NationStates Jolt Archive

Jury penalises music file-sharer

A court in the US has ordered a woman to pay $222,000 (£109,000) in damages for illegally file-sharing music.

The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 32, from Minnesota, to pay for offering to share 24 specific songs online - a cost of $9,250 per song.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7029229.stm

If you're wondering the $138750 figure, it's 15*9250 (15 tracks being the average album length I figure).

I find this bit concerning too:
About 26,000 lawsuits have been filed against alleged file-sharers, but most defendants settle privately by paying damages amounting to a few thousand dollars.
They'll do anything to stay in business won't they?

The US record industry said people would understand the verdict.
Yes I do understand it. It shows the music industry is desperately hanging onto an outdated form of music distribution and is willing to go to great lengths to destroy ppl's lives to continue it.
Also that the music industry has an awful lot of clout still.

And then there's bands like NIN who encourage their fans to download their music as a protest against the cost of new music CDs (funny how they've gone up in price over the years while the cost of manufacturing them has plummeted).
Or Radiohead, whose new album (to be released soon) will cost only as much as you, the ebil downloader, wishes to pay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohead's_seventh_studio_album
http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/Quickindex.html

On a similar note, Here in HK they're prosecuted a couple of ppl. I noted that one guy who was done with d/l'ing 3 movies got a 3 month prison sentence and fine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/technology/08net.html
Whereas recently a guy who was found to have child porn on his computer was given a suspended sentence (can't find a link sorry)
Good to see they chasing after and catching the real criminals out there.

I have a proposition.

Each of us here should go and download as much MORE music as we can. Maybe a site to incite people to do so would be in order?

Or one to donate money for the woman to fight this in court.

Those'd want to be some damn fantastic songs for $9,250 a pop.

I personally have no qualms with a person downloading something, as long as they weren't going to buy it anyway. No stock goes missing, nobody loses money, everybody wins!

That's rather...over the top.

And the worst part is, they didn't prove fucking shit. They just proved she had Kazaa on her computer as well as some music.
They argued something about how "you can't copy that many CDs" or some other asinine bullshit. They probably picked a jury full of podunk rednecks to try her who probably don't even own computers.

I feel like going and downloading or uploading a few CDs I have.

Which is sheer bull, as I have recorded CDs I OWN amounting to some 2000 songs.

And the worst part is, they didn't prove fucking shit. They just proved she had Kazaa on her computer as well as some music.
They argued something about how "you can't copy that many CDs" or some other asinine bullshit. They probably picked a jury full of podunk rednecks to try her who probably don't even own computers.

I feel like going and downloading or uploading a few CDs I have.

And the worst part is, they didn't prove fucking shit. They just proved she had Kazaa on her computer as well as some music.
They argued something about how "you can't copy that many CDs" or some other asinine bullshit. They probably picked a jury full of podunk rednecks to try her who probably don't even own computers.

I don't think they let the plaintiff(or prosecution, whichever. I'm not a law talking guy) pick the jury.

Those'd want to be some damn fantastic songs for $9,250 a pop.

For $9250, I want them to ressurect John Lennon, George Harrison, Jim Morrison, John Bonham, Keith Moon, and John Entwistle and merge the Beatles, Led Zepplin, the Doors, and the Who into one giant supergroup.

I feel like going and downloading or uploading a few CDs I have.
what next?
Prosecuting people for lending their favourite albums to their friends?
Going after Public libraries for lending out (free of charge too!) music CDs and movies?
Busting in on ppl singing in the shower and demanding royalty payments from them?

For $9250, I want them to ressurect John Lennon, George Harrison, Jim Morrison, John Bonham, Keith Moon, and John Entwistle and merge the Beatles, Led Zepplin, the Doors, and the Who into one giant supergroup.
Well that's 4 bands in one, so the album should cost 4 times the amount of a normal album. This song should have the best 3000 bands evar.
what next?
Prosecuting people for lending their favourite albums to their friends?
Going after Public libraries for lending out (free of charge too!) music CDs and movies?
Busting in on ppl singing in the shower and demanding royalty payments from them?
Jailing people for getting a song stuck in their head without paying for it.

Q: What's on your iPod?

A: Eighty gigs of everything! I just bought a new one the other day. I have everything on my iPod - every possible kind of music. They have some weird classifications though when you download them because I found Bing Crosby under world music. All my Indian music is under world music so I now get Bing Crosby if I put it on shuffle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7022163.stm

I mean he's admitting in print (to the BBC no less!) that he downloads music!
I hope the RIAA drag his sorry ass into court.
Make an example of him dammit!

what next?
Prosecuting people for lending their favourite albums to their friends?
Going after Public libraries for lending out (free of charge too!) music CDs and movies?
Busting in on ppl singing in the shower and demanding royalty payments from them?
That's just the thin end of the wedge...

Just wait 'til someone realises that if a stereo (what a quaint term!) is played loudly enough to be heard from next door/outside that it counts as a broadcast, or that putting on some music when your friends are round might be infringing some outdated law if those friends don't also already own the copyrighted work.

Headphones for me... I just hope that nobody is using some kind of detection equipment to hear what I am listening to... for FREE!

/runs and hides

Jailing people for getting a song stuck in their head without paying for it.
Unless it's a really irritating song like the Macerana or the chicken dance.
Then the music companies should pay you as compensation.

All this, so the Spice Girls can have a fresh lease of life, the next Britney can be shown to the world, the latest Boy Band can have extra shiny baby oil in their video....Yes, its robbing the artists all right.....

We should simply stop buying cd's altogether, if we all (like every single person) keep that up for a few months the music industry won't have the money to file these asinine lawsuits anymore.

We should simply stop buying cd's altogether, if we all (like every single person) keep that up for a few months the music industry won't have the money to file these asinine lawsuits anymore.

I like it.
*boycotts the music industry*

I'm rich! My CD collection was expensive but I didn't expect it to be worth this much! Anyone wants to buy used CDs for half of the price? Only $70000 each is a real bargain compared to what these plastic discs are worth.;)
I have a proposition.

Each of us here should go and download as much MORE music as we can. Maybe a site to incite people to do so would be in order?
Don't support their popularity by listening to their music.

Boycott them and switch to music from alternative record labels that have a sane attitude towards their fans. By sane I mean for example Magnatune's policy which is roughly "Listen all you want online for free. Then buy it if you like it, $5 per album for DRM free CD-quality flac or wav downloads. Share it with max 3 friends. 50% of the money goes to the artists."

All this, so the Spice Girls can have a fresh lease of life, the next Britney can be shown to the world, the latest Boy Band can have extra shiny baby oil in their video....
or when some ageing studio executive needs to buy new breasts for his nineteen year-old wife.


Actually I think we - the public - should try to come to an agreement with the music industry:

We'll stop illegally downloading their music when their music artists stop spending our money on illegal drugs.

who thinks that's fair?

All this, so the Spice Girls can have a fresh lease of life, the next Britney can be shown to the world, the latest Boy Band can have extra shiny baby oil in their video....Yes, its robbing the artists all right.....

It's not so much the artists I'm concerned about as the rest of the people involved in the production of the music. After all, the artists earn most of their revenue from concerts, whereas the peons, the production stuff, sound editors, technicians and all, tend to earn their pay through the work they do on the studio stage.

All the same, if the RIAA wanted to stop being facetious, they'd sue for a reasonable amount of money, say, twice the price of the downloaded CD (so as to meet the Constitutional test of having a lawsuit be at least twenty dollars).

We'll stop illegally downloading their music when their music artists stop spending our money on illegal drugs.

who thinks that's fair?
Or better yet, when the record industry starts working for the artists instead of the other way around.

I can think of two ways to make it easy to get back on your feet, and avoid paying the fine.

Take out a loan to pay the fine and then declare bankruptcy - you are no longer liable for the loan you used to pay the fine.

How to prevent losing you positions - rent them instead of buying them. This way you don't lose them when declaring bankruptcy as they are not yours.

OR incorporate your household, with one share per flatmate. Declare bankruptcy. Your single share is lost as part of bankruptcy. The board of directors (your flatmates, but not you - those how have declared bankruptcy cannot be on a board of directors), agree to hire you as household manager to be paid in shares only. They also agree to now be paid for their position the same amount as you, and in shares. You soon make the RIAA's single share insignificant and you can quickly get make to illegal file sharing. :)

It’s easy for settled groups as Radiohead to scream ‘download us’.

But without promotion, Radiohead would still play only in some underground club for a 2 people sized audience. (lots of current top groups and performers started that way).

How would you know about the next Radiohead if it is not promoted?

Sure, some exceptions find their way via the internet, but it are really really exceptions.

Promotion, that’s the task of the music industry. And promotion is costing money, lots of money.

But 'casue we are *ALL* downloading, there's less money left for promotion.

So, you really think that the real good groups always reach the public?

Well, try these ones, and believe me they have very good music, but most of you will have never heard about them and it will never happen too:

• K’s Choice
• dEUS
• Hooverphonic
• Axelle Red
• Channel Zero
• Das Pop
• Evil Superstars
• Front 242
• Laïs
• Lord of Acid
• Mauro
• Ozark Henry
• Praga Khan
• Soulwax
• Vive la Fête

When Americans come to my place and hear this music then they do not understand why these pretty babies are not hot worldwide.

Promotion, that’s the task of the music industry. And promotion is costing money, lots of money.
Not necessarily.

I don't think they do. Mainly because the public has horrible taste. Whoever gets selected to be promoted pretty much gets gobbled down by the mainstream. What people, I think, object to more than anything is what you're saying the upside is - that the money goes to promotion. People don't want to end up paying for the priviledge of being persuaded to buy a certain record.

And do you honestly think Soulwax are starving because people aren't marketing them enough?


Eh actually is Soulwax doing well. As one of the few.

Do you know the other groups?

Not necessarily.

Do you know the music of the groups I provided?

It’s easy for settled groups as Radiohead to scream ‘download us’.

But without promotion, Radiohead would still play only in some underground club for a 2 people sized audience. (lots of current top groups and performers started that way).

How would you know about the next Radiohead if it is not promoted?

Sure, some exceptions find their way via the internet, but it are really really exceptions.

Promotion, that’s the task of the music industry. And promotion is costing money, lots of money.

But 'casue we are *ALL* downloading, there's less money left for promotion.

So, you really think that the real good groups always reach the public?


I don't think they do. Mainly because the public has horrible taste. Whoever gets selected to be promoted pretty much gets gobbled down by the mainstream. What people, I think, object to more than anything is what you're saying the upside is - that the money goes to promotion. People don't want to end up paying for the priviledge of being persuaded to buy a certain record.

And do you honestly think Soulwax are starving because people aren't marketing them enough?

Do you know the music of the groups I provided?
So? That is irrelevant. If I looked, I could find small name bands that made themselves big or I could sit here and name big name bands on major labels that you have never heard of.

So? That is irrelevant. If I looked, I could find small name bands that made themselves big or I could sit here and name big name bands on major labels that you have never heard of.

It is very relevant. These groups are big in Belgium and just a few other countries. And they are really good. They reach an equal (and some even better) quality as the American bands.

But before you can Google and retrieve them, you have to know their name.

Sure, I am aware that a few groups managed to make their name by the internet. But it are exceptions. You have a clue how many groups are operating in US of A? Or the entire world?

Eh actually is Soulwax doing well.

THEN WHAT'S YOUR POINT???????????????????

Do you know the other groups?

No. I assume they're not very good though


#

#

Originally Posted by Edwinasia
Eh actually is Soulwax doing well.

THEN WHAT'S YOUR POINT???????????????????

They are really one of the few exceptions. They are doing well in some countries, but not worldwide. They do not have the support as some real big US groups.

Do you know the other groups?

No. I assume they're not very good though

No. Not even close. It's top quality. Maybe you should listen, before you judge.

Btw, you have INSIDE usa the same problem. Countless US quality groups will never reach the audience they deserve.

It is very relevant. These groups are big in Belgium and just a few other countries. And they are really good. They reach an equal (and some even better) quality as the American bands.

But before you can Google and retrieve them, you have to know their name.

Sure, I am aware that a few groups managed to make their name by the internet. But it are exceptions. You have a clue how many groups are operating in US of A? Or the entire world?

Quality is very subjective. Assuming they want a record label, they will get famous if they appeal to a large number of people. Some groups choose not to sign to big labels (Ted Leo & The Pharmacists) but I doubt that's the case for your bands.

Not every group can make it big.

I'm sure their logic is:

Number of people who downloaded file * number of files/tracks * cost-per-track....

They are really one of the few exceptions. They are doing well in some countries, but not worldwide. They do not have the support as some real big US groups.

No. Not even close. It's top quality. Maybe you should listen, before you judge.

Btw, you have INSIDE usa the same problem. Countless US quality groups will never reach the audience they deserve.

Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective

Quality is very subjective. Assuming they want a record label, they will get famous if they appeal to a large number of people. Some groups choose not to sign to big labels (Ted Leo & The Pharmacists) but I doubt that's the case for your bands.

Not every group can make it big.


Well, I know that dEUS isn't making profit by entertaining live. Not yet. They are touring in Europe and USA.

They promote and tour and with each new concert their audience is growing.

But it's not dEUS that is paying all this (they can’t afford), but the record company...

I’m talking about a profit loss of $6000 each concert! They have 2 or 3 concerts each week, so that one is adding up.

They are aligned with an independent UK record company and that is helping a lot.

The Belgian groups, provided in the list, are in general signed by a Belgian division of by instance Sony...

As far as I know, not one is trying it indepently.

It is very relevant. These groups are big in Belgium and just a few other countries. And they are really good. They reach an equal (and some even better) quality as the American bands.
I think I found your problem. Huge bands in other countries rarely make it out of that country. Only American promoted groups really become world famous.

I think I found your problem. Huge bands in other countries rarely make it out of that country. Only American promoted groups really become world famous.

Eh no. Some Belgian ones reached the stars as well.

And what about the UK bands? Kaiser Chiefs, Oasis, Elton f*cking John...

Some Scandinavian groups? Like f*cking ABBA?

But it's certainly true that it doesn't help to be a group inside a small country. Your homemarket is small and as a result it's more risky for the record company to introduce you on the big markets.

Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective Quality is subjective


You can bet on that one. Britney Spears is still selling at light speed. Her music uhm, sorry, but, s*cks.

I have a proposition.

Each of us here should go and download as much MORE music as we can. Maybe a site to incite people to do so would be in order?

Or one to donate money for the woman to fight this in court.

Or we should stop buying mass-marketed commercial crap and start going to music shows in small local venues and buying direct from the artist and cut out what is largely an irrelevant middleman who is only clinging to power based on the leverage it has inherited.

Record companies are like the last predatory dinosaurs. Living off of stored fat for a while, but their method of survival is not suited to the modern world. They are doomed, but that's small comfort to the mammals making the first tentative steps out of their caves only to be crushed under the claws of these starving behemoths.

I think I found your problem. Huge bands in other countries rarely make it out of that country. Only American promoted groups really become world famous.

That's not true. It's only American produced acts that become famous in America. But it's the same with any art form. For years I had a devil of a time getting Terry Pratchett novels. Then came the internet and amazon.co.uk, and I could get it whenever I wanted. But by then his novels had to be re-published under a whole new company. In a particularly stupid fashion I might ad. The released his first novel and his last novel together and then worked their way towards the middle so that the last discworld novel that was released completing the set at the time, was witches abroad, even though there were several novels that followed the events of that novel that had already been released.

JK Rowling found this out to her chagrin when one of the Harry Potter novels was released in England way ahead of America. They were hoping the across-the-pond buzz would make for through the roof booksales with the US release. But it turned out that consumers, way ahead of the publishers, had quite legally bought the books on Amazon.co.uk making for disappointing US sales.

*shrug* Not everyone gets to be a rock star, sorry.

Eh no. Some Belgian ones reached the stars as well.

Hence the use of the word 'rarely'. Qualifiers are important, people.

*shrug* Not everyone gets to be a rock star, sorry.

Indeed. If you don't have the financial backup: forget it!

And present times, record companies are really playing it safe:

* How many reunions are happening now?
* How many present times 'top' songs are just bad remakes of 80ties and 90ties hits?

And the 'new' groups are looking, feeling and smelling all the same.

Lots of FX, no content. It's like the movies.

To help the Belgian bands, try out music of these groups:

• K’s Choice
• dEUS
• Hooverphonic
• Axelle Red
• Channel Zero
• Das Pop
• Evil Superstars
• Front 242
• Laïs
• Lord of Acid
• Mauro
• Ozark Henry
• Praga Khan
• Soulwax
• Vive la Fête

Most of them are singing in English, the style is varried, from pop to rock, techno, dance to easy-listening.

Indeed. If you don't have the financial backup: forget it!

And present times, record companies are really playing it safe:

* How many reunions are happening now?
* How many present times 'top' songs are just bad remakes of 80ties and 90ties hits?

And the 'new' groups are looking, feeling and smelling all the same.

Lots of FX, no content. It's like the movies.

Interesting you mention movies, do you think the reason there are so many brainless movies is because the studios won't back smart movies or because people want brainless movies?

I'll give you a clue: it's because people want brainless movies.

Interesting you mention movies, do you think the reason there are so many brainless movies is because the studios won't back smart movies or because people want brainless movies?

I'll give you a clue: it's because people want brainless movies.

No, you're wrong, 'cause smart movies can be blockbusters as well.


I'll explain why in general you only can watch sh*t in a theatre near you:

Maximalisation of profit.

They just know, by using 3 or 4 famous (expensive) actors, 60 minutes of computer FX and a simple story that they 'always' will make profit.
That movie is worth the marketing-risk-cost.

Marketing and promoting a movie is very very very expensive. In some cases it's costing as much as the movie itself.

Small independent movies are facing a hard time. They are played in less theatres and the advertisement budget is much lower.

Yes, from time to time, a little film becomes big. But that doesn't say that the other little films are bad. No, they are just not known by the public.

The exceptions are rather just lucky. They were part of some hype

... hence people want brainless movies, which was the point?

You've lost me.


It's not decided by the people, but by the movie companies...

No, you're wrong, 'cause smart movies can be blockbusters as well.


I'll explain why in general you only can watch sh*t in a theatre near you:

Maximalisation of profit.

They just know, by using 3 or 4 famous (expensive) actors, 60 minutes of computer FX and a simple story that they 'always' will make profit.
That movie is worth the marketing-risk-cost.

... hence people want brainless movies, which was the point?

You've lost me.

Holy Crap. I would be completely indebted if that was the case!

No, you're wrong, 'cause smart movies can be blockbusters as well.


I'll explain why in general you only can watch sh*t in a theatre near you:

Maximalisation of profit.

They just know, by using 3 or 4 famous (expensive) actors, 60 minutes of computer FX and a simple story that they 'always' will make profit.
That movie is worth the marketing-risk-cost.

Marketing and promoting a movie is very very very expensive. In some cases it's costing as much as the movie itself.

Small independent movies are facing a hard time. They are played in less theatres and the advertisement budget is much lower.

Yes, from time to time, a little film becomes big. But that doesn't say that the other little films are bad. No, they are just not known by the public.

The exceptions are rather just lucky. They were part of some hype


Please please please please please don't try and patronise me on this topic.

You're massively wrong by the way

Please please please please please don't try and patronise me on this topic.

You're massively wrong by the way


Pfft, you’re right. Why wasting time on people that aren’t prepared to learn something.

Look, we are all partly guilty for the sh*ty music we hear through our radios.

Keep on downloading, in 2020 you only can download music created before 2010, ‘cause there will be no new groups anymore.

And no, I’m not some protector of the record companies. Those pimps were too arrogant in the past. They ignored the internet and now they are scr*wed.

No, please go on. I want to learn about how movies get made from an expert :)

Nope. I've to f*ck some actresses, sniff 1 pound of coke and I am in a need for a dive in my 1 square mile swimming pool. ;)

Have a nice weekend.

Pfft, you’re right. Why wasting time on people that aren’t prepared to learn something.



No, please go on. I want to learn about how movies get made from an expert :)

Holy Crap. I would be completely indebted if that was the case!

We could use the money from my debt to pay off the national debt, fix world hunger, and still have enough money left over to cut taxes.

one wonders what Woody Guthrie would of said about all of this

$9,250 per song.

Bitch got it cheaper than me. :mad:

I live where this case was taking place and believe me, no one here thought that the RIAA had a case. Right now people are working to help her out and to help keep fighting, basically because this entire thing is just shameful.:(

Keep on downloading, in 2020 you only can download music created before 2010, ‘cause there will be no new groups anymore.So no more Britney Spears, Rihanna, Backstreet Boys etc? Awesome.:D

Kom ook eens posten in het Nederlandse topic trouwens.;)

Going after Public libraries for lending out (free of charge too!) music CDs and movies?

When you buy regular videos and DVDs they have a notice on the back saying "not for rental". Libraries buy them as well as the license to lend them out.

When you buy regular videos and DVDs they have a notice on the back saying "not for rental". Libraries buy them as well as the license to lend them out.

Are you sure about this? How do you differenciate between a book and a CD then? I know books dont say "not for rental" nor do liabraries need any licence to lend them out.

Are you sure about this? How do you differenciate between a book and a CD then? I know books dont say "not for rental" nor do liabraries need any licence to lend them out.

Yeah, I think thats how it works over here (no, wait. over here means in the UK, not CA. sorry). I guess the difference between a book and a cd is that it's a heck of a lot harder to copy a book. Plus, the market is just different.

The more the RIAA squeezes its iron first of corporatism, the more people are going to be pirating music. It's as simple as that. I'm not buying another CD, ever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7029229.stm

If you're wondering the $138750 figure, it's 15*9250 (15 tracks being the average album length I figure).

I find this bit concerning too:

They'll do anything to stay in business won't they?


Yes I do understand it. It shows the music industry is desperately hanging onto an outdated form of music distribution and is willing to go to great lengths to destroy ppl's lives to continue it.
Also that the music industry has an awful lot of clout still.

And then there's bands like NIN who encourage their fans to download their music as a protest against the cost of new music CDs (funny how they've gone up in price over the years while the cost of manufacturing them has plummeted).
Or Radiohead, whose new album (to be released soon) will cost only as much as you, the ebil downloader, wishes to pay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohead's_seventh_studio_album
http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/Quickindex.html

On a similar note, Here in HK they're prosecuted a couple of ppl. I noted that one guy who was done with d/l'ing 3 movies got a 3 month prison sentence and fine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/technology/08net.html
Whereas recently a guy who was found to have child porn on his computer was given a suspended sentence (can't find a link sorry)
Good to see they chasing after and catching the real criminals out there.

Jeez.

You still have to pay a minimum $1 processing fee for the Radiohead album.

The more the RIAA squeezes its iron first of corporatism, the more people are going to be pirating music. It's as simple as that. I'm not buying another CD, ever.

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." - Princess Leia in the old Star Wars movie

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." - Princess Leia in the old Star Wars movie

:p

I figure, the way I'll go is this. I'll pirate CDs off the internet, and then I'll send the band a 10 dollar check as my thanks for making music, and cut out the middle men. Better for me, better for the artist.

what next?
Prosecuting people for lending their favourite albums to their friends?
Going after Public libraries for lending out (free of charge too!) music CDs and movies?
Busting in on ppl singing in the shower and demanding royalty payments from them?

You may laugh. I just found this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm
Ok, so they'll prob lose, but still. If they won. Every builder in the UK would get sued, and every shop with a radio, and so on.

:p

I figure, the way I'll go is this. I'll pirate CDs off the internet, and then I'll send the band a 10 dollar check as my thanks for making music, and cut out the middle men. Better for me, better for the artist.
I like this idea.

With apologies for the dp.

This is why I'm glad I'm Canadian.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13565 (Micheal Geist is a pretty good writer and knows his stuff).

First, as the CRIA itself acknowledged in a recent court filing, the private copying levy has been interpreted to extend to personal, non-commercial downloading so that the $200 million generated by the levy provides real compensation for P2P downloading.

Second, the statutory damages provision in Canada is marginally better, with the prospect that a court would never arrive at this kind of award. Indeed, the Act allows a court to go below $200 per infringement.

Statutory damages still have no place in these kinds of cases, but at least Canadian law is a bit more reasonable.

Third, the Canadian music industry is far more divided on the issue of these lawsuits. Indeed, Canadian musicians have come out vocally against such lawsuits as have leading labels such as Nettwerk.

The CRIA has almost no power here. And that my friends is a good thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7029229.stm

If you're wondering the $138750 figure, it's 15*9250 (15 tracks being the average album length I figure).

*snip*

On a similar note, Here in HK they're prosecuted a couple of ppl. I noted that one guy who was done with d/l'ing 3 movies got a 3 month prison sentence and fine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/technology/08net.html
Whereas recently a guy who was found to have child porn on his computer was given a suspended sentence (can't find a link sorry)
Good to see they chasing after and catching the real criminals out there.

*sigh*

Let's say you steal a CD from a store and you get caught. Are you saying the most penalty you should have to pay is to simply pay for the CD you were stealing?

Hmmm?

*hunkers down in bunker and awaits incoming fire*

*sigh*

Let's say you steal a CD from a store and you get caught. Are you saying the most penalty you should have to pay is to simply pay for the CD you were stealing?

Hmmm?

*hunkers down in bunker and awaits incoming fire*

what kills me about all this is how people are so willing to come to defense of people who are breaking the law. They're breaking the law. It's that simple. This is material protected by copyright. Violating copyright has statutory damages.

Everyone bitching about the mean old RIAA...good or bad, moral or immoral, this is an organization that is having its rights violated. The US Copyright Act is really clear on this. People who upload copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder are criminals.

I wonder how many people who complain about the RIAA and how they're pursuing their rights also bitch about illegal immigration....

edit: tct, why do you not reply to anything I write anymore? :p

He's saying you shouldn't have to pay $9000 for the CD

I think you missed his point...

*sigh*

Let's say you steal a CD from a store and you get caught. Are you saying the most penalty you should have to pay is to simply pay for the CD you were stealing?

Hmmm?

*hunkers down in bunker and awaits incoming fire*

He's saying you shouldn't have to pay $9000 for the CD

what kills me about all this is how people are so willing to come to defense of people who are breaking the law. They're breaking the law. It's that simple.
Except that it is legal in Europe:p

Jailing people for getting a song stuck in their head without paying for it.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bookstore.png

We should simply stop buying cd's altogether, if we all (like every single person) keep that up for a few months the music industry won't have the money to file these asinine lawsuits anymore.

Done.
Some Scandinavian groups? Like f*cking ABBA?

I think Eurovision helped that just a little bit.

And present times, record companies are really playing it safe:

* How many reunions are happening now?
* How many present times 'top' songs are just bad remakes of 80ties and 90ties hits?

And the 'new' groups are looking, feeling and smelling all the same.

Lots of FX, no content. It's like the movies.

The game's industry is doing the same thing. As production costs rise, they play it safer and safer and then when everyone notices and gets sick of it the whole thing comes crashing down.

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." - Princess Leia in the old Star Wars movie

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you underestimate their chances.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bookstore.png

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you underestimate their chances.

:p

"Chewie, get us out of here."

I think you missed his point...

If his point was that you're "stealing" the music then I think you missed my point.

what kills me about all this is how people are so willing to come to defense of people who are breaking the law. They're breaking the law. It's that simple. This is material protected by copyright. Violating copyright has statutory damages.
You would think with all this breaking the law going on some one would actually be brought up on charges instead of sued.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you underestimate their chances.

Fail.

The quote is Overestimate. :p

Fail.

The quote is Overestimate. :p

F***. It's seppuku for me again :(

Not only is that obvious, but that's my favourite "famous last words" line ever.

You would think with all this breaking the law going on some one would actually be brought up on charges instead of sued.

....you really shouldn't talk about the law.

Ever.

You realize that the copyright act is law, right? You realize violating the terms of that act is breaking the law, yes? You realize there is a significant difference between civil law and criminal law, yes? You realize that the copyright act is a civil statute, yes?

You realize that breaking the law need not mean breaking the criminal code, yes?

Oh I saw this on the news!

$8000 a song?! She get them off iTunes or something! :p

If his point was that you're "stealing" the music then I think you missed my point.

you're taking something without paying for it, and without the permission of the owner.

What the fuck do you call that? And don't give me some bullshit about how it's not "physical" or it's "just a copy" or any of that nonsense. I don't give a fuck if you pirate songs/games/whatever, just have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're a thief.

you're taking something without paying for it, and without the permission of the owner.

What the fuck do you call that? And don't give me some bullshit about how it's not "physical" or it's "just a copy" or any of that nonsense. I don't give a fuck if you pirate songs/games/whatever, just have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're a thief.
I call it copyright infringement. It's still illegal either way so it doesn't really matter but stealing is not the correct word for it.

It doesn't matter if it's a physical object or not. If you see some patented invention in a store, put one in your pocket and try to walk out that is stealing. If you pay for it, go home, figure out how it works, build your own copies with legally purchased materials and start to distribute them you haven't stolen anything but it's still illegal to use an idea someone else have exclusive rights to. It's not stealing because you haven't taken anything away from anyone but it's patent infringement so it's still illegal.


And no, I don't "pirate". I use open source software and listen to web radio plus free indie music. Movies and TV are a boring waste of time except for the occasional visit to the cinema with friends. Wish I had time for computer games but if I did I'd play online games on the main servers so I'd pay. The only reason I care about copyright is that I'm a computer programmer. Copyright licenses dictate what technologies I can and can't use in my programs.

you're taking something without paying for it, and without the permission of the owner.

What the fuck do you call that? And don't give me some bullshit about how it's not "physical" or it's "just a copy" or any of that nonsense. I don't give a fuck if you pirate songs/games/whatever, just have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're a thief.

It's not physical which means that by taking it you're not removing it from somebody else. That's an important difference.

and yet, it's still infringing on someone else's proprty rights now, isn't it?
It's still legal.

It's not physical which means that by taking it you're not removing it from somebody else. That's an important difference.

and yet, it's still infringing on someone else's proprty rights now, isn't it?

That is seriously sad. The music industry doesn't have the time or money to go after hosts and owners of major P2P programs, so they go after individuals who don't have a fighting chance in court. Filthy bastards.

They are willing to ruin people's lives just to score some quick cash. And this is allowed by people too. Wake up! You have people out there telling you what you are and aren't allowed to share with others. Is that right? Fuck no.

SAVE MUSIC, DESTROY THE INDUSTRY!

and yet, it's still infringing on someone else's proprty rights now, isn't it?

Listen I'm not arguing that piracy is fine, I might be striking soon to get my fair slice of the money from intellectual property sold on the internet.
The rights and wrongs of piracy don't make 'stealing' any more of an accurate label. It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

I call it copyright infringement. It's still illegal either way so it doesn't really matter but stealing is not the correct word for it.

It doesn't matter if it's a physical object or not. If you see some patented invention in a store, put one in your pocket and try to walk out that is stealing. If you pay for it, go home, figure out how it works, build your own copies with legally purchased materials and start to distribute them you haven't stolen anything but it's still illegal to use an idea someone else have exclusive rights to. It's not stealing because you haven't taken anything away from anyone but it's patent infringement so it's still illegal.


And no, I don't "pirate". I use open source software and listen to web radio plus free indie music. Movies and TV are a boring waste of time except for the occasional visit to the cinema with friends. Wish I had time for computer games but if I did I'd play online games on the main servers so I'd pay. The only reason I care about copyright is that I'm a computer programmer. Copyright licenses dictate what technologies I can and can't use in my programs.


Which is why as we post, corporations are starting to patent individual animal and human genes and DNA for their own purpose.

Copyrighting is a dangerous downward spiral. Soon they'll have a copyright on your thoughts if you let them. There has to be a line drawn, unless you want the whole human race in a mad frenzy to copyright every last thing in existence, and take ownership of every last inch of matter within this planet. I don't.

That is seriously sad. The music industry doesn't have the time or money to go after hosts and owners of major P2P programs, so they go after individuals who don't have a fighting chance in court. Filthy bastards.

They are willing to ruin people's lives just to score some quick cash. And this is allowed by people too. Wake up! You have people out there telling you what you are and aren't allowed to share with others. Is that right? Fuck no.

SAVE MUSIC, DESTROY THE INDUSTRY!

It's not about the money (200k is a drop in the bucket), it's about deterrence. Will the average person risk losing a quarter of a million in assets/future wages over some music? At least, that's their theory.

It's not about the money (200k is a drop in the bucket), it's about deterrence. Will the average person risk losing a quarter of a million in assets/future wages over some music? At least, that's their theory.

Fuck deterrence, that's flat out exploitation what they're doing. I know that's their theory, but they shouldn't be allowed to extort people.

Fuck deterrence, that's flat out exploitation what they're doing. I know that's their theory, but they shouldn't be allowed to extort people.

It's not exploitation. They probably spent double their award on lawyers. It's about punishing those that break copyright law.

It's not exploitation. They probably spent double their award on lawyers. It's about punishing those that break copyright law.All they are going to do is piss off people. They arn't going after murderes and rapists, they are going after normal, everyday people living paycheck to paycheck, if that. They are going after people who garner sympathy - single mothers, grandmothers, pre-teens. The only thing they are going to succeed in doing is increasing pirating as people start doing it just to protest the heavy-handed bullshit being pulled by groups like the RIAA.

All they are going to do is piss off people. They arn't going after murderes and rapists, they are going after normal, everyday people living paycheck to paycheck, if that. They are going after people who garner sympathy - single mothers, grandmothers, pre-teens. The only thing they are going to succeed in doing is increasing pirating as people start doing it just to protest the heavy-handed bullshit being pulled by groups like the RIAA.

Normal everyday people, grandmothers, kids...who break copyright law.

I think it's rather novel. They're going after normal people to show that other normal people (the average filesharer) arn't immune from prosecution just because they share 20 songs instead of 2000.

It's still legal.

It is?

Vertel, ik wil weten:p

Which is why as we post, corporations are starting to patent individual animal and human genes and DNA for their own purpose.

Copyrighting is a dangerous downward spiral. Soon they'll have a copyright on your thoughts if you let them. There has to be a line drawn, unless you want the whole human race in a mad frenzy to copyright every last thing in existence, and take ownership of every last inch of matter within this planet. I don't.

The problem is, there IS a fine line, and it's been there the whole time. If you, based on your creativity and imagination, create something tangible, that is not based on something already in existance, it is yours, and you may control the sale and distribution of it.

You would think with all this breaking the law going on some one would actually be brought up on charges instead of sued.

Would you and your co-horts be happier if the woman was going to jail rahter than paying a fine? Somehow I doubt it.

Which is why as we post, corporations are starting to patent individual animal and human genes and DNA for their own purpose.

Copyrighting is a dangerous downward spiral. Soon they'll have a copyright on your thoughts if you let them. There has to be a line drawn, unless you want the whole human race in a mad frenzy to copyright every last thing in existence, and take ownership of every last inch of matter within this planet. I don't.

*sigh*

Patents and copyrights are (a) very different and (b) not at all new.

Do you realize that copyright and patent protection are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: "Congress shall have the power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

In modern Anglo-Saxon legislation, patents hark back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, whereby Parliament endowed inventors with the sole right to their inventions for fourteen years. Copyright law, in turn, traces back to the English Statute of 1710, which secured to authors of books the sole right of publishing them for designated periods. (link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/39.html#1))

If you knew anything about patent and copyright law, you'd know that there are lines drawn. The just don't include "free music for everybody." Some of you seem to think that is unfair, but you've yet to justify it.

BTW, I officially agree with everything Neo Art has said. As usual, he beat me to expressing my sentiments.

BTW, I officially agree with everything Neo Art has said. As usual, he beat me to expressing my sentiments.

you see, that's all I ever wanted!

Lawyers...:rolleyes:




















:)

Normal everyday people, grandmothers, kids...who break copyright law.

I think it's rather novel. They're going after normal people to show that other normal people (the average filesharer) arn't immune from prosecution just because they share 20 songs instead of 2000.
Take off the blinkers and you might get the point. why arn't they going after the people who make a living off of copyright infringement? All they are going to succeed in doing is pissing off normal people by suing the pants off of people who garner sympathy when they arn't being attacked by archaic, big business organizations. They want to stop pirating? They can stop being douchebags and catch up with the times.

you see, that's all I ever wanted!

This really is a touching moment:)

Take off the blinkers and you might get the point. why arn't they going after the people who make a living off of copyright infringement? All they are going to succeed in doing is pissing off normal people by suing the pants off of people who garner sympathy when they arn't being attacked by archaic, big business organizations. They want to stop pirating? They can stop being douchebags and catch up with the times.

Do you mean the Asian copy markets, or Western equivalents? If then, I agree with you. If you mean the people who created file-sharing software, then it isnt going to work- they already tried that.

I agree with you that the RIAA is not exactly building public satisfaction, but there is no arguing that these people didn't break the law. They did. And likely, they knew it at the time they were doing it. There's no point in claiming innocence after the fact.

That said, the RIAA business plan is a broken and decrepit machine. It was as soon as digital media became openly transferable between whatever device(s) you happened to own. How they fix that is going to be their burden, but I have a few ideas.

Take off the blinkers and you might get the point. why arn't they going after the people who make a living off of copyright infringement? All they are going to succeed in doing is pissing off normal people by suing the pants off of people who garner sympathy when they arn't being attacked by archaic, big business organizations. They want to stop pirating? They can stop being douchebags and catch up with the times.

If they are garnering such sympathy, where are the mass protests? Where is the anti-copyright Al Sharpton? Thing is, Americans really don't have much sympathy for breaking the law, I believe.

As for stopping pirating, have you ever seen Babylon 5, season 3? Actually, it might be the last part of season 3 and the beginning of season 4. Anyway, the vorlons get this big planet killer all up and they start busting planets that have subscribed to the shadow's way of thought. They do not, however, try to destroy the shadow's homeworld. They destroy the message, not the messanger. I find the comparison between the Vorlons and the RIAA quite apt. They recognize there will be people to provide copyrighted music. They
know that there will be people to provide copyrighted music. They want the downloaders to take a 2nd thought before downloading.

This really is a touching moment:)

you shut up.

This really is a touching moment:)

Wait, what? Who are we touching?

why arn't they going after the people who make a living off of copyright infringement?

Which people? The ones in china and other foreign countries who are outside the jurisdiction? Who here in the US is making a living off of copyright infringement?

All they are going to succeed in doing is pissing off normal people by suing the pants off of people who garner sympathy when they arn't being attacked by archaic, big business organizations. They want to stop pirating? They can stop being douchebags and catch up with the times.

Because people are rioting in the streets protesting the RIAA! Or wait, they're not. That's because most people with a shred of intellectual honesty recognize that while these folks who are pirating may be daughters, and grandmothers and students and otherwise very nice people, they're still breaking the law.

move to Canada...it's legal here...

If they are garnering such sympathy, where are the mass protests? Where is the anti-copyright Al Sharpton?
Most of this crap is being settled out of court, if more people go to court, it will get out into the real news more which will garner sympathy as the story of single mothers and grandmothers being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for supposedly downloading a handful of songs.

Thing is, Americans really don't have much sympathy for breaking the law, I believe.
The thing is Americans don't understand copyright law, and they understand computer stuff even less. That is how the RIAA sued this woman. Get a group of software engineers in the jury and try the argument "well she had Kazaa and some songs on here computer, obviously she is a huge pirate." That shit won't fly. That isn't even a good logical fallacy. Did they prove it was her that pirated those songs or that that accont belonged to her?


As for stopping pirating, have you ever seen Babylon 5, season 3? Actually, it might be the last part of season 3 and the beginning of season 4. Anyway, the vorlons get this big planet killer all up and they start busting planets that have subscribed to the shadow's way of thought. They do not, however, try to destroy the shadow's homeworld. They destroy the message, not the messanger. I find the comparison between the Vorlons and the RIAA quite apt.
I assume the point is because they never destroyed the source they never got anywhere?

Remember Star Wars, when the Empire was crushing star system after star system trying to bring them under its iron grip. And Leia was like "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." And the Empire just ended up looking like a huge douchebag destroying little, insignificant peoples' lives and created a rebellion against them and grassroots support for the rebellion.

And if you want to cut out the bullshit fantasy references like some one who is older than 12, you can look at my sig, or search Google for any number of articles by people in the tech industry on pirating and file sharing.

They recognize there will be people to provide copyrighted music. They know that there will be people to provide copyrighted music. They want the downloaders to take a 2nd thought before downloading.
Because that is totally working with the war on drugs.

Because people are rioting in the streets protesting the RIAA! Or wait, they're not. That's because most people with a shred of intellectual honesty recognize that while these folks who are pirating may be daughters, and grandmothers and students and otherwise very nice people, they're still breaking the law.

I very much doubt that. Polls have been made in Sweden that has shown an overwhelming support for pirates, and we don't have any riots either. People are lazy, that's all.

Most of this crap is being settled out of court, if more people go to court, it will get out into the real news more which will garner sympathy as the story of single mothers and grandmothers being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for supposedly downloading a handful of songs.


The thing is Americans don't understand copyright law, and they understand computer stuff even less. That is how the RIAA sued this woman. Get a group of software engineers in the jury and try the argument "well she had Kazaa and some songs on here computer, obviously she is a huge pirate." That shit won't fly. That isn't even a good logical fallacy. Did they prove it was her that pirated those songs or that that accont belonged to her?



I assume the point is because they never destroyed the source they never got anywhere?

Remember Star Wars, when the Empire was crushing star system after star system trying to bring them under its iron grip. And Leia was like "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." And the Empire just ended up looking like a huge douchebag destroying little, insignificant peoples' lives and created a rebellion against them and grassroots support for the rebellion.

And if you want to cut out the bullshit fantasy references like some one who is older than 12, you can look at my sig, or search Google for any number of articles by people in the tech industry on pirating and file sharing.


Because that is totally working with the war on drugs.

why would you have Kazaa if you didn't want to pirate things?

why would you have Kazaa if you didn't want to pirate things?
Find obscure indy bands?

Was it her Kazaa, did she use it?

why would you have Kazaa if you didn't want to pirate things?

There's a lot that isn't illegal to download out there. The program might also have been installed by someone other than her, if anyone else had access to the computer.

Most of this crap is being settled out of court, if more people go to court, it will get out into the real news more which will garner sympathy as the story of single mothers and grandmothers being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for supposedly downloading a handful of songs.
It is in the "real" news. I remember a few such stories on both local and national Television.

The thing is Americans don't understand copyright law, and they understand computer stuff even less. That is how the RIAA sued this woman. Get a group of software engineers in the jury and try the argument "well she had Kazaa and some songs on here computer, obviously she is a huge pirate." That shit won't fly. That isn't even a good logical fallacy. Did they prove it was her that pirated those songs or that that accont belonged to her?


Yes, I believe they did. She did not purchase the music. She downloaded them illegally.


I assume the point is because they never destroyed the source they never got anywhere?

Remember Star Wars, when the Empire was crushing star system after star system trying to bring them under its iron grip. And Leia was like "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." And the Empire just ended up looking like a huge douchebag destroying little, insignificant peoples' lives and created a rebellion against them and grassroots support for the rebellion.

And if you want to cut out the bullshit fantasy references like some one who is older than 12, you can look at my sig, or search Google for any number of articles by people in the tech industry on pirating and file sharing.


It was the only thing that popped into my head. And you can stop with the personal attacks, ktks.

The point was that it's a hell of a lot easier to destroy the message then the messenger. Suing an old lady for a quarter of a million is going to make a bigger splash in the minds of the average music file sharer then it will if they busted some million song seeder. It's the "it could be you" factor.

Because that is totally working with the war on drugs.

Yes, because Crack Cocaine is so comparible to The Beatles Greatest Hits. :rolleyes:

Yes, I believe they did. She did not purchase the music. She downloaded them illegally.
I don't recall them proving much of anything, much less that..


Yeah, that's totally working for the war on drugs. Suing an old lady for a quarter of a million is going to make a bigger splash in the minds of the average music file sharer then it will if they busted some million song seeder. It's the "it could be you" factor.
Yeah, the average file sharer is going to see them going after people who probably don't know any better or are practically nobodies in this fight and will decrease their purchases of legal material as a protest. If not increase file sharing.


Yes, because Crack Cocaine is so comparible to The Beatles Greatest Hits. :rolleyes:
As opposed to comparing it to religion :rolleyes:
Music, movies, and games are commodities. The want for the commodity continues, but it's quality goes down and price goes up. People become unwilling to pay for it, especially with no chance to test it. People don't want to spend $20 for one song on a CD. You can't stop file sharing without removing the want to file share like you can't stop illegal drugs without removing the desire. You want to stop file sharing? Create a website where you can download music you want for free, any music, and have it supposed by ads. There you go, file sharing is dead.

I don't recall them proving much of anything, much less that.

That is most interesting. I didn't know you were on the jury.

Or did you just sit in and watch the whole trial?

Surely you aren't just relying on second- and third-hand assessments of the evidence, especially not from biased sources.

That is most interesting. I didn't know you were on the jury.

Or did you just sit in and watch the whole trial?

Surely you aren't just relying on second- and third-hand assessments of the evidence, especially not from biased sources.

In these cases there is no such thing as perfect proof, and I think that was what he meant. Normally, all they have is an IP address, and that might not mean much since many ISPs give you a random IP every time you connect, and even if they find some files on your computer they might have been put there by your neighbor's kids or even a hacker. Or maybe you have the CDs these songs come from in your bookshelf, further complicating things. At best, for them, all they can show is that it's very likely that she's guilty.

It seems that this is all that's required to win, but I think you misunderstand us pro-piracy folks. We're not arguing that we're legally right, at least not from what I've seen in this thread. We're arguing that the punishment definitely does not fit the crime, or that what this woman did shouldn't be a crime at all.

I personally liked this note

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article2592637.ece?token=null&offset=12
Brian Toder, for Ms Thomas, had argued that the record companies had not managed to prove that “Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these”.

The verdict will arguably make it easier for the RIAA to win trials because it set two precedents: first, that it does not have to prove that a defendant’s computer had a file-sharing programme installed when the infringement was detected; and second, that the defendant was at the keyboard when the infringements took place.
So I don't actually have to have a file-sharing program on my computer when I am file sharing. The RIAA can now pull names out of a fucking hat and sue whomever they want. hey, who wants some free music? I will transmit it telepathically.


And also, I fail to respect the record industry here as should any reasonable person, especially after the shit Sony does, and says:
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.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html

Wow, even if I'm not pirating, I am stealing music. To use things that Sony makes (mp3 players, mp3-CD players, etc), I have to steal their music. Hurray, everyone's a fucking criminal!

It's not exploitation. They probably spent double their award on lawyers. It's about punishing those that break copyright law.

I j-walk, should I have my legs cut off? Should speeding tickets be $10,000 each? Don't fucking pretend that "the punishment fits".

It's not exploitation. They probably spent double their award on lawyers.
Don't count on it. The winner gets the court and lawyer fees as well.

Don't count on it. The winner gets the court and lawyer fees as well.

Under what statutory provision exactly? I could be wrong but I don't believe that the copyright act allows for recovery of attorney's fees, but it's quite possible that I am wrong. Care to cite the relevant section?

In these cases there is no such thing as perfect proof, and I think that was what he meant. Normally, all they have is an IP address, and that might not mean much since many ISPs give you a random IP every time you connect, and even if they find some files on your computer they might have been put there by your neighbor's kids or even a hacker. Or maybe you have the CDs these songs come from in your bookshelf, further complicating things. At best, for them, all they can show is that it's very likely that she's guilty.


It's a civil trial. Proof beyond reasonable doubt has never been the standard of proof in a civil trial. It merely requires proof, more likely than not. Which is to say, all they need ot prove is that she probably did it

Her attorney, Brian Toder, said that copyright law automatically awards court costs and attorney fees to the winning party.

Paying those too could push the total judgment against Thomas as high as a half-million dollars.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-10-05-download-verdict_N.htm

Wow, even if I'm not pirating, I am stealing music. To use things that Sony makes (mp3 players, mp3-CD players, etc), I have to steal their music. Hurray, everyone's a fucking criminal!

Hurray for executive hypocrisy.

One more compelling reason never to buy another CD.

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.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html

Wow, even if I'm not pirating, I am stealing music. To use things that Sony makes (mp3 players, mp3-CD players, etc), I have to steal their music. Hurray, everyone's a fucking criminal!
Maybe once they get sick of going after file-sharers, they'll start on everyone who's bought an mp3 player.

Which people? The ones in china and other foreign countries who are outside the jurisdiction? Who here in the US is making a living off of copyright infringement?


That didn't stop the RIAA from trying to get the US government to apply sanctions on Sweden to shut down piratebay, or use illegal search and seizure on their servers despite no Swedish laws being broken by piratebay (which is where they were).

Maybe once they get sick of going after file-sharers, they'll start on everyone who's bought an mp3 player.

Maybe that's what they're trying to do, if you put a complicated evil genius bent on it. Sue people who have music in digital format. Claim that even those who actually purchased it are pirates for putting it on their MP3 players, and create a drop in use of legal digital formats.

Transforms every single user of digital format held music into walking money bags for the RIAA to sue, and everyone goes back to non-duplicatable mediums. RIAA wins.

Maybe that's what they're trying to do, if you put a complicated evil genius bent on it. Sue people who have music in digital format. Claim that even those who actually purchased it are pirates for putting it on their MP3 players, and create a drop in use of legal digital formats.

Transforms every single user of digital format held music into walking money bags for the RIAA to sue, and everyone goes back to non-duplicatable mediums. RIAA wins.
Getting a little into the paranoid conspiracy area here, but I could see Sony/RIAA/etc going after ppl who have mp3 players as a way of forcing the consumer into buying digital format songs from approved sites.

Getting a little into the paranoid conspiracy area here, but I could see Sony/RIAA/etc going after ppl who have mp3 players as a way of forcing the consumer into buying digital format songs from approved sites.

That's why I said "complicated evil genius bent". The kind of stuff you expect to come out of Hollywood, only no guns and violence.

Come to think of it, it really does parallel Star Wars quite a bit. Only, no Skywalker.

That's why I said "complicated evil genius bent". The kind of stuff you expect to come out of Hollywood, only no guns and violence.

Come to think of it, it really does parallel Star Wars quite a bit. Only, no Skywalker.
Actually, the more one thinks about it the less tinfoilhat it gets. All Sony would need to do is have a trojan in the install disc that comes with their mp3 players. Said trojan would check to see if the files you're copying over to your lovely new Sony mp3 player have DRM. If not, it sends a msg to Sony, who then email you back with a warning.
Then do a few prosecutions, claiming that the defendant was pirating songs. As Pantless quote shows, Sony views even copying your own bought music as piracy. All Sony/RIAA needs is one or two successful multi-thousand $ prosecutions, where they're lucky enough to have a jury full of techno-imbeciles. They'd then have a big proportion of consumers thinking twice about even copying their own stuff and being forced into buying online for music they already own.

These cases are all about percentages. If right now, say, 50% of ppl pirate and a big scary case like the one in the OP causes 5, 10 maybe even 20% of pirates to stop and start buying, the music industry profits shoot up.
However, being the greedy bastards they are, they won't be happy with that and when they eventually realise they'll never get that hardcore 20% (number taken from my butt) of ppl who will always pirates they'll then start targeting ppl who buy cds but then mp3 then onto their players without buying the 'right' to do so.
Their argument being that as it's now in a different format, it's a different product and thus the consumer should pay for it all over again.

Actually, the more one thinks about it the less tinfoilhat it gets.

And you can bet your boots that at least several industry heads have gotten this idea in their skulls.

All Sony would need to do is have a trojan in the install disc that comes with their mp3 players. Said trojan would check to see if the files you're copying over to your lovely new Sony mp3 player have DRM. If not, it sends a msg to Sony, who then email you back with a warning.

It would be ironic if Sony tried using a rootkit or a trojan for deterrence again. Because if they haven't learnt their lesson they sure aren't going to get us to.

It would be ironic if Sony tried using a rootkit or a trojan for deterrence again. Because if they haven't learnt their lesson they sure aren't going to get us to.

Most likely they will. Either that or some form of spyware for that report on your MP3s with the notification of that buried in very ambiguous legalese that nobody but high paid corporate lawyers would understand.

Nobody learned from Starforce's lesson. Nobody learned from Sony's lesson. And you can bet your last penny that nobody will learn from the next fiasco.

It would be ironic if Sony tried using a rootkit or a trojan for deterrence again. Because if they haven't learnt their lesson they sure aren't going to get us to.
It wouldn't be ironic at all. It would merely show their arrogance and contempt for us, the consumer.
They would figure we'd too dumb to either notice or remember the last time they tried it.

Also, they'd look at the market share and play the % game:
x% of ppl are turned off Sony because of a new rootkit/trojan/spyware built into their new mp3 players (they might even make part of the player itself and not just on the install disk, making it almost impossible to remove)
y% accept and start buying their songs online.
simple maths. if y>x it's in Sony's best interest to do so.

They would figure we'd too dumb to either notice or remember the last time they tried it.

Sadly, for the majority of the consumers, they're right.