Supreme Court Refuses P2P 'Innocent Sharing' Case

yoyo81 writes "The Supreme Court has refused to hear an 'innocent infringement case' in which Whitney Harper shared some music on the family computer when she was a teenager and was subsequently hit with a lawsuit from the RIAA. An appeals court overturned an earlier ruling from a federal court that reduced damages to $200 instead of the statutory $750 claiming 'innocence' was no defense, especially since copyright notices appear on all phonorecords. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear her case, but Justice Alito stated, 'This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet' and further, 'I would grant review in this case because not many cases presenting this issue are likely to reach the Courts of Appeals.' For now, though, Harper's verdict remains in place: $750 for each of the 37 songs at issue, or $27,750."

Comments

Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

"This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet"

So in other words "We get to bend the law to suit our corporate overlord's desires."

Re:Stupid

[MozeeToby]

It's not as though supreme court justices need to be reelected every few years. Once they're in they're pretty much in for as long as they want to be. So, unless the record companies are remodeling their houses or sending personal 'gifts' for the holidays, I see it as less likely than usual that this a case of corruption. Now, the actual laws that the justices are interpreting... there you have a point.

Re:Stupid

[tjhart85]

Wow, so their explanation of why they won't hear the case is based on the fact that she saw the copyright notice on the CD that she doesn't have? That's almost as bad as an EULA INSIDE the product you by and if you don't agree with it, you can't return the product since you've opened it.

Re:Stupid

[Tom Boz]

I think you misinterpreted what Justice Alito said - he *wanted* to hear the case; that sentence comes from his dissent. He would prefer to reexamine the laws which were written before a new medium was available (or at least widely available).

Re:Stupid

[DigiShaman]

No, SCOTUS is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. It interpolates *existing* laws, it doesn't (or shouldn't) legislate from the bench. If you want the laws changed, write/speak to your congress (wo)man. FYI , we have three branches of government in the US. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Know their proper function please.

Re:Stupid

[yoyo81]

Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it. He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated. He also acknowledges what you're saying - that she did not have access to the copyright notice.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

he was arguing in favor of reviewing the case dumbass.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing was that the lone dissent was Alito, whose dissent make it sound like he was giving serious consideration to protecting innocent infringement.

That one really surprised me. There may be hope for him yet.

Re:Stupid

[WrongSizeGlass]

He also acknowledges what you're saying - that she did not have access to the copyright notice.

I propose each and every song released from now on should have the copyright notice read allowed by the performer at the beginning of the song. That should make for some interesting radio indeed.

Re:Stupid

[camperdave]

Can the Supreme Court not strike down an existing law? (Curious non-USian)

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

I understand the finer details. I was mainly making a joke. I think what it really is, is that the RIAA/MPAA has succeeded in its propaganda effort geared towards those in government. The Judge may in fact believe it causes significant damage to share a song, he also probably makes quite a bit of money so 27750 dollars seems like an adequate punishment to him, but its clearly excessive for any person that makes less than 60,000 a year. He is mistaken simply because he hasn't heard the whole truth and is not this woman's peer. He cannot understand how excessive this punishment truly is.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the law is unconstitutional

Re:Stupid

[NiceGeek]

Yes they can, and have if they find that the law is unconstitutional.

Re:Stupid

[Yvan256]

Could be worst. It could be the entire lyrics.

Re:Stupid

[DragonWriter]

Not quite. That's precisely why Alito says they SHOULD hear the case. The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it.

This is not correct. The Supreme Court has "grounds" to hear any case appealed on a question of law from a lower court (as well as those cases within its original jurisdiction.) The Supreme Court's apellate jurisdiction is, however, generally discretionary, so it may choose whether or not to here any case that someone wants it to hear on appeal. An inconsistency between the Courts of Appeals on a legal issue is one factor that is often cited, in the Court's decisions on whether or not to here an appeal, as weighing in factor of the Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, but it is not a prerequisite, and cases are not-infrequently heard where this condition does not apply.

He hopes to eventually hear this case when the lower courts do disagree, as written in the summary, he thinks that the law is outdated.

No, he says they should hear this specific case now, citing one of the specific factors that is frequently cited as weighing in favor of the Supreme Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction when there is not a division among the Courts of Appeals -- specifically, the fact that "not many cases presenting this issue are likely to reach the Courts of Appeals". His position was a dissent from the decision of the court to not hear the appeal.

Re:Stupid

[RasputinAXP]

If i had the mod points, I'd throw them to you. +1

Re:Stupid

[DragonWriter]

No, SCOTUS is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. It interpolates *existing* laws

First, I think you mean "interpret".

Second, in refusing to hear the case here which raised a question of whether the lower court correctly applied the existing law to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court isn't interpreting any law (except, implicitly, the Constitutional provision granting it discretionary rather than mandatory appellate jurisdiction), it is choosing not to bother to here the arguments and interpret the existing law.

This is, of course, completely within its discretionary power, but it has nothing to do with your argument that its role is to interpret existing law rather than change the law.

Re:Stupid

[DragonWriter]

Can the Supreme Court not strike down an existing law? (Curious non-USian)

The Supreme Court can rule that, e.g., an Act of Congress purporting to be a law is not a law, because it is outside of Congress's Constitutional authority, or that a state law, because it conflicts with federal law (whether the Constitution, statute, treaty, etc.) cannot be enforced by the State. These actions are often described as "striking down existing law", but they are, actually, interpreting existing law.

Re:Stupid

[cheekyjohnson]

write/speak to your congress (wo)man.

The same ones bowing down to large corporations? It likely won't work.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

It was a politically-charged joke. However, counter-point: Why are some laws still taken so seriously after 50-200 years and others simply re-evaluated because "(some new thing) happened"? New things happen all the time. We recognize that firearms are no longer needed for 1. Hunting because you can just get a steak at the store, 2. Protection from animal attacks because we have simply killed off or made irrelevant most predator species, and 3. Protection from criminals because we have a standing police force. So why bother with it? Furthermore, owning firearms wouldn't amount to diddly squat against the modern military. Lets just repeal the second amendment. Its clearly no longer valid.

Point is, the "Innocent Infringer" defense does apply in this case. Its too easy to share a file on the internet, and its feasible a younger person or a immature/naive adult would think that sharing a song is OK since it was and continues to be so popular and is easy to do.

Re:Stupid

[eepok]

Or if they find it in contradiction of other more established laws. It's a common misunderstanding that they can only deal with strictly constitutional issues because, normally, only constitutional issues make it all the way through the appeals.

Their general charter, if you will, is to ensure the development of orderly federal law.

Re:Stupid

[CrimsonAvenger]

The Judge may in fact believe it causes significant damage to share a song, he also probably makes quite a bit of money so 27750 dollars seems like an adequate punishment to him, but its clearly excessive for any person that makes less than 60,000 a year. He is mistaken simply because he hasn't heard the whole truth and is not this woman's peer.

If you read Alito's comment (even the part listed above), you might notice that he was in favour of hearing the case.

Your comment rather suggests the opposite. Which, in turn, suggests that you shouldn't let your prejudices blind you so often....

Re:Stupid

[xkr]

yes, duh.

Re:Stupid

[Swanktastic]

I doubt being "out of touch" is the reason they declined to hear the case. Supreme Court justices aren't just sitting in some dusty old room reading law books alone, they have an entire organization of clerks to do research and advise them. It's common for 25 year olds (the top of the classes from Harvard/Yale law) to have tremendous sway over the court and our nations' laws through their clerk duties. A justice here and there may say something dumb, but the Court as a whole is quite well informed.

This particular case is beyond stupid, and not the one anyone who hates current copyright law should want to see before the Supreme Court. At issue (IMO) is the fact that laws written for Organized Criminals are being enforced in casual/personal usage situations. [Aside- I happen to believe they probably ARE appropriate for folks making their living off copyright violations.] Her claim of innocence does not strike at the root cause for our problems.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

I interpolate that the second amendment is no longer relevant. You can buy steaks at the store. Predator species are no longer a threat to humans, and criminals can be taken care of by the police. Furthermore, you would not stand a chance against the modern military with semi-automatic firearms and no explosives. Thus, you have no reason and thus no right to own firearms.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

He wishes to hear it on a precedent that does no justice to anything I have said.

Re:Stupid

[sexconker]

I interpolate that the second amendment is no longer relevant. You can buy steaks at the store. Predator species are no longer a threat to humans, and criminals can be taken care of by the police. Furthermore, you would not stand a chance against the modern military with semi-automatic firearms and no explosives. Thus, you have no reason and thus no right to own firearms.

This just means every citizen should be able to buy automatic weapons, tanks, battleships, and nukes in order to stand up against the government.

Re:Stupid

[RobertM1968]

"This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet"

So in other words "We get to bend the law to suit our corporate overlord's desires."

LoL, while I think your modding (so far) is warranted, I find it humorous that the first poster pretty much said the same thing but was modded troll. I think you're both probably right (as some other recent USSC cases have proven), and hopefully the AC will earn some better moderation for a probably accurate first post - heck, the attempt at an on topic first post alone should warrant a + mod of some sort (rarity that it is). ;-)

Re:Stupid

[clang_jangle]

We recognize that firearms are no longer needed for 1. Hunting because you can just get a steak at the store, 2. Protection from animal attacks because we have simply killed off or made irrelevant most predator species, and 3. Protection from criminals because we have a standing police force. So why bother with it? Furthermore, owning firearms wouldn't amount to diddly squat against the modern military. Lets just repeal the second amendment. Its clearly no longer .

Spoken like someone who's spent his entire life in cities being a good little consumer for his corporate masters. Those of us who prefer old-fashioned homesteading still need guns for the very reasons you like to imagine no longer exist. Seems it might be a good time for someone to log off and see the real world beyond the office...

Re:Stupid

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yes, put that in and make it and unskippable on every CD. Then it'll be just like the DVD release.

Oh, they should also put in ads for other songs. I love that.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

It's common for 25 year olds (the top of the classes from Harvard/Yale law)

Precisely the problem. What percentage of Harvard and Yale students also come from wealthy or semi-wealthy backgrounds? Do they have a concept of how severe a punishment such as the aforementioned is for a lower/middle class person? Do the professors who teach these students at Harvard and Yale have anything in common with a lower/middle class?

Perhaps the last question is a bit of a stretch, but as far as justice is concerned : This woman should be able to make a case she is an "innocent infringer" simply because back when she did this alleged infringement, it was not uncommon for people to not realize the consequences of their action. I understand ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if you are allowed to copy tapes for your friends what exactly is wrong with doing it over the internet?

Re:Stupid

[RobertM1968]

It's not as though supreme court justices need to be reelected every few years. Once they're in they're pretty much in for as long as they want to be. So, unless the record companies are remodeling their houses or sending personal 'gifts' for the holidays, I see it as less likely than usual that this a case of corruption. Now, the actual laws that the justices are interpreting... there you have a point.

While it's no indication that they can be bought, fact is people are still greedy. And at $200k-$230K (roughly), there's plenty of buying room for corporate interests to exploit - assuming there are greedy enough people on the SC. Does it mean it happens? No. Does it mean it doesn't? No. Does it mean it's possible? Hell yeah.

People making far more have been bribed... I'd suspect the possibility of buying/bribing someone who's locked into a job for life is probably at least a little higher than bribing someone who's "going somewhere" and has the potential to advance in some fashion.

Re:Stupid

[Beardo the Bearded]

She was a teenager and couldn't enter into a legal contract anyway. That would have been the crux of my defence if it was me.

IANAL but my L is.

Re:Stupid

[blair1q]

The seeds of corruption of the Supreme Court are sowed early, and their appointments are utterly political. The conservative wing of the court were bought and paid for every time their careers advanced.

Re:Stupid

[yoyo81]

I stand corrected. For a more accurate interpretation of the ruling, please see DragonWriter's reply. I was too hasty in my wording, and I think "grounds" was an inappropriate word choice. However, it does seem that criteria is what the rest of the bench was using when denying to hear the case. Alito was dissenting, but I think his later comment that "The Court has decided not to grant review at this time, but if a conflict in the Circuits develops in the future, the question presented, in my judgment, is important enough to warrant review." implies that he feels that going forward, he does hope that the court will decide to hear the case using possibly any criteria, but specifically of dissent in the circuit courts (since that is what they used to reject this case).

Re:Stupid

[Beardo the Bearded]

Your military cannot be used against its own population. Life isn't like GTA when you call in the army when the situation gets out of control. The military is to defend the state against actions of an outside state; it is there to protect sovereignty.

The army isn't going to attack US civilians. That's the FBI's job.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

I grew up in Northwest Montana (I.e. born, raised until 24). I hunted there, camped there, saw a few bears and mountain lions there, and saw the aftermath of a grizzly getting into a cabin there. I own a weapon, and I wished I owned more. I agree whole hearted that firearms are necessary for more reasons that just homesteading. It was a counter-point of sarcasm, which you would know if you read the first part of my post and the one I was responding to.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA/MPAA are just foetus eating parasites who have aligned themselves with politicians who have down home barbecue recipes for infant.
One group have a rapidly failing business model, the other a slow countdown to revolution.SCOTUS is a f**king joke. Frankly I'm surprised the MAFIAA haven't been targeted by freelance terrorists or at least a drunk teen w/ a pipe bomb. I think it's safe to hold your breath and wait til the next event.

Re:Stupid

[Attila Dimedici]

You appear to have missed the fact that that quote comes from one of the Justices who wanted to hear the case. Which makes me think that he was saying that he has some doubts about the appropriateness of applying the law in this case.

Re:Stupid

[Culture20]

We recognize that firearms are no longer needed

whoa there, partner! What's this "we" stuff?

for 1. Hunting because you can just get a steak at the store,

can you hunt a deer at the store too?

2. Protection from animal attacks because we have simply killed off or made irrelevant most predator species,

ha hahaha! Even without reintroduction, there are mountain lions and bears in a lot more places than you think. And there are still dogs and rabid pests.

and 3. Protection from criminals because we have a standing police force.

who will get there to draw chalk around your cold body

So why bother with it? Furthermore, owning firearms wouldn't amount to diddly squat against the modern military.

now we get to the REAL reason for the second amendment. US military fighting US civilians would cause a schism in the military. A civilian rebellian against corrupt government wouldnt be using pea shooters for long, but the pea shooters can do what they need to for the short term.

Re:Stupid

[TheoMurpse]

No, they are striking it down. In many instances, they interpret it, conclude it cannot stand, and then strike it down. You're merely playing semantics by suggesting "striking down law" does not mean "making a law unenforceable." Why you're doing this, I've no idea, but I'd be willing to guess it's because you want to defend the elementary school notion that the legislature makes, executive applies, and judiciary interprets the law.

Here you can see the Supreme Court itself use the language "strike down" in reference to what it has historically done to many laws.

Re:Stupid

[Low Ranked Craig]

"This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet"

So in other words "We get to bend the law to suit our corporate overlord's desires."

Don't you think you might be taking that out of context of what he really said? He (Alito) said he wanted to hear the case.

Re:Stupid

[guyminuslife]

I think you ought to RTFA a bit, you seem to be arguing against yourself. The circuit court said that the "Innocent Infringer" defense does not apply, because the girl could have figured it out if she'd researched it, that the copyright notice was printed on the CD (even though she never had one), and that the fact that she was a teenage girl without much familiarity with copyright law was irrelevant. Justice Alito said, "Hey, wait a minute, this girl never saw a copyright notice, it's not like she's a copyright lawyer, the law in question refers to the use of a medium that isn't even used much any more, it sounds like they have a case, maybe we should look into this."

Then you say the same thing Alito is saying, then attack him for saying it, then try to make a point that laws shouldn't change just because their environment has changed, then try to say that the girl may not be liable because the environment of copyright infringement has changed. There's such a thing as being too glib.

Re:Stupid

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not just that some "new thing" happened, it is that the "new thing" means that the reason "innocence" is not a defense, according to the law, is no longer reasonable even though it was at the time the law was written.

Re:Stupid

[Foobar of Borg]

Ok, we get it, you think all rich people are idiots with no empathy. Awesome. Can we move on now?

Not idiots, just out of touch in the "let them eat cake" style. And no, most rich people do not have empathy. It might affect their bottom line.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

it is choosing not to bother to here the arguments

First, I think you meant "hear".

Re:Stupid

[Attila Dimedici]

The Supreme Court can overturn laws, not parts of the Constitution (in this case you are referencing an Amendment, but nevertheless it is now part of the Constitution).

Re:Stupid

[techoi]

Guns might just be the appropriate response to the RIAA (et al). A $27,000 fine for something like this is beyond outrageous. It is a sad commentary on the state of this country when these types of fines are leveraged for this crime. I would venture that she could be found guilty of much more egregious acts (and probably violent ones at that) that would result in a much smaller punishment. I challenge anyone here to justify this fine.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

I was speaking sarcastically to make a point. If you criminalize guns only criminals will have 'em, partner.

Re:Stupid

[shoehornjob]

He cannot understand how excessive this punishment truly is

Or he doesn't care.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the banksters are allowed to pillage without penalty, why should anyone else have any respect for the law? Seriously, it's become a big goddamned joke. If you're rich and powerful enough, the rules are different.

The people need to even things out again.

Re:Stupid

[SETIGuy]

The reason why they're not hearing the case is because there is no dissent among the lower courts, so really they have no grounds to hear it.

Yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court would never reopen a previously decided case that wasn't even before them for no good reason just because they wanted to overturn a century's worth of precedent. That would be unimaginable. (cough, citizens united, cough)

The truth is the Supreme Court can hear any case it wants. They can bring in a case waiting for initial appeal if they want. They could probably stop an ongoing proceeding that wasn't an appeal and hold the initial trial in the supreme court, in which case the result of the trial could not be appealed. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen to political enemies of some future right wing president. The Supreme Court could just opine that the Supreme Court is a valid jury if it wanted, since their interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters.

Re:Stupid

[sl3xd]

There are specific qualifications for what laws are and are not allowed to be made; the US has both State and Federal laws - both with different roles and scopes.

So the SCOTUS can strike down laws for two reasons:
1.) A law is not constitutional (violates a constitutional right, privilege, or duty)
2.) A law is enacted on the federal level that does not fall under the "Enumerated Powers" of Congress. (ie. it's something that is for the individual states to control); if a law is enacted on a state level that violates the enumerated powers, it can also be stricken, as that is for the Federal Government to control. (A state can't print its own money, for example)

The enumerated powers of things the Federal Government is explicitly allowed to do is fairly small; everything else is regulated by the individual states.

Congress can:
* Lay and collect Federal taxes
* Provide for common welfare and defense.
* Borrow money (they seem to be good at this)
* Regulate interstate and foreign trade
* Create courts (ie. below the Supreme Court)
* Establish immigration/naturalization laws
* Establish bankruptcy Laws
* Declare War (last done on Dec 8, 1941)
* Raise, regulate, and maintain a military.
* Coin Money
* US Postal Service
* Regulate Patents and Copyrights
* Anything "necessary and proper" for the above list.

The problem is, the "necessary and proper" phrase... and the argument over what that has meant from the beginning. The SCOTUS gets to decide on a case-by-case basis, which is part of their purpose.

Since congress does have power to regulate copyrights, the ruling can't be stricken for reason #2.

All told, I have to agree with the court in letting the ruling stand - it's long been a principle that ignorance of a law is no excuse for violating it.

The courts can force a copyright owner to post a copyright notice on the album; they cannot, however, force a consumer to read and understand said notice.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in America yes, the supreme court can.
As far as saying USian, it's getting old. Let's try and stop that drawl, alright?
We don't call Chinese "PRian", nor do we call Brits "UKian".

Re:Stupid

[SETIGuy]

The interesting thing was that the lone dissent was Alito, whose dissent make it sound like he was giving serious consideration to protecting innocent infringement.

That one really surprised me. There may be hope for him yet.

It's equally likely that he would like to see a Supreme Court decision concluding that "innocent infringement" doesn't exist and that all infringement is willful.

Re:Stupid

[Ihmhi]

Son of a bitch, don't give them any bloody ideas man!

Re:Stupid

[shentino]

And the fact that SCOTUS has to shed load just to avoid drowning in paperwork is a testament to the abuse of the legal system.

Re:Stupid

[Culture20]

Woosh me once, shame on me. Woosh me twice, shame on me.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected.

You type standing up?

Re:Stupid

[spazdor]

And no, most rich people do not have empathy.

Perhaps more pertinently, most people with empathy do not become rich.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

default judgments can be lowered to $3.75 and half a bottle of Listerine".

No. I do not think rich people are stupid, and I do not think all of them lack empathy. I think most of them are ill equipped to make decisions for a populace composed of variable classes. Financial punishment is extremely relative. To me, 1000 dollars is a lot of money and would significantly impact my ability to provide for my family, to a hobo, half a bottle of Listerine is a lot of money. To someone making 200000 a year, 1000 dollars and half a bottle of Listerine may as well be a handful of pennies. They cannot be objective. Financial punishment is not a good way to punish in this case.

Re:Stupid

[mad flyer]

Was going to say the same, the guy never went to Hokkaido... For the rest of the country only the weather and quakes try to killed you, up there you need to add the wildlife on your sh1tlist...

Re:Stupid

[Javit]

It was a politically-charged joke.

Hah, nice try bozo. It was a stupid knee-jerk response to someone you perceive to be on the "other side."

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

Haha. Nice try bozo. Your response was akin to a juvenile class clown's attempt at being the popular one in his science class.

Re:Stupid

[Jenming]

Your EULA example is some software companies policy, however I don't believe its the law in any US States.
It may not be make any sense to sue them over the $50 or whatever the software cost, but if you did they would let you return it.

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

No problem. My point was that some laws shouldn't be touched by modern developments. I.e. the right to bear arms. There are innumerable reasons to own a weapon to defend yourself beyond the fact that supermarkets have beef steaks. Likewise, this judge arbitrarily rules that a law protecting "innocent infringers" is no longer valid just because the internet was developed. It may make reproduction of the "infringed" material quicker, just like a bomb dropped on your head will kill you quicker than a .22 to the leg, but it doesn't mean that the original purpose of the law should not apply.

Re:Stupid

[Chris Burke]

They're just mad because they can't find the continent on the globe called "America".

Re:Stupid

[VocationalZero]

If you want the laws changed, write/speak to your congress (wo)man.

I laugh every time I see this. First off, if your congress (wo)man's political party opposes your view, you are immediately S.O.L. Secondly, if you want to effect change, a letter isn't going to do anything except prompt a bland response via form letter. Every time. Join or form a lobby and donate LOTS of money. Donate to the target party's/parties' campaign(s) as well; now that donation limits have been abolished, your ability to "help" your party has only improved, right?

Know their proper function please.

Just wow. It's their function to check each other, as powers should. It can be the difference between throwing the book at an offender to issuing the minimum fine to throwing out the case and declaring the law unconstitutional. Just as the executive branch has the option of not enforcing the law at all.

There are plenty chances for undesired, unjust laws to be swept under the rug without legislation, and the fact that no one will even bother replacing or modernizing an outdated law being used for predatory litigation is just sad.

Re:Stupid

[PopeRatzo]

I see it as less likely than usual that this a case of corruption.

It's the worst kind of corruption: a far-reaching decision by an ideologue whose very worldview is corrupted by privilege.

Remember how Roberts and Alito were going to be "umpires" who "called balls and strikes"? Instead, they've led the most activist court in modern history. Is it possible that more extra-legal social benefits can be given to multinational corporations? Can personal property rights be weakened fast enough for them?

If for no other reason than the fact that they sat in Congress and lied their asses off about how they were going to be "strict constructionists" they ought to be impeached from the court.

Of course it has no effect beyond making me feel better, but I say a little prayer every night for Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts to be brought to account for what they've done to our country.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the courts -do- create law. It's called "case law". That's their job. And when they do their job well, they actively seek out cases where important law can be written and have a fair hearing to determine what the law should be. That's why Alito said he wanted to revisit it. He wants to make some case law.

Don't believe the Roberts "I'm just an umpire" line of bs. That's what conservative justices say, while at the same time seeking out cases to write laws that raise the bar ever higher for citizens to use the courts to protect themselves from corporations and abuses of executice power.

Re:Stupid

[Loki_1929]

That's not entirely true.

In cases where battle or insurrection has made it impossible for the normal criminal justice system to operate in a given area (typically defined as the courts being closed/destroyed/otherwise unable to hear cases), that given area effectively operates under military law and the laws of war. Thus, your usual rights and privileges protected under the US Constitution go out the window and the military is free to step in and be used against the civilian population.

Ex Parte Milligan

Re:Stupid

[Hoi Polloi]

Even Warren Buffett has enough empathy to know he paid (according to his words) a higher tax rate than his secretary has at least one year.

Re:Stupid

[Thing 1]

[...] since their interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters.

Funny, how their opinion tends to change over time...

Re:Stupid

[Thing 1]

Similar to what a Brazilian told me about Brazil: "There are no tornadoes, no hurricanes, no earthquakes; no 'force of nature' will kill you. Just other humans."

Re:Stupid

[Thing 1]

I don't have a globe called "America". (And, I respect you, doh...)

Re:Stupid

[Antisyzygy]

Yes. Empathy means acknowledging how you routinely screw people over.

Re:Stupid

[Darinbob]

The legal issues in the case don't have to do with the amount of the fine. So whether the clerks are rich or poor, or whether they have empathy or not, is irrelevant to the law. The Supreme Court is not being asked to retry a case, they're being asked to decide on a narrow point of law: whether or not the "innocent infringer" factor applies or not.

Re:Stupid

[DigiShaman]

I cry when people stop caring. Or, have stopped caring to the capacity that is necessary.

It's only when the system breaks down and become corrupt to the point it affects their lives, do they start doing something about it. But like any large system, it takes while to gather enough momentum for change to start working in the proper direction.

Apathy is a real killer of democracy, for it leaves a vacuum of power often filled by sycophantic psychopaths.

Re:Stupid

[Sancho]

Financial punishment is an extremely effective way to punish. The problem is that flat fines are regressive.

Fine as a percentage of the person's yearly salary, and you've got something.

Re:Stupid

[Bahamut_Omega]

What would it take to get the Yakuzaa involved?

Re:Stupid

[Darinbob]

Basically "unconstitutional" means "in contradiction" of the constitution, so it's the same principle of needing an arbiter between two contradictory laws. The constitutionality tends to be seen as a special case though because it's conventionally held to have higher precedence than other laws, and because it is more broad and requires more interpretation than other more tediously detailed laws.

It is still very normal to deal with non-constitutional issues as well, since we have multiple appeals courts who don't usually agree with each other. This is probably the more typical situation. Still most lawyers given their 15 minutes in the spotlight will try to bring up constitutional issues before the court, even if the final written decision ignores those issues.

In this particular example, if another appeals court decides that the "innocent infringer" applies in a similar instance and an appeals court upholds the lower $200 fine per infringement, then it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide between the conflicting courts It seems unlikely that they'd strike down this law because there's no clear constitutional issue here, but they could certainly issue a broad ruling setting precedent in other courts about when and where "innocent infringer" applies and what a valid copyright notice might entail. Or they might just give a narrow ruling that doesn't solve anything beyond the one case.

However if multiple appeals courts all rule the same way, then it will typically just become accepted precedent in all the other circuit courts.

Re:Stupid

[Darinbob]

The powers of the federal government have changed over time, and the constitution is not an unchanging document. What the piece of paper actually says doesn't necessarily restrict the government either.

To take an obvious and overused example, the federal government decided which states could and could not have slaves, despite this issue not being in their list of enumerated powers. After the eventual war over this issue we went from a loose collection of states with a weak central government to having a strong federal government with far less power in the individual states.

Laws are all purely social constructs. It's all based on what can be enforced and what the people will consent to. Everything else is just a convenient fiction necessary to keep an ordered society. In a purely technical legal sense the Confederates were right that the federal government took more power than was granted by some words on paper, but force and changing public views overruled the pieces of paper.

Over time US society has accepted a larger and larger role for the federal government; I know some people spit and curse over this and want to treat the pieces of paper as sacred documents. Maybe we've never declared war since 1941, but it would be naive to say that the federal government is incapable of creating war without performing such rites first.

I'm not saying whether any of this is either good or bad. It's just the pragmatic view of what federal power is, as opposed to the idealistic view that it has certain enumerated powers.

Re:Stupid

[Thinboy00]

SCOTUS justices serve "during good behavior," not for life, so if the bribes are egregious enough, well...

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read what the Conservative judges wrote did you. FFS you liberals are stupid.

Re:Stupid

[AlamedaStone]

Son of a bitch, don't give them any bloody ideas man!

Give them ideas? Man, they already had the idea, pressed the disks, promoted like mad, and your brother and your best friend already want them for Christmas.

It was probably them who put the idea in the GP in the first place. With radios. And magnets.

*crinkle of tinfoil*

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this sort of argument. You are aware that as someone posting on slashdot, you're amongst the .01% of the wealthiest people on the planet? By your own argument you lack empathy and are out-of-touch. Don't worry about it though, the GP claims to be an idiot as well.

Re:Stupid

[ishobo]

Applies to any type of tax entity, as a percentage of yearly revenue averaged over the last several years.

Re:Stupid

[Kjella]

What does contracts have to do with copyright law? Good thing you have a lawyer, don't represent yourself...

Re:Stupid

[Schadrach]

I'm sorry, I'm only taking a $1 salary this year, instead I will be paid in stock. =)

Re:Stupid

[CrimsonAvenger]

He wishes to hear it on a precedent that does no justice to anything I have said.

He wishes to hear it because a similar case isn't likely to reach the Supremes anytime soon. Fact is, he didn't say anything about why he wanted to review the case other than that it's not likely that a similar case would reach the Supremes anytime soon.

Once again, you're letting your prejudices show.

Re:Stupid

[ChrisMaple]

And I deplore the arguments of people who don't bother to run through the math that their posts imply. Slashdot user IDs are near 2e6, plus ACs brings the total to well over 2e6. That implies over 2e10 people on the planet, off by a factor of over 3.

Re:Stupid

[sac13]

I think you misinterpreted what Justice Alito said - he *wanted* to hear the case; that sentence comes from his dissent. He would prefer to reexamine the laws which were written before a new medium was available (or at least widely available).

Come on. Alito was appointed by Bush. Obviously, anything he does is going to be for the evil corporations.

Never underestimate how much inherent bias obscures basic facts. Both sides like to dismiss anyone related to the other without even bothering to listen. We're in an environment dominated by political fundamentalism on both sides.

Fundamentalist = someone that has stopped listening

Re:Stupid

[Applekid]

IMHO, that they are not reelected makes them more likely to be corrupt: they no longer have to answer to the people.

That whole Supreme Court Justice for life was written in a time when people didn't live as long as they do today. The constitution really should be amended for compulsory retirement.

But... with the justices are essentially above the government, the elected powers aren't going to give up the opportunity to drop a plant for their corporate masters that will have reach for many, many terms after they themselves have been voted out of office for the same corruption.

Re:Stupid

[DragonWriter]

And the fact that SCOTUS has to shed load just to avoid drowning in paperwork is a testament to the abuse of the legal system.

Its more of a testament to the scale of the United States. The number of cases the Supreme Court can practically hear in a term is fairly constant. It doesn't scale up with technology, and it doesn't scale up with the number of seats on the Court.

OTOH, assuming the share of interactions between persons that results in problems requiring resolution in the Courts is fairly constant, and supposing the proportion of those that are appealed at each level is constant, the number of expected legal cases does scale up both with population density and technology that expands the manners and distance over which people can interact.

Re:Stupid

[Tom Boz]

My understanding is that things written into the constitution (or via amendment, such as the 2nd) are harder to change than laws. That's why amendments are rarely added or repealed, whereas run-of-the-mill laws change more readily with changes in technology/culture. Repealing the second amendment couldn't even be done by the supreme court, it would take 2/3 support in the legislative bodies as well as 3/4 support by individual state's legislatures. (Not that the drastic difference between laws and constitutional amendments really makes sense to me, but hey, *I* didn't write the dang thing...)

Re:Stupid

[DragonWriter]

No, they are striking it down. In many instances, they interpret it, conclude it cannot stand, and then strike it down.

No, they interpret the whole of the law, and conclude that the purported law at issue is not a valid part of the law, based on provisions of law which supercede it.

I don't disagree that "striking it down" is a reasonable description of the practical effect, but the context of GP was a response to a question about courts having the ability to strike a law down in response to a statement about separation of powers in the US system, and the fact that courts in the US system do not have legislative power. GP was responding to that question in a manner designed to make clear that while courts in the US do in effect strike down laws, the fact that they do so is within and consistent with their interpretative role, not something that stems from some power that extends beyond the interpretive role.

Why you're doing this, I've no idea, but I'd be willing to guess it's because you want to defend the elementary school notion that the legislature makes, executive applies, and judiciary interprets the law.

That "elementary school" notion is, in fact, just the express division of responsibilities set out in Articles I-III of the U.S. Constitution.

Re:Stupid

[RobertM1968]

SCOTUS justices serve "during good behavior," not for life, so if the bribes are egregious enough, well...

True. And as I said, it wasn't indication that any of them were being bribed. I was pointing out that the reasoning ("they serve for life, so why would they accept bribes?") was irrelevant to whether or not they could be, would be or were being bribed.

Though one other things... your sentence should probably have read: "so if the bribes are egregious enough, and they get caught, well..."

Re:Stupid

[hesaigo999ca]

>sending personal 'gifts' for the holidays
Wow, i guess you never saw any of the CSI, NCIS, Law & Order or any of those other shows, that show you how easy it is for our justice system to be controlled whether directly or indirectly. All I have to say is if you really want something, everything has a price, and if you want to set a precedent, you find out which judges are going to be on that day, and be sure to set up camp until you can figure out how or what they would accept to rule in your favor.
Precedent is everything in the US, especially in cases involving copyright infringement....I am sure this is another one of those cases.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, we get it, you think all rich people are idiots with no empathy. Awesome. Can we move on now?

Not idiots, just out of touch in the "let them eat cake" style. And no, most rich people do not have empathy. It might affect their bottom line.

most of the "rich" people I know seem to have a clue, you must just have bad luck.

most poor people i know are needy bastards though /sarcasm

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a counter-point of sarcasm, which you would know if you read the first part of my post and the one I was responding to.

I'd like to point out that your communication skills just aren't so great that you can afford that high horse -- I'll bet people misunderstand you all the time, judging from your posts here. Try a little patience, as clarity is not exactly your trademark, Antisyzygy.

Re:Stupid

[TheoMurpse]

That "elementary school" notion is, in fact, just the express division of responsibilities set out in Articles I-III of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no express separation of powers in the Constitution, nor was there in practice at any point during the Founders' Era.

The fact is, when Congress strikes down a law, it is called "legislation." When a court does exactly the same thing, you're calling it "interpretation."

You can change the labels all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they're doing the same thing as Congress.

Furthermore, there are plenty of times when the courts do, indeed, legislate from the bench. Check up on "gap filling," "common law," and other things like that.

The "separation of powers" is not so simple as you are taught in elementary school. It is far more complex, with numerous instances of the three branches overlapping in authority from the get-go of the nation.

Re:Stupid

[JeffAtl]

Warren Buffett is probably the most selfish person in the world. Everything he does is to increase his power or legacy. Anyone who heard his idiotic soundbites while he was campaigning for the bailout knows that he only cares about his own interests.

He has reached the top and wants to pull up the ladder so no one else can.

If Warren Buffett felt so bad about paying too little in taxes, there is nothing stopping him from cutting a huge check to the US Treasury.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

No, read it again (before calling people "Stupid"). Alito WANTED to grant review, basically saying that because the law was from 1988 it was not drafted with the more harmless sharing that now occurs in mind. He understands the problem. I'm sure the "corporate overlords" are not too happy with Alito.

Re:Stupid

[DragonWriter]

The fact is, when Congress strikes down a law, it is called "legislation."

Congress doesn't "strike down a law". It passes new laws. Some of which may have the effect of repealing older laws (which has a substantially different legal effect than a court interpreting, e.g., the Constitution as making a law invalid.)

When a court does exactly the same thing, you're calling it "interpretation."

Nothing a court does is the exact same thing as Congress repealing a law, either in the process by which it is done or the effect of it having been done.

Furthermore, there are plenty of times when the courts do, indeed, legislate from the bench. Check up on "gap filling," "common law," and other things like that.

Those things are all irrelevant to the point at issue, which was a response to a question about striking down laws that was posed in response to a statement about the separation of powers.

The "separation of powers" is not so simple as you are taught in elementary school.

To the extent this is true, it is irrelevant; specifically, it doesn't change the fact that what the court does when it "strikes down" a law is firmly within the interpretive role, and is essential to it in a system which features Constitutionally-limited government rather than absolute legislative (e.g., parliamentary) soveriegnty.

 

Re:Stupid

[shentino]

I think it's still sad that SCOTUS has to let obvious errors go unchallenged because they can't afford to fry the smaller fish.

What should really be done is to deal with the obscene level of load before it bubbles to the top.

Maybe switching to a loser pays system would make the load go away enough that judges could focus and relax on their cases.

This is how I see it

[Stregano]

I guess it is time to get my weekly -1 since some of this stuff I have a different opinion than others:

She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.

Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.

If you do something illegal and get caught, even if we think the penalty is horrible, the excuses some people use are ridiculous. If she was so naive to think that there was nothing illegal about downloading the music and not paying for it, then how in the hell did she figure out how to do it in the first place. I am trying to say that every single person that pirates knows it is illegal. Well, most people do. If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.

If you are going to download music, there is always a chance of getting caught. This excuse is a horrible excuse as well

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.

I don't know if that's a thing to be telling around, since in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1889784&cid=34394998 :

I have the same first and last name of a rockstar by coincidence, so I always have cool stuff going on when I google my name.

you could figure out who you are by very long process of elimination. FOOL!

Re:This is how I see it

[tycoex]

True but the penalty is ridiculous. If you get caught stealing 3 cd's at a store and you aren't even an adult yet, they will most likely just take them from you and call your parents. At most you will get a small fine for stealing under $100 worth of goods, which is only a misdemeanor.

If this becomes the norm we might as well start actually stealing from stores, since the penalty is so much smaller.

Re:This is how I see it

[Tr3vin]

mod parent up. that is all.

Re:This is how I see it

[MozeeToby]

When 90+% of the population is engaging in an activity, maybe it shouldn't be illegal, especially when very few of the perpetrators are being caught and tried. Think about targeted enforcement, anyone the RIAA doesn't like can have their life torn out from under them by sending a single letter and file some court papers, and if not them then their friends and family.

It's the same thing on the criminal side of the law. Let's pretend that I did something to piss off a member of Obama's staff. That guy calls up the FBI, the FBI starts digging into my life and inevitably finds at least a handful of felonies that I've committed over the course of my life (statistically, it's practically guaranteed that I have, even though I don't even realize it). Taken drugs? A good investigation can probably uncover it. Browsed porn online? It's highly likely that you've got some kiddie porn (or something that looks like kiddie porn anyway) in your browser cache. Lied on a job resume? That's felony fraud is some places.

The point is, it is far, far too easy in our law and judicial systems to destroy someone's life simply because everyone has done something wrong at some point. All the government would have to do is precisely enforce the laws that are already in place and we would indeed be living in a full on police state

Re:This is how I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

Well I guess I might as well as hop in the ring and get modded down as well. Time for one of those annoying point/counterpoint posts.

She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a
Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.

No. It's not always like that. The article doesn't say when this took place. When I was 16, I didn't know downloading music was considered illegal. Like her - I naturally assumed that since you don't get the full content that comes with a CD, and that songs are played for free on the radio DAILY with no laws against recording the radio - that downloading music was not an issue at all. It was only once I started reading the news (as most teenagers don't actually read the news, go figure) that I found out the whole issue with Napster and Metallica causing a whole big stink. NOW I know there is an issue, and back then I didn't - which is what she's claiming.

Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.

Thats the thing - some of us disagree in it's illegality. Like mentioned with Radio before, they get to air it for free, and I can record any song on the radio, put the sound file on my MP3, and I am completely free of any Copyright issues. Mixed tapes were all the rage, why aren't there ridiculous lawsuits against every highschool romantic guy who ever made a mixed tape?

If you do something illegal and get caught, even if we think the penalty is horrible, the excuses some people use are ridiculous. If she was so naive to think that there was nothing illegal about downloading the music and not paying for it, then how in the hell did she figure out how to do it in the first place. I am trying to say that every single person that pirates knows it is illegal. Well, most people do. If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.

This is EXACLTY the point she is trying to make: She was just a teenager. She wasn't some leet phreak hacker like you or I - she wasn't visitting Slashdot every day of the week and wasn't a proud supporter of open source technology. She was someone who probably went over to a friends house, they said "Hey, see this thing called Limewire? You can use it to download songs. Its great! Here', I'll set it up when I'm over at your house next".

She likely had NO idea of the consequences when this happened.

If you are going to download music, there is always a chance of getting caught. This excuse is a horrible excuse as well

Yes - but when you aren't aware it's illegal, thats where the contraversy arises. No - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - you can't say "But I didn't know!". What creates a problem is the double standards - when it is perfectly fine for someone to create a duplicate copy of a song in one way without any consequence but doing it in a certain way ends in multiple thousands of dollars in lawsuits.

Re:This is how I see it

[zach_the_lizard]

Allow me to be the first: Copyright violation and theft are two totally different acts. Copyright violation is not theft; the party that has supposedly been stolen from, at the end of the day, still has all of their physical property, and not only that, but this property is in the same exact condition as before the act. You can't even claim lost sales; if I torrent something, there is no guarantee I would pay for it, even if it were merely a penny.

I would never pay to watch a TV show that has been broadcast to me for free, and I would consider downloading a copy to be in the same league of evil as if I had just DVR'd the show in the first place (or put it on tape, for older shows).

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww hell no. You did not just equate copyright infringement with stealing up on my slashdot. Hold on to your jimmy hats boys, it's about to go down!

Re:This is how I see it

[Culture20]

She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.

Actually, for a lot of kids these days (probably including her), it's more like taking some seed grain from a local farmer's field, knowing that people take seed grain from his field regularly and have for as long as they've been alive/aware, then sowing the seed all over the place. Then the farmer is angry when no one buys his crop. The kids are perplexed when they find out that the farmer has a sign at his produce stand which says "No tresspassing, no stealing of seed grain" Sure, they can understand it after the fact, but it's an "Aha!" moment. What they did is illegal, and ignorance of the law is no defense against guilt, but it should be a mitigating factor in determining punishment.

Re:This is how I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

That's one of those analogies where the actual situation is easier to understand than your analogy.

Re:This is how I see it

[MobyDisk]

These crazy defenses arise because the penalties are so absurd. You can't make a 16-year-old pay $27k in damages for downloading a CD. That's not sane. I think they should try the cruel-and-unusual punishment defense.

Re:This is how I see it

[Stregano]

Maybe 90+% of the population should not be engaging in an illegal activity. I agree that the penatly is bad. It is really bad, but when we know we are doing something highly illegal, and then we get busted, we get all up in arms when the penalty comes through. Let's face it, pirating is a much bigger offense than shoplifting.

Example: I am a computer programmer (I truly am outside of this example). If I get busted for piracy and that shows up on my record somehow, then it basically means I can't get a job as a programmer (or have a very tough time doing it). Now if they look up my record and see shoplifting, I would still have a job, but they just would not tell me where the extra stock of pens is kept.

The point is that piracy, even if it seems small, is a much harsher crime than shoplifting.

Using the "everybody does it" bandwagon approach is not the best one. In my line of work, seriously, I do programming and help out drug addicts. I see them and talk to them daily, and it is safe to say that I spend more time with addicts then other people in my day to day life. Using the bandwagon approach, there is nothing wrong with me doing drugs.

Also, anybody who looks at porn of girls who are 18 or 19 and they are much older than that and do not clear their cache, well, you are not going to see that.

As for very few perpetrators, that is because the ones that get caught are getting hit hard. They are trying to go after the big fish with stuff like COICA. I can't stand COICA, but there are so many people piratting to where they will try a few of us to make examples of us, and then when we fight it when we are clearly guilty, they get mad and put stuff in like COICA.

Re:This is how I see it

[Hatta]

She knew exactly what she was doing.

Prove it. Or, at the very least, allow her the chance to make her defense that she didn't know.

If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.

Shouldn't that 1% get the chance to mount an appropriate defense?

Re:This is how I see it

[amicusNYCL]

If this becomes the norm we might as well start actually stealing from stores, since the penalty is so much smaller.

If you steal a music CD from a store, and then make a bunch of copies and start distributing them, expect the same penalty. The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter. This line strikes me as odd though:

claiming "innocence" was no defense

I guess there's a reason they wrote it in quotes, but I was under the impression that innocence, by definition, is in fact always a defense. Apparently not.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

They did not equate the two things, they compared them.

And it's a relevant and revealing comparison: Actual theft would be more acceptable and have a lesser penalty than duplicating bits.

Re:This is how I see it

[amicusNYCL]

This place really needs a "-1: Telling mods what to do".

Re:This is how I see it

[WrongSizeGlass]

When 90+% of the population is engaging in an activity, maybe it shouldn't be illegal, especially when very few of the perpetrators are being caught and tried.

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth? How about committing vandalism or looting? How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?

Something isn't right just because "everyone is doing it" ...

Re:This is how I see it

[Haedrian]

Once upon a time there was something called Democracy

The idea was the the majority would define what is right and what is wrong.

Somewhere across the line however it turned into a "the people who can pull up the most money", and we're stuck that.

I don't think it should be legal to copy songs which the owners don't want you to - but they shouldn't have a few hundred dollars each in punishment.

Re:This is how I see it

[Tr3vin]

Then can we start using 'identity violation' instead of 'identity theft'?

Re:This is how I see it

[Brett Buck]

Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well. Everybody knows it is illegal and there is a chance of getting caught. I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.

          Why in the world would you bother? Do you think the potential penalties (no matter how absurd) are really worth it? Can't you just pay the damn $10 a shot? Or are you doing it on some sort of half-assed "principle"?

         

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been illegal for the same reasons as today. It's just a lot harder to hunt those people down, since making a one-off mix tape doesn't quite have the same reach as P2P sharing.

Not that I disagree with you, but just because they didn't attack people for it in the past didn't mean that the law wouldn't let them.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's also a couple legal issues.

One, since she was under the age of 18 at the time of infringement, and thus had no legal rights, her parents should be the targets of subject, not her. How many cases have you EVER heard of, of ANY corporation taking a person to civil court who is under the legal age of 18? She can not be considered an adult at the time of infringement. QED, parents ....

Second, and I'm not too familiar with civil matters, but I'd like to think there is a statute of limitations on such things. Perhaps I am wrong though, since Copyright Infringement is now a grey area. Can you honestly say it is a civil matter still? I can't. I'm fully aware profitable infringement is a criminal matter, but it's been that way for quite a while now. VHS anyone?

These are 2 areas I would sure as hell like answered by the top bench.

It is a shame though, that SCOTUS will gladly accept million and billion dollar scuffles over document file-type battles (see recent SCOTUS acceptance of trial against MS for word file-types), yet a Copyright Infringement case against a, then, under legal age girl, which WILL most likely result in monetary fines NOW, thus affecting her ability to dutifully progress in society, gets brushed aside as a trifle bother.

I really hope your not half as blind as your post suggests, and you see that there are underlying questions of legality which exceed the simple duplication of 1's and 0's to peered nodes...

Re:This is how I see it

[pookemon]

Agreed. I'm always amazed that the amount of sharing involved doesn't ever get a mentioned. Sure, she shared it with 50,000 people, meaning that she effectively stole 150,000 CD's and gave them out. So 50k ppl are then guilty of receiving stolen goods while one is guilty of the theft. However, if she downloaded the 37 songs and had a share ratio of 0.1 across the entire collection, she's guilty of stealing the 3 CD's (as you've described) but has she actually provided anything more than 3 songs worth to other people? Ultimately the only person that has really done any measurable harm is the person that originally ripped the CD's and shared them.

Re:This is how I see it

[larry bagina]

yes to all the above except vandalism and looting.

Re:This is how I see it

[pookemon]

Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter. This line strikes me as odd though:

Easy enough to do if your a nub and you use something like DC++ (but mostly it comes down to being a Nub).

claiming "innocence" was no defense

I guess there's a reason they wrote it in quotes, but I was under the impression that innocence, by definition, is in fact always a defense. Apparently not.

Yeah - I lol'd at that too. However essentially what her defence came down to is "Ignorance" - which is not a defence here in Oz and probably isn't accepted as a defence in the US too.

Re:This is how I see it

[cheekyjohnson]

The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work.

Which, for some reason, is far more costly. She might as well have just stole the extra copies instead of copying them (that's what I think he was saying).

Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter.

While I support piracy, ignorance is a pretty poor excuse.

Re:This is how I see it

[__aaqvdr516]

I had to look up some info on what exact precedents have been made in courts regarding this. So, here it is...
http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/01/20/recording-the-radio-is-legal-recording-satellite-radio-is-illegal/
Satellite radio is illegal to record, while standard radio is in the clear.

The main argument being standard radio is more lossy. Not a very good argument IMHO.

Re:This is how I see it

[cheekyjohnson]

Maybe 90+% of the population should not be engaging in an illegal activity.

Maybe they should just fix the broken system instead of trying to 'fix' the people.

It is really bad, but when we know we are doing something highly illegal, and then we get busted, we get all up in arms when the penalty comes through.

Probably because many people don't believe that 'loss' of potential future gain actually equates to harm, mostly because they never had that 'gain' in the first place, so there was no theft, and therefore no damages to repay. But I see what you're saying. Just because a lot of people do something, that doesn't make it right/wrong.

Re:This is how I see it

[fishbowl]

As it should be. Theft deprives another person of his property.

Copyright infringement deprives another person of his rights.

Would you allow me to decide what the limits of punishment should be if someone deprives you of your rights? And you don't get to decide which rights are under consideration, just because this conversation happens to be about copyright in particular.

Re:This is how I see it

[tkrotchko]

"The main argument being standard radio is more lossy. Not a very good argument IMHO."

The only people making that argument are the ones who have never listened to satellite radio.

Even good satellite radio (an oxymoron) probably has as much loss as a 3rd generation cassette. It sounds basically like shortwave radio. Its *good enough* for listening to in the car, but that's about it.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth?

Uh... yes, actually.

Adults should be allowed to consume whatever substances they please. A lot fewer than 90% of the population use cannabis or methamphetamine, but both of those drugs should be legal for an adult to possess and consume.

Re:This is how I see it

[ScentCone]

and have a lesser penalty than duplicating bits

Huh. Never thought of it that way. Come to think of it, why are all of those idiotic filmmakers, violinists, photographers, studio musicians, makeup artists, directors, choreographers, singers, recording engineers and all of their support people, assistants, representatives, insurance agents, and everyone else even complaining, anyway? All they do is re-arrange some bits, right?

I can tell you've never actually created anything.

Re:This is how I see it

[Vancorps]

Indeed, there should be a distinction between personal file sharing and actively pirating and making money. The statues are in place for CD duplicators and not online distribution where many people can and do distribute unknowingly.

Re:This is how I see it

[cheekyjohnson]

if I torrent something, there is no guarantee I would pay for it, even if it were merely a penny.

Not only that, but 'loss' of 'potential' future gain is not theft, because you never had that 'gain' in the first place! Also, if 'loss' of potential future gain somehow equated to harm, everyone would be guilty of harming everyone else, as merely choosing not to give someone your money would be considered 'harm' since they lost the potential for future gain because of you.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong about smoking pot.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because if 90% of the population is doing something, then it is by definition an accepted activity in our society and should not be illegal.

Re:This is how I see it

[Vancorps]

No, since identity theft actually hurts the original party. Your identity is most definitely not in the same exact condition as before the act.

Re:This is how I see it

[Burning1]

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth? How about committing vandalism or looting? How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?

But 90% of the population isn't smoking meth, or looting, or vandalizing. So your argument might support the idea that popular activities should be legalized.

And in fact, through history most of the things that 90% of the population do have been legal until there is a significant enough portion of the population that disagrees with it to illegalize it. See: Racism.

Re:This is how I see it

[Rhywden]

So, is everyone engaged in looting, vandalism or sending Anthrax around?
No?

Then, why bring it up in the first place?

Y'see, it's a pretty commong argumentative tactic - first present some examples which are actually pretty common (smoking pot) and then present other, more outrageous examples in the same argumentative vein. Which makes it sound as if when you agree to the first example (pot), you automatically agree to the second one (vandalism).
Pretty intellectually dishonest, if you ask me.

Re:This is how I see it

[gnasher719]

Yeah - I lol'd at that too. However essentially what her defence came down to is "Ignorance" - which is not a defence here in Oz and probably isn't accepted as a defence in the US too.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Ignorance of facts can very much be a defense, depending on the situation. Like in this case, where it actually makes a difference whether you know that something is under copyright or whether you mistakenly believe that it isn't. This is a case where the law actually says that ignorance is a defense.

Re:This is how I see it

[Tr3vin]

Neither is the worth of their property.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

Deprive them of their rights, like to go after those infringing on the copyright of said person's work? Yeah, depriving them of their rights my ass.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, isn't that what makes a society though? Or at least a culture? There are things that are legal an accepted in other cultures that are completely illegal here (beating your wife, as an extreme case). In some cultures, murder was even legal, as long as you paid the family for the value of the person killed. If the vast majority of people agree with something, even if they don't actively participate, then I'd argue it should be legal, by definition of "democracy" if nothing else. I'm not arguing their wouldn't be consequences, like the possible loss of talent, etc, and I'm not arguing that the vast majority of citizens in the US support copyright infringement (most don't even understand what it is). I'm just arguing against your point of "if everyone's doing it".

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

This place really needs a "-1: Telling mods what to do".

(Score:0, Troll)

Heh.

Re:This is how I see it

[misexistentialist]

How do you propose to keep 90% of the population in prison? Robots?

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case the word "innocence" is not used to mean "not guilty" but to mean "young, naive, and ignorant"

Re:This is how I see it

[cheekyjohnson]

Pretty intellectually dishonest, if you ask me.

I disagree. I believe he was merely saying that the fact that most people support/hate something doesn't mean it should be legalized/illegalized. Which is true. Nothing should be legal/illegal based on that fact alone.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you allow me to decide what the limits of punishment should be if someone deprives you of your rights? And you don't get to decide which rights are under consideration, just because this conversation happens to be about copyright in particular.

Is copyright a right in the same sense as freedom of speech or religion? In the US, Congress merely has the power to establish (or abolish) copyright laws. One could argue that even if it is a right, then it exists in a balance with the others. Why does your copyright trump my freedom of speech?

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman. You're the one who equated "not illegal" with "right". GP didn't even use the word "right" in their post.

Re:This is how I see it

[WrongSizeGlass]

How do you propose to keep 90% of the population in prison? Robots?

Yes, many, many robots. But only robots built by those who don't file share, smoke pot or smoke meth, vandalize or loot, or send hate mail or unknown white powders. That Venn diagram should result in a small but sober and stable workforce who are not distracted by rock and/or roll music.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

Huh. Never thought of it that way.

Well don't start thinking now and ruin your record!

All they do is re-arrange some bits, right?

I can tell you've never actually created anything.

I can tell that your record is safe, since I wasn't even trying to suggest that creating these bit sequences is meaningless, because yes I have created them.

I'm talking about duplicating versus stealing. As the word "duplicating" suggests, when you do it, the original remains intact. Nobody is deprived of it. The only loss is a hypothetical loss of income. When you steal something, someone is physically deprived of what was stolen.

It's quite Kafkaesque that the penalty for duplication would be vastly higher than the penalty for outright theft.

Re:This is how I see it

[drinkypoo]

As it should be. Theft deprives another person of his property.

Copyright infringement deprives another person of his rights.

Theft deprives another person of their right to hold property. Logic? You fail it.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

If 90% of the population is breaking a law, then obviously the majority of the population seems to think that law should not exist...

And please don't even start with "Stealing from artists is wrong" because most people who download agree. In their mind, they're hot harming the publishers but the artists (those guys who take 90% of the benefits for publishing music when today any artist can make their own website where they self-publish their work), In fact many pirates are trying to make a statement through downloading.
And then you have the "pirates" who are actually trying to listen to music or view movies before deciding whether or not to buy them ; these people in fact buy more CDs and DVDs than non-downloaders because they know for sure that they'll like what they buy.
Finally there are people who think copyrights should be limited to 5-10 years for various reasons (I won't detail those reasons further, but I found some of them to be pretty good).

So as you can see, the issue with piracy is a lot more complex than "Stealing from artists is bad/not bad" and that's why saying "The majority is wrong" won't lead you very far in this debate. The only thing to do is to let the majority decide and go with it. If this indicates anything, the majority is not convinced by the arguments of those who are against downloading.

By the way, I hope you're not one of these people the music industry pays to pretend they're average citizens and completely unbiased on this topic and who try convincing people to support the music industry. As for me, I would not say I'm biased: I don't download even though it's legal in my country. I strongly disagree with what the music industry does, but I chose to protest by not buying CDs and movies. Pirating would kill my credibility, but right now at least I'm proving I would not buy music even if I could not download it for free.

Re:This is how I see it

[Rhywden]

Except for the fact that the one he replied to didn't demand "legalization per default" in the first place.
You know, those damned qualifiers like "maybe" and such...
Another tactic: Using a "maybe we should..." and making it a "what, you want to !always!...?"

Re:This is how I see it

[Beardo the Bearded]

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated... How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?
Something isn't right just because "everyone is doing it" ...

Hey, I run a mail-order bakery and I was sending samples of baking powder to every household in America. Didn't you hear of the "Killer Ingredients at Drop-Dead prices" campaign?

In retrospect, it wasn't the best marketing campaign, and I'm up for parole soon, but excuse ME for thinking that we were ALLOWED to be ENTREPRENEURS in AMERICA.

Re:This is how I see it

[Beardo the Bearded]

How do you propose to keep 90% of the population in prison? Robots?

Mortgages.

You get to pick and decorate your own cell.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

Theft of a copy of a copyrighted work deprives another person of their property and deprives them of the right to control who receives copies of said work in one instance. Downloading a song illegally deprives them of the right to control who receives copies of said work in one instance.

In terms of who is deprived of what, theft is a strict superset of downloading.

Re:This is how I see it

[drinkypoo]

Actually, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been illegal for the same reasons as today.

Actually, according to the RIAA, recording from the radio to an audio tape cassette (specifically a tape cassette, mind you) is acceptable. You may not loan the recording to a friend. Further, time-shifting has been shown to be fair use by the supremes in the Betamax decision, so you are legally permitted to record audio or video for your own use regardless of media, since January 17, 1984. Otherwise the VCR would have ceased to exist.

So no, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been legal and has explicitly been legal since 1984, or basically, as long as it has been an issue. Redistribution of that content is illegal, but you knew that.

Re:This is how I see it

[cheekyjohnson]

Yeah, but in no case does it make sense, not even in the case of piracy. That fact alone should not determine if something is legal/illegal. There has to be other reasons (which, in this case, I believe there is).

Re:This is how I see it

[Beardo the Bearded]

You cannot legally buy music in Canada unless you go through iTunes.

So why should I go to jail or be bankrupted for boycotting a store?

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

Actually, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been illegal for the same reasons as today.

Er, no, recording radio is not illegal for the same reason as recording TV isn't. It's called "time shifting". You can record a segment of radio and replay it yourself as many times as you want, so long as you don't use your copy to conduct a public performance.

Re:This is how I see it

[hweimer]

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth?

In a democracy, when something is done by the majority of people, I would expect this behavior to be perfectly legal unless interfering with constitutional rights of others.

Re:This is how I see it

[westlake]

I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs

Of course, you would.

That is why in almost file sharing case you are ever likely to see, the number of infringing of files at issue is bargained down to a manageable sampling that is acceptable to both sides.

If she was so naive to think that there was nothing illegal about downloading the music and not paying for it, then how in the hell did she figure out how to do it in the first place

The LimeWire client had progress bars that showed upload and download traffic in your shared files folder. You could view the shared files folders of other uses. You could chat with other users. You could read the comments attached to files.

You could "hear" the brag of the original uploader.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

Recording off of radio, TV, etc has been legal since Betamax. Get your history right.

Re:This is how I see it

[TheoMurpse]

Couple things:
1. They likely wrote "innocence" as a quote of what she claimed. For example, Cowboyneal claimed "Slashdot" is the best website in existence. This serves to place emphasis on which site was claimed to be the best. It's a writing technique, and the clerks working for the SCOTUS justices are uniformly highly educated in such techniques.

2. Innocence is not a defense to that of strict liability. Furthermore, innocence is not always a defense in civil proceedings (of which copyright infringement is a creature). Well, I suppose it depends on what we mean by "innocence." If we mean "it is factually untrue that my files were made available through my action or inaction" then it would be a defense. But I am under the impression the claim of "innocence" was "I lacked the intent but still committed the act," which is not a defense to copyright infringement IIRC.

Re:This is how I see it

[shutdown -p now]

Mod parent "+1, Inciteful".

Re:This is how I see it

[Rhywden]

It doesn't?
Sorry, but in case of a law which makes large swaths of the population affected by said law, one definitely should have a thought about whether this law actually makes sense or not.
That's all that was asked for. No "make it legal by default", no "abandon this law". Just "look at the law and examine if it's past its due date."

I mean, just look at some older laws, for example, the one demanding that you have sex exclusively in the missionary position. Always good for a laugh.
You have a small problem with your logic here: You try to use the number as a reason, while in reality it's a symptom.
I do agree that numbers alone do not an argument make, but they point to a problem. And part of this problem may be the existance of this law. Or not.
But criminalizing a huge percentage of your citizens is never a good idea.

Re:This is how I see it

[Stregano]

Uh, I posted earlier than I pirate and I admit it. My points are basically that you can make any excuse you want about what you are doing, but you are still breaking the law. It is also safe to say that the majority of people also speed in their cars, which means since everybody does it, every street should be like the AutoBahn.

The bandwagon excuse is not a good one. Me, personally, I pirate, but I have slowed down in doing so. I have now gotten into using things like grooveshark and stuff to listen to an album before I buy it.

If you choose to protest against the music industry by not buying music, go one step further and not download music illegally. I am going to go protest speed laws by speeding?!? Come on now.

The points are very clear. As long as you pirate, it does not matter what excuse you use for it, things like COICA will get put into place and then I have to hear you complain about that as well when you are the one throwing out the classic pirating excuses.

If you truly want to protest, no downloading illegally, no purchasing. This will show the music industry that as long as they continue doing what they do, you will have no interest in their music at all. That would be far more powerful than saying you are protesting by piratting.

Also, there are millions of Justin Bieber fans, but that does not mean they are correct in the assumption that his music is good. Which means I will not listen to the crowd. Plus, I love punk rock anyway, so the "I fight the institution by paying attention to it" excuse will not fly with me.

It is just an excuse for you to think you are entitled to illegally pirate.

Either protest like a man or stop using it as an excuse for pirating.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

But when it comes to what constitutes theft, what constitutes copyright infringement, that is irrelevant.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though your 90+% is a tad exaggerated, would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth? How about committing vandalism or looting? How about writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside?

Something isn't right just because "everyone is doing it" ...

Right... such as occupying foreign countries, drinking alcohol, premarital sex, abortion, gay marriage, smoking cigarettes, singing folk songs, watching movies with friends, playing video games with friends, making backup copies of software/videos/songs you've purchased, jaywalking, speeding, taking photographs on private property, carrying a firearm in public, being in public without national ID, offering legal advice, swapping recipes with others....

It isn't right just because "everyone is doing it" just like it isn't wrong just because it runs afoul of some law. It's a lot more complicated than that, and often the solution should be different on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the judge ruled that there's a bigger problem that needs to be investigated, and so rejected the case-by-case method.

Oh, and with regards to your smoking pot quip... I'm pretty sure at least 65% of the people where I live smoke pot -- more than smoke cigarettes. Many people around the world have no issues with others smoking pot; it's definitely not as bad for either the user or the general public as cigarettes or driving while talking on the phone.

Re:This is how I see it

[WrongSizeGlass]

So, is everyone engaged in looting, vandalism or sending Anthrax around?
...
Pretty intellectually dishonest, if you ask me.

Actually they were examples and were grouped accordingly:
* smoking pot or meth: potentially harming oneself
* committing vandalism or looting: actually harming others property
* writing hate mail or sending envelopes with an unknown white powder inside: actions that are perceived as harming others but not actually causing physical harm (yes, it can be argued that they may or may not cause phycological harm in the same vein that file sharing or downloading may or may not be considered stealing).

90+% of people aren't doing anything except breathing and eating (at least I hope over 90% of people are eating). If something is illegal it doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be illegal just because a large percentage of the population does it. Burning1 (204959) mentioned racism and he's right. Racism is a far better example of something that has been practiced by a vast majority of a population that shouldn't be legalized (and no, I'm not advocating the 'thought police').

If a significant portion of the population wants to change a law they can do so through the usual process of ballot measures and contacting legislators. Just keep in mind that even if a majority votes for something it can still be deemed unconstitutional by the courts. I'm not saying a "file sharing" ballot initiative would be considered unconstitutional, I'm simply extending the argument that just because a large percentage of the population wants something to be legal that it doesn't guarantee it will be.

Re:This is how I see it

[ScentCone]

The only loss is a hypothetical loss of income

Are you really going to sit there and suggest that hundreds of millions of kids downloading pirated music and movies aren't, in some portion, doing it to avoid having to pay for their entertainment? Really?

It's quite Kafkaesque that the penalty for duplication would be vastly higher than the penalty for outright theft.

Except we're not talking about the quaint practice of copying a track from an LP onto a cassette for a friend, are we? We're talking about using a massive distribution network to deliberately make works available to millions of anonymous people, in perfect copies. I agree, though, that perhaps the penalties for theft should be stiffer.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, red herrings.

Re:This is how I see it

[guyminuslife]

No - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - you can't say "But I didn't know!".

Actually, it is. That is exactly the issue at stake. From TFA:

Under 504(c)(1), an infringer is ordinarily liable for statutory damages of “not less than $750 or more than $30,000” per work infringed. In a case involving an “innocent infringer,” however, the minimum statutory damages that must be awarded are reduced. Specifically, if the infringer proves that he or she “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement,” then the minimum statutory damages per violation are $200. 504(c)(2).

E.g., if she didn't know, she can get a smaller fine.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

If 90% of the population was smoking up we wouldn't have this problem in the first place >:)

Re:This is how I see it

[Brett Buck]

There's these things you may have heard of - Compact Disc Digital Audio (CD's for short). They cost about $10.

         

Re:This is how I see it

[Brett Buck]

And, moreover, why do you expect to execute a boycott, but expect to still be able to benefit with no impact to you. It's your decision to make a statement with a boycott, sorry, but that has some consequences. And you certainly don't have an inalieniable right to boycott something but still get it anyway, sort of defeats any sort of moral stand you might be making.

Your argument is one of the most pathetic I have heard for this, and that's really setting the bar high.

Re:This is how I see it

[IronChef]

I think the number of people who do not understand what they can legally do is a lot higher than you estimate.

Buying a sketchy looking copy of a CD with a crudely photocopied insert on a streetcorner--that is obviously illegal to most people.

But "sharing" some files that someone gave to you... or making a friend a mix CD... those common acts of piracy are not recognized by a lot of people, in my experience.

Re:This is how I see it

[pipedwho]

Couple things:
But I am under the impression the claim of "innocence" was "I lacked the intent but still committed the act," which is not a defense to copyright infringement IIRC.

It goes beyond that. She is claiming that not only did she lack intent, but also the knowledge that she was committing the alleged 'offence'.

When using complex software that you don't really understand the workings of, it is probably correct to assume that you wouldn't know what laws you were violating (if any) when using that software.

Think of it like setting up an unsecured file share on your Windows PC and not realising that it is being broadcast across the public internet. And then when the RIAA comes knocking at your door asking for millions of dollars, you claim that you're not sharing anything. In fact, the file share may have been set up by someone else when installing your machine and you may not even know it exists. Either way, you were completely unaware that any 'sharing' was occurring until the RIAA lawyers showed you their evidence and someone explained it to you.

In all of the above examples, and that described in the summary, you are 'innocent' in the sense that you not only had no intent to share your files, but you also had no idea that this sharing was even occurring.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue here is that from a social contract standpoint, this isn't illegal -- people teach each other songs all the time, and people communicate all the time. In order for you to know this activity is illegal, you need to know the specific laws involved in the place where you live.

For example, in many parts of the world, what she did would not be illegal. In some circumstances in the US, what she did wouldn't be illegal.

Compare this for example to the "Dukes of Hazard speed trap" syndrome -- some county makes a killing off of fining people for going over the speed limit -- that changes just before the car goes past the sign. This is actually a very similar situation, as the innocent sharer was doing something that is sometimes illegal and sometimes isn't, depending on what the courts decide. In both cases, there is no immediate harm to anyone if the law was not followed, and the reason for enforcing can be called into question more than the reason for infringing.

Re:This is how I see it

[Unkyjar]

I understand what you mean, you do the crime and you should do the time. I've done my bit before and taken my medicine from a court and I argued with my parents that the sentencing was fair even if we thought what I had done was harmless. Wrong is wrong and it's true that some punishment should be levied, still, excessive punishment is excessive punishment. I would suspect that even the process of having to go through the trial would discourage this individual from file sharing again, but a fine of a couple thousand dollars would definitely make it stick, but nearly thirty thousand dollars and far, far more in other cases? The only reason the RIAA could be seeking these amounts is to discourage others, and I think at that point you stop punishing this girl for what she has done and start punishing her for what other people might do.

The past decade or more of these RIAA cases have been less about teaching people that file sharing copyrighted material is wrong and more about trying to make them scared of it. And it doesn't seem to be working, the punishments are so excessive that rather than feeling regret for a misdeed, it makes the people being charged (and others) get defensive and rationalize what they did, blaming the RIAA for their situation rather than themselves. And that's because the RIAA IS responsible for asking for such ridiculous amounts.

Just my two cents to chew the cud over.

Re:This is how I see it

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah - I lol'd at that too. However essentially what her defence came down to is "Ignorance" - which is not a defence here in Oz and probably isn't accepted as a defence in the US too.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Ignorance of facts can very much be a defense, depending on the situation. Like in this case, where it actually makes a difference whether you know that something is under copyright or whether you mistakenly believe that it isn't. This is a case where the law actually says that ignorance is a defense.

In this case, what might really be relevant is this: was she ignorant of how the file sharing software worked? If may be that she really didn't know that she was sharing files. In fact that's been an issue in RIAA cases before, people that honestly did not know that the stupid P2P program was sharing all their downloads by default. It's also telling that (according to Ray Beckerman) pretty much all of those suits have been about people sharing files, not downloading them. Downloading doesn't constitute distribution: making files available for upload does (apparently it doesn't matter if anyone actually downloads said files from you, or if it can even be proven that anyone did.)

I don't know what particular app she was using (not having RTFA) but most, if not all, of the programs in use at the time did automatically enable sharing of downloads. Some early Gnutella clients even shared the entire hard drive without informing the user. The intent, I presume, was to make the network more valuable and useful, because there would be more files available.

Re:This is how I see it

[drsmithy]

If you steal a music CD from a store, and then make a bunch of copies and start distributing them, expect the same penalty. The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work.

This is one area of the law where intent is clearly not being given the weighting it deserves.

Most people pirating aren't doing it because they want to distribute, they're doing it because they want to download. With that in mind, they shouldn't be being punished as if their intent was to distribute.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually it's not harder to understand.
It puts it into a plain picture, that can be understood in a 1,2,3 scenario.

Re:This is how I see it

[drsmithy]

It is also safe to say that the majority of people also speed in their cars, which means since everybody does it, every street should be like the AutoBahn.

Generally speaking, the only places where the majority of people are speeding, are places where the speed limit really should be higher (or the road design should be modified). It's quite uncommon for large numbers of people to dangerously exceed the speed limit.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance (of her actions) is a valid defense, to be forced to pay $200+ per infringement instead of $750+. So it's not a total exemption.

Re:This is how I see it

[ScrewMaster]

Would you allow me to decide what the limits of punishment should be if someone deprives you of your rights? And you don't get to decide which rights are under consideration, just because this conversation happens to be about copyright in particular.

Is copyright a right in the same sense as freedom of speech or religion? In the US, Congress merely has the power to establish (or abolish) copyright laws. One could argue that even if it is a right, then it exists in a balance with the others. Why does your copyright trump my freedom of speech?

More to the point, copyright, in its current incarnation, is an abomination that is being used in wholly inappropriate and (I presume) unintended ways. Human lives are being destroyed for ... what? Profit? Not even that. There has been no significant legal redress in these cases: by most accounts the RIAA is losing money (or maybe making some, depending upon who you talk to) but no additional funds are being distributed to the creators of the music, nor are the rightsholders gaining any remuneration. Matter of fact, the media companies themselves are losing millions of dollars on this stupid, destructive, downright inept abuse of our copyright system, and that's in addition to whatever losses (real or imaginary) they have sustained through copyright infringment via P2P. Anyone who thinks what the RIAA is doing is appropriate is whacked in the head, or on somebody's payroll. The RIAA is doing this solely for the benefit of the RIAA: they're the only ones getting anything out of this. Presumably they still bill by the hour.

Re:This is how I see it

[drsmithy]

What they did is illegal, and ignorance of the law is no defense against guilt, but it should be a mitigating factor in determining punishment.

Have you memorised the entire legal code of your country ? Has anyone in your entire life given you the opportunity to even look at it ?

Ignorance of the law should absolutely be a defense against guilt. In modern times, more so than ever.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

Are you really going to sit there and suggest that hundreds of millions of kids downloading pirated music and movies aren't, in some portion, doing it to avoid having to pay for their entertainment? Really?

It doesn't matter if they are doing it to avoid paying; what matters is whether or not they would have paid were they not able to pirate. That's the only case where there is lost income. But having to ask what would have happened were circumstances different, regardless of what you think the answer would be, is the definition of "hypothetical".

So no, I'm not saying that none of these kids would payed for their music if that was their only choice. I believe many would have. I think it would be much less than what was pirated in nearly all cases, though. A huge downloader with 50,000 songs was not going to spend $50,000 at the Apple store. A teenager who copies half a dozen albums, but who has $15, would not have bought half a dozen albums, they would have bought at most one. They may not have bought any and spent that $15 on something else. It's hypothetical either way.

Theft on the other hand causes real losses, as in actual in the reality in which the theft occurs, not hypothetical at all. There's also the hypothetical question of what the thief would have done if they couldn't steal. But the point is you don't have to try to divine whether or not they would have paid retail for the items stolen to calculate the losses. You can simply look at what was actually lost.

Except we're not talking about the quaint practice of copying a track from an LP onto a cassette for a friend, are we? We're talking about using a massive distribution network to deliberately make works available to millions of anonymous people, in perfect copies.

Actually we're talking about one teenage girl who downloaded 37 songs, equivalent to a lazy afternoon of cassette duping while chatting on the phone. But because it's not "quaint", we're going to treat her like a criminal mastermind and penalize her dozens of times worse than if she had ripped off a record store.

I agree, though, that perhaps the penalties for theft should be stiffer.

I'm okay with making them stiffer, as long as they are still proportional to the actual harm done, as long as it is also true that the penalty is significantly greater than cases of only hypothetical harm.

Re:This is how I see it

[SETIGuy]

would you say the same thing if 90+% of the population were smoking pot or meth?

Weren't you ever a teenager? Were you convinced by that stale argument from your parents?

Kid: Mom, I'm going to the mall to buy a Miley Cyrus Poster. Everyone's got one!

Mom: You don't need one! If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?

Kid: Mom, are you stupid enough to think that buying a poster and jumping off a bridge are equivalent activities, or do you think I am?

WHACK!

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT: There is NO theft at all. YOU made that copy of the work - not the person whom from you copy, leaving the person with the original. And theft, so far, has never been a super or subset of copyright infringement in any sense - affirmed, for example, by Dowling v. U.S [1985] and the Grokster case, unless you call Judge Noonan a liar.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

I can tell [more accurately] that you can't make intellectually honest arguments.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

Are you really going to sit there and suggest that hundreds of millions of kids downloading pirated music and movies aren't, in some portion, doing it to avoid having to pay for their entertainment?

That isn't the point being made - the point was about the difference between "real" loss and hypothetical loss.

We're talking about using a massive distribution network to deliberately make works available to millions of anonymous people, in perfect copies

Of course, there's the rub - HOW do you quantify any solid numbers.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

Are you comparing shoplifting CDs and recieving stolen property to this? [For those of you who don't know, the case that separated theft and copyright infringement which is often cited here dealt with THAT EXACT argument comparing posession of/ trafficking of stolen goods to copyright infringement]

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

And theft, so far, has never been a super or subset of copyright infringement in any sense - affirmed, for example, by Dowling v. U.S [1985] and the Grokster case, unless you call Judge Noonan a liar.

The Judge only found it to not be a subset in a legal sense, and I'm not disputing that, so no.

In the non-legal practical and ethical sense of what is actually lost here, it is in fact a superset.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just call it what it actually is...Identity fraud.

Fraud is a well-established concept and much more appropriate than theft or violation. Just like theft is a well-established concept that is not at all appropriate for copyright violations.

Re:This is how I see it

[Internalist]

If this becomes the norm we might as well start actually stealing from stores, since the penalty is so much smaller.

THIS. I recently moved to the US from Canada...the law is much clearer here about what kinds of penalties await. I won't be downloading anymore...but I may just turn to petty theft.

(j/k DHS...I'll be a good J-1, I promise!)

Re:This is how I see it

[Maxo-Texas]

In most cases,people stop uploading at a 1:1 ratio- so she likely only distributed 1 copy of each song. If she was a leecher, she probably distributed less than 1 copy of each song.

The fines are completely heinous. But folks do still have the option of recording the song off the radio, youtube, etc. Or using sneakernet. Or just turning it down and getting the free music (lots of it decent now)out there.

Re:This is how I see it

[SETIGuy]

Actually, recording from the radio and making mix tapes has always been illegal for the same reasons as today.

You may actually want to go read the Copyright laws. Recording from the radio for personal use is legal. You probably give away or loan recorded radio recordings, since that doesn't require making additional copies and therefore wouldn't be a copyright violation. If the RIAA say no loaning, but if they wanted to make an issue of that in court, they would probably lose. Making mp3's from your CD and putting them on your computer and your mp3 player is very likely to be fair use, but AFAIK this has not been tested in court, nor would the RIAA want it to be because they again would lose. Keeping a copy of a purchased mp3 on your computer and your mp3 player is also fair use (backup), (and is probably explicitly part of your purchase agreement anyway.) Making mix tapes for personal use probably falls under fair use as well, as long as you don't give them away without destroying your copies of the songs.

Then again, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Re:This is how I see it

[shentino]

The nice thing about laws that make everyone a criminal is that the government gets to pick and choose who gets prosecuted. And knowing the right people certainly helps.

Re:This is how I see it

[Jenming]

*waives his legalize pot sign around*

Re:This is how I see it

[shentino]

It's a shame that the legal system is so backlogged in the first place that SCOTUS has to make such decisions to begin with.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chris Burke]

Kid: Mom, are you stupid enough to think that buying a poster and jumping off a bridge are equivalent activities, or do you think I am?

WHACK!

Okay, the kid does have a good point, and sure the argument her Mom was using was lame to the point of insulting, but roundhouse kicking her mother in the head was going too far!

Unless I'm misunderstanding the sequence of events (on purpose).

Re:This is how I see it

[TheoMurpse]

Except that is not at all close to what happened here. If you follow the frigging hypertext reference trail (FTFHTRT, pronounced "fit fa hit rit"), you will read that the girl

admitted to using KaZaA as well as downloading and sharing music over the P2P network, but said she didn't realize what she was doing was wrong.

So she admitted to knowingly sharing files over the Internet; she just thought it was legal to do so.

So, as I characterized earlier, her "innocent infringement" defense was nothing more than "I didn't know what I was knowingly doing was against the law."

Re:This is how I see it

[bzipitidoo]

You are talking as if downloading is inherently wrong. With the Internet, we have a fantastically better way of distributing information than the old ways of pressing CDs, or vinyl records, or printing books. It's way cheaper. Way, way cheaper. For the sake of the economy, the environment, and our personal budgets it behooves us to USE it! Do you like paying for a plastic disk, jewel case, and wrappings, and overhead for delivery, shelf space, and trash removal for this material? I don't. And no, I will not pay all those unnecessary costs for the sake of an antiquated business model.

Don't cut Big Media any slack on this. Don't apologize for them. They're costing us all a great deal of money, and that is the real wrong going on here. The sooner we can force them to finally give up this loser campaign of terror, the sooner we can realize these huge savings they are trying to keep from us all for no reason that is of any benefit to the public, no matter what they claim. Information is far too easily and quietly copyable for any regulation to be at all enforceable. Copying cannot be controlled. The only question is when our laws and business models will catch up with this fact of nature. Meantime, their greed should not be allowed to destroy random teenagers' lives with ridiculous damage awards.

Let the kids download and copy all they want. In fact, encourage it. Nothing at all immoral about it. Stop criminalizing this activity. There are other ways to compensate the artists.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

it is in a true democracy

Re:This is how I see it

[markass530]

to those who are tech inclined, yea I'm sure they (myself included) know it's illegal. But My nephew doesn't know a fucking thing about copyright laws. He does however know how to fire up limewire and download music. He wasn't even aware he was sharing the music he downloaded, since it happens AUTOMATICALLY! Don't make assumptions about what other people may know, or not know, assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

Re:This is how I see it

[LongearedBat]

If something is not illegal, then it's not illegal.
If something is socially acceptable, then it's socially acceptable.
But that still doesn't make it right.

It is when things are not right, that people eventually stand up against it, such as racism, slavery and torture.
Some things are fine, until abused. When abused, it's no longer right, so people start standing up against it. (ex. using drugs for rituals vs. abusing drugs causing lives to be ruined)

There's a saying:
Rather than do what you think is best,
Do what you know is right.
(Mostly, the best option is usually also the right option, but not always. And if you stop and think for a moment, you can usually tell the difference between seems best and what feels right.)

Re:This is how I see it

[LongearedBat]

As far as I understand it, she was not punished for downloading music, but for uploading music. And as you say, she probably didn't have the technical knowledge to be aware that her completed downloads were automatically used for uploads. This is why I think that "innocence" is a perfectly valid defence in this case.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

She knew exactly what she was doing.

How can one assert this? Are we going to assume judges are all-knowing oracles or psychics? We might as well do away with the judicial system then.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the "innocence" in quotes they were referring to was child "innocence" ... the opposite of guilty in the cuorts is NOT guilty, not innocent. However, you are correct that "naivete" is more accurate.

Re:This is how I see it

[bzipitidoo]

Boycott? Sorry, but that is not practical. I'd love to see bad businesses brought to heel by massive boycotts, but that's just not happening. It would be like cutting off our feet to protest practices of the shoe business. And, what if they outlaw boycotts? Then what? Think they can't try that?

We could petition our representatives, but there are many reasons why that is also ineffective, not least the corrupt lobbying process that has them giving preference to narrow corporate interests that are decidedly against the public interest.

We could launch massive class action lawsuits. The content industries have played fast and loose with all kinds of laws. Remember that Hollywood was started as far from Broadway as possible, to make it difficult for Broadway to assert their rights. They've cheated their suppliers, engaged in monopolistic activity that surely violates anti-trust law, engaged in racketeering, and more. But this also is impractical. How could such a thing be started? Even if such suits were launched, how could they possibly win in the face of current law? And what if they did win? Would that be enough to force real change?

Or we could all turn ourselves in, in an attempt to overwhelm the justice system and our prisons. That'd be a sort of boycott, but worse. Not happening.

We could try a hunger strike. Can't imagine that getting any traction. I can see them laughing at the mere thought.

Law and order is all very well. But the law is far from perfect. Sometimes no other way is as effective. You have to break a bad law to bring about change. You don't have to commit murder and mayhem.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

claiming "innocence" was no defense

I guess there's a reason they wrote it in quotes, but I was under the impression that innocence, by definition, is in fact always a defense. Apparently not.

Being innocent of the charges against you is always a defense, one she didn't even try if I recall. The "innocence" is scare quoted because the current claim is "innocent infringement"--ie, that she didn't intend to break the law. There is no question of whether she performed the act in question. Whether or not lack of intent or ignorance is a defense, or a mitigating factor, depends on the law in question. Sometimes it is, sometimes not.

IIRC, this was one case where a settlement was offered and she declined. (Not at all sure, all these cases that get slashdot worked up do meld together.) That does seem to limit the legal system's willingness to be lenient after the fact--you've made the courts and the aggrieved party spend all this time and money on the chance that it'd be too much work, or bad publicity, or a jury would be sympathetic to a minor, and you'd get off scott free. Having chosen to gamble and lost, courts are hesitant to let you pick your chips up off the table.

It still seems excessive to me. OTOH the damages are set that high in order to be a deterrent, even if the likelihood of being caught is low and cost of being prosecuted is high.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the quoted innocence meant ignorance, not legal innocence.

Re:This is how I see it

[Thing 1]

I just finished the book "Three Felonies a Day" which was recommended to me here on Slashdot. I highly recommend you read it as well; "the excuses some people use are ridiculous", yes, like "I had asked the government whether I was in compliance and they said that I was; then I was thrown in jail for supporting terrorists." The basic theory behind this book is that there are so many laws on the books now, that every citizen, on average, commits three felonies every day. I heard something on NPR today about California and their prison population crisis, where inmates are dying due to lack of adequate medical treatment. Imagine, being thrown in jail for enjoying the wrong type of cigarette in public, and fucking dying because of it. That is wrong on so many levels, all of them caused by over-enforcement.

Re:This is how I see it

[Thing 1]

To add to this, I heard this evening that Netflix accounts for 20% of all Internet traffic in the evenings in the US. This is one reason that Comcast is being dicks about charging Level 3 for traffic, when Comcast is supposed to be a common carrier. Tiering off the Internet? Be careful what you wish for; it's supposed to route around damage.

Re:This is how I see it

[Solandri]

If this becomes the norm we might as well start actually stealing from stores, since the penalty is so much smaller.

If you steal a music CD from a store, and then make a bunch of copies and start distributing them, expect the same penalty. The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work.

This argument keeps coming up despite it being wrong. There are two possible types of crime here. One in which an individual steals copies of music they want. Another in which one individual mass-produces copies of songs for others. Common sense dictates that this case is one of the former. You are arguing that it is the latter. Let's see what happens when we carry your argument through.

Say she shared a song with 3 people. By your argument, she is responsible for making 2 copies. But what about the other two people? They also shared the song, so by your argument they are also responsible for making 2 copies. 3 people * 2 copies = 6 copies. Your argument leads to the illogical conclusion that there are 6 illegal copies which need to be prosecuted, although only 2 copies were added to the universe.

Now what if we make each person who downloads a song illegally responsible for their single download? Then she is in the clear for sharing the song, and each of the 2 other people are responsible for 1 copy each. 2 people * 1 copy = 2 copies. Total new copies in the universe = 2. Hey, we have a winner.

The logic you're using (which was the original logic for the enormous penalties for commercial copyright infringement) was for cases where someone burned a thousand illegal copies of a CD and sold them. In that case, the people buying the illegal CDs weren't seen as committing a crime. They paid for their copy, so morally they did nothing wrong. The entire penalty for the crime thus felt on the person burning the thousand CDs. 1000 illegal copies burned, 1000 illegal copies added to the universe, and the one person was completely and solely responsible for every one of them.

What the RIAA is doing (and what you've fallen for) is a perversion of that logic, applying commercial copyright penalties to what is clearly a case of individual infringement. I'm willing to accept slightly higher penalties than shoplifting due to the way these illegal copies grow and spread like cancer once they're on the net. But the penalty per person needs to be set much closer to shoplifting than to commercial copyright infringement like it is now.

Re:This is how I see it

[speedplane]

Good point. But even if the Supreme Court took this case and ruled in the infringer's favor, she would still owe at least $200 per song, which would work out to $7400. See 17 USC 504(c)(2) ("In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200").

Re:This is how I see it

[pxc]

We could call it fraud or impersonation, since that's what it really is.

Re:This is how I see it

[SheeEttin]

I believe the word is in quotes because the word she was looking for was "ignorance", as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Of course, when The Law is hundreds of pages, generally inaccessible to the public, requires the assistance of a lawyer in reading it, AND is constantly modified in meaning but not writing by case law, it sure as hell should be...

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it illegal?
Case law has repeatedly stated it is legal to copy content you have no paid for (with the exception of decrypting content like dvd). However, case law has also stated that it is illegal to give that content to someone else.

People are being prosecuted not for downloading, but for sharing. The RIAA hires a company that downloads a shared file from someone and then they go to court against that person. They do not go after people they can not download from and for good reason.

When it is not a civil lawsuit (like the DOJ taking down topsites) the people caught are charged with 'conspiracy to defraud' not 'copyright infringement' because it isn't illegal, and it isn't piracy either. Just by simply stating that it is illegal proves the defendants point. Little to no one knows the actual law.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

claiming "ignorance" was no defense.

I think that is why it is in quotes and what she is trying to say. I don't get why your innocence matters when considering the penalty for the crime? I thought you wouldn't be convicted if you were innocent. This all makes my head hurt, but I guess that's why IANAL or a politician.

Re:This is how I see it

[sjames]

The claim that ignorance of the law is no excuse might have once held water, but these days it's unconscionable. There is not a single person anywhere in the U.S. that actually does know every law in their jurisdiction. There's not even a formal listing of laws in their current form, just a bunch of patches to patches to patches with the final resulting text recorded nowhere at all.

We all know that murder, robbery and such are illegal, and those of us who drive understand the major traffic laws reasonably well, but there's a bunch of stuff hardly any of us know. It's quite easy to imagine we might innocently break those laws.

Back in the days of Napster, I can easily see people believing file trading to be perfectly legal. After all, there was a corporation that existed solely to help us trade files, it MUST be legal!

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

So with your statement it is perfectly fine to download a file then not share it. At that point I've successfully downloaded an entire mp3, but did not actually share it with anyone else (ie: redistribute).

Also, copyright is a civil issue, not a criminal one so stop comparing shoplifting since the two aren't even remotely considered the same in a court of law. Also, there is a huge issue in that government as a whole *still* doesn't know how PCs, the internet, and today's normal technology even works. Hell half probably can't logon to their computers for more than a week before forgetting their password or how to do formatting in Word, Excel, or Access. That in and of itself doesn't boad well if a case does get to the SCOTUS or even a new law getting passed by Congress. Ted Stevens showed that Congress can have the most asinine people behind them explaining stuff with horrible analogies; or explaining PC technology on their own using horrible analogies. Or did we forget that Al Gore invented the internet?

My point is that there are very serious repercussions when this whole mess gets sorted out. Most of it will be defining wordage and getting a courts definition of technology terms which already have their own meanings which to me seem pretty straightforward, but I work in the industry so... The people who are fighting tooth and nail know that this isn't so cut and dry due to the inherent nature of how networking and data on a PC is stored. And the biggest issue comes down to the fact that the RIAA wants a piece of the pie and has since the 90s when they figured out they were going the way of the dodo bird.

Now I will make one concession in that music released before it is even at the stores brings a whole new can of worms into the picture. The best response I have for that is the industry needs to cover itself better. No one can be blamed except for the people they hire, the network security they keep, and the artists themselves. Just because someone writes the music doesn't mean they won't try to release it themselves via any means necessary. Also, that whole quality argument is bunk. The law doesn't state anything about the quality of the recording, just the fact that it occurs. The copyright is on the lyrics and the music not the quality of the recording. The whole point is to safeguard an artistic ideal/creation. Making any sort of reproduction whether it sounds like Alvin and the Chipmunks or not it is still the same song that the lyrics/music cover.

And fwiw 23k is much more affordable for anyone making >35-40k than say 250k or even 1million. And presuming the court gives you a payment plan of say 500 per month and gives you a timespan in years to pay you can pay it in a lifetime and still hopefully make a living.

And to answer the question that this all brings up; ignorance of the law does not excuse you from breaking the law. Try to break a traffic law or a sound ordinance in your town and say "well I didn't know" and let us know how well that works out. I guarantee you that the judge will look you straight in the eye and tell you ignorance isn't an excuse. And if it requires a lawyer and you're without one he'll/she'll promptly tell you it's in your best interest to get one; I'd suggest you do so.

IANAL so take what I say as you will but it's not legal advice.

Re:This is how I see it

[Kjella]

She knew exactly what she was doing. That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift.

It is reasonable to assume that all items in a store with a price tag are for sale, not given away. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that everything you download from P2P is distributed without permission. Obviously a lot of it is, but some will be all sorts of demo/promo/free music under creative commons or other permissive licenses. Some rather big name bands have given away tracks like that, not just garage bands. At least it would make the RIAA very happy if all alternative distribution except from "official" places like iTunes goes away.

Re:This is how I see it

[cheekyjohnson]

one definitely should have a thought about whether this law actually makes sense or not.

I agree, but all I'm saying is that that shouldn't be the only reason.

Just "look at the law and examine if it's past its due date."

Then, I agree.

You try to use the number as a reason, while in reality it's a symptom.

I didn't try to use them as a reason, I was merely saying that numbers alone don't matter. But, I agree that it should be thought of more in depth if so many people are being thought of as criminals.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look. I pirate and many others on /. do as well."

If you define "pirate" as "perform copyright infringements", I would say pretty much everyone does it (yes, even RIAA execs), whether intentionally or not.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

They might've quoted innocence, because the saying typically goes, "Ignorance is not a defense.".

It's true if you've got a license, and you're driving. However, by definition everyone who uses a computer accepts some level of ignorance unless they wrote the software they used to pirate music. I could see several people I know downloading music, and having no idea whether it's legal or not, or being able to intelligently describe what they're doing.

Re:This is how I see it

[Kjella]

In the non-legal practical and ethical sense people also say "He stole my girlfriend" or "He stole a kiss". It might be somewhat rude but not illegal, same way I think that if you've gotten lots of entertainment out of a band you ought to show some gratitude. But it's not under penalty of 150,000$/song.

Re:This is how I see it

[quark is the new up]

Sure, anyone pirating music now knows it's illegal, but this happened when she was a teenager, right? I was born in '84 and can remember downloading music from Kazaa without knowing it was illegal. My cousin put Kazaa on my computer, and *poof* music appeared! I just thought it was another app. I stopped downloading music when I figured out it was illegal, but I could still be charged because I should have seen a copyright notice on a physical device that was not in my possession. That's crazy.

Re:This is how I see it

[dragin33]

I don't know that she did.. I know a some people who installed napster because it was a buzz word but didn't really know how it worked. They also had no idea it was automatically sharing their content. So.. It could happen.

Re:This is how I see it

[Chowderbags]

I am just glad I am not the one getting caught, and I would be in trouble for much more than 37 songs.

Does any else wonder if they're specifically not targeting heavy downloaders (at least not with lawsuits)? I mean, you take someone with a thousand songs downloaded, and even with the judgment reduced to $200 a pop, you're still basically destroying someone financially forever. If you talk about the maximum fine, you end up with numbers that are just plain obvious in how wrong they are. If they keep it small, they still get to strike fear in people without having to convince judges to hand down billion dollar judgments on bored college students.

Re:This is how I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

That seems to be the way the RIAA spins it, but I think the issue is that they can't actually claim that they know the person uploaded the song to other people unless they have proof of that with numbers at which point they can only charge them for the number of uploads given off their PC.

I wish the law field was filled with more computer technicians.

Re:This is how I see it

[Sarius64]

Much like a recent election controversy in California. An opponent's ex-maid (fore for illegal employment and identity theft) admits to conducting identity theft for over nine years on national television and press conferences. Instead of prosecuting the offender, the state attorney general ignores her criminal activity since it gains him political strength(s). California, where our government and the SSA actively promote identity theft!

Re:This is how I see it

[mcgrew]

The trouble is, not all downloading is copyright infringement. Most indie bands want their work to be shared; they don't have radio like the RIAA does. And if I remember hearing a song called "scatterbrain" but don't know who did it, all I can do is download all 1000 songs with that title and hope the artist wants me to have it. I don't want to download RIAA music; I want the major labels to die. But sometimes their stuff winds up on my hard drive and I have to delete it -- but I've still infringed copyright.

If there was no such thing as radio, the RIAA would be encouraging people to share music.

Go to craphound.com and see what Doctorow has to say about it.

Re:This is how I see it

[master_p]

Which is how it's supposed to be, because duplicating bits may be proven to be much more harmful than actual theft.

Re:This is how I see it

[amicusNYCL]

I believe the word is in quotes because the word she was looking for was "ignorance", as in "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

After unsuccessfully trying to find the actual paperwork for the case, but reading about it on Ray Beckerman's blog, it appears that "innocent" in this case indicates that the girl did not know she was infringing copyright. Not that she wasn't aware of copyright laws (which she also wasn't, but that's not the point), but she didn't realize that downloading these files was infringing any copyright. The reason they can make that claim is because she was never presented with any notice that she was infringing, and the RIAA argues that she should have known that they were copyrighted, because the copyright notice appears on the actual CD. Her attorneys argue that there is no CD in this case, just downloaded music (which the girl equated to online radio), and so she is an "innocent infringer" because she was not aware that the files she was downloading were copyrighted, even though the copyright notice appears on the original packaging (which she didn't have access to). In this case specifically, the girl in question didn't even know she was downloading anything, it sounds like she thought this was some sort of internet streaming radio service (or so she claims).

A judge disagreed, and said that if she was interested in whether or not they were copyrighted recordings, she could easily have inquired into that fact (i.e., find the CD packaging and look at it for copyright notices). Therefore, she's not "innocent", she's (willfully?) ignorant (which is not an excuse).

Re:This is how I see it

[amicusNYCL]

What the RIAA is doing (and what you've fallen for) is a perversion of that logic, applying commercial copyright penalties to what is clearly a case of individual infringement.

That's not necessarily true. While people do in fact download copyrighted files just for personal access (most people, anyway), that doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, now also distributing the files unless they take active steps not to. I'm not sure I've "fallen" for anything, people using P2P programs are in fact distributing copyrighted works, so why shouldn't they be charged with distribution of a copyrighted work? Is it because they weren't trying to distribute it, because they only wanted it for themselves but never shut off the automatic on-by-default distribution? That's hardly a legal defense. The RIAA isn't perverting laws, they're using the laws to stop the behavior they were designed to stop. The problem, like you point out, is that these people aren't seeking to actively distribute this content and, like the dissenting SC justice gets at, it's time we look at making new laws that deal with digital distribution instead of using laws written in the 80s when none of this existed.

Re:This is how I see it

[Psychochild]

Except that in P2P, you're not just shoplifting CDs. It's more like stealing CDs then going out front of the store and shouting, "HEY! Anyone want a copy of these CDs?"

Even if you go put the CDs back after a lot of people have copied them (thus no permanent deprivation of property!), you're not exactly doing the store any favors there. I suspect in this case the cops wouldn't just chuckle and say, "kids will be kids!" The thrust of most arguments here seems to be that because copying bits online is easier than copying bits from physical media it should be accepted. Some of us don't agree with that argument.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't know she was downloading a copy of the music. She didn't understand how P2P file sharing worked. She assumed she was listening to the music via some streaming mechanism. If you read the court case in full you can understand her ignorance.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

Except most likely, if not almost always, the music put on P2P networks was purchased from somewhere, so your analogy still sucks.

Re:This is how I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

"That would be like me shoplifting from a store that did not have a Shoplifters will be prosecuted sign" and claiming that I did not know I could not shoplift."

It's more like you taking a photograph of a painting in a museum not knowing it's not allowed. Then when you go to get it developed, the people there make copies for themselves. Then you end up being charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. You didn't steal the painting, you made a lesser-quality reproduction of it for personal use, and you didn't know others were making their own copies of your copy.

Re:This is how I see it

[Travelsonic]

The past decade or more of these RIAA cases have been less about teaching people that file sharing copyrighted material is wrong

When it should be that sharing copyrighted works WITHOUT PERMISSION is wrong - or rather, ILLEGAL [morality =/= legality, and I can think of a circumstance or two where I feel morally OK with it]

Re:This is how I see it

[Unkyjar]

You're right that I did mean file sharing copyrighted work without permission, I had hoped that the context would take care of the lack of technical accuracy in my writing. Also addressing moral vs. legal, I was trying to aim for the moral side of things rather than the legal. I know people will never stop file sharing copyrighted work without permission, but I figure trying to change people's minds and how they feel about the subject by taking the moral high ground is a better use of energies than trying to frighten the kiddies away by fining them for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But what do I know, I'm just an office monkey.

Re:This is how I see it

[Stregano]

Boycotts are very effective. By downloading the music, you are showing the companies that you still want to listen to the music, which means for more popular people, expect to pay $100+ for concert tickets.

Also, I am pretty confident some of you guys are not reading the stuff before it as alot of this are replies from above stuff.

Like boycotting music. I mentioned that because the person above me said that he downloads to protest against the industry.

Also, I am pretty confident that if you got together with a few people and cut your feet off to protest a shoe company, something would happen. Boycotting the music industry means you just do nothing. You are not cutting off your feet, which is a little of a poor example, but whatever.

Whether they change or not does not matter. What matters is that you hold your ground. Or, you can download the music illegally and let the industry know who they should start bumping concert ticket prices up on. Don't worry, if you don't go to concerts, others will.

Petitioning out representatives would not work. What would you tell them, "Can you talk to Sony and ask them to lower their prices on CDs?"

Class action lawsuit, maybe. What ground would you sue them based off of when you are piratting in the beginning? Tell them to lower their prices so that you can stop piratting. You will get a nice counter-suit thrown in your face.

No matter how you look at it. No matter what excuse you use, you know it is illegal. You can say you are doing it to protest or because of the high prices and, quite possibly the worst one I have ever heard, because everybody else is doing it. The funny thing is that there is one excuse which is bad, but plausable which is about this case. The bad thing is that if you look through after my first post on this and see the other excuses, some of them are much, much worse.

Seriously /. go'ers, you know what you are doing. Maybe you are correct and this kid was oblivious to it, but you guys are not. If you are on /. you know what you are doing and you know the penalties very well.

What are you going to do if you get caught? Use as your defense in the case that you were protesting and that you deserve that right as an American? Do you really think that will fly in court? Oh, what about this one: Everybody else is doing it, so since so many people are doing it, it can't be wrong. Really? Come on now /. You guys are smarter than that. You are on /. so the bandwagon excuse will not fly on this site.

If I get busted, too bad for me. That is life. I know good and well what I am doing.

The reason why I personally do it, it is cheap and easy. That is it. I am not making excuses and know full and well what I am doing, but then again, I have been doing it since long before things like LimeWire came out.

Re:This is how I see it

[bzipitidoo]

Copying should be legal.

No matter what excuse you use, you know it is illegal.

No, I do not know that. A work could be out of copyright. It could have been released to the public domain, or under a license that specifically allows copying. Even if it isn't legal, it could be mislabeled, deliberately or not, as something that is legal to download. This is similar to the issue of the shrinkwrapped EULA. You don't know what you've downloaded until you examine it.

By downloading the music, you are showing the companies that you still want to listen

I wouldn't put it that way. It's not a matter of "want to listen", it's that music is a natural consequence of the way our minds work. It may seem that we can all live without music, that music is merely a luxury. We aren't certain what purpose music serves, if any, but we have evidence that it is connected with sex. We really can't avoid it. And thanks to monopolistic efforts, there is no significant body of music that they do not control. Supposedly we can't even sing "Happy Birthday" without permission. Boycotting is not a viable option. No one should be allowed this control of such a significant part of our lives. Nor should we have to deny ourselves, at who knows what cost, to break their control.

Gentleman, start your shoplifting

[Anonymous Coward]

Just googling around, the penalty for shoplifting less than $50 worth of goods in California appears to be a mere "infraction" and $250 fine.

Please note, this post is not to be construed as legal advice (IANAL) nor incitement to commit any criminal act.

Re:Gentleman, start your shoplifting

[Rockoon]

My guess is that the chance that someone with even half a brain would get caught in any shoplifting instance is well below 5%.

Remember that shoplifters choose when and where to shoplift, so their chance of success is under their control.

..and for you file sharers out there.. you have the same sort of control. You can choose when and where to do it.

I think that most American nerds have stopped getting their music from P2P sites .. opting instead to rip music directly from otherwise legal high bitrate music streaming sites (grooveshark, last.fm, pandora...) where the distribution angle just wont apply to their "crime."

Re:Gentleman, start your shoplifting

[amicusNYCL]

Please note, this post is not to be construed as legal advice (IANAL) nor incitement to commit any criminal act.

..nor relevant to any aspects of the case.

Re:Gentleman, start your shoplifting

[ToasterMonkey]

Just googling around, the penalty for shoplifting less than $50 worth of goods in California appears to be a mere "infraction" and $250 fine.

If you commandeer a vacant summer home for the summer, what is that worth? A criminal trespassing charge? Prorated mortgage payments? The average rental rate for the area? What if you illegally rent it out for a $beeeelion because of a rare Beatles reunion/Obama Bush boxing/NASA announces life on Moon event while the owners were on vacation in Tahiti. Is that owed to the owners?

If you steal a car, do you owe insurance costs, cab fare, difference in gasoline, refund for missed flight,cruise,shuttle trip to Mars,Obama Bush MMA bout when caught?

Whether the punishment is fair or not, clearly these are apples vs. oranges vs. avocados.

Re:Gentleman, start your shoplifting

[Unkyjar]

It was in reference to a thread of conversation earlier.

Re:Gentleman, start your shoplifting

[Anonymous Coward]

Did California have the three strikes system still? If so, California is probably one of the worst places to perform "infractions."

Why not treble damages?

[FiloEleven]

I understand that punitive damages are assigned to try to curb further abuse. Historically this has been limited to treble damages, though. Why $200 per infringement considered sane, let alone $750? Or does their argument rest on the "making available" principle?

IAObviouslyNAL

Re:Why not treble damages?

[zach_the_lizard]

There is no logic, not really, other than screaming "Theft!" to gullible and technologically illiterate judges and juries. They also cannot differentiate between theft and copyright violation.

Re:Why not treble damages?

[suutar]

There's a special rule for copyright infringement (originally targeted, I believe, at for-profit bootlegging operations) that says "if the rights-holder wants, we can skip all that establishment of real damages and just say $250 per item", and then triple that if it's willful. The idea (if I'm right) was to keep the plaintiff from having to blow crap-loads of money on researching how many folks had bought the bootlegs, and to yield a substantial total to establish a deterring effect. Unintended Consequences, however, allow it to be used on a completely different class of infringer.

Re:Why not treble damages?

[drinkypoo]

It's not based on damages at all. It's based on the fact that it's illegal to violate copyright, and then they made up some number that was smaller than a million but still let them ruin people's lives. They probably had focus groups to decide how much to charge. When people stopped jumping up on the table and screaming and only said "Dear me, that's horrible" they went with the number they were working with.

Well lets see here

[Dyinobal]

I just looked up the cost of CDs on amazon and most were between 5 and 10 USD so the music industry is claiming that she cost them the sale of any where between 2275 to 5550 CDs by sharing those 27 songs for well it doesn't say how long, but seeing as how she was a minor at the time I don't see how a company can justify ruining someone life, at such an early age over 27 songs. Then again that is the problem with corporations, they have more rights than the individual with no moral or ethical qualms other than serving the bottom line.

Re:Well lets see here

[Culture20]

I just looked up the cost of CDs on amazon and most were between 5 and 10 USD so the music industry is claiming that she cost them the sale of any where between 2275 to 5550 CDs by sharing those 27 songs for well it doesn't say how long, but seeing as how she was a minor at the time I don't see how a company can justify ruining someone life, at such an early age over 27 songs. Then again that is the problem with corporations, they have more rights than the individual with no moral or ethical qualms other than serving the bottom line.

I'm sorry, but $27,750 isn't life ruining, even to someone making only $12/hour. A big problem, and a long term debt perhaps. But if she gets a good job, she can pay off that debt in four years or less, easily.

Re:Well lets see here

[smaddox]

Unless she wants to go to college...

Re:Well lets see here

[Dyinobal]

We already know the RIAA suggests you quit college and work solely to pay them off.

Re:Well lets see here

[Shadow99_1]

You do realize courts don't generally allow you to pay in installments, right? So this is a lump sum of $28k, which is likely more than she could make in a year most likely. Oh and $12/hour is funny... Where I live a good job is $12/hour... My mom for instance makes $7.75/hour and even a decade ago as a store manager was making all of $8/hour and denied overtime. So that's basically more than my mom's yearly income a decade ago or even worse now since she's not full time.

This is damning to any one on a low income and has proven to be one of the 'sanest' rulings yet for damages.

Re:Well lets see here

[drinkypoo]

You do realize courts don't generally allow you to pay in installments, right?

You do realize that you are talking directly out of your ass, don't you? Courts are overwhelmingly likely to set up a payment plan for any amount of money, especially if the sucker who has to pay it can't pay all at once; better to get the money out of them eventually. It has the added side-benefit of forcing you to visit the courthouse on a regular basis, so they can check up on you some more. They will take any excuse to sniff up your ass once you're "in the system".

Re:Well lets see here

[Shadow99_1]

This is not paying the court (ie a criminal case) this is a civil law where the idea is you need to pay the other party. They aren't required to accept anything other than some form of lump sum payment. Their are even ways the courts can try to get the money specifically as a lump sum. I have dealt in civil law before. The court typically decides for one party, decides on sum, and expects payment within 'x' time. 'x' time can vary a bit, but 'lifetime repayment' has never been an option I've seen. 'x' is usually 30, 60, or 90 days. Maybe it's different in your state/country, but in mine civil cases don't have long repayment options.

Re:Well lets see here

[TFAFalcon]

Solve this problem in the american way:

1. Get a credit card.
2. Pay of damages with CC.
3. Try to pay of CC debt.
4. Fail, go bankrupt.
5. Profit!

Re:Well lets see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are sorry.
You obviously never made anything less than $15/hour then.
We'll go with $15/hour

$15 * 40 hours = $600 - 30% (all taxes) = $420 * 4 = $1,680
Rent: $700-$800
Food: $100-$150
Fuel: $100-$150
Electricity: $50-$100

That equals $950 - $1,200 for bare minimums of life. That only leaves between $480 - $730 MONTHLY to cover anything other than base survival. Removing that means there's no possibility for clothing, haircuts, repairing the vehicle, or anything else that is considered by civilized populations to be a basic part of life.

Re:Well lets see here

[drsmithy]

I'm sorry, but $27,750 isn't life ruining, even to someone making only $12/hour.

It's probably going to take someone on a wage like $12/hr at least five years to pay back an amount like that, assuming they don't do anything else except work, survive and service the debt.

Five years without a holiday. Five years without an opportunity pursue higher education. Five years without being to save money for either short- or long-term goals. Five years without any luxuries.

Sounds pretty ruinous to me.

Re:Well lets see here

[Jenming]

When she turns 18 she can discharge the debt via bankruptcy.

Re:Well lets see here

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to pirate all your music and movies though, since you wouldn't have much spare cash ;-)

Seriously, the more we pirate, the more absurd and unworkable these laws become. So I say it is up to us all to pirate as much as we can, just on principle.

Re:Well lets see here

[anamin]

Wow no offense, but I think you are out of touch on this. 27,750 is over a years salary at 12/hour. Now factor in housing costs, feeding yourself, and clothing yourself. There isn't alot left over to pay off a 27,750 fine.

Fair Price

[Renraku]

I think $750 per song is a fair price. After all, we live in the Corporate States of America. If you don't like it, get out. This is a sign of things to come.

Re:Fair Price

[MozeeToby]

If you don't like it, get out

Or don't pirate music. I fully agree that $750 is a ridiculous amount for punishment, but the punishment is much easier to avoid than leaving the country. Just. don't. pirate. music. And while you're at it, don't support companies that engage in this behavior. If they're going to be dicks and assholes then screw 'em, let them rot in bankruptcy (if only we could convince enough people for that to actually happen).

Re:Fair Price

[Anonymous Coward]

*Wooosh*
http://wiki.dumpshock.com/index.php/Renraku_Computer_Systems

Re:Fair Price

[igreaterthanu]

I'm not rich so I can't afford to shop at this fancy "Limewire" store. I shop for music at iTunes. With savings of $749.01 per song I have saved $208,244.78 already.

Re:Fair Price

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't bought a CD since that whole Metalica fiasco.

I don't buy songs, don't pirate songs, I pretty much said "fuck those assholes", and let it be that.

Before then, I used to buy Metalica cd's along with other bands of course, I thought it was a crock of shit, and still do.... so now I don't buy or download any of it.

Movies are another story... I like movies, so I subscribe to Netflix and pay my 10 bucks a month, or what ever it is:)

Re:Fair Price

[Shadow99_1]

The problem with this is that the media corporations hold our cultural heritage by the balls. Culture is something we as humans need, even if you personally don't like the last crap the teens like.

I for one thing it's damn well time we ignored them and found some other means of creating and dispersing culture, but they keep blocking our attempts at every turn. The biggest problem is that often as humans we create new culture from old. As it stands now we have nearly 120 years of culture locked away from our use and it gets _worse_ as time goes on. They take things in the public domain and recreate them in new forms, these new forms then lock out recreations of public domain works we do. Disney is perhaps the best known for doing this, but they aren't the only ones.

I for one am also tired of them being able to claim 'piracy' any time their profits aren't astronomically high! You ignore the fact that they get their way more and more the fewer recordings they sell, and convince our governments who eat from their tables that things need to get worse for us because we are robbing them! If they want to call me a pirate I have no compunction about then _being_ a 'pirate' by downloading the few good bits they let slip through their fingers.

Fuck that crap! It's our culture. Not 'theirs'. They should not have been and should not now be allowed to own modern culture. We failed as a people to stop this insanity and now we need to find a solution to the issue we've inherited where the people who produce culture don't _own_ culture collectively. I'm not even saying this as someone who hasn't done their own share of creation, since I'm a trained musician. It won't end music. It won't end movies. It won't end plays. It won't end operas. It won't end concerts. It won't news. It won't end anything except their broken model where they think a corporation should be allowed to hold all rights to the cultural heritage of us all!

Re:Fair Price

[cheekyjohnson]

Just. don't. pirate. music.

Wouldn't doing that be a sign of defeat? A sign that you have admitted that what you were doing was 'wrong'? Whether it would be or not, it probably would be interpreted that way, and nothing would change.

don't support companies that engage in this behavior.

Besides piracy, this is also a valid option. However, even though no one really needs entertainment, chances are if they have no other choice, they'll end up supporting these people. I'd rather see them pirate it (which does no damage to them anyway) than support them. If they somehow get caught, don't pay these idiots a single cent.

Re:Fair Price

[cheekyjohnson]

It won't end anything except their broken model

Whoa, slow down there! There's nothing broken about having to introduce artificial scarcity in order for a few artists and corporations to make money! There's nothing broken about criminalizing people who do nothing more than copy data (this is especially horrible because it 'robs' them of potential future gain, which couldn't at all be applied to everyone in existence)! That's just an insane claim. Clearly we need to be tougher on piracy!

Re:Fair Price

[Shadow99_1]

Yes. Yes there is.

I know your trying to be funny, but I'm five years past laughing about it.

We as a people gave them a limited right to our cultural heritage under the understanding that 1) it was limited and 2) it was because of the cost to distribute. In exchange they could make money from the act of distributing our cultural heritage for the limited time. Then it was ours again.

It didn't even take them 100 years to start screwing with this. It wasn't, specifically, music then. It was books, plays, etc. The last century brought music and movies into this mess and has gone completely insane to the point where they own our history itself and our culture now and for almost two lifetimes (and nearly 7 generations).

The insanity needs to stop. We have moved on as a people and do not need them! Some of them slowly came to realize this and rather than learn how to adapt they want us to revert to times where they had a license to print money.

Re:Fair Price

[thegrassyknowl]

But I'll do it for $749.99!

Re:Fair Price

[shentino]

The MAFIAA doesn't give a shit if you're innocent or not.

A recent slashdot article established that at the very least their lawyers sure don't.

The only way MAFIAA is going to die is if their settlement gravy train goes away. People need to start fighting back and raising a big stink. That recent guy who got sued for giving out self help packets is a blessing and people need to give him their business.

Re:Fair Price

[Anonymous Coward]

You know full well that it would never happen.
if enough people stopped buying music, the *AA would just scream "piracy" louder and louder until the Federal Gov forces each and every one of us to pay a *AA tax on harddrives, computer equipment, CDs/DVDs, microphones, and pretty much everything else we buy that is even remotely involved with listening to or producing music. It would be a stealth bailout for the recording industry at the expense of the taxpayer.

How about, no more CD taxes going to a private company, no more Gov "protection" of their outdated model, and if they find someone violating copyright, they have to bring that person up on charges just like everyone else (no blanket John Doe subpoena, no police powers, no going around the system just to save them money). Then there just might be a remote chance of forcing them into bankruptcy by not buying their crap.

All we need now is

[unity100]

wikileaks exposing this pieces of crap as they are. a few 'trade secret' communications in between execs and their henchmen should wake the whole public up to the shit these are pulling.

Re:All we need now is

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, it will continue and it will get worse..

why??

It is all about the IP (intellectual property) now in the ole US of A. If that is not protected and is shared freely.. what else is there??

Re:All we need now is

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks is a front that only does damage against the US gov't and its banks (supposedly).

It's not interested in dealing with other important issues or other countries.

Re:All we need now is

[tenchikaibyaku]

On a related note, I'm hoping that there'll be something interesting about The Pirate Bay among the leaked documents from the embassy in Stockholm..

Re:All we need now is

[blair1q]

All wikileaks needs is a torrent server and they can catch them all.

Oh wait. You mean the corporations. Sorry.

In corporate America ....

[Anonymous Coward]

In corporate America, you serve corporations!

No, .. corporations serve you! Oh God! No fucking way!

Hold on....

In corporate America, justice serves corporations!

Ah no ... not quite....

Ah, fuck it! We're screwed!

Sir Richard Says Just Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

In a recent interview Sir Richard Branson, when asked about his worst business decision, replied that it was thinking (re V2 Records a few years ago) that the traditional recording industry would survive the next decade.

His best decision? Spaceship One.

One of your examples is not like the other

[RingDev]

Last I checked, as soon as a person is 18 years old, they are free to model naked. Also, once a person is 18 years old, they are free to observe naked models.

You don't lose those rights when you turn 50.

-Rick

Re:One of your examples is not like the other

[Haedrian]

"they are free to model naked" ... "You don't lose those rights when you turn 50."

Maybe you should. For all of us.

Refuse to Hear

[nurb432]

This is why all along i have said that the Supreme Court is the most powerful part of our federal government. They can allow clearly unconstitutional laws to stand on a whim and never even get their hands dirty. And we as people have ZERO recourse, except violent revolution. ( peaceful revolution at the ballet box wont work since the judges are appointed for life )

This is one of the 2 the major flaws that our founders left us with. ( The other was support for amending the Constitution beyond the first 10 amendments )

So once again, our rights as citizens get trampled, and denied our 'day in court'. "America, home of the free", it was great while it lasted.

Re:Refuse to Hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, so you think the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) was a mistake?

Re:Refuse to Hear

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm pretty sure the first 10 amendments sufficiently covered that topic already, but were conveniently ignored. So, for some reason, it had to be restated that slaves were, in fact, humans, and therefore had rights. Good amendment, but stupidity knows no bounds.

Re:Refuse to Hear

[blair1q]

This is one of the 2 the major flaws that our founders left us with. ( The other was support for amending the Constitution beyond the first 10 amendments )

Without support for amendments, there would be at least 15 more major flaws that they left us with. (17 minus adoption and repeal of prohibition).

Re:Refuse to Hear

[BarefootClown]

They can allow clearly unconstitutional laws....

Do, please, make your argument as to how this is "clearly unconstitutional." Be sure to cite the relevant precedents that would support your argument. Oh, and tell us where you went to law school. Thanks!

Re:Refuse to Hear

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL I have never seen such an uninformed pile of bullshit in my entire life. People like you need to disconnect and go outside to see what the real world is like.

The Supreme Court is the most powerful part of our Federal Government? Really? It's not even the most powerful part of the Judicial Branch, much less the entire government, which by comparison it's pretty lame. The most powerful branch of the judiciary is the federal circuit courts of appeal which make the majority of the law around the country. I don't hear you raging against that.

And exactly what rights got trampled? I double checked with the Constitution and existing case law. Guess what, you don't have an unfettered right to make and distribute illicit copies of the intellectual property of another without payment or permission.

Do us all a favor and never post again. I think I lost IQ points from reading your inane drivel.

Re:Refuse to Hear

[stubob]

So you're suggesting that the 13th, 15th, 19th, or even the 25th amendments were bad ideas?

Re:Refuse to Hear

[ChrisMaple]

There's plenty of debate still current on the value of some of the ammendments past #10.

• 14 Anchor babies
• 16 Income tax
• 17 Direct election of Senators

Some others should be considered worthless with proper understanding of the first ten.

Re:Refuse to Hear

[ChrisMaple]

I believe it was Andrew Jackson (of whom I am no fan) who said "You've made your decision, now enforce it."

So what is a defense?

[SleazyRidr]

"innocence" was no defense

If even innocence isn't a defense, then what the hell chance does anyone have? I can just sue you for some random thing, and the fact that you're completely innocent doesn't help you!

Re:So what is a defense?

[BarefootClown]

She was not "completely innocent." She did share the files*. "Innocent" means "didn't do it." Her claim is that she didn't know it was illegal; unfortunately, ignorance of the law is not, and never has been, a defense.

* From a link in TFA: "Whitney admitted to using KaZaA as well as downloading and sharing music over the P2P network, but said she didn't realize what she was doing was wrong."

Re:So what is a defense?

[guyminuslife]

Okay, I know this is Slashdot, but seriously, RTFA.

Configure before use... and don't use P2P

[gbl08ma]

Assuming it was really accidental, I think it should have happened because the P2P client was configured by default to share some common folder like /home/user or C:\Documents and Settings\User therefore sharing the music files (and everything else in the subfolders!) to everyone... so, what can we learn? "Take a look at the settings of the apps before using. Default is not synonym of optimal."
...however I would naturally say it was not accidental...
But now thinking on the real philosophic roots of the subject... why does she need to pay $27,750 now? Because of information technologies...

Finally I just hope they let her listen to the 37 "stolen" tracks for every times as she wish... let's say the licensing price of the tracks was not very cheap, hehe.

And this is why I stopped using eMule, then stopped using Songr, then switched to Linux and now I use YouTube plus its great feature of putting the temporary video file on the /tmp folder. "Oh, looks like I did an accidental copy of the file from the /tmp folder into my (Rockbox'ed) iPod! Oh god!"

See. this is why we need wikileaks

[unity100]

some teenager shares something somewhere, and she cant have 'innocent infringement' defense.

now, tell me what would happen, if wikileaks published transcripts or audio of a conversation in between riaa and judge/jury ?

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[PerformanceDude]

Wikileaks would be hit with a copyright infringement notice of course - DUH!!

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[ScentCone]

some teenager shares something somewhere, and she cant have 'innocent infringement' defense

No, some teenager somewhere directly violates copyright by distrubuting protected works. And she can't have an 'innocent infringement' defense because: she's not innocent of distributing copyrighted works.

now, tell me what would happen, if wikileaks published transcripts or audio of a conversation in between riaa and judge/jury?

So, you're comparing something that somebody actually did with a fantasy imaginary event that sounds nice and sinister, but about which you're not providing any details? That's super helpful.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[vux984]

No, some teenager somewhere directly violates copyright by distrubuting protected works. And she can't have an 'innocent infringement' defense because: she's not innocent of distributing copyrighted works.

a) I have yet to see any proof she knew the client shared the music back to the network.

b) I have, as in all RIAA/MPAA cases a profound disagreement with the sentence/fine imposed. To the point that I would rather declare her completely innocent than subject her to that penalty. Even if she's guilty she's not THAT guilty. 27,000+ for a couple CDs worth of songs, uploaded an unknown number of times (possibly less than a full copy each)... to people who were predominantly unlikely to buy it in the first place. Even if she's guilty, she was underage, and didn't cause significant damage. $750 is probably about right. $27000+ is absurd.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[ScentCone]

I have yet to see any proof ... to people who were predominantly unlikely to buy it in the first place

Are you even listening to yourself? You need proof that she understood copyright law (not that ignorance of the law matters ... ever try that when you've been busted speeding in your car? No?), but you're happy to make assertions about the predominant behavior of the people receiving the files she was publishing?

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[vux984]

You need proof that she understood copyright law

No. I need proof she understood she was uploading songs.

(not that ignorance of the law matters

Suppose she knew uploading music was illegal. She still might not have known her download software was uploading. That should be a mitigating factor.

The fact that she was underage is also a mitigating factor. Children are not expected to be adults.

but you're happy to make assertions about the predominant behavior of the people receiving the files she was publishing?

What of it? The burden of proof of wrongdoing is on the plaintiff. Innocence until proven guilty.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[TangoMargarine]

So, you're comparing something that somebody actually did with a fantasy imaginary event

Did you miss the part where it was a hypothetical situation that he was wishing would happen?

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[ScentCone]

Suppose she knew uploading music was illegal. She still might not have known her download software was uploading

Well, shoot. That's a fantastic excuse, isn't it? So she's innocent because she can't understand that everyone else using Limewire is making stuff available that she'd otherwise have to pay for, and she's looking at screens, right in front of her eyes that show how many people are connected to the things she's uploading, but her argument is that even though she's smart enough to install and operate the software, she's too dumb to wonder how all the magic free stuff happens? I've never met a single kid older than 10 who hasn't - for years - understood that you can buy your entertainment for pennies, through legit services, or you can go and rip it off, hoping that you'll be lost in the noise and not get caught.

Children are not expected to be adults.

Fair enough. Then her parents are the ones who are responsible for her behavior, and thus the consequences.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[ScentCone]

Did you miss the part where it was a hypothetical situation that he was wishing would happen?

Did YOU miss the part where he didn't describe anything? He just said "RIAA! Boo! Scary! Evil! Something something judges something juries! Eeeevil!"

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[TangoMargarine]

Well, it could be disappointing and not very informative at all a la what people are saying about the latest WikiLeaks thing. We wouldn't know until we have it.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[vux984]

Well, shoot. That's a fantastic excuse, isn't it?

Its a mitigating factor. Not a get out of jail free card. Most crimes and sentencing are heavily influenced by the knowledge and intent of the defendant.

because she can't understand that everyone else using Limewire is making stuff available that she'd otherwise have to pay for, and she's looking at screens, right in front of her eyes that show how many people are connected to the things she's uploading, but her argument is that even though she's smart enough to install and operate the software, she's too dumb to wonder how all the magic free stuff happens?

When I want pictures of cars or animals or celebrities or ... I just enter them into a search bar and they get dumped right on my screen. How many average people have considered the legality of this?

I can go to websites and play flash games for free.

I can search for programs and download many of them for free, including the copy of Kazaa she used.

Why exactly would anyone just assume music is some extra special case?

For a lot of people p2p software is just google for music. That's about all the thought they put into it.

I've never met a single kid older than 10 who hasn't - for years - understood that you can buy your entertainment for pennies, through legit services

a) She was charged years ago, and the "crime" was committed even earlier. Those copyright savvy 10 year old kids were in diapers and discovering things like object permanence. People were running Windows ME.

b) It shouldn't be up to her to prove she didn't know. It should be up to you to prove she did. Innocent until proven guilty.

Fair enough. Then her parents are the ones who are responsible for her behavior, and thus the consequences.

What exactly were the consequences of her actions again? Exactly what harm did she cause? What awful thing did she do that we need to punish them with fines in the 10s of thousands? Your earlier speeding ticket example was apt... but the fine for that is a few hundred bucks.

That's right about where her fine should be too, all things considered.

Re:See. this is why we need wikileaks

[Travelsonic]

some teenager somewhere directly violates copyright by distrubuting protected works.

*AHEM*, that's distributing protected works WITHOUT PERMISSION. Yes, it matters - I won't get in any legal trouble f I share music from an indie band for example that copyrights its work, and then gives it away.

Don't download!

[Locke2005]

Borrow CDs from the library or your friends, rip them yourself, and just watch the RIAA try to catch you! I have a friend who owns thousands of CDs and is perfectly happy to make me a copy of any one I want... what are his chances of getting caught? Zero... I sure as hell am not going to turn him in!

Re:Don't download!

[OverlordQ]

what are his chances of getting caught? Zero... I sure as hell am not going to turn him in!

Um. . . that's what you just did. Subpoena Geeknet for your ISP, your ISP for you, and you for him. Easy trail to follow.

Re:Don't download!

[drinkypoo]

A bird waited too long to fly South for the winter, froze on the trip and fell out of the sky. Luckily, its fall was broken by a fresh cow pie. It was warmed up and so happy with its luck that it opened up its little beak and started to sing, at which point a coyote noticed it and snapped it up in one bite.

First moral of the story, sometimes it is not so bad to be in the shit.
Second moral of the story, if you are warm and happy in the shit, keep your fucking beak shut.

Just to be clear...

[BaronHethorSamedi]

The question here isn't whether she's liable. It's for how much.

Alito's dissent (starting on page 26) is interesting, and gets into just how thorny a problem it is to prove an "innocent infringer" defense under 17 U.S.C. 504. (And again, an "innocent infringer" isn't off the hook--it just reduces the minimum statutory damages that may be awarded to the rights-holder.) Basically, the girl argued that she was too young, too technically unsophisticated--not a willful infringer for the purposes of awarding damages. The judge who originally reduced the damages more or less agreed with her (his ruling can be found here. The court of appeals then looked at the argument differently. (There order is here.. They considered the innocent infringer defense directly under 17 U.S.C. 402(d) (full text available here. Basically, that says you can't be an innocent infringer if you have "access to" published recordings that have the copyright notice on them. The court of appeals pretty broadly said that this provision prevented Ms. Harper from claiming innocent infringement. Bottom line, she never disputed that she had access to such recordings (whatever that might mean).

Alito doesn't like the appeals court saying that this "access to" argument may act as a matter of law to prevent someone from being an innocent infringer. I think he's right about that--access should be a question of fact that needs to be decided on evidence, and it seems like nobody in this case really talked much about it.

Re:Just to be clear...

[drinkypoo]

It's not just that the "access to" argument should go unanswered, it's that access to it means jack shit. Who reads fine print? It's cliche to ignore it and sign your ass away.

The Recording Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

The Recording Industry: Ruining Lives One at a Time since 1999!

Amazing they're trying to get $28K out of a woman who will have to ruin her life to pay them back. I hope all the heads of the record companies get cancer that wrecks them and their families.

1988

[mattack2]

Justice Alito stated, "This provision was adopted in 1988, well before digital music files became available on the Internet"

I guess Alito is yet another one of the people who thinks that "the Internet" is only the web (and things that came after the web). While it wasn't songs, I sure remember getting small audio clips from movies ("I'm trying to think but nothin' happens" - Curly from the Three Stooges) from BBSes well before that -- and I don't doubt some used the Internet as their transport medium. Presumably others were already copying entire songs.

Re:1988

[Shadow99_1]

It's really murky to remember this far back, but my first year of college during the days of 28.8kbps modems being 'new' I can recall stumbling upon mp3's. Within a few years winamp and mp3.com existed, but before that we still had mp3's and even full songs that took all night to download in the format...

Also just about every mp3 site in those days had big disclaimers that you could only download them for personal use and to be 'legal' one would need to delete the mp3 within a day (24hours)... I don't remember what lead to that, but I do remember when the web became more popular and mp3's more common this went away and most people assumed it was the same downloading as it was burning from a CD. This was still a year or two before Metallica and the RIAA 'proving' to everyone how they would treat people for it.

Re:1988

[drinkypoo]

I can tell you with absolute certainty that whole albums were floating around before anyone ever heard of mp3 files. Not too many people had the bandwidth, though. You were unlikely to see them on a BBS for reasons which should be obvious.

Re:1988

[mattack2]

I'm honestly not sure what you think should be obvious. The size? The legality? With pirated software being on BBSes at the same time, I don't think you mean the latter.

Re:1988

[drinkypoo]

We're talking about a time before games came on CD-ROM, remember? It was the size.

Re:1988

[mattack2]

Yeah, ok. I was just zoning out a bit. I was thinking my MP3s were in the hundreds of K per song, rather than 3+ megs per song (at the very low end). I was comparing to ~140K disk images. Yeah, for an entire album that would be a long modem download at the time.

Re:1988

[drinkypoo]

To get the same kind of quality with mp3's predecessor, mp2 (the audio format behind Video CD) you had to burn about twice as much bitrate, too.

Wikileaks has done no damage to the USA

[melchoir55]

What damage has the USA suffered at the hands of wikileaks? I'll admit that many politicians and military personnel have been embarrassed, but that isn't an attack on the USA. It is an attack on politicians and military personnel who acted inappropriately. Revealing inappropriate behavior of government officers =/= attacking a government

Re:Wikileaks has done no damage to the USA

[pipedwho]

What damage has the USA suffered at the hands of wikileaks? I'll admit that many politicians and military personnel have been embarrassed, but that isn't an attack on the USA. It is an attack on politicians and military personnel who acted inappropriately. Revealing inappropriate behavior of government officers =/= attacking a government

Not only that, but how the US government reacts to these 'embarrassments' will determine which way their reputation goes. Although, by their reaction so far, I see them only making themselves look worse.

so, basically, you dont know shit

[unity100]

http://mirror.infoboj.eu/

and instead, talking from the filth you are fed by american media ... well done. good for you.

A whole new can of worms...

[TiggertheMad]

The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter.

You know, if you wrote a worm that would root computers, and then set up a low bandwidth background torrent, it would really wreck the RIAA's ability to claim that people 'knew what they were doing', since it would set up a situation where anyone could be hosting files without consent or knowledge.

any lawyers can comment on these questions?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) unintended distribution should diminish culpability? and hence penalty?
2) using p2p does not guarantee entire work of arts are distributed but actually only chunks of files...hence was it proven she distributed complete art works? (songs)
3) is a "distribution" the following: I forgetfully leave a CD on my front lawn, person comes up plugs it into his laptops and rips it, next one comes does the same etc. I think it would be simlar to using a p2p client with intention to download (not to distribute) - I would not expect teenager understand p2p implications.

Refused?

[scurvyj]

Refused to hear her case?

Hang on, let me run that past again.....

Refused to hear her case?

Since when does a judge or judiciary have that right????? Did I miss ANOTHER meeting???????

Formula

[TiggertheMad]

I think $750 per song is a fair price.

You raise a fair and valid point, sir. Not all songs are created equally. Some songs might be very well worth a $750 penalty get a copy of, while others should have a penalty of .05 if you pirate them. Now the real question is how to figure out what should the correct financial penalty should be. Is sharing a copy of The Beatles 'Hey Jude' as financially damaging as sharing Milli Vanilli's 'Blame it on the Rain'? Good lord, I hope not...

There should be a formula that is something like: Total single sales + (album sales/tracks on album) * e^(-years since release) * (duration of time that file was shared/other people sharing song)/bitrate of host machine * average number of active torrents downloading song * lowest possible price to purchase given song. (.99c at I-tunes?)

Knowledge of "distribution"

[mikenevans]

The charges in these cases is not that the person downloaded the music, but that they were distributing it. This is where the "innocent sharing" comes in: how many non /. people are aware then when you use the peer-to-peer software that you're not just getting music, but unless you modify the default settings then every file you have downloaded gets shared with everyone else (as well as your entire library of possibly legally obtained music if you let the software "discover" it for you). YOU become the distributor. Without you realizing, you could easily be distributing your copy of the songs with hundreds of other people, which is what the RIAA is so upset about. Sure, the distribution is illegal, but did you know you were doing it?

"copyright notices appear on all phonorecords"

[Opportunist]

Is pointless and of no concern to the verdict.

She DOWNLOADED the content. When did she ever cross a phonorecord?

Let's not be inconsiderate here, claiming "innocence" when P2P sharing is kinda talking bull. But this reasoning is no less bull.

Exactly what type of music does the RIAA look for?

[waitin4cpmrevival]

I'd like to see what's in the download queues of the most recent RIAA case defendants. I strongly suspect that the large majority of songs downloaded are "Top 40", "hit radio", ClearChannel bubblegum pop. Whatever's most profitable right now. This certainly does not include established artists or "niche markets". You might say "yeah, what else?" Exactly. If the above is true the RIAA, which was formed to protect the copyright of all artists, would only be concerned with what is most profitable for them at the time of subpoena. No one here will ever know if this hypothesis is true or not save being served their own RIAA court order. Still, it's not inconceivable that the RIAA could care little about those copyrights that aren't bringing them the lucre just now. Should the above scenarios prove true, the RIAA would have betrayed its mission: the ostensible protection of all artists. Many people, including myself, strongly suspect that this is already the case. Nevertheless, we'll never know without knowing the specific songs downloaded and their immediate market value. The RIAA's irrelevance does not extend merely to the massive shift towards online music purchasing/leasing. The very idea that a copyright protection agency could/would only prosecute those that violate the copyrights of the most "valuable artists" is a slap in the face to any recording artist.

Godfather quote

[chord.wav]

"A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns."

Re:Godfather quote

[Krneki]

"A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns."

Apparently a teenager with P2P can steal far more.

Or at least this is what we have been told.

wholesale women shoes

[smartxiaoge]

Christian Louboutin Shoes
All kinds of world brand shoes,jeans,t-shirts,bikini,beach pants,handbags,wallets,sunglasses,belt,caps,watches etc..
Our company specializes in manufacturing from located in CHINA and Netherlands,With more than 6 Years of experience,we are mainly dealing with are:Nike shoxChristan Audigier t-shirtEd HardyCOACH BagNew Era cap Tiffany_Ring. More products.
Supply . COACH BagNike shox.Ed Hardy t-shirt Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar! welcome to:http://www.small-wholesale.com/
Polo tshirt
Dolce Gabbana handbangs
AF polo Shirts
free shipping
Yves Saint Laurent

Interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shows where the money is... Kids that go around murdering people get let off because "they're just kids, their brains aren't fully developed". However, something like pirating, which shows even less of a mental lapse is enforced against them...

The same line runs through all arguments

[NuKe_MoNgOoSe]

People are stupid! There is no solution, no real truth, to any of this its all point and counterpoint and no one wins. Music has been dubbed and shared for as long as i can remember. Hell I was turned on to Metallica because someone gave me a mix tape! When CD copying became rampant my friends didnt change. It just made the sharing faster and more convenient. And then P2P came about and the sharing became even faster and more convenient. There are bands I never would have stumbled across if it wasnt for Napster (old). There are bands that never would have reached popularity if it wasnt for P2P sharing and Youtube. They should allow free sharing of music. Dave Mustain said it best that his songs are his business cards and his live concerts are where he makes his real money. The RIAA is a joke a foaming at the mouth bully hell bent on making their point by destroying random peoples lives, they are like a rabid attack dog for a music industry which, in my opinion, is enveloped in the same maelstrom of bullshit as gaming and the movie industry. Make it faster, and quicker and sacrifice quality in favor of glitz. With music it is 'Come up with a chart topper, doesnt matter if the other 12 songs are shit we can sell Cds with a #1 hit'. That has always been my issue is that i was at one time being forced to purchase (if i legally wanted the song that is) a CD that had one song on it i really wanted but the rest was garbage. At that time a disk from Metallica cost me 24 to 29 bucks! Nowadays though I cant complain about prices because HMV often has amazing deals on CDs (5 to 7 bucks) maybe a bit more for classics like Metallica and AC/DC. It remains though that Mp3s and downloading music is just much more convenient, it saves time, money and space. Rant complete! Legalize piracy of music and pot!