Check out this article. I don't really care if you think downloading music should be illegal or not...I am more curious of the role of the federal courts in the decision. Feel free to post comments or in this case maybe questions that you hope to have answered by someone.
Mr. Thompson
I love music, I could listen to it all day if I could. But I can understand why Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Brother Records would sue someone, because I would get pretty mad if I wasn't making profit from people downloading my music. But I don't think its right to sue someone that much one song. I can understand if it would be less. Also I think its pretty interesting how they lowered the fine for the collage student. I don't understand why but I think they should just drop it.
ReplyDeleteLucky Sobin
Hr. 4
I don't understand the federal courts decision for not lifting the fine for the college student. I mean, that college student is oweing nearly $700k for illegally downloading music. I think they should drop the case, if not lowered it alot more. But i do understand why the companies are getting mad because of him basically stealing the music. Still the fine is too much, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete-Guicai Huang
In my opinon I dont understand why we cant just take the music off the internet. Like if they put it out on the internet for young people to see and listen to then its there own fault. If they dont want people to take the music off the internet they should just take thoughs music free sites off the internet. I feel like its they own faults and the fedral courts need to understand that if it is on the internet people will take things off it andthis is all in my opinon.
ReplyDeleteLauren Kramer 2 hour
There's nothing the Record companies or entertainment companies can really do to keep free music off the Internet. People are always going to make websites with free music on it. All they can do is monitor the Internet and keep busting people for illegally downloading. I think, in my opinion, they should make fines bigger or put in jail time to scare the people that are downloading. That way less people will download, but there will always be the few people that still do. -Kyle Zigan
ReplyDeleteJust to add on to this since my previous comment didn't talk about the supreme court at all. I think the supreme court made the right decision in not taking this case. There are far more important issues then someone downloading some songs illegally. This isn't a civil case where someone is disagreeing or suing someone, which is usually found in the supreme court. Its more of the man committed a crime and thus is getting fined for something he did illegally. And besides I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about stealing music, and if there was it more than likely wouldn't support his side of the arguement. all in all the supreme court made the right decision to let the smaller courts deal with it.
Delete-Kyle Zigan
I'm a music lover too. $22k per song is just nuts. I think it's right that the US Supreme Court does not review this case. It should be appealed to and reviewed by the lower courts again. The real problem here is that this really isn't a new problem. Sharing music has been going on since before the internet. My dad showed me all of the tapes he made when he was in high school. Basically someone would buy an album (one of those big round things that they played on a turn table....) and record the music on a tape recorder. He said that the music industry was ok with it back then because they had a small hidden charge on blank tapes that they sold that would go back to the recording industry. That's what needs to happen now. There needs to be a small surcharge per song that goes directly back to the recording industry, not suing huge amounts to students, then wasting the supreme courts time. There is already a system inplace. The recording industry just needs to update it and use it and quit targeting it's #1 users! US!
ReplyDeleteBrandon Koster
Hr. 4
Sure there are many ways music can be shared on off the internet which with these various ways makes it incredibly difficult to keep them all under surveillence. Some of those ways can get through without the person being caught and without some sort of profit being returned to the recording companies. Some consumers continue to find these solutions easier or more convienient for them so they keep doing what they're doing regardless of the warnings and events that have happened to other people. They go around thinking it won't happen to them. They target us cause in this case we kind of are the problem and most people in this form of society will not go without listening music so they will find other means to do so. So what could be going on is they're trying to redirecting where we are getting are music from not turn us away from them. That is why the government got involved and probably why the government didn't drop the case where it was. They wanted to deliver a message. Cause in the end, it affects them just as much as it does us.
ReplyDelete-Dominique Jones Hr.1
The supreme courts decision definatly makes sense to me because this would definatly not be only somethings like this will appear. It sets a tone of what to expect if another case like this shows up so it gives a heads up saying you stole music here is your punishment and this thought proabably wont change for a while.
Delete-Dominique Jones
I also agree with kyle that there isnt really anything the entertainment compaines can do about the music. If they want to have a effect on people they should have jail time or huge concequences. With the college guy i think its rediculous that they are fining him that much BUT the courts dount seem to be decided on what they are actually going to charge him. i think overall this issue is hard to keep under control and will always be around.
ReplyDeleteAnna Clark
I think the Supreme Court made the right decision not to hear this case. Although is does indirectly involve thousands of people, it does not directly impact the millions of citizens that do live in the U.S. I love music as much as the next person, and free stuff is great and all, but stealing is stealing, it's just a matter if you get caught or not. This guy unfortunately got caught and fined which is going to send a message to others who are currently stealing music. I also agree with Anna, it's almost impossible to monitor all the computers in the country and this is going to be an ongoing issue between the people and music industries.
ReplyDeleteLinda Krompicha 2
I also think the supreme court made a good decision on their part on not hearing this case. Its just affecting one person, not the whole nation. As Linda stated earlier. In Joel's case what he did was wrong,but there are many other people in the world that download music illegaly. But what this case is doing is the court system is trying to send a message to all those illegal downloaders and telling them this could happen to you if you keep stealing music. Personally im not scared. Jon Machutt hour 2
ReplyDeleteIt was smart by the supreme court not to hear this just because of the mass quantity of people who illegally download music. It would be hard for Supreme court to make a decision on a crime that is committed countless times a day all over the world. If they had heard the case I honestly don't know how they would call it and I would hate to be the one to make the decision.
ReplyDeletePayton Lee
Hr. 1
I think that it was a good idea for the supreme court to deny hearing the case. There is such a large number of people downloading music illegally and the supreme court has more important things to worry about. I agree with Jon M. though in saying that this could be a message to illegal downloaders that this is a real issue and it could happen to you. I think this is a very controversial case and like Payton mentioned, I'd hate to be the one to make a final decision.
ReplyDeleteJared Kristo
Hour 1
I agree with jaded, these days there are millions of people that are illegally downloading music every single day so it is really pointless in putting an individual through trial when there are many more people out there doing the exact same thing as the person being trailed for illegally downloading music. However, going along the lines of what Jon and jared said about this being a message to all of the illegal downloaders out there that the laws are getting tighter and tighter and that breaking the laws of downloading music is even more serious then it was in past years. I think that offenders should pay a fine for what they have downloaded, after all you are stealing something that isn't yours and there are people that own that song or media that are trying to make a profit off of it.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Mayberry Hr. 2
I think it was a great idea of the supreme court not to hear this case because there is way to many people who commit this crime and yes it is a crime but it isn't that big or new of a crime so it shouldn't be at the supreme court level. But I do agree and understand why the music company's would be upset and want to sue the person that was downloading the company's music illegally! And I agree with what Jared and Payton said it would really suck being the person to make the decision on what's going to happen to him.
ReplyDelete-Andrew Smdit Hr. 2
If i were part of the supreme court i would not take time out of my day to hear about someone that has been sued for illegally downloading music because everyone does it and there is no reason for it to get that high in the court system. I also like that the federal judge reduced the fine to five figures because you should not have to be penilized almost 700000 dollars for downloading a couple songs. Although its a good thing he was fined some amount of money because its a way of scarring all the other people that commit this crime.
ReplyDelete-Cody pape 4th hour