var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 19, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Those bastards!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
June 19, 2009 2:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

$1.92 million worth of the shittiest songs ever made. Seems like a great deal.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dfx
June 19, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I_have_something_to_say:

Actually, I'm guessing they (jury) may have done this to make it easier to appeal the unconstitutional nature of the fines.

2 million dollars to have 18 songs on a computer is pretty easy to disprove.

That, or the jury could be completely clueless/stacked and have thought she was actually guilty of something that legally, she isn't essentially.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jon Leopold
June 20, 2009 1:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dfx: You're crazy if you think any jury is that smart. Both sides almost always go for the lowest common denominator when choosing jurors.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sgtcody
June 19, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So my iPod is worth over $2,000,000,000? Sweet

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
June 19, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sgtcody: No, Microsoft says it is only worth $30,000 (plust the cost of your iPod
[www.ilounge.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Papa Midnight
June 19, 2009 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: But that's only if he legitimately purchased 120GB of music of course.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VeeKaChu
June 19, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sgtcody: Yes, yes it is. Just not to you...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zigziggityzoo
June 19, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

yes, because infringing on copyright for two dozen songs is worth bankrupting a family for life.

Seriously?

I can see having a fine of 10 times the cost of each infringement as punitive damages ($.99 per song x 10). That makes sense to me.

I don't understand at all. If I have a landlord that refuses to refund my deposit, I can only go after him for twice my deposited amount. not 80000%.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
varro
June 19, 2009 3:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zigziggityzoo: They should settle it for about 1/100th the judgment amount, but in cocaine - why not cut out the middleman and give the record companies' A&R people what they really want?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ncpeters
June 19, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zigziggityzoo: They offered numerous times to settle for $3,000 but she refused. I would imagine they will eventually settle but hope they don't try to make her a sacrificial lamb and spend the rest of her life trying to collect.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Papa Midnight
June 19, 2009 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ncpeters: At what point did $3,000 become equal to $24?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PinkBox
June 19, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ncpeters: Wasn't that $3000 per song? That would still come out to 70k, so I'm not surprised she refused.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
June 19, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ncpeters: She's a crusader, and I give her credit for that. Unfortunately, the problem with this case is that she (or someone with access to the computer) clearly pirated some songs. In a civil trial, that's enough to make her culpable.

She needs to either stop using \"it wasn't me!\" as a defense in her appeals, or she needs to make the argument that no unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material can be proven (which it can't, p2p programs don't keep logs like that, and media sentry can only prove that they downloaded the material, and they are authorized as investigators of the RIAA to download).

OR she could argue that the current fee model is unconstitutional (it may be, but it hasn't been tested in court).

OR she could argue that media sentry is acting illegally as a private investigator, in that they are not licensed. This varies by state, and I believe she has already tried.

What she IS succeeding in, though, is making the RIAA look like assholes, and strengthening the case for the weakening of copyright laws (which absolutely should happen according to any researcher with knowledge in the area who has not been paid by either the MPAA or RIAA to write a report otherwise).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PatrickSF
June 19, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WiglyWorm: Wait, is there really a school of thought that \"the current fee model is unconstitutional\"? And when you say the fee model, you're referring to the cost of legally obtaining music, I assume, and not the cost of losing a court battle with the RIAA?

That's the first time I have heard anyone mention \"unconstitutional\" on the topic... I'm suddenly intrigued. Do you have any links or anything? I just did a search and didn't round anything up, but maybe I'm not phrasing it right.

I have my own opinions about the whole topic, but I'd really love to read up on the \"unconstitutional\" theory.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
June 19, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PatrickSF: From this article
[arstechnica.com]
here is there unconstitutional argument:


Thomas also makes the case that the statutory damage maximums in this case (up to $150,000 per song) are unconstitutional \"because they are stunningly disproportionate to the actual damages suffered by the RIAA.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PatrickSF
June 22, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tmoney02: Ahhh, thanks, I get it now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
reservoir_dog
June 19, 2009 7:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tmoney02: Moral or not, the problem with copyright law is that you don't have to prove damages.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HIV 2 Elway
June 19, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WiglyWorm: I don't think copyright laws should be weakened; people should be able to protect what they produce. It's the enforcement and penalties associated with the laws that need to be addressed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
June 19, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HIV 2 Elway: While I would agree. If you read the black and white letter of the law it is technically illegal to make a copy of a copy protected DVD that I purchased and owned for backup purposes, or for me to rip the DVD to my hard drive so I can watch a movie on a long trip. I have no intent to distribute the DVD on the internet, nor do I intend to make a copy for a friend. Most people I think would agree that is taking it to an extreme.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dfx
June 19, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: Actually, no. This was decided in the betamax days, and your interpretation is incorrect. Technically or otherwise, neither the spirit, intent or verbiage of the law makes it illegal to own a copy of something, even if you infringe to do so. It is only illegal to provide that to other people, aka facilitate copyright/infringe. Possession of copyrighted material for personal purpose is legal.

If it were illegal to make a copy of something protected that would also make illegal possession of the original copy whether obtained by legal methods or not, which is one of the many reasons why they don't have such a law.

Go read a lawbook, or stop trying to be a lawyer when you're not.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
June 19, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dfx: I beg to differ. First, any decisions that may have been made in the Betamax days were before the passing of the DMCA...new law, new rules. Text from the DMCA:
Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems


`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.


`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--


`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;


`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or


`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.


Layman's interpretation, it is illegal to circumvent copy protection, and it is illegal to make something that circumvents copyprotection ergo it is illegal to duplicate a work that has copy protection on it.


The DMCA does allow for \"fair use\", but no court has ruled on it. Is it fair for me to make an archival copy in case my kid scratches the disk, sure. How about on my iPod, perhaps, but you purchased a disk, and now you want to rip it and re-encode it when you can legally buy a copy in the iTunes store which is the preferred route. Store a copy on my hard drive that has a CD/DVD burner, well, you are probably a thief and will probably give a copy to your son who is going off to college, and then you will give a copy to your neighbor who really likes that movie, but who lost his job. The RIAA and others do not want that case tried because it will draw that definitive line in the sand and make it clear that products can be sold to circumvent protection and users can make a copy for their own use. But since we are all thieves, we will distribute unlimited copies and kill the industry.


Granted, it is unlikely that the cops will come knocking at my door because I broke copy protection on the latest Barney DVD, but the law is vague and \"fair use\" is a subjective term that is not defined, so until the \"Fair use\" term is defined by a court no one really knows for sure what I can and can not do with a work that I have purchased.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
June 19, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dfx: @Tmoney02:

I'll do you both one better:

Of course the RIAA would state that backing up a CD is illegal (it is most definately not, copyright law has very specific allowances for archival copies of media). They want you to pay for every copy you need. Buy it once for your CD player. Buy it once for your ipod. Buy it once for your mp3 cell phone. Why not?

However, where copying becomes illegal is when there is encryption involved. It is illegal to crack encryption for any purpose. This is why teachers can't make fair use copies of portions of shows on DVD. This is why you can't make archival copies of your DVDs. They are all encrypted.

The media industry is very strong on that point. This point has yet to be tried in court, and the RIAA/MPAA immediately settles/drops any case that makes the assertation that it is fair use to copy encrypted media purely because they do not want that theory tested in court.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
June 19, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dfx: Go read a lawbook, or stop trying to be a lawyer when you're not.


And are we to assume you are one?


The record compnaies certinally agree with Rachacha and are trying to argue that is what the law says.


From this original trial:


\"Testimony today in Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas quickly and inadvertently turned to the topic of fair use when Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, was called to the stand to testify. ....
In Pariser's view, \"when people steal, when they take music without compensation, we are harmed.\"


Pariser has a very broad definition of \"stealing.\" When questioned by Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft. The dirty deed? Ripping your own CDs or downloading songs you already own.


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. \"


Also they have attempted to get the government to crack down on backups:
\"We've actually heard something similar to this view before. As part of the 2006 triennial review of the effectiveness of the DMCA, a number of content-related industries filed a joint reply with the government on the effectiveness of the DMCA and the challenges that lay ahead for copyright. The argument relating to CDs espoused in the joint reply could be summarized: although nothing has prevented consumers from making backups of CDs, this cannot be construed as authorization from the music labels for them to do so. Thus, there has been no authorization of said backups, and the coincidental ability to make backups currently should not be mistaken for fair use. Pariser's views appear to be similar, insofar as she clearly suggests that consumers have no right to make backups of the music that they have purchased in CD form or even in download form. \"


[arstechnica.com]


It seems the law isn't quite as firm as you make it out to be. Care to explain why you think you know so much and are so right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Rose
June 19, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tmoney02:

Exactly. It wasn't until there came a viable (the internet) way of distributing and sharing said 'copies' that the RIAA took up this absurd argument.

When it was just a bunch of moms sharing a Celine Dion CD at work, the RIAA didn't feel this argument to be relevant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 19, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WiglyWorm: The downloading was tracked to HER COMPUTER, but her argument was the RIAA couldn't prove it was actually her that downloaded the songs since multiple people use that computer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
June 19, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Unfortunately, in a civil case, you only have to prove a percentage of liability before they can collect from you. She provided the PC, so she's a percentage liable goes the theory.

@HIV 2 Elway: In the current legal landscape, IMO, copy protections are a bit too strong and fair use exceptions are far too weak. My main beef with copy protections stem from the DMCA which doesn't allow you to crack encryption in order to excercise your fair use, leading to ridiculous scenarios like the MPAA telling teachers that if they want to share a clip of a video with their class as part of a lesson, they should point a video camera at a TV screen playing the movie, rather than just rip the relevant portion and splice it in to final cut/whatever.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomZero
June 19, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: I know this particular case was Kazaa and not Bittorrent, but IP addresses aren't always accurate either.


(I keep a copy of that article around on every machine I own, and not just for the obvious reason. You'd be amazed how much completely legitimate legal traffic gets flagged as \"infringing peer-to-peer\".)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
notsogreatsatan
June 19, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ncpeters: The quote in the article says they are still willing to settle. This is just a bunch of people getting themselves worked up so they can feel some good old fashioned righteous indignation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
June 19, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zigziggityzoo: Exactly. Give them a fine...slap them around but do not endanger and put them into bankruptcy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Andrew Norton
June 19, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Come on guys...
\"Minneapolis federal court found her guilty of willful copyright infringement for sharing more than 1,700 songs. The judge says she owes the RIAA $1.92 million.\"

WRONG wrong wrong.
The court found her guilty of sharing 24 files, not 1700. She doesn't owe the RIAA 1.92Million, they have awarded that amount in damages against her (using statutory damages, since the actual damages are about $5)

Still, this case will possibly go to retrial again, because of the jury instructions. I'm no lawyer, but as soon as I saw the instructions for the first case, I said it would, and for the reason it eventually did. Either way, don't expect this decision to stand for long.

Andrew Norton
Pirate Party International - [www.pp-international.net]
(Former Chairman, Pirate Party of the US)

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
June 19, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Norton: First, thank you for pointing out the 24 song item-I was about to say that myself. Second, the article indicated RIAA is still willing to settle for the $3,000-$5,000 they've extracted from others. What's your take on this? Or am I just misinterpreting-you're obviously following this closer than I am.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Andrew Norton
June 19, 2009 2:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Norton: oh, yeah, the amount. In 07, it was $9250 per song, for a total of $222,000.

This time it was $80,000 per song. The law currently provided for a maximum set of damages of $150,000 per song, which would have been $3.6M

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 19, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Norton: \"The law currently provided for a maximum set of damages of $150,000 per song, which would have been $3.6M.\"


Which would make sense if she had a warehouse full of cd duping equipment pushing pirate cds out by the thousands onto the street... not some lady with songs on a pc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
June 19, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker:
Because she could distribute more easily and with less effort, her crime isn't as bad?

If I steal 25k from you by breaking into your house, stealing your stuff, and working the streets to fence it, am I more guilt than if I hacked your bank account and transferred to funds to mine?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Andrew Norton
June 19, 2009 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: Ok, lets put it in context eh. She apparantly 'stole' those songs, right?

In california, has she stolen a physical CD from a store, the maximum penalty is $1000. Not only has she gained 12 music tracks, but the store is now down one CD, which means it's financially lost out.

With the MP3s, each track is counted separately, so the 12 tracks combine to give a minimum of $9,000 ($3000 if unintentional infringement) and the maximum is $1,800,000.

No one has lost a sale, no-one has lost any goods that they then can not sell.

If that doesn't illustrate things, I don't know what will.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
June 19, 2009 11:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Norton: Actually at issue here is not that she \"stole\" the songs, it was that she allowed (intentionally or unintentionally) the songs on her computer to be shared with others. The RIAA assigned a value to each music track and somehow determined (probably a wild guess) how many times the track had been downloaded from her machine. multiply the \"value\" of each track (how much revenue was lost my the record company because they \"lost\" this sale) by the number of times that each track was downloaded and you have your damages.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 20, 2009 3:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: Nope...that's not how statutory damages works. For non-willful infringement, it is up to $30,000 per work infringed. For willful infringement, it is upwards of $150,000 per work infringed.

For the jury to award such a high amount against Thomas, they first had to determine that she willfully infringed (i.e., intentionally infringed or acted in reckless disregard of the copyright owners' rights). If she unintentionally infringed, there is a provision for innocent infringement. (obviously, the jury did not believe the infringement was innocent or unintentional)

Then, the jury has discretion to determine the amount within the range of $30,000 to $150,000 per song infringed. The number of downloads is not a determinative factor.

The reason why the Copyright Act has statutory damages is because there are situations like this where the actual damages would be difficult to determine - and where you not only want to compensate the plaintiffs, but punish the infringer and make others thing twice about acting similarly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
June 19, 2009 8:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Norton:
You are responding to me like I am supporting the judgment.

@WiglyWorm: @Tmoney02:

This makes sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Deranged_Kitsune
June 19, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: This type of comparison makes for a poor argument I've always thought.

Your example uses quantifiable goods, making it easy for people to agree it's theft. Someone has definitively been deprived of property, there is a measurable loss.

In this case, the only thing lost to the RIAA was the POTENTIAL for a sale. Without P2P she MIGHT have gone out and purchased, legitimately, the downloaded songs. Same for the people who got it from her. But there is no guarantee such a purchase would happen, among any of those people. Since the record retailers are left with the same number of actual physical recordings left on the shelf, no deprivation of property has occurred; they're left with just as much as before. The only thing removed by P2P is the potential for a sale.

This is quite different from bootlegging, also. In that, the guilty party is making a quantifiable profit off the sale of someone else's property. With P2P, all transactions are free, there is on monetary exchange, and thus no quantifiable profit made by the distributor.

It goes back to sale potential. With a bootlegger, by virtue of the fact that a monetary exchange takes place -- a sale -- you can make an obvious connection to the loss of an equivalent retail sale. But people will take things they have little to no interest in all the time, simply by virtue of them being free. Since no monetary transaction occurs with P2P, no direct correlation between downloads of a song and sales of that song can be made.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
June 19, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Deranged_Kitsune:
@WiglyWorm:

Very true.

But my argument was not about the definition of theft vs. infringement. It was about the claim that because the perpetrator did it easily and electronically instead of difficultly and labor intensively, that the punishment should be different.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
June 19, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: And you're correct. However, I think that the punishment should be different because A) there is no proof that infringment occured (remember, the only thing the RIAA can prove is that their investigators downloaded a copy) and that it is impossible to prove the harm caused by this infringment. Three times the value of the media would be $0.99+24 songs*3 times damages=$71.28

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
June 19, 2009 7:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: the punishment should be different compared to the guy making cds becuase the guy making cd's is not giving those things away. He is making a profit off it. Meanwhile the lady didn't see a dime and in no way personally gained from the distribution.


So yes the punishment should be different.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
June 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Deranged_Kitsune:


But there is no guarantee such a purchase would happen, among any of those people.

To take that one step further, there is no proof that a download prevented a purchase, even from those who downloaded.

To wit, I have -numerous times- pirated a software title, album, or movie which I ultimately bought. One which I fully intended to buy from the beginning, but that I simply did not wish to wait for.

In fact study after study after study has proven that pirates are actually the media industry's best customers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
June 19, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: It's not theft. It's infringement.

She (or someone with access to that computer) infringed upon their right to be the sole distributor of said copyrighted work.

That doesn't sound nearly as bad as breaking in to your house and stealing 25k worth of goods from someone, does it?

The main difference between theft and infringment is that when you steal something, it is gone. When you infringe, they still have posession of the work, and can still easily distribute the work. It comes down to how many people downloaded the song that would otherwise have bought it that constitutes damages.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 20, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WiglyWorm:

The loss of a physical item is not a necessary component when determining theft. Additionally, a Justice of the Supreme Court long ago ruled that unlawful copying is no less the illegal taking of property than garden variety theft.

Modern technology allows for modern forms of theft. Hiding behind definitions considered archaic by the legal system only serve to confuse the issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Deranged_Kitsune
June 19, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WiglyWorm:
Ah, that's the concept I was thinking of when making my rebuttal. The terminology had just slipped my mind.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
June 19, 2009 2:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She just wasn't a credible witness, as two juries have now demonstrated. If it weren't for the shenanigans of having her hard drive replaced (and forgetting which year that happened in), the outcome could have been different.

For those of you who don't have the copyright law in front of you, the \"willful\" part is important for the damages. The jury awarded the RIAA about $80K per song, but could have awarded them up to $150K per song.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
June 19, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PunditGuy:


So she should consider herself lucky????

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw:

She should consider herself a spastic lying bitch who dangled her crazy all over the jury.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
logicalnoise
June 19, 2009 2:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dobated 5 bucks to her defense fund back when the original 222k judgement came through. the RIAA did not lose or become damaged enough by jamie thomas to warrant this judgement. None of this money will actually go to the artists mentioned and PR wise it makes the record industry look even worse in a time where they're trying to garner favor with people who've given up on buy songs. Her defense started making abd decisions but even so, jamie won't even be paying that money.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wcnghj
June 19, 2009 2:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would offer the RIAA a settlement of $48.

Double the cost of the music..

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
June 19, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wcnghj: She's not in much of a position to bargain...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 19, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: Actually she is, the RIAA knows there's no damned way someone like her could EVER pay $1.92 Mil. If they want anything from her, they'll have to negotiate a realistic amount.

24 songs? That's about two CDs worth of music.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81:

They don't actually want the money from her. They, like the rest of us, just want to see how stupid and crazy she is. With the next trial, she'll probably claim aliens did it.

If I were teh RIAA, I'd sell her debt to debt collectors, 1 thousand different companies $1500 chunks of the debt at 1 penny a pop just for the lulz.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
June 19, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81:
Two CDs of music passed on to thousands of others.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
June 19, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: That's the thing.

2 CDs of music passed on to Media Sentry who was authorized to make the downloads in the first place.

No one can prove that anyone aside from Media Sentry downloaded these files. Media Sentry is authorized by the RIAA to download them. That is why the RIAA typically included the language \"making available\" in their legal threats. Unfortunately, \"making available\" is not a crime.

They can't bust me for standing outside with a trench coat full of counterfit Rolex watches. They have to have a plant actually buy one for me to be doing anything illegal.

The RIAA finally stopped that nonsense after being threatened with sanctions.

The point being, if you can't prove a download took place, you can't prove the damages, and thus, it's very difficult to swallow a 1.92 million dollar verdict.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 19, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WiglyWorm: I understand she should be penalized more than the cost of two CDs but I would think $5000 is more than enough to cover that. The 1.92 mil nonsense is ridiculous.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
notsogreatsatan
June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: so she's innocent until proven guilty, and then still innocent? i can't seem to work up any enthusiasm to feel sorry for someone who lied in court, attempted to falsify evidence, and knowingly committed a crime. I mean, it's not like everyone doesn't know the RIAA is insane and goes for these crazy settlements to use as deterrents; is it really that difficult to just buy the songs so you don't have to worry about it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@notsogreatsatan: No, she's neither innocent or guilty. It's a civil case, not a criminal one.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
June 19, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sometimes the old saying \"at first you don't succeed, try try again\" can backfire.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Illusio26
June 19, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: No really, she doesn't have any more ability to pay the new judgment than the previous one. She did however cost the RIAA even more money in legal fees, so she got to stick it to them that way at least.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkjedi26:

And got them a whole lot of free publicity, warning off future piraters. Not to mention, she's batshit crazy and a liar to boot. They couldn't have paid for a more unsympathetic person in the end. The RIAA is probably ecstatic.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
June 19, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There is so much wrong with this:
1) They have no proof placing her at the computer actually being the one sharing files.


2) They have no proof she \"intentionally\" shared files- in other words, if anything it was negligence that caused the file sharing.


3) They have no proof that the songs were downloaded 80,000 times. At most it would be 100 or less per song.


I don't know what's wrong with the people on that jury-


But I say someone has a disco-era-type CD burning party at a stadium in protest.



+ Watch video



Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eric Michael Richmond
June 19, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: Unfortunately, under current copyright law, intent doesn't matter! Willful infringement would open her up to triple damages, but even accidental infringement can result in an award of statutory damages.


Also worth noting is that current law says the plantiff doesn't have to show any acutal damages if they can present a claim that would entitle them to the statutory ones. So, the actual loss to the RIAA member companies doesn't matter!


I don't agree, but that's the way the law is written. We need to get the legislative branch to change that; it's the only way to fix the problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
June 19, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak:

1) Her IP, and MAC addresses of her cable modem matched the person sharing the songs. Also the sharer was using a username that she had used for years.

2) She was using Kazaa. That means she should understand what the program does. She knows that she is downloaded songs for free when she shouldn't and there are several notices that say that you are sharing.

3) I agree here. However she was sharing these files for months. Making them available for download.

4) BONUS! She replaced her HDD and lied about it. She also continues to deny it was her when faced with undeniable evidence.

The fine is outrageous but she does deserve to pay something.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
June 19, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dave_coder:
Well- Kazaa and Bearshare, back in the day, were set up so they downloaded to a folder, and unless you cleared out the download folder to another folder after each download session, you'd have all sorts of things being shared.


I kept mp3s of my original songs I wrote and recorded in my share file but always moved anything else. A whole lotta people don't know to do that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 19, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Are people really that stupid? Out of all the jurors that they could pick they got he idiots that thought that the violations were worth well more than the original purchase price of the items? They are lucky I was not on that jury. I would have given the RIIA a judgement of exactly one penny and of course that would have only been if nullification was not an option.

Its really sad that corporations are greedy and stomp all over consumer rights. Whats even more sad is that that whole jury sided with that greedy corporation. With a judgment like that one has to hope they are watching the former jurors closely to make sure none of them suddenly deposit large sums of cash in their bank accounts.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SindhuTapir:

What can you say. Some jurors just believe in truth, honesty, and think people who lie on the witness stand should get their bitchass slapped down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Andrew Norton
June 19, 2009 7:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henwy: Shame it hasn't happened in this case.

FWIW, years ago, I used to be a copyright enforcer. I worked for a record company, and went out finding those duplicating and selling CDs. Now, this was the time Napster came out. I'd still be doing that kind of work now, if it wasn't for one thing. The recording industry lies. They lie in court, they lie in their legal documentation, and they lie in public.

Just how much exactly do you think the artists get from any of the settlements ever made? If 5% has gone to artists, it'll be incredible. The EU is looking at extending copyright for recordings from 50 years to 95, because the industry has told the commisioners it will 'help the artists'. At best, it'll help the poor ones by 2000 Euros a year, whta it will help are the big record companies, to the tune of hundreds of millions a year.

One final thing - they've stated for the court record (and in testimony to congress, and other situations) that they're suffering losses. They even give a figure. To date, they have YET to provide anything to back these claims up. There is zero proof that there is ANY loss from p2p. Even better, their own figures show no effect. If you were shown a graph of sales figures for any of the so-called creative industries without the years marked, you'd be unable to tell when P2P started. There is no change.

By the same logic, GM should sue every used Chevy buyer for $20,000 actual damages, and however many thousands in statutory damages, because someones acquired one of their products, but not bought it through them, which is clearly a lost sale (and remember, like p2p networks, used cars can only be used to commit a crime!)

Henwy, check your facts, and more importantly check the claims. You might be amazed at what you'll found out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Andrew Norton:

Simple enough then. Cite a lie by the RIAA in this case and we'll compare it to the lies spazzcase told. Whoever told the most egregious whoopers loses.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
June 19, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Poor woman\" for a jury having found her liable for the award? Obviously they, with direct access to the facts, found her liable. She's no longer \"the alleged pirate,\" but just \"the pirate.\" Granted, if I were guilty of such illegal behavior (as she's been proven to be), I'd not want that judgment entered against me either. But I would theoretically have brought the situation upon my own self, you know, had I been caught doing something similar.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 19, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: It is also a shame that juries don't know about jury nullifcation but rely on the instructions of the judge only.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gnimsh
June 19, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker: please correct me if this is wrong, as I got my info from wikipedia, but it says that jury nullification only applies in a criminal case, and not a civil case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
June 19, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar:


The issue here is the penalty.


Its like being given life in prison for shoplifting gum.


Its not \"justice\" in any sense of the word.


What would be cool is if some big musician (PRINCE? He's in Minnesota) paid her fine.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
June 19, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: Prince! That's hilarious. He once sued The Pirate Bay, eBay, and YouTube. (I don't know how that turned out for him.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: That's where you're wrong. It's a civil case, not a criminal one. She is not \"guilty\" of anything.

A civil case is much different than a criminal one. There is no presumption of innocence, and the plaintiff only has to show the defendant has a certain percentage of liability to collect damages.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
June 19, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose: Yeah, but that's why I kept saying \"liable\" and \"judgment.\" It's a civil case. I mentioned \"guilty\" in reference to myself, 'cos to \"be guilty\" is not the same as being \"found guilty.\"

In the end, though, the did the crime, and she's lucky she doesn't have to do the time. (So are most of us.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Joewithay
June 19, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow that is a lot. It is not like she was selling bootleg CDs on the street for profit.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
solareclipse2
June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah...I haven't bought a CD in the last 10 years and then it was only one. Before that I maybe bought two or 3. Crap like this is why I just listen to the radio. When the radio stops playing what I want to hear I'm just going to quit listening all together. That will fix them.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
June 19, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@solareclipse2:

I'm in the same school of thought. There's not a whole lot worth listening to that you can't easily find on Pandora or YouTube anyway. The RIAA won't ever see another dime from me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, okay...I'm going to chime in one more time and that's it...

I would say it is more than safe to assume now in 2009 that more people use youtube to listen to music than are going out and buying it new. I don't know the deals they have with youtube or anything, but I'm going to go one step further and say they don't get paid 80K per song youtube shares. Now, whether or not this woman willfully shared these songs does not matter when you relate what she did to what youtube is doing. It can't be hard to copy the songs off youtube, I'm sure it's near as easily done as using P2P software to download songs. The riaa should have to report to court next time what youtube pays them per song and that should be closer to what their \"award\" should be.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dave_coder
June 19, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brian James Schend: Calm down. It's just a term.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 19, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse:

It's probably even easier, the wait is smaller if it's a random song.
http://www.listentoyoutube.com/

You'd probably have to accept lower quality, but many pirates don't even care anyway.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Meh.

All this is doing is setting up the RIAA. There will be a new trial and I have no doubt in my mind that this will end up blowing up in the RIAA's face (eg: blowing up the RIAA's \"statutory damage\" theory).

1.9 mil is more than this woman is likely to see in her lifetime, and it can easily be argued that the damages awarded to the RIAA are overly punitive. Obviously if file sharing occurred, there was no economic gain from sharing the files, therefore the damages should be considerably less, and as far as I know the RIAA has yet to show that a file sharer has harmed the business.

What surprises me even more is that a jury couldn't see that.

/IANAL, but I'm in school to be one.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
June 19, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose: Well, 1L, try reading the actual code. \"Statutory damage\" isn't a theory:

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
(a) In General. - Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either -

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

The RIAA is under no obligation to prove actual damages. They sought statutory damages as allowed under the law. It was probably originally intended to keep the plaintiff from having the burden to come up with a detailed accounting of a criminal's activity in order to get relief.

/IANAL, but I can read.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PunditGuy: But something still has to be proven even to get statutory damages. This law says it doesn't have to be an accounting of actual damages. Too much of this case is hypothetical, and it also sounds like incompetent defense counsel for not presenting certain aspects of the defense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
June 19, 2009 9:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: The thing that was \"proven\" (they only need 51% certainty) is that Thomas infringed 24 times. Two juries, presented with more evidence than we've seen, have now come to that conclusion.

Can I also mention that I hate being in a position that happens to be on the RIAA's side? There's no love lost between the RIAA and me, and I wouldn't have shed many a tear if Thomas had gotten off scott free -- but the law is the law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PunditGuy: Oh, and I'm sure you read this:

\"Plaintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....\"

UMG Recordings v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)

\"At the end of the day, \"statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered.\" SO Records v. Peri, 596 F. Supp. 849, 862 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Accord New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Barrie & Co., 161 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)(\"[Statutory damages should be commensurate with the actual damages incurred and, thus, the proper departure points is [defendant's] stipulated gross revenue.\"). See generally 4 Melville
B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04 [E] [1], at 14.90 (2005) (\"The point is not that statutory damages always need to fall beneath other measurements, but rather that they should be woven out of the same bolt of cloth as actual damages.\").\"

Yurman Studio, Inc. v. Castaneda, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99849

\"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit
from her acts..... The damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.\"

Capitol Records v. Thomas, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (September 24, 2008)(dictum)

So as you can see, you may not be a lawyer, but I think that's for good reason.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
June 20, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose: In New Line Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie & Co. (note that it's \"Berrie,\" and not \"Barrie\" as you either mistyped or mis-copied-and-pasted from wherever you got this from), the court declined to find that the infringement in question was willful. It varies from the Thomas case in two important respects: 1) The jury found that Thomas' infringement was willful; and 2) since Berrie was running a business and had records clearly indicating what the product in question had netted, there was little burden on the plaintiffs to produce a clear idea of how much the infringement cost them in lost sales.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
June 19, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose: So I mentioned Peri earlier because that was the first case I could actually find quickly at work. I'm home now, and I've had time to look at the Lindor document. You've cited something that's narrower than you're making it out to be. More specifically, the section you quote begins with:

Thus, at this juncture, the court need only
determine whether the an affirmative defense
alleging that statutory damages are unconstitutionally
excessive is frivolous.

and ends with

For purposes of the motion for leave to
amend, Lindor's affirmative defense is not
frivolous. The court will address the merits
of the affirmative defense, if necessary, at a
later date.

I don't have the fancy tools for looking up rulings that you do -- were the merits ever decided? If not, then what you've cited is enough to mount a defense but (at this point) insufficient to prove your point.

More later...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
June 19, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose: Wow. Yeah. My bad.

Oh wait. You said

\"At the end of the day, \"statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered.\" SO Records v. Peri, 596 F. Supp. 849, 862 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

The court said:

The Amount of Statutory Damages-Statutory damages should bear some relationship to the actual damages suffered. RSO Records, 596 F.Supp. at 862. Congress's provision allowing for a greater award
where willful infringements are found, however, indicates that statutory damages serve the dual purposes of the Copyright Act-compensation and deterrence.

See the differnce? In fact, the court in that case awarded $10K per infringement in statutory damages, citing deterrence as a reason.

Do I need to check and see if you've misstated the other cases as well? Not being a lawyer, I've got other things to do -- but I will if I need to.

Way to cite the thrown-out case against Thomas as well. Stay classy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PunditGuy: I am sure you are aware that the \"statutory damage\" the law refers to is primarily targeting businesses.

The theory is that a private person is the same as a corporation. Opponents to the theory state that that it is unconstitutionally excessive for a private person to be liable for $75-$150,000 for each MP3.

Try reading up on this stuff. I suggest the EFF and googling \"Ray Beckerman\" as a good place to start.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
June 19, 2009 2:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It seems that the RIAA might see suing as a better business model than actually doing anything productive.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
June 19, 2009 2:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw:
The RIAA doesn't even try to make money off these lawsuits. They're trying to create a deterrent. They'll never get the $1.9 million - they'll probably settle for ~$3k like they do with everyone else.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RunawayJim
June 19, 2009 2:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hate the RIAA and MPAA just as much as the next guy. I also think the current law is a bit outrageous. However, based on what I have read about this case, she's guilty. She has now been found guilty by 2 different juries while represented by 2 different lawyers (her current one working pro bono). The issue with the hard drive, the issue of the Kazaa screenname exactly matching the screennames she uses for just about every other service for which she is signed up, the issue about files being shared from her network connection... it all points to her. Her old crappy lawyer couldn't successfully argue against any of this. Her new hot shot lawyer also couldn't do that.

Should she get a third retrial? Honestly, I don't think so. Let her appeal the decision. Let her work out a deal with the RIAA. If she can do anything at this point, it's fight to have the allowable damages changed to something more reasonable than $150k per offense (which, in this case would be per shared file). The thing about distributing copyrighted materials is that each time someone downloads a song from you, that's $1 that isn't going to the RIAA. It's not just $24, it's $24 multiplied by the number of times each song was downloaded.

Frankly, I think she has a lot of balls to get up on the stand and lie about not using Kazaa. I think she deserves to pay something. I feel bad for her kids, but she made the bed she sleeps in.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 2:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RunawayJim: I think she will get a new trial based on the size of the damages that were awarded.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RunawayJim
June 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose: That's what the appeal is for. The appeals process will be where she can get the amount reduced. She does not deserve a third trial. She had the first judgement thrown out. That jury ruled in favor of the RIAA. She had a second trial. This jury found the same thing. The LAW allows for penalties up to $150k. The only way to get that law changed is to appeal. Retrial after retrial will likely end up with the same result, just different amounts. If she wants the amount reduced, she needs to appeal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 19, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RunawayJim: But you have to keep in mind that most if not all of the people that download songs for free would never had actually purchased the songs. They only get them because they are free.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RunawayJim
June 19, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: That's not even an argument that would hold up in court. You'd get laughed out of the room by the judge. It does not make it any more legal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 19, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RunawayJim: It's sad though, when the truth will get you laughed out of court.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HarleyBabb
June 19, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: I'll preface this by saying, while I AM a lawyer I am not a litigator or an IP specialist by trade. That being said, there are quite a few studies which assert and in my opinion prove just that (www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf). Depending on the judge and jury, I might imagine that this would be a viable argument in terms of the amount of the damages assessed opposed to the outright issue of liability.

These statutory damages are a scale with $150K being the maximum per offense and as such there is a balancing act to determine the appropriate damages. Here while her attempts to frustrate the investigation of her acts weighs against her there still is not a sufficiently compelling reason in my opinion to hit her with more than a $50K total damages; however, when you add in the RIAA's legal expenses she's still in a really bad place...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jrobie
June 19, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: @RunawayJim: Just because something is against the law doesn't mean that the law isn't stupid. It's one's duty as a responsible citizen to violate stupid laws.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brian James Schend
June 19, 2009 2:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She is not a pirate. There are no pirates in this case. Stop calling them pirates.

You think with all the news about real pirates, people would stop using that word for mere copyright infringement. Unless copyright infringement requires machine guns.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
June 19, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brian James Schend: She's a pirate. A pirate steals things.

I used to be a pirate too. Of way more than just songs, too. But I'm not a pirate anymore, and think all pirates should be brought to justice.

I don't really *like* the RIAA, but in this case they're totally on the side of the law and the girl was in the wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: except that she didn't actually steal anything. And she didn't actually distribute anything, either.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: I agree with you 100%. I used to pirate all kinds of media (ah, college) but I don't anymore. Probably has something to do with the fact that I'm trying to make a living in the same industry I was stealing from. Plus, just because I can get something for free, doesn't mean I'm entitled to it. Illegal activity is illegal activity, no matter how you put it.

Is her punishment a little too harsh? Yes.
Was she in the wrong? Yes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MeanPeopleSuck: Is it illegal to preview music to see if it is something you want to buy or not?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: There's a zillion ways to legally preview music you're interested in, such as lastfm, purevolume, the band's myspace page and/or website, or even youtube. And those are just off the top of my head. Not to mention sites you end up purchasing the music from, like Amazon.

But illegally downloading a song to see if you want to purchase it? That's like sneaking into a movie to see if you want to buy the ticket later.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen:

Depends. A lot of sites offer legal previews of songs, most lasting only 15-20 seconds or so. Amazon routinely does this for instance and that's fine. Going and pirating a song claiming you're only trying to preview it is a losing argument though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuinevereRucker
June 19, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MeanPeopleSuck: Yeah, it's a harsh punishment. But I kinda like it. I mean, it doesn't sound like the girl is sorry for breaking the law, but wants to fight tooth and nail to defend her piracy. I'd go after her too with a 'tude like that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuinevereRucker: Hm... You do have a point. After all this is said and done, she sounds like the type to continue to illegally share and download.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
calquist
June 19, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I remember in high school I took a business class and one day we had a store to learn about sales/advertising/supply&demand/etc. I sold candy bars, but most people had burnt copies of CDs and sold them to students for like $5 each. The kids made a killing with those CDs ($100+), but I bet the RIAA would have a heart attack if they knew about it. Not sure if that is still in practice, this was 7 years ago.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@calquist: So your school was teaching kids to be pirates?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
solareclipse2
June 19, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not sure anyone (but her)is disputing that she shared the songs. The problem is we're not dealing with sane people here. Sane people can see that most people wont make 1.92 mil if they work for 30 years and don't spend a dime. Someone has to say \"Okay, this is bs. You can't charge 16 dollars for a cd and charge .99 cents for a download through iTunes and then say that 150,000 dollars is fair for a copy obtained otherwise.\"

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eric Michael Richmond
June 19, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@solareclipse2: Actually, the $150,000 is defined in the law. The plaintiff doesn't have to show any actual damages or costs, just that qualifying infringement occured. The damage amounts are actually called out in the law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tinmanx
June 19, 2009 3:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eric Michael Richmond: Isn't this the problem? RIAA got laws like that put in the books. What's next? PETA getting a 9000% tax on meat?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
flamincheney
June 19, 2009 2:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seems to me any fine above and beyond what you would get for the theft of the physical media is in excess, and even for that a punitive jail sentence is often used in lieu of financially destroying a family (including those innocent members). 1,700 tracks would equate to around 170 CD's, or $1700 in total stolen property.

The ignorance of keeping her files in a shared folder (or an open garage) should not equate to a $2million fine.

On top of the craziness of this, and my perception that this is a total waste of our courts' time I have trouble with the matrices the RIAA uses to figure out damages.

I wonder if the artists will be getting the royalties from any of this? My guess would be no.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flamincheney:

WHy would the artists get a piece of this? Or are you advocating something like everyone gets half of nothing and we're all happy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flamincheney: I kind of have to disagree with you. First off, there's no physical media involved. It's technically computerized data that can be instantly and effortlessly duplicated.

And secondly, saying that she should instead owe the amount that she stole is kind of like saying that the punishment for shoplifters should be paying for the pack of gum that they took. It doesn't work that way.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
June 19, 2009 2:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, not knowing much about these kinds of lawsuits and preferring to obtain my music legally, I have a question.

How much is the RIAA really going after people, and for how long can they possibly sustain this? I mean, this is really ridiculous. She can't possibly pay nearly $2 million, so what's the point?

I get that the illegal download culture is probably even bigger now than it was back with Napster (and its ilk) but did they catch her actively downloading and uploading files or was this a case of her doing it in say, 1998 and caught up with her years later?

It's hard for me to really get the entire story because there just isn't much information detailing the entire saga.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

The RIAA stopped around a year ago as I recall. This was just one of the cases from back then winding its way through the system.

As for what's the point, well, having multiple juries tell her she's a lying cow is a step forward. She was never going to pay any judgement so it doesn't much matter. She's either mentally ill or just showboating for fun. After all, she was given multiple chances to settle this for around $3,000. She said no each time. The RIAA had a choice of either pursuing the case or just cutting her loose. Frankly, I'm happy they kept on with it. It would have been a pretty crappy message to send otherwise.

They caught her in real time through an industry group. SHe was sent a PM through kazaa informing her of the infraction. She was later sent a fedex package from her ISP telling her about the warrant for her records. She claims to have never gotten the message and also claims she threw out the fedex package as 'junk mail' without reading it. In the meantime her harddrive with the incriminating information supposedly broke and she had it replaced, but claimed that it had actually been replaced a year earlier. She then happily turned over the new drive and even hired an expert to examine it showing that it had no copyrighted songs on it. Her own expert, while looking at the harddrive, noticed it hadn't even been manufactured when she claims she had it put in the computer. Yadda yadda yadda web of lies yadda yadda.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
iakoolguy
June 19, 2009 2:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why you get a seedbox in another country.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
grapedog
June 19, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If she were smart, she would take that 1.9mill figure and not settle, go to every media outlet that would hear her out and just lash into RIAA about bankrupting her family over a measly 24 songs.


Twist the facts as much as she can get away with and just dig into the RIAA for destroying her life. Once it's all said and done, another huge chunk of credibility will be lost with the RIAA, then she declared bankruptcy and wipes the slate clean.


F*ck the ..AA's

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@grapedog: You are running on the assumption that the RIAA actually has credibility..

The RIAA, I'm sure, doesn't care about the judgment more than they care about the precedent it sets. If the Jury would have returned a verdict of, say $5 or $23.76 (24 * .99), you bet your ass the RIAA'd be all over that in appeal.

I think the jury did us ALL a favor because the next thing that will happen is they will challenge the statutory damages, as they are outrageous. She didn't make a profit (or any money for that matter) off sharing music so statutory damages shouldn't apply.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
IfThenElvis
June 19, 2009 2:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The $192 million is to pay off the jury.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Stephen Carey
June 19, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't there a law against as excessive punishment?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 19, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Stephen Carey: Yeah, \"nor excessive fines imposed\" is from the 8th amendment like jf027 said.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jf027
June 19, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Stephen Carey: Yes, it's called the 8th Amendment.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HIV 2 Elway
June 19, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm all for intellectual property rights, its what makes this country great, but this is ridiculous. Organizations that sue their customers shouldn't expect to remain relevant long.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HIV 2 Elway: Is she considered a customer if she pirates their product?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MeanPeopleSuck:

The best part was when her lawyer repeatedly claimed that she was the recording company's best customer and she bought music legally all the time. Then they flashed her receipts and it shows that during the entire period in question she had bought 1 single cd.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cheapskate Brill
June 19, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

One day the RIAA life wreckers are going to cause someone to go crazy bonkers and people are going to get hurt or worse. Then our legislators will be jumping over themselves to enact saner laws. Can only hope it's a music exec or an RIAA lawyer who is the catalyst for change and not some poor family.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Mythandros
June 19, 2009 8:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cheapskate Brill: How long have you lived in the US, again?


If that ever happened, the laws enacted would be more OBTRUSIVE to the public, not more just.


Some people have FAR too much faith in the legal system and in laws in general. That's called being naive.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HomersBrain
June 19, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Somewhere Lars Ullrich is lighting a Cohiba with a Ben Franklin and smiling broadly I'm sure...

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
June 19, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The problem with the RIAA is their business model:


When I download a song, I am genuinely sampling. I would only buy 2% of what I ever downloaded. And if I really like something-- I go out and buy the CD. In fact, there are a number of groups -- The Killers, for one, I listened to on YouTUBE, and then went out and bought the CD.


To claim that someone who downloads, say, the complete Bee Gees discography would actually go out and purchase all 20 or so Bee Gees CDs is ridiculous.


You know what I would do-- if I could download a complete discography of a marginal artist for, say, $20, I'd do it (i.e. The Guess Who). I might pay $50 for a major artist (The Who). The fact they still want to charge .99 for EVERYTHING by an artist is absurd.


I'm waiting for Lennon's mind games to come out on download, so I can see if they are charging .99 for \"Nuptonian International Anthem\" which is 2 seconds of silence.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
WelcomeToMyWorld
June 19, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hooray for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!


The overpaid lawyers just hit another payday.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
June 19, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, bankruptcy would be the next step if that amount doesn't get lowered, I presume?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
June 19, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jamar0303: Nope. Bankruptcy doesn't erase fines imposed by a court.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShruggingGalt
June 19, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: I don't think this was a fine, it was a civil judgment. Fines in the criminal sense I believe are different, but any civil judgment is going to be wiped out in BK.

This wasn't a criminal case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: It's still a finding by the court based on a fraudulent or criminal activity. Bankruptcy law has exceptions for that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
halcyondays
June 19, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I haven't bought a new CD in about 5 years, and with the RIAA acting like the music nazis that they are, I won't be buying anything else. Buy used and screw the RIAA.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JohnDeere
June 19, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

she wont ever pay a dime. probably get a cush job with pirate bay.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
breese524
June 19, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think, based on the two articles I read, the dollar amount attached to this case is too much.


If I were a jury member here's how I would figure the damages (I'm not sure this is legal jut an opinion) number of songs distributed (shared) * number if instances downloaded (not probable, actually proved downloads to someone other than a RIAA investigator) * the average retail value of the song (from iTunes or other services). So in her case that could be 24 * N * $.99.


My only other opinion is why not go after the people downloading the songs. They are just as gulity of a crime as the ones distributing the songs.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
June 19, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@breese524: I just happen to have the copyright code open, since I used part of it to respond to another post. Here's the relevant section for you.

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
(c) Statutory Damages. -

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

The practical upshot of which is that the lowest possible statutory damages she could have faced would have been $4800 ($200 x 24, if the infringement wasn't willful) and the maximum would have been $3.6 million ($150,000 x 24, if the infringement was willful, which the jury decided it was).

The RIAA doesn't have to prove actual damages. I believe the thinking in the copyright law is that it would be an unfair burden to make the plaintiff come up with a detailed accounting of a criminal's activity in order to get damages.

I keep seeing arguments about how songs are worth 99 cents, so the damages should be something like $24 times some penalty. That whole line of reasoning is irrelevant. The law itself lays out what the penalty is.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trencher93
June 19, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

MY CDS ARE WORTH TEN CENTS! I sold a bunch of CDs to secondspin.com and got $0.10 for most of them. How can the record companies want TWO MILLION when it's cheaper to throw CDs in the trash than ship them somewhere to be sold?

A ten-song CD is worth a PENNY PER SONG so how come downloads cost a DOLLAR?

Really, the record companies are so out of touch with reality that it's insane.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trencher93: Your CDs are worth ten cents to secondspin.com. Depending on the CD, they could be worth 200 times that to someone else.

It's Econ 101. The amount someone is willing to pay is subjective to how much it's worth to the buyer.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
June 19, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

...I am in no way going to defend Jammie as it's clear she was sharing music illegally.


However...if anyone actually needed any further reason to hate the RIAA and refuse to buy their products, well here you go. On top of that, if anyone needed any further disillusionment with our justice system...this fine levied against her is proof positive of the utter failure that is our justice system.


What I have learned from this is that both the RIAA and our justice system are irrevocably corrupt and evil. Not that I really had any faith left in our justice system, or the RIAA, before...but this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin. Seasteading, here I come!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
KixStar
June 19, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm still confused by the rules on pirating. Did she get stuck with the bill for SHARING the songs, or for the original DOWNLOADING of the songs? What is it that gets people in trouble?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: ... even though that was never proven.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Silversmok3
June 19, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dont mean to come off as an ass, but the law is the law.Copyright violation is illegal, and by downloading and sharing the songs she violated the law.


Yes, RIAA is run by scum. Yes, music CDs are overpriced.Yes, the record and music industry is corrupt.


Nevertheless,just because something is overpriced does not grant the consumer the right to steal it.Otherwise, since BMW's are overpriced compared to other cars , we consumers have a right to steal one, yes?


Just like a theif who steals a product is punished, someone who steals music is subject to the laws that prohibit it.Thomas-Rasset did in fact share and pirate the music in question, and as such is subject to the punishment.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Silversmok3: where do you get such a \"did in fact\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Silversmok3: I agree.

Are CDs, for the most part, overpriced? Yes.
Does that give her the right to steal it? No.

I think the $1.92 million judgment is a bit harsh, but I also think the \"24 x $.99\" rationalization most people in the comments seem to have is waaaay too low.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MeanPeopleSuck:

Because they're not thinking it through and they have ulterior motives. No one would suggest that the penalty for shoplifting a candy bar would be having to pay for the candy bar. What would be the deterrent in that after all. In this case, I like to think of the judgment as 5,000 for illegally infringing on copyright and 1.895 million for lying under oath and being a massive douche.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skater009
June 19, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great , Not

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
lolan64
June 19, 2009 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What the... \"Poor lady??\" \"Sad saga??\" \"Good day for bad guys??\" I am amazed at the reporting here. What she did is a crime and she should be punished. I never could understand why so many people seem to think it's okay to share music and other copyrighted material when it has been clearly laid out as illegal. Just because \"everyone does it\" doesn't make it okay and the justifications people try to use are ridiculous. Reading the comments on this story has made me sad as apparently many people really are siding with the criminal. Now if only they could make all such criminals pay...

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lolan64: This is what cracks me up.

IT
IS
NOT
A
CRIME!!

It is a civil matter. It's not a crime to crash into someone with your car (on accident), but you can most certainly be taken to court and most certainly be ordered to pay for medical treatment, fair value of car, etc. Same basic concept here. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose:

No, that's what her perjury trial will hopefully be for.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 19, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lolan64: I think it has to do with the sense of entitlement people have.
\"They want me to pay how much for a song?? Well, I really really want it, but I also really don't want to pay for it. So I'll just find a way to get it for free.\"

And for some reason, people don't see that as stealing. My sister is an avid \"pirate\". I asked her why and she said \"Because the media companies charge too much. What else am I supposed to do?\" Uh... If you can't afford it/don't want to pay for it, you don't get the product? Is that concept too hard for some people to grasp?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lolan64
June 19, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MeanPeopleSuck: I couldn't have said it better myself. My friends know not to ever mention their piracy to me because it bothers me so much that they refuse to pay for the things they want. I especially hate how because of these types of people, honest consumers have to pay more for the legal product to make up for all the people stealing. Oh wait, I mean \"sharing.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henwy
June 19, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lolan64:

I'd personally have more sympathy if she weren't a lying cow.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Silversmok3
June 19, 2009 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's two reasons why people are siding with the criminal today:one is that RIAA does suck,and the honest reason is because most commenters here got millions of dollars worth of fineable stolen media sitting on their hard drives as I type this.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
puka_pai
June 20, 2009 10:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Silversmok3:

the honest reason is because most commenters here got millions of dollars worth of fineable stolen media sitting on their hard drives as I type this.
Depends on who gets to define \"stolen\" media.

A few years ago my family had to move in with my parents briefly while we waited for our builder to finish our house. Space was at a major premium and so I ripped all my CDs to my hard drive because I was going to have to put the discs themselves into storage. By any rational definition, that was a fair use because I had bought the physical media and was making a backup for my own personal use. But if we let the RIAA define fair use I'd be royally screwed because they believe there is NO fair use, precedent be damned.
I'll leave the math to the reader, but using the scale of this case, how much would I owe for my 7800 songs? How many generations would it take my family to pay that off?

An aside to henwy: \"Bitch\", \"douche\", \"cow\" -- dude, enough already. It's plain you don't like the woman, could you skip the nasty sexist insults, please?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 19, 2009 8:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Silversmok3: Or maybe they are siding with the defendant because the RIAA got a free pass on not actually proving any real sharing took place because of incompetency somewhere between the defense counsel and the court itself (more likely the former in this round).

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Peter Tailor
June 19, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What she did was not a \"crime\", it is a CIVIL MATTER. If it were a crime, she would be looking at jail time and not a ridiculous jury award.


These ridiculous punitive damages were heavily lobbied for by the RIAA and the MPAA and have nothing to do with any kind of reality. And those of you who think that she's guilty and just getting what she deserves are complicit in the final act of corporate greed.


Certainly entertainers are entitled to be compensated for their work and they require protections under copyright law, however, this law is clearly unfair and tilted so far in the favor of the copyright holder that no defendent could ever get a fair shake. Did you ever once stop to think that the reason her attorneys are trying different legal tactics is expressly because they are trying to find some way of defeating an unfair law and setting a precedent that others can follow? No? Well, just hope that you never find yourself on the receiving end of a civil lawsuit from some giant corporate entity for violating a civil law that the giant corporate entity lobbied to get passed specifically so they could screw you over.


Here's a little scenario for you to think about. Do you watch commercials? That is, when you are watching broadcast television, do you remain rooted in your seat for the entire duration of the broadcast and watch each and every commercial? Do you record and then fast forward through them, or do you get up and get a snack or use the bathroom when a commercial comes on? It's technically theft if you don't watch the commercials because it's the commercials that pay for you to watch that broadcast for free. What would your reaction be if the broadcaster were able to discover from Tivo that you had fast forwarded through commercials and that you therefore deprived them of advertising income - and that because of the law that they had lobbied hard for - you are now responsible for punitive damages for an amount many multiples of times greater than their perceived loss? You didn't watch a commercial, you stole their content by watching it, now you owe them $10,000 per instance, and you fast-forwarded through thousands of commercials. Hello ten million dollar judgement against you! That's fair, right? You're guilty - you didn't watch the commercials, you stole that content. Pay up.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 21, 2009 5:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Peter Tailor: The last time I checked, it's not illegal to use the bathroom during a commercial break. But it is illegal to distribute media you have no rights to.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
darkrose
June 19, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Peter Tailor: Which is exactly why content producers should offer incentives to purchase an album/go to a concert/buy a movie ticket, etc. I don't go to the movies, I watch everything on Netflix or on-demand. I have \"rented\" over 600 discs from Netflix in the 4 or 5 years I've been a member. Think about the revenue the studios have lost from me because of that. What incentive do I have to buy a DVD that I'll watch a couple of times, then allow it to collect dust on a rack in my family room?

People purchase stuff because there is value attached to the stuff. The problem is that the recording industry (and to a lesser extent the motion picture industry) are making themselves look like absolute douchenozzles, simply because they refuse to embrace new distribution models.

Give customers what they want and they will stay customers. These two industries are the only ones that get away with suing the very people who love their product.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MeanPeopleSuck
June 21, 2009 5:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@darkrose: If you buy an album/concert ticket/movie ticket, you get to play the album/see a concert/see a movie. What other kind of incentive do you want??

And it seems to me like the recording industry is embracing new distribution models (ie: itunes) and the movie industry is experimenting as well (ie: Hulu).

Keep renting those DVDs though. Studios make more in sales and rentals than they do in the box office.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Duckula22
June 19, 2009 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's insane. I wouldn't pay a dime.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
June 19, 2009 7:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

....and the actual musicians whose music this person downloaded get?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
June 19, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder why the RIAA Blog does not allow comments? [www.riaa.org]

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
June 22, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's $1130 per song. Why is the RIAA being allowed to recover more than a thoudsand times actual damages? (And that's assuming the songs would have been bought if they hadn't been downloaded, which is unlikely anyway).

Reply
","");