RIAA Wins Case, Gloats

from the this-won't-help dept

As we expected this morning, the RIAA has won its lawsuit against a woman for sharing files. This is unfortunate in the long run, as the decision is actually going to hurt the companies the RIAA represents more than if it had lost the case. That’s because the RIAA will take this as a validation of its “sue our fans” strategy, rather than realizing it’s finally time to try a different model. In the meantime, the woman in the case, Jammie Thomas, never should have let the case go this far as there appeared to be plenty of evidence that she actually did break the law. The RIAA often has weak evidence, but in this case the evidence was much stronger. Unfortunately, that distinction won’t be made by most, and they’ll simply assume that if the RIAA won this case, it should win many others. The RIAA, of course, wasted no time in gloating about the decision and is using this to push others to settle rather than fighting the RIAA lawsuits. This actually is reasonable advice if, as in this case, you were guilty of breaking the law and the RIAA has the evidence to show it. The problem is that’s often not the case — yet, again, that important point will get lost.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: riaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “RIAA Wins Case, Gloats”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Reed says:

This only proves the law system is broken for the

The amount of the award is absolutely ridiculous. Over 200,000 dollars for just over twenty songs? Not only is the amount far beyond anything that could be considered appropriate, it proves that our legal system has absolutely no clue what it is doing. Copyright Infringement between consenting adults does little to harm anyone and is certainly not worthy of this type of settlement.

It is a scary world we live in when the RIAA can bully people into paying for literally nothing but reproducing a non-tangible good which I can do at an amazing rate on my computer. A magnetic wave that is duplicated cannot be equated to a settlement of this magnitude. I feel sorry for this lady, her children, and everyone else who gets in this modern day witch-hunt. Shame on the legal system and shame on the RIAA, I will never purchase another piece of their shitty music again (Which I might add is merely the same melodies people have been using for thousands of year, absolutely pathetic)

Eeqmcsq says:

Re: This only proves the law system is broken for

“nothing but reproducing a non-tangible good which I can do at an amazing rate on my computer”

I think this brings up a good point. Copyright laws were made at a time when copying is done on physical, tangible objects, such as books and tapes, which requires some effort. They are too out of date to cover computer and Internet usages, where copying is merely a click of the mouse.

norman619 (profile) says:

The Fine Is A crime

It would have been a miracle had she not been found guilty given the evidence. She Admitted to installing Kazaa and the profile on Kazaa matched one of her known email addresses. Since the 24 files in question were shared on Kazaa under the profile it wouldn’t have been hard for any sane honest person to see it was very probable she did this. Her lawyer had toknow they were gonna loose which is why the RIAA took it to trial.
The fine on the other hand is insane. The cost of a nice house for 24 files which may or may not have been downloaded is crazy. they might as well shoot the poor lady now since this pretty much destroys her financially. In my opinion this fits the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Sad thing is this lady has a collection of hundreds of CD’s. Besy Buy showed the recipts for the purchases. So the RIAA is slamming a very good customer of theirs. More reason not to buy.


On a side note: I didn’t know people still use Kazaa.

Chuck says:

Fair and just

$9250 per song offered for download. How many people downloaded the songs directly from her and how many from them? No one knows but I imagine 9250 is on the low side.

She offered no evidence in her own defense. ‘I didn’t do it’ isn’t evidence.

The effort put in to infringing on a copyright has what to do with the laws? Because something is easier to do doesn’t make it less wrong (legally or morally).

It is one thing to argue against DRM encumbering fair use but I would hope that no one believes they have the right to take someone elses work without compensating them. You can be pissed at how much the other person wants for their work but that isn’t justification for stealing it or making it possible for others to steal it.

If there was less file sharing of copyrighted music maybe the labels wouldn’t be DRM-crazy.

Arochone says:

Re: Fair and just

9250 is on the low side??? Dude, first of all this is Kazaa, where I believe you download from multiple people. So everyone downloading from you is only taking part of the song from you. But ignoring that fact, assuming she has a fairly good up bandwidth, she could transfer about 1KBps…a song is around 5MB in my experience, so that’s about an hour and a half per download. Now, usually you don’t get constant downloads 24/7. And I highly doubt there are that many people even on the network, let alone interested in that kind of music. I have NEVER seen, even in the best days of P2P with the most popular songs, more than a couple hundred people sharing any specific song. So even if EVERYONE ON THE NETWORK who had that song got it from her originally, it probably wouldn’t be 9250 people.

Chuck says:

Re: Re: Fair and just

I am not a dude.

A part of or the whole song doesn’t matter. She contributed to everyone who directly downloaded any portion of the song from her.

Her bandwidth is irrelevant. As soon as someone finishes downloading 1 section of the file, they start seeding it (normally). If only 10 people are downloading from her machine at any one time doesn’t mean she only allowed 10 people to infringe, how many people were those 10 seeding to? It isn’t a closed system with her at the center of a small group. Take a piece of paper and put 9250 dots on it. Now start randomly drawing lines between dots, that is what file seeding looks like.

Not even 9250 people on Kazaa? So you have no clue.

Arochone says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Fair and just

So using that logic, if I go buy 4 liters of vodka and chug it all at once and die, go sue the guy that sold it to me, because ya know, I couldn’t have done it if he hadn’t sold it to me.

It’s not her responsibility what the other people did with it. She can only be held responsible for what SHE did with it. Unless she was the first person to put it on the network, the people that downloaded it from her would have just gotten it somewhere else if she wasn’t there.

Arochone says:

Re: Re: Re: Fair and just

I didn’t say there were less than 9250 people on Kazaa. I said there were probably less than 9250 people on Kazaa with any of the specific song she downloaded. As I said, even the most popular songs I’ve never seen more than a few hundred people sharing. Even if the network has a few million, most of them probably have absolutely no interest in any of her 24 songs.

TriZz says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Fair and just

Actually, Arochone is correct. KaZaa sends out in chunks. If I was that woman, I’d claim FAIR USE!! “I sent out small chunks of the song, less than 1 second chunks actually, with the intent to educate others on the sound of the band, and I didn’t make a profit off of it”

Oh shit! Did you see what I just did there? I WIN!!!!111one

no (user link) says:

Why did they pick her?

Of all the tens of millions of people sharing files, what in particular made them choose this woman?!

Also, why are they going after regular people who are sharing files, instead of people committing actual piracy? Regardless of what copyright zealots would have you believe, little Jimmy is not a pirate for making a copy of a song or album from his friend. Piracy is something that happens when you go to China and buy an entire operating system or an entire movie for a dollar. Someone makes a profit by producing a knock-off of someone else’s material. Or like when you go to New York and spend $10 buying a knock-off Prada hand bag and that person is making $10 off of a product that they essentially ripped off from the real person who owns the copyright on the real thing.

David (profile) says:

Re: Why did they pick her?

Piracy is not “something that happens when you go to China and buy an entire operating system or an entire movie for a dollar.” Piracy is when you take something for nothing, it is stealing, it is taking that which what does not belong to you.

Having my iPOD stolen, or my whole collection of CD’s stolen is not piracy. Making copies of my music or data CD’s and giving them away (for profit or not), or leaving them where they can be found and taken is wrong because it aids and abets robbery, aka, piracy.

Just because you want your music for free, or just because you don’t think it’s stealing, doesn’t mean you’re justified in your actions. If you obtain a product with out paying for (unless it’s purposely given way for free), then you’re a thief.

Newob says:

This is the essence of capitalism

According to the Constitution, copyright is supposed to last 14 years, yet the length of existing copyrights keeps getting extended. What is it now, lifetime of the copyright holder plus 75 years? And for what purpose? How does outlawing file sharing help copyright holders make more money? Most of the people who copy the files were never going to buy in the first place; yet the more people who are exposed to the existing movies/music/games, that is more potential customers for new stuff. If file sharing was legal that would reduce piracy, because who will pay for a knockoff when they can get the real thing for free?

But the very basis of the recording industry is piracy. Record executives, managers, and distributors take credit for the creativity of other people. They buy up the content created by other people and pass it off as their own. If copyright represented the will of the creators, then it would not be transferable. The intent of copyright law is to encourage creators to create original works by giving them a limited time to have complete control of their own work. But this concept has been twisted so that the creators don’t benefit, only the people with the most money benefit. So, creators are not encouraged to create original works, carpetbaggers are encouraged to farm out unoriginal works to hirelings.

But the copyright cartel is a cornerstone of the of the capitalist economy, and if it fails to enforce legalized piracy, then the value of money will plummet. Money is only worth what we think it is worth; the US dollar is backed only by the ability of the US government to tax its citizens. A small group of international bankers prints the money we use and decides what it is worth, but they give themselves as much money as they wish. We are a slave nation, paying for the luxuries of a small elite group while the rest of us increasingly lose money. Of course they will never give up defending the extension of copyright; that is one more avenue by which they decide what our money is worth. If that system fails, watch the whole US economy collapse like a house of cards. The people who own the money will buy a totalitarian police state with their influence before they will give up on their artificial monopoly of non-scarce goods.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: This is the essence of capitalism

This has nothing to do with capitalism, dumbass. Capitalism means a free market that’s allowed to compete on its merits. Copyright creates an artificial monopoly that stifles competition (even though it’s actually intended to encourage competition).

The more capitalist thing would be to fix the law to actually encourage competition, and actually encourage the free market to set its own price for goods and services. That’s capitalism.

Mojo says:

How they decide monetary damages needs to be exami

Yes, she lost because she bascially had no case, but the REAL question is “How does the RIAA arrive at the monetary damages figure??”

They often claim companies have lost million, but X number of people out of work… but they never seem to have offered EVIDENCE of how these figures are arrived at.

If Universal Music claims to have lost “200 million in 2006” over piracy, do they claim a $200M loss to their shareholders? Is that amount REALLY on the books? If so, they need to be able to demonstrate, in black and white, how the dollar amount is determined.

Chances are those numbers are HIGHLY subject to guesswork, thereby making the claims suspicious, random and open to whatever figures make them happiest.

What I’d really like to see is how they prove to a court the validity of the amount in question. THAT should have been a major component in the defenses’ case.

Who WERE the defense attourneys anyway? I assume if it was the EFF we would have heard about it AND it would have been a stronger case.

Did these guys know ANYTHING about the subject matter or where they a bunch of ambulence chasers looking to make headlines for themselves with a high profile case?

Hopeless Charm says:

RIAA Wins, America Loses

When I read these stories about the RIAA/MPAA going after our citizenry like this why do images of jackbooted brownshirt Gestapo thugs come to mind ? And when the mighty RIAA/MPAA cry so loudly that they’re losing billions to evil pirates like this poor, single-mom why do images of the lying Nazis come to mind ? When recording artists and their industry executives live exactly like Rockstars sung about in Nickelback’s tune with 15 cars, multiple mansions whose bathrooms are so large you could field a baseball team there – why do I find no sympathy ?

We’re in trouble America. There’s a nasty anti-citizen fascism occurring here unlike any in our history. When big industry (RIAA, MPAA, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast) and the federal government (Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping) team up like this then we’re living more in Orwell’s “1984” than Rockwell’s “America”. It’s a bad, bad situation when you start fearing your own industry-government more than the alleged terrorist threat. And if you ask this woman and the thousands who’ve been fleeced by the RIAA/MPAA who the terrorists are, who do you think they’ll point to ? Our very own Gestapo.

Lutomes (user link) says:

Conspiracy Theory time

It’s slightly ridiculous but is anyone else wondering if there is some behind the scene deal where the RIAA convinced her to go to court so they could win.

I mean I can’t see her ever being able to actually pay the $200k and possibly going bankrupt. So maybe she has just enough money to pay her lawyers fees to go to court and now she is out of money and can go bankrupt. And the RIAA gets a really good judgment that they get to work into future cases 😉

Just pondering, I have nothing at all to base that on…

HZ says:

This is a punitive damage that is intended to exceed actual harm so as to serve a deterrent function. Because this sort of infringement often goes undetected and enforcement is very difficult, you have to increase the cost of infringement to counteract that under-enforcement. The formula: Probability of enforcement * penalty > benefit to infringer by infringing. If that is satisfied, a perfectly rational agent will not infringe.

I don’t want to imply that the deterrence rationale is what should be present in the law, but it does explain it.

Natron says:

what is a copyright anyway.

Copyright exists to protect the originator of any intellectual property from someone else claiming it belongs to them, or making a profit on it.

Protection is extended essentially to any new material from the time it is produced, and has been extended by law.

But the purpose of protecting my copyright material from you is to prevent you from (1) claiming that you actually created it, or (2) keeping you from making a profit on it.

The act of simply copying a piece of work should not be a crime, the act of you selling it to someone else (pirates) or claiming that you created it should be punishable to the extent of the law.

If I were a composer (which I am not) and I created a new song and someone else claimed it was theirs, I would sue to high heaven to retain my rights. If I sold only a few copies of the song to someone, and then a lot of people copied it to listen on their own players, I would not be upset, only if someone were out there selling those copies for a profit without giving me a share. The more people listen to my music by spreading the copy, the more would be willing to buy my next song or come to watch a concert of my works. This has been shown time and time again to be the “new” model (which upsets the profit stream of RIAA and the such. They are the real vultures, profiting on what I compose, and then thwarting my listeners with their draconian tactics.

I say return the real spirit of copyright, sue if someone tries to make a profit, sue if someone wrongly claims creative ownership, otherwise understand that copying for personal use and even limited sharing actually increases the value of an intellectual work.

Mark says:


The more I think about it, the more this case decision has come at a pivotal time.

Radiohead has finished their contractual agreement with their label, and has released a plan to “pay what you want” for their new album coming out in a few days. They figured that the album would have been leaked anyhow, and since they aren’t represented by the labels, why not release a digital copy themselves?

After all is said and done, if they make an average of > $1.30 or more per album, they have made more than they would have with a label. Minimum price for the album is $.91 to cover overhead, but you could still get the album for 1 cent if you were so inclined.

To quote Andy Langer from Austin, this is a key point in music distribution history. In 2017, people will remember this event as the day that started it all. Musicians mass market are snubbing the labels.

Incensed says:

The Real Point Is This...

The RIAA is insane for pursuing this sort of lawsuit against members of the public. I’ve not bought a single new CD since this began, and I have no intention of doing so… and the “mainstream” music industry’s utter inability to develop new music and talent worth listening to has made that pretty easy.

I have no more sympathy for the RIAA than I would for a buggy-whip maker from the turn of the century who turned to armed robbery when the advent of the automobile made his economic model obsolete.

Ajay says:

Re: The Real Point Is This...

I have no more sympathy for the RIAA than I would for a buggy-whip maker from the turn of the century who turned to armed robbery when the advent of the automobile made his economic model obsolete.

They have no clue. Someone moved the cheese. It’s time to find some new cheese, instead of regurgitating the same old smelly crap, packaging it up and trying to convince us that the cheese is brand new.

And what has the RIAA really accomplished? The woman will probably file for bankruptcy, and nobody will ever get paid, not even her lawyer. The woman has a job with the Feds, which is an easy paycheck to garnish, so she likely has no choice except to file bankruptcy. This really seems like extortion or highway robbery, to tie a single mother up for the rest of her life in a financial obligation that she’ll never be able to pay. F— the RIAA.

Keep your pirate hand strong! says:

A better idea for those who want to download music

Learn how to use the tools that can keep you hidden. For all you folks who know how to use a computer to download music and surf the web… Short lesson in remaining anonymous. Take the time to learn what PeerGuardian, TOR and privoxy are (among others) and how they work. Learn to appreciate the beauty of a neighbors unprotected wireless access point. An obvious lesson from this ladies case is don’t use the same handle/nick/email for filesharing that you do for other stuff… you have 104 keys on your keyboard; make up some jibberish for a handle/nick/email for christ’s sake. Don’t use Kazaa, look at emule, amule and some other alernative P2P besides the major players.

Learn what newsgroups are (specifically binary newsgroups)… I don’t endorse any particular company for newsgroup service, but giganews.com comes to mind. Learn to use the binary newsgroups to download what you are looking for. You still want to use TOR, Privoxy, PeerGuardian and other tools that help make you anonymous on the internet.

USE ENCRYPTION WHEN YOU CAN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU USE TOR!!! I put it all caps because it needs that much emphasis. The weakness of the TOR network is that a malicious TOR exit node can sniff unencrypted traffic. Who do you suspect would have malicious TOR exit nodes?? If you answered “the same sum-bitches that tracked me down on the P2P network” you win a furry stuffed monkey. Encrypted traffic can be sniffed, but it is complete jibberish without any realistic hope of deciphering it. If you send everything unencrypted, it is incredibly easy to get your passwords, usernames, websites you visit, people that connect to you and you to them, and the list goes on and on. USE ENCRYPTION!

PT says:

Wilfull Infringment? To what purpose?

The $200,000+ figure makes sense if she were running a business that sold the copied songs. That’s basically the intent of the copyright laws in the first place. The high cost in damages is meant to deter pirates from profiting off of other’s works while they retain those copyrights. Unfortunately that same law screws over people who are merely copy/distributing for no profit at all.

The law needs to be rewritten so that in cases where there is willful infringement it has to be shown that the defendant was also profiting from the infringement. If that can’t be shown, the default judgment should be no more then the “retail” price of the infringed content. Afterall, this at least let’s the RIAA “recover” the money that they would have gained had she been a customer…

Nah, but that’ll basically shutdown the RIAA’s strategy if that were to happen (dominance of the music market through fear)…They’ll fight any changes to the law in that manner to the bitter end.

Mike says:

Re: Wilfull Infringment? To what purpose?

I tend to agree with PT, comment number 31.

I find that I spend a LOT of time reading about RIAA/MPAA stories all on the web. And, the comments always have a lot to say about how the law should be changed.

Since THEY lobby our representatives in Washington, what is stopping us from doing it?

I can not say I have ever read a story about all of the people who bitch about the law, be it copyright or DMCA, complaining in mass to our representatives about what we think a fair law should be.

What does it take for all of us citizens, who do care about the music and movies we enjoy, to call, write, or email our congressman or senator and express our feelings.

If enough people call, write, and email often enough, then maybe some attention to protect us, the consumer, and the content producers (not their associations) in a fair way with fair laws will occur.

EFF has done a lot. But, we the people own the biggest lobby. We just don’t seem to be using it.

We all bitch and opine on comment areas like this one. Send a copy to Washington every time you post!

Oh, my congressman is Don Manzullo. And, he DOES know who I am. I let him know load and often.

Bummer says:

Truth Is

This is a drop in the bucket. It actually won’t change anything. The global network infrastructure is growing. Russia, China, South American Countries, European Countries, all Countries are becoming better connected to each other digitally. The RIAA is focusing on sharing files, not downloading them. There will ALWAYS be music offered up on the internet and that’s something that will not change. It can be offered from any country in the world. The only way the current recording industry can continue to make money far into the future is to make buying the song easier than downloading it which will become increasingly difficult as time goes on.
This case will be forgotten. People hosting digital content will continue to have better programs available to obscure their identity. Once a certain level of obscurity is obtained our current laws in the U.S. will be so far outdated behind current technology that only those people who truly dont’ realize they’re sharing files will be able to be identified. It’s just an amazing web of legality, morality, and stupidity. In the end the masses will get what they want, which is to share music.
What is moral changes. Morality in the future in regards to digital content will change too, sit back and watch it happen. As I said, this trial wont change anything, the people will. It’s obvious which way they’re leaning.

Anonymous Coward says:

Did the RIAA win?

I have read most of the postings and news concerning the RIAA for a long time – years.

As far as the legal issues I am not a lawyer so I simply do not understand.

As far as the moral issues I have a hard time coming to grips with concept that this is little more than a lot of penny theft on the same plane as low level shop lifting.

On a person plane, since I have a computer and a internet connection, I will not allow ANY music to exist in any form from any source paid for legally in my computer as I could be then be placed in the position that I would have to prove that the music us obtained legally something that can not be done with digital content.

Not only that I have much the same feeling toward almost any computer download file as there is in general no proof of legal acquiring.

If the number of phase attacks, scams, and cases of fraud are added to this then there develops a world in where a such a large number of people distrust the internet that financial transactions over the internet are viewed with such suspension that all transactions are viewed as illegal, scams or theft.

The computer types may view this as an illogical results but psychology has never been logical in a computer sense and is a perfect logical results in a world where one is continuously being hussled, scammed, and led to compounded by a political class that believes that such action is the appropriate moral actions of responsible individuals backed up by a court system that equally condones such.

PT says:

Re: Did the RIAA win?

I wanted to comment that your comment is just paranoia. Yes, the Internet can be a scary place, if people don’t know what they are doing. So is walking alone at night in many cities…But I have to agree with you on some level and can see where the paranoia comes from. Reality is grim. Many people will never take responsibility for their own well being. Smarter but caring people or smarter but manipulative uncaring people, have to tell them what’s safe practice and what’s not. Best thing for individuals is to not be sheep. Be informed. Learn. Critically Think. Common Sense. The tools are right there if people care enough.

Now on to the main topic:

You said “…I will not allow ANY music to exist in any form from any source paid for legally in my computer as I could be then be placed in the position that I would have to prove that the music us obtained legally something that can not be done with digital content.”

First, digital content can be protected with digital signatures that can act as a receipt of sorts that can show who the file is legally licensed to and from whom it came from. That’s the whole idea behind Digital Rights Management (DRM). It’s also a nasty nasty way to control content. If you are a regular reader of Tech Dirt, you know DRM is synonymous with Evil 🙂

Second, if you buy your music online and download it (or ANY file purchased for that matter), it’s assumed you have an account with the store you buy the music from which means there’s a log of what you bought and when. And if they don’t keep logs for a reasonable length of time (say, 5 years, perhaps?) it’s time to shop elsewhere. Also you get a purchase confirmation email, that can also act as proof. (I’ve never heard of an online store that doesn’t send these out when purchases are made.)

Third, if on the RARE chance you are named in a suit by mistake, and you didn’t do anything wrong and you have proof that the songs on your computer are yours, (side note: if own CD’s converted to e.g. mp3’s you would keep the CD’s right?) you’ll win the lawsuit and very likely an organization like the RIAA will pay for your legal costs just like they did for Debbie Foster.

Fourth, If you have children, or live with anyone that uses YOUR computer, you had better know what they are doing…

You said, “If the number of phase attacks, scams, and cases of fraud are added to this then there develops a world in where a such a large number of people distrust the internet that financial transactions over the internet are viewed with such suspension that all transactions are viewed as illegal, scams or theft.”

Glad we don’t live in that world. If you think that’s what’s going to happen to the internet, I don’t think you have anything to worry about.

There’s no need to be paranoid. Just be edumakated.

henry evans says:

Do decisions like this show that the marginal cost of copying digital music may not be zero in that would-be copiers will take into consideration the expected loss associated with being convicted (a very small probability multiplied by a large liability)? If the marginal cost of copying is not zero (for this reason), is it inevitable that music will be free? Or is a cost that arises solely from a legal regime in some way different from a “natural” or “real” cost?

Anonymous Coward says:

You have to wonder if this case was a little too perfect. The one case where they had all the right information at the right time? I think not… I have a feeling this was all a front. A way for them to get a precedent without having to go through a trial with a real defendant.

I think that they made a deal with her to lose the case, and they pay the fines so they come out on top and she goes on with life.

I invite them to come sue me… Please, oh please… because I have a global law firm at my disposal that handles IP/copyright cases and they always win, no matter the side they are on. RIAA approached them to handle their cases, but they were smart enough to know it would hurt them in the long run to be on the wrong side. Best part is that they will do it pro bono. Unless rewarded court costs and legal fees by the court.

Wildo (profile) says:

RE: Lets try and support her...

You’re heart is in the right place, but I will not contribute one cent to help pay the fine. The RIAA deserves absolutely nothing from that case, and I’m not about to consider contributing to the fine. Much the same way I am never purchasing a new CD again, I wouldn’t help pay a ludicrous fine. Even if they did get all of the money they were awarded, not a single fraction of a cent would go to the artists they claim to be defending. Fuck them I hope every single RIAA goon DIAF.

Anonymous Coward says:

Wildo, of course you won’t help her pay the fine. You are a cheap criminal that downloads music not because content should be free or you hate the labels, you just don’t want to pay for it, which goes for all the other criminal file sharing idiots.

Yeah, I know, the content isn’t worth what they charge, so you just download it. Funny thing is, when artists ditch the label and sell it themselves, you will do the same thing to them.

Hell, talk about personal responsibility, accept the fact that you don’t want to pay for anything.

Overcast says:

Another company used this exact same technique.


It helped them out a lot, lol

Then I read the above and it’s like dealing with the BMV to have digital music. I have enough complexities in life, to hell with all that. I’ll just not bother buying or listening, there’s other stuff that’s far less of a hassle to do.

I’m simply not going to worry about how long a site keeps it’s logs, or anything else like that for that matter. If I can’t pay for something and then not have to worry about it after the fact, I’ll just not buy it – pretty simple.

And like walking alone in the city at night – some times, it’s just best not to do certain things and you won’t have to worry about it. I’ll live with the current CD collection I have, heck I don’t listen to it that often anyway.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...