Fined $9,250 per song...

was ordered to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs in all.

WOW!!!!

thats a lot of downloading - 1,702 songs stolen

While I agree she did wrong, this seems greatly excessive. Especially since she's a single mother.

Ditto, BB. But, they made her the example (and I think the message is clear). She should have settled for a couple hundred bucks like the article mentions other did, but she decided to take on the record companies. Not smart in my opinion. They got big bucks.

Is it the downloading that was wrong or the sharing? I thought there are opportunities to download all the time. Yes, I am not up on music on the internet.

I'm not really sure, KC. According to the article it appears both.

"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies"

I heard about this story on the radio this morning. She had the chance to settle but decided to spend $60,000 in legal fees to fight the record companies.

sounds like a bankruptcy in the making

That's why I like the Grateful Dead.. they were all about sharing the music!!!!

It is not illegal to download a song, but it is illegal to make available a song to download without authorization. So it there is being a crime committed whenever you download a song, you just might not be committing it.

She was not sued for *stealing* a thing. She was sued for SHARING her music. Her ownership was never at question, and was not an issue in this case, and that’s a very important distinction. This was a case of copyright infringement, and thus a civil matter, NOT theft, which is a criminal matter.

It does make one wonder - if you buy a CD or buy music online and copy it for a friend, are you stealing that music from somebody - the music that you purchased? I guess it's sort of like speeding, you are really not speeding unless you get caught speeding. On the other hand, speeding is covered by law - what law covers the sharing of music once it's purchased? Is a little sharing OK?

During the era of cassettes making a copy for a friend was ok under fair use provisions. There have a been a few wringles once it was moved into CD's and DRM. Since it is illegal to violate DRM making a copy of a protected CD would be in violation, but if it was an open CD fair use should still hold some weight.

If the music labels have their way it will be illegal to make copies of any music they sell, be it a file ripped from a CD for backup purposes (or to covert it to a format for you to load on your MP3 player) or if you've paid to download it from the Internet.

What they are doing, perhaps without realizing it, is killing the market for their CD products. If I can't buy a CD and rip it to play on my computer or MP3 that only leaves legal music downloads. (I wonder how the likes of Wal-Mart, Target, Blockbuster, Borders and Best Buy feel about that?)

However, the question becomes (IMHO) "is copying a file I legally downloaded from my computer over to my iPod legal?"

I'm wondering if this case will be appealed. If not this case, then perhaps another will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. I hope somebody with deep pockets steps up to help this woman.

Also, the traditional music industry is creating a wonderful opportunity for their competition, the indie musician. If the labels kill the market for their DRM CDs, then why do any musicians need the labels anymore? (Hint: We don't.) We can set up our own marketing (on the Web) and distribution channels (iTunes, CD Baby, etc.) and sell our product ourselves. (Radiohead is just a little bit ahead of the curve.)

This is the true beginning of the end of the music industry we grew up with. And guess what, it's not file sharing that's killing them, they're killing themselves.

So, I can download all I want just don't share it?

Well its an ethical isssue for you, not so much a legal one. Just make sure you download to a folder that is not the same one you share with, otherwise you will be sharing as you are downloading.

Nah, I don't share...I just download...hypothetically that is

Of course you can, if the download is provided legally and you pay for it. If, as in Radiohead's case, the cost is free, then you pay nothing for your legal download.

Oh, by the way, the music industry may also be killing commercial radio as we know it, or radio stations will have to get their music by downloading too.

In some ways the music and movie industries are so messed up right now, but it's certainly a interesting time.

Ain't technology a wonderful thing? Can we even imagine what it was like 150 years ago when the only way you heard music was to play it yourself, or listen to someone else play it?

and what about limewire?

I'm going to assume your question is serious. If you're joking around, please tell me.

With any P2P file sharing program some files are being shared legally. If the person sharing the file is the copyright owner (or has the permission of the copyright owner to share the file), then it's legal to share and download the file.

Most of the time it's very difficult to tell if the file is being shared legally, so to be safe, you better already know and trust the person who is providing the file you're downloading.

However, many files are not being shared legally, especially music and video files. If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be using these programs.

and the newist version of LimeWire helps with this. It'll give you a link of where you can aquire (buy) the rights to download a song.
of course if you use an older version of LimeWire (like one you can download at oldapps.com) then it doesn't require you to aquire the rights to a song which could possibly end you up in a lawsuit... or so I've read.

I'm being serious bugs...
I've used limewire...I don't really look at the source...If its the song I want I just download it