RIAA's BIG win

[epicstruggle]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-verdict-is-in.html
After just four hours of deliberation and two days of testimony, a jury found that Jammie Thomas was liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 24 the 24 recordings at issue in the case of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas. The jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, after finding that the infringement was "willful," out of a possible total of $150,000 per song. The grand total? $222,000 in damages.
They didn't get the 150k per song, but 9k/song isn't too shabby. The first real victory and it should get the ball rolling on the other 30k lawsuits, since they will be self sustaining.

epic

[DudeMiester]

I hope it gets overturned on appeal.

[SugarCoat]

$222,000 for downloading the equivalent of 2 CDs or 1 Greatest hits? :roll: Was this Jury retarded? I seriously would have to ask. Fining for a few thousand would of got the point across as clear as a bell. A couple hundred thousand simply looks like malicious abuse of the legal system.

[dizietsma]

I wonder why exactly $9250 per song?

[SugarCoat]

they wrote numbers down onto slips of paper, colored them in and gave them a coating of glue and pretty sparkly foil then stuffed them in a hat, enjoyed a lunch, then pulled one out. Verdict delivered.

[nutball]

Superb. Another nail in the coffin of the RIAA.

[L233]

It's batshit insane. It's America.

[tongue_of_colicab]

$222,000 for downloading the equivalent of 2 CDs or 1 Greatest hits? :roll: Was this Jury retarded? I seriously would have to ask. Fining for a few thousand would of got the point across as clear as a bell. A couple hundred thousand simply looks like malicious abuse of the legal system.

Well isnt malicious abuse of the legal system going on for like... always in america?

[Rainbow Man]

They didn't get the 150k per song, but 9k/song isn't too shabby. The first real victory and it should get the ball rolling on the other 30k lawsuits, since they will be self sustaining.
You're not cheering these peple on are you?

I hope your rah-rah-ish post is sarcastic in nature but I have a hard time telling since you're a republican and all.. :razz:


I don't piirate music but about the last thing this planet needs is big record media industry being awarded over $9k per pirated song. That's just beyond words really.

Peace.

[epicstruggle]

You're not cheering these peple on are you?
Not quite cheering them on, but I dont feel bad for the lady. Im currently boycotting almost all movies/music, thats how you change them, not by stealing.
I hope your rah-rah-ish post is sarcastic in nature but I have a hard time telling since you're a republican and all.. :razz:Being a republicans has little to do with it. I just respect the producers, actors, musicians, programmers, ...., who actually put money/time into making digital products. Just because it doesnt cost to duplicate it doesnt mean it didnt cost to produce it.
I don't piirate music but about the last thing this planet needs is big record media industry being awarded over $9k per pirated song. That's just beyond words really.

Peace.
I disagree. What the world really doesn't need is people who don't respect others peoples property/hard work.

[tongue_of_colicab]

I disagree. What the world really doesn't need is people who don't respect others peoples property/hard work.

In that cause there should be alow against cheating the consumers because the record label maffia is taking by far the largest amount of income from music sold. Its not going to the artists.

Anyway fines like these are just beyond reality and anyone agreeing with the should get a brain check. Downloading 24 songs isnt in line with a 200k fine which she will feel her whole life as she probably cant pay it up. This is like sending somebody to jail for 20 years because he drove 20mph to fast.

[Rainbow Man]

Just because it doesnt cost to duplicate it doesnt mean it didnt cost to produce it.
It certainly doesn't cost anywherenear the amount they charge for it.

Just look at the lives rockstar people live. Whatever have they done in their lives to warrant this revelling in excess in every sense of the word that som any of them do?

I think many people pirate music because they can't morally support and motivate to themselves helping to finance and support that kind of behavior.

Ask yourself. Why should a musician get paid EVERY damn time his song is played on radio? No painter is paid every time his painting is looked upon. I don't pay the plummer every time I flush my john.

You don't pay your car manufacturer every time you dirve to work.

I disagree. What the world really doesn't need is people who don't respect others peoples property/hard work.
You can't force people to respect you by beating them into thhe grounfd.

That's bullying. It's abuse of power.

You get the respect you're deserved, and the RIAA et. al. are worthy of none.
Peace.

[nutball]

In that cause there should be alow against cheating the consumers because the record label maffia is taking by far the largest amount of income from music sold. Its not going to the artists.

The RIAA can't make money if nobody buys music. No law is required -- just stop consuming music, and the RIAA will go away.

[epicstruggle]

The RIAA can't make money if nobody buys music. No law is required -- just stop consuming music, and the RIAA will go away.
Exactly. I really wanted to watch like 15-20 movies this year, but because of my boycott I didn't. And I havent bought a music cd in years.

epic

[dizietsma]

I think people should pay for songs also but I do not think this is fair. The fine should have been the cost of the total amount of songs downloaded and then a community service or something similar for the lady to do.

I buy all my hardware and so I think I should by all my software. I always buy games but with legal music downloads they have never worked, I always get some sort error on certificates or the download. The only thing that seems to work is the credit card part which always works and leaves me 99p out of pocket or so out of pocket each time. Not a great deal I admit, it's the principle and the hassle though, it should be easier.

I have about 25- 50 private free music downloads on my PC so I am not a profile music listener, occassionally I want a song though and so get it. The last one I wanted was Motorhead Ace of Spades and the HMV download failed. I could not be bothered downloading it illegally due to risk of trojans etc so just gave up.

[epicstruggle]

It certainly doesn't cost anywherenear the amount they charge for it.So what?

Just look at the lives rockstar people live. Whatever have they done in their lives to warrant this revelling in excess in every sense of the word that som any of them do?Whats this got to do with anything?

I think many people pirate music because they can't morally support and motivate to themselves helping to finance and support that kind of behavior.
I very much doubt that more than a few percentage of people think that. Most (90+%) do it, because they think they wont get caught or dont care at all.
Ask yourself. Why should a musician get paid EVERY damn time his song is played on radio?Because its the law? No painter is paid every time his painting is looked upon. I don't pay the plummer every time I flush my john.

You don't pay your car manufacturer every time you dirve to work.
You can propose laws that would allow you to do that. ;)

You can't force people to respect you by beating them into thhe grounfd.

That's bullying. It's abuse of power.

You get the respect you're deserved, and the RIAA et. al. are worthy of none.
Peace.
Well they did win their case in court, means something to some. Im sure most people who are stealing now, wont care. But Im sure the 30k that have gotten caught will.

epic

[doob]

The only real way they (RIAA) would ever go away is when majority of music artists stop releasing their hard work under labels that support RIAA.
The few ones that already do sadly get supressed by the overall music industry.

[weaksauce]

It is indeed stealing if the original copy was stolen. Then the downloader can be charged with cooperation. If it was not, he can be charged with cooperation for breaking the copyright agreement, or what it is.

Ask yourself. Why should a musician get paid EVERY damn time his song is played on radio? No painter is paid every time his painting is looked upon. I don't pay the plummer every time I flush my john.

It's not that you enjoy it, it's that you own it. And you own it because someone either stole it, or broke the licence agreement. If you hear it on the radio, the station has obtained the rights to distribute it. The pirate, has not.

Say that a person steals a painting, copies it, and gives a copy to you. Then, instead of reporting him for theft, you accept it, and thus, you cooperate with him in his crime.

While some may download because they want to ensure the quality of the product they're gonna buy, or because they simply don't have any money, it's a fact that most people download because they simply don't wanna pay.

[epicstruggle]

The only real way they (RIAA) would ever go away is when majority of music artists stop releasing their hard work under labels that support RIAA.
The few ones that already do sadly get supressed by the overall music industry.
How are they getting suppressed? Look into the early history of MC Hammer for an example of how good music (not to me) finds a way.

[doob]

How are they getting supressed? I dunno im such a ignorant civilian that things like private corporations lobbying and acting as a cartel and monopolise on who has rights on distribution formats to the point where they go against the artist right of free speech and try to have the right to censor the artist own work just because they bought some legal right on the format its released doesn't give them right to do such. What they can do is sadly refuse to publish his work, and force the artist to go throught independent means.
And of course, they don't want you to do a backup copy or play it on whatever device they haven't recieved royalties from.

Thats supression.

[epicstruggle]

How are they getting supressed? I dunno im such a ignorant civilian that things like private corporations lobbying and acting as a cartel and monopolise on who has rights on distribution formats to the point where they go against the artist right of free speech and try to have the right to censor the artist own work just because they bought some legal right on the format its released doesn't give them right to do such. What they can do is sadly refuse to publish his work, and force the artist to go throught independent means.
And of course, they don't want you to do a backup copy or play it on whatever device they haven't recieved royalties from.

Thats supression.
Uhmm.... Im pretty sure everything youve said in this post is wrong. If I started to become a musician tomorrow, nothing the RIAA or anyone else for that matter would be suppressing me.

epic

[carpediem]

entering USA as an illegal alien is morally better than downloading a cd, is it?

[Sxotty]

Exactly. I really wanted to watch like 15-20 movies this year, but because of my boycott I didn't. And I havent bought a music cd in years.

epic

Why are you boycotting movies anyway?

I always buy games but with legal music downloads they have never worked, I always get some sort error on certificates or the download. The only thing that seems to work is the credit card part which always works and leaves me 99p out of pocket or so out of pocket each time. Not a great deal I admit, it's the principle and the hassle though, it should be easier.


If you are in the right region try Amazon's service it is groovy.

Uhmm.... Im pretty sure everything youve said in this post is wrong. If I started to become a musician tomorrow, nothing the RIAA or anyone else for that matter would be suppressing me.

epic

Actually they would diminish the possibility you had for success because of the contracts they have with radio.

[Mize]

They nailed her for hosting the files, not downloading. During the trial the prosecution was not required to prove that her computer had file sharing software or even that it had the songs on it. The only evidence was logs of downloads from an IP assigned to her by her ISP. For all anyone knows she could have been zombied. I guess we should all set up insecure wifi now!

[Scott_Arm]

That fine is insane. Unless she's rich, she's going to spend the rest of her life in poverty. That's really disgusting. She'll have almost the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage to pay off because of 24 songs that are most likely played on the radio anyway?

I can understand people who feel she did wrong and deserves a sentence, but this is far beyond reasonable. Those jurors should be ashamed of themselves for potentially destroying this woman's life, so the RIAA can collect a couple hundred thousand dollars, which they'll most likely use to buy blow for their next manufactured star.

[Nite_Hawk]

That fine is insane. Unless she's rich, she's going to spend the rest of her life in poverty. That's really disgusting. She'll have almost the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage to pay off because of 24 songs that are most likely played on the radio anyway?

I can understand people who feel she did wrong and deserves a sentence, but this is far beyond reasonable. Those jurors should be ashamed of themselves for potentially destroying this woman's life, so the RIAA can collect a couple hundred thousand dollars, which they'll most likely use to buy blow for their next manufactured star.

She will almost certainly declare bankruptcy. Luckily it sounds like cases at this level (before they go to appeal) really don't establish precedent, so it's unlikely that this particular case will affect other ones.

Having said that, there were bad things that happened on both sides of this case. The judge reversed himself and stated that the Jury needed to rule based on the premise that she "made the songs available" rather than requiring that the RIAA actually show anyone downloaded them. This means that even in the instance where the riaa had no actual damages she still would be liable to pay them an exessively large penalty. No matter if no one downloaded them or half the country downloaded them.

She made some mistakes herself though. She had her harddrive replaced and claimed it happend before the RIAA notified her, but infact it happened afterward. If this wasn't an outright lie, it was certainly an incredibly stupid mistake. First, you don't destroy evidence that (if you are innocent) would prove your case, and two, you don't get important dates like that mixed up in a case that could potentially have life changing effects.

In end I think there's a pretty strong likelyhood she's guilty. There's reasonable doubt that she's innocent, but as this is a civil case they RIAA only has to show that she's more likely guilty than innocent and I think they showed that.

On the other hand, the punishment is absolutely ridiculous. The Jurors should have at the very least given her the minimum fine, or had they been brave enough, overrule the law regarding the severity of the punishment.

Nite_Hawk

[Scott_Arm]

She will almost certainly declare bankruptcy. Luckily it sounds like cases at this level (before they go to appeal) really don't establish precedent, so it's unlikely that this particular case will affect other ones.

Having said that, there were bad things that happened on both sides of this case. The judge reversed himself and stated that the Jury needed to rule based on the premise that she "made the songs available" rather than requiring that the RIAA actually show anyone downloaded them. This means that even in the instance where the riaa had no actual damages she still would be liable to pay them an exessively large penalty. No matter if no one downloaded them or half the country downloaded them.

She made some mistakes herself though. She had her harddrive replaced and claimed it happend before the RIAA notified her, but infact it happened afterward. If this wasn't an outright lie, it was certainly an incredibly stupid mistake. First, you don't destroy evidence that (if you are innocent) would prove your case, and two, you don't get important dates like that mixed up in a case that could potentially have life changing effects.

In end I think there's a pretty strong likelyhood she's guilty. There's reasonable doubt that she's innocent, but as this is a civil case they RIAA only has to show that she's more likely guilty than innocent and I think they showed that.

On the other hand, the punishment is absolutely ridiculous. The Jurors should have at the very least given her the minimum fine, or had they been brave enough, overrule the law regarding the severity of the punishment.

Nite_Hawk


Yeah, I think she was sharing the songs. I would have liked to see them prove in court that people had downloaded them to justify damages. In the end $220,000 is my real problem, because that is FAR too extreme. The law is obviously out of date in this regard. She essentially had $24 worth of songs and was almost 10,000 times that amount of sharing them.

The music industries real problem is their business model, but they're trying to prop up their outdated ways by suing people's asses off. As long as juries feel justified in handing down these impoverishing sentences, the RIAA will keep doing it.

[Mize]

Having said that, there were bad things that happened on both sides of this case. The judge reversed himself and stated that the Jury needed to rule based on the premise that she "made the songs available" rather than requiring that the RIAA actually show anyone downloaded them.

The logic here is staggeringly stupid. I could argue that an outdated firewall makes all the digital data on your computer "available" or that forgetting to lock your house and having backups stolen constitutes the same thing. What if someone snags your ipod and takes those copies?

This whole thing stinks as there is really no physical evidence. For all we know she had copies of the CDs and was downloading because she didn't know how to rip the CDs to her HD and her download program was "sharing" by default.

Until there are judges and juries with a semblance of IT understanding there will be no fair trials on topics like this.

[StefanS]

Just to add some more talk points to the discussion. NYT's Freakonomics had a little blog entry on the future of the industry (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/whats-the-future-of-the-music-industry-a-freakonomics-quorum/) a while back and it featured several people with different music industry background. They didn't always agree, but it's well worth a read.

[L233]

They nailed her for hosting the files, not downloading.
In P2P networks, everyone who downloads is hosting at the same time.

[3dilettante]

Some of the evidence given seemed to be consistent with her ripping the songs from CDs.
File time stamps and her large CD collection would lend credence to the idea that downloading the files all over again would be somewhat redundant.

[Sxotty]

That fine is insane. Unless she's rich, she's going to spend the rest of her life in poverty. That's really disgusting. She'll have almost the equivalent of a 2nd mortgage to pay off because of 24 songs that are most likely played on the radio anyway?

I can understand people who feel she did wrong and deserves a sentence, but this is far beyond reasonable. Those jurors should be ashamed of themselves for potentially destroying this woman's life, so the RIAA can collect a couple hundred thousand dollars, which they'll most likely use to buy blow for their next manufactured star.

Cruel and unusual punishment eh? I guess it doesn't matter in a civil case though. I pick my battles though, I don't agree with Epic that not buying does anything. The companies see a nonrevenue generating individual as a thief. The only way I think to impact things is to buy into business models that you support. In other words quietly sitting there doesn't do anything b/c they RIAA doesn't know you are doing so. Anyway I hope that all the record companies drop the DRM so maybe we can download videos DRM free as well in the future.

[Nite_Hawk]

Recently there was another case that concluded in minnesota:

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1466820.html

Fine for sharing a few songs over the internet:

$222,000

Fine for drinking on the job as a schoolbus driver:

$482

Nite_Hawk

[Mize]

In P2P networks, everyone who downloads is hosting at the same time.

Uh...no. You can point your shared files to a directory with nothing in it and still DL on most P2P networks. Only the currently being-downloaded song is "shared." Either way, in the judge's and jury's eyes it was the hosting that she was guilty of and fined for.

[digitalwanderer]

Recently there was another case that concluded in minnesota:

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1466820.html

Fine for sharing a few songs over the internet:

$222,000

Fine for drinking on the job as a schoolbus driver:

$482
That about sums up the justice of this decision pretty well for me. :(

[Scott_Arm]

Recently there was another case that concluded in minnesota:

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1466820.html

Fine for sharing a few songs over the internet:

$222,000

Fine for drinking on the job as a schoolbus driver:

$482

Nite_Hawk

Wow ... two remarkably bad decisions.

[3dilettante]

I probably would have voted to convict as well, though I wouldn't have liked the penalty.
I'm not sure there was much of a way to make any fine that wouldn't be absurdly high.

The penalties in both cases are bound by statute.
I don't think a drinking violation's upper bound is within several orders of magnitude of the statutory minimum for the infringment case.

The copyright decision was within the law, but the law didn't have internet and file-sharing in mind back when it was created.

Perhaps the damages can be reduced after an appeal, or the RIAA might accept a lower fine to avoid too much negative press.

It won't help if much of the apathetic masses react viscerally to the penalty.
If the PR worsens, the RIAA risks getting legislation passed against it, or too much resistance for legislation it wants passed.

[L233]

Only the currently being-downloaded song is "shared." Either way, in the judge's and jury's eyes it was the hosting that she was guilty of and fined for.
My point exactly. By downloading it, you're distributing it.

[Mintmaster]

It certainly doesn't cost anywherenear the amount they charge for it.When you look at one CD/artist, sure, but recording companies spend tons of money finding, recording, and promoting many different artists, the majority of which are busts. Nobody knows who the next big sensation will be. They judge as well as they can, then hope that the public swallows some of them up. Those few insanely profitable artists help them fund the high cost of finding/creating the next one.
Just look at the lives rockstar people live. Whatever have they done in their lives to warrant this revelling in excess in every sense of the word that som any of them do?They entertain millions of people. They give them motivation to work and be productive. They earn money for the labels publishing their work.

If a crappy "artist" is making millions, that's entirely the fault of the people who choose to buy his/her CD's and listen to stations that play his/her music.

Ask yourself. Why should a musician get paid EVERY damn time his song is played on radio? No painter is paid every time his painting is looked upon. I don't pay the plummer every time I flush my john.

You don't pay your car manufacturer every time you dirve to work.This is sheer idiocy. Why do they get paid every time? Because they earn money for the radio station every time someone tunes in. How can you not understand that?

If painters could charge per look they would, but it's impossible. The plumber has nothing to do with making your toilet, but statistically, the more you shit and flush the more you need to call the plumber.

As for the car, if you bought a car and shared it with thousands of strangers, wouldn't you want a cut per ride?

[Scott_Arm]

Big record companies spend FAR too much money on artist advances and promotions. If they're trying to justify HUGE fines for people sharing music that costs less than a dollar per song, and can most likely be heard for free on the radio, I think they should go back to the drawing board and get their business figured out.

[SugarCoat]

The logic here is staggeringly stupid. I could argue that an outdated firewall makes all the digital data on your computer "available" or that forgetting to lock your house and having backups stolen constitutes the same thing. What if someone snags your ipod and takes those copies?

This whole thing stinks as there is really no physical evidence. For all we know she had copies of the CDs and was downloading because she didn't know how to rip the CDs to her HD and her download program was "sharing" by default.

Until there are judges and juries with a semblance of IT understanding there will be no fair trials on topics like this.

I think its really unncessary to argue this route because pirating music is exceedingly common. To say they snagged an honest person really isnt needed cause its probably true and she did, its the amount that is the real problem. As i said a fine of a few thousand would of got the point across. If you downloaded songs illegally, got nailed and fined a few thousand you'd quite problably would never do it again. I know a number of the major TV networks dont jump on you and go for the throat if they catch you downloading your favorite shows, but instead contact your ISP and have a letter forwarded to you simply telling you to cease and desist which seems like a much better way to go about it.

I'd also be willing to bet the majority of those who do use p2p for songs dont exactly wipe their asses with money; course the fines suggest otherwise. Also whether she legitimately owned the media she was pirating or not, the same law was broken. The copywrite law is incredibly strict and you can violate it everytime you back up an mp3 or even burn them to a disc or put them onto your mp3 player. Its written in such a way that if you own it on your computer (say from itunes), as a file, thats what you have. You cant move it or copy it, even to back it up, not that anyone should pay attention to it because its incredibly stupid. Every time you copy a song, either to another folder, HDD, or player/disc, they view it the same as if you started pumping out copies of the new DVD you bought.

[Sxotty]

The copywrite law is incredibly strict and you can violate it everytime you back up an mp3 or even burn them to a disc or put them onto your mp3 player. Its written in such a way that if you own it on your computer (say from itunes), as a file, thats what you have. You cant move it or copy it, even to back it up, not that anyone should pay attention to it because its incredibly stupid. Every time you copy a song, either to another folder, HDD, or player/disc, they view it the same as if you started pumping out copies of the new DVD you bought.

Are you sure I thought there was something termed fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). Doesn't that allow you to copy your own cd?

[BRiT]

Are you sure I thought there was something termed fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). Doesn't that allow you to copy your own cd?

It sure does, though the RIAA/MPAA would have you believe it doesn't exist.

[Tim Murray]

Are you sure I thought there was something termed fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). Doesn't that allow you to copy your own cd?
it's possible to negate fair use by equipping the CD/DVD with a copyright-circumvention technology, because then you have to break the DMCA in order to exercise fair use.

[BRiT]

In that case, wouldn't it place the onus on the RIAA/MPAA, since they broke the law first by circumventing Fair Use?

[AlphaWolf]

In that case, wouldn't it place the onus on the RIAA/MPAA, since they broke the law first by circumventing Fair Use?

Has the DMCA been tested on that grounds at the supreme court level?

[BRiT]

I do not believe so. The only times I'm aware of the DMCA being tested is in lower courts. Even then it was in times of obvious abuse, usually when its used in ways it wasn't intended to be.

[Rainbow Man]

but recording companies spend tons of money finding, recording, and promoting many different artists, the majority of which are busts.
So they could promote quality over quantity instead of pumping out loads of cheap crap if expenses actually was a problem for them.

Howeveer I argue this realyl isn't the case.

Btw this situation can probably compare to the videogame crash of 84.
Companies puhs a lot of rubbish out onto the market. People notice what they're being asked to buy is pure trash. They don't buy. Sales fall, companies' profits go down.

Difference is today, companies have a convenient scape goat to blame. MP3 players and internet pircy.

They can pretend they themselves have no partin the arisen situation.

And "a bust" doesn't mean the music label didn't make a profit. They most certainly did in almost every case due to the way their contracts and royalty schemes work etc. And they hardly blwo countless millions and millions on promoting every newcomer either.

They just didn't create a lasting phenomenon but rather some one-hit wonder type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_R_David) that either few can remember after a couple years or nobody will ever know what other tracks that person recorded.

So I don't bu ythat argument for a second.

They entertain millions of people. They give them motivation to work and be productive. They earn money for the labels publishing their work.
A train car mechanic for example will allow millions of actually working people (as opposed to most pot smoking pop/rock star types) to ride to and from their jobs, enable people to go shopping and bring home their wares etc.

REAL productive stuff.

But does the pay reflect this? :cool:

Face it. Pop stars are paid obscenely merely not because of some nebulous "entertaining and motivational value" but merely because of the percieved glamour involved. Nothing more.

This is sheer idiocy.
*Ahem* Speak for yourself matey.

Why do they get paid every time? Because they earn money for the radio station every time someone tunes in. How can you not understand that?
You're talking about something completely different than what I did.

Hence, your standpoint basically is:
A - Artists get paid when they're played.

B - Artists get paid because when artists get played, they get paid.

B feeds back into A. Congratulations, you justcreated a circular argument.

However, what I actuall ytalked about was, WHY should they be paid in this fashion? You (in your eagerness to make a personal jab at me)completely passed over that aspect.

And you called MY post "sheer idiocy"? :roll:

The plumber has nothing to do with making your toilet
Perhaps not.

They do with installing it and assembling and maintaining the piping though.

but statistically, the more you shit and flush the more you need to call the plumber.
I could be a handyman and fix my own throne when it breaks down. I still don't pay Mario and Luigi every time I flush.

As for the car, if you bought a car and shared it with thousands of strangers, wouldn't you want a cut per ride?
I'd actually buy that argument if Madonna came to my house and fucking sang her song every time I hear the music of one of her CDs coming out of my radio, but she don't.

She recorded it once, why should she be paid a million times over for work she's already done, years (if not likely decades in fact in her case) ago?

Peace.

[Florin]

Why do people keep feeding this punk troll?

[Zengar]

Wait a moment... She has to pay 9k $ per SONG just for hosting them in a filesharing network without a proof that she actually had this files stored on her computer? Sorry guys, but the jurisdiction system in USA is just broken...

[thehulk]

It sure does, though the RIAA/MPAA would have you believe it doesn't exist.
Apparently, fair use = stealing, Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html)
Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

[digitalwanderer]

Why do people keep feeding this punk troll?
Which punk troll? :|

[weaksauce]

They nailed her for hosting the files, not downloading.

That's odd. So even if no one downloads it, it's still against the law?

On the other hand, wether one downloads or shares doesn't matter, since there can be no sharing without downloading. Both are part of the crime.

Apparently, fair use = stealing, Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html)

Lol, so if I want to play a song on my mp3, I have to "steal" it? :lol:

They should stop making Walkmans.

[Scott_Arm]

That's odd. So even if no one downloads it, it's still against the law?

On the other hand, wether one downloads or shares doesn't matter, since there can be no sharing without downloading. Both are part of the crime.



Lol, so if I want to play a song on my mp3, I have to "steal" it? :lol:

They should stop making Walkmans.

I guess so expects you to repurchase the album in mp3 format? I guess these crooks think we're stupid.

[weaksauce]

I guess so expects you to repurchase the album in mp3 format? I guess these crooks think we're stupid.

In that case you have to download it directly to the MP3 or cut out and paste.

Cut or Copy is the difference between crime and not crime.

They should get one of those Chinese Virtual Police to keep track of offenders.

Or maybe microsoft can implement a new paper clip:
"Make sure you Cut and not copy and paste the album to your mp3, or else I will sue you!"

[Zengar]

As I see it, the questions of "media ownership" are somehow complicated. First of all, one needs to make clear whether a customer purchases the song, or if he purhcases the license to hear the song.

If the first is true, the particular song is owned by a customer. And to own something - this has a long tradition - means being able to do anything with it when it does not harm anyone else. So if I own a song - I may do anything with it, I may sell it, copy it, play it on the radio - and noone has any moral right to forbid it - because I OWN it. Basically, a physical media and the logical one (information) are inseparable hier - the owner of the physical media is the owner of the logical one. Apparrently, this is not what CD sellers want, and this is understandable.

Thus we come to another possibility - bying a license. This means, that a purchaser of a song has rights to hear this son gfor his private pursoses. Here, physical and logical media are separate - access to locigal media is limited by a license. Still, there are absolutely no reasons to forbid a user making a private copy, if he isn't giving it to a third person or otherwise violates the license.

So first of all, the RIAA has to decide what it sells, then there should be a public discussion. You have to admitt, the law regulations of information property are very primitive. What we need, is a basic model that would provide some meaningfull regulations. I mean, how can one be convicted because of a IP log and Kazaaa schreenshots?? It is like convicting someone because of an anonymous letter! The only hard evidence would be seizing the hard drive and locating the programs/files there.


P.S. There are similar problems with computer games... If my game CD is broken, is the publisher obligated to send me another one free of charge (or for a minimal production fee). I would say yes, because I bought rights to play the game, and not a game disc only. Or what if I buy a gema, install it, read the license conditions and don't agree? Will teh store take teh game back? I would love to try it :)

[Frank]

I plead guilty to more millions of fines than I'll ever be able to make in my whole life, simply by using a P2P client to download stuff.

Never mind I don't even look/watch/play or whatever the majority of it, and I buy it fair and square when I do and like it, if it's still available anywhere (most things are, if you search long enough).

Consider me (and about a billion of other people) bankrupted whenever the RIAA locks down on my IP address.


And I'm pretty sure most everyone else reading this tread has the same problem as well.


When the vast majority does it and a tiny minority with huge amounts of money disagrees, what is the most likely outcome?

[Sxotty]

I plead guilty to more millions of fines than I'll ever be able to make in my whole life, simply by using a P2P client to download stuff.

Never mind I don't even look/watch/play or whatever the majority of it, and I buy it fair and square when I do and like it, if it's still available anywhere (most things are, if you search long enough).

Consider me (and about a billion of other people) bankrupted whenever the RIAA locks down on my IP address.


And I'm pretty sure most everyone else reading this tread has the same problem as well.


When the vast majority does it and a tiny minority with huge amounts of money disagrees, what is the most likely outcome?

I haven't done it for years and years. I only ever did it for one band that said to do it and I was feeling surly since they invited people to do it as a publicity stunt when privately they probably hoped no one would, but did not want to take an unpopular stand.

[borowki]

Having said that, there were bad things that happened on both sides of this case. The judge reversed himself and stated that the Jury needed to rule based on the premise that she "made the songs available" rather than requiring that the RIAA actually show anyone downloaded them. This means that even in the instance where the riaa had no actual damages she still would be liable to pay them an exessively large penalty. No matter if no one downloaded them or half the country downloaded them.

What's so unreasonable about that? Individuals should be accountable only for their own actions. It would be unjust if culpability is determined by the actions of others--in this case whether other users on the P2P network download the shared file or not.

[Frank]

I haven't done it for years and years. I only ever did it for one band that said to do it and I was feeling surly since they invited people to do it as a publicity stunt when privately they probably hoped no one would, but did not want to take an unpopular stand.
Looking at all the people you know, would you consider yourself a small minority in that?

[Frank]

What's so unreasonable about that? Individuals should be accountable only for their own actions. It would be unjust if culpability is determined by the actions of others--in this case whether other users on the P2P network download the shared file or not.
Then again, most people simply don't know: they use that nice program to download stuff. Which in itself isn't even illegal in most places. That they at the same time are uploading stuff goes unnoticed to them. It's just what everyone else is doing as well.

Are you really sure you're not inadvertedly giving access to anything? DO you use a router and firewall? Firefox or Opera? Are you locked down tight? Never posted something copyrighted anywhere? Do you have kids? (!!!)

Because, you could face very stiff penalties otherwise. Do you have good healthcare and social security for the broke where you live?

[borowki]

Then again, most people simply don't know: they use that nice program to download stuff. Which in itself isn't even illegal in most places. That they at the same time are uploading stuff goes unnoticed to them. It's just what everyone else is doing as well.

Then that means RIAA's initial actions were justified: P2P networks ought to be shut down, because their very existence lead to copyright infringements, even when their users have no such intention.

[AlphaWolf]

Then that means RIAA's initial actions were justified: P2P networks ought to be shut down, because their very existence lead to copyright infringements, even when their users have no such intention.

so guns need to be outlawed because guns lead to murders... if you don't have a car you can't drink and drive so they should outlaw cars. Should we assume the intent is to violate the law? If so then perhaps the internet should be shut down as many laws are violated with the assistance of the internet.

[Frank]

That's why we pay a stiff copyright-infraction tax on blank media over here: about 300% on blank DVDs. Because our government is sure they will be used for one thing only: copying copyrighted media.

[BRiT]

Then that means RIAA's initial actions were justified: P2P networks ought to be shut down, because their very existence lead to copyright infringements, even when their users have no such intention.

They might as well shut down printing presses and photo-copiers too... Where do you draw the line?

[Nite_Hawk]

What's so unreasonable about that? Individuals should be accountable only for their own actions. It would be unjust if culpability is determined by the actions of others--in this case whether other users on the P2P network download the shared file or not.

Hi Borowki,

The concept of statutory damages for copyright infringement s misguided. Because it is supposedly hard for the copyright holder to prove how many copies an infringer has made they just assigned a range of $750-$30,000 per work and let the copyright holder decide whether or not they want that or the actual damages, regardless of whether or not it makes sense for the given case.

Imagine for instance that you commit some civil offense like bumping someone's car with a shopping cart in a parking lot. The car in question has a lot of scratches, and the owner thinks you may have caused more than one scratch, but can only prove one of them. Instead of only getting the damages for what they could prove you did, they are given the option of charging you a lump sum somewhere between 750 and 30,000 times what the actual provable damages to their car was. If you consider that the general per song cost is $1, that is the equivalent of what is happening in the file sharing case. This is why I find it totally unreasonable. The statutory damages far exceed what the likely infringement was. It's extremely unlikely that the defendant shared each of those songs over 9,000 times. The law as it is written is intended to stop large for-profit pirating operations where these knids of damages actually may make sense.

Nite_Hawk

[Mize]

IMHO the RIAA missed the boat on the next market for media and looks to be intent on never moving that way.

Let's say 5 years ago they'd come up with a DRM system that allowed unlimited-but-low-quality (96 kpbs) sharing of music? Friend wants to hear that groovin' new track - IR or BT it to their player or copy it via memory card, whatever. They listen to the scratchy version (a la casette tape copies so many of us grew up with) and finally decide to spring the 0.99 for the 192 kbps version.

But no, better to sniff packets and sue people than modify an outdated business model. In the end the P2P community will probably come up with a proxy system that leaves the RIAA in nowheresville and they still won't have a business model for the digital age.

Shame.

[StefanS]

But no, better to sniff packets and sue people than modify an outdated business model. In the end the P2P community will probably come up with a proxy system that leaves the RIAA in nowheresville and they still won't have a business model for the digital age.


According to the daily telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/07/cnemi107.xml), EMI might be changing course.


Radiohead's decision came in the same week that indy -legends The Charlatans decided to give away their new album over the web, also without help from a record label. Tim Burgess, the Charlatans' lead signer, told The Sunday Telegraph: "I want the people to own the music and the artists to own the copyright. Why let a record company get in the way of the music?"

Hands suggests moving away from the model of paying large advances – Robbie Williams signed an £80m deal with EMI in 2002 – in exchange for the label's right to keep the majority of the takings from new releases. Instead, labels could simply subsidise the making of an album or the beginning of a tour in exchange for a share in the profits – or losses.

Hands is understood to have been impressed by the inventiveness of EMI's music publishing division, which owns the copyright to songs, in making money from new sources. It has licensed lyrics to be printed on jeans and posters and music videos to be played on YouTube.

[tongue_of_colicab]

That's why we pay a stiff copyright-infraction tax on blank media over here: about 300% on blank DVDs. Because our government is sure they will be used for one thing only: copying copyrighted media.

And if im actually already paying extra on blank DVD's because apparently i'll use it to write copyrighted media on I dont actually have to buy cd/movie/whatever anymore because I already payed that tax anyway :)

[borowki]

The concept of statutory damages for copyright infringement s misguided. Because it is supposedly hard for the copyright holder to prove how many copies an infringer has made they just assigned a range of $750-$30,000 per work and let the copyright holder decide whether or not they want that or the actual damages, regardless of whether or not it makes sense for the given case.

You know as well as I that there is no practical or legal way to determine how many copies of a file is downloaded. To do so would require constant surveillance of internet traffic between private parties. And even if we can, the number of downloads from a particular computer is not proportional to the potential damage, since on a P2P network, those downloading will in turn redistribute the files. Ten copies will quickly beome a hundred copies then ten thousand. Basically if you make a popular song available once, it will become available to anyone who wants it forever.

[Mize]

RIAA be damned, this one takes the cake:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

LOL!

[Sxotty]

RIAA be damned, this one takes the cake:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

LOL!

I wish that were a joke.

[digitalwanderer]

It is, it's just not everyone seems to have realized it yet and it ain't a good one. :???:

[Nite_Hawk]

You know as well as I that there is no practical or legal way to determine how many copies of a file is downloaded. To do so would require constant surveillance of internet traffic between private parties. And even if we can, the number of downloads from a particular computer is not proportional to the potential damage, since on a P2P network, those downloading will in turn redistribute the files. Ten copies will quickly beome a hundred copies then ten thousand. Basically if you make a popular song available once, it will become available to anyone who wants it forever.

In a world where information can be transferred freely it is indeed hard if not impossible to prove how many times some information has been copied. Personally though, I would rather see sentencing error on the side caution rather than assumed guilt. Even if you support the idea of statutory damages for copyright infringement, they are currently incredibly broken as they don't take into account the value of the work. When a work is only worth $1, it would need to be copied at least 750 times before even the minimum sentence for willful infringement is justified. The current laws are based around the concept of an infringer making lots of copies of a limited number of works, not of an infringer making limited copies of many works which is what usually happens on p2p networks.

As for secondary or tertiary infringement, the original infringer has no control over what the receiver does with the data. That person could just as easily have bought the song off itunes and stuck it in their upload folder.


Nite_Hawk

[Frank]

Any law you cannot enforce and would bankrupt the majority is simply totally borked. Imagine if anyone with the money to spare could extort any amount they want from any random slice of the population...

It breaks both capitalism and democracy.

[3dilettante]

It can be enforced, at least when it is used against large commercial piracy operations.

The application of the statute to this level of offense is the reason why it seems so outlandish.

[borowki]

Personally though, I would rather see sentencing error on the side caution rather than assumed guilt. Even if you support the idea of statutory damages for copyright infringement, they are currently incredibly broken as they don't take into account the value of the work. When a work is only worth $1, it would need to be copied at least 750 times before even the minimum sentence for willful infringement is justified. The current laws are based around the concept of an infringer making lots of copies of a limited number of works, not of an infringer making limited copies of many works which is what usually happens on p2p networks.

It's not caution that you want. It's an interpretation of copyright laws such that they're toothless when applied to music sharing. If record companies have to hunt down every single P2P user and sue him/her for a dollar a song, they basically have no means to stop infringements.

Your claim of statutory damages being reserved for large-scale piracy makes little sense, since the actual damages would almost certainly exceed $30,000.

[Davros]

you know if i want i song i might as well walk into the store whack the assistant over the head and take it - i'll get a lower sentance if caught

[Nite_Hawk]

It's not caution that you want. It's an interpretation of copyright laws such that they're toothless when applied to music sharing. If record companies have to hunt down every single P2P user and sue him/her for a dollar a song, they basically have no means to stop infringements.

Your claim of statutory damages being reserved for large-scale piracy makes little sense, since the actual damages would almost certainly exceed $30,000.

Those damages can increase up to $300,000 per work if the infringement is willful. Besides, this law was written in 1976 and drafted in 1978. Who do you think they intended to target with this law? The idea of hundreds of thousands of people swapping thousands of songs via personal computers over the internet hadn't remotely occurred to them. It wasn't until the late 70s and early 80s before recordable cassettes had even become popular.

The law is broken as it stands. It was never designed to cope with the problems that P2P networks introduce, and we need a sane way to move forward that doesn't involve fining someone $222,000 for sharing less than two CDs worth of music over the internet.

Nite_Hawk

[epicstruggle]

you know if i want i song i might as well walk into the store whack the assistant over the head and take it - i'll get a lower sentance if caught
Is she going to prison? Nope, Id say that a few decades/life in prison out weights 200k.

[Davros]

i actually know some one who was caught doing something very similar - 1 years probation and a £300 fine - looks better than 200k

[borowki]

Those damages can increase up to $300,000 per work if the infringement is willful. Besides, this law was written in 1976 and drafted in 1978. Who do you think they intended to target with this law? The idea of hundreds of thousands of people swapping thousands of songs via personal computers over the internet hadn't remotely occurred to them. It wasn't until the late 70s and early 80s before recordable cassettes had even become popular.

Statutory damages are rewarded when the damages caused by infringement cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms. Copyright infringements aren't always reproductions, you know. The provision exists precisely to deal with situations where the infringement does not lead directly to monetary gain. For otherwise, copyright holders would have no protection but from those engaging in outright piracy. That is what you want, but, thankfully, that's not the law.

The law is broken as it stands. It was never designed to cope with the problems that P2P networks introduce, and we need a sane way to move forward that doesn't involve fining someone $222,000 for sharing less than two CDs worth of music over the internet.

In another word, a law is broken if it cannot be broken with impunity. Splendid thought.

[thehulk]

haha :lol: - Mistrial for RIAA's $222,000 defendant (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10050757-38.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0)A federal judge on Wednesday threw out the verdict against Jammie Thomas, the peer-to-peer network user ordered to pay the recording industry $222,000 for allegedly sharing music online.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis of Duluth, Minn., declared a mistrial in the case against Thomas, who was charged in October with violating copyright law by making 24 songs available for others to download on the Kazaa network.

Davis set aside the verdict on the grounds that he misguided the jury, telling jurors that simply the act of making a copyrighted song available for sharing amounts to infringement. The judge first indicated in May that he was considering granting a new trial.

In June, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other consumer and industry groups weighed in, also claiming the jury instructions were erroneous.

The Recording Industry Association of America argued that the jury instructions were valid.

"Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online--and would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff's investment," RIAA attorney Timothy Reynolds wrote in a court filing.

Thomas is the only individual charged with copyright infringement by the RIAA who has taken her case to trial.

[_xxx_]

Great :lol:

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

More than that, the judge completely hammered the excessive damages awards (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/09/riaas-222000-verdict-in-capitol-v.html):

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

Thomas not only gained no profits from her alleged illegal activities, she sought no profits. Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing. In the case of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer-to-peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of deterrence.

Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive.

[Scott_Arm]

Wow, nice.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Yeah, looks like the RIAAs attempt to get a big home run with a couple of important precedents has backfired in the worst way possible:

(1) Making available is not the same as distributing. An actual transmission from a to b has to take place before you can say something has been distributed. Boo-hoo for the media cartels - they can't sue someone for something that hasn't taken place or something they can't prove has taken place.

(2) An individual using peer-to-peer at home to get some free tracks is not the same as commercial counterfeiting, and should not be treated the same or given the same penalties. Boo-hoo for the media cartels - they will have to make do with charging someone for 100 times their (potential) losses, rather than four thousand times that amount.

The cartels should be going after the big commercial counterfeiters and the people who leak the products out of their own organisations in the first place. It would be much easier to keep a lid on a few hundreds of people rather than try to sue millions of them after the fact. But of course, then how would the media cartels warrent the new laws they want, and the new revenue stream they see by threatening people with expensive legal battles in order to extort money from them in leiu of providing products their customers want in a format they want to buy it in?

[Nite_Hawk]

Nice to see that in the end, the judge came to his senses. His decision was spot on.

Nite_Hawk