Slashdot Mirror
Verdict Reached In RIAA Trial
jemtallon writes "The jury in the previously mentioned Captiol v Thomas story has reached a verdict. They have found in favor of the plaintiffs, Capitol, and ordered that she pay a $222,000 fine for 24 cases of copyright infringement."
Unfortunately inevitable, since there was really no defense contesting of the network forensics, or that the username in question just happened to be the same as the defendent's accounts on many other networks, that the system in question was connected to her cable modem, and using her IP address.
Without such defense, a simple "preponderence of the evidence" (the criteria for a civil case) was inevitable.
Test your net with Netalyzr
The amount awarded per song ($9250) is downright ridiculous, but she clearly did download these songs :(
I wonder if she'll be allowed to pay the settlement like the recording industry did theirs. In unpopular CDs that cost pennies to make but apply to the fine at retail price.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
I thought for sure that a jury would never throw a fellow citizen under a bus for those record industry scumbags. I guess I'll have to finally realize that at least twelve in thirteen Americans are hopelessly retarded.
I've always believed, naively perhaps, that juries usually got it right. How freaking brain-dead do these people have to be? $220K for 24 songs? That's $9250 per song! That's substantially more than what the RIAA was claiming they lost on each instance (unless I mis-remembered?).
For music.
This jury of 12 idiots decided to ruin someone's life for 24 songs. Great going, guys.
I challenge Slashdot to boycott the US recording and movie industry... either that or stop whining...
Prosecution:
...her user name, IP address, Modem MAC address, pass-word-protected computer, and the songs in the shared folder matched her musical tastes.
...Thomas replaced the hard drive in her computer two weeks after an investigation. Defendant:Tried to get the RIAA president to testify, who has nothing to do with the facts of the case.
...There could have been a computer party at Thomas's home or someone could have been outside her window with a laptop.
...suggested that computer hacking or IP spoofing could as explanations. The RIAA had facts, and the defendant had excuses. I know everyone wants to defend the little guy, but please pick a better case than this one to represent the people. The only thing I see odd here is the fines. THAT is ridiculous.As the RIAA lawyer stated. I agree. A few generations ago people quite happily made their own, and played it for the enjoyment of their family and friends. If you believe, as I do, that music is an essential part of what it means to be human I strongly encourage you to get out and make some. Give it away. Invite your friends to listen. Bring your instruments to Slashdot parties. Whatever it takes. Just don't *buy* any from the current music cartels.
Boycott the record companies into extinction.
Somewhere along the line people who are capable of being artists (i.e. each of us) were reduced to being "consumers". It's time we stop just accepting this as a matter of course.
Even if you ignore the incompetence of the extortionists, no one in their right mind thinks a $220,000.00 judgment is fitting punishment for sharing a few songs. Extremism of this kind will eliminate public libraries and have anti-social consequences the most far sighted can not imagine. The defendant has been made a homeless slave to some of the world's biggest companies, and so have we all.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I don't think this is the first case where the RIAA was challenged. The RIAA lawyers are just smarter about dropping cases they don't have a good chance of winning rather than risk legal results that could set bad precedence (from their perspective). I've read tons of stories on slashdot about dropped lawsuits or settlements after filing--we don't typically hear what the settlement terms are, so for all we know some of those settlements could be slaps on wrists depending on how good the RIAA case is.
I do agree though that this reaching verdict is unfortunate for those who want to challenge the RIAA. It would be better if verdicts came out against the RIAA.
Exactly! Worse still are the media scare stories that are sure to follow. I am so sick of reading about "illegal downloading." Would someone please report instead that this case was about distributing files and not downloading them. Better still, would someone write (the truth that) there have been no cases of "illegal downloading" ever litigated in the US. Too bad Capitol v. Foster didn't get this level of attention.
We can sit around in forums, yapping non-stop about how horrid the RIAA is, or we can really begin to take the fight to them. I think it's time we do that. Let's do everything we possibly can to tarnish their reputation. Sadly, despite treating consumers like crap, a lot of music fans still follow them around like puppy dogs. A good starting point is to target Youtube. Universal Music Group has an account they use to post videos of their artists. These music videos can be rated. Comments can be left for them. Let's all go there and give them the lowest rating possible. Let's fill the comments section with relevant information about the unethical tactics groups like the UMG are using against consumers. If they play dirty, it seems MORE than fair that we RETURN THE FAVOR. Why should we respond to them with kid gloves? They certainly wouldn't do that for us.
I doubt the jury thinks that, because I suspect the jury is made up of a representative cross section of society, the vast majority of which do not use or run P2P software to exchange music rips.
It's surprising how many people on Slashdot thinks everyone does it. Mention Kazaa to the average non-geek, and most go "Huh".
On a separate note, congratulations to Sharman Networks for standing by this woman and offering to pay the fine she's incurred using Kazaa for its intended, advertised, purpose.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
For some reason I see those jurors as characters from "Idiocracy". I simply can't imagine them being normal human beings.
Tra-la-fucking-la.
The "victory" is mixed much like my feelings... downloading the songs illegally was wrong. I find no moral standing there. Yet, at the same time, the ridiculous approach the RIAA is taking in these cases - and this equally ridiculous reward - leave me unwilling to condemn the defendant.
Oh well. I've bought one RIAA-backed album in four years, and that was a mistake. RIAA Rader. Learn it. Love it. Tell the RIAA they can go fuck themselves with various sharp objects.
Talk to me about WoW and I'll punch your faggot face.
Anyone who uses TOR for file sharing is either maliciously or negligently engaged in the destruction of the network. TOR cannot handle file-sharing loads. The most that TOR can handle is control communications (like tracker communications in BitTorrent). If you actually start passing data transmissions through it, you'll kill its usability.
You're better off using a P2P program that's designed to hide your activity than slapping TOR over one that isn't designed for it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The law allows for a much higher award per song for willful violation. The $9k was well below the midpoint. Compensatory damages replace the actual damages and punative damages are meant to punish the violator.
I think that juries hate to be lied to. She clearly came across as a liar. I suspect there had to be a better defense. Such as admitting to downloading a few songs but not understanding that her music would be uploaded.
I think i'd object to the stealing. Did she steal the songs in question from a record store or itunes?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
If you could "take" my computer, pot, food, books, or anything I own by easily making your own copy at essentially no cost to you in money or time - meanwhile leaving me still in possession of the things you copied, I'd not only be ok with you doing it, I'd encourage you.
As a matter of fact, cannabis, like all plants has its own cool built-in sharing mechanism. Seeds.
This space available.
... as soon as the judge backtracked this morning and ruled that "making available" was adequate evidence to demonstrate a violation of the copyright holder's rights. From Ars:
"Instruction no. 14 proved to be a sticking point, as Thomas' counsel Brian Toder told Ars tonight that the judge's proposed instruction indicated that the plaintiffs must show that an actual transfer took place in order for there to be a finding of infringement. "
Later, the judge reversed his opinion, at which point I knew this was over, but was at least still hopeful that the damages would be somewhat reasonable.
According to the coverage at Ars, it was pretty clear that the RIAA had found the right person; they had used this same account name for an email address that a witness had verified was hers. The only remaining question in my mind was how well the making available argument would hold up before a jury. Unfortunately, it appeared as though the defense didn't focus any attention on this critical part of the prosecution's argument (until the 11th hour when the judge was deciding what instructions to give the jury for deliberations). Had the defense been pounding the drum of "making available is not provable infringement" instead of "let me show you how fast you can rip a CD", then this jury (and perhaps even the judge with respect to the jury instructions) may have been compelled to decide differently.
In any event, it is what it is. The RIAA set their desired precedent, but for me there are still a couple of lingering questions:
1. Is this really a good thing for the RIAA? I mean, we've heard about the lawsuit threats against dead people, grandmas, and kids, but now there is an actual verdict in a jury trial that pins a $220K judgment against a single mother. I have this feeling that this case is going to make much greater waves in the main stream media then the no-go lawsuit threats (dismissed with/without prejudice) or the tens of thousands of settlement cases. Because of this I also think there is a huge potential for blowback on a large scale, not just in the geek circles.
2. Does the judge have any discretion to lower the damages? It seems as though he's given the defense every opportunity to succeed, from the "this courtroom is not your soap box" comments to the RIAA, to initially requiring evidence of a file transfer actually taking place in the jury instructions. If he does have discretion, I would be surprised if he didn't use it.
All in all, this is a sad situation. Single mother, probably with little to no idea what she was doing, targeted by the RIAA, then levied with enough fines to ruin her life. The RIAA, a lawsuit happy organization continuing to rob artists, consumers, and own our government, are having a champagne toast tonight thanks to their victory in court today. Enjoy your victory, and as far as "setting a precedent," you should be careful what you wish for.
The other thing to remember is that, if you want to illegally download songs:
a. don't use a swarming protocol like Bit Torrent (not a good choice for small files anyway) and,
b. make sure you're a leecher (not lecher, as I assume most Slashdotters already are.) As I understand it, all these cases have come about from the people making files available, not the people actually downloading them.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"This is what can happen if you don't settle," RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse.
Notice how they throw in an impassioned plea to roll over and take it? This court case is nothing about justice - it's an extension to their protection racket. (quote from here)
When, oh when, will somebody step in and nail these guys with a RICO suit?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Yes, Edgar Bronfman, The Warner Music CEO said he was certain his kids downloaded music. But don't worry, he gave them a stern lecture about the music they downloaded... so they won't do it again.
This is a public announcement. From now on, i will NOT buy ANY original movie or piece of music EVER.
Now sue me.
The reason for the high damages is probably punitive, and to scare others into behaving. The owners cannot sue millions of people for the $2 each that they probably stole, so they sue a few for the $200,000 and make an example out of them.
No, it not fair to the few people sued, but yes, that's exactly how the deterrence part of our judicial system works right now.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I keep hearing about this process and I don't understand why the bright people on /. don't get a clue.
The ONLY thing the morons at RIAA will ever understand is a cash flow interruption. But to make this work, everyone has to be in on it. No file sharing, turn it all off for one week, no music purchases of any kind, turn off the radios, don't listen to any form of recorded music.
It's not a hard thing to imagine. Maybe the better thing to do is to stop being a consumer and start being a creator. Get an instrument and make your own music!
Then you can give it away on KaZaa.
So if you get upset about what RIAA does to protect their cash flow, get off your butt and stop playing their game. Start playing a new game. Make your own music.
And quit whining about RIAA. There are bigger issues ahead beyond "I can't listen to what ever music I want. I must be entertained at all times."
Those willing to serve - those who want to serve - get to make the decisions - which in a democracy is as at it should be.
The jury is most likely to be middle class, middle aged, small-C conservatives, with a strong sense of civic obligation. The same men and women who take their right to vote seriously.
The successful trial attorney does not romanticize the jury. But neither does he bring into court the adolescent assumption, so prevalent on Slashdot, that he is dealing with a bunch of morons.
And then there is the $220,000 in "damages".
Damages in cases like these are usually framed in terms of some statutory or judicial formula.
The jury doesn't make the rules. It applies the rules.
Consider this: downloads from a service like iTunes have a generally recognized retail value of $1-$2 a track. Implying that the 2,000 tracks in your shared Kazaa folder are worth serious money. To the rights owners and their licensed - legitimate - distributors.
That said, I sincerely doubt the RIAA will ever see a penny of it. You know she's going to file Bankruptcy (Ch 7, IIRC, the one where you don't have a re-payment plan, because no way is she going to pay TWO-HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS back in 20 years, let alone the ~5 a Ch 13 is for.).
... this isn't about a redress of grievances. It's about deterrence, about control, and I'm sure they're feeling like they just did one hell of a job justifying their salaries right now. On the other hand, whether this judgment will have any effect whatsoever the level of illegal downloading is another story. It might even make the problem worse: I know I'm feeling like grabbing a couple of tunes just for spite.
And you know what? I doubt they care even a little bit. See, and that's the thing
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Ever ripped a CD? You might as well have.
The moral of the story? THE RIAA IS SCARED STUPID. She had 400 CDs at one point!!!!!!! They just sued the shit out of one of their best customers!
Fuck these people. Hey, I just 'stole' a CD. Yep, I got a perfect digital copy of the recording and the recording industry didn't get a DIME. Know what I did? I bought a USED CD! Roll up a hondo and snort that Sony.
So that's the moral of the story. BUY USED MUSIC. Hey, old vinyl is cheaper than iTunes and sounds better too. It's the best way to 'steal' from the music industry because it's 100% legal, and it robs them of a sale from a person WHO IS ACTUALLY WILLING TO PAY MONEY FOR THE MUSIC.
If you're a musician, record yourself, it's far easier than it ever was. Then sell your own stuff through iTunes or something if you want to get paid. You don't need these people unless you want them to pay for publicity or your recording (but they'll just take it out of your check anyways).
It sounds way better than mp3, it's cheaper, and best of all you'll be doing YOUR part to help kill the record industry!
You've successfully spoofed an IP address not on your network for a TCP connection to a file sharing program? I expect a lot of people would be interested in knowing how you did that; it is far from easy.
you will never be able to do business with [redacted] again.
Why are you protecting these assholes? If your story is true, you have nothing to fear by smearing their name. Personally I'd like to know who these thieves are so that I can be sure never to buy one of their books.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I agree, and frankly I'd be glad as hell to start hearing about some head honcho guys getting picked off by snipers, or whatever. I'm not even fucking joking. I am getting REALLY SICK of hearing about peoples' lives being totally fucked up because they downloaded some music and left Kazaa running while they were sleeping, or whatever.
Comments like these might make some kind of sense if we were talking about evil corporations treating us badly because we're trying to breathe, or eat, or something like that. Instead, we're talking about downloading music, and making it available for others to download -- music that's not too hard to obtain by legal means, while at the same time plenty of music that's not similarly encumbered with restrictions is easily available. Are you honestly telling me that you're completely incapable of surviving without a copy of that new Coldplay song? Because otherwise, the whole "rise up violently against the evil corporations" stuff seems beyond the valley of the shadow of absurd. It's like getting mad at your parents and throwing stuff around the house because they wouldn't give you a cookie.
The jury system is an incredibly important part of our freedom and it doesn't do us any good for you to act like it's beneath you to serve on a jury.
I used to feel the same way, until I got called to jury duty (bitching and moaning)... and then I served on a jury. And it was a fantastic experience. Yes, boring at times, but I had books to read when the judge and counsel were having private sidebars.
Back when you spent a week at the courthouse whether they needed you or not, yeah, I can understand it being annoying. These days you're more likely than not to spend only a day, and sometimes not even that, since you can call in by phone and find out whether they even need you to come down.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
You may be right about the monopolies, but in a proper socialist government (at least according to my views), art would not be a business (there would be no notion of copyright). People would not write books, music, or movies with cash as their primary incentive. Instead, artwork would truly be the voice of the public - not the voice of the corporations. I am getting very sick of the commercialized bullshit the media feeds us today (This is perhaps the reason I spend a lot of my time on sites such as YTMND, SA, IRC, and slashdot - where the voice of the people can somewhat be heard. In comparison, I spend very little of the say watching TV - perhaps 10 minutes a day).
Because they're just going to make their money on lawsuits instead? Lawyers aren't like musicians, they aren't going to get stars in their eyes and let the record companies rip them off- they expect to get P-A-I-D. High priced corporate lawyers trying to squeeze blood out of a few radishes is a scare tactic, it belongs in the advertising budget.
So that makes no sense. If you can really hit them in their bottom line by doing something everyone agrees is OK, then they have to take it and like it or do something really dumb like going after the secondary market.
But here's how you REALLY hurt the record companies... There are already places where you can take your album, sell it on itunes, and keep 100% of the royalties. That will fucking kill the record industry as long as these places:
.1. Make the product high quality (nice bitrate) and more convenient than piracy (super fast downloads, instant previews, incredible selection- so no waiting or hunting everywhere, and still no DRM)
.2. Charge a reasonable price that makes people feel like they got their moneys worth, especially compared to the hassle of stealing.
So you only need to make piracy inconvenient and charge based on the much, much lower costs of distribution rather than trying to keep it all.
If this exists, artists keep their work and their royalties and even if half their songs get stolen it's good advertising and they will still come out FAR ahead of the pennies-per-dollar contracts the majors sign people to (if they sign them at all).
It is very simple...boycott.
Don't buy music. Don't buy movies. Don't download music or visit streaming sites. Don't go to the movies. Don't watch TV or listen to the radio. Just drop all commercial content.
If you need a content fix, buy music directly from unsigned artists. Go to concerts. See local bands. Go to a live theater.
I
Congratulations, they've won.
Not only do you think it is "illegal" to download music, but you've also taken the ridiculous position that there is anything more than a million to one chance that you will be one of the unlucky few to get noticed by these vultures.
I suppose you're afraid of terrorist attacks too.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Agreed - And the GREED is the issue. Let's all stop buying music at the box stores! There is plenty of free music on the internet. Oh, wait...
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
She will go bankrupt and tell the RIAA to eat a dick, but they already knew that. They just want to get it in the paper, "Jury awards 222,000 to RIAA from single mother who shared mp3s online." That's all they're looking for.
The artists of songs that where infringed should find a nice lawyer to make sure they get their cut.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
A verdict of $222,000.00, for infringement of 24 song files worth a total of $23.76?
In a case where there was zero evidence of the defendant having transferred any of those files?.
It is one of the most irrational things I have ever seen in my life in the law.
If the Judge doesn't set aside the verdict sua sponte, I expect there to be motion practice to set aside the verdict, based on its obvious unconstitutionality and numerous other reasons, and if that fails I expect there to be a successful appeal.
It is an outrage, and I hope it is a wakeup call to the world that we all need to start supporting the defendants in these cases, and the attorneys who are sacrificing so much to represent them. And the support cannot be with words, it must be with check books. And it cannot be next year, it must be now.
All the business people who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy, and freedom of expression which is the internet, need to get behind the RIAA's victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly.
The RIAA ghouls smelled blood in Duluth, and I guess they were right.
But it isn't over.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I mean who else could possibly get hurt buy killing off the media industries?
You seem to be missing the joke. Buying used CDs will not actually kill the record industry, any more than piracy will. But the record industry should and will eventually have to change, and it will ultimately benefit both consumers and musicians much more- but at the big boys' expense. This is because their primary role, putting physical discs on shelves, is no longer necessary. That's just how technology works, it changes things- but they want to blame something they think they have (some) control over.
When everyone has a huge hi-def screen connected to a ultra-high bandwidth connection, television companies and movie chains will no longer control distribution of content either. Everyone from Joe Schmoe to NBC will have their own spot on the dial. Movie theaters will have to get into the 21st century in a big hurry or they will be a thing of the past too.
The main thing that's happening is not piracy, that's a consequence of the technology but not the fundamental shift that these people most fear. They need to maintain their control of the distribution system far more than they need to contain piracy. Piracy can't get much worse in music and people are still making money. Piracy will always be a psuedo tax on any information industry but the real shift will be who makes the money.
You bash indie movies, music etc, but it's just a consequenece of lowering of the barriers to entry. The big boys can still play, and will still make whatever you're willing to pay for- they will just have much more competition. (That being said, big budget popcorn movies are definitely going to be an endangered species- mostly because video games will almost completely kill them. People will have to go back to telling stories.)
You complain, but you will love it. You're disrespecting indie music and movies because you have a preconceived view of them- you won't once more people like you start doing that stuff, and once technology makes creativity king once again. While high end equipment gets cheaper, better and more user friendly, people's ears and eyes will notice the high end less and less. When industries begin to mature, that's what happens.
So, now remind me... what part of musicians keeping more of their money and their rights is going to discourage them from producing good music again?
Actually bittorent is much better for this in my opinion since 1. RIAA can't see what else you got, so its one file at the time (or album or whatever), and 2. its much harder to actually claim you have shared a whole song since its usually pieces of file you share.
Works like America, granted though Canada isn't much better but t least we send our shady buisness men to live in the states *cough*Conrad*cough*
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
A step forward for people who purchase all of their digital media through LEGAL means, even as we watch our peers shamelessly steal them. Why should I have to pay and they shouldn't? (And before the completely obvious "well why don't you just steal too"- why should I have to lower my moral standards?)
Slow down for a second. Is is the govs. fault that people use credit without thinking of the consequences? There are times where people have bad luck (medical for example) and I feel for them when they have to file for bankruptcy, etc... But people who spend way more than they make, drive cars they can't afford, and buy houses with IO loans I have no sympathy for. Raising the minimum payment on credit cards was actually a good thing for the consumer. Now they are forced to pay it off sooner than they would have otherwise.
No. But it's government's fault for bailing out the banks and changing the rules.
It's like copyright extensions. Businesses act in reliance of certain rules and then later in the game have those rules changed so they can more easily make more money.
Banks lent certain monies to certain people. They had plenty of good information at their disposal to do the risk analysis. Now that the Banks have discovered that they have been STUPID, they want the government to change the rules.
Bad bank, no money.
It is also the governments fault for allowing certain predatory lending pratices that anyone with a basic grasp of math should realize will lead to defaults. (universal default, usurious default interest rates, usurious interest rates in general)
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They do eat it when you file bankruptcy. They don't get anywhere near the amount of money you spent back to them in form of payments.
How about this. Since you have *NO SOURCE OF INCOME*, don't get a credit card! Is personal responsibility really that poor in this country now? It's always someone else's fault and never your own. And yes, when I was in college those same people were there giving away stuff to get a CC. That's also when I got my first CC, but it wasn't a problem b/c my parents had taught me about managing money years earlier. It's not very complicated and can be distilled down to two rules:
1) Spend less than you make.
2) Always be working because when you're working not only are you making money, but you're also not spending it.
By the way, while in college I was working 30 hours/week to, you know, pay for college.