Should you let your kids download music?
Should you let your kid download music from P2P networks? Is it legal? Is it safe?
Kids can use their computer to buy and download music from sites such as the iTunes Store or Amazon, or they can use their computer to download music at no-cost using peer-to-peer (P2P) applications such as LimeWire, FrostWire, BearShare and BitTorrent. Should you be allowing them to do the latter? Simple answer: no.
Photo by Daniel Foster
One problem with P2P networks is that the files shared over them are often infected with malware – your daughter may think she’s getting a Miley Cyrus song, but she may actually be getting a password-stealing Trojan (and if you and she share the computer, that could be bad news for your bank account!). But a much greater problem is that sharing copyrighted songs in the manner is illegal – and the penalties can be enormous. The RIAA have sued more than 30,000 people – mainly young people – and, in one recent case, student Joel Tennenbaum was ordered to pay the Recording Industry of America $22,500 for each of the 30 songs he had downloaded – $675,000 in total. Ouch! That’s was pretty expensive music!
But I’m in Canada! Downloading music is legal here! Erm, isn’t it?
Yes, probably. But maybe not. Wikipedia discusses the issue in some detail. Until the legal position is absolutely clarified, downloading simply may not be worth the risk. Would you like to be sued for $22,500 per song in a test case brought by the RIAA?
Filed Under: Breaking News > Music > My Online Life
Tags: download music, legal, music downloading, online safety
[...] See the rest here: Should you let your kids download music from P2P networks? | Sync Blog [...]
(Report comment)
Gotta love Canada
(Report comment)
This article is VERY wrong and misleading. Rhonda Callow is obviously posting on an issue she is absolutely not educated about, and is wilfully promoting ignorance.
In Canada, it is totally legal to download music. This is not a grey area, it is fully legal.
“Would you like to be sued for $22,500 per song in a test case brought by the RIAA?” is simply an extremely ignorant comment, on so many levels. Again, it is fully legal to download in Canada, it is not under “testing.”
But can you be sued $22500 per song for downloading songs (outside of Canada)? That’s a lot isn’t it? The answer is no, that’s ridiculous. You can only be sued for the damages you cause. Obviously, the damages would have to exceed the cost of the trial (which for copyright I’d imagine is very expensive).
You absolutely will not be sued for downloading music. This Tannenbaum kid really wasn’t very smart- he distributed HEAPS of music, was threatened by law firms, and was even sued previously, and still didn’t get the picture. He was fully aware of what he was doing, and he knew what he was doing was criminal. He really did lose these companies a lot of money. “Rhonda Callow” would like to have you believe that downloading music (in Canada too, apprently!) can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties… these people are well-aware criminals who are deliberately causing millions in damage to these businesses.
“Every day there are hundreds of millions of people sharing files on the net. Each one of them is downloading at least 5 to 100s of files. The RIAA will probably sue you for say 30 songs they could prove you downloaded.”
“It’s easier to win the lottery than to get sued. Those 30,000 souls that got sued are very unlucky.”
These comments are not true. You will NOT be sued for downloading music. And it is not like a lottery, these people were NOT unlucky! They are well-aware criminals deliberately causing monetary damage to businesses. They are not unsuspecting computer users! And 30 songs x $1 is $30. Who thinks they would start a really expensive lawsuit to grab $30, or even if you’ve downloaded tens of thousands!
“30000 people having been sued” is Rhonda Callow’s way of saying “30000 people have been threatened and are in negotiations with prosecuting lawyers. Of course, for truly criminal reasons, rather than mere downloading, which is shakier.
So on a final note:
“Tenenbaum is only the second of approximately 18,000 individuals targeted by the labels to have gone to trial, and the second to lose. In June of this year, a Minnesota jury ordered Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay $80,000 for infringing (sharing or selling) each of 24 songs, totaling $1.92 million. Last December, the labels announced that they were no longer initiating new cases against individual peer-to-peer users.”
(Report comment)
YES U ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT DOWNLOADING IN CANADA IS COMPLETELY LEGAL AND U CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR IT GOOD JOB FOR DISPROVING ALMOST EVERYTHING SHE SAID GOOD JOB KEVIN SORRY BOUT THE CAPS
(Report comment)
wow… why would they charge you 22,500$ for a song? thats stupid cuz the song is only worth like 1 – 10$ tops
(Report comment)
they aren’t charging $22,500 for a song, they are SUING in the amount of $22,500 for an illegally downloaded free (pirated) song. If you aren’t paying for the song, you are stealing it. Hence the lawsuit.
(Report comment)
They left out important pieces of information this article is very misleading and only intended on scaring people. All cases taken to court happened in the states and the student was sued $22 500 per song because he not only downloaded the songs but he shared them too.
(Report comment)
Hi,
You are definitly not allowed to download illegal music for any reason, and, the parent who condone this are not setting a very good example by doing so; they are responsible for their children, so they have to pay.
I’m a mother and unfortunatly had to do so, to not have problems from the law, no matter the $ of the song.
Parents should be on the straight and narrow about this and set the right example.
Pay up and be a grown up or soon to be. If you start our rhis way, you will have a very nice file behind you.
Do the right thing.
Jade
(Report comment)
But a song is not simply worth just $1 – $10 – it’s actually worth much more when you realize the amount of people that need to be paid and the work that goes into recording, producing and marketing a song/album: the person who wrote the song, the people who recorded the song along with their musicians, cost of studio time, etc., production of the music and manufacturing of the overall album, shipping and getting music to stores (just because a song or album are available online doesn’t mean there is not a physical release too), and then the marketing of these artists/songs/albums and the paychecks of the people who work day-to-day to get this music out to you – so often just so it can be stolen by being downloaded for free.
(Report comment)
they charge you that much because by downloading music from limewire, etc you’re violating the copyright of the songs. when they catch you doing that, they don’t force you to buy the songs ($1-$10 each) they’re suing you. , that’s where the $22,500 per song comes from.
(Report comment)
If you’re already purchasing the music through iTunes, what’s the problem? If you’re purchasing the music, you’re not breaking any laws as you are buying the music with an iTunes card or another form of payment.
If you’re using BearShare or Limewire, you’re definitely risking getting at least a half a dozen viruses or more. However, when you are purchasing music through iTunes, yes the risk is still there but the risk is slim to none.
All in all, I don’t think parents should stop their kids from downloading music, but they should talk to them about BearShare, Limewire, and other malicious sites like that and the impact of viruses on computers. Parents should also tell their kids that if they do choose to download music, use iTunes. This way, it’s legal because you’re actually buying the music and there’s a much lower chance of getting a virus.
(Report comment)
The author stated the latter of the two option was a no (which means the second option she stated is bad), but itunes/amazon is fine.
(Report comment)
They are saying it is okay to purchase the music through iTunes and Amazon. You need to read the article.
(Report comment)
This is exactly the kind of uneducated fools that think they know something, when really they dont its called right click scan with your antivirus, if theres a virus which 99.8% of the time there isnt, simply delete it, otherwise, enjoy LMAO
(Report comment)
Wow, forget teaching our kids about pirating music. The true need is in education. How come people can read something and then comment about it almost instantly yet not really comprehend what they have just read. BACK TO THE BASICS
(Report comment)
It’s easier to win the lottery than to get sued. Those 30,000 souls that got sued are very unlucky.
Every day there are hundreds of millions of people sharing files on the net. Each one of them is downloading at least 5 to 100s of files. The RIAA will probably sue you for say 30 songs they could prove you downloaded.
That’s 30 songs out of hundreds of millions of songs shared every day.
Do the math, you’re more likely to get hit by a car when you cross the street than to get caught.
As for the viruses, you’ll only get them if you don’t know what you’re doing.
Just stick to mp3s and oggs and you should be perfectly safe. Also train your P2P software to block spam, just the way you mark spam on your email inbox.
Oh, and have you thought about how many songs are sent via email everyday?
Probably more than in p2p itself, so should email be illegal? Nope.
Downloading music should be legal as long as its for personal use. P2P is the radio of today, it’s the promotional channel for artists. They should be glad people download their music, people should be charging the artists for using their paid connections to do distribute their music.
(Report comment)
It’s clear that you are not a musician. Why would any artist like their intellectual property stolen? Do the math…. when music is played on the radio, musicians receive royalties, when music is stolen from the net, musicians are robbed.
(Report comment)
Re: DoYourMath:
When you grow up (if that ever happens) how will you explain to your kids the difference between stealing music by illegal downloading and the chocolate bar they stole from the corner store, or even the money they stole off your dresser?
Stealing is stealing regardless of the chance of getting caught.
I agree the Recording Industry has to catch up to today’s technology but stealing from them is not the answer.
Dan
(Report comment)
They are not glad people are stealing their music. Since 2001 the music industry has declined by nearly 50%. So obviously this new promotional tool is not working.
(Report comment)
It is an unfortunate statement on our values that we get so worked up and upset about musicians having their materials shared freely and perhaps losing out on becoming extremely wealthy as the result of this “theft.” Musicians should be paid more than teachers, fire-fighters and doctors?
(Report comment)
i agree.
(Report comment)
Your point of view on this matter is fresh and educated. Very impressed. Never actually thought of it this way. Thanks for the point of view. I do agree with you though. If the music is good I usually go buy the cd after. If not at least I know I’m not buying crap.
(Report comment)
real is no matter how much a artist says they make music because they love to make music they are really in it for the money. The amount of money made for singing is rediculose. yet they are the one’s complaining about file share because they don’t get there share. otherwise there would be no problem.
(Report comment)
No one has EVER been sued for downloading songs off of the internet. You get sued for uploading songs to the internet or “making them available” for download. Plus the RIAA is an American organization, no one, not a single person has ever been sued in Canada for sharing music.
Worried about viruses? Really? Go to http://free.avg.com and get yourself some 100% free anti-virus software and chill out. You can get viruses from a lot of places on the internet, fear mongering about MP3’s having more than anything else is just silly. Use some common sense and you’ll be fine.
More and more artists are realizing that file sharing is nothing more than a promotional tool for their music and are giving it away for free. P2P isn’t bad in and of itself, when you are paying for that song off iTunes the artist is getting maybe 2% of that money. The rest is going to the label and the RIAA or similar groups. Keep that in mind when you hear stories demonizing file sharing, they don’t like it because you are cutting out the middle man.
(Report comment)
Two things….
#1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Anyone can publish whatever they wish, although parts maybe accurate others are not.
#2. Last time I check the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that downloading music for your own personal use is completely legal… it only becomes illegal once you start sharing it with other people.
Overall: (for Canada)
Downloading legal
Uploading illegal
So just change your settings to prevent uploading if your worried about breaking the law.
(Report comment)
I completely agree on number one. Wikipedia is user contributed.. and should never be cited.
#2 you can change your settings to limit your upload speed but you cant compeletly stop it on a p2p due to you have to be sending a little in order to let the tracker know what to send you next, its like packets you ping when you get them so it knows not to resend.
The guy above who was confused about the 22 Grand thing. Well how many times can one file be downloaded? 22 grand seems like alot but its kinda you tell two friends they tell two friends expontinal growth.
As for downloading off itunes, Your not going to get a virus PERIOD its not p2p your downloading off a secure server, if you where to get a virus from itunes who ever made that virus can easily get through your 20 buck a month firewall from norton…
(Report comment)
Everytime you download P2P, the person you are downloading from is uploading to your computer.
Therefor if everyone changed their setting to prevent uploads, noboby could ever download, hence no one could ever break the law either way.
(Report comment)
i agree with TheDutchin, how can the RIAA sue you for 22,500 for the songs when they are only worth .99 cents on itunes. when you sue someone in small claims court (which this is at the same level because it is downloading songs not murder) you only get the amount of what the stuff stolen or damaged was worth, you cant sue them for 22,500 for a c.d. if thats the item stolen. This is nothing more then a ridiculous cash grab by the RIAA to try and squeeze blood from a stone.
(Report comment)
The RIAA atakes there claim on the assumption that when you download a song and share it (possibly) with thousands or 10’s of thousands of others that theres thousands of dollars in lost revenue.
Thats there logic anyways..insane and pathetic at the same time: attacking the very people that buy their content.Theres been studies done that verify the fact that most downloaders are avid music/game/video fans and tend to buy their content as well.
Even if its wrong it seem really dumb to severely punish someone caught reading a newspaper before he bought it..
I whole heartedly endorse and emcourage everyone to download as much as they want and can get for free because if in the least o finally get the RIAA to give up punishing there would be customers and get on the band wagon..maybe make it easier and cheaper to buy stuff online like Apple has.Funny how a company that was never in the recording industry is now making millions daily as the RIAA flails about like a scared kid suing kids and single moms for ’sharing’
They really should be ashamed of themselves but down in the States the all mighty dollar runs the senate that makes the laws and they have everyone scared and prefer that to compromise.
Thank God our courts up here in Canada are free from that kind of greed and tyranny.
(Report comment)
Think aboot this a little more jr. einsteins
The police do not prosecute people in ’small claims court’ for theft – which is what illegal up-loading/file sharing is, so that comparison is ridiculous
And while it most likely will not be you that gets caught stealing – ask those poor suckers who get to pay $22,000 each how they feel aboot it. BTW, who the hell taught you that it’s ok to steal as long as you don’t get caught ?
And getting legal advise from wikipedia ? Pull your head out of your a**
If you want a copy of a song – just buy it and save yourself (or your parents) the headache – and support an artist
(Report comment)
The reason they are being fined $22 500.00 per song is not because of what the song would have cost them. However, that is what the recording industry figures they lose by each person that shares one of their songs. They could probably prove that each of those 30 000 people did not download the songs for personal use, but instead, continued to share those songs to other people. So, for each person that it gets shared to is a loss of $0.99. Therefore, 22727 file downloads turns into @22 500.00.
Just my 2 cents worth.
(Report comment)
It already happened, they did sue and they won.
(Report comment)
How clueless can you be?? When you download through P2P, you’re sharing the file(s) as you are downloading. So if you are downloading 1 song, you are sharing it with potentially 10,000’s of people everywhere that are searching for that exact same song. So just by downloading 1 song, you are distributing an unknown (but usually large) amount of copies to other people.
So, if you do the math:
$1 song x oh, let’s say 22,500 copies….
hmmmmm.. that equals $22,500..
Wow!, math is fun aint it??
Or did you fail 2nd grade?
(Report comment)
Hi,
this was such a poorly researched article – the facts are simply inaccurate for Canada.
to quote a previous poster:
“#2. Last time I check the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that downloading music for your own personal use is completely legal… it only becomes illegal once you start sharing it with other people.”
Partially correct. the Supreme Court has still not indicated that even keeping it available for someone else to download is illegal.
Have you all forgotten that for every single blank CD we purchase, in Canada, a levy is applied to compensate the artists??? The music industry has conveniently neglected to point this out in their efforts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.
My comments are specific to music downloads, not the video/movie downloads – that is a whole new ballgame.
Do your own research properly before relying on Wiki.
And, without proper anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc. software you can have your PC or laptop compromised simply by visiting a web site. So that advise is also suspect because one day, a hacker is going to figure out how to compromise iTunes or Amazon – if you don’t take the proper security measures, you will be compromised.
(Report comment)
This is because he was probably seeding back the songs to others. If it was just downloading, the fines would probably be less.
(Report comment)
They can sue up to that amount depending on how many people acquired the song from him. If he put an album up on a p2p site and it had 22,000 downloads, then they can sue him for aiding the distribution of the song to that many people. it makes sense if you do the math.
And agreed, what a terrible site to source. wikipedia is not a good reference.
(Report comment)
The reason that the RIAA could sue for that amount is because the P2P user is interfering with the RIAA’s economic interests.
If a song is worth $0.99 and 20,000 people who otherwise would have purchased the song download it from an uploader, the Courts may calculated damages by looking at $0.99 x 20,000. That is a lot of money, but it is not completely unreasonable if you think about it.
(Report comment)
The $22K per song is not what the RIAA charged. It is what the court (judge) ordered the person who UPLOADED the song, not downloaded it to pay bases on the number of uploads that was provided. The judge could have issued a fine of up to $150k per song. The big AND here. The RIAA is not going after the downloaders of the music. They are going after the people who are making the music available for downloading. The file shareers. If you do not share, chances are that you will not get caught.
(Report comment)
The justification that is being used for the ridiculously high amounts per song is not that they downloaded a .99 cent song. It’s that they have made it available for download by others.
It is not unkown for a popular file to be downloaded 20-30 thousand times, and for that file to be tracked back to one uploader.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but those are the people they are after. The high-bandwith distributers.
(Report comment)
I would think the 22,500 per song would have been the potential lost revenue because, in theory, 23,000 users could have downloaded it from his computer as opposed to paying .99 each at itunes.
Also, an example was being set here. No one would be disuaded from downloading if the fine had been $1.00 per song.
(Report comment)
I paid to belong to share pro 360. so does that mean i am breaking the law?
(Report comment)
I am not very computer literate myself, but perhaps the high fines were based on the number of times the song was uploaded from the individual by others, and the perceived loss of $1 “per purchase” price x 22,500 uploads…just a thought.
(Report comment)
what about frewares – software – on the internet? Does anyone know if its legal?
If music is legal- then why not frewares.??
(Report comment)
kks heres the reality when it come to downloading music off of file sharing programs. the risk of being caught and sued is %0. more ppl using file sharing programs (mainly limewire) than iTunes or amazon, so to go and charge every single person who does it is insane so instead they just work on preventing piracy. so as 4 that guy that was sued 22 grand per song, i dont know what the circumstances were but it cant have been just simply downloading off of limwire and listening to the music because piracy lawsuits NEVER happen like that.
(Report comment)
Perhaps if itunes wasn’t charging more money (than for hard copies)and supplying nothing but data (no plastic or shipping or printing) there wouldn’t be any isssue. Every other industry comes to terms with the changing market through technology, but the recording industry just cries for legal protection. Give us good value and see us spend our entertainment dollar. And by the way if I download something for free and it’s good, and I plan on listening to it again, I buy the CD to reward the artist.
(Report comment)
After reading this I’m going to download 1000000 songs on P2P as a way of my support to the RIAA.As well as 100 movies. I will share these files with at least 10 0000 people too just to show my support to the RIAA.
A note to the music industry: start releasing material that people want to buy.
(Report comment)
Yo, I think it is very common to download music of a band that is no longer availible at a local music store. I can not find music bands that I am able to purchase from the store with out having to pay ridiculus costs. IE from some online stores such as Amazon.com and having to pay some duty fees. I just Download what is not availible and buy the rest.
(Report comment)
They’ll probably shut down Limewire and other such software, just like they did with WinMX. The only reason Limewire is still operational is because of the “agreement” you have to agree to before installing the software. That does nothing. All you’re agreeing to is lying.
Oh, and as far as malware, scan the file before openning it and enable Windows explorer to see extentions of all files. That way, you can see if you’re getting an MP3 file, or an “MP3″ file, if you know what I’m talking about.
(Report comment)
They charge 22,500 per song as it is the penalty for copyright infringment… they also generally go after the larger downloaders, and as was stated earlier, until the law is updated, downloading is legal in Canada, simply sharing (uploading) your music with others isn’t.
This still means you have to find someone willing to break the law by uploading songs, unless the sharer is located somewhere where there are no restrictions to uploading. (Someone will come up with one of the multiple places where that is still legal or unregulated)
(Report comment)
Come out with a program not run by apple with fast servers, virus/malware free files and decent prices and more people might actually start downloading for legit sources.
(Report comment)
I agree 100%
(Report comment)
as for when downloading, though i dont approve of limewire, and such… but try this, watch the file sizes of the downloads, IF you must download them (i personally as well use itunes, though before it was limewire) most of the “virus filled” songs… are JUST a virus file… that will be really small, but someone going omg i want that song, wony usually watch thee file size… and low and behold its a virus. just simply though id put this share up
(Report comment)
Personally, I think that this Tenenbaum cat should have been smart and filed a counter suit against the RIAA. 1) for spying on him, cause when you think about it, that is invasion of privacy, and 2) the fact that they charged him $22k per song, which is absolutely ludicrous.
(Report comment)