UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

Parents are being warned they could face fines if their children are caught illegally downloading music on the internet.

Childnet's Mary Louise Morris and Gina Harkell, who had to pay £2,500 after her son was caught, discuss the problem on the BBC News site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/4072566.stm (click on the video link below the photo).

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

Err well get the Nobel Prizes out... it's in breach of (c), it's illegal, you do the crime you do the time!

Personally I don't get it. Why download, when the quality's cack, and the better product isn't much more expensive, and is legal! Someone explain it... ;)

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

Is that downloading or uploading? Last time I looked there was a difference?

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

the RIAA is going after users who are predominantly sharing files, however a recent law change due to take affect in sweden on july the 1st makes it illegal to download originally it was only uploading which caused much uproar.

the RIAA is really knocking on the doors of those who are uploading files, if there is no supply then there really is no need for the RIAA to go after users who just download.

thats for now anyway.

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

Yes, there is a difference but both are equally illegal. As Kronas has said, if you stop all uploading then there cannot be any downloading which is why they concentrate mostly on people uploading. Don't be fooled into thinking that if you only download then it is OK as you could still get a similar bill and be £2,500 out of pocket or whatever.

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

Erm becasue you only want 1 or 2 tracks from the album and don't want to pay the £14.99 for the whole thing. I'm not too sure where the isn't much more expensive bit comes from the music companies have been keeping CD prices artifiailly high for some time now.

I agree that its Illegal acording to the laws that the music companies spent a fair wack of the profits from these high priced CD's on lobbying the governments to impliment and as a result the music comapnies are allowed to sepnd even more of the profits from these high priced CD's on suing you for any money you haven't spent with them.

I still can't believe that an Global industry thinks that the best solution it can come up with is to sue its customers. There are other methods like providing a resonably priced alternative (It took Apple to provide that and they can only do it because they're making the money on the Ipod's).

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

recently, i've always gone to see bands i like, and bought their music at the gig. you pay less, get the full experience, and as much as possible avoid funding the creaking major labels!

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

My Ipod is the reason i download, i genuinely never bothered before, not worth doing if u haven't got the media to use it.

I wouldn't say quality sucks, at worst it varies but its still not a big problem, i mean i don't remember the last time i 'just had' to have something. Its all out there knowing where to find it is the trick.

But i agree if the uploading stops then there's no point downloading, and an industry suing its consumers just makes no sense. Apple's approach has been the most successful since Napster sold out but its still not perfect, i'm not sure what the solution is to satisfy commercially the artist, their record company, the media and the consumer.

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

how do they find them ?

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

It makes as much sense as Marks and Spencers prosecuting shoplifters. They are also M&S's customers.

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

Two points..

1) The copyright laws (admittedly not the DMCA which I don't think applies in this country) have been around a lot longer than CDs...

2) IIRC The loser of a case pays the fees?

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

ok so here's the 'its just plain theft' argument, well yes i don't deny it in the real world it would be. But this is the internet which is a whole diferent entity wouldn't u say. Its only regulated by one thing... ur own morals and concsience.

U may feel that that is a weak argument but there's a major difference between the two worlds. Hey all business wants to do is find a way of gettin their customers to part with their money in a different way. Business still hasn't grasped how to facilitate the customer experience in a complete manner. For one thing ISP's arent' interested. I love the likes of BT's/AOL ads where they tout 'no download limit'... cause hey we're not responsible!! Makes me laugh every time.

How do u regulate someone who wants to link to a music file from their blog?

Anyone who gets greedy can expect to get caught, i exercise my choice both in content and volume. Can't help you if u don't like it.

At least the outcome of downloading is that retail prices have dropped. i'm no economics expert so as i said in previous post i've no ideal what business model will suit all interested parties.

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

iTunes store..... 79p x 2 for two tracks = 1.58 ... not that expensive IMO ;)

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

True but is it anywhere near the actual cost... music is just data these days so what is being paid for, who needs to get paid, are we just facilitating old business models and contract agreements cause no one has thought of a better one??

Re: UK music downloader pays £2,500 after being caught.
 

But downloading is not killing the music industry. Single sales are actually up this year and when you take into account legal downloads, 88% up.

The industry has been stupidly slow to react to a changing marketplace, relying on outmoded distribution methods because they feared change.