# Another P2P music sharing verdict - $675,000 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175 "2009-08-03T16:08:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/101 "2009-08-06T21:02:20Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You seriously equate a steep fine for admittedly illegal conduct to the struggle for equal rights for homosexuals? Both stealing bread and genocide are wrong, do they equate too?I suggest your outrage meter needs a checkup. > What next? The Holocaust? > > “The RIAA can get a judgment for over a million against a guy. Why next they’ll be marching the guy into the ovens for being Jewish?” > > Can’t wait to see how that one flies. > > Look, even if I could get worked up over a guy having to pay too much in damages for an illegal action he admitted taking (and the thousands of other songs he admitted downloading and sharing), it would still fall miles short of the denial of rights to a segment of the population. I am stung by the heart by your eviscerating retort. Especially since I was _totally_ the one who equated a steep fine for admittedly illegal conduct to the struggle for equal rights for homosexuals. Yep, that was me. Definitely. But you’re right, hyperbole is wrong. Clearly, you will now visciously go after those who falsly and hyperbolically call copyright infringement “stealing”. Because it’s certainly not the case that only one side can use hyperbole, certainly not. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/102 "2009-08-06T21:55:24Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Have a video tape of your kid’s birthday party? Did you sing Happy Birthday to you? If so, and if share the tape then you’re a pirate, a thief in **oakminster** ’s jargon, liable for upto $150,000 by the laws of this judgement. > > Just singing it is an unlicensed public performance. I wonder if **oakminster** has ever sang happy birthday? If so he’s one of those no good godless heathen pirates. > > edit:[Judge Rules That "Happy Birthday" Is Public Domain | Snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp) According to the Snopes article you’d only be in trouble if you sold the tape for a profit: > [@Snopes](#): > > Does this mean that everyone who warbles “Happy Birthday to You” to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song’s publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur “at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.” So, crooning “Happy Birthday to You” to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted). ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/103 "2009-08-06T22:55:41Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > And how do you propose they do that? How do you make money selling music if we allow people to download it for free? And after you discover how to do that, maybe you could explain how you make money selling television broadcasts if we allow people to watch them for free? 'Cause I’ve been trying to figure that one out for years… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/104 "2009-08-07T03:57:30Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > According to the Snopes article you’d only be in trouble if you sold the tape for a profit: Hmm maybe I’m dense, lord knows I can give lead a run for it’s money sometimes, but where does it say anything about recording it? Also if I shared the tape on a website, say uploaded the happy birthday song tape to a homepage for others to watch, why would it be different then the sharing baby got back on the homepage? I understand bands can do “covers” without paying fees somehow. Would this be considered a cover? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/105 "2009-08-07T04:59:43Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > And after you discover how to do that, maybe you could explain how you make money selling television broadcasts if we allow people to watch them for free? > > 'Cause I’ve been trying to figure that one out for years… IIRC, back in the day after VCRs hit the scene and became popular, the movie companies (or TV stations or some of that ilk) got bent out of shape and sought to somehow stop recording of their programs…or charge for it (I forget the details). In the end though the VCR became a HUGE boon to the entertainment industry. Movies that were money losers in the theater were now made into money makers via home video sales. Wonder of wonders. I have faith the market will find its own way. It is just the dinosaurs that are the RIAA and such that are going down kicking and screaming. The sooner someone gives them the coup de grace the better for all. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/106 "2009-08-07T05:16:47Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I understand bands can do “covers” without paying fees somehow. Would this be considered a cover? Not quite. Bands can do covers without _asking permission_. The owner still gets paid. This is to balance out the needs of ensuring that there’s an incentive for new works, and not stifling creative adaptations. It’s an excellent compromise which could possibly serve as a model in other artistic fields. Videotaping “Happy Birthday” is different. If you sing it to your family, you’re fine. If you _record_ yourself singing the song at a party, you’re absolutely breaking the copyright and you could absolutely get hit with cease & desist letters from irate attorneys. Would that happen? Hell no. They’re lazily camped on a hundred-year-old song to wring dollars out of people who can afford to pay. The enforcement of this copyright is parasitic, adding utterly nothing to society but lawyer’s fees, but they’re not out to target every campy recording made at an annual party. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/107 "2009-08-07T05:57:02Z")
Back to the OP. A thought came to me in the shower this evening. Wouldn’t it have been fairly easy to estimate how many times the songs were downloaded by reviewing the perp’s ISP logs (to them, the downloads would have shown up as uploads). Not thinking so much of number of uploads, which may or may not have been useful, as total bandwidth over the relevant period, divided by the average file size. Would have been only a rough estimate, but something. Does anyone know whether this argument was made? Is the reasoning sound? BTW, as an aside, on the subject of unauthorized covers, [the Master Speaks](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/290/must-you-get-permission-to-record-someone-elses-song). ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175/108 "2009-08-07T07:04:38Z")
All right, I’m sure somebody will correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the average number of times a song can be expected to be downloaded from any one person (which is all we can go on without a record of his actual uploads) is a number much smaller than most here are proposing. All these ridiculous suggestions for how many times a shared song would be downloaded, and how much the real damages are, seem to be ignoring the fact that more people downloading, also means more sources from which others can download. Let’s make it simple by temporarily putting aside a few factors here. Let’s assume, just for this paragraph, that there are no leechers (Everyone who downloads also uploads). Let’s also assume that there is only original source (only one person uploads without first downloading it from someone else) Can any of you guess what the average number of downloads will be from each person if all 60 million KaZaA lite users were to connect to the network and download their own copy? Hint: It’s **LESS THAN ONE!** Leechers, (who download without uploading) would push the average higher, while multiple original sources (people who upload without downloading) push the average lower. I don’t know if anyone has any data on the actual rates of leeching vs sharing, but regardless, it’s surely insignificant compared to the standard p2p behaviour of automatically sharing everything which is downloaded. It would seem that the estimates in this thread are off by around **2,000,000%**. Even assuming unlikely figures like 90% leechers and only one source, the average number of downloads for a shared song is still in the single digits! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-p2p-music-sharing-verdict-675-000/505175.md?page=5)