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.
Frankly, as much as I loathe the RIAA, Thomas' story simply didn't hold up. The prosecution was able to prove that in an attempt to evade prosecution, she had replaced her hard drive shortly after receiving a warning notice from the RIAA, not before as she claimed.
It's a shame that the defendant of this first RIAA jury trial turned out to be a liar with a bogus defense. But apparently, that's who she was. Given the facts brought out in the case, I don't see how the jury could have found for the defense.
I challenge Slashdot to boycott the US recording and movie industry... either that or stop whining...
Whereas in Soviet Russia, fiction is intellectual property. Oh wait...
(This post was written by a would-be novelist, but is 59,970 words too short to qualify as a novel.)
The amount awarded per song ($9250) is downright ridiculous
Not many people know this, but that's the price they originally wanted to charge per song on iTunes.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I think it's time to find the houses of the RIAA executives, hack their wireless, and share from them. Capture the data and send it to the RIAA and say "Hey, please sue them."
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
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.If she's in the US, they can garnish wages, attach liens to property, etc... for a number of years (usually seven, IIRC).
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
What if someone wrote a virus that downloaded a random number of songs? Then if songs were found on my PC, and the virus was on my PC, would that create reasonable doubt?
Right, I've seen plenty of viruses download random songs, this makes perfect sense. Now back to why Chewbacca lives on Endor...
It's a civil case.
It's a civil case.
How many more times?
How we know is more important than what we know.
This jury of 12 idiots decided to ruin someone's life for 24 songs. Great going, guys.
Remember that one of the purposes of juries is to override corrupt government and bad laws. The defendant was guilty technically but morally innocent. Juries deliberate in private for just this reason - they can agree to return a not guilty verdict when the law outrages them. The law exists to reflect the community's sense of outrage at misconduct. When conduct does not elicit outrage, juries need to be brave enough to do what's right.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Heck, our government can't even secure its machines from itself.
/ \
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
x
/ \
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").
Fuck Capitalism!
1. Juries generally take the damages amount suggested by the plaintiff in a civil trial. Most people have no idea how much a random tort is really worth and just take their word for it.
2. Juries in America are specifically picked to exclude anyone in the slightest bit knowledgeable about the activity in question (to avoid both bias and to avoid questioning the testimony of expert witnesses due to -- right or wrong -- assumption about the dispute in question), and they are picked to avoid people who have done similar crimes in the past (again for bias reasons).
Pretty much the only people in America who haven't downloaded a song illegally are people who thing it's inherently immoral or unethical. These people would not be sympathetic to the defendant.
Now we get to see where this goes on appeal.
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.
> "Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !!"
Kevin Smith on Prince
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Generally speaking, state & local trial court verdicts are not considered binding in any jurisdiction -- only appeals court verdicts. Most states don't even publish lower court opinions -- NY, OH, & CT are the exceptions AFAIK, and they only publish a handful of lower court opinions issued each year.
Precedent will not be set until this goes to an appeals court. They may well try it, but the evidence doesn't look so good. Their only solid grounds for appeal in my opinion is over whether or not the replacement of the hard drive counts as an attempt to misplace evidence.
No, the case looks solid based on the (admittedly one-sided) write up, and it looks like the defendant doesn't have enough money to appeal.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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!
Libraries can count on the doctrine of first sale. At the current time, they have nothing to worry about.
The practical reason is that by "making available", they can claim huge damages.
If you download a CD, they can claim damages of $18. Even if you pump that up, the liability is so small that it's not worth the letter.
Don't automatically assume that a civil judgment will be discharged in bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy has become more difficult and the consequences more far-reaching. It is not an easy way out.
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.
Sure it is. Read a link from the article - racketeering.
A quote:
Typically, this usage is based on the example of the "protection racket" and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that it created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed. Example: in a protection racket, a representative from the racket informs a storeowner that a fee of X dollars will be required every month for protection money, though the "protection" that is provided comes in the form of the racket itself not causing damage to the store or its employees.
Threatening people with lawsuits and then offering them a chance to pay to avoid "what might happen to you" - is racketeering. It's also extortion:
Extortion or outwresting is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation or threatens one with physical or reputational harm unless they are paid money or property.
The RICO act seeks to prevent people from using these tactics to make money. And threatening people with lawsuits and offering them a chance to pay protection money rather than go to court (and have to pay even more for a lawyer to properly defend themselves) is a protection racket.
It's really that simple.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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
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...
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
Wondering if they'll mind if she pays with duplicated money.
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.
Six should do it.
Things have more power in groups of ten.
I'd prefer doing things in multiples of the base of the natural logarithm, but as a non integer it poses problems. I've always wanted to redefine the integers using e as the base, creating some sort of vector or tensor space with non rheimanian geometry where distances were calculated with some combination of e, Pi, and c. I started on something like that once, but I wasn't sure if I was on to genius or madness, and I needed to study real classes I was taking instead of making strange mathematical symbols that I invented.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The Supreme Court has held several times that monetary awards must have a reasonable relationship to the actual damages to pass constitutional muster. They look skeptically at anything with more than a single-digit multiplier over actual damages--i.e. 5x actual damages might be ok, but not 10x, much less 1000x, actual damages. This has been used several times to reduce large punitive damage awards as unconstitutional.
To my knowledge several law professors are of the opinion that this line of argument has a decent chance of success in copyright cases, but it hasn't yet been tried.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In civil court, the idea isn't to deter certain conduct, but to equalize a wrong. Punitive damages are to deter future behavior.
The penalties in copyright law are compensatory, not punitive. Further evidence of this is that you can still be held liable for infringement to the tune of a minimum of $200 per infringement even if you had no reason to believe that the work was copyrighted. In your scenario, that'd be like reducing the littering fine to $500 even if you had no reason to believe littering was prohibited where you littered.
I made a mistake in my previous post by declaring there should be a deterrent. What I should have said is that there needs to be an additional penalty for violating the rights of the copyright holder over and above the market cost of the work.
Paying the $70 isn't really a problem because part of the process of filing for bankruptcy is stopping making payments on all of your debts . If you do pay some of your debts the bankruptcy trustee will have to go and retrieve that money to distribute evenly among all of the creditors. The credit counseling specified for Chapter 7 will NEVER try to get you to pay some of your debts. It is simply to teach you how credit works so if you jump into credit you will do it with your eyes open.
The new bankruptcy law really doesn't change much of anything except for "The means test" and the previously mentioned credit counseling. The means test is just a formula they plug your numbers into to see if you can file or if you have to try to pay the credit card companies back as a Chapter 13 for an additional year.
The supposed "Reform" was bought and paid for by the credit card companies because apparently they needed the changes to keep from losing money even though they are insanely profitable. One thing they got was the minimum payments on your credit card is doubled so if someone might be having trouble making payments they now will certainly be delinquent and that will get the interest rate jacked up to 30%. (Thank god the government is helping us out like this!)
The entire point of P2P is to side-step theis limitation. This is probably their rationalization.
In case you didn't know, if she uploaded the song to 3 people, and they each uploaded it to 3 people, blah blah blah you get the picture. Most of the time, you don't even get the whole song from any one person if it's popular enough. This should be known...
Also, it's terabyte. Who's fault is it I keep seeing "terrabyte" everywere? What a pain.
Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
Actually, it will be automatically discharged, unless RIAA contests it in adversarial proceeding. If they wanted to be real pricks they could probably drag it out for some time. This is nothing new, Scientology has done it to a bunch of their critics.
That said, bankruptcy judges typically take a rather dim view of creditors that try to do this -- the whole point to bankruptcy is to give the honest person a fresh start (there aren't supposed to be debtor's prisons in the US). Besides which, the whole point of the RIAA suits isn't to collect money. It's to get the headline of "Jury awards $220,000 to RIAA for file sharing". There is exactly zero chance that they will ever collect any sizable sum of this money, bankruptcy or not. Take a look at OJ Simpson. How long has he dodged that judgment?
Filing for bankruptcy has become more difficultThat's a myth. It's become more expensive for those filers that retain an attorney, because of the new requirements imposed under BAPCPA. There's also the added cost of the required credit courses and consoling, but this is typically not a huge expense.
and the consequences more far-reachingAnother myth. The consequences of filing BK didn't change at all under the new laws. The only 'consequence' that changed is that you have to wait 8 years before you can file again, vs 6 years under the old laws. The biggest consequence of filing bankruptcy is that it goes on your credit report for 10 years. It's a myth that you won't be able to obtain credit after a BK. I'm two years from my Ch 7 and I have a car loan at 5.5% and $5,900 worth of credit limits. I could probably obtain more if I wanted to (why bother?)
It is not an easy way out.It is what it always has been -- a last ditch safety net for those with no hope of ever repaying their debts. Unless this woman makes a huge amount of income and can realistically pay this debt back in the next five years, this sounds like the perfect reason to file bankruptcy to me. With few exceptions (student loans, taxes, child support) we don't allow debtors prisons/debt slavery in the United States.
And yes, I've been through all of this. I filed Chapter 7 under the old laws. I still maintain a relationship with the attorney that did my case. I wound up becoming his computer consultant. He would be the first to tell you that not too much changed under the new laws. 95% of his clients are so deeply in debt that they qualify for a Ch 7 even after the "means test" imposed by BAPCPA. The image of scores of deadbeat debtors with the money to repay their debts abusing the bankruptcy system was nothing more then propaganda put out by the credit industry.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Lending a CD to a friend is not the same thing as copying it.
In any case, it's not $9,250 for every time the song was downloaded, it's $9,250 for each song that was made available. Each of those songs could have been downloaded once, or 100,000 times. The chances are the jury came to that figure partially considering some kind of finger-in-the-air estimate of how often the songs were likely to have been downloaded.
Put it another way, if these 20 songs were, between them, downloaded a million times, then the defendant has only had to pay about 20c per copy. On the other hand, if they were never downloaded, then the fine is a little high.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
the problem is promotion, anyone can put thier songs on the web and put up a paypal link to pay for them and get a code to download them. Anyone can get thier tunes added to iTunes for a reasonable fee. None of that helps if noone outside of a few locals who have seen you in a pub gig knows they want your music. You need to get a LOT of sales to get enough money to give up your day job and that means you need promotion on major radio stations.
The way for an artist to make big money in the music buisness is to sign on with a record company, take thier promotion and then stay popular for long enough to get out of the "abusive" initial contract. After that they can either break out on thier own or get a much better contract with a record label. It is the staying popular that is the difficult bit, one hit wonders will never reach that point.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I am a believer in Jury nullification. In this case, nullifying the judges instructions.
First he ruled that making available did not amount to infringement, then at the last minute decided it was. The judges decision and his instructions was pivotal and perhaps the entire crux of the defense along with user identification.
The "system" gets pissed, especially judges (read ego), when all their years studying in college and dedication to their craft gets squashed by a laymen like me using common sense (read Jury nullification). Oh well... They want respect but when the "system", manufactures a product like this, they appear blind or at least dismissal to what it looks like to the outside world.
My lawyer friends my disagree with my opinion but they can't have it both ways. The system can't ask for my respect and at the same time expect me to swallow this Elephant.
-[d]-
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?)
I still cannot for the life of me understand why people have an issue with the RIAA, MPAA, YMCA, whatever. I haven't bought a CD in 15 years. Why? There hasn't been anything good put out in 15 years. Most of the music I listen to was written what... ummm. 110 years ago. I have Mike Oldfields' Songs from a Distant Earth. I think that was the last CD\Music item I purchased. I ripped all my CDs back about what 2 years ago, boxed up my CDs and store them at a rented storage facility (Paranoid about fires, lived through one once). They sit on a removable hard disk which is attached to my computer sitting next to my stero. I listen to them on the Stereo and I sync a playlist or 3 to my MP3 player. All of this is legal, why? I own the CDs and have made my backups. The key is I don't share my collection. I don't burn CDs for friends, I don't make a custom mixed CD and send it to 20 friends, etc. I'm too busy for that crap anyways. The key is DISTRIBUTION.
The problem that RIAA has is people distributing files across the Internet. This lady was guilty as hell (and stupid). Ordinary people, stitting on a jury, decided that she was in the wrong. She was busted distributing music.
They have never gone after someone who has just ripped their CDs, they are after people sharing them. Every case they have brought, every John Doe they have issued, has all been in relation to content being shared across the Internet. In fact, I don't recall any cases yet about people even downloading music, just sharing (or in many cases with P2P you end up automatically resharing what you download, Bittorrent's nature implies redistribution as you download as a result of the packet trades). If that were the case they'd be all over the IRC channels using old school direct transfers.
Why is this an issue? All the arguements, all the complaining, and all the irrelevant comparisons. The issue is trafficing of bootleg music. Not ripping your music to MP3, AACS, FLAC, OGG, APE, etc. The RIAA has never shook someone down for ripping "Blade Runner" (which the person owns) to their laptop for a flight or their HTPC. They go after people for Ripping "Blade Runner" then posting it to a P2P network. If you aren't distributing it on the Internet then they don't really have an issue.
I just don't get what the problem here is. As far as I've seen this is no different in nature then the last 30 years or from that matter last 130 years.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Besides, I could write a client that keeps track of which pieces I downloaded from whom. A swarm of these clients could ensure they got full copies from each of the targets. More expensive in bandwidth and they'd have to be leechers (legally), but doable.
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.
The original easy way out, a.k.a Chapter
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.
You went bankrupt because of debt, and the first thing you do when you get out of bankruptcy is go get a car loan?
Seems like someone hasn't learned their lesson.
I agree, those banks haven't learned their lesson. But why should they, when the Gov't will bail them out of any bad lending decisions they make?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Suck my cock, you fucking troll. Mighty big of you to pass judgment on me when you have no idea what forced me into bankruptcy to begin with. Ever stop to think that the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt? Yes, I learned my lesson -- next time I won't get cancer while between jobs with no medical insurance.
Two years ago I was hopelessly in debt. Debt that would take me 20 years to repay. Now I have almost $4,000 in my 401k, $3,000 in savings/short term investments. The car that you are passing judgment on me for is a fucking Suzuki Reno. Yeah, I'm living the high life with my $10,000 hatchback.
Bankruptcy is supposed to be a fresh start for the honest debtor that is so deeply in debt that it will take a literal lifetime to pay it off. My BK attorney had a general rule of thumb: If you owe 75% of your annual income in debt (not counting your mortgage) then you'll be paying interest for the rest of your life. By the time my medical bills were done with, I owed roughly 300% of my income in debts.
So, I'll say it again. Suck my cock you fucking judgemental troll. I deserve to get modded down to oblivion for snapping like this -- but you deserve to have the shit beat out of you by the Narn Bat Squad.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So fucking what. The 'criminal' downloaded 20-odd songs that were shared by default on her software. All she gained was 20-odd tracks, she never intended to be a distributor. She should be fined $30 or so, if they want to prosecute those who shared her tracks let them do so. As it stands, the fine in no way represents the crime. She was never in danger of earning 220,000 dollars by downloading a couple dozen tracks into her shared folder. The punishment in no way fits the crime here. While she did wrong, it wasn't any deliberate wrong, no more than me donating a CD to the local library or lending a CD to a friend.
One day, we'll see the light. Until then, at least the corporate oppression has marketing values.