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."
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.
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