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."
Granted.
Next time you want to sell CDs on the sidewalk in $LARGE_CITY, make sure they're stolen copies rather than bootlegs. Your monetary penalty will be much less. You're looking at jail time for passing stolen merchandise, but that's criminal court so you get a free lawyer and the burden of proof is higher.
I think relating digital assets that can be copied indefinitely for free to someone's computer or cannabis is a bit misleading. The argument that can be made is that she 'stole' the revenue they may have made by selling her or the people she shared the music with the songs.
Somehow 24 songs shared to some unknown but probably reasonably small number of people translates into $222k in damages? Considering a song is $1 on iTunes, she'd have to share each song to over 9000 people to cause that much in lost revenue (not that the full $1 goes to the record companies, but we can pretend...). At the low end, a song might be 2 megs? So she'd have had to share nearly half a terrabyte to accomplish this. That's a lot of data for 24 songs!
Not more than you need, just more than you want
She'll have no choice but to file bankruptcy and have this discharged. This is a clear case of the punishment not fitting the crime. Maybe her attorney will give her a break on the fee to file Chpt 7.
I don't agree with this.
For one, I've bought used music and had to deal with scratches on CD.
Secondly, selling out of the used albums may indicate to record owners that there's demand for the full albums.
I haven't bought an album from the RIAA since 2001 - and I make -damn sure- to check RIAA radar before I go out and buy.
But that's not the only place I hurt them.
See, right now I'm about to film a documentary. And to do that, I need a camera, a recording device for audio, and a laptop computer to take with me.
I COULD have gotten the Sony camera, but instead I went with the Canon HV20.
I COULD have gone with an Sony MD recorder, but instead I'm going with a Zoom H2
I COULD have gone with a Sony Vaio, but instead I'm going to be buying from ANYBODY ELSE.
And the background music will be licensed from Magnatune.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
It's like getting a year in jail for a speeding ticket, or a $1000 fine for eating a grape in the supermarket produce section. It's just completely out of proportion to the punishment deserved. Sure, the music companies have the right to defend their interests, but fining a single, working mother more than she probably makes in five years is just vicious.
Congrats, RIAA. I wonder if that 200,000 dollars will make up for all the people alienated by the action? If you consider how many millions of dollars companies spend on advertising, the bad press generated by this story would be more than enough to offset the financial gain created by the fines and any reduced piracy. I mean, personally, the overwhelming majority of my music has been legally acquired in the past few years, but this makes me wonder why the hell I'm doing that, and whether I should actually be pirating more. Yes, I want to support the artists who produce the music, but I don't want to support these bullies.
Yo shmuck.. Read the details.. She owned 500 legal CDs. That's $9,000. Think the publicity this creates is going to encourage anyone to contribute any more money to these immoral bastards? Think the record company is going to see a dime of that $200k? This is like Bush saying he's a compasionate conservative, and wanting to give a strong message to all those would-do-harmers out there, then ineptly invading a country.
Consider what likely went on in this woman's mind. She was an avid fan of music. She has acquired music probably with no real issue with the market prices. She most likely bought both albums and singles - a perfect music-industry customer. Then a new medium arrived where you can community-build.. Share interests.. Share similar tastes in music.. Sure it's free, but if anything else, the medium is more attractive.. Less restrictive than portable physical medium.
As any good netizen, she wants to contribute.. So while she may very well have downloaded quite a bit.. She was more than happy to share what she had (considering the neglegable cost to her - just setup time).
Consider that she's probably spent her whole life making mix-tapes.. Copying a CD or VHS to family and friends. We've had 20 years of built up social 'morals' with respect to sharing with friends. All perfectly legal.
So now RIAA starts tries to define the rules of this new media. US Court enforced 'backup copy' protection is in uncharted territory. People aren't profiting on piracy, they're merely part of a social network. The term Piracy is a horrible bastardization.. Piracy is when you pilfer (often via death) the wares of other sea-goers that are helpless. You then sell the pirated goods (boot-leg) at various ports.. People come to know that if you want cheap 'knock offs' you go to a port and buy from the pirate and their minions. There's an obvious moral imperative when you buy such boot-leg, because you must know that someone probably died to provide these cheap goods to you.. So using the terms Piracy and Boot-legging are supposed to associate large amounts of guilt.
So later boot-legging was the audio-taping of concerts against the permission of the artists. This was really an arbitrary determination by artists and labels that is akin to no 3'rd party food in a Theater. No moral obligation, merely an attempted monopoly by the vendor. If they can do it fine.. But I strongly oppose federal laws that encourage this behaviour - such that a Movie theater could hand a citizen over to the police for eating cokes bought at home.. Or likewise bringing a tape-recorder to a concert.
Back to our lady. Does she see the various RIAA advertisements? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps she's a perfectly naive and innocent girl. Maybe she knew full well that the RIAA was cracking down on Kazza, and she had the 'stick it to the evil empire' mentality.. Many rock-fans and alternative-fans were made to think this way through the very music that they're being sued for. Bitter Irony I would say. Most likely, however, she acted indifferently, much like the selection of our presidents are a matter of indifference to most Americans. The RIAA is slowly becoming irrelevant, and we are watching it's death-throws. US music is abominable compared to the rest of the world. The quality of work has continously degraded for the past century - thanks to the ability to amplify profits through brain-washing (repeated paid-for spots on radio/TV). Audiences develop a taste through repeated use.. And it's sad, but taste Americans are developing is mostly bland (with a few category exceptions). Singers have less and less attractive sound. Music is extremely repetative from one song to the next (if not already synthesized). Lyrics are a joke. The message is less and less condusive to society building or even renewing (even older angry Rap represented a contemporary cry for change).
This debate is endless. I don't expect to convince others that Patents and Copy-Right are evil capitalistic ventures of the old British Empire that unfortunately worked their way through the likes of Benjamin Franklin and others into the US.
-Michael
"For one, I've bought used music and had to deal with scratches on CD."
:)
Any decent place will give you a refund, or at least I would hope so. The really cool places will let you listen first, which is awesome and is really a big plus for buying used. Buy from whoever treats you right, RIAA or not.
"Secondly, selling out of the used albums may indicate to record owners that there's demand for the full albums."
This isn't necessarily true, it goes both ways. A big demand for used music encourages people to SELL their music too (and for stores to buy it), and the higher the demand, the bigger the secondary market and the bigger the loss to the record industry. Some people will just buy and rip, not saying that's right but when you add these people in, you can have CDs changing hands many times. This is a bad thing if it really taints the used market, but the worst that will happen is further DRM which will piss off customers much more but end up getting cracked anyways. Either way it weakens their position.
"I haven't bought an album from the RIAA since 2001 - and I make -damn sure- to check RIAA radar before I go out and buy."
There ya go. Awesome suggestion. I didn't even know about them. Pretty much none of the CD's I've bought lately have come from them. That really says something.
"I COULD have gone with a Sony Vaio, but instead I'm going to be buying from ANYBODY ELSE."
Good idea. It's funny, but I think IBM hates Sony as much as you do- I mean they make the hard drives people load their MP3s on AND the Cell Processor
The court of appeal does not re-try the facts.
The court of appeal is not interested in facts. It is interested in process - how the judge and jury came to their decision.
The appellant must make a clear and convincing legal argument that the trial judge made a fatal error. In the admission of evidence. In his instructions to the jury. Something of that sort.
Why does a musician need to make money hand-over-fist anyway? The whole modern model of producing and selling music is artificial and absurd anyway. I've gotten to where I never buy CDs anymore, and I never download music either. It's entertainment. You won't die without it. And, if organizations like RIAA weren't around, maybe there would be more regional differences in music again. You know. Culture. The thing that's missing today.
Similar to the upcoming US election results