The act of downloading or sharing a piece of music, in and by its self, does not automatically mean a loss in revenue for the rights holder. To me at least, there has to be be something else, a missing piece of the puzzle, that ties everything together to show a dedicated attempt or act which would indeed cause a loss of some sort. It seems to me that the loss is the missing piece of the puzzle. Neither of these cases were tried as criminal, they were civil.

If you or I were to take anyone to court in a civil suit there would need to be some basis for that action. The court would expect us to show some form of loss of some type eiother monetary or other type. Sure, there is a “grievable matter” aspect, but even in this aspect there would need to be something to show the court why we “grieve”. To date, from what I can tell or read, neither the MPAA or the RIAA have shown the courts one piece of verifiable information which shows an actual loss due to the sharing of their respective products. In fact one of the lable executives was placed on the stand in the Jamie Thomas case and was not able to give any amount lost as a result of the sharing by Jamie. None of the figures, anywhere, given by anyone, have ever been verified by independant unbiased third parties, and the studies conducted seem to even undermine these claims.

I recently read an article (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/2311106011.shtml) in which the MPAA is told they need to prove there was actually infringment (and thus a loss) that impacted their business. Although not exactly what the Jamie and Joel cases were about, I tend to think the concept introduced by the judge is something that challenges the “because we said so” prosecutorial tactics which both the MPAA and the RIAA use.

At the beginning of my comment I said that I didn’t think theft was a funny matter and I don’t condone piracy or infringment. In my view, although I think that sharing did in fact go on, I don’t see a theft or an infringment, and the reason I don’t is because I don’t see a loss and thus do not see a harm being done. I do not see where sharing in either the case for Jammie or Joel caused a harm or loss no matter how much is implied otherwise by the RIAA. Even though the copyright or infringment laws as they read today (as undefined, outdated, and confusing as they are) would on a simple reading seem to indicate both of these cases deserved what they got if the implication of the RIAA is given greater weight then it should have as has happend in both of these cases, I must disagree with the verdicts in both cases. Even after reading all the court documents, I can see no where that a loss occured or actual harm done.

The DOJ recently made statement that they supported the verdicts and that this was what the law was intended to do, I both agree and disagree with their support statement. I agree because there is a spirit, intent, and letter of the law and the cases were both tried in accordance with the spirit and intent, but the letter of the law was overlooked. Its only when all three (spirit, intent, and letter) of these come together that justice is served. Without all three present, or using any combination to justify the third, there is no justice and justice is not served.

I think the RIAA should need to prove an actual loss and harm to the court before even one more of their cases are accepted. I think the defense should have a chance to see the harm and loss and verify the claims. Failing the tests of these two opponents I believe the cases should not be allowed to proceed.

“Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Our estimates are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the decline in music sales during our study period.”

from: Oberholzer‐Gee F., Strumpf K. The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis, 2007, DOI: 10.1086/511995

Maths is not your strong point.

Not one calculation in this makes any sense.

500,000 x $20 = $10,000,000.

20% of this is $2,000,000. - How ever an artist is more likely to see 7-8% of sales. Unless you’re Radiohead where you 100% as they have no Label (Clever).

Where did the other $8,000,000 go - Advertising, signing the artist, massive administation costs in developing.

My parents gave me about $15 a week when I was fourteen. Forgetting how long you’d have to save-up to even buy an Ipod; let alone to legally fill up a 20gb at $1 a song for 4,000 songs is beyond the means of most teenagers, and their parents.

Apple made a killing out of something that could only realistically be used to break the law and they profited greatly on others’ copyright infringements.

They marketed their product to everybody insecure enough to want to be in the young-hip-IN crowd (teenagers), just like the tabacco and drink companies used to do before it became illegal.

Conventional wisdom implies that teenagers are susceptible to all forms of aggressive advertising from the big faceless corporations (fast-food, smoking, alcohol, fashion, silver-ring-thing) and are merely victims of a greedy stategy to rid them of their parents hard-earned cash. While we lost many teens along the way (fatties, preppies, etc.) who continue to indulge in their respective vices well into their twenties; protections are now in place for this vulnerable demographic.

All I’m trying to say is that if the Ipod box came with a warning: USING THIS PRODUCT TO IT’S FULL POTENTIAL WILL LEAD TO A +$500,000 LAWSUIT! then maybe this whole piracy thing wouldn’t have taken off and I hesitate to think what could have become of my life had I chosen the path of virtue over the sleazy world of internet downloading.

In the end, all you’re doing is penalizing the artists - you’re just too short-sighted and self-entitled to recognize it. If sales continue to decline because of the wholesale infringement of music, the record companies are simply going to change their contracts to get a bigger piece of the pie. In fact, we’re already seeing them starting to take a piece of the touring revenue, and even going further to invest in ticketing, venue, and artist management firms, thus controling [sic] a stake in all aspects of the talent’s revenue.

And you have yet to explain how your reasoning benefits artists who don’t tour, which is most of them.”

Most of this can be answered by Roger Wallis.

Also, you’re clearly not factoring the fact that many “pirates” use the “piracy” to sample music quality before buying it, and are supportive of those artists who aren’t millionaires.

Please site a source showing how Ticketmaster “ticket companies like” it are wicked.
Please site a reference for you final claim.