Slashdot Mirror


DoJ Defends $1.92 Million RIAA Verdict

Death Metal points out a CNet report saying that the Justice Department has come out in favor of the $1.92 million verdict awarded to the RIAA in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. Their support came in the form of a legal brief filed on Friday, which notes, "Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed." It also says, "The Copyright Act's statutory damages provision serves both to compensate and deter. Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."

386 comments

  1. Not exactly a surprise ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suppose this is what happens when you appoint a half-dozen ex-RIAA attorneys to top spots in the Justice Department. President Obama assured us that rules were put into place to prevent this sort of activity, but apparently that doesn't matter. Not that I'm the least bit surprised by that. Frankly, I think the Justice Department should have better things to occupy their time than civil lawsuits. That kind of bias ought to be considered malfeasance in office, or something else worthy of immediate dismissal.

    1.92 million dollars for copyright violations by an individual? Now that's Justice for you. Personally, I've never believed that the law should be used to make examples out of people, no matter how distasteful their crimes. That simply breeds more disrespect for the law, which is something the RIAA is apparently unable to understand. They will continue to reap the rewards of that lack of understanding, regardless of what ultimately happens to Jammie Thomas.

    Punishment should fit the crime: otherwise it is just government-sanctioned brutality.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mention copyright violation by an individual. Well. as soon as it hits a P2P sharing program, it is no longer an individual. It is potentially everone on the planet.

      Of course, the biggest limiting factor is knowledge. iTunes exists because people do not know how to obtain digital goods for free. The folks that know aren't paying any more, so the system is now supported on the backs of the ignorant.

    2. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is potentially everone on the planet.

      Yes it is.. including the old, disabled and those wiithout computers.

    3. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Insightful

      iTunes exists because people do not know how to obtain digital goods for free.

      Not everybody thinks that rampant copying of music or whatever for free is appropriate. While I think that the current copyright system and the legal actions surrounding that are pretty stupid, I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word) of commercial data isn't correct either. So, if you're one of those folks that think "everything digital should be free", sorry, but you're just wrong and rather ignorant of the complex interplay between work, production, economics and entertainment yourself.

      If you don't like how the major labels deal with production and distribution of their product, don't use them. Don't buy it. Don't steal it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Tynin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...as soon as it hits a P2P sharing program, it is no longer an individual. It is potentially everyone on the planet.

      Except for a little limitation called upstream bandwidth. She very likely only shared these files maybe a few hundred times, well out of proportion for the financial life sentence she was handed.

    5. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Department of Justice

      Now there's irony for you.

    6. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is potentially everone on the planet.

      you know; you're so so right. In fact, if you think about it all the people who ever paid for an internet connection helped contribute to this by supporting the infrastructure used for all those people to "potentially" infringe.

      I think everybody who ever used the internet should have to pay at least this much to the RIAA. They have (potentially) suffered so much. In fact, if you think about it, and multiply the number of potential people who could have copied by the number of potential people who could have been copied from by the number of potential songs that could have been copied by the maximum potential statutory damages, I think you'll find that their potential losses must run to more dollars than the number of atoms in the planet. We should just declare them galactic rulers and do their every bidding.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suppose this is what happens when you appoint a half-dozen ex-RIAA attorneys to top spots in the Justice Department. President Obama assured us that rules were put into place to prevent this sort of activity, but apparently that doesn't matter. Not that I'm the least bit surprised by that. Frankly, I think the Justice Department should have better things to occupy their time than civil lawsuits. That kind of bias ought to be considered malfeasance in office, or something else worthy of immediate dismissal. 1.92 million dollars for copyright violations by an individual? Now that's Justice for you. Personally, I've never believed that the law should be used to make examples out of people, no matter how distasteful their crimes. That simply breeds more disrespect for the law, which is something the RIAA is apparently unable to understand. They will continue to reap the rewards of that lack of understanding, regardless of what ultimately happens to Jammie Thomas.

      What really goes on at DOJ, I can't say, but I will point out the following:

      1. If President Obama's rules are being applied, the six or more ex-RIAA attorneys were recused from dealing with this case, and had nothing to do with the brief.

      2. The brief's arguments are not dissimilar to the arguments made by the Bush administration when they filed their brief on this issue (pdf) in 2007.

      3. In the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings case, the Solicitor General filed a brief which directly contravened the positions the RIAA's lawyers had taken in that very case. (See Slashdot discussion.)

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    8. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by ljaszcza · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, RIAA should go after libraries next. Think of the hundreds of people that have viewed movies, listened to music, copied books and magazines, without paying their fair share. Billions of dollars must have been lost in sales over the years! Hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry lost because of the scourge called a "public library". A true menace to this country and the American Way of Life. Sue them all, from the NY Public library to the smallest church library. If people want content, they should pay for content. One copy per device per user. We won't even start with the copying machine. No reason for those other then theft of printed content.

    9. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I am not that surprised but a bit disappointed. I thought that with Obama USA was going to take the lead on the issue of copyright in the 21st century. Do not expect many outbreaks from Europe right now. I hope he is just fixing issues by order of priority and that copyright reform is still somewhere on the list.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    10. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by DinDaddy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      She is only responsible for the copies that people downloaded directly from her. Additional copies downloaded from those people are their responsibility, not hers.

      So yeah, still an individual.

    11. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you don't like how the major labels deal with production and distribution of their product, don't use them. Don't buy it. Don't steal it.

      This answer always amuses me because it makes it seem like we have another choice. We don't -- or at least we have very little other options.

      It's like when people complain about telecom customer service/charges/whatever, and are given the answer, "If you don't like the way we operate then don't buy it." Well, what other choice do I have? I need a data plan on my smartphone, but I don't want to get raped. Unfortunately, the only option is rape because every company operates the same way.

      Nice try, but saying "Don't buy it" when services are monopolized and yet wanted/needed by everyone is completely unreasonable. It's the business model that's wrong, not the customer.

    12. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word)

      No, it isn't, unless you're talking about people breaking into your house and stealing your hard disk with the data.

      Simple example to see the difference:

      If I steal your cell phone, has anything been taken away from you? Definitely, yes.

      If I copy the design of your cell phone and manufacture it on my own, has anything been taken away from you? Not really.

      If you say that "profit" has been taken away from you, then that's not the same thing, as I could do that in other ways, by for instance speaking to my friends and telling them your phone sucks, causing them not to buy it. Have I stolen anything from you in that case, and are you going to take me to court for theft?

      And for the record, I'm not anti-copyright, but still don't like the attempts to equate copyright with the ownership of a physical object. They don't work the same.

    13. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, gotta call BS on this, AC. It's one thing to break the DMCA because you want backups of your own music, or you want to be able to play that music on a device that's not officially supported. But to simply copy the music because you don't want to pay for it is a choice, pure and simple. If you don't like the price, well, you don't need what they're selling, and you don't have to buy it.

      Whether or not it's stealing is one thing. But it is indeed use without compensation. Buying from iTunes or Amazon or any number of other DRM-free vendors is a perfectly reasonable solution. To claim that it's rape is childish and ignorant because if you say "no" to their product, they won't take your money.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    14. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just learned that the lead signatory on the DOJ's brief has a content industry background and recently recused himself in another case.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    15. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Those layers are dumb as shit, but perhaps not dumb enough to not have heard about Mr. Fibonacci or binary trees (or they might have friends who would sooner or later tell them). That said, the "amortized damage" by an individual is still comparatively minor.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by eqisow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do know there are minor labels, digital distributors such as Jamendo and Magnatune, as well as unsigned/independent artists, right? Some of music you'll find there is quite good. Subjectively, I'd even venture to say the good/bad ratio is better than the major labels.

    17. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright law is currently held hostage by the cartels that are making all the money off it. I have no problem with anyone downloading any work that is over 20 years old, maybe even 10 years old. Those works should be in the public domain by any reasonable standard. Unfortunately, we don't have reason. We have monopolies that are allowed to control legislation, fix prices, exploit artists, and escape any prosecution for their own crimes. People talk about justice for content providers. Where is the justice for the consumer?

      If everyone is doing it, maybe it should be legal.

    18. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The problem here is the generic take without permission equal stealing ideology we have all been taught. If you take something that doens't belong to you without permision or a right to do so, people consider that stealing.

      Where this breaks down is that the copyright hold has no control over you obtaining the materials. The only control they have is over who and how or when it is distributed. This control is a construct of law so downloading is not stealing because someone gave you permission to take the object (no matter how artificial it is). Now if you are the one distributing, it is stealing because you are taking the exclusive right to control reproduction and distribution (regardless of how intangible the property is) that was granted by the legal construct.

      So in one instance, there is theft, in the other there is not. But you have to remember, the copyrighted materials are not what is stolen, those are the vehicles which the legal rights are attached. What is stolen is the right to be in control to the extent the law allows. And yes, if you took my control over the copying and distribution of something, I am out that concept just like I would if you took my cell phone or TV or car.

    19. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Informative

      You should really just read the laws on this. There are specific exemptions for libraries and legitimate archival. That sort of makes your comment uniformed at best.

    20. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. If President Obama's rules are being applied, the six or more ex-RIAA attorneys were recused from dealing with this case, and had nothing to do with the brief.

      Can those rules actually be followed? I mean the DOJ shouldn't be weighing in on a civil case in the first place but what would you do when you know you bosses have a certain position and they are refrained from acting for some reason outside their own? I mean you still report to them, you still rely on them for performance reviews, raises and so on to some extent. You still have to worry about the boss retaliating in some way, can you really isolate them?

    21. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by digitig · · Score: 1

      so the system is now supported on the backs of the ignorant.

      And the ethical. And those nervous of $1.92 million lawsuits.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    22. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. If President Obama's rules are being applied, the six or more ex-RIAA attorneys were recused from dealing with this case, and had nothing to do with the brief.

      Can those rules actually be followed? I mean the DOJ shouldn't be weighing in on a civil case in the first place but what would you do when you know you bosses have a certain position and they are refrained from acting for some reason outside their own? I mean you still report to them, you still rely on them for performance reviews, raises and so on to some extent. You still have to worry about the boss retaliating in some way, can you really isolate them?

      I don't know. I just discovered this

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    23. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is potentially everyone on the planet.

      I also potential harm everyone on the planet every time I drive my car. Perhaps I should be sued for what might potentially happen, instead of what actually happened.

      I potentially could have shot you just now. Time for murder charges.

      I illegally broadcast a song using a HAM radio, I suppose that warrants a multi-million dollar RIAA lawsuit.

      A $1.92M verdict against an individual does not deter most of America anymore than a $100k verdict would. Either amount is likely bankruptcy for a majority of America.

    24. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, a copyright is the exclusive right. If Alice took the right from Bob, it would mean that Alice could use the law to prohibit Bob from doing various things with the work. It is obvious, though, that if Alice unlawfully makes a copy of a sound recording Bob has the copyright to, that Bob can still do as he pleases with the sound recording, license it to others, etc.

      So the right isn't stolen. Rather, the right is infringed upon, rather like if Alice trespassed onto Bob's land (which violates Bob's right to exclude others, but doesn't impact ownership), or if the government unconstitutionally censored Alice.

      It is hard to imagine a way in which a copyright could be stolen. I suppose it might be possible via fraud, but in normal everyday life it just doesn't happen. Copyrights are infringed upon a great deal, but it just isn't the same.

      The desire for accuracy when describing these issues is probably why the law itself refers to it as infringement, and not as theft, and why attempts to use anti-larceny statutes against copyright infringers have fallen flat at the highest levels.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    25. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      The problem here is the generic take without permission equal stealing ideology we have all been taught. If you take something that doens't belong to you without permision or a right to do so, people consider that stealing.

      My own understanding is that "taking" refers to a physical objects, and as such, abstract things like ideas, designs and exclusivity do not apply.

      What is stolen is the right to be in control to the extent the law allows. And yes, if you took my control over the copying and distribution of something, I am out that concept just like I would if you took my cell phone or TV or car.

      No, it isn't. You still haven't lost the ability to do your own manufacturing.

      The only situation where I might agree something was taken from you is if I really managed to take the ability to manufacture it away from you, for instance by somehow fraudulently getting the copyright transferred to me, not only making me able to manufacture your cell phone design, but making it illegal for you to do that at the same time.

      So long my copying your cell phone's design doesn't somehow stop you from making them, I will never agree there's theft involved. It's copyright infringement.

    26. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Denihil · · Score: 1

      Understand sarcasm much?

      --
      WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
    27. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like the price, well, you don't need what they're selling, and you don't have to buy it.

      Except the price is artificially high because the labels are all in collusion (opinion). Either way, I don't buy music or download it. The radio is enough for me. I've never understood the need to purchase music (or at least, numerous albums).

    28. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Or for those that think words are to hard to understand: http://nynerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/piracy-is-not-theft.gif

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    29. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by shentino · · Score: 1

      They will take your money, they'll just sue it out of you instead of taking it at retail.

      Remember the lady who got sued while in the hospital and got greeted by a default judgement when she came out? That's the kind of people we're dealing with.

      And don't give me the BS line that she should have answered the complaint. The bastards should not have sued her to begin with and their victory was just exploitation of a legal loophole.

    30. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It doesn't matter because she should only be responsible for what she did. If she allowed 107 people to download a song from her then should pay no more than 107 x $0.99 for that song.

      What the third and fourth and nth generation P2Pers did is none of her concern and she can't in good conscience be fined for other people's actions.

    31. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by fox171171 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Possibly even a laser printer or two as well...

    32. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This answer always amuses me because it makes it seem like we have another choice. We don't -- or at least we have very little other options.

      Actually, it is your answer that is amusing. You don't have a choice but to buy music from major labels?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    33. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Don't buy it. Don't steal it.

      Since when is it stealing? And not only that why should we allow media conglomerates to control the ebb and flow of our very culture.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    34. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh noes!!! I read a chapter out of a book at a store today...STEALING! I recorded some music on my cell phone at a concert...STEALING! I recorded broadcast TV on my home DVR and took out the commercials...STEALING!

      You holier-than-thou sanctimonious defenders of big business make me sick. They are out to get as much money as possible without any regard for ethics and people like you not only move out of the way, you defend their actions and allow them to shift terminology so copyright infringement becomes "stealing".

      I'll ask one question. Are 24 songs worth utterly destroying somebody's life over, making them destitute and indebted to a soulless conglomerate of businesses?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    35. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by VulpesFoxnik · · Score: 1

      How are P2P networks any different than having a Library except that the item is digital?

      --
      RES PUBLICA NON DOMINETUR
    36. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The desire for accuracy when describing these issues is probably why the law itself refers to it as infringement, and not as theft, and why attempts to use anti-larceny statutes against copyright infringers have fallen flat at the highest levels.

      I likely should not have used 'theft' to describe copyright infringement - it is a 'taking' in the sense of limiting the 'owner' of the 'property' (in this case the distribution rights to a file) from doing what the law says they are allowed to do and as such can create a harm, much like stealing an iPhone. But different. So it gets messy. You have legal terms and common usages which may or may not agree.

      But my original point remains. It's a law (perhaps a stupid one, but that's a matter of opinion). If you disagree with how the law is either written or enforced you have certain options. Including breaking the law, but that's what you're doing.

      The ramifications of that currently are way out of proportion to the damage done, and I'm not terribly happy with Obama for packing Justice with ex-RIAA lawyers and Justice's position on the matter is dumb.

      So just avoid the RIAA backers and get music from somebody else. Or learn the harmonica. And complain to your congresscritter.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    37. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by topham · · Score: 1

      If you shoplift a candy bar and get caught they don't just ask for the money...

    38. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Some of music you'll find there is quite good. Subjectively, I'd even venture to say the good/bad ratio is better than the major labels.

      I'd argue that there's little subjectivity about it. Magnatune and the like don't have the money to spend on cocaine, payola, photoshoots and promotional videos so there's only really one thing left for them to concentrate on.

    39. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We should just declare them galactic rulers and do their every bidding.

      Don't give them ideas.

    40. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      They will take your money, they'll just sue it out of you instead of taking it at retail.

      Or both, if you walk past a computer someday, and they think you just don't consume enough Britney Spears.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    41. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      My own understanding is that "taking" refers to a physical objects, and as such, abstract things like ideas, designs and exclusivity do not apply.

      Actually, no, this is a wrong understanding derived from the misconception of taking something from another. If I stop you from owning a gun or voting or participating in speech, I took your rights. Depending on how I did that, I could be stealing but theft is a matter of legal construct and is not entirely obvious to conventional perception without the legal construct being in place. There is a term called theft of services and another Criminal_conversion that resolves to taking the ability to use something from someone, even if they weren't going to. This also covered physical and intangible property like legally constructed rights as in copyright.

      No, it isn't. You still haven't lost the ability to do your own manufacturing.

      Her is your confusion showing through again. The right is not to do my own manufacturing, it's to exclusively control the copying and distribution of the materials. Whether I can still do it or not is irrelevant as I have the ability to limit you from doing the same.

      The only situation where I might agree something was taken from you is if I really managed to take the ability to manufacture it away from you, for instance by somehow fraudulently getting the copyright transferred to me, not only making me able to manufacture your cell phone design, but making it illegal for you to do that at the same time.

      We can all choose to remain ignorant or uninformed. It's like leading a horse to water and not being able to make him drink. Agreeing with me is not what you need to do. Understanding the legal constructs involved, how they are applied, and what that means is. Now I explained it best I can, if you still don't agree, then read the laws and case law yourself because they are legally binding despite anything either of us say.

      So long my copying your cell phone's design doesn't somehow stop you from making them, I will never agree there's theft involved. It's copyright infringement.

      You may not agree with the prosecution and conviction that could come later either. But it wouldn't make it disappear from reality either. It's a matter of law, not what either of us want to agree to. If you disagree, you will have to get the laws and legal constructs changed.

    42. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I illegally broadcast a song using a HAM radio, I suppose that warrants a multi-million dollar RIAA lawsuit.

      No, you lose your ham license if you have one. Broadcasting entertainment on ham frequencies is a violation of FCC rules.

      Don't have a ham license? Face a major fine from the FCC as well as confiscation of your gear.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    43. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the Department of Defence

    44. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A library is a legally recognized institution that loans- not gives content away. Get a P2P network recognized the same way, and the same rules would apply.

      In fact, that might be a good idea to do. A digital library operated for the benefit of society would negate a lot of people's usage of P2P but there needs to be a way to control the access so there is a relative "borrow" instead of giving away of distributed works.

    45. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Again, like the grandparent said, nothing is being taken. Taking would imply something being lost, and a right being infringed on isn't taken away. There's a vast difference between trespassing (which infringes on the right to deny people to use your land), and taking your title to the land away (which stops you from being able to live in it)

      I don't see how is anything gained by confusing both of those issues, when they are clearly different, need very different actions to be performed, and vastly differ in the damage they cause.

    46. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Really...?

      No overlords joke?

      [ahem] I for one welcome our litigious overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted PC tech I can help round up people for them to sue or work in their underground CD mines.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    47. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      SO when you take a copyrighted work and distributed it without the copyright owners consent, the legal right to exclusively control the copying and distribution of that work is still in tact and functioning? Nothing has been taken away?

      Read that carefully, exclusively is what the law says and it does not mean more people then the copyright owners.

    48. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by log0n · · Score: 1

      NO. If you gain something that you did not pay for that wasn't given freely from the first party, you've stolen that something. Stealing is not a 1 way activity. Even if you don't steal a physical item, you are still on the receiving end and depriving of the transaction necessary for the other party.

    49. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Of course, the biggest limiting factor is knowledge. iTunes exists because people do not know how to obtain digital goods for free. The folks that know aren't paying any more, so the system is now supported on the backs of the ignorant.

      It's a bit amusing that you make a snide comment about ignorance, in the middle of an extremely (and provably) ignorant comment. Here, I'll prove it: Many Slashdot readers purchase music from iTunes. They all know how to obtain music for free. Hence you are unequivocally wrong.

    50. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      For those of us who do understand words, your link does not coincide with current law.

    51. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some stuff is also still in copyright despite the fact that it should be public domain already.

      Ironically enough, the 2 million dollar verdict includes such "moldy oldies".

      Richard Marx doesn't see 80K in a year for his song. Why should the RIAA get those kinds of damages?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    52. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would point out that the on the internet everyone is on a level playing field and able to exercise choice. Publishers should take that into account before they publish a work on a medium that they dont have direct control over. The internet is not their personal store front, they are sharing their world with the rest of the human race hence not able to force people to act a certain way. It would be better if they found a way to work with what is instead of trying to change the internet into something that it isn't.

      Letting go of control and finding ways to use this medium for the advantage of everyone is the only way to really benefit. Their will always be people who take with out paying, an their will always be people that want to support the efforts of others.

    53. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow, a troll mod for pointing out the law and what is says. This is why I love slashdot, the mod point go to push opinions and not facts.

    54. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By this logic, we should draw and quarter corrupt politicians, to "deter" the many others who think their corruption will "go unnoticed".

    55. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They also don't ask for a 5 figure fine per candy bar as a "deterrent".

      The laws surrounding shoplifting are actually remarkably less barbaric than those involving copyright.

      The details of the consequences of real stealing are conspicuously left out of these discussions by those clamoring for punishment.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    56. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Wildclaw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, tell that to the thousand and thousands of people who die yearly in third world countries because of the patent laws championed by US interests. Or all the students who are forced to buy specific copyrighted material. Or all the poor who can only afford very little entertainment because of an artifically created shortage of supply. Or all the people who desperatly try to fit in socially by consuming their group's culture. (and if you tell me people don't need to fit in socially, then you don't understand basic human needs)

      Copyright and Patents are a fraud from start to finish. You can't claim to improve science and useful arts by restricting the distribution of the same. And the fraud is simple. Make money move up, by allowing those who are better at exploiting margin profits to do so. (and yes, exploiting margin profits are something the rich excel at)

    57. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Nope. The "ethical" stopped buying music from the RIAA when these shenanigans started.

      Those of us that have a "media fix" that needs satiating
      really don't need the RIAA. The MPAA was bright enough to
      apply staggered pricing to their material. So you can still
      gorge yourself on media and still be plenty legitimate. You
      don't even have to buy used media. You can just take advantage
      of the bargain bins and bargain racks placed conspicuously in
      front of the aisles where the music CDs sit.

      So instead of a legit 1000 CD collection, I end up with a legit 1000 DVD collection.

      Pirates are the least of your worries RIAA.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    58. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What fine do the members of the RIAA get for running an illegal cartel?

    59. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Jamie should move to Florida where she can be sheltered from judgments under almost all circumstances.
                      As for the stupid law which allows this outrage it has never really been shown that pirating music causes any losses at all to the music industry. There are even musicians who believe that the more piracy occurs the better their income becomes.

    60. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, a copyright is the exclusive right. If Alice took the right from Bob, it would mean that Alice could use the law to prohibit Bob from doing various things with the work. It is obvious, though, that if Alice unlawfully makes a copy of a sound recording Bob has the copyright to, that Bob can still do as he pleases with the sound recording, license it to others, etc.

      I think you are missing the forest for the trees and the stream that runs through it. The exclusive right in copyright is controlling the copying and distribution of a copyrighted work. If Alice is making unauthorized and illegal (the two are not automatically applicable) copies of the work, does Bob still have the exclusive control over copying and distribution? The fact that he still can is irrelevant because his exclusive control is gone when someone else takes it for their own benefit (whatever that may be).

      So the right isn't stolen. Rather, the right is infringed upon, rather like if Alice trespassed onto Bob's land (which violates Bob's right to exclude others, but doesn't impact ownership), or if the government unconstitutionally censored Alice.

      Infringement is a past tense of stolen. It follows the lines of conversion theft and is in the same legal construct as theft. In conversion, you are not necessarily deprived of your usage either.

      It is hard to imagine a way in which a copyright could be stolen. I suppose it might be possible via fraud, but in normal everyday life it just doesn't happen. Copyrights are infringed upon a great deal, but it just isn't the same.

      It is the same from a legal perspective. That's what we need to focus on here.

      The desire for accuracy when describing these issues is probably why the law itself refers to it as infringement, and not as theft, and why attempts to use anti-larceny statutes against copyright infringers have fallen flat at the highest levels.

      I agree that is probably why larceny has failed, however, conversion holds true.

    61. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Tynin · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if she would have physically stolen hundreds (thousands?) of CD's, the damages against her would be several orders of magnitude less.

    62. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like the price, well, you don't need what they're selling, and you don't have to buy it.

      Why should we have to pay the price? We should have the right to copy whatever we want. We HAD that right once, until not long ago, when they invented this BULLSHIT called copyright.

    63. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's worse then you think. Copyright laws and terms have been dictated by international treaties since the mid 1970's. Sure, we negotiated those treaties but it's a world wide effort. Even the DMCA is a combination of two WIPO treaties.

    64. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by John+Hansen · · Score: 1

      It is potentially everone on the planet.

      Yes it is.. including the old, disabled and those wiithout computers.

      And don't forget the dearly departed.

    65. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by melikamp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [...] you're just wrong and rather ignorant of the complex interplay between work, production, economics and entertainment [...]

      If you don't like how the major labels deal with production and distribution of their product, don't use them. Don't buy it. [...]

      I wonder, do you understand the interplay between work, production, etc.? Your advice is to boycott them, so they definitely won't see any cash out of you. So when you say "Don't steal[sic] it", you must be appealing to ethics, because you are just fine with the idea of hurting them economically. And we maintain that copyright law, in its present state and as applied to digitized fine art, is unethical. To put it very simply, it creates artificial scarcity where there is none. You can read Moglen, Stallman, Lessig for starters. They explain why US copyright law is broken and unjust, and imho they make a very strong case. Unless you are able to counter standard arguments, please do not tell us what not to do with Internet connections we paid for.

    66. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The two are not directly comparable. Downloading the music is not what she was sued over and is not a violation of copyright law. Copying and distributing it is which is what she went on trial for.

      A more apt comparison would be her making CDs and selling them on the street corner instead of shoplifting.

    67. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      You do know there are minor labels, digital distributors such as Jamendo and Magnatune, as well as unsigned/independent artists, right? Some of music you'll find there is quite good. Subjectively, I'd even venture to say the good/bad ratio is better than the major labels.

      I, on the other hand, would disagree. The barrier for entry is so low that a significant percentage of their content sounds no better than two cats going at it in the middle of the night.

      While I despise the RIAA and their business practices as much as the next guy, they can't afford to back talentless hacks. Magnatune is akin to a collection of all of the first round contestants on American Idol, whereas the studio backed artists are more like the finalists.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    68. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by WCguru42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you shoplift a candy bar and get caught they don't just ask for the money...

      And if I lift a whole box of snickers (48ct) I'm probably not getting a million dollar fine. Even if I lifted a whole pallet of snickers boxes (let's say 1000 boxes) I still probably wouldn't get a million dollar fine. While file sharing is indeed illegal the punishments for these crimes seem to fly in the face of the 8th amendments provision against cruel and unusual punishments.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    69. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Ifni · · Score: 1

      SO when you take a copyrighted work and distributed it without the copyright owners consent, the legal right to exclusively control the copying and distribution of that work is still in tact and functioning?

      Yes, unless the copyright owner decides not to enforce their copyright by taking legal action against the infringing party. The law (in this case) assigns rights and provides a way to enforce them, it does not alter reality to make those rights inviolable. If your right is infringed, it doesn't suddenly disappear. It is still there and fully functioning, allowing you to collect damages from the infringer for violating your right. No one in this thread (or at least this chain of the thread you are replying to) has suggested that no harm was done, only that nothing was stolen. If I'm a model and someone punches me in the face and I can't work due to the unsightly bruising, harm has been done, but I can't sue them for theft of my lost income. I can sue them for assault and for other damages related to the loss of my income, but I can't call it theft (if I want to be taken seriously in court).

      This ruling by the DoJ is a travesty, to be sure. The RIAA is already suing people in civil court (as it is a civil matter) where the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff, making it significantly easier for them to win. There are already provisions for punitive damages in order to deter the public from breaking civil law, but these are only awarded in cases where the defendant's actions showed a flagrant and insidious disregard for the law. If this were a behavior that needed such an extreme example made in order to deter others, it should have been assigned as punitive damages, not statutory damages. Statutory damages are intended to be a way to ease the burden of proving something inherently difficult to prove, not to punish or make an example. However, in this case it should be quite easy to set an upper bound for distribution (outbound bandwidth, size of files, length of time since release, time online), and the award still greatly exceeds that. The DoJ is allowing the RIAA to have its cake and eat it too.

      --

      Oh, was that my outside voice?

    70. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Be careful.

      You're on Slashdot. You just criticized Obama (though his "I'll appoint no lobbyists" promise was apparently just as much of a lie as the rest of his campaign promises). Prepare to be modded down by a horde of Obama worshipers any minute.

    71. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the right isn't stolen. Rather, the right is infringed upon,/quote>
      When will you fake lawyers get it through your thick skulls that "stealing" is NOT A LEGAL TERM OF ART. Infringement is stealing. Larceny is stealing. Theft is stealing. Conversion is stealing. Misappropriation is stealing. Plagiarizing is stealing. Copying is stealing.

      To steal is to take without authorization. THAT'S IT. There's no requirement of tangibility, of loss, or that it correspond solely to theft. There's no requirement that it be unlawful or literal. People steal the work of others all the time. It's a common term and a common expression.

      The desire for accuracy when describing these issues is probably why the law itself refers to it as infringement, and not as theft

      The desire for accuracy seems to have left you by the wayside when you conflated stealing and theft. Theft is necessarily stealing, but stealing IS NOT necessarily THEFT.

      The law doesn't describe anything as stealing in an official capacity, because stealing is not unlawful. It's an act. When it is proscribed by law, it comes in the form of a civil or criminal cause of action, which will ALWAYS have a name that is not "stealing".

    72. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, unless the copyright owner decides not to enforce their copyright by taking legal action against the infringing party. The law (in this case) assigns rights and provides a way to enforce them, it does not alter reality to make those rights inviolable. If your right is infringed, it doesn't suddenly disappear. It is still there and fully functioning, allowing you to collect damages from the infringer for violating your right. No one in this thread (or at least this chain of the thread you are replying to) has suggested that no harm was done, only that nothing was stolen. If I'm a model and someone punches me in the face and I can't work due to the unsightly bruising, harm has been done, but I can't sue them for theft of my lost income. I can sue them for assault and for other damages related to the loss of my income, but I can't call it theft (if I want to be taken seriously in court).

      Actually, the effect of the right disappears while the act is happening. Just because it reappears when the act stops doesn't dislocate it from theft. Look up the term criminal conversion. It suits the analogy well better then your beating models analogy.

      This ruling by the DoJ is a travesty, to be sure. The RIAA is already suing people in civil court (as it is a civil matter) where the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff, making it significantly easier for them to win. There are already provisions for punitive damages in order to deter the public from breaking civil law, but these are only awarded in cases where the defendant's actions showed a flagrant and insidious disregard for the law. If this were a behavior that needed such an extreme example made in order to deter others, it should have been assigned as punitive damages, not statutory damages. Statutory damages are intended to be a way to ease the burden of proving something inherently difficult to prove, not to punish or make an example. However, in this case it should be quite easy to set an upper bound for distribution (outbound bandwidth, size of files, length of time since release, time online), and the award still greatly exceeds that. The DoJ is allowing the RIAA to have its cake and eat it too.

      I do not disagree with this outside I believe that the damages were in effect punitive. The statutory damages were raised to punish (an action)willful violators, which makes it punitive for actions rather then statutory even though it was labels statutory.

    73. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Entropius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if I am hanging around on the street with my camera and take your picture, I've stolen your picture?

      (This is legal by US law, btw)

    74. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      But in reality, most discographies have a couple hundred people on the network at any given time, if that. The only things that hit 10s of thousands of sharers are popular tv shows and early-leaked movies.

      I don't care for iTunes, since most of the music on it is DRM-laden, and I refuse to buy music that behaves on someone else's whim. I want it to function wherever I choose to put it, and I want to use it on Linux. The digital music I buy? CDs. It's still the highest quality stuff that's widely available, and sometimes I choose to support favorite artists, even when it's *much* easier, cheaper, and more convenient to go download some files.

      No one downloads because they're trying to make money, and no one is specifically looking to rip off the music companies. I think that the normal mindset (including my own) is that radio is free to listen to, so why can't I build a collection of music like they have, where I'm in control of what plays at any given time? I'm not saying that it's correct from a legal or moral standpoint, but that's the way I think, and I'm sure that some people share my viewpoint on the subject.

      What needs to be done is have a subscription service that works across all platforms, costs some money ($15 a month? $30 a month?), and has a good catalog. That wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a steady stream of money, and it wouldn't be too hard to track which artists are the most listened to, and distribute the money accordingly.

      I don't care what the purpose of the payments is. I just know that charging a single mother almost $2 million in damages, when those damages can't even be proven, is a travesty. It's an injustice, and it *definitely* isn't in proportion to the magnitude of the crime.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    75. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by westlake · · Score: 1

      I think the Justice Department should have better things to occupy their time than civil lawsuits.

      The federal justice system exists to insure the uniform enforcement of federal civil and criminal law.

      You might want to think long and hard about the alternative. The NRA and the NAACP certainly have.

      Personally, I've never believed that the law should be used to make examples out of people, no matter how distasteful their crimes. That simply breeds more disrespect for the law, which is something the RIAA is apparently unable to understand

      There is nothing simple about it.

      The public trial - and in the old days, the public execution - legitimized the process and set an example backed by the moral force of an entire community.

      You listened and you learned.

      When a Jammie Thomas goes before a jury, she gets hammered into the ground.

      That always comes as a surprise hereabouts - and it exposes how little real understanding and connection the geek has to "the outer galaxies" - the world beyond Slashdot.

       

    76. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Well not only that but:

      "Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages"

      So it's ok to punish someone even though you can't prove they damaged you or how much they damaged you?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    77. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is this: The USA copyright system was a contract nothing more. In return for a limited copyright We, The People got a richer public domain. Only now the contract has been completely broken thanks to treasonous bribery. Now copyrights will go on forever, because thanks to the large bribes...err I mean campaign contributions of multinational corporations (who could be argued are deciding most if not all of our laws now thanks to said bribes) they can just keep getting it extended for eternity.

      The system is completely broken and I don't care which side you are on you should have ZERO support for this corrupted, perverted, disgusting use of bribes and political favors we now call the US copyright system. Want proof it is broken? One sentence: Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! The man has been worm food (or a popsicle, your choice) for nearly a half century and one of his FIRST works, made when airplanes were cloth and wood and antibiotics were just a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright!!!

      Until copyright laws are returned to their original lengths or WE, The People actually get a voice at the bargaining table, then ALL copyright laws in the USA should be looked upon as a broken contract and treated as the worthless piece of paper that they are. Because in the face of rampant corruption it is the ONLY choice left to you. They have locked our history behind paywalls, stolen our public domain away from us and our families, and use their offices for graft collection. To actually respect this cabal of greed and corruption? You are either insane or a fool.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    78. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it is a 'taking' in the sense of limiting the 'owner' of the 'property' (in this case the distribution rights to a file) from doing what the law says they are allowed to do

      Well, no. Nothing has been taken away from the copyright holder, and the holder still has the legal right to exclude others from distributing the sound recording. Because the infringer is ignoring the exclusion, the holder will have to go to court to enforce his right. If the infringer ignores the court, the court will use the power of United States law enforcement officials to back up the right of the copyright holder, e.g. having the infringer's property seized and sold at auction to cover damage awards, having the infringer jailed for violating a court order, etc.

      This is what the law grants: a right to exclude others, and a means of backing that up if someone ignores the exclusion. No degree of infringement can ever take that away. No infringer can prevent a copyright holder from going to court. No infringer can prevent a copyright holder from deciding who may and may not use the work in ways that are covered under copyright.

      What you seem to be imagining is some sort of inviolable right that needs no remedy because things will never get that far. But that's simply impossible.

      and as such can create a harm, much like stealing an iPhone.

      Just because something causes harm, that doesn't make it stealing, or anything akin to it. Arson isn't stealing, but if I burn your house down, it clearly causes you harm. Rather than try to cram the offense into the realm of stealing, where it obviously doesn't belong, we have a separate law just for arson. Likewise, copyright infringement is its own thing, and is not ever treated as a kind of stealing or theft or whatnot.

      Note also that merely causing harm doesn't make something illegal, either. If you write a non-fiction book which is a best seller, and I publish an article that shows that the book is completely wrong, and as a direct result of my article, no one ever buys your book again, I've done you tremendous harm, but I've also acted completely legally.

      It's a law (perhaps a stupid one, but that's a matter of opinion). If you disagree with how the law is either written or enforced you have certain options. Including breaking the law, but that's what you're doing.

      While I agree that laws should be respected, I also think that laws should be worthy of our respect. An unworthy law not only engenders disrespect for itself, it also encourages disrespect for other laws, and general lawlessness.

      Also, why are you saying that I am breaking the law? Perhaps you have me confused with another poster?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    79. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnatune and the like don't have the money to spend on cocaine, payola, photoshoots and promotional videos so there's only really one thing left for them to concentrate on.

      Hookers?

    80. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It's not stealing, or rather it is not theft of chattels, which is what 'stealing' or 'theft' in a legal sense refers to. It is something entirely different. You can make a case that it is not completely dissimilar, but there are important, fundamental differences between the two. To ignore these differences is to abandon logic and reason.

      If only there was a term that captured that difference...oh wait there is. It's 'copyright infringement'.

    81. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnatune is akin to a collection of all of the first round contestants on American Idol, whereas the studio backed artists are more like the finalists.

      I'd say it's more like the first-round contestants and then several millions' worth of studio gear and Autotune, myself (old acts exempted, of course- anyone grandfathered in before the days when they could make even me sound like a decent singer have real talent)

    82. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Except the price is artificially high because the labels are all in collusion (opinion)

      No, documented fact. Hence why they keep getting hit with fines for anti-trust/price-fixing violations.

    83. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SO when you take a copyrighted work and distributed it without the copyright owners consent, the legal right to exclusively control the copying and distribution of that work is still in tact and functioning? Nothing has been taken away?

      You mean like when I buy a book, and then without the consent of the copyright holder, I sell the used book to someone else, as the law permits me to do per 17 USC 109? Just because the copyright holder doesn't consent to something, that doesn't make it illegal.

      And even in the case where the distribution is infringing, yes, the right is intact. The right has not been taken away. The right has, however, been infringed upon.

      Read that carefully, exclusively is what the law says and it does not mean more people then the copyright owners.

      Actually, when copyright law talks of an exclusive right, it is a term of art. An exclusive right is a right to exclude others. Like if you own a piece of land, you have an exclusive right to it, which means you can tell other people not to trespass. If someone does trespass, this doesn't mean you don't own the land, or that the land has been taken away from you. It means that now you have to enforce your right by, e.g. calling the police to kick the trespasser out, going to court and suing for trespass, etc.

      If the right were taken away, then the copyright holder could not go to court to enforce it; since it wouldn't be his right anymore, and pretty much the first thing you have to prove in order to get to court in a copyright suit is that there is a registered copyright, and you have the copyright.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    84. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the effect of the right disappears while the act is happening.

      No, if Alice has a copyright, and Bob infringes on it, Alice still has the right to license the copyright to Carol throughout the duration of Bob's infringement. Not one iota of the right 'disappears.'

      Compare this with when the copyright terminates, then the copyright disappears as a matter of law, and Alice does indeed lose the right to license to Carol. Not that Carol minds; once the copyright has terminated, the work is in the public domain, and she doesn't have to get a license from anyone to do as she likes with the work.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    85. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      the DOJ shouldn't be weighing in on a civil case in the first place

      They aren't. They're weighing in on the validity of a law (specifically the statuatory damages clause) passed by congress. That is part of their job. They aren't weighing in on the question of guilt or anything of the sort (which would be thoroughly inappropriate).

    86. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      So, if you're one of those folks that think "everything digital should be free", sorry, but you're just wrong and rather ignorant of the complex interplay between work, production, economics and entertainment yourself.

      If you don't like how the major labels deal with production and distribution of their product, don't use them. Don't buy it. Don't steal it.

      Translation: "I sell some kind of media I deem to be valuable, or I am affiliated with someone who sells media they deem to be valuable, and am being financially impacted by copyright infringement."

      Seriously, you sound like a typical shill, so let me remind you that obtaining a copy of something without permission is NOT theft, it is copyright infringement, and the law makes a very clear distinction between the two (not that this did Jammie any good). PERIOD.

      Suppose you're selling a CD in a kiosk in the mall, and I wander by and notice it (maybe the artwork caught my eye). I take a look at the contents and then decide right there that I don't like the idea of buying this particular CD - maybe it's too expensive, maybe the title is offensive to me, or maybe the music just doesn't look like it's to my taste. I am well within my rights to just walk away and spend my money elsewhere. No sale was made, but then no sale was possible - I didn't want it.

      If I happen to run across a copy of it online later, and I download it, you've still lost nothing. In fact, you might stand to *gain* something by virtue of me changing my mind about not buying, after I've listened to the music.

      Simply put, bits are easy to copy and are meant to be copied. Physical objects aren't. That's why we have laws governing theft, and different laws (however antiquated) governing copyright infringement.

    87. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Her is your confusion showing through again. The right is not to do my own manufacturing, it's to exclusively control the copying and distribution of the materials. Whether I can still do it or not is irrelevant as I have the ability to limit you from doing the same.

      Yes it is.

      Otherwise you're equating copyright infringement with unlawful transfer of copyright.

      One means that somebody somewhere made a copy against your wishes. Your ability to continue producing is uncompromised, you're actually free to ignore the infringement if you so wish because you're not directly stopped from doing anything. Further, your right to control your design doesn't disappear when a single party infringes on it. You may ignore one party and go for another.

      If I did get your copyright somehow transferred to me, though, you'd lose the ability to legally make whatever you're making. That's a much, much bigger deal than some guy somewhere unlawfully using your picture in a page about his cat.

      Those two situations are clearly separate and must not be confused with each other. It won't work to your advantage if the second happens to you and everybody thinks it's the first.

      We can all choose to remain ignorant or uninformed. It's like leading a horse to water and not being able to make him drink. Agreeing with me is not what you need to do. Understanding the legal constructs involved, how they are applied, and what that means is. Now I explained it best I can, if you still don't agree, then read the laws and case law yourself because they are legally binding despite anything either of us say.

      The law clearly defines theft and copyright infringement as separate, and treats them differently. There's no arguing about this.

      You may not agree with the prosecution and conviction that could come later either. But it wouldn't make it disappear from reality either. It's a matter of law, not what either of us want to agree to. If you disagree, you will have to get the laws and legal constructs changed.

      I'm not arguing about the legality here. I'm saying that taking a cell phone is theft, and copying a cell phone's design is copyright infringement.

    88. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      The exclusive right in copyright is controlling the copying and distribution of a copyrighted work. If Alice is making unauthorized and illegal (the two are not automatically applicable) copies of the work, does Bob still have the exclusive control over copying and distribution? The fact that he still can is irrelevant because his exclusive control is gone when someone else takes it for their own benefit (whatever that may be).

      Well, the exclusive right in copyright is the right to prohibit others from copying, etc. a copyrighted work. It isn't a right to do it oneself; that derives from the natural right of free speech, and is protected by the First Amendment, among other things. That's why if you write a libelous book, you can copyright it, but you cannot lawfully publish it. All the copyright is good for is keeping other people from publishing it, etc.

      In any case, yes, Bob still has a right to prohibit Alice from doing what she's doing, as well as a right to prohibit the entire rest of the world from doing the things that if done would constitute infringement. Bob's rights include the ability to haul Alice into court, and to get the court to use physical force, if need be, to keep her from infringing. E.g. getting an injunction against her, and if she violates it, having her put in jail for violating it.

      It seems many people are confusing the creative work with the copyright pertaining to that work. They are very different things.

      Infringement is a past tense of stolen.

      Far be it for me to comment one grammar issues on Slashdot, but....

      I think you'll find that 'infringement' isn't even a verb, it is a noun. 'Infringe' is a verb, and 'infringed' is usually how you'd describe a past act of infringement. And it's nothing whatsoever to do with 'steal.' I'd have to check my handy-dandy pocket-sized unabridged OED to be sure, but I bet they have no history in common whatsoever.

      It follows the lines of conversion theft and is in the same legal construct as theft. In conversion, you are not necessarily deprived of your usage either.

      Copyright infringement is sui generis. It is 100% unrelated to the tort of conversion. That's kind of the reason we have copyright law; if it were capable of being handled under the aegis of a tort that has been around for many centuries longer than copyright, we would not have had to bother with copyright in the first place. Even common law copyright is unrelated to conversion, not that it matters much, statutory copyright having basically killed it.

      It is the same from a legal perspective.

      What is this, opposite day?

      Let's look at Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), an interesting Supreme Court case that might prove instructive. I've gotten rid of the internal citations for clarity.

      [T]he Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which the law affords correspondingly exact protections. ... Thus, the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," for the copyright holder's dominion is subjected to precisely defined limits.

      It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' ...

      The infringer invades a statutorily def

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    89. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by johannesg · · Score: 1

      You mention copyright violation by an individual. Well. as soon as it hits a P2P sharing program, it is no longer an individual. It is potentially everone on the planet.

      The problem with that approach is that it makes a single crime, "spreading music to everyone on the planet", punishable multiple times. In fact, you could punish everyone on the planet for spreading the music to themselves!

      It seems a lot like double dipping to me: either that single person committed the crime and can be punished for all subsequent damages, or he is only responsible for spreading to a handful of people, and punishment is recursively allocated to each of those as well.

      Of course, the biggest limiting factor is knowledge. iTunes exists because people do not know how to obtain digital goods for free. The folks that know aren't paying any more, so the system is now supported on the backs of the ignorant.

      What an incredibly sad view of humanity. iTunes exists because people really don't mind paying artists for their hard work, and because Apple aren't total asshats about DRM and instead make it convenient to download, pay for, and listen to music.

    90. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Katharine · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree that rightsholders should be paid. But the word most certainly is *not* "stealing." The filesharers are making "unauthorized copies," they aren't "stealing." I've been the victim of both burglary and infringement of my copyright, and I can assure you they are quite different.

      You want to talk about stealing, let's talk about the way ASCAP and BMI take money from venues but don't actually bother to accurately figure out who is entitled to get the royalties they collect, as well as trying to claim license fees for music that they don't have the right to claim license fees for.

      For the record, 90% of the music I've acquired in the last year was either *purchased* directly from the artists in question or through CD Baby. The remaining 10% was *purchased* from Amazon, Borders, or the used record store down the street.

    91. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I'll ask one question. Are 24 songs worth utterly destroying somebody's life over, making them destitute and indebted to a soulless conglomerate of businesses?

      Destroying lives for selfish gain is patriotic; it was how the entire United States of America came into existence.

    92. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

      When will you fake lawyers

      Oh, I assure you, I'm a real lawyer. I didn't go to law school for years and suffer through the bar exam just to be a fake lawyer, no sir.

      "stealing" is NOT A LEGAL TERM OF ART. Infringement is stealing. Larceny is stealing. Theft is stealing. Conversion is stealing. Misappropriation is stealing. Plagiarizing is stealing. Copying is stealing.

      So you're saying that when I quoted you here, since that was an act of copying, I stole from you? I find this difficult to believe.

      Let me make a suggestion to you instead: When discussing legal issues, we should all avoid ambiguous and inappropriate terminology, so that we can all clearly understand one another precisely. Therefore, if 'stealing' is not a term of art, and if it is unclear what it does mean, exactly (I for one don't agree with your definition, and I know others who don't either), and where the term is pretty clearly an appeal to emotion, an appeal to apply norms which may not be a good fit, and meant to vilify those who it is used against, then I think we should not use it at all.

      The term the law uses nearly to the exclusion of all else is 'infringement.' So we ought to use that term too.

      The law doesn't describe anything as stealing in an official capacity

      Great, then let's all agree to stop using 'stealing' or 'stole' or the like when discussing copyright. I'm already in favor of using the precise legal terminology, but if someone else invokes it (as happened earlier), I'm not above briefly discussing why it's inapt.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    93. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant to say:

      "I suppose this is what happens when you appoint a half-dozen JEW attorneys to top spots in the Justice Department."

      Your entire government is owned by JEWS. They are using you, your wife, and your children as CATTLE. They own your media. They force you and your children to pay for their wars in the Middle East. They will have you arrested if you mention that they are doing this. If you 'name the Jew' in the U.K., you will immediately lose your job, possibly go to prison.

      Fed up of it yet?

    94. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by SEE · · Score: 1

      I thought that with Obama USA was going to take the lead on the issue of copyright in the 21st century.

      I am, frankly, amazed at the tendency of people to just assume that Obama shared their beliefs on Issue X, when absolutely nothing Obama said as a candidate or President supported the belief. On issues ranging from copyright to gay marriage, we're seeing people feeling disappointed by Obama, when they had no reason to have any hopes in the first place.

      I hope he is just fixing issues by order of priority and that copyright reform is still somewhere on the list.

      His administration has tried to keep a copyright treaty secret by declaring it a matter of national security, appointed lots of RIAA lawyers to the DoJ, and told the MPAA they'll like his copyright czar . . . and you still hope for Obama to do copyright "reform"???

    95. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by caffiend2049 · · Score: 1

      hear hear!!

      --
      Pandering to the lowest common denominator would be less frequent if more people were prime numbers.
    96. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Legislation is not a popularity contest, nor should it ever be.

      In general, art that becomes public domain becomes worthless to consumers. The value of art is virtually entirely derived from promotions. If there is no profit from promoting it, it goes unpromoted and vanishes from interest, most especially in the case of music. When music becomes public domain people will stop downloading or even listening to it, in favor of the big flashy new crap they see on MTV that people are getting sued and jailed for pirating.

      The fundamental human trait at the heart of the music industry is not musical appreciation, it's vanity. The most valuable aspect of music to consumers is how it can shape how others perceive them. That, not the music itself, is what is being sold, and why people are buying it, and also why people are pirating it. It is frightfully expensive to create the demand for music, and those who do it successfully deserve to be rewarded for as long as the demand exists. Public domain kills that demand and devalues the music completely unnecessarily.

      If that doesn't make sense to you, you have no business criticizing the law or how it is applied. If you disagree with it, you're in abject denial. Just look at the top-selling music in the world, it's almost all rap or dance, virtually devoid of musicality, but fraught with glamor and hype. It's more fashion show than music.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    97. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by paeanblack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word) of commercial data isn't correct either.

      Can you steal a piece of real estate? You can trespass on it, you can pollute it, you can economically damage rightsowners, but you can't steal it.

      Published content is like land. You cannot own published content; you can only own rights to the content. If published content were actually privately owned, Congress would have no ability to expire a copyright. That would be like expiring your rights to own the shirt on your back.

      Published content is owned by society, and certain rights are given to authors. We do the same for land: society gives you many rights of ownership over your plot of land, but you never own it. Society retains ownership and can reclaim all the rights of ownership through eminent domain.

      Just like you have no right to piss in my front yard, you have no rights to my published content. Copyright infringement is illegal for a good reason. However, when you run around saying "downloading songs is stealing!", you sound like a clueless idiot claiming that somebody stole the lawn from Apple's headquarters. It is nonsensical babble.

      If you were talking about unpublished content, then you would be correct to claim theft. Your private data can indeed be stolen, because you have not yet transferred your ownership to society through the act of publication.

    98. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      If multiple people are sharing copyrighted material illegally, multiple people should be fined. I can't see any excuse other than pure laziness for ridiculously over-fining random individuals.

      Fine large numbers of people a remotely reasonable amount (a few thousand, even ten thousand, but millions??). That would be an actual deterrent. People see their friend, neighbor, someone at their school getting fined an amount that can and will actually be paid, and they'll get scared.

      Seeing one person out of millions fined into instant bankruptcy is not a deterrent. It's a spectacle.

    99. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Also, why are you saying that I am breaking the law? Perhaps you have me confused with another poster?

      Royal "you"-- just poor wording on my part. I meant to say that breaking the law was a generic option, an option that would be exercised in the general case of someone deciding that it wasn't worth their time or effort to follow copyright law... Not 'you' as in CaptKangarooski.

      But I suppose I should leave legal wording to lawyers. Or perhaps just try to make a car analogy.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    100. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, if Alice has a copyright, and Bob infringes on it, Alice still has the right to license the copyright to Carol throughout the duration of Bob's infringement. Not one iota of the right 'disappears.'

      Unless Bob licenses to Carol in which case Alice lost her exclusive right.

      Infringement is a red herring here. we are talking about a theft of a specific right, not the entire work. To infringe means to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, in this case, it was theft of a right by conversion. one doesn't negate the other but infringements can lack the theft. Copyright infringement does include theft and theft is what is happening when you take someone's exclusive right.

      Compare this with when the copyright terminates, then the copyright disappears as a matter of law, and Alice does indeed lose the right to license to Carol. Not that Carol minds; once the copyright has terminated, the work is in the public domain, and she doesn't have to get a license from anyone to do as she likes with the work.

      The difference is that this is built into the same legal construct that makes copyright in the first place. Without the law in effect, neither theft nor infringement would take place. It's like a lease on a car, you only have the rights to the car as long as the lease is valid.

    101. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jwildstr · · Score: 1

      I'm getting tired of this complaint. From Merriam-Webster online, definition 1a of steal (transitive verb): "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully " You're conflating the definition of stealing with robbery. "rob" implies physical property. Steal doesn't.

      Theft is a little more complex; by definition, applies to "stealing", but specifically that of property.

    102. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Don't sweat it; it's fine. I shouldn't've read so much into that.

      I would say though, that there is a distinction to be made between people who would not obey copyright law altogether, and people who would or would not depending on the circumstances. There can be opposition to a particular implementation, rather than the whole kit and caboodle.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    103. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The tree doesn't matter. The other nodes of the tree bear separate responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, the defendant should also get away for free passing the responsibility up to wherever she downloaded from. The defendant probably provided very few actual copies to anyone.

    104. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. If President Obama's rules are being applied, the six or more ex-RIAA attorneys were recused from dealing with this case, and had nothing to do with the brief.

      Can those rules actually be followed? I mean the DOJ shouldn't be weighing in on a civil case in the first place but what would you do when you know you bosses have a certain position and they are refrained from acting for some reason outside their own? I mean you still report to them, you still rely on them for performance reviews, raises and so on to some extent. You still have to worry about the boss retaliating in some way, can you really isolate them?

      I don't know. I can tell you that guy who signed the brief as the top leading signatory is a content industry lawyer.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    105. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You mean like when I buy a book, and then without the consent of the copyright holder, I sell the used book to someone else, as the law permits me to do per 17 USC 109? Just because the copyright holder doesn't consent to something, that doesn't make it illegal.

      Oh my god, are you serious? The law prived the exception. Copyright is entirely a legal construct, using what the law allows does not relate to a violation of the laws.

      And even in the case where the distribution is infringing, yes, the right is intact. The right has not been taken away. The right has, however, been infringed upon.

      SO when I am illegally distributing your copyrighted materials without your permission, your exclusive right to control the distribution is in tact. In other words, I didn't take you right to distribute the material for my own benefit, it remained exclusively yours and completely under your control when I distributed your copyrighted materials against your wished. Does up mean down today?

      Actually, when copyright law talks of an exclusive right, it is a term of art. An exclusive right is a right to exclude others. Like if you own a piece of land, you have an exclusive right to it, which means you can tell other people not to trespass. If someone does trespass, this doesn't mean you don't own the land, or that the land has been taken away from you. It means that now you have to enforce your right by, e.g. calling the police to kick the trespasser out, going to court and suing for trespass, etc.

      It also means that your exclusive right was taken from you while they were trespassing. Look into a legal concept called Conversion or Criminal conversion. The cliff notes version is theft without actually taking it from you. Look it up for a more comprehensive explanation.

      If the right were taken away, then the copyright holder could not go to court to enforce it; since it wouldn't be his right anymore, and pretty much the first thing you have to prove in order to get to court in a copyright suit is that there is a registered copyright, and you have the copyright.

      Look above.

    106. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Their actions had an influence in the punishment handed down and possible appeals. That's weighing in one the case because it effects potential appeals from either side. The case isn't over until all appeals are exhausted or declared not to be pursued. That's called due process.

    107. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Unless Bob licenses to Carol in which case Alice lost her exclusive right.

      Well, a license is essentially a promise not to sue for what would otherwise be an infringement. Bob can certainly promise to not sue Carol with regard to Alice's work, but that won't really mean much when Alice sues Carol. Certainly Alice won't lose her right. Your example is little different than if someone walked up to you and offered to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

      we are talking about a theft of a specific right, not the entire work.

      That really just cannot be done casually. It's vaguely imaginable that someone could defraud the copyright holder into transferring his rights away, but merely downloading a song from Napster would never suffice. If you're talking about the 'theft of a specific right,' then I submit to you that you don't know what you're talking about.

      To infringe means to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

      Gee, that sounds a lot like when a copyright holder refuses to permit people to download a work to which he holds the copyright, and people download it anyway.

      Copyright infringement does include theft and theft is what is happening when you take someone's exclusive right.

      You keep forgetting that no one ever does seem to 'take someone's exclusive right.' It just doesn't happen. What happens is infringement. If a work is copyrighted, and without permission you 1) make another copy; 2) make a derivative work based on the work; 3) distribute copies of the work; 4) publicly perform the work (if the work meets certain criteria, sometimes depends on the means of performance), or; 5) publicly display the work (if the work meets certain criteria), and there is no applicable defense or exception in the law, then you have infringed on the copyright, but you have not stolen, taken, or converted any damn thing.

      You could print up a billion and one DVDs of Star Wars and hand them out like candy, and it wouldn't even begin to be construeable as 'taking someone's exclusive right.' Why you're blathering on about the idea, when it is really just divorced from reality, I can't imagine.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    108. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Otherwise you're equating copyright infringement with unlawful transfer of copyright.

      In a way, it is. You have no right to distribute my copyrighted works, when you do, you are in effect assuming the copyright for the purpose of distributing my copyrighted materials. What else give you the right? Keep in mind, we are talking about illegal acts that aren't already allowed by law or tort.

      One means that somebody somewhere made a copy against your wishes. Your ability to continue producing is uncompromised, you're actually free to ignore the infringement if you so wish because you're not directly stopped from doing anything. Further, your right to control your design doesn't disappear when a single party infringes on it. You may ignore one party and go for another.

      You don't need to be deprived of anything to have a theft occur. Seriously, look into the concept of Criminal conversion. You act as if I lost nothing that prevented me from doing anything, theft can't occur. That's simple incorrect.

      If I did get your copyright somehow transferred to me, though, you'd lose the ability to legally make whatever you're making. That's a much, much bigger deal than some guy somewhere unlawfully using your picture in a page about his cat.

      I agree, that's a bigger deal but it isn't the same thing. You do no need to lose property to have a theft.

      The law clearly defines theft and copyright infringement as separate, and treats them differently. There's no arguing about this.

      No it does not. Infringment is a parrent class of copyright violations. Within it, there are several classes of actions that cause the violation. Theft is one of them. Taking a right that does not belong to you is theft.

    109. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      SO when I am illegally distributing your copyrighted materials without your permission, your exclusive right to control the distribution is in tact. In other words, I didn't take you right to distribute the material for my own benefit, it remained exclusively yours and completely under your control when I distributed your copyrighted materials against your wished.

      Yes. You would, however, have infringed against my (fully intact, still in my possession) rights, and could be held accountable for that. But I didn't lose the right to exclude anyone. In fact, my ability to enforce my rights against you by going to court, etc. is founded on the premise that I at all times had my rights and that you were acting contrary to my rights.

      It is similar to if the federal government decided to ignore the free religion clauses of the First Amendment and force me to adopt a religion in which I did not believe. As a human being, I have a right to believe what I choose, and to not believe what I choose. They can't take that away from me. They can, at most, infringe on my right; Eppur si muove.

      It also means that your exclusive right was taken from you while they were trespassing.

      No, you still have the right to exclude them, even though they ignore you. All that happens is escalation, where you get the sheriff to enforce your right to exclude them. You never lose the right. If you lost the right, you'd never be able to get rid of them.

      Look into a legal concept called Conversion or Criminal conversion. The cliff notes version is theft without actually taking it from you.

      So have you looked at the Dowling case I quoted elsewhere in this discussion?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    110. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Get tired of it all you like, but I prefer it when somebody stealing my music CDs and somebody copying their contents are clearly separate.

    111. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      In a way, it is. You have no right to distribute my copyrighted works, when you do, you are in effect assuming the copyright for the purpose of distributing my copyrighted materials.

      No, I'm not assuming your copyright. I'm infringing on it.

      If I were to somehow assume your copyright, I could go into court and sue people for infringement. But that clearly would be a very bad idea, me not having the copyright and unlawfully making copies of your stuff, and all.

      You don't need to be deprived of anything to have a theft occur. Seriously, look into the concept of Criminal conversion. You act as if I lost nothing that prevented me from doing anything, theft can't occur. That's simple incorrect.

      It's not theft. Criminal conversion is criminal conversion. Theft is theft. They're separate.

      No it does not. Infringment is a parrent class of copyright violations. Within it, there are several classes of actions that cause the violation. Theft is one of them. Taking a right that does not belong to you is theft.

      Infringement is infringement. Criminal conversion is criminal conversion. Theft is neither of those.

    112. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by jwildstr · · Score: 1

      And in a court of law, they are. But while from your point of view, there's a difference, think about it from the artist/label's perspective. Either way, someone is taking something that doesn't belong to them, be it physical media or access to the data.

    113. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Infringement is a past tense of stolen. It follows the lines of conversion theft and is in the same legal construct as theft. In conversion, you are not necessarily deprived of your usage either.

      Infringement is not a past tense of "stolen", "stolen" is the past participle of "steal". Conversion is not theft, conversion is a tort distinct from the crime of theft and encompassing many acts which are not theft.

    114. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Rennt · · Score: 1

      ...I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word)

      Nope, no its not. But if you can't tell the difference between copyright infringement and theft by now, then there is really no hope for you.

    115. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by aynoknman · · Score: 1

      Pandering to the lowest common denominator would be less frequent if more people were prime numbers.

      I dunno, seems to me there are a lot of people looking out for number one.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    116. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Not everything should be free... Just things that are more than 7-14 years old. Bring back the Public Domain and stop letting companies hide behind corporate authorship to let their creations stay copyrighted in perpetuity... Then maybe I'll consider rampant copyright infringement to be 'stealing' but until then its the corporations that are 'stealing' from the public domain.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    117. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by rfuilrez · · Score: 1

      Agreed 100%. The United States law system has become nothing more than voting in favor of big companies. "Donations" and "Contributions" to the political parties, and people in power should just not be allowed. It's supposed to be a Government for the people, by the people. Not for big business, by big business because they made a $400 million "campaign contribution". The fundamental principals of the founding fathers are not being upheld, so that corporations can make a few extra bucks. It's just not right.

    118. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by pnot · · Score: 1

      This is ludicrous. Here I am, in the midst of a Slashdot thread on copyright law, and I find a post which is

      1. cogently reasoned,
      2. level-headed, and
      3. written by an *actual lawyer*?

      It's the end times, I swear.

    119. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word) of commercial data isn't correct either.

      Oh, I thought we long ago accepted that words have meanings, and theft requires deprivation, and therefore copyright infringement and theft were two different things. But if you insist, well, I guess that makes them equal.

    120. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea. stealing. when I drive too fast, I'm stealing miles per hour. If I drink too much, and go out for a walk, I'm stealing drunkeness. If I take 3 ibuprofen instead of 2 from the bottle, I'm stealing pills. If I stop on the sidewalk to watch a lady changing her under wear through her window, I'm stealing erections. If i fail to mow my yard as often as the city likes, I'm stealing weeds.
      stealing has a specific meaning, and copyright violation isn't something it applies to. Why not use raped and murdered. rassert raped and murdered 40 songs off the internet. that sounds nice and worse.

    121. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure. How could you have Judgment Day without a bunch of lawyers present?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    122. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Whuffo · · Score: 1

      What people outside of this issue don't see is that there's a lot of creative people out there who are shocked by what is going on and refuse to take part in it.

      I've been writing music for quite a few years now and some of it is actually pretty damned good. But I don't release it any more - because the pirates will steal (yes, I know the word is wrong but from my point of view that's how it feels) my work. I won't deal with the record companies either because they're no different from the pirates - they'll steal my work and use it to further their own selfish goals.

      That's the thing that nobody seems to be seeing: It doesn't matter if you side with the "pirates" or with the RIAA because in either case the artist gets screwed. Wake up! You've let them re-frame the discussion so that you're arguing on their terms. You don't have a clue what the people who actually create and perform the music want but you're so ready and willing to speak on their behalf. Why not put a little thought into the situation and follow the money? I can assure you that the artists that they claim to be protecting don't see any of it.

      The RIAA has managed to corrupt our legal system and they're using it to destroy people's lives. Who are the artists that were harmed? What do they have to say about it? You don't know, do you? That's the saddest thing about this whole screwed up mess - they've managed to divert the public from the truth far enough that they can play their games unimpeded. Don't whine so much about abusive awards like this one - because it was people like you that allowed it to happen.

      Do you want to do something about the people being abused - not just the "downloaders" but the artists too? Great - now quit talking about it and DO SOMETHING. Call or write your Senators and Congressmen. Speak of the people who create and perform the music, not the "rights" organizations. Talk to your local news people, tell your friends, write a book. DO SOMETHING other than whine about it on Slashdot.

      If you can't do even this much, you're as much the problem as the RIAA is.

    123. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by shark72 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "No, documented fact. Hence why they keep getting hit with fines for anti-trust/price-fixing violations."

      When accusing record companies of being dishonest, it is important -- essential -- that we not spread lies as well. What is there to be gained? Seriously, Mr. MaskedSlacker -- with so many bad things that the record labels do, why make shit up? Why?

      You're referring to the Universal price-fixing case of about a decade ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with collusion between record companies; it was all about a market technique called "minimum advertised pricing" -- known in the retail industry as MAP. Here's what happened:

      • Wal-Mart and Best Buy started getting into the business of selling CDs. Since the sale of CDs was just a lure to get customers into the store, they sold CDs at little or no margin.
      • A couple of record store chains that you might remember from your childhood, Tower Records being probably the one we all remember, went into freak-out mode and complained to the record labels that Wal-Mart and Best Buy were going to drive them out of business.
      • Universal stepped in and instituted a MAP program with these retailers. In this case the details were that Universal would give the record labels money to run advertising (called "co-op advertising" in the retail business) in exchange for not advertising CDs at below a certain price set by Universal.

      At this point I should stop and point out that MAPs are still alive and well today. It's an interesting distinction -- authorized dealers are welcome to sell product at any price (otherwise it would be illegal), but if they advertise prices below a point set by the manufacturer, they don't get co-op money, or the best rebates, or other perks that authorized dealers typically get. A huge number of companies do MAPs, including companies well-loved by Slashdotters. Apple is one of them.

      Anyway, back to 1999 or so:

      • Wal-Mart and Best Buy, upon hearing of Universal's authorized dealer MAP program, went to the government.
      • Wal-Mart and Best Buy having the weight they do, the government stepped in, agreed that Universal's MAP program was a little too close to price-fixing, told Universal to stop it immediately, and set up a program in which anybody who'd bought CDs at Tower Records or the other resellers could get some money back.
      • Tower Records, of course, went out of business shortly thereafter. They simply could not compete with Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

      The price-fixing settlement is a good thing if you subscribe to the "What's good for Wal-Mart is good for America" philosophy, or if you don't particularly mourn the death of the indie record store. On that point, however, I think Tower would be out of business today anyway; the price-fixing ruling simply hastened their death.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    124. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ridiculous nonsense. All of that money spent on promotion is about skewing the popularity and value of the music from what it would be otherwise. That is to say, without commercial promotion, there would still be music, and there would still be songs that are more popular than others, but the distribution of popularity would merely be different.

    125. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! The man has been worm food (or a popsicle, your choice) for nearly a half century

      Maybe neither dead nor frozen. If he's still alive, that explains the copyright status. Elian! Elian!

    126. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "I don't care for iTunes, since most of the music on it is DRM-laden, and I refuse to buy music that behaves on someone else's whim."

      Apple began phasing out DRM in January, and their entire catalog is not DRM-free. They joined the ranks of Amazon MP3 and several other online stores (some big, some small, some good, some not so good) that were already selling DRM-free music. The record companies waking up to the notion that DRM isn't useful was long overdue, but I'm glad finally happened.

      "What needs to be done is have a subscription service that works across all platforms, costs some money ($15 a month? $30 a month?), and has a good catalog. That wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a steady stream of money, and it wouldn't be too hard to track which artists are the most listened to, and distribute the money accordingly. For what it's worth, Rhapsody also sells music a track at a time in DRM-free MP3 format."

      Rhapsody does most of this. They're not Mac-friendly, but I pay $15 a month and I can listen to it on my Windows box and on my Squeezebox. Their royalty payment system works just like you describe.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    127. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      ...of course, when I wrote "not DRM-free" I actually meant "now DRM-free."

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    128. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "I am not that surprised but a bit disappointed. I thought that with Obama USA was going to take the lead on the issue of copyright in the 21st century. Do not expect many outbreaks from Europe right now. I hope he is just fixing issues by order of priority and that copyright reform is still somewhere on the list."

      IP is one of the country's leading exports. As more and more manufacturing leaves the US and the world settles more firmly into the post-industrial age, the revenue stream from media, software and the like is going to be even more important.

      We like to dream of a world in which Windows is open source, the Berne Convention is abolished, and the iTunes store shuts its doors, and we'll all live in an information utopia where art is created only for arts' sake. Linux and Magnatunes will finally get the success that they deserve, everybody who's ever been on "MTV Cribs" will be thrown into the lake of fire, yadda yadda. But the sad and ugly truth is that our nation's economy is run on IP, and money is a bit tight right now.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    129. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "So it's ok to punish someone even though you can't prove they damaged you or how much they damaged you? "

      At the risk of oversimplifying, that's pretty much the point of statutory damages.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    130. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by eee_eff · · Score: 1

      The issue here (which ColdWetDog ignores) is NOT whether a crime was committed, but WHAT the appropriate punishment should be. The Taliban believe that hands should be cut off when people commit crimes, but we don't believe that do we? I agree that a crime was committed, but I feel the penalty should be something more like a speeding ticket ($100 dollar fine per song, maximum). Incidentally "stealing" is not the crime that is committed here. It is copyright infringement, and non-commercial copyright infringement at that. If I had an apple and it is stolen, I no longer have an apple. If I infringe someone's copyright, they still have the book/music/whatever it is, but someone else has it too. That is a big difference, coldwetdog. Obama seems to have forgotten everything that matters. Forgotten fairness, forgotten transparency (see his continuation of Bush-era secrecy surrounding the ACTA, for example)

    131. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Doggabone · · Score: 1

      Not everybody thinks that rampant copying of music or whatever for free is worth the damn effort.

      And that's a huge part of it all - how annoying is getting what I want vs. paying for what I want? When prices are (to my mind) reasonable, I was once far more likely to pay than search (now I find other music/artists). That's fairly common, and that's what the industry is competing against.

      If you don't like how the major labels deal with production and distribution of their product, don't use them. Don't buy it. Don't steal it.

      These days, thanks to the hardworking and savvy indie artists, that's what I do. There are so many options that I don't even need iTunes to find and pay for new, good stuff. I find new and skilled artists, and pay them directly.

    132. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Doggabone · · Score: 1

      This answer always amuses me because it makes it seem like we have another choice. We don't -- or at least we have very little other options.

      There are plenty of non-RIAA options for music. Mostly, directly purchasing from the artists themselves, but there are other distribution channels as well.

    133. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      If I was on trial it would have been $1.2 billion dollars. So $1.92 million is quite light.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    134. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Don't steal it.

      How the fuck is it stealing?

      If copyright infringement was theft it would be treated as such, no shoplifter would ever get more than a written warning for their first offence. At most stealing a cd might get you a fine of a few hundred dollars. So explain to me the justification of destroying someone's life for a minor offence (that you claim it is).

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    135. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      At the risk of oversimplifying, that's pretty much the point of statutory damages.

      I know. It was a rhetorical question pointing out the questionable morality underlying such a scheme.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    136. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, we should give up our national culture because Senators get bought off.
      What a horrid solution.

    137. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need a data plan on my smartphone,

      Why exactly? If your employer requires you to have a data plan, then your employer should pay for it.

      Otherwise, you don't need it, you just want it.

    138. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by seekertom · · Score: 1

      put a dollar value on what was 'stolen'. now look at what bernie madoff stole and compare the two. to have equal justice based on harm done, i guess maybe instead of prison, bernie should have been drawn and quartered in a public place or cooked slowly over an open pit on the front lawn of the white house... that would be a deterrent, wouldn't it? (psst... hint... we don't do that in America, do we?) yes, the punishment ought to fit the crime. unfortunately, it doesn't always, and when there's conflict of interest involved, it's usually the wrong decision. i wonder what you think we should have done with bill clinton and his defilement of the oral office, or lying to congress? (or didn't that happen?) thanks for lis'nin' seekertom

    139. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      What?

      Legislation is a popularity contest. This is a democracy. It is only indirectly our popularity contest, but it certainly is a popularity contest among our elected officials, and people attempt to buy popularity daily. That is why the courts are so important.

      Music means different things to different people. You are extremely cynical, ridiculously cynical in fact, to assume the music industry is, has always been, and will always be based on the vanity of the consumer. Sure, some people do select their music for vain reasons. They are called teenagers, and they only do it because the recording industry deliberately markets to their overactive, teenage sense of vanity. Stop the marketing, and the music industry lives on. However, anyone publishing music can no longer be sure what will be "The Next Big Thing" (tm), because they will no longer be in complete control of the content and distribution. Businesses have the right to take measures to reduce their risks, but not at the expense of competition.

      The idea that any work in the public domain is unwanted with zero value is completely wrong. Most works will be forgotten, but that happens regardless of copyright status. Most works are completely unavailable long before their copyrights expire. It may have little money making value--though there are many businesses making money off the sale of public domain works right now--but it has much greater value culturally. Artists can make use of public domain works in their own works. Students can learn from public domain works for nearly nothing. A long copyright gives a huge advantage to the wealthy.

      A top 100 chart has no bearing on this discussion, because it only gives a biased view of the industry. For every artist on that chart, there are hundreds of artists that are making music profitably. You write as if no one will sell anything without a seven digit marketing budget, but the truth is that most artists never have anything close behind them, and they still survive. In fact, they would probably do a lot better if the industry didn't push them into horrible contracts. With the marketing gone the industry would level out some, and I don't think that is a bad thing.

    140. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by rdebath · · Score: 1

      So, you actually agree; one is NOT a prime, it's a "unit". Like -1, i and -i.

    141. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by eelke_klein · · Score: 1

      stealing (yep, that's the word)

      Nope that's the wrong word. It is called copyright violation. Maybe you like to call it stealing because you think it is just as bad. Well maybe it is but that doesn't give you the right to change the meaning of the word stealing. Stealing in the context of music would be if person A composed a song and person B registers the copyrights for it. Now person B has stolen the rights on the song instead of violating them.

    142. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by celle · · Score: 1

      Just remember that "commercial data" is just public data with a percentage of self-serving spin on it, so the public is getting robbed first.

    143. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      To all corporations and individual execs and directors who pay too little tax or less than the average guy. Lets make penalties just as high as a deterant.
      ie. 1000x taxes not paid.

      Will they cry its not fair?

      Boo hooo, avoid paying $25m in taxes, coff up $25billion MOTOFO , even if it means a 5000 employee corporation must be liquidated and put to death.

      Come on wheres the revolution !! bloody lazy asses.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    144. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I have written a little program that listens to all the radio stations broadcasting on the internet, its got an enormous buffer (several tera-terabytes), so it is not actually "copying" the songs. Its got a search function which allows you to find songs in the buffer and go directly to them. Sometimes you get a bit of the previous song at the beginning or the intro to the next song at the end. The program also cleans the buffer and only keeps the best quality version of a song. I do expect that the buffer should start overwriting when the sons come out of copyright protection
      but all in all it works well. I'm only selling it for 1million dollars, but you will not be breaking any laws when you use it, so its a bargain!

    145. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I also think that stealing (yep, that's the word) of commercial data isn't correct either

      Ah, now you've done it. They're going to come out of the woodwork with their indignant justifications now ;)

    146. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Simple example to see the difference: If I steal your cell phone, has anything been taken away from you? Definitely, yes.

      If you refuse to pay a mechanic for running diagnostics on your car, has anything been stolen? Yes - his time and skills. Not all theft is of physical goods.

    147. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple are total asshats about DRM but they also make it convenient to buy music from them.

    148. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure. How could you have Judgment Day without a bunch of lawyers present?

      You know, I think that's a great idea. We might get a continuance!

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    149. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not assuming your copyright. I'm infringing on it.

      If I were to somehow assume your copyright, I could go into court and sue people for infringement. But that clearly would be a very bad idea, me not having the copyright and unlawfully making copies of your stuff, and all.

      If copyright is the only thing that allows permission to distribute copyrighted materials, then you must assume a copyright in order to distribute it. It's a temporary theft but it is there. You also do not have to act in a certain way or to the full extent of the right in order to take it.

      It's not theft. Criminal conversion is criminal conversion. Theft is theft. They're separate.

      No. Criminal conversion is theft, it's in the statutes regarding theft, is it theft.

      Infringement is infringement. Criminal conversion is criminal conversion. Theft is neither of those.

      It's all of those.

    150. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The DoJ needs to support this verdict, because the government desperately needs their cut of that settlement money.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    151. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by agnosticnixie · · Score: 0, Troll

      This person may need it - there's many reasons why, ignorant AC.

    152. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll play.

      If Alice is making unauthorized and illegal (the two are not automatically applicable) copies of the work, does Bob still have the exclusive control over copying and distribution?

      No more or less than he ever did. By the way, all legal copying is authorized by someone; what copyright does (by default) is create a condition where any use not expressly permitted is proscribed. The law states what uses of copyrighted works are permitted whether the author approves or not.
      Bob is losing a percentage of a chance to make a sale if Alice distributes illegal copies of the work. But he's not losing his right. The right entitles him to drag Alice into court and sue her for damages (and apparently, a lot more than that!) He doesn't lose this right when Alice makes illegal copies. It's important to recognize that recognizing or granting a right does not guarantee it and never has done. Your "right to life" does not guarantee you protection from death. On the other hand, the fact of death [arguably] does not invalidate the concept.

      Infringement is a past tense of stolen.

      Stealing involves theft, as in of property. No, that doesn't include intellectual property, unless you stole the only working copy of the blueprints or something. But then you're stealing paper which has value based on the information on it, and that's once again a tangible good. Arguably, if someone downloaded your data and then deleted your copy it could be prosecuted as theft, because you've actually been deprived. Computers, however, do not work this way automatically, so you'd have to take extra effort.
      The simple truth is you shouldn't have to be a lawyer to know that our legal system completely recognizes this difference. It's why we have such a bullshit notion as "Intellectual Property" in the first place, and it's why it's called "Copyright Infringement" and not theft. They are quite simply different things. You are free to argue that one is just as bad as the other, but it doesn't make them the same thing, and conflating the two seems most likely to me a disingenuous attempt to rewrite the dictionary to suit your own prejudice.

      Copyrights are infringed upon a great deal, but it just isn't the same.

      It is the same from a legal perspective. That's what we need to focus on here.

      It is clearly not the same from a legal perspective, which again is why we have a separate body of law to handle copyright infringement. If it were the same, it would just be handled as theft.

      however, conversion holds true.

      Per your link, conversion differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of the possession of that property. As such, it is a lesser included offense of the crime of theft. Lesser included offense of the crime, crime meaning prohibited by law. And going on, When the intent becomes one of keeping [them], it's a theft. Keeping meaning in your possession and not that of the owner. When will you learn that we're not discussing physical goods?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    153. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      If copyright is the only thing that allows permission to distribute copyrighted materials, then you must assume a copyright in order to distribute it. It's a temporary theft but it is there. You also do not have to act in a certain way or to the full extent of the right in order to take it.

      So by that logic, trespassing is temporary theft of land? I'm sorry, but that's retarded.

      No. Criminal conversion is theft, it's in the statutes regarding theft, is it theft.

      So why does it have a specific name, "criminal conversion"? If it was theft, then no new term for it would be needed. Sorry, won't agree with this.

      It's all of those.

      It's none of those.

    154. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      And in a court of law, they are.

      Perfect, we agree then. End of discussion.

      What the artist/label thinks has absolutely no importance. The only important thing is what the law says.

    155. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by dpastern · · Score: 1

      Wow, if only the US DOJ had the same attitude in the DOJ vs Microsoft case in the late 90s...

      It's amazing (not really) how if it's the rich who are getting hurt, there's one law for them (always in their favour). When it's the poor, there's a screw them for as much as you can get attitude.

      I've already outline how to defeat laws like this in a previous /. post.

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
    156. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure. How could you have Judgment Day without a bunch of lawyers present?

      Since you got one jokster being lawmaker, police, judge, jury and executioner (well actually he outsourced that downstairs), good luck doing anything useful.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    157. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So by that logic, trespassing is temporary theft of land? I'm sorry, but that's retarded.

      No, it wouldn't it would be theft of your right to be on the land. And yes, squaters steal the land after taking your right to control who is on it away.

      So why does it have a specific name, "criminal conversion"? If it was theft, then no new term for it would be needed. Sorry, won't agree with this.

      Criminal conversion is not a new or specific name. It's a legal concept that has been around almost longer then our legal system. Just because this is the first you have heard of it does not make it new or special. Please don't argue, I didn't know about it so it doesn't count.

      It's none of those.

      They were all theft.

    158. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't it would be theft of your right to be on the land

      That directly conflicts with your earlier claim that your copyright is somehow being "assumed" when it's infringed.

      Criminal conversion is not a new or specific name. It's a legal concept that has been around almost longer then our legal system. Just because this is the first you have heard of it does not make it new or special. Please don't argue, I didn't know about it so it doesn't count.

      Reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that the very reason we are talking about "criminal conversion" is that it's not theft. If it was, then it'd be plainly called "theft" and no other term would be needed.

      They were all theft.

      No, none of them were.

      (This is amusing, how long are we going to keep this up?)

    159. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yawn, I am not afraid of lawsuits, I have no assets they can take. So I keep giving my customers 20gig of MP3 when they ask and I am proud of it.

      Oh, and I live where silly laws like these simply dont exist.

      I reckon my MP3 collection is in tens and possible hundreds and thousand of PCs now, copied direct not downloaded.

      I worked in the music industry for some years and anything that has a bad effect on the rotten bastards that run record companies is a good thing, and a great pleasure for me.

      I make sure eveytime I read of the RIAA doing this another 10 copys are distributed. I have never paid a cent for any of it and I never will.

      Fun days!

      When the RIAA starts to behave ethically so will I.

    160. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is this: The USA copyright system was a contract nothing more. In return for a limited copyright We, The People got a richer public domain. Only now the contract has been completely broken thanks to treasonous bribery. Now copyrights will go on forever, because thanks to the large bribes...err I mean campaign contributions of multinational corporations (who could be argued are deciding most if not all of our laws now thanks to said bribes) they can just keep getting it extended for eternity.

      The system is completely broken and I don't care which side you are on you should have ZERO support for this corrupted, perverted, disgusting use of bribes and political favors we now call the US copyright system. Want proof it is broken? One sentence: Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! The man has been worm food (or a popsicle, your choice) for nearly a half century and one of his FIRST works, made when airplanes were cloth and wood and antibiotics were just a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright!!!

        Until copyright laws are returned to their original lengths or WE, The People actually get a voice at the bargaining table, then ALL copyright laws in the USA should be looked upon as a broken contract and treated as the worthless piece of paper that they are. Because in the face of rampant corruption it is the ONLY choice left to you. They have locked our history behind paywalls, stolen our public domain away from us and our families, and use their offices for graft collection. To actually respect this cabal of greed and corruption? You are either insane or a fool.

      What is surfacing is making obivious what many of us already know, and causing a loss of faith in our government, which will make money worth less, when people begin not to care about anything because of what greed is foing to our love for our country

    161. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reject the premise. Copyright infringement is stealing.

      I reject the assumption that you have a brain, capable of rational thought.

      Copyright infringement is NOT stealing, you blithering moron (personal attack, I know - sometimes I can't help myself, when the stupidity level raises too high - such as in your case - I am sorry), regardless of what you, personally may think. The law says it's not. Common sense (of which you quite obviously have none, whatsoever) says it's not. Until you accept this fact there is zero chance of you succeeding in a civilized discussion about the perils of a content producer in this day and age, which would be way more constructive for you to engage in.

    162. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That directly conflicts with your earlier claim that your copyright is somehow being "assumed" when it's infringed.

      No it doesn't. The only way you can think that is if your refusing to see that copyright as well as land rights are comprised of several different rights over a certain thing. When you sell a copy of the copyrighted work, you don't sell you copyright, so why is it that when someone assumes the copyright in order to distribute the work (without permission) you insist that the entire piece disappear?

      Reading comprehension issues. I'm saying that the very reason we are talking about "criminal conversion" is that it's not theft. If it was, then it'd be plainly called "theft" and no other term would be needed

      Crinminal conversion is a class under theft as a legal concept. Infringement is the same. The only reason why it is called infringement is because it was codified that way. But that doesn't remove the element in which is resides.

    163. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      Did you dupe your own post?

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    164. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by ArcCoyote · · Score: 1

      And apparently the jury of peers agrees with you... more than once.

      Jammie Thomas did not have a sympathetic jury. She and her council did just about everything they could to ensure they didn't. Lying to the jury and destroying evidence (a hard drive) the first time, get hit with $220,000 for it, then appeal and do it again? Of course she's going to get swatted for it.

    165. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I know you are either posting sarcasm or a troll, but IMHO these issues still need to be addressed because there are actual people who believe them.

      Legislation is not a popularity contest, nor should it ever be.

      This is a strange notion for anyone who lives within a participatory government (i.e. anything from a direct democracy to a representative democracy) to have. Personally, I'd prefer legislation-by-popularity-contest to legislation-by-the-highest-bidder. Granted, I'd much prefer legislation-by-informed-debate-and-concensus than either of those options.

      In general, art that becomes public domain becomes worthless to consumers. The value of art is virtually entirely derived from promotions. If there is no profit from promoting it, it goes unpromoted and vanishes from interest, most especially in the case of music.When music becomes public domain people will stop downloading or even listening to it, in favor of the big flashy new crap they see on MTV that people are getting sued and jailed for pirating.

      I have to disagree, "Twinkle, twinkle, little star" doesn't need a marketing team to propagate within our culture and also be used in products (e.g. books, music boxes, etc...). While some people only listen to a particular type of music because it's popular, a significant number of people will still like a particular piece of music even if it's public domain. They will also still buy recordings of public domain music, or do you think the CDs full of symphonies and classical music at Best Buy are just for show?

      I myself have purchased some CDs of folk music from various places around the world. In that case, the musicians and singers might have copyright on their particular preformance

      , but the actual music and songs are usually very much public domain (often well over one hundred years old). This actually shows why public domain can be an economic positive, if everyone has the freedom to perform a work, eventually someone will do it well enough that other people will pay them for the performance. It also allows others to be inspired by past music and hopefully create something significant themselves, as opposed to being locked on degrading recording material in some record company's vaults when it goes out of style.

      The fundamental human trait at the heart of the music industry is not musical appreciation, it's vanity. The most valuable aspect of music to consumers is how it can shape how others perceive them. That, not the music itself, is what is being sold, and why people are buying it, and also why people are pirating it. It is frightfully expensive to create the demand for music, and those who do it successfully deserve to be rewarded for as long as the demand exists. Public domain kills that demand and devalues the music completely unnecessarily.

      Maybe I'm the only one in the world not drinking the RIAA's cool-aid, but I've never sought-out music as a means to "belong". Quite simply, I like the music that I like. While I find the company of others who enjoy the same types of music that I do pleasant; it isn't the only, or even the most important, criteria I use for socialization.

      Also, I don't condone infriging on commercially available music for any reason. Yet, there's a lot of old recorded music that, while viewed as "unprofitable" isn't in the public domain and thus most will never have the opportunity to experience it because it is still under copyright and the right-holders aren't even bothring to sell it, much less market it.

      If that doesn't make sense to you, you have no business criticizing the law or how it is applied. If you disagree with it, you're in abject denial. Just look at the top-selling music in the world, it's almost all rap or dance, virtually devoid of musicality, but fraught with glamor and hype. It's more fashion show than music.

    166. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Everything digital should be free eventually!

      I'd gladly wait until something is in the public domain before I could get it for free.

      Problem is, the system has been rigged so that nothing that was new during my lifetime will ever be in the public domain within my lifetime.

      Further, the right to preserve copyrighted works for their entry into the public domain has been restricted to those who produce them (DMCA), resulting in either their premature destruction so they can never become PD or paywalling them encased in DRMed formats forever. Even if I were to jump ahead a century, everything that was part of my culture in the past will be destroyed or locked away in private collections only to be enjoyed by the richest hoarders of world culture.

      I have no expectation that, for example, the complete musical works of Michael Jackson will be available for free come 2079 or even 2099 absent the illegal actions of individuals to preserve them outside his estate.

      And if I didn't expect to be dead by then, I'd wager that such preserved works would be deemed illegal as well as fruits of the poisonous tree and that all PD works must initially come from the last holder of the expired copyright.

      The copyrighting industries have broken the copyright contract. I have no problem with anyone breaking it back.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    167. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      It's worse then you think. Copyright laws and terms have been dictated by international treaties since the mid 1970's. Sure, we negotiated those treaties but it's a world wide effort. Even the DMCA is a combination of two WIPO treaties.

      Treaties, huh? And what concessions did we get in return?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    168. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why don't you read them and find out. It appears that getting our copyrights and patents honored in other countries is what we got in return.

      Here is a list of some of the more recent ones and who has signed onto them.

      The DMCA was a direct result of the WCT and WPPT. The Sonny Bono copyright extensions was from the Uruguay round table agreements and was in response to an EU directive (Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights).

      Now we most likely did negotiate so I'm not saying it was all their fault. But I am saying it is much worse then just in the US.

    169. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright infringement is NOT stealing, you blithering moron

      Once again I point your leaden brain to a dictionary:

      "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right"

      "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."

      "dishonestly pass off as one's own"

      Which of these definitions do not apply to someone asserting an exclusive right, better known at law as property (distribution, reproduction, derivation), where they have none?

      When you post the same response to stories about GPL violations and Microsoft "stealing" ideas, then you'll demonstrate your own nonexistent rational thought.

      The law says it's not.

      Where? It says no such thing.

      Common sense (of which you quite obviously have none, whatsoever) says it's not.

      Every story about GPL violations using the word "stole" disagrees with you.

    170. Re:Not exactly a surprise ... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. The only way you can think that is if your refusing to see that copyright as well as land rights are comprised of several different rights over a certain thing. When you sell a copy of the copyrighted work, you don't sell you copyright, so why is it that when someone assumes the copyright in order to distribute the work (without permission) you insist that the entire piece disappear?

      "Assuming copyright" strikes me as a very bad wording.

      A young child can commit copyright infringement by sharing stuff without knowing about there being such a thing as copyright. They can't be assuming something that they don't know exists.

      I can freely distribute and resell GPL licensed software. It's copyrighted, but I don't need to "assume" I hold the copyright on some code to distribute it.

      Some things are in the public domain, and I can distribute them freely, whether the creator (or their heirs) like that or not.

      Some things like plain collections of facts are simply uncopyrightable.

      I insist the whole piece disappear for being able to call it "theft". If people simply copy your stuff, that's simply copyright infringement, since you still retain control of your work. Infringement on rights you continue to hold is never theft. Tresspassing is not theft of land.

      If you still don't get it, here's an example with another right:

      Me kidnapping you and holding you in my basement is an infringement of your right to freedom. I didn't take away your right to be free, I infringed on it.
      The government putting you into prison is taking your right to freedom away. You've legally lost your right to be free.

      I use the same logic for defining what's theft and not regarding copyrighted materials.

      Crinminal conversion is a class under theft as a legal concept. Infringement is the same. The only reason why it is called infringement is because it was codified that way. But that doesn't remove the element in which is resides.

      Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree with you: "Criminal conversion, in criminal law, is usually defined as the crime of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property. It differs from theft in that ..."

      Ok, maybe you don't like Wikipedia. How about the Indiana Code? Criminal conversion is under the "Chapter 4. Theft, Conversion, and Receiving Stolen Property". Now why would it have that name if all of it was theft? To me this clearly indicates that Chapter 4 is about these related but separate concepts: theft, conversion, and receiving stolen property. Just like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is a bureau that is in charge of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, all those things being separate from each other though having enough things in common to make it sense to have one bureau regulate all of them.

  2. Doesn't Deter Me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This doesn't deter anybody, because the fine is only $5000 and you have the same odds of being sued whether you own a computer or not. What this does is deter people from FIGHTING the unjust $5000 fine, lest you have to pay .

  3. HOLY SHIT A BRICK by the_macman · · Score: 1, Informative

    Holy shit.....Can this not be more glaringly obviously corrupt? Obama hires lots of ex-RIAA lawyers which then uphold RIAA favored judgments. I'm fucking speechless because this judgment is so mind numbingly dumb. I think this needs to go to the supreme court (not that they will overturn it, but fuck SOMEONE with higher authority needs to say this is insane).

  4. Justice by LividBlivet · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Justice, my ass.

  5. death sentence for jaywalkers by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But it'll make a great deterrent won't it? That's all the excuse we need right?

    morons.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:death sentence for jaywalkers by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Heh, I've unwittingly jaywalked past a cop car before, did they stop me? Guess.

    2. Re:death sentence for jaywalkers by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I got stopped in DC for jaywalking and told I could be given a '$10 ticket'. Once the policeman had explained to me that, yes, it really was illegal to cross the road in (parts of) the USA, he let me off for being English (unfortunately, this is not a blanket excuse for breaking the law in the USA, but it should be).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:death sentence for jaywalkers by masmullin · · Score: 1

      I like this law... in fact, lets just have the death penalty for EVERYTHING!

    4. Re:death sentence for jaywalkers by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
    5. Re:death sentence for jaywalkers by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Ah well, the cops didn't stop me.

  6. I am deterred by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am deterred. Not because of the threat of lawsuit, but because they don't make anything worth downloading.

    1. Re:I am deterred by Spewns · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm deterred as well. Deterred from ever buying movies and music again. I haven't in some time now - ever since this absurd crusade started - and I couldn't be happier. All one needs are public libraries and http://jamendo.com/ - there's much better music on here than any of the shit you're generally going to find on major record labels anyway. Why are people still donating money to these machines? You're subsidizing tyranny over your own population.

    2. Re:I am deterred by masmullin · · Score: 1

      You can download both Zepplin and Chopin using bittorrent.

  7. The Eighth Amendment by theverylastperson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    (c) 1791 - The People of the United States. All Rights Reserved.

    --
    ed duval the very last person
    1. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (c) 1791 - Dead People of the United States. All Rights Reserved.

      There, fixed that for you. Buggy whip/automobile, that sort.

      What's that? You didn't think your own dogma and catchphrases could be turned around against you? You tell the RIAA to move out of the past by desperately clinging to statements ALSO stuck in the past?

      And you think the RIAA won't use that against us? Wow. Dumber than advertised.

    2. Re:The Eighth Amendment by amentajo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      <ianal>

      I wish this were true. However, the Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the State. The RIAA made a claim that the value of their foregone earnings is $1.92 million, and after that amount was deemed "accurate", the judge simply awarded that amount in accordance with the claim.

      It's akin to this: Imagine I come up with some awesome, kickass software-product-to-end-all-software-products. This product is so awesome, I sell it for $1.92 million per license, and one of the terms of that license is that it only applies to the end user who purchased the product. Then, that user gives the bits to a friend, and that friend uses it. I now have a valid claim of $1.92 million against that other guy, and would expect a judge to award me no less than $1.92 million, assuming that I can prove somehow that the $1.92 million is the value of the software, probably by showing evidence that other customers are purchasing it at that price. A contrived example, but it should help to show why the Eighth Amendment does not apply to civil cases.

      </ianal>

    3. Re:The Eighth Amendment by etymxris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the point is that the Founding Fathers were prescient in many things. It's not about being reactionary. It's about realizing "hey, maybe there's a good reason excessive fines were explicitly made unconstitutional."

    4. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Enforcement of civil penalties lies with the government. How can they legally enforce a judgment which violates the 8th amendment? The fines are, after all, imposed by statute passed into law by Congress.

    5. Re:The Eighth Amendment by amentajo · · Score: 2, Informative

      These are not fines, they are damages awarded to the plaintiff.

      Please refer to BFI, INC. V. KELCO DISPOSAL, INC., 492 U. S. 257 (1989) (link). One of the holdings of that case was:

      The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to punitive damages awards in cases between private parties; it does not constrain such an award when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to recover a share of the damages awarded."

      Title 17, Chapter 5, Â504 (c) (2) (link) states:

      In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

      Thus, in a case of willful infringement, the statutory damages are just that: damages awarded to the plaintiff, in a case between private parties.

    6. Re:The Eighth Amendment by amentajo · · Score: 1

      Having reviewed Title 17, Chapter 5, Ã504 (c) (2) (link), I readjust my example: I would grudgingly expect a judge to award me no less than $150,000, assuming that the infringement was proven willful.

    7. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      (c) 1791 - The People of the United States. All Rights Reserved.

      Who gets to decide what's "excessive" or "cruel and unusual?" Because last I checked, a huge swath of the world-wide population still think it's just for people to suffer heinously FOR ALL ETERNITY for not accepting their religion; that people should suffer the ultimate punishment for committing a THOUGHT CRIME. Do those people get to decide what's "excessive?" Who are you to say they don't?

      I've had this conversation with people before, about how it's wrong to ruin people's lives over trading music, or owning the wrong pictures, or growing the wrong plants, or similarly petty things. You know what most of them say? "If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime." They wouldn't see a problem with this verdict if it were $1.92 BILLION; they'd just say that Jammie shouldn't have pirated music. They don't care how bad the punishment is because they believe they'll never have to face it.

      Therein lies the problem. When you take people who'll never face a punishment and let them decide what that punishment should be, you can expect to end up with ridiculous things like $1.92M for trading some songs. In contrast, pretty much everyone risks getting a speeding ticket--most notably those in charge of deciding the punishment for speeding. That's why we don't have seven-figure fines for speeding.

    8. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by showing evidence that other customers are purchasing it at that price.

      problem is, no one ever purchased the crap for the amount. that's why it's clearly excessive.

    9. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Contrived and nothing at all like what happened in this case.

      She was fined $1.92 million for distributing somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 songs, or right around $20-30 worth of music. Even if she shared each of those songs 10,000 times, it's still only worth about $300,000 at the most, well below the judgement.

      And they did NOT argue that she shared the songs 10,000 times, they argued that she shared about 25 songs. Period.

      What they got her for are these things called statutes, which put the penalty at a minimum of $750 per work, and a maximum of $150,000. If I remember right they hit her with statuory penalties of between $50,000 and $100,000 per song.

      These particular statutes have not, as far as I know, gone before the SCOTUS which has the final say of the constitutionality of a law.

      Just because the statute has not been tested by the SCOTUS does not mean the constitution is somehow irrelevant. Our system is very flexible but slow moving by design. The $1.92mil fine is only the initial judgement. If the court of appeals agrees that it is excessive it will set the standard by which judges decide the statutory damages in these cases. If they don't agree with us that the damages are excessive, then the case can eventually make its way all the way to the SCOTUS and the matter of the constitutionality of these outrageous statutes will be decided.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    10. Re:The Eighth Amendment by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The BFI, INC. V. KELCO DISPOSAL, INC., 492 U. S. 257 (1989) shouldn't stand the light of day when congress is assigning punitive damages. What the court rules was ignoring that. When the government assigns a punishment (punitive damages) with an intent, they become an active participant in the case and the 8th should then apply.

      In the BFI case, they only considered if it was criminal or civil in suit and found that the 8th applies to government actions. The term Punitive implies punishment which should require a criminal due process in order to apply it. The court found that BFI raised no relevant objection to the charge on punitive damages in it's trial.

      Now, just to show I'm not a crack pot, here is the section 1a of the sylibus you linked to.

      " The primary concern which drove the Framers of the Eighth Amendment was the potential for governmental abuse of "prosecutorial" power, not concern with the extent or purposes of civil damages. Nothing in English history suggests that the Excessive Fines Clause of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the direct ancestor of the Eighth Amendment, was intended to apply to damages awarded in disputes between private parties. Pp. 492 U. S. 264-268."

      Civil cases are about making wrongs right and the damaged whole again. when the government assigns punitive punishment by law, they are prosecuting by proxy to avoid abuses of the public. This is because the punitive nature goes beyond awards to make the damaged whole again.

      Anyways, the argument is just that, but I believe it to be sound and should hold up and be consistent with the BFI case because the application of the law went beyond compensation and awards to direct punishment which the government does have a direct intention in if by prosecution by proxy. This is evident with the Justice department weighing in on the Thomas case, if they didn't have a concern, it wouldn't have happened. It's prosecution by proxy and follows beside the BFI aspect.

    11. Re:The Eighth Amendment by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Isn't punishment prescribed by law (punitive damages) a matter of the state even when pursued? It would seem that enforcement of the punitive damages would be a prosecution by proxy and have to include the hand of the state.

    12. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Locklin · · Score: 1

      I love those numbers. So she, as a single file-sharer, cost them $1.92 million dollars. If she is an average file-sharer, perhaps there are ~25 million people in the United States like her*. That means file sharing is costing them $49,152,000,000,000 a year! yes, thats 49 trillion dollars a year in losses! yes, that's more than 3 times the entire U.S. GDP. Anyway, sound's like reasonable statutory damages to me \end{sarcasm}.

      *Too lazy to find a better study: survey of movie downloaders via P2P
      http://www.srgnet.com/pdf/Movie%20File-Sharing%20Booming%20Release%20Jan%2024%2007%20Final.pdf

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    13. Re:The Eighth Amendment by amentajo · · Score: 1
      Yes, it would appear that my argument hinges on the assumption that the statutory damages are not "punitive damages". I have dug around about this issue, and I found this quote from a case that I cannot find with a quick Google search, but which is cross-referenced in other scholarly sources (Leutwyler v. Royal Hashemite Court of Jordan, 184 F. Supp. 2d 303, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)):

      "The language is clear, unambiguous, and exclusive: these are the alternatives available to a copyright plaintiff, and punitive damages are not provided by either of them."

      (referring to the actual and statutory damages that Title 17,504 provides for)

      Whether or not the statutory damages for willful infringement are punitive determines whether this case has an 8th Amendment argument. It appears very unambiguous, however, that Title 17,504 is constitutional if and only if the damages are punitive.

      Considering that Title 17,504 (c)(1) uses the language "...recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages..." ("recover" being the operative word), I lean towards "not punitive", but that is opinion.

    14. Re:The Eighth Amendment by amentajo · · Score: 1

      Whether or not the statutory damages for willful infringement are punitive determines whether this case has an 8th Amendment argument. It appears very unambiguous, however, that Title 17,504 is constitutional if and only if the damages are not punitive.

      Fixed.

    15. Re:The Eighth Amendment by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      (c) 1791 - Thomas Jefferson. All Rights Reserved.

      FTFY. [I think.] :)

    16. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the RIAA made no claims about their earnings. The RIAA did not prove that they were harmed by Thomas' infringement at all. They simply took statutory damages of up to $150,000 per willfull infringement at the court's discretion. Basically the jury was told to come up with a number between $750 and $150,000 per song, and they settled on $80,000, which is about a middle of the road judgement.

      At no point did the value of the songs ever come into consideration by the court. That's the thing about statutory damages; they are designed for situations where actual harm is very hard to calculate to try to give some kind fair settlement.

    17. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Some copyright infringement is criminal. I don't know much about this case though.

      Still, it's the state that sets the statutory limits for copyright infringement, and I don't see how there should be a moral or legal case for fining individuals millions of dollars, especially since the fine would end up totaling more than most individual's lifetime earnings.

    18. Re:The Eighth Amendment by lubricated · · Score: 1

      A bunch of rhetorical bullshit does not trump a simply written statement in the constitution. Just because self important lawyers run the country, doesn't mean you can't have your own principles.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    19. Re:The Eighth Amendment by amentajo · · Score: 1

      You're right, I was mistaken. Though the value of the songs should play a significant role in determining the damages, the court indeed does have the final word.

    20. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I should change that.

      Some copyright infringement is *considered* criminal by US law. Maybe by other country's laws, depending on how much influence the copyright lobby has in a given country.

    21. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is law, and then there is natural law. and i fully expect someone still sane on this earth would put you down, and a few others like you.

      then the balance would be restored.

      little cock suckers like you, who think they can produce reams of laws and rules... "i decree that anyone who agrees to my terms, should pay me 10 million if they break those terms".

      go fuck yourself.

      then die.

    22. Re:The Eighth Amendment by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "I love those numbers. So she, as a single file-sharer, cost them $1.92 million dollars."

      Straw man. These are statutory damages. The record labels don't have to show or even claim that they've lost this amount.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    23. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, the punitive/deterrent part should be paid tot he government, and treated as a criminal fine, while the plaintiff should only get what they can prove they lost.

    24. Re:The Eighth Amendment by amentajo · · Score: 1

      little cock suckers like you, who think they can produce reams of laws and rules... "i decree that anyone who agrees to my terms, should pay me 10 million if they break those terms".

      a) That doesn't really relate to my post (grandparent).
      b) My post (grandparent) was not intended to be interpreted as "I support the RIAA's efforts to recover their losses", as it sounds like you have taken it, (though grammar and clarity issues distort your message) but simply as an argument for the point that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to this case.

    25. Re:The Eighth Amendment by rdebath · · Score: 1

      Criminal copyright infringement is normally only applied if

      • The copies are sold
      • There are works from many different copyright holders

      The idea is that it makes more sense for the state to pursue the case because it's cheaper that all those individual civil cases and the fact that the items are sold gives a direct indication of the value of lost sales.

    26. Re:The Eighth Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly an equal comparison. I detect slight derision of the bitter constitutionalists among us (I'm one of them). Are you so bold as to actually compare tort copyright law to the founding documents of the greatest and most free system of government this world has ever known? Shame on you.

      We should do nothing more than rely on the foundations given to us and inked in the blood of better men.

  8. 8th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
    "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

    To the extent that this verdict was punative, it is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL fine in violation of the Bill of Fucking Rights. The Congress and the Judiciary both lack the authority to impose excessive fines. This can only be changed by amending the Constitution which requires ratification from 3/4ths of the States. /Suck it Department of Justice!

    1. Re:8th Amendment by the_macman · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. The constitution isn't exactly followed today. See (Habeas Corpus, The Federal Reserve, etc etc)

    2. Re:8th Amendment by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, not really.

      This is because congress and judiciary doesn't really follow the constitution. If they did, welfare would be gone, social security would be gone, Public health care would be a state issue as the federal government has no authority in it.

      Anyways, the term excessive, just like reasonable, and many other terms of importance in the constitution has been changed over time. This is in order to get around that pesky requirement for changing the constitution. It's now a living document that means nothing if an angle can be found. It's sad but true, at least for some.

    3. Re:8th Amendment by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's not a fine. It's statutory *damages*. It's not supposed to be punitive; it's supposed to make it possible for damage to the wronged party to be made good in cases where there has clearly been damage but the exact amount of damage is impractical to calculate. The very same approach is needed in cases where companies mishandle data which results in identity theft against their customers. Clearly their bad security harmed their customers, but how much?

      Now if you can show that the statutory damages are ridiculous, and are *intended* to punish, then you've got a point.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:8th Amendment by deblau · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For years the Supreme Court had little to say with reference to excessive fines. In an early case, it held that it had no appellate jurisdiction to revise the sentence of an inferior court, even though the excessiveness of the fines was apparent on the face of the record.29 In a dissent, Justice Brandeis once contended that the denial of second-class mailing privileges to a newspaper on the basis of its past conduct imposed additional mailing cost, a fine in effect, which, since the costs grew indefinitely each day, was an unusual punishment proscribed by this Amendment.30 The Court has elected to deal with the issue of fines levied upon indigents, resulting in imprisonment upon inability to pay, in terms of the equal protection clause,31 thus obviating any necessity to develop the meaning of "excessive fines" as applied to the person sentenced. So too, the Court has held the Clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, "when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded."32 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, "the word 'fine' was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense."33 The Eighth Amendment itself, as were antecedents of the Clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, "clearly was adopted with the particular intent of placing limits on the powers of the new government."34 Therefore, while leaving open the issues of whether the Clause has any applicability to civil penalties or to qui tam actions, the Court determined that "the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government."35

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt8_user.html

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    5. Re:8th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...yeah... except that the meaning of excessive in context is a matter to be evaluated by the judiciary. That's what Judicial Review is.

      but please, rant away

    6. Re:8th Amendment by fnj · · Score: 1

      The 8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

      OK, I'll bite. How much is an excessive fine in this case? Is $1.92 million excessive? Yes? How about $1.91 million? Yes? ... How about $1? Somewhere on that scale you are going to draw the line, and so will everybody else - at a DIFFERENT point, absent collusion. Because there is no exact amount for the threshold that is "obviously right." The Constitution by its very nature HAS to be sweeping, and vague when it comes to pinpointing physical quantities.

      The fact of the matter is that the plaintiff CANNOT prove ANY actual quantifiable dollar loss figure in any case similar to this one. He can postulate one, but he cannot prove any of a number of the steps(*). Adjudication is supposed to be based on PROOF, not supposition. Did the defendant cause any actual loss? Certainly not in the sense of a tangible asset being taken from an owner. Nothing physical changed hands. In the intangible sense of postulated lost revenues, no one can know. Maybe yes, maybe no. Lost revenues happen every day, anyway. Maybe I make and market something with better quality, or less cost than what you are peddling. Bingo, you have lost revenue traceable to my actions.

      It's not the particular dollar award (plainly egregious though it is) that is the problem here. The problem is making what the defendant did actionable at all. It's an attempt to legislate morality, which is in itself an evil act. The logic is relentless. There is no maybe. In this category of legislation, the law is an ass every day.

      ~~~~~~~~~~

      (*) Did any single actor actually download an entire work from the defendant? Part of a work (that's the way P2P works)? Is a small part the same as the whole? If not, how do you apportion the loss? Would said downloader have purchased the work if he had not downloaded it? If not, there IS NO LOSS. Did the party who downloaded from the original sharer have no intention of ever using the work? If he did not make use of it directly, but allowed a third party to download from him, is he guilty in this specific matter, or am I guilty, or both of us? Wow, that's a profitable line of though, eh? You could make recovery thousands of times for a single case. Is preempting a purchase an act that is in itself actionable? If I give, gratis, an acquaintance or stranger one of my two TV's (or some of my CD's and DVD's that I am tired of, for that matter), that may or may not deprive you of revenue. If, based on eyewitness testimony or admissions of the principles involved, it did preempt a purchase from you, is that actionable? (Established precedent and business custom says no)

  9. DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Interestingly, the DOJ brief asks the Court not to decide the constitutional question, requesting the Court to instead decide the issue on "common law" grounds, i.e. whether the award "shocks the conscience".

    Also interesting in the DOJ's brief is that it totally ignores the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court's "due process" jurisprudence concerning "punitive awards", which we have pointed out in the past. Presumably Ms. Thomas-Rasset's lawyers will bring this to the Court's attention.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    1. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So in your fantasy world, the penalty for shoplifting would be to ask the criminal to pay for the items he stole?

      Let me just say (a) I wouldn't want to be a retailer/merchant in your world, and (b) I'm glad things don't work that way in the real world.

      As an author, let me just say there should be a penalty -- a significant penalty -- for the wanton disregard for copyrights and intellectual property rights.

    2. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by GeneralAntilles · · Score: 1

      So in your fantasy world, the penalty for shoplifting would be to ask the criminal to pay for the items he stole?

      So in your fantasy world, where are the magical non-items you believe were stolen from the RIAA?

      Copyright infringement is not the same thing as property theft.

    3. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So in your fantasy world, the penalty for shoplifting would be beheading?

      Let me just say (a) I wouldn't want to be a citizen in your world, and (b) fuck you.

    4. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      This really is a terrible stance by the DOJ. Punitive rulings are blatantly unconstitutional, and effectively punish a person for what others might do. It's also completely pointless. Few, if any, regular people have anywhere near that kind of money. All that will happen if this stands is a time in bankruptcy court, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. They might as well raise the damages to fifty billion dollars under the same logic... considering: if one large amount will deter others, then an even larger amount is even better, right?

      I honestly don't understand where this is going.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    5. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Confirmation that trolls cannot read. Please quote where NYCL said the proper fine was $.99 per song.

    6. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in both cases, there is one or more (often more, BTW) lost sales

      in the end, the seller -- be it an artist, a record label, or a retailer -- is out cash

    7. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in both cases, there is zero or more (often more, BTW) lost sales

      Fixed it for you.

    8. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they say not to feed the trolls but this seems like too much fun. In the state of New Mexico, for example, the law, with regards to shoplifting, says:

      30-16-19. [Shoplifting;] definitions. (1965)

      B. Whoever commits shoplifting when the value of the merchandise shoplifted:

      (1) is two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or less is guilty of a petty misdemeanor;

      30-16-21. Civil liability of adult shoplifter; penalty. (1977)
      Any person who has reached the age of majority and who has been convicted of shoplifting under Section 30-16-20 NMSA 1978, may be civilly liable for the retail value of the merchandise, punitive damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees. However, the merchant shall not be entitled to recover damages for the retail value of any recovered undamaged merchandise.

      So since people supportive of the RIAA suit like to liken the act of downloading music to walking into a store and shoplifting a CD, let's go all out and see how that would play out. In NM, if I walk into a store, take a CD worth 1$ (under 250$) and containing one song, I would be liable for:

      The value of the item: 1$
      Punitive damages between 100 and 250.
      (plus the cost of the suit and attorney's fees, but that's not covered in the 1.92 M$ settlement, so let's forget that).

      So for one song, I would be liable for 251$. Assuming every song downloaded is a single, independent act of "copyright shoplifting", I'd be liable for an incredible 6024$ (for 24 songs, which I think is the number of songs at issue in the Thomas-Rasset case).

      The point is that the sanctions in the current american copyright law were thought of with a different type of criminals in mind. The kind that gets a piece of sheet music, photocopies it 17 000 times and sells it as a product of the original company. Today, that translates to chinese illegal shops making copies of DVDs and selling them claiming they're a distributor of EMI. Those are the copyright infringers the current copyright law was meant to deal with. Not something akin to someone going into a store and shoplifting a 1$ item.

      Now many will be quick to point out that one can upload on p2p networks. Unfortunately, distribution was not proven in this case (or in any other case the RIAA brought against individual p2p users). This isn't someone who set-up a website to distribute these 24 songs to millions of people. So far, all that was proven (I think... I'd have to check again to see if they even proved those songs were downloaded from an outside source and not ripped from a personally owned CD) is that 24 songs were downloaded from the internet.

      So there you go. Using your shoplifting comparison, the verdict should have been just over 6000$.

    9. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just love how "authors" invoke disregard for intellectual property rights but have no respect for that fact their ability to make money by cheaply making copies of their work is due to Mr. Gutenberg and many others, who, luckily for said authors, aren't here today to demand compensation or punitive damages because others are using their technology, seemingly without any kind of explicit permission.

    10. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      This really is a terrible stance by the DOJ. Punitive rulings are blatantly unconstitutional, and effectively punish a person for what others might do. It's also completely pointless. Few, if any, regular people have anywhere near that kind of money. All that will happen if this stands is a time in bankruptcy court, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. They might as well raise the damages to fifty billion dollars under the same logic... considering: if one large amount will deter others, then an even larger amount is even better, right? I honestly don't understand where this is going.

      Maybe this guy can tell us.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    11. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As an author, let me just say there should be a penalty -- a significant penalty -- for the wanton disregard for copyrights and intellectual property rights.

      Agreed, but I don't agree that this is anywhere near reasonable. Realistically speaking, unless nobody else was seeding the same content, this person probably seeded only about ten or twenty copies each of 30 songs. The fact that they, in turn, made copies for other people is immaterial. One person cannot reasonably be held liable for the actions of another.

      The retail cost of these songs, then, was likely about $300-600, but the effective value for legal purposes is a third of that ($100-200) because we're talking about revenue for the record companies, and that's what they would get after you subtract out the distributor and retailer overhead. The right fine for a first offense is probably the cost of the goods plus a $500 fine (paid to the government, NOT the record companies) and six months probation. Even the initially proposed settlement amount was absurdly more than is reasonable.

      So in your fantasy world, someone who shoplifts a point-and-shoot digital camera should face a multi-million-dollar fine. That's more than a significant penalty. That's downright criminal.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad you think a 12 dollar CD is more important than a human life. I'll just be over here stealing music.

    13. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by shentino · · Score: 1

      How competent are rasset's lawyers anyway?

    14. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      Presumably Ms. Thomas-Rasset's lawyers will bring this to the Court's attention.

      While I would love to agree with you, given their conduct thus far, I am forced to wonder if they will do so. They've done, in the lay opinion of many armchair lawyers here on slashdot as well as many of the actual lawyers here, a piss-poor job of defending their client. It does not help that their client is almost certainly guilty but there are so many things that her lawyers should have done (or at least attempted) but have failed to do which makes me (and probably many others) wonder just what they are doing... I am hopeful that they have a master plan and this is all just one part of it but I am wondering more and more as I watch things unfold (and unravel...)

    15. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by KwKSilver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Author to author, what would you propose? 20 years in prison? Significant enough? How about death? Still not enough? How about having the accused waterboarded to extract confessions, followed by months of really gruesome torture, then stoning them death? Maybe you'd just like to enslave them and use them as your personal chattel? Never mind, that's pretty close to what these "judgments" do.

      Absurd bullcrap like this and the ongoing drive towards eternal copyright (why isn't 17 + 17 years enough?!) discredits copyright and, as someone further up observed, encourages a profound contempt for the law.

      --
      If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
    16. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So in your fantasy world, someone who shoplifts a point-and-shoot digital camera should face a multi-million-dollar fine. That's more than a significant penalty. That's downright criminal.

      not only that, but this would also allow the gp "author" to profit greatly by leaving his cameras unattended and not even marked as belonging to anyone (among and indistinguishable by non-experts from other cameras that are free) - with potential multi-million-dollar profits awarded by a crooked judge to "punish" some one who (unwittingly?) used the camera.

      why even bother trying to make and sell good cameras then?

    17. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Confirmation that trolls cannot read. Please quote where NYCL said the proper fine was $.99 per song.

      :) Thanks. I have no problem with the concept of statutory damages; I have been working with it for 35 years.

      Thing is, as a matter of copyright law, the courts have consistently held that the statutory damages awarded must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages, must be "woven from the same bolt of cloth", and cannot be divorced from economic reality. Under that principle the judge should not have allowed the jury to come back with a verdict exceeding the statutory minimum of $750 per infringed "work". [p.s. 3 songs from 1 album = 1 work].

      Then, as a matter of constitutional law, the verdict should have been struck down further to a number, consistent with the US Supreme Court's "due process" jurisprudence, which was less than 10 times the amount of the actual damages. Under that jurisprudence, UMG Recordings recently argued -- when it was a defendant in a Tennessee case -- that 10 times actual damage was unconstitional, and the Court agreed, concluding that the verdict could not exceed 2 times the actual damage.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    18. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      In my fantasy world, the penalty for taking digital copies would be less than the penalty for taking digital copies AND a physical item.

    19. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by wes33 · · Score: 1

      Presumably Ms. Thomas-Rasset's lawyers will bring this to the Court's attention

      They don't seem to have much more clue than Neeson...

    20. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      Copyrights have expired in the past. When that happened, copying became legal. At no point does stealing something become legal. There is also no "fair use" defense with theft.

      Equating copyright infringement with theft ignores the fact that copyright law is there "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

    21. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by noidentity · · Score: 1

      [...] requesting the Court to instead decide the issue on "common law" grounds, i.e. whether the award "shocks the conscience".

      So this verdict was an unreasonably high amount to deter future copyright infringements, which presumably won't be prosecuted with such high amounts?

    22. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Hi NYCL.

      After some thought I picked the post above to attach to.

      Could we be on the way to the copyright form of Nuclear Deterrence here? Suppose for a moment that DOJ wants the ruling to stand on a *temporary* basis, long enough to allow a Nuclear case in return. (Because if it is invalidated now, the strategy collapses.)

      Trying to wade the tangled thorns of "whether any member of RIAA represents the whole in an infringement act"; Are we REALLY seeing themselves set up the scenario of Sufficient Sloppiness (say of 250 works when they get greedy to manufacture their next Hit Artist and need material and think no one will notice)? Wasn't there a story about the family of a high music official caught with unauthorized music?

      What would be the punitive damages of the Org that started this mess getting nuked? It's $20 million by raw multiplication of Jammie's. But then for abuse of courts, of the entire country's justice dept at the highest levels, etc... call it 100 million. Wouldn't that get their attention?

      Then someone would FINALLY decide to change a law or three, and we can thrash out a Post-RIAA copyright law that makes some sense.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    23. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It appears better for the people if the court does its job and considers the constitutional question, although the common law grounds should also indicate that the verdict is outrageously over sized for the alleged wrong doing.

      What I'm really not clear about is why the DoJ is sticking its nose in this at all. If they're not going to be arguing for an adherence to the constitution, I'm not really sure that they ought to have any involvement at all in it. I realize that the Presidents official line is that they have to step in and defend Federal law more or less unconditionally, but at some point one has to recognize that the law is sufficiently far beyond what is actually defensible that an attorney shouldn't even consider defending it.

      In this case I see no reason why they need to be defending the size of penalty rather than just the existence of a penalty for the alleged infringement.

    24. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the way that bit torrent works, it's more likely that she provided partial copies, rather than full ones. Meaning that the RIAA could presumably nail the say 4 people seeding a song individually for a sum that greatly exceeds the theoretical harm by a substantial amount.

      Well, assuming she really did do it, which personally I'm extremely skeptical of given the RIAA's dodgy history of investigation.

    25. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, as a matter of constitutional law, the verdict should have been struck down further to a number, consistent with the US Supreme Court's "due process" jurisprudence, which was less than 10 times the amount of the actual damages. Under that jurisprudence, UMG Recordings recently argued -- when it was a defendant in a Tennessee case -- that 10 times actual damage was unconstitional, and the Court agreed, concluding that the verdict could not exceed 2 times the actual damage.

      Couldn't their argument and admission here be used to estop any further UMG cases from seeking massive statutory damages? That seems like a bit of a bombshell.

    26. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'd go with the "effective complete copies" theory, i.e. if you give 1/100th of the file to 1000 people, you gave out the effective equivalent of 10 compete copies. Unfortunately, I think the DOJ seems to believe this is equivalent to distributing 1,000 complete copies.... This is what happens when you put a bunch of RIAA lawyers in positions of power....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    27. Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ray -

      Quit disseminating information that is completely wrong.

      "the courts have consistently held that the statutory damages awarded must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages"

      No they haven't. All you cited in your amicus brief are a smattering of district court cases which carry zero precedential value. And the punitive damage jurisprudence that you insist applies to the case can be distinguished on the facts by any first year law student. Indeed, one of those cases specifically exempts statutory damage claims from its criteria because it's an exercise in circular reasoning to compare an award of statutory damages to itself.

  10. Hey liberals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    How's that hope and change working out for you? This sounds like the exact same type of pro-corporate crap that went on under the Bush Administration.

    1. Re:Hey liberals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meet the new assholes, same as the old assholes.

      As much as Obama was a welcome change from the Bush administration, I'm afraid we're in the same situation we always have been -- half the country willing to give the government a free pass on absolutely anything merely because politics is like backing a football team to them.

      The only difference is that it's the other half now (the "government can do no wrong" crowd of before has become the "government is pure evil" crowd now, and vice versa).

      Fucking morons.

    2. Re:Hey liberals! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Being pro-corporate is not a bad thing. Everyone needs jobs. Being pro corporate above and beyond the health of society is. Don't be fooled into thinking the government should be anti-corporation because that will just leave you unemployed like a good bit of America is right now.

    3. Re:Hey liberals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really depressing. There are so many issues that matter to me that neither side will seriously address, or are totally on the same page with each other on:

      • Overcrowding and rape in prisons, the focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation
      • Rethinking the approach to marijuana, whether medicinal or casual
      • Tort reform (well, the last group wanted to limit awards in malpractice cases, but I think that was just because they like causing pain)
      • Patent trolls
      • SLAPP lawsuits, or any lawsuit where the powerful can bankrupt the powerless before the issue is even decided
      • Broadcast "obscenity"
      • Free trade (or, why the economy won't really recover even when it recovers. Again.)
      • Interminable copyright extensions and unreasonable statutory damages being applied to trivial infringements (as opposed to, say, large scale counterfeit operations)

      What was the last election decided for me on? Whether the country needed another war of choice this term. But for my pet issues, I wouldn't be surprised to find it's the same crew behind the scenes that's been running things my whole life.

    4. Re:Hey liberals! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The new assholes aren't quite so bad. The old assholes had me wanting to resurrect Nixon and
      I thought he was a scumbag before. Even among Republicans there are differences between different
      politicians. This notion that Bush and Cheney were no different than anyone else is just a smoke-
      screen to cover up the fact that they took things to the next level or three.

      The Neocons were at the point where they thought that they could quite literally get away with ANYTHING.

      It turned out that they were wrong. They underestimated their ability to alienate the American electorate.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  11. Deterence... Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only does this put the unfair burden of acting as an example to others on this woman, it also won't deter anyone. Hell, go to TPB right now and they have a link to the Joel Tenenbaum (sp.) case torrent file. Download it twice and you have over a million dollars in music.

  12. Not justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Their reasoning is correct in that the only way to make any kind of difference is probably to make an example of a few people, but they are also basically admitting that this is not justice. Have they thought for a second of what would happen to the economy if these kinds of damages actually were to be forced from everyone who has downloaded?
    It is sad to see the Departement of Justice agreeing with something like this.

    1. Re:Not justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they thought for a second of what would happen to the economy if these kinds of damages actually were to be forced from everyone who has downloaded?

      If this stays (and I have a feling it might) then I hope the same rules are applied to companies breaking the law. I want to see an oil company fined $80,000 per litre for crude spills. The next time someone like Sony puts illegal crapware (it was copyright infringing crapware too) on a CD they should be fined $80,000 per disc.

  13. Deterrence is widely accepted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you asked on Slashdot, 'rich person X has for the last ten years dodged tax to a value of $10m with base rate interest, how much should they be made to repay?', the average amount proposed would be far in excess of $10m.

    Exactly how high the multiplicator should be is another issue, but the concept of deterrent to punish or fine (much) more harshly than the value of the illegal benefit is widely accepted.

    1. Re:Deterrence is widely accepted. by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Are you the same troll or a different one? How many here would say the penalty for your hypothetical situation should be 800 billion dollars? I would wager it would be a lot less than the number of asshats like you that think this is a valid penalty.

  14. disappointing by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    but not surprising.

  15. Working as designed by Gabrill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So in other words, the system is working as designed. If you have a problem with the laws, talk to Congress or the SCOTUS. It never fails to amaze me how our Congress escapes blame for the mess the US has become. Perhaps it's because the only check they have is for our nations one Chief of the Armed Forces (not busy at all . . .) has to proofread all the fine print that 535 corporate-influenced blowhards can vomit out, and decide if these expansive and pork-laden bills will do more good than harm.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    1. Re:Working as designed by pwizard2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have a problem with the laws, talk to Congress or the SCOTUS.

      Why would congress listen to you, or me, or anyone else except a lobbyist with a lot of money? Individual people are just one vote and bring nothing else to the table. Most everyone on Capitol Hill is either corrupt or already has their own agenda that the wishes of the American people probably don't fit into. SCOTUS is even less accountable than congress is.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    2. Re:Working as designed by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      They are all complicit, especially the congress and democrats.

      Should I remind us of the TARP legislation and the democrats crying about government money going to pay bonuses when is was in the legislation they passed and they are the ones who put it in the damn thing in the first place.

      Being in congress is a status symbol for some. It isn't about what's done, it's about what they can claim they did. Even when they hopelessly fail like Ted Kennedy's HMOs created in the 1960's in which he is decrying as the reason for needing government health car right now. That's pretty trust worthy when they guys planning on fixing the mess is the ones who created it.

    3. Re:Working as designed by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Most everyone on Capitol Hill is either corrupt or already has their own agenda that the wishes of the American people probably don't fit into. SCOTUS is even less accountable than congress is.

      Don't you have a Freedom of Information Act? I'd be tempted to request details of all bribes received.

    4. Re:Working as designed by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      If everyone contacts Congress, you'd see an instant change in the law. Most people think no one else will, so they don't bother. So no one ends up actually contacting Congress, so the only input they get is whomever meets them for lunch, aka RIAA guy.

      They want to be re-elected first and foremost, and second have money to be re-elected. One lunatic calling repeatedly won't sway opinion, but if everyone who cares calls, yo suddenly have a "situation".

    5. Re:Working as designed by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Lobby groups can be formed by people with lots of money or people with lots of votes. Both are *VERY* valuable to politicians. Convince politicians that you have 10 thousand people willing to vote for which ever party supports your pet issue, and you will see a different side to politics. If you think money is all important, consider how much 10 thousand votes would cost an election campaign.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
  16. finally by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1, Redundant

    the voice of reason on copyright!

    1. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      except for the claim that "it's stealing" part

    2. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah, that's not reason, that's logic.

    3. Re:finally by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the voice of reason any more than some Taliban Mullah is.

      We don't cut people's hands off for stealing anymore.

      In their zeal to help prop up corporations to the detriment of
      real people, the armchair moralists like to gloss over this fact.

      Apparently ideas embodied by "tort reform" are not for real people
      but only for insurance companies and the lie.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:finally by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was referring to coldwetdog's comment, not the verdict. It is possible to think that you should pay for music and still think that the RIAA is out of control.

    5. Re:finally by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 1

      We don't cut people's hands off for stealing anymore.

      You know what, I think I'd have a really hard time deciding if I'd rather have my hand cut off or be held liable for $2 million, effectively putting me in government-enforced poverty for the rest of my life, without any chance ever being able to earn and spend my own money. Just putting things in perspective...

      It doesn't matter from which angle you approach this case, or whether you're an avid 'pirate' or a RIAA representative. Ruining someone's life by holding him or her liable for over 10,000 times the value of the songs distributed is simply beyond anything reasonable.

  17. over-deterrence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is such a thing as over-deterrence. Perhaps the DOJ has never heard of it...

  18. The same stupid rationale for the Rockefeller Laws by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, the same stupid rationale for all draconian anti-drug laws: if you make the punishment really harsh, people won't do drugs. And just look how well it works! Everyone knows there aren't any junkies in New York!

  19. I've said it before, but with a different target by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be fun if these congress people were found to be using unlicensed navigation code on their own websites, with the original copyright claim removed along with the author's credit?

    I mean, any website is more or less bound to serve up more than 24 copies. I mean, obviously these congress men and women will gladly pay these damages - it's not like they are unconstitutional or shocks the conciousness, right?

    And again - a disclaimer: Don't go breaking into these people's web servers to do anything illegal ;)

  20. Just punishment? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    I believe there is something in the constitution about not 'making an example' of someone. Because it is clearly unjust to the person...

  21. Aren't they required to? by Fished · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I understand it, isn't the justice department required to act in defense of any law that is being constitutionally challenged? This is just the bizarre ethics of the legal profession... truth be damned, give the best defense (of the unconscionable) that you can.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:Aren't they required to? by More+Trouble · · Score: 0

      Sorry no mod points! As I understand it, you are correct.

    2. Re:Aren't they required to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it, isn't the justice department required to act in defense of any law that is being constitutionally challenged? This is just the bizarre ethics of the legal profession... truth be damned, give the best defense (of the unconscionable) that you can.

      How could they be required to weigh in on every pissant little case? What about the oath by the POTUS to uphold the constitution?

  22. Copyright is not a right by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The Copyright Act's statutory damages provision serves both to compensate and deter. Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."

    Damages to WHAT, again? Cry me a fucking river, assholes. They make it sound like someone is actually stealing from someone else... and like copyright is actually a right. Well, no. Go check the US constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, aka "Copyright Clause". It says copyright exists to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

    See? Copyright is not a right. It is not a property. It is not life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is a GOVERNMENT-GRANTED TEMPORARY MONOPOLY. It has a very specific purpose: an incentive to the creation of works of art and science, for the good of society as a whole; the welfare of copyright holders is not - AND SHOULD NOT BE - a concern at all.

    Copyright was never "good" per se, more like a "necessary evil" - it is a temporary hindrance to everyone's access to a work of art or science, in exchange to the very existence of that given work. It is ludicrous to think a century-long copyright is an incentive to the creation of more works, therefore one must assume it must be reformed, reversed to a more sensible; but, frankly, I doubt it fulfills its supposed purpose at any length. Therefore it is simply "evil", and ought to be ABOLISHED.

    1. Re:Copyright is not a right by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Troll

      frankly, I doubt it fulfills its supposed purpose at any length.

      Your post is a perfect example of what happens when someone bases their entire opinion on anecdotal evidence and things that they believe to be true, without bothering to actually verify them. If you look around you will see very many cases of work being created because of the profit incentive, which is possible because of copyright. Go to Barns & Nobles sometimes and count the number of books that you think wouldn't have been written if it weren't for the profit motive. There are a lot of them. And some of them are actually quite good.

      I will give as an example, Born to Run. It is an excellent book and the best book about running I have ever read (although frankly, the quality of a book is quite often a subjective matter). In the back, the author states quite clearly that wouldn't have been able to write it without support (financial and otherwise) from Men's Health magazine. There are many more examples. Do research before forming your opinions, it will make you sound a lot smarter.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Copyright is not a right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is a perfect example of what happens when someone bases their entire opinion on anecdotal evidence and things that they believe to be true, without bothering to actually verify them.

      Indeed, your post is a perfect example of the very thing you accused your parent poster of. Quite ironic, really.

  23. then the guy declares bankruptcy by h4x354x0r · · Score: 1

    And, while the RIAA will get to garnish this guy's paychecks for the rest of his life, they'll never get anywhere near the amount of the award. This will make a mockery of the legal system on both ends.

    --
    They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
  24. Made up numbers by Alcoholist · · Score: 1

    "Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."

    You have to wonder about a statement like that. It's basically an admission that they have no way of knowing how much 'theft' has occurred, if any, so they arbitrarily assign a value based on, what, a guess? Even if this dude somehow managed to serve up 5000 complete songs to others, the real 'damages' are an order of magnitude lower than this 1.92M judgment.

    --
    Bibo Ergo Sum.
    1. Re:Made up numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't mention that a download shouldn't equal a lost sale though. I suggest an appropriate amount is somewhere from $0.0099 to $0.099 per song (1% to 10% of the "cost").

    2. Re:Made up numbers by shentino · · Score: 1

      If that's the reason behind statutory damages then they should at least give the defendent the option of bearing the burden of proving actual damages.

    3. Re:Made up numbers by sjames · · Score: 1

      At $0.99 each (the going rate for downloads), that should be about $4950.

  25. It worked for domain tasting... by ZackSchil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Piracy should be dealt with in the same way ICAAN dealt with domain tasting. For individuals running a P2P program in which they gain no money from the distribution, $30 per song is plenty for compensation. $100 per song is perfectly fine for punitive damages. If that's not enough money to make up for legal fees, get together with law enforcement and legislators and create a system similar to parking or speeding tickets. That'll keep costs down.

    If I got caught illegally distributing 10 songs and got slapped with a $1300 fine (enough to purchase 100x the number of songs I got for free), I'd think twice about piracy. And that's an amount I can pay off. I keep that much in reserve at all times for car repairs, emergencies, etc.

    1.92 million dollars is some fucking criminal, life-ruining BULLSHIT. Bankruptcy and garnished wages for life is not an acceptable outcome for a truly petty crime.

    Someone needs to get into the next town hall meeting Obama attends and ask this question. Someone needs to get the words in roughly the form I have written here to the president of the United States on a televised, public event.

    1. Re:It worked for domain tasting... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 0

      Wish I had some mods.

      I couldn't have put it better myself.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:It worked for domain tasting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point the defendant should do what every person does when they are made a criminal for political reasons, bite the bullet and leave the country. Of course she should get a whole lot of credit cards, buy a car with no money down, sell it for half price, then max out the cards so she has enough to live on while she finds a job. She can leave without even paying her electricity bill. I love moving countries.

  26. pour encourager... by julian67 · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pour_encourager_les_autres

    "Byng's execution was satirized by Voltaire in his novel Candide. In Portsmouth, Candide witnesses the execution of an officer by firing squad; and is told that "in this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others" (Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres)."

  27. Strawman alert by moz25 · · Score: 1

    How about using an actual scenario to back up your point instead of a hypothetical scenario you yourself made up?

    As for the multiplier value: a reasonable value may be in the range of 1.10 to 2.00. What we're complaining about is that this value is in the range of 1000-10000.

    Why is this value so extremely high? Because many other people are guilty for the same "crime" as well. How about this: if many tens to hundreds of millions of people are supposedly breaking a law, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate the law?

  28. 1 in a million by cfvgcfvg · · Score: 1

    in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed

    In other words, we can't prosecute everyone, so we will scare everyone we can by destroying the lives of the people we do prosecute. It's like a reverse lottery and all you have to do to enter is download a song or two.

  29. Oh Boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess my 5 terrabyte music collection will end the national debt, when they catch me.

  30. No deterrence, just a sign that the law is bad. by moz25 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If copyright law is so easily and repeatedly broken by tens to hundreds of millions of users, then that should be taken as a strong signal that this law is counter to the values of society and inherently anti-democratic.

    Make the law fit reality, not the other way around.

    1. Re:No deterrence, just a sign that the law is bad. by prshaw · · Score: 1

      Not sure I only want laws where how easily broken is the basis.

      Speeding, how many cars won't go faster then the speed limit? How about the speed limit in front of your house, it is easy to spped there so should we change the law to make it legal to go as fast as my car will go?

      Breaking into a house, pretty easy to go in and take anything you want. Let's make that legal too.

      Murder, how hard is it to buy a gun and kill someone? Most places you may only have a short waiting period to get the gun, and pulling the trigger is easy. Since this is so easy to do should we make it legal?

      Where are we drawing the line on how easy something is to do and making it legal?

    2. Re:No deterrence, just a sign that the law is bad. by moz25 · · Score: 1

      prshaw, you are not replying to me, but to a strawman argument that you yourself set up. The crux of my argument is that copyright law IS already being broken millions of times a day by many millions of people.

      Let us review your false arguments:

      so should we change the law to make it legal to go as fast as my car will go?

      In the appropriate situation, definitely. This is already the case on the German autobahn. Almost all drivers will tend to drive a speed that they feel is appropriate and safe for the circumstance. If local authorities want to create a cash cow, they'll set the limit artificially low so that almost everyone will be "speeding".

      Breaking into a house, pretty easy to go in and take anything you want. Let's make that legal too.

      No, because you have to break a window or pick a lock to get in. This is not something most people are willing to do. Even a child can commit mass-scale copyright infringement worthy of fines ranging into the millions. Can you really compare this with a straight face?

      Murder, how hard is it to buy a gun and kill someone?

      Now you're being an idiot. I will explain why:

      1. Committing murder very difficult to do for almost everyone: we have psychological locks built in.

      2. Only a very small fraction of people who own guns commit murder; a very large fraction of people who own computers commit copyright infringement, knowingly or not. Heck, maybe you forwarded some funny image to your friends. Guilty.

      3. It is very difficult to get away with murder. The majority of people who murder will receive punishment, even if it's decades after the fact.

      4. The number of murders per day is significantly lower than the number of copyright infringements.

      Where are we drawing the line on how easy something is to do and making it legal?

      We don't. That is your own idiotic argument. If you're going to construct an idiotic argument and then tear it down with even more idiotic arguments, at least don't pretend you're responding to me.

  31. VERY dangerous precedent. by seeker_1us · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now what will stop douchebags like Rupert Murdoch from suing an individual for millions of dollars if that individual makes a webpage with quotes having more than a few words from one of Murdoch's newspaper stories?

    1. Re:VERY dangerous precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that he's worth 4 billion dollars, has countless media outlets on his side, and can buy the best legal team in town?

  32. What we need.. by nanospook · · Score: 1

    1. An anonymous service that masks our downloads.. (isn't pirate bay doing something like this?)
    2. Such a service linked in with a bittorrent client..
    3. A national pirate party such as other countries are setting up to represent the people against the corporation..
    4. A total morotorium on purchasing media by the common man. If they are making no profits, they will go away, but the music won't. I know I know, it would be hard to accomplish.. but its a thought.. How many slashdot members are there in America?

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  33. Don't buy music EVER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the solution to all this--don't EVER buy music, even if it only costs a few cents a song.

    I guarantee these people will become a lot nicer, the minute they get laid off.

  34. I don't think she paid enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if we count the alien intelligences that have likely been, and will be, entertained, for free.

    1. Re:I don't think she paid enough... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      if we count the alien intelligences that have likely been, and will be, entertained, for free.

      Interesting thought there. Maybe RIAA should start funding some advanced research projects designed to break the lightspeed barrier so they can go sue ET. Secondary fallout of course would be to open up the stars for the rest of us. Maybe. Unless of course they hold the patents and copyrights on these FTL designs and keep them for themselves.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  35. Value of Songs by Rehnberg · · Score: 1

    Does anyone at the DoJ, or anywhere else, for that matter, really think that one person sharing a song costs the record industry several thousand dollars? I find it ridiculous!

  36. Truer Words Were Never Spoken... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    Congress established a scheme...

    Truer words have never been spoken...

  37. Re:We don't have a choice!!! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Are you saying you couldn't live without the RIAA's product? That you're somehow forced to listen to it whether you want to or not?

    You need to get out more.

    --
    No sig today...
  38. dear D.O.J. by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you should really change your name to the Department of Injustice, because what you do has nothing to do with justice and all to do with propping up corporate greed, maybe the Department of Greedy CockSuckers would be a name that would suit you even better...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  39. A bill of _fucking_ rights? by masmullin · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is a bill of fucking rights? Man that is going to get heavily used on slashdot. I didn't know I had the right to fuck, I just assumed it was a priviledge of the wealthy (men) and beautiful (women).

    1. Re:A bill of _fucking_ rights? by justinlee37 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You don't have to be rich to get fucked ... if you're handsome! Being funny may also possibly work out.

    2. Re:A bill of _fucking_ rights? by masmullin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can I turn my (Score:2, Funny) into a handjob do you think? Maybe touch a boobie?

  40. *Sigh* Bad reporting at its best by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The story seems to suggest that the DOJ said that a $1.92 million was perfectly constitutional. My interpretation of the brief seems that the DOJ did not specifically say that. What the brief said was that DOJ considers statutory damages as envisioned by the Copyright Act as legal and that imposing statutory damages does not violate due process. The amount of the damage, however, is up to the trial court to decide and the DOJ was not going to second-guess the court on the amount. The DOJ only responded to Ms. Thomas' constitutional challenges not the actual award:

    This discussion is not to suggest an answer of whether an award should be remitted in this particular case, but rather to suggest an answer to such a question should precede any resolution of Ms. Thomas' constitutional arguments.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  41. Beowulf cluster of galactic rulers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think you'll find that their potential losses must run to more dollars than the number of atoms in the planet."

    I accidentally copied a folder of legitimately owned songs to another hard drive. I fined myself $400 billion.

  42. Artists aren't distributed by multiple labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you like a particular artist, you have to buy that artist's work from their label. It's not like Walmart and Target where if you don't like the price of Coca-Cola at Walmart then you can just buy it at Target. If your favorite artist's work is locked up with DRM, which you want to avoid, your only choice is to violate the DMCA. Or you can violate copyright and download it for free. What other choice do you have? Download YouTube videos of someone doing a bad cover version of the songs you like? There is no other choice.

    1. Re:Artists aren't distributed by multiple labels by johannesg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you like a particular artist, you have to buy that artist's work from their label. It's not like Walmart and Target where if you don't like the price of Coca-Cola at Walmart then you can just buy it at Target. If your favorite artist's work is locked up with DRM, which you want to avoid, your only choice is to violate the DMCA. Or you can violate copyright and download it for free. What other choice do you have? Download YouTube videos of someone doing a bad cover version of the songs you like? There is no other choice.

      How about not buying anything at all? Will your life come to a sudden end if you cannot listen to a handful of tunes? Not buying that music, not listening to that music, is a choice as well. And it has the major advantages that (1) it is legal, and (2) it stops putting money in the pocket of the record companies, giving them less power to corrupt laws on a worldwide scale.

    2. Re:Artists aren't distributed by multiple labels by ArcCoyote · · Score: 1

      You must be kidding. I gladly gave up most television when Comcast's "free premium channels, free HD, free DVR" offers were expiring and there was no way to record it thru my own gear.

      but...

      I do not give up music. I'll steal it if that is the only way I can listen to it where and how I want to listen to it.

  43. DOJ Conflict of interest by KwKSilver · · Score: 3, Informative

    A posting from today on NYCL's site indicates that the lead DOJ lawyer in this opinion has a media industry background. Evidently, he was a partner at a law firm that represented a music publisher's association.

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
    1. Re:DOJ Conflict of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not actually a conflict of interest. The DOJ is not supposed to be fair, neutral, or anything like a court is supposed to be.

      So you might be concerned about it from a political perspective, but it's not a problem from a legal one.

  44. Not a Clue by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just another reason to throw the whole establishment out -- Democrats and Republicans -- and elect an entirely new government that actually has a clue about how unreasonable this all is. And until that can happen, stop them from committing any more damage on the rest of us. All that never-actually-defined Hope and Change isn't working out at all well from my vantage point.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Not a Clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      elections in the USA are a sham and the population is not knowledgeable enough to understand the facts so it's over.

  45. Re:The same stupid rationale for the Rockefeller L by melikamp · · Score: 1

    New York... A friend of a friend once told me that Phoenix AZ has a meth van rolling which allows credit card transactions. Now that's convenience!

    PS: See if you can spot the worst place on Earth on that map.

  46. How about if we just KILL Jammie, live on TV? by crovira · · Score: 1

    Would that make the RIAAs case for them?

    Play nice with the RIAA of you're dead meat.

    Yeah, bread and circuses, doodz.

    How about if we let the RIAAs lawyer stake her out to the sandy floor of an arena and get them to pull on all of her limbs with their Porches until she's torn apart?

    Would they be happy then?

    Would that kind of a verdict make them hold their heads up a little higher, like on a pike?

    Let the punishment fit the crime, doodz.

    The judgment is so far beyond the pale that its making a mockery of justice, and I think that that's the point.

    Instead of declaring bankruptcy for 100g, she gets to declare bankruptcy for 1.9 mil.

    The bar has been raised to high that the record industry is throwing itself on a pyre and going up in flames with their noncollectable awards.

    The choice is now clear, avoid the RIAAs clients, because they'll sue your ass into oblivion for any perceived infringement.

    Your best best is to stay the hell away from any signed artist.

    The RIAA won the case and threw away the victory.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  47. Doctor Evil? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    1.92 million dollars is some fucking criminal, life-ruining BULLSHIT. Bankruptcy and garnished wages for life is not an acceptable outcome for a truly petty crime.

    It also reminds me of Doctor Evil in Austin Powers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs&feature=related

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  48. The Public Domain by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    The big content industries have stolen the Public Domain in one huge grab that, very sadly, all three branches of the federal government colluded in allowing to happen against the clear wording in the US Constitution. Copyright was so very important that it is enshrined in that relatively short document.

    Now we're stealing it back one song at a time, and I don't see a thing wrong with that. If copyrights had been more reasonable then I would feel differently.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  49. So much idiocy here... by MWoody · · Score: 1

    First off, I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy. They've totally obliterated customer good will for themselves and their clients, and in their refusal to adapt to changing technology, the music industry at large has thrown the entire discussion on future distribution methods off the tracks.

    BUT, the people in this thread aren't making any sense. They keep going on and on about how excessive the amount rewarded seems, and making silly comparisons like "that song cost $x million dollars, I wouldn't pay y cents, hur hur" like it's going to get funnier the millionth time we read it.

    That, however, is how the law works. You can't catch everyone, so you make sure when you DO catch one, you make the punishment appropriately dire as a deterrent.

    Imagine if someone broke into your house and stole $100 off the nightstand, then got caught. Would you be appeased if their punishment was $100 and an apology, or would you want some additional fine or jail time attached? Do you think just having to give back what they stole would be any sort of deterrent to future theft?

    So go ahead, mod this down, or maybe just make some random response that doesn't really address the issue but will get to +5 because it's how everyone here wishes the system worked, most likely because they've downloaded something themselves and it's human nature to refuse that you've done wrong. Go ahead and quote that bit about excessive bail or fines out of context like it means something. The bottom line is this is the act working exactly as intended, and if you don't like that, work to change the law. Don't give the DoJ shit for upholding the act as it's written.

    1. Re:So much idiocy here... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Don't give the DoJ shit for upholding the act as it's written.

      That's not what they were doing. They were also upholding the verdict "as applied". They didn't have to do that.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:So much idiocy here... by benow · · Score: 1

      all those who can change the law raise your hand. If there was enough attention given to this issue, if people demanded change from congresspeople, if congresspeople heard and acted, if lobbying/payola was not enough to shut up congress people, if public negative campaings were not enough to sway opinion, and if it were not veto'd out as it approached law, it might get changed... in 10 years time. It's ridiculous... the 'idiocy' is tame in comparison.

    3. Re:So much idiocy here... by Mad+Leper · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and you've missed a major point that the majority of posters here seem to forget (or are just unwilling to remember)

      The fine has nothing to do with DOWNLOADING copyrighted material, he was found guilty of DISTRIBUTING copyrighted material.

      Bottom line, if you're silly enough to be using bittorrent and not acknowledging that you're not only DOWNLOADING but also DISTRIBUTING, then admit in court that yes you were in fact DISTRIBUTING copyrighted material that you did not have a right to, then yes you are going to get the book thrown at you.

      Frankly, I don't think the RIAA gives a damn if you download a few songs for your own use, but start getting into the distribution business and you may as well paint a big target on your forehead.

      Why is this concept so difficult for the "Fuck the MPAA/RIAA" crowd to get into their heads ?

    4. Re:So much idiocy here... by rdebath · · Score: 1

      Okay, random response.

      There was no 'break in' I suppose the nearest criminal act we're looking at is shop lifting.
      As to what's been 'shoplifted', well it would appear to be exactly the same as a small bag of those Amazon MP3s.
      So we're looking at probably a small fine, possibly community service, and maybe a bit of probation if they tried to run for it. Jail time is allowed, but only reasonable if it's not your first time up before the bench.

      If this was the result nobody would have noticed.

      But, the civil and criminal copyright laws were designed with a whole big fat lump of criminal intent built in, because it's so expensive to setup to copy a work anyone who does it must be intending to make thousands of copies.

      At least that's how it used to be, nowadays the cost is so low that the only intent needed is "I wonder if that sounds as crap as the last one".

      So no, the law is not working as it's supposed to.

  50. Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

    That and the fact that he's not a fundie nut-bag.

    Blacks vote for Democrats because Republicans are jerks. They tend to exploit racial hatred to stir up working class white voters.

    This tends to alienate anyone that doesn't identify with Opie Taylor.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  51. DoJ defends severed heads on spikes by meist3r · · Score: 1

    "We can't take into consideration the sanitation laws or human rights, this needs to act as a deterrent for pillaging hordes"

  52. Re:IANL acronyms by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Hi amentajo.

    Let's end that acronym's heyday, starting with you. I finally put my webpage where my whining is, and began a list of Slashdot Lawyers. I'm thinking of reversing my Friends List to only include them. That way I can see instantly who's a lawyer and who's not.

    Here's my ugly hacked up list. It's under some Will-It-Blend of the permissive licenses, so if you can do better, I'll mirror your upgrade etc.

    You're not on the list. So your acronym can go rest now.

    http://taophoenix.xinix.in/Freedom/Slashdot_Lawyers.html

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  53. Gov't disapproves of the rational by benow · · Score: 1

    Somehow, forcing people to participate in an unresponsive system out of their control is the answer. Such nonsense. The useless will atrophy.

  54. Lazy? or am I missing something? by sleigher · · Score: 1

    Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."

    Basically because they cannot come up with a good way to determine actual damages, they decided a few million ought to be good enough? What the hell kind of logic is that? If they cannot prove that infringement damages are 1.92 million then WTF is the judgment 1.92? Shouldn't they have to prove that? Oh wait a sec, this is the DoJ and Congress. Sorry, just disregard this post.

    --
    All points of time and space are connected.
  55. That is one awesome explanation by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    "We admit that it is impossible to come up with any real number for the imaginary theft that has been committed here, so we just make one up to make an example of her and scare off the others."

    People who speak their mind too freely should take note: Recklessly causing a riot is a crime. Even if no riots actually occur, the court will soon find you guilty of the murder of an estimated number of people who might have been killed if you had caused a riot with your seditious speech - and execute you to teach the other protesters not to fuck around.

  56. Trillions of dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trillions skimmed out of the economy by the mass leeching of the incestuous Fed, Treasury and a few selected "special" casino banks....millions put out of work so they can take more and more and more and transfer true wealth making industries to nations other than the US....

    Big expensive and quite bloody wars based on outright lies and fabrications....

    And this is apparently one of their priorities.... to "set an example".

    How about locking up a few thousand of those racketeering bloated tick high level economic thieves and charlatans to "set an example"? How about locking up a few thousand official high level decision making "intel" people and "warfighter" people and those disgusting foreign lobbyists masquerading as Americans who have loyalty to another nation for promoting those lies and these wars, even beyond when it became known that they were in fact, lies? When are heads going to roll on the truly important and expensive things?

  57. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "....because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."

    WTF? How can that be a legit escuse?

      "We cant prove that the sharing of 1 song caused any damage at all..... so can we have 1 million dollars?"

    Judge: OK

  58. Re:*Sigh* Bad reporting at its best by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    The story seems to suggest that the DOJ said that a $1.92 million was perfectly constitutional. My interpretation of the brief seems that the DOJ did not specifically say that.

    While you are correct that it did not specifically say that, it did say that the verdict passes constitutional muster. When it said this:

    This discussion is not to suggest an answer of whether an award should be remitted in this particular case, but rather to suggest an answer to such a question should precede any resolution of Ms. Thomas' constitutional arguments.

    it was referring to a non-constitutional, "common law", ground for setting aside the verdict. It did specifically say that if the Court does not find a "common law" ground for setting the verdict aside, it should let the verdict stand, which is tantamount to saying that the verdict passes constitutional muster, which any honest lawyer knows it does not.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  59. Pirate Bay similarities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is currently a quite active torrent containing the 30 songs Joel Tenenbaum was sued 675,000 dollars by the RIAA for... http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5048895/Joel_Tenenbaum_Track_List_-_hugs_to_the_RIAA_(final) The number of seeders is growing...I wonder if this is a sign of things to come in cases like these?

  60. It's a lottery, in reverse by eldurbarn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Deter? What makes them think it would deter anyone?

    It's like a lottery, in reverse.

    Download & benefit. Download & benefit. Download & benefit.

    Multiply this my thousands... or millions.

    And one poor, unlucky sod gets smacked with a fine for the same kind of money we see in lotteries.

    Do the math. Do you feel lucky?

    Hell, yeah.

    --
    -Eldurbarn
  61. Well, "If Congress took into account..." by smchris · · Score: 1

    Say not more. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

    We all know the hours congressman spend agonizing over legislation before they vote. Who could argue against that argument from authority?

  62. Stealing? by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not stealing. THIS is stealing. In that example hundreds of millions of people are actually deprived their intellectual property - not just a few songs either, but millions of audible and visual records of history and culture spanning the 75 years. And by stealing all history and culture for what is the lifespan of an average person they deprive us of the very continuity of culture we as humans require to remain oriented and purposeful. This is a very real harm.

    Let's not lose our perspective on which is the greater wrong. It's actually comparing one person sharing a few songs to the literal Farenheit 451 theft of an entire culture.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  63. What about Mr. Ulrichs daughter? by BerryMadness · · Score: 1

    1.92 million dollars is some fucking criminal, life-ruining BULLSHIT. Bankruptcy and garnished wages for life is not an acceptable outcome for a truly petty crime.

    BLAH BLAH BLAH...

    You seem to forget that "When you steal my music, YOU ARE STEALING FOOD FROM MY DAUGHTERS PLATE."

    ~Lars

    If anything I for one think that 1.92 Mil is about 10-100 maybe even 10000 times too small... THINK ABOUT THE FUCKING CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!

    ;)

  64. Does anybody know... by Decameron81 · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know if this woman is accepting contributions?

    Maybe the proper way to fight this BS could be to put our money where our mouth is. I would certainly send some money to support her.

    --
    diegoT
    1. Re:Does anybody know... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does anybody know if this woman is accepting contributions? Maybe the proper way to fight this BS could be to put our money where our mouth is. I would certainly send some money to support her.

      I'm sure you could send the contribution to her attorneys.

      In my personal opinion, the best place to which to make contributions to fight the RIAA scourge is to make a tax deductible contribution to the Expert Witness Defense Fund managed by the Free Software Foundation. All the proceeds of the contributions will go to helping RIAA defendants retain the help of tech experts and tech consultants. They made a $3000 grant to Ms. Thomas to enable her to hire an expert witness.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  65. Fact check: None of the music anywhere has DRM by osssmkatz · · Score: 1

    I used to be uninformed on this topic, but whereever you buy it, it's all DRM-free. Variable pricing has arrived, but you can get 5 tracks to keep at Napster for $5/month, and that includes listening to the song an unlimited number of times before you buy it. Or Lala.com, where you can listen to a song 3 times before buying it for 10 cents for a streaming version or a maximum of a $1.29 for a 256kbps MP3. I personally think the AACs Apple sells sound better.

    Microsoft's Zune also is mostly DRM-free now, I think. There is even one subscription music service with some major label content that is DRM-free though I can't remember the name of it.

    --Sam

    1. Re:Fact check: None of the music anywhere has DRM by takev · · Score: 1

      Except for the non red book compliant compact disks.

  66. Great, let's create more criminals! by corerunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are absolutely right that the fine is some life-ruining bullshit. If I was hit with a fine like that for an act that impacted society less than something that's actually dangerous, like reckless driving, then I think I'd be inclined to do everything in my power to deliver an equal amount of disruption to those who imposed the fine on me.

    I have no doubts that individuals have chosen to disappear for far less than $2 million. Once someone is out of sight, there's a lot of nasty things they could attempt to do with little risk of being caught. That means that this decision not only damages the guilty individual, but could also potentially create a whole new set of problems for the RIAA, the government, and the general public.

    --
    "Don't hate the media, become the media." -Jello Biafra
  67. politicians are the same by sageres · · Score: 1

    however more shit came down on our civil liberties under democratic congress then republican congress.

  68. Deterrence by CmdrPorno · · Score: 1

    If deterrence is so important to our legislators, why don't we have $10,000 fines for using a cell phone while driving and $100,000 fines for texting, web browsing, or movie watching while driving? Something tells me that deterrence was not the intent behind the law.

    --
    Sent from my iPhone
    1. Re:Deterrence by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I heard dealth penalty works to

      how about a "deterrence" law for making bad laws? like deportation and your accounts frozen/donated to charity?

  69. Fuck off by smoker2 · · Score: 1

    Same old, same old.

    They steal from us, then claim we stole from them.

    What goes around comes around. You have been warned. Never forget, the govt. ultimately works for US !

    We grant the copyright, we can take it away. Do your worst ...

  70. The cost of a human life by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Actuaries (the people who design insurance policies) have long had to estimate the cost of a human life. It might sound a little creepy, we certainly want to believe that life is priceless, but for practical purposes, you have to put a number on it. If I remember correctly, the value was around $200k a few years ago. In any case it was less than a million. Put that next to that judgement, and that's creepy alright.
    A few countries (most notably Finland) price fines as a % of income, and I believe that's another way to put this in perspective. Jammie Thomas makes, what, 30k a year at most? So that's 60 years of income, before taxes and shit. Take taxes and the absolute minimum (poverty limit) into account, and you're talking at least 200 years of income. That's just fucking insane.
    Those people are monsters. I wouldn't piss on a RIAA lawyer if they were on fire.

  71. What Congress Didn't Take Into Account by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Congress didn't take into account that the reason we originally had a revolution was to escape oppression from our government.
    Congress also needs to go back to its constitutionally assigned duties and forget about wielding power just because they can get away with it for now.
    Congress isn't immune to dying horribly in an act of revolution.
    Hands up, how many of us would like to see a major change in our government?
    How many of us would like to deter Congress from oppressive acts in an environment where it goes largely unnoticed?
    I think the times coming where everyone will have to decide whether they want to die for their country or die for their government.
    It's not really a government for the people anymore. It's a government for the businesses who can pay to have their way made policy and the people be damned.
    Too bad Sen. Bono didn't go skiing before he extended copyright.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  72. Copyright Tax Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to propose a solution to the current, nearly perpetual, duration of copyrights. As has been stated earlier, we are very unlikely to persuade/bribe our congress to change copyright duration back to it original time or anything resembling reasonable. However, most politicians have never heard of a tax they didn't like. So...

    What if copyright holders had to pay for the privilege of holding a monopoly? Suppose the registration fee for the first year was $1, for the second year $2, and would double every year therafter as follows:

    05 years - $32
    10 years - $1,024
    15 years - $32,768
    20 years - $1,048,576
    50 years - $1,125,899,906,842,624

    Under this scheme copyright holders would be able to maintain their copyright as long as they wish or as long as the work is generating enough revenue to justify the registration fee. Several things will be accomplished by this:

    1. It will put money (indirectly) in the pockets of politicians, thus increasing the likely hood politicians will be persuaded to support such a scheme.

    2. It will be possible or easier to know if a work is still under copyright or if it is the public domain.

    3. Most of all the duration of copyright would be reduced to a reasonable time period.

    I know it's a damm crazy idea, but I wonder what the rest of you think about it?

    RickJ

             

  73. am i missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't even aware the justice system was allowed to use people to "set an example of". So, because millions of other people do it and they don't want to bother charging all of them they are going to put all that weight on one person's shoulders? I don't see how that is fair or just in anyway.

  74. Re:Attn liberals: you got served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I voted for Obama and I am not at worried about this verdict. In fact, after being moderated down in a different thread, I'm a bit content!

  75. Hey, ion.SIMIAN.c - Step inside #1 of 5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Others tend to disagree w/ you ion.SIMIAN.c... quoting you from here in this URL next, below:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1327945&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=28980845

    "2) You're talking to APK. He exists to write wall-of-text comments. His depth of knowledge is *really* shallow, so don't expect a good conversation out of him." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Thursday August 06, @08:09PM (#28980845)

    Well, per the lists I put out below, vs. that above quoted from you?

    Others tend to disagree w/ you, ion.SIMIAN.c (here, & in respected written publication, inclusive of respected corporate bodies in this art & science who used ideas of mine to place as a finalist 2x in a row @ Microsoft Tech-Ed in its hardest category - SQLServer Performance Enhancement) :

    "My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

    ----

    Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

    (&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).

    WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

    PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

    WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

    PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

    CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

    GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

    HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

    Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

    Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

    ----

    Also, it seems I have approximately around 110++ "modded up" posts here (which is harder on AC's, considering many folks "filter us out" in their user preferences here on their registered accounts):

    ----

    +5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly": (4 of them)

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139485&cid=26974507
    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139485&cid=26975021
    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14210206
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=175774&cid=14610147

    ----

    +4 'modded up' posts by "yours truly": (4 of them)

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315

  76. Hey, ion.SIMIAN.c - IRAM is Trash? #2 of 5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ion.SIMIAN.c says "IRAM is trash"...?

    I QUESTION YOUR ABILITIES TO RUN & UNDERSTAND LINUX, period... why? This:

    -----

    "Heh. The i-RAM is a finicky chunk of trash." -by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Saturday December 13, @09:55AM (#26102285)

    -----

    So, since you said that? Well, back it up, vs. these 3 simple questions you now refuse to answer:

    -----

    1.) Does the IRAM run on Windows reliably? ANSWER = YES...

    2.) Does the IRAM run on Linux reliably?? ANSWER (per your sources, YOU, no less) = NO...

    3.) Since the IRAM runs on Windows well, but not Linux, well... what is the "piece of trash" here (what is it YOU called the IRAM? A "finicky piece of trash"??)??? ANSWER (obviously) = LINUX...

    -----

    Funny - That 'piece of trash' (what you called the GIGABYTE IRAM SSD) works FINE on Windows... & yet, it does not on Linux!

    (Explain that, & it appears the "finicky piece of junk", IS LINUX, not Windows OR the IRAM... well, it's that or what I am STARTING to lean towards, & that is that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH ONE (or, Linux apparently either)).

    (And, just like the 3 questions I asked you there, and you RAN from them also? Again/once more - You're also STILL running from providing proof you are indeed, what you said you are - a professional programmer (not, no way, not with the tremendous amount of technical errors you make which I enumerated here, in small part only above no less, more coming... lol, for ALL to see))

    Keep "dodging" these questions ion.SIMIAN.c - because anyone reading can make their decisions on "whom got the better of whom" by that alone, rotflmao (great showing here, ion.SIMIAN.c (NOT)).

    Who are you trying to fool here? You said this about me to others??

    "2) You're talking to APK. He exists to write wall-of-text comments. His depth of knowledge is *really* shallow, so don't expect a good conversation out of him." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Thursday August 06, @08:09PM (#28980845)

    Time to show YOU, what is what & everyone else here, where it's at, on that account... with your own list of massive screwups.

    APK

    P.S.=> For your NEAR constant trolling of myself via this registered account of yours, AND, via alternate logon sock puppets (like "random destruction")? I am going to DESTROY YOU here, ion.simon.c ... this is just the start! Remember - YOU started it, I am merely going to finish it, and YOU along with it... but, that's assuming scum like you has any feelings of shame, & I doubt that you do... apk

  77. :Boycott the pigs! All of them! Forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These monopolies have to be broken. They are too large and control the national legislator with illegal bribes and 'other considerations'. They have to be boycotted into the ground. Do not buy their products. Ever again! Hold town meetings across the nation featuring large bonfires for citizens to throw the filth spewed out by the slavemasters into the cleansing flames so they are gone forever. Hold internet campaigns to recruit people to the meetings. Also boycott all supporters of these monopolists no matter who they are. The monopolists will call this a secondary boycott, but to put the 'secondaries' into the jails will only be to recruit still others into the cause in an ever widening circle. It is because of these monopolies and the World Trade Association rules about so called 'intellectual property' that your freedoms are being trampled, and your jobs are being exported. Our government gave away regs that would have preserved your jobs to foreigners in order to preserve special international treatment of these media/propaganda monopolies. They did this over and over in international negogtiations. One of the major players in this givaway was a democrat, Ex Vice President Al Gore whose major sin was his shepherding of the vile Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Did you know that all the recordings and most of the electronics that play them are made and manufactured in China in state enterprises controlled by the Chinese Army? That is what a recent case before the WTO was recently about in the news. So there you have it. Every time you buy a 'Blu-Ray', every dime you spend on a recorded DVD, every commercial CD, every digitally censored television, player, or whatever that you buy helps not only to make the monopoly richer; but also pays for tanks, planes, bullets, and bombs and missiles to kill you and your family in the future wars that are sure to come when the Chinese suddenly demand, for instance, that we ship the water in the Great Lakes to China....or else!

  78. Why does Ion.SIMIAN.c hate HOSTS files? #3 of 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139923&cid=26983715

    ----

    "But don't you see? Your favorite sites are going to have to shut down if you use AdBlock, 'cause then you're stealing their content! You're really going to just have to take one for the team." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Wednesday February 25, @01:32PM (#26983715)

    ----

    I would ordinarily stop on that note alone, seeing as Ion.SIMIAN.c is obviously one profiting by these things (even though they're known to be infested with malicious code the past few years now & the fact that adbanners eat up an online user's bandwidth THE USER PAYS FOR no less)... but, that's not all, with wannabe, Ion.SIMIAN.c... far from it!

    He hangs out @ the "hacker/cracker" websites online, like this one -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:T1ikOtt242AJ:hackaday.com/2009/02/22/x11-on-android/+%22Simon+C.+Ion%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Thus, it's quite possible he is trying to somehow "discredit me" to others, since I have done guides that stop that type of loser (hackers/crackers), the worst kind of online SCUM that there is, via this guide I did in late 2008 -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=5bf29ea6ca49162314f25f9ebf2aba68&showtopic=2662

    He also likes things like "PhreakNic", a 'hacker/cracker' type event apparently -> http://wiki.yak.net/0.photos.simoncion?size=L and those are his photos from it...

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep using TOR (another indicator ion.SIMIAN.c is nothing but someone up to "no good" again most likely), & going slow as hell due to their total lack of speed (like any "anonymous proxy" usually is), You haven't replied here, and have been gone for over 3++ days or so now... why? Because I am exposing YOU as the dunce you are, clearly! You said this to me:

    "2) You're talking to APK. He exists to write wall-of-text comments. His depth of knowledge is *really* shallow, so don't expect a good conversation out of him." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Thursday August 06, @08:09PM (#28980845)

    Time to show YOU, what is what & everyone else here, where it's at, on that account... with your own list of massive screwups. I will keep to my word, because I laid off on you, thinking you'd leave me be from the last time we "had it out" for your trolling me, & you lost badly (which my other replies here clearly illustrate)... So, from now on, under this "ion.simon.c" registered user account you have here? I'll do as you requested, & post this in reply to your posts, see how you like eating your own words... apk

  79. Your tax dollars at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember folks in the US of A, these are your tax dollars at work. FBI investigates copyright violation. DOJ helping in civil cases against someone that downloaded music. It appears that no amount of taxes is too much to spend if it ensures that all corporations are guaranteed a profit. Where is that American branch of the Pirate party?

  80. ion.SIMAN.c, programmer? Chimps can't... #4 of 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ion.SIMIAN.c claims he is a programmer? B.S.!

    First he said this:

    ----

    "I'm a programmer." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Saturday May 02, @11:17PM (#27803057)

    ----

    AND, then this?

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1229883&cid=27931741

    Clearly something a mere "techie" might supply (which is fine, but since he claims what he said below? He ought to have offered what I did above, also)

    So, since he said what he said in the quote above... all I can say is:

    OH, Really? Prove to us you are a professional programmer, ion.simIAn.c, won't you? After all, you CLAIMED that you are above, & demanded others, in myself specifically, do so as well, here:

    "You claim that you're a professional. Prove it" - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Sunday May 03, @08:52PM (#27811101)

    Ok then, time to put the "shoe on the other foot" - NOW, I demand the same proof of your words:

    After all - That's the same question you asked ME to prove & I did, via the "My Name is Ozymandias" lists I posted in replies here earlier in this thread -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1327945&cid=28981391

    All of that, was in response to accusations like that one quote above, from yourself, directed MY way!

    My list of some of the stuff I have been fortunate to have been noticed in, in this very field in respected publications or by companies &/or famous contests like Ms Tech Ed - which served to "shut you up", VERY quickly... not everyone is like yourself, SIMIAN, so, get over it...

    (The rest of us, true pros in this art & science, don't waste our times on trying to be "hacker/cracker" wannabes that hang out @ "hack a day" (as you have been shown to do in my others posts here (Nor does everyone hide behind TOR like you do, nor do others use alternate sock puppet accounts as you do in "Random Destruction", your sock puppet registered account)).

    What I found hilarious, was that you were shown to go even to the point of where you emailed Dr. Mark Russinovich -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1234703&cid=27981921 (in regards to he & I both doing work for Sunbelt software in the mid 1990s, and, where I corrected his errors in PageDefrag for him, telling him WHY & HOW he went wrong, to which he even THANKED ME FOR, in email, per this here -> http://www.pcmech.com/article/defragging-the-windows-page-file/ to which you obviously did get a response from he, & no longer question my status as you did above)

    That stuff above, & my other replies here, along w/ other proofs I gave you disprove your b.s. here... & other places you trolled me in...

    HOWEVER? Ah, but, when YOU are asked for the same proofs of YOUR WORDS & CLAIMS? YOU RAN... and you keep running!

    APK

    P.S.=> This is going to be the end of you, troll... I've had it, w/ your trolling b.s. directed MY way, & for the 4th time now from you or more... & this, on my part? It is merely "righteous indignation" and you deserve it, after this crap here you said about myself:

    "2) You're talking to APK. He exists to write wall-of-text comments. His depth of knowledge is *really* shallow, so don't expect a good conversation out of him." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Thursday August 06, @08:09PM (#28980845)

    Time to show YOU, what is what & everyone else here, where it's at, on that account... with your own list of massive screwups. I will keep to my word, because I laid off on you, thinking you'd leave me be from the last time we "had it out" for your trolling me, & you lost badly (which my other

  81. ion.SIMIAN.c classic screwup list #5 of 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are too many to even paste in, but, the url's below will do (The compendium of ion.SIMIAN.c classic screwups):

    1.) HOSTS files -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27803005
    2.) DNS Servers -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27798027
    3.) Logon scripts & Group Policies usage -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27800951
    4.) SeLinux being implemented via kernel hooking/kernel patching -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27806379
    5.) Services patching &/or cutoffs for security -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27802917
    6.) What the definition of "System Hardening" is -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27800687
    7.) Your 1st post thought my guide was about speed, & instead it is about security -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27794633
    8.) Here was your FIRST instance of "correcting yourself"/admitting I was correct -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27803103
    9.) Here was where you FIRST asked me to "prove who I am" -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27804053 (give us all a break!)
    10.) Here you said I was not enforcing policies in my security guide, & you made another mistake on that -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27801155
    11.) Here was your 2nd instance of "correcting yourself" (amending your questions to try to "make me wrong" & you failed again) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27803601
    12.) YOU also said my guide being posted here NEVER gets "modded up"? I showed QUITE the contrary here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219095&cid=27803307

    That's my "12 step program" for exposing you as nothing more than a "know-nothing troll" who has bothered myself for the LAST TIME here, ion.SIMIAN.c ... but, then, perhaps I am expecting you to even have the capability to feel shame, & that's possibly expecting too much from "the likes of you", who has nothing he can evidence to his credit, of accomplishments in this field in WRITTEN respected publications, or contests like Ms-TechEd as I have to MY credit - but yet, you see fit to say to others what you did about me in my P.S. below... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> I've had it, w/ your trolling b.s. directed MY way, & for the 4th time now from you or more... & this, on my part? It is merely "righteous indignation" and you deserve it, after this crap here you said about myself:

    "2) You're talking to APK. He exists to write wall-of-text comments. His depth of knowledge is *really* shallow, so don't expect a good conversation out of him." - by ion.simon.c (1183967) on Thursday August 06, @08:09PM (#28980845)

    Time to show YOU, what is what & everyone else here, where it's at, on that account... with your own list of massive screwups. I will keep to my word, because I laid off on you, thinking you'd

  82. Has DoJ turned Islamic - Chopping off Hands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine the unreasonable award is more than the compensation that some uninsured person off the street gets for loosing a hand or leg in an accident. Or that of a US soldier gets when injured or has a body part blown off.

    Either Department of Justice has turned to Islamic law - or they are thinking that way, or they have forgotten the term Jurisprudence. It is sadly inexcusable they they would even try to defend this - rather than admit it is a gross perversion in ANY way you measure it.

  83. Change ? Where is it ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    is anyone from obama campaign or administration reading this ? do they have ANY possible explanation ?

  84. No, it's stealing and you're kind of an ass. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase office space a little:

    Are you receiving something that's not yours?
    Without giving anything in return?
    Or without the owner's permission?

    How is that not stealing?

    Now, the real issue here is that illicitly sharing music files is so dead easy that there are literally two hundred million people in this country alone that have the equipment to do so at nearly no additional cost to themselves. I'd bet that there are probably fifty million who have obtained music in this way in the past twelve months.

    Copyright is an artificial construct designed to encourage authors to create and publish (and thereby promote progress in science and the useful arts), but a law that makes a sixth to five sixths of the population criminals is kind of unjust. The whole thing needs to be reviewed and examined to make sure that the status quo really is the best environment for maximizing public benefit.

    And here's the depressing problem: Can you think of a better policy than the one we currently have? (I mean beyond just getting rid of the absurd, ever-lengthening terms. Assume the terms are reasonable, as they once were.)

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  85. Re: by ljaszcza · · Score: 1

    It was meant to be sarcastic :)The way we are moving as a country, my comment may not be all that sarcastic or funny before too long though. IMHO. A few more RIAA lawyers going through the revolving door of the Justice dept. will do it. BTW I think you meant "uninformed" rather than "uniformed"...

  86. Re: by ljaszcza · · Score: 1

    How about kids playing a radio on a bus? That's a public performance if enough kids are there... More potential litigation. Kids! Report that stolen music and earn iTunes credits from RIAA! I guess that I'm sorry that the law has changed so much from the days my friends and I traded compilation tapes. I'm sorry that a judgment of $1m and more is considered constitutionally valid and not excessive when levied at a single individual who did not profit from the crime. Stealing from the king...

  87. How about a P2P program that installs like a virus by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 1

    "Your honor, I had no idea the contents of my iTunes folder were being served to all takers through the internet. It turns out the browser I use (IE6) allowed some bad site to install a virus on my computer. I didn't have an antivirus program installed, that doesn't come with Windows. I honestly had no idea this was happening..."

    Mmmm...the savory smell of plausible deniability....

  88. You're joking, right? by Holmwood · · Score: 1

    First round contestants on American Idol? Like, say the artist that originally attracted me to Magnatune, Lara St. John?

    St John is a very talented violinist; her Bach: The Six Sonatas and Partitas for Violin Solo was iTunes' best selling double album in 2007, an interesting achievement for a classical artist. The NY Times thought highly of her, and she currently plays a superb 1779 Guadagnini: arguably one of the most notable in the world. (Previously she played a Stradivarius).

    But yeah, that's basically just like a first round contestant on American Idol I guess.

    Quality does vary, as with any outlet, but I've generally found it to be quite high on Magnatune.

  89. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I read the brief, the DOJ argues for nullification of the decision based upon evidence excluded at trial before reaching the Constitutional question of "Excessive fines."

    Perhaps NYCL can comment on this?

  90. those diamon thieves got off lucky by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Steal diamonds worth a 747 and only get a small reward worth 2% of the theft. I bet you if they get caught the fine wont be $800 billion either.

    Doj are crooks, and so is 99% of CONgress.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  91. No shock. here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just one more reason why I listen to the radio. I've gotten tired of reading about the RIAA so they made it easy for me if the music is on the radio I will listen to it. When its not I won't listen to it.

  92. Re:We don't have a choice!!! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Well, ain't that a lie, can't walk down a city street without hearing that crap or seeing MPAA content blaring from shop fronts and endless marketing assaulting you from every direction promoting that shite. So if you wont to be free from it, in all of it shapes and forms you are trapped inside, sitting in the dark with your eyes shut and your ears plugged, starving, as far as I know you can even copyright a recipes ;).

    As for the DOin-J, if they reckon that case and it's settlement is so valid, than why haven't they been prosecuting cases on similar circumstantial basis with a complete lack of any direct evidence between the accused and the claimed crime and, where the people providing the testimony and the people prosecuting the case all have a direct unquestionable financial motive to falsify evidence and where in other cases similar evidence has been rejected and found to be wildly invalid.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  93. blood from a turnip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ever squeeze blood from a turnip, its not possible.

    she should file for chapter 7, and get on medicade,

  94. Re:This provies it by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    Obama hates pirates. Arrr!

    So, Obama is a Ninja?

  95. Re:This provies it by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Ninja don't hate pirates. It's just a job...

  96. Barak W. Bush? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    So... when does this new president of yours take office, because I can't see that anything has changed since January?

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  97. Jamendo by dogeatery · · Score: 1

    8-Bit Lagerfeuer FTW!