Slashdot Mirror
How RIAA Case Should Have Played Out
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If a regular 'country lawyer' like myself had taken a case like the RIAA's in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset to court, he or she would have been laughed out of the courthouse. But when it's the RIAA suing, the plaintiffs are awarded a $1.92 million verdict for the infringement of $23.76 worth of song files. That's because RIAA litigation proceeds in a parallel universe, which on its face looks like litigation, but isn't. On my blog I fantasize as to how the trial would have ended had it taken place not in the 'parallel universe,' but in the real world of litigation. In that world, the case would have been dismissed. And if the Judge had submitted it to the jury instead of dismissing, and the jury had ruled in favor of the RIAA, the 'statutory damages' awarded would have been less than $18,000."
The RIAA represent imaginary goods, so their cases take place in an imaginary land.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Personally, I have not purchased a CD in almost 10 years, and I will not purchase another CD from an RIAA label EVER. That is the only way we can make our voices heard... DO NOT BUY FROM THEM.
Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
Your fantasy-land in which intellectual property has no value, and clearly guilty people have the cases against them dismissed... that's the imaginary one.
Did you even bother to read Ray's post? I'm guessing not.
Ray points out some extremely simple things that were overlooked. Here's one example:
The jury should have been required to make findings as to (a) the date defendant commenced using an âoeonline media distribution systemâ (Kazaa) and (b) the copyright registration effective date of each work they find was infringed. The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa [or the Court could itself have made that determination based on the answers to the verdict form].
I don't recall the exact details off the top of my head, but basically if you want to bring a lawsuit over copyright in the U.S., you need to have registered that copyright. Under Berne, copyright attaches at the moment of creation (fixation), but the U.S. requires registration of works if there's going to be a case about it (at least for domestic works). This is a simple technical detail, but if the works were registered after any copying or distribution happened, it is an important fact.
Also, Ray is not saying IP has no value.... sounds like you have an axe to grind and are just looking for a place to do it.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I purchased the full albums (and a few singles) of the songs that she downloaded and put them on eBay in one single auction. I put the listing at $1.92 million for the starting bid. However, eBay took my listing down, thinking it was a fraudulent listing. I tried explaining to them on the phone that these 19 CDs worth of music were worth $1.92 million, I even linked them THREE DOZEN news articles reporting the value.
Here's a list of the songs she downloaded.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/23534
The RIAA is just doing anything they can to stay in business, like any good capitalist business should.
Now that's funny. A "good" capitalist business should roll with the changes, should cater to their customer, should work with their customer, should take advantage of technology, etc. The RIAA is not a business. It is a lobbying group. It is comprised of businesses. A good business would sue someone who stole their property for the amount of losses they experienced. We do not have that going on here. We have a hilarious trial that stinks to high hell where you are fined $80,000 per song you downloaded in copyright violations.
The businesses that support the RIAA are past due on realizing that the RIAA has outlived itself. Now it's just a monster run amok and the consumers are the victims.
You are without help if you believe the RIAA is just another capitalist business trying to get by in tough times.
My work here is dung.
No, see, you think of Ray as some sort of amazing lawyer, because he's popular around here. But he was wrong about this. Plain and simple. Lawyers from both sides, and judges, and juries, all looked at this case, and the conclusion was that she was in the wrong and had to pay. For him to claim that all those people did it wrong, and his conclusion must be the best... it's the height of arrogance (or maybe just a play for more views for his blog).
Ray's not an amazing lawyer but he's a good guy and has helped inform us on Slashdot more than once. What he did in this article is point out some rudimentary laws and facts that he thinks should have not only influenced the trial but changed the outcome drastically. I think this interesting and shows one of two things: 1) the RIAA is definitely in bed with the judicial system on many levels and/or 2) the emergence of a new technology can often have differing effects on certified lawyers and lawmakers upon its advent. In our case, we have the amazing thing that is the internet and while some people are using one set of archaic laws to deal with it and keep it under control, other peoples might use other archaic laws. Some might even go so far as to posit that no archaic laws have been made that fairly address the internet.
I think if you read Ray's posts, he may not be an amazing lawyer but he is a certified lawyer who is offering you a different professional view of the current state of things. I gotta admit, what he says makes a whole lot more than what I read about in the papers. $80,000 a song as an award in the latest trial? What?
My work here is dung.
From Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge:
> The newer (September 2008) editions have a total of $20,580
That wouldn't go far to pay off $1.9M. Perhaps if you had the most valuable set ever:
> The Guinness Book of World Records states that a set worth $2,000,000 and made of
> 23-carat gold, with rubies and sapphires atop the chimneys of the houses and hotels,
> is the most expensive Monopoly set ever produced.
but just barely!
At least from a damages perspective though, we should treat all of those infringements as having a net total worth of that song's fraction of the album's value. Everyone might not be particularly happy with their fraction of a sale but in theory everyone agreed to the contracts that setup the whole divvying scheme (bargaining power is a discussion for another day).
You're not doing a very convincing job of constructing an argument. So far you have
- ad hominem: You only think Ray's good cause he's popular on Slashdot
- argument from authority: lawyers, judges, and juries must be right
- another ad hominem: for Ray to claim those guys are wrong, wow, what arrogance!
Ray's blog, on the other hand, contains actual substantive arguments pertaining to proper procedures (who should be allowed to testify and with what caveats or warnings) and prior case history (what is the relationship between award of damages and monetary harm). He might be wrong, but then so might be the jury.
In fact, if the jury thinks the way you've presented your arguments, they'll just think, "Wow, all these really masterful lawyers on one side, they can't be wrong--I'll just trust whatever they say and not think about it!" The judge, if he or she shares the approach you took in this post, is liable to be similarly swayed.
...Just go into Wal-Mart and steal the damn CDs!
:rolls eyes:)
I mean seriously don't do that, but if you go into Wal-Mart and steal a CD most likely nothing is going to happen to you if you get caught with one CD on you. Maybe they'll call the cops to come scare you, and that's a maybe.
Just getting a copy off the internet though (not even depriving another person or store of the actual CD even) will cost you MILLIONS. I mean really, 1.92 million? I mean if she gave 100% of every paycheck she ever makes, even at a decent wage, she probably won't make that much money in her LIFE. So destroying someones entire existance because they downloaded some songs? Does that seem just?
In Lane County, Oregon (google about our Jail situation, where they have a comuter program to determine who gets released early based on certain criteria) a guy was sentenced to 1 year in jail by a judge for rape. The jails are so over crowded that they (the computer program) let him out after 3 hours!! 2 weeks later he raped and murdered some other lady. (We're all hoping they keep this guy in next time for at least a week
So a rapist gets 3 hours of Jail time, and someone who DL'ed Kazaa to her computer gets their life ruined?
The RIAA are pulling some strings behind the scene I think it's obvious to say.
There's a company that makes blow-up car passengers to help scare off rapists. Do you really believe that they should rape people to make sure their product sells well, or do you think you might have forgotten about ethics somewhere along the line? ;)
no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa
I'm sorry but this logic is laughable. Say I started using Kazaa in 2005. In 2006 I take a newly produced and copywritten album and share it, no problem! The effective date of the copyright (2006) is subsequent to when I started using Kazaa (2005), so I'm in the clear. The earlier you start file sharing, the better!
If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.
This is when you think the law is bad, or you otherwise cannot convict them under it by your conscience. It still exists to this day, but simply remains mostly unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
In this case, I would have absolutely nullified a potential $2 million fine. Did she do it? Sure. But it's a bad law resulting in excessive fines.
It only takes one juror who knows his or her rights to stop this kind of crap. For more information as your rights at a juror, see the Fully Informed Jury Association.
http://fija.org/
-SKO
Yes, Ray is claiming that all those people did it wrong and I have no idea if he's right. But he is giving a list of arguments to support his point.
So if you want to claim that he is wrong, you should show that those arguments are wrong.
So far, all you are saying is "a lot of judges and lawyers agreed on this, therefore the decision is correct", like there's never been a wrong judgement in the history of mankind.
The blog post ignores the fact that a trial is a dynamic process. Had he made the arguments he lists, then RIAA lawyers would quite likely have countered them with appropriate arguments and evidence. For example:
Liability-Reproduction right
Plaintiffs failed to introduce an iota of evidence that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had made a single copy using Kazaa.
Result: directed verdict on reproduction right.
If he made that argument at trial, the RIAA would almost certainly have introduced evidence that bit-for-bit identical copies of the songs in question are available on Kazaa, that such an identical copy is unlikely to have occurred if she ripped the song herself, and that she didn't own the albums in question. Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but probably enough to get the issue to the jury instead of a directed verdict.
Some of his statements are questionable as a matter of law:
The jury should have been instructed that a "work" is an album, and that multiple mp3's from one album constitutes a single "work".
There is not particularly strong precedent on this issue. Some courts have held that this is the case, it's true, but as best I can find they were only district courts and not in the same circuit as Minnesota (where the Thomas case was held), further diminishing their already merely persuasive authority. I do not believe there is any mandatory authority on this point for the District of Minnesota, which means that the RIAA lawyers may well have been successful in persuading the judge to adopt a one song, one work basis for calculating statutory damages.
Some of his statements sound impressive but wouldn't have made a difference:
The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa
A quick check at the US Copyright Registry of a random selection of the songs that Ms. Thomas infringed shows that they were registered many years ago, in some cases over a decade ago, and easily predated any infringement by Ms. Thomas.
Ultimately, this is about drumming up interest in his law firm and ad revenue from his blog, which Slashdot happily hands him about once a week or so. It also does a lot to poison the potential jury pool for future copyright litigation, which is of great interest to a lawyer who works those kinds of cases on the side of the defense. One should take everything Mr. Beckerman says about these issues with a grain of salt appropriate to the magnitude of his self-interest.
In short, this is nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking, and not particularly good quarterbacking at that. It should also tell one something that most of his legal arguments are not backed up by citations to relevant authorities.
> But he was wrong about this. Plain and simple
How could he be "wrong" about this? He predicted the outcome?
All he claims is that in his opinion the law reads in a certain way; he's much too smart to assume that the court system is going to agree with him.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a knee-jerk between your ears. Get over it, and start to tolerate other people's opinions.
I'm sad to see this judgment turn out the way it did. But I can't help but wish Ray had reported with a little bit less spin. Every time he had a story submission, it was like it was a guaranteed fact that the RIAA was on the ropes and there was no way Thomas would lose. I understand the PR world and how you want to leave the overwhelming impression that there's no way you can lose because sometimes that actually helps you win. But I don't think the slashdot crowd was very well served. I would have liked a more neutral point of view where from time to time they said things like, "yes, this bit DOES suck but it's likely it will apply based on other court judgments."
I know Ray pointed out several things that he thought were just plain wrong, but I start feeling like I'm not sure if I'm reading the neutral factual opinion or the press release version. As it stands, the laws are pretty stacked against the way most of on slashdot wish it was. Until we get those changed, I see little hope for courtroom victories.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Nonsense. A good capitalist is someone who makes a lot of money. How that money is made is of no concern whatsoever. The morals of capitalists have to be imposed by the government.
-- Cheers!
Umm, because its proponents get to live like intergalactic royalty whilst everyone else lives in the gutter?
Did I win?
Requiem for the American Dream
Yah; it's terrible the way you RIAA ghouls abuse those whose interests you purport to serve.
Requiem for the American Dream
Hey NYCL, maybe you'd be interested in heading up a campaign to collect some funds from those of us in the know to educate the masses. I know from experience that the biggest problem with these court cases is ignorance. The judges sound like they're catching up, but I believe the persons on jury panels are still ignorant of the real dollar values involved and the facts surrounding the RIAA's abuses of the judicial system.
The first thing that comes to mind is that there are scads of advertisements from the MPAA and the RIAA that go to great lengths to equate copyright infringement with criminal theft (a very successful campaign I might point out based upon ignorant comments on this very website). What the world needs right now is not love, but balance. We're lacking *any* kind of counterpoint regarding consumer digital rights. I'd be thrilled to pieces to see one shred of advertisement (a billboard ad, paid ad time on network TV, etc.) that presented the opposition to the RIAA and the MPAA.
In short, if someone were to take the lead and head up a group that took funds from the public that were then used in a campaign of this sort, then I would be the first person in line to donate some cash.
I know, the EFF is *supposed* to be leading the charge on this, but I've seen not one physical manifestation of their efforts. Advertising on the Internet is cheap...but obviously not as effective as a commercial that equates stealing a car with downloading a song.
Anyone?
I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
I take it you've never read many comments with score < 0.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
As a Brit, I'm aware that my own country's legal system has gone rather downhill over the last 30 years. But the thing that strikes a European most about the US legal system is its cruelty. Punitive damages. Unconvicted defendants for white collar crimes going into court with wire ties binding their wrists. Three strikes and you're out for even a trivial third offense. "Humane" systems of execution where executioners spin out the proceedings for hours. Obviously practice varies greatly across the US States, just as some EU countries (ahem, Greece, ahem) have crap legal systems and others like Germany have good ones. But you only have to look at the outcome of the Pirate Bay case in Sweden, and this one, to see the disproportion involved. The effect of the Pirate Bay case on the European elections (and now a German MEP has defected to the Pirate Party) also shows the different levels of popular tolerance involved.
US citizens need to start growing a backbone. You do not have to support criminal activity to demand that corporations not be allowed to take over and distort the legal system.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
When your friend starts eating his toast with the buttered side down, he's just a little quirky.
When he packages his hair and nail clippings and burns them on a toy boat in the backyard pool, he's eccentric.
When he kills the neighbor's cat and wears the skin on his head proclaiming himself the beast master, he's bat-shit insane.
We've reached stage three with the RIAA, and now everyone can see it. It's time for treatment.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I am sure I am not alone in wondering why NYCL hasn't taken up the cause directly. It is a problem of venue or being licensed somewhere specific? If the case could be won "easily" then I have to wonder why it isn't being done?
Well...
You shouldn't concentrate so much on that verdict, but as to what that verdict does to foreign perception of the US. I live but two hours from the US border, and what Jamie did doesn't even qualify as a civil issue, let alone a crime, where I live. Unfortunately, US lobbyists are trying to change the law here, but, so far, with little success (except for the typical lip service; love to see politicos at work sucking hard!).
Tough luck on the verdict, USA. I am laughing at you.
Now, for a practical matter. If a friend from the US comes and visits, and makes copies (or downloads) of music, is she liable for copyright infringement when she returns to the US? Now, further, if she downloads exclusively from me, and yet is resident in the US, is she guilty?
Tough questions, but these SHOULD be resolved in a hurry. After all, the difference between $0 and $1.92 million is, well, $1.92 million! Comparisons to cocaine smuggling are welcome... You can get 500 songs on the cheapest mp3 player these days, which is 400 times what Jamie is accused of, with a potential fine of 1/2 billion dollars now -- Say this out loud, and try not to break out laughing. "a $20 investment can result in $500 million in fines".
Nope, couldn't keep a straight face, sorry.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Outcomes like this $1.92 million in damages for nothing hurt and weaken our system. Whatever a person's stand on copyright and Thomas' guilt, I'm seeing agreement that the amount is excessive and unfair. It reinforces cynical ideas that the whole system is corrupt, shot full of bribery and payoffs. It's also, as everyone realizes, complete bull. The fine is uncollectable. She'll never have the money. She's stuck now for years more litigation, trying to appeal all this. If this fine is ultimately upheld or she feels that the agonies of further fighting are worse than giving up, she is stuck having her wages garnished for the rest of her life, or going through bankruptcy, or maybe fleeing to another nation and asking for asylum.
Dred Scott was another unjust decision. That one lead to Civil War. Other issues have lead to civil unrest. The courts and lawmakers should think about such things when they do their work.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
There are several issues that need to be determined.
First - suppose you run a store, and some kid comes in, steals a candy bar, and eats it. You call the law, you call the parents, everyone shows up. Most definitely, someone owes you SOMETHING. The candy bar has a street value of about a dollar. (Oddly, that's pretty close to the street value of a single soundtrack.) What do you demand as recompense? Most store owners don't want the dollar, because they are pissed off. Most store owners don't demand a million dollar payoff, either. Among other reasons, neither the parents, nor the cops, nor a judge, nor any jury is going to go along with such a thing.
So - what is reasonable? Personally, I make the KID pay for his candy bar, by working it off. Tell the parents that he can work in the store for a week, cleaning, mopping, or whatever, OR, you'll take the matter to court.
Compare that to RIAA. They want THOUSANDS of dollars for a ripped off song which has a similar street value to my candy bar. Do you not think that is preposterous? Do you not think that there are issues that need to be resolved here?
In my most honest opinion, Jammie owes the record companies a couple dollars to pay for her downloaded songs. She owes something in the way of punitive damages. 24 songs, at a buck apiece, is 24 bucks. Drawing on ancient tort law, let's treble the damages, so she now owes 72 bucks. If she had been offered this deal from the get-go, her conscience might have convinced her that 72 bucks was a good deal, and paid it.
Even if it goes to court, and a hard fought case goes to RIAA, no sane judge is going to award a million bucks. I invite you to check out your own court system in your own home town. First time offenders convicted of petty theft generally pay restitution, a small fine, court costs, and community service. If there is no lawyer involved, total cost is maybe $1500 bucks. Paying a lawyer in my home town would add 500 bucks to the bill, your mileage may differ.
Personally, as I've said, Jammy probably is guilty of something. But, guilty or not, the penalty has to be something within the realms of reason.
HOWEVER!!! Illegal evidence has never been admissable in a criminal court, nor should it be encouraged in a civil court. RIAA has a lot to answer for, regarding their "investigative" techniques. MediaSentry, among other things, has been shot so full of holes, it resembles the Titanic. Forensic evidence is never properly obtained, documented, or presented. The courts don't even seem to understand what all this evidence is SUPPOSED to mean, let alone examine it to determine if it's legal, and technically correct.
Bottom line, RIAA are a bunch of parasites who manage to get by because they shout "THIEF" more loudly than their victims can.
Let's put RIAA out of everyone's misery, then we might all get together to come up with some sane laws. Note, I don't even say "fair laws". For the sake of this argument, I only require "sane".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
First, note that a single download is worth 3 and a third dead people. Obviously something is a bit out of kilter here, but let's assume at this point that it is the valuation of dead people.
At $80,000 per song, I estimate the value of my hard drive at $1.8 BILLION dollars. Yes, billion with a B. By that logic, I should be able to copy my collection onto cheap external hard drives (Seagate's outlet store was just selling them for $25) and mail them out to five people. Those people would then pass on the billions of free dollars to five others, and so on, and so on, and so on... Just think about it, no more foreclosed homes, no more poverty, no more hunger!
What you say? It's imaginary money? But the judicial system just ruled it real!
ALL YOUR BASS ARE BELONG TO US.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Then you get the mess that is America.
-- Cheers!
"In my most honest opinion, Jammie owes the record companies a couple dollars to pay for her downloaded songs. She owes something in the way of punitive damages. 24 songs, at a buck apiece, is 24 bucks. Drawing on ancient tort law, let's treble the damages, so she now owes 72 bucks. If she had been offered this deal from the get-go, her conscience might have convinced her that 72 bucks was a good deal, and paid it."
It's important to keep in mind that she was nailed for distributing, not downloading. When you use the word "damages" here I think you may be thinking in terms of downloading. For instance, if I found a way to get free songs from the iTunes or Amazon store and managed to download 24 tracks before caught but did not distribute them, then it would fit the framework you've described. But that's not what she did -- she was making them available. In this case it did not matter how the tracks got into her share directory.
The issue here is that the limits for statutory damages are a remnant of the days when large-scale distribution required one person to have a lot of resources, and thus was almost always for profit. Given the new reality of sharing a track with thousands or millions of people with just a few clicks and at very low cost, the limits for statutory damages should be scaled back immensely (less than $1,000 per work), or at the very least, a separate set of limits should apply to commercial vs. non-commercial infringement, so that the courts can still wreak serious financial harm to the folks churning out fake Windows CDs by the pallet.
I should also point out that while she was taken to court for sharing 24 songs, she had something like 1,500 tracks in her share directory. This is fitting with the RIAA's usual tactic of going after the "whales" of file sharing; if you have just a few dozen tracks in your share directory you're less liable to be caught. To use an ugly analogy, Timonthy McVeigh killed 168 people but was charged only for the murder of 11 federal agents (in addition to some other charges not relating to particular victoms). I take it that this is relatively common in the legal system; only charge them for enough to get the punishment you want.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
If you know enough to nullify it, odds are extremely good that you'll be dismissed during the selection process. As much as we here on slashdot love to poke fun at lawyers, they're usually pretty smart, and will pick a jury they feel will get them the verdict they desire.
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson
Speaking of misinformation, you're full of shit.
Please.
Kazaa is a file-sharing program.
Downloads default to your "shared files" folder. Shared files default to "share."
Which to a jury means exactly what you think it does.
There is neat little progress graph which shows which files are on the move and which are waiting in line.
You have a nickname.
You can chat with other users.
There is an option to scan the shared files of other users - and scoop up all you can eat.
There are options to set limits on your upstream and downstream traffic. When you try to close the program, you will warned if files are still in transit.
What Kazaa does and how it works is perfectly transparent.
In civil law, you are responsible for the consequences which can be reasonably be expected to follow from your actions.
That you shut your eyes to the truth is not a defense.
Stupid is not a defense.
But being too clever by half will sink you.
The geek is Wile E. Coyote - Super Genius - in court. He expects the system to roll over and play dead just because he says so.
Yes, Ray is claiming that all those people did it wrong and I have no idea if he's right. But he is giving a list of arguments to support his point. So if you want to claim that he is wrong, you should show that those arguments are wrong.
My blog post was written specifically to an audience of experienced lawyers. Any regular litigator knows that the procedural errors I pointed out are correct. And any regular copyright lawyer, litigator or not, knows that the substantive legal errors I pointed out are also correct. By saying that you "have no idea if he's right" you are demonstrating intellectual integrity, something in short supply these days. So thank you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Tough luck on the verdict, USA. I am laughing at you.
You and everyone else in the world who knows about this.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
On the contrary. It's a very good argument. If we were in the middle of a violent revolution, a nuclear holocaust, the aftermath of an asteroid impact, etc. in the U.S. and people were killing each other just to stay alive, it would be difficult to argue that one particular shooting deserved murder charges unless it involved killing some famous public official or something. It's not a question of how many times it has happened over time, but rather a question of whether the people committing the crime are a small enough minority that punishing them all is practical. If even a quarter of the population does something illegal, prosecuting them all is impractical, and prosecuting a few to "set an example" is unlikely to be effective. Thus, unless the goal is to make revenue (speeding tickets, catching tax cheats, etc.), it just doesn't make sense.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Lawyers only get a limited number of "rejections" in a court case, they don't get to go through and reject anyone they don't like - that would violate the right to trial by a jury of your peers. They have to be careful about who they pick, and if they have a concern about someone they generally all go into a back room - sometimes with the proposed juror - and discuss the issue before deciding.
So no, the odds are not extremely good, I am very surprised that there was apparently nobody on the jury who had a clue, or who thought such fines were outrageous. The jury actually RAISED the fines - the RIAA was not asking for $80,000 per song.
Frankly, I don't understand it, she must have done something to piss off the entire jury.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.
God.
This is dumb.
In a civil trial the jury makes a simple finding of fact for the plaintiff or defendant.
The entire process of a modern jury trial is intended to strip a case of its emotion. It doesn't always work that way, of course.
But Hearts and Flowers it ain't.
The juror will be typically be middle aged, middle class, small-C conservative.
In the federal system, the panel will more or less be a creation of the judge - and a judge almost by definition is a middle aged small-C conservative. He is looking for men and women who have come to do a job and not to play the system.
The size of the federal jury pool and the element of randomness in its selection does not favor the lone nullifier.
He probably won't get a case he gives a damn about. He almost certainly won't give a damn about you.
Nullification - of course - has always cut both ways.
The black American through almost the whole of our history could tell you that much.
But I have always been a little bit puzzled about why the geek thinks a jury will be any way inclined to throw a lifeline out to him.
The geek builds castles in the air. He whines. He wheedles. He lies like a rug. He could have settled this business quickly and cheaply and saved everyone a lot of trouble.
She lied in court and destroyed evidence, plus she was quite simply undeniably guilty of what she was accused of. That tends to piss juries off, as far as I can tell.
I write bullshit
I covered the "distributing", I believe. Apparently, you skipped over it. Copyright infringement was meant to apply to people using copyrighted material for commercial gain. Copyright never was meant to prevent an individual from making copies for himself, or for friends, for which he is not paid. In today's world, friends might be located all around the globe, and you may not even know their real names - but being a member of the filesharing community makes them your friend.
RIAA makes little if any distinction between people distributing for financial gain, and people who are just sharing. The law needs to address that little oversight. At most, it's an aggravating circumstance to a petty theft when a private individual is involved.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Rather then reading the summary you could read the actual blog post
You must be new here.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
As a Brit, I'm in no position to be laughing. Perhaps you haven't kept up to date on what happens over the pond, here are some examples: Digital Britain report to combat piracy as well as a forum for the report, here is some focus on the piracy aspect of the report. This is shortly after our IP minister says government will not legislate against piracy. Sneaky ISP cuts a deal with label while promising to be harder on piracy most likely to preempt the Digital Britain report.
Ironically I think our court system would have done better with the sort of case you had to deal with.. but our government makes up for that by being ready to impose new legislation at the drop of a hat.
No, I don't think rape should be legalized, nor did I say that mass downloading/uploading of music should be legalized. However, that's a great example. It is a broad societal problem, and thus can't be solved by jailing the individual offenders. It can only usefully be solved through education to rid people of the ridiculous notion that raping a virgin will cure AIDS. You have to fix the underlying problem---the lack of education---not the symptom.
In the case of mass music downloading/uploading, education is the only way that it might realistically be reduced, and if that doesn't work, no number of arrests is going to make a dent. The war on drugs is another example of this sort of broad problem. I'm sure we could name at least a dozen other examples. The question of whether it should or should not be a crime is a separate question---a question whose answer does tend to have an impact on whether education campaigns are effective or not....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
My blog post was written specifically to an audience of experienced lawyers.
No wonder my understanding of it went like a call on a cell phone!
Under ....MediaSentry ...testimony barred ...failure ...expert witness ..satisfy...[NO CARRIER]
$2 Million for 24 songs? Well OK if you wanna fight dirty then the time has come for the Bot.NET lords of Cobol to unite!
Step 1. Take existing bot.net code and add $p2pflavor$ modded to start in das hidden mode.
Step 2. Have it set to automatically download mp3s, kiddie porn, $threatoftheweek$ via RSS feed from the $piratebay$.
Step 3. Distribute to the pleebs via normal bot.net methods, all of hem damn methods.
Step 4. Pleebs now automatically download da goods and become evil seed servers.
Step 5. Watch RIAA sue all of the earths pleebs in a massive stoke off.
Step 6. Watch all governments outlaw the internet.
Step 7. Watch all of the earths pleebs get really pissed off.
Step 8. Watch pleebs with guns run a muck in the great pleeb revolt of 2012.
Step 9. Self invented new defense, My system had that damn virus your Honor.
Step 0. No Profit for dem guys!
I now leave you to move into my underground lair so I can work on those sharks with freaking lasers baby!
Copyright law is there to protect the rights of the creators;[snip]
Incorrect by way of ommision. Copyright is intended "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings ..."-U.S. Constitution
It seems that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches have all completely skipped over the entire first part, and only acknowledge the existence of the second part, as do many individuals.
The "securing...exclusive rights..." part is simply a method devised to, and derives from, the desire to accomplish the "To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." part. It doesn't stand on it's own, and that's one of the biggest problems with modern copyright law interpretation and enforcement as well as the laws written concerning copyright in recent times IMHO.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
These weren't personal opinions of mine; they are caselaw. Where an "ongoing course of action", rather than specific acts of infringement, is alleged, the operative date relates back to commencement of the ongoing course of action. And the courts have held that the "work" infringed is the album, not the individual songs.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful