This, of course, might occur even if she
bought them legally, no?

Only if she put her legally purchased songs on a file sharing service and made copies for others to download. That, by the way, would also still be copyright infringement.

Actually it's not much an argument, but if I were to expand I'm actually arguing that copyright law is completely out of control.

Then support Creative Commons and other copy-left style licenses. That's what I do.

DA and GA Philips, I'm amazed at how you've taken a completely non-partisan issue like copyright law, and somehow still manage to convince yourselves that the only bad guys involved are liberals. I somehow doubt that Rupert Murdoch is a closet liberal, but I'm know which side of the copyright debate Fox is on.

"...The real question is how many people then downloaded the songs from her (which is of course impossible to determine...."

This, of course, might occur even if she
bought them legally, no?

Her second mistake was in not coming from Chicago, where these simple things are already taken care of.

This strikes me as excessive by, oh, three orders of magnitude

good way to pay for the stimulus and ill bet most of them are liberals, hell I'm all for it........Fine sumtin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't get the idea that people only pirate stuff they would not otherwise buy. There is some annoyance and irritation and time factor involved in bothering to pirate materials. I can believe that people pirate stuff that they don't want to buy at the price offered, or for convenience.

Now you're arguing against the industry's composition, not copyright law.

Actually it's not much an argument, but if I were to expand I'm actually arguing that copyright law is completely out of control.

To argue against the law is to ask: which iteration? Copyright law has changed many times over the years, and always in a way that makes it easier for Disney Corporation to profit off Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, even though Mickey's creator Walt Disney has been dead for over 40 years.

Instead, I'm arguing for the original intent of copyrights: to provide an incentive to produce more works for the benefit of all. Not just the corporations who own the rights.

The "owner" is not often the "creator" and copyrights were intended to provide incentive to creators.

Now you're arguing against the industry's composition, not copyright law.

Not only that, but copyrights were always designed to expire, to revert back to the public domain so that no one owned them.

Thomas isn't accused of downloaded songs in the public domain.

And I'll tell you one thing...there's no greater way to deprive an "owner" of future revenue than reverting back into the public domain.

The intent is that by the time the work is placed into the public domain, the owner has already received sufficient revenue as to allow and encourage the creation of new works.

When you distribute illegal copies of a song, you deprive the owner of his copyrights, and deprive him of some future revenue.

A few small quibbles:

The "owner" is not often the "creator" and copyrights were intended to provide incentive to creators.

Not only that, but copyrights were always designed to expire, to revert back to the public domain so that no one owned them.

And I'll tell you one thing...there's no greater way to deprive an "owner" of future revenue than reverting back into the public domain.

And the idea that it's stealing is silly. when you steal real property you deprive the owner if the use of said property.

When you distribute illegal copies of a song, you deprive the owner of his copyrights, and deprive him of some future revenue. If some rogue publisher started giving away free copies of a book you wrote, would you not consider that stealing?

It's one thing to go after the people who make mass piracy possible.

With the decentralized state of today's P2P technology, the ones downloading 24 songs are the ones making mass piracy possible.

And the idea that it's stealing is silly. when you steal real property you deprive the owner if the use of said property. When you use IP in violation of the licenses, you do nothing of the sort. It's not even clear if you cost the IP owner an $$$ because it is nowhere near a certainty that you would have otherwise purchased the product. I would argue that in most cases people only pirate what they would never ever dream of buying (not all but most).

I tend to agree. "Sharing" music in vast quantities presumably entices some people to ultimately buy music they wouldn't have and is an alternative to buying for others; how the math works out, I haven't any idea.

It's one thing to go after the people who make mass piracy possible. But draconian measures against casual downloaders?!

But here’s the thing: Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that downloading a song from a pirate site is tantamount to stealing said song. What would the penalty be for stealing, say, three CDs from a record store?

Well exactly the same as the penalty for stealing any merchandise worth ... what ... 40$ (haven't bought a CD in a zillion years...)

And the idea that it's stealing is silly. when you steal real property you deprive the owner if the use of said property. When you use IP in violation of the licenses, you do nothing of the sort. It's not even clear if you cost the IP owner an $$$ because it is nowhere near a certainty that you would have otherwise purchased the product. I would argue that in most cases people only pirate what they would never ever dream of buying (not all but most).

The fine that was levied is exhibit "A" in the case of industry lobbyists having way too much influence on lawmakers.