would make MORE than if the shareres bought the songs legitimately.

2. Not everyone knows how to rip songs and such. People with legitimate copies of the songs/movies/games can download digital copies and backups. Only RIAA would say that having a scratched CD’s means invalidated license. That you have to buy another CD and buy separate copy of the exact same song for each medium through which you wish to use your license.

3. Economic loss of piracy is not (cost)*(# of copies pirated). If the file sharers were required to pay 99 cents per song, they’d own far less songs than they have on their computers now.

However, the court can deside to rule for punitive damages which does not always have to be paid to the hurt party. Sometimes for example they will make parties give money to charities.

Keep in mind that damage can be a little subjective in this however. If you say something nasty about a public figure the damage might be in the millions even though it didn’t directly cost him anything. The argument here is that the damage is only $.99 because sharing itself is not the criminal act but the copying. The RIAA is saying that the sharing is the same as copying and asking for damages based on the number of times it might have been copied.

A cop catching a highway speeder does not cost anything, yet he is charged several hundred dollars as his fine.

The fine or penalty of $750 per song serves as a punishment. There is no point in fining someone $0.99 for stealing music because to the copyright infringer: He may steal a song and get away with it for free, or he may be caught and pay the $0.99 which he would have if he bought the song in the first place anyway.

Anyway, this guy’s logic has some flaws.

www.beatking.com