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."
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.
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 .
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).
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.
I am deterred. Not because of the threat of lawsuit, but because they don't make anything worth downloading.
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
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!
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
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.
but not surprising.
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.
the voice of reason on copyright!
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!
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
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 ;)
I believe there is something in the constitution about not 'making an example' of someone. Because it is clearly unjust to the person...
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.
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
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.
Circumcision is child abuse.
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!
"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.
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.
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)."
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?
see a Text Widget
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.
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.
see a Text Widget
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?
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.
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!
Congress established a scheme...
Truer words have never been spoken...
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...
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
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).
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:
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
> 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.
"We can't take into consideration the sanitation laws or human rights, this needs to act as a deterrent for pillaging hordes"
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
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.
Somehow, forcing people to participate in an unresponsive system out of their control is the answer. Such nonsense. The useless will atrophy.
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.
"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.
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
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
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?
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.
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!!!!!!!!!
;)
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
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
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
however more shit came down on our civil liberties under democratic congress then republican congress.
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
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
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.
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!
is anyone from obama campaign or administration reading this ? do they have ANY possible explanation ?
Read radical news here
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?!
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"...
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...
"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....
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.
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.
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
So, Obama is a Ninja?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Ninja don't hate pirates. It's just a job...
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.
8-Bit Lagerfeuer FTW!