http://www.extremetech.com/internet/134992-is-a-675000-fine-for-sharing-31-pirated-songs-too-much
The above linked article is an excellent example of the continual failings of industries and governments alike. 31 songs are valued at over $20000 a piece, after fining a US citizen under piracy laws. First, to understand just how unjust this is, we need to look at another court ruling in comparison.
http://m.mtv.com/news/article.rbml?id=1451340&weburl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtv.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2F1451340%2Fjay-z-gets-three-years-probation-stabbing.jhtml&alt=http%3A%2F%2Fm.mtv.com%2Fnews%2Findex.rbml&cid=300
Forgive the blatant juxtaposition for a moment, this is violence versus piracy. So let's consider the punishment and not the crime for a second. These types of court room precedences are best at articulating the total failure of a justice system. Here we see that human life is actually valued at less than the songs of a popular recording artist. If this isn't infuriating enough, when examined on a different level a clear bias becomes apparent in courtroom operation. Consider the impact both convictions will have on the lives of the convicted. Mr.Z will feel little to no repercussion in his financial day to day as a result for aggravated assault/attempted murder. Remaining free to continue working and continue making a comfortable (if exorbitant) salary.
Joel, however, could potentially be financially crippled for the rest of his natural life. The resulting financial status the ruling will cause can affect any and all major life purchases going forward. All for generating more exposure for a person Joel, presumably, doesn't even know.
Why, you might ask, do I choose to articulate Joel's crime as exposure for the artist versus theft? Though the real impact of file sharing hasn't truly been determined, many artists have personally endorsed the right to share content freely, sighting exposure and interest as the real money maker. Joel is being fined based on potential losses the industry will feel as a result of his actions, what we must ask is if this loss is real or imagined. If Joel is responsible for the companies loss by making the music more publicly available, then should he not also be credited with any gains? This "crime" lacks investigation, Joel should counter sue for generating unpaid interest and exposure. The music industry witch hunts target the poor and impose serious fines on those who can afford them the least.
It's a sad world we live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment