$616.57 Three Strikes Verdict Cost RIANZ $250,000

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$616.57 Three Strikes Verdict Cost RIANZ $250,000

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 1, 2013 @03:52AM from the gotta-spend-money-to-make-money! dept.

Dangerous_Minds writes "On Wednesday, we discussed news that RIANZ convicted its first file-sharer under the New Zealand three strikes law. While the fine totaled $616.57, a New Zealand Herald report points out that in order to get that fine, RIANZ had to spend $250,000. Freezenet makes an interesting point that HADOPI (France's version of the three strikes law) faced similar problems when the Socialist party commented that 12 million euros was a lot of money to pay 60 agents to send out 1 million e-mails. The question raised is whether or not this money pit trend will continue when the Copyright Alert System starts processing strike notices in the United States."

131 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA. Every head publicly displayed on a pike serves a purpose: "pour encourager les autres". It's an advertising expense. Pay up, or this could happen to you, too.
1. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But is it? What if someone set up a fund? Every $1 you contribute costs them roughly $400. Would you contribute a buck to legally cost the RIAA/MPAA a real $400, not a fake imaginary potential $400?
  Then honeypot them with lots of tiny 1-2 file shares that will result in similar very tiny payouts. At that rate they will be bankrupt or give up within a year.
2. Re:Heads on pikes by h4rr4r · 2013-02-01 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  No this costs the taxpayer $400.
  If these companies were paying for it your idea would be brilliant.
3. Re:Heads on pikes by TFAFalcon · 2013-02-01 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Except that $600 is not exactly head on a pike. Sure some of the US verdicts were insane, and could be used to intimidate people, even if they weren't worth it from a purely financial standpoint. But so much work for a measly 600 bucks?
4. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Also, you'd have to find people willing to spend $600 someodd of their own money, and the only thing you immediately, directly get out of it is to be dragged through the hell of the court system.
  Not going to be a whole lot of people signing up for that one.
5. Re:Heads on pikes by poetmatt · 2013-02-01 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  not true even remotely.
  While MAFIAA may be incredibly stupid, don't think their finance people are as stupid. It's not hard for them to figure out if it's not worth the money.
6. Re:Heads on pikes by gl4ss · 2013-02-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  it's actually an employment program. you know, giving the economy a boost!
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
7. Re:Heads on pikes by mark-t · 2013-02-01 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with that.
  The problem with that theory is it requires enough willing participants to carry out. And the thing is, believe it or not, if enough people get dinged for this, however much it costs the organizations to do it, then that fine is genuinely going to act as a discouraging factor, reducing the number of potentially willing participants in your proposed scheme.
  Tell you what though... if somebody does manage to pull off what you describe, I'll certainly admit to being wrong. That doesn't change what I currently expect the outcome to be, however.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
8. Re:Heads on pikes by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  If the guy is actually guilty, and the fine is not excessive, why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group? Is there anything in this article that indicates a wrong was done to the "convicted file-sharer"?
  From one of the articles,
  So, with guilt under current law established, the Tribunal set about the task of a financial punishment. According to regulations, in a downloading case the cost of the infringed products must be considered. Man Down is available of iTunes for $2.39 (US$2.00) and Tonight Tonight at $1.79 (US$1.50). ...
  "Head on a pike", indeed.
9. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA. Every head publicly displayed on a pike serves a purpose: "pour encourager les autres". It's an advertising expense. Pay up, or this could happen to you, too.
  Then perhaps the government should wise up and step in and start taxing the shit out of "advertising" expenses like this so that these kinds of "legal" tactics are not worth it to companies as (ironically) a tax sheltered expense.
10. Re:Heads on pikes by nabsltd · 2013-02-01 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If the guy is actually guilty,
  There is some question as to whether the girl (I know, RTFA is a crime on /.) is guilty of any infringement. She admitted to downloading one song, and that song was listed twice in the lawsuit for some reason. She says she never downloaded the other song. There was no indication that any uploading took place, but the RIANZ never had to even try to prove it, as it was assumed she had uploaded because she had been sent a notice.
  
  and the fine is not excessive,
  More than 150x actual damages (since she only downloaded two songs, not three) isn't excessive?
  
  why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group?
  Maybe because they are stupid for spending $250K to recover $600?
  
  Is there anything in this article that indicates a wrong was done to the "convicted file-sharer"?
  Because there was no "conviction". There was merely an accusation, which under the "three strikes" law is a presumption of guilt. If other laws worked that way, all I'd have to do to put you in jail for life is to say you murdered some person, without even having to prove the person was dead (or even existed in the first place). Don't like that analogy because it's criminal? OK, then you have infringed on my patent, please pay me $600, because I say so, and my accusation is proof enough that you are guilty.
11. Re:Heads on pikes by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-02-01 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  "While MAFIAA may be incredibly stupid, don't think their finance people are as stupid. It's not hard for them to figure out if it's not worth the money."
  Exactly. When numbers were grossly in their favor, the copyright trolls were actually looking at this as a cash cow. There have been several statements by organizations and private firms that they were after the money, not principle. They wanted to be "compensated for their losses", if not make an outright profit.
  
  But when they *lose* money, what then?
  
  The problem is the U.S. has been statutory damages. The law originally only targeted actual "pirates", who sold copyrighted works for money. Then it was changed to anybody who "expected to receive something tangible in exchange".
  
  It should be noted, however, that your typical downloader still does not meet this definition.
12. Re:Heads on pikes by orgelspieler · 2013-02-01 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that called racketeering?
13. Re:Heads on pikes by poetmatt · 2013-02-01 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  statutory damages are easily fought off by asking for a trial. This has been the fun/issue of all of the settlement shakedowns to exist currently. Get a letter? get a lawyer and immediately lawyer up, and watch them try to run away. refuse to settle, and go from there.
14. Re:Heads on pikes by CCarrot · 2013-02-01 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  Good luck with that.
  The problem with that theory is it requires enough willing participants to carry out. And the thing is, believe it or not, if enough people get dinged for this, however much it costs the organizations to do it, then that fine is genuinely going to act as a discouraging factor, reducing the number of potentially willing participants in your proposed scheme.
  Tell you what though... if somebody does manage to pull off what you describe, I'll certainly admit to being wrong. That doesn't change what I currently expect the outcome to be, however.
  Huh? What do you think the $1 collection is for?
  I interpreted it as contributing to a fund that is used to pay the fines of those poor souls caught in this predicament, as long as they contested the charges and dragged it out enough to make it unprofitable for the claimants. He mentions setting up honeypots, but those wouldn't necessarily have to be tied to different people as long as each honeypot is a separate instance...it just increases the chances to get the RIAA/MPAA to 'bite' on a situation that will maximize their losses. That part is run by volunteers, the rest goes to regular people who step up and fight back, if their fight is unsuccessful.
  I'd contribute to something like that.
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
15. Re:Heads on pikes by click2005 · 2013-02-01 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  $600 for 3 songs is still a big fine.
  
  --
  I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
16. Re:Heads on pikes by Hatta · 2013-02-01 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA
  Is it actually worth $250K? Does each prosecution convince 10,000 people to spend $25 on music?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
17. Re:Heads on pikes by Hatta · 2013-02-01 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Because copyright itself is unjust and should be abolished.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
18. Re:Heads on pikes by Hatta · 2013-02-01 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  statutory damages are easily fought off by asking for a trial.
  Unless you are Jammie Thomas.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
19. Re:Heads on pikes by Immerman · 2013-02-01 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, racketeering is when you do the exact same thing without first making the required political donations.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
20. Re:Heads on pikes by mark-t · 2013-02-01 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Like I said.... good luck with that.
  What basis do you have for believing that such a fund could realistically hope to cover the costs for enough cases that it might bankrupt those companies?
  And even by offering to cover such costs in advance, it might be argued (they do have good lawyers, after all) that the person infringing on copyright with advance knowledge that the fine they could expect to pay has been given economic incentive to do so (even if not a monetarily profitable one), elevating it to the level of commercial infringement, where the damages will be orders of magnitude higher. Oh, and the organizers of the fund could end up being liable for deliberate contributory infringement as well, since they would have already admitted that they intended to pay such fines.
  So.... tell me. How many volunteers do you think you are liable to get, that are willing to take the financial risks involved with financially supporting copyright infringers?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
21. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group?
  Because government-granted monopolies over information that you yourself store on your own equipment that results in a loss of real property rights and encourages censorship is a bad thing? Yeah.
22. Re:Heads on pikes by CCarrot · 2013-02-01 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Like I said.... good luck with that.
  What basis do you have for believing that such a fund could realistically hope to cover the costs for enough cases that it might bankrupt those companies?
  And even by offering to cover such costs in advance, it might be argued (they do have good lawyers, after all) that the person infringing on copyright with advance knowledge that the fine they could expect to pay has been given economic incentive to do so (even if not a monetarily profitable one), elevating it to the level of commercial infringement, where the damages will be orders of magnitude higher. Oh, and the organizers of the fund could end up being liable for deliberate contributory infringement as well, since they would have already admitted that they intended to pay such fines.
  So.... tell me. How many volunteers do you think you are liable to get, that are willing to take the financial risks involved with financially supporting copyright infringers?
  Really? Is this what happens when people choose legal aide lawyers, say? I know, I know, this is civil, not criminal law...but to my mind this is basically equivalent to a croud-funded class action lawsuit, only one where the claimant chooses how many people are participating in it. After all, the 'damages' they want to claim are criminal...but yes, IANAL. There may very well be no airtight legal way to set something like this up. That's a real shame.
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
23. Re:Heads on pikes by mark-t · 2013-02-01 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Were you, perhaps, unaware that copyright infringement actually *IS* a crime?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
24. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  I would gleefully contribute $100 a month if I knew if would cost the RIAA/MPAA $40,000 a month. I am liking this fund/honeypot idea.
25. Re:Heads on pikes by thoughtfulbloke · 2013-02-01 08:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You asked "When they *lose* money, what then?".
  They bill the artists the costs of "protecting the artist's copyrights"
26. Re:Heads on pikes by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Youre going to have to accept that basically every modern country in the world recognizes some degree of intellectual property and ownership rights for such, Youre also going to have to accept that it has nothing to do with corruption, lobbying, or conspiracies, as these rights have been recognized for hundreds of years.
  At the end of the day, the entire role of the government is to tell you what things you may not do. Sharing other people's copyrighted stuff is one of those things societies have agreed should be restricted.
27. Re:Heads on pikes by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  Good news: As a democratic government, both NZ and the US have mechanisms whereby that can happen, if you can get the majority of the populace to agree with you.
  Bad news: The majority of the populace does not agree with you.
28. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  The dollar donations are to pay the fines and costs of the court appearences. I suspect there would be plenty of volunteers.
29. Re:Heads on pikes by Hatta · 2013-02-01 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that the majority favors an unjust law doesn't make it any more just. Slavery was favored by the majority of Americans for our first 100 years. Those who broke the law were heroes.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
30. Re:Heads on pikes by Kalriath · 2013-02-01 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, because the tribunal will see that as willful infringement and will not be inclined to hand out such tiny payments. In fact, you'd probably end up being hit with something closer to the statutory $15,000 maximum.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
31. Re:Heads on pikes by Kalriath · 2013-02-01 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't work. You'd be contributing $40,000 a month to cost them $4,000 at most.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
32. Re:Heads on pikes by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is no reason I can fathom why copyright laws innately fall into categories of "right" or "wrong" in the way that slavery does, except in the general sense that all government laws do by virtue of restricting other humans.
  In other words, you can argue that copyright goes too far very easily and I would agree that is possible.
  But the argument that copyright laws in themselves are unjust is not a battle I think you will be able to defend in the least; if you have a rationale for that statement I would be very interested to hear it.
33. Re:Heads on pikes by TFAFalcon · 2013-02-01 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it's still excessive, but it's not much of a threat if you think about it. A penalty of $100K might scare people into not risking being the one in a million being hit with a lawsuit. $600 bucks won't scare anyone, and MAFIAA can't even use it to scare people into settling for thousands of dollars.
34. Re:Heads on pikes by buybuydandavis · 2013-02-01 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's what occurred to me too. How about people contribute Fine+ X dollars, so that people are compensated for their time and effort?
  I don't really think it would work, because the gummint would likely change the rules. Unless ... it's a country that net benefits by no copyright, so that they're just making penalties to comply with treaty obligations. "Oh, hey, it's illegal, but we can't prevent people from giving other people money."
  I suspect that in the US, they'd go after people with RICO laws.
35. Re:Heads on pikes by CCarrot · 2013-02-01 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Were you, perhaps, unaware that copyright infringement actually *IS* a crime?
  Yeah, so is jaywalking. If it's such a terrible crime, why don't they push for jail time instead of money, then? Will this settlement show up on a criminal records check? I don't think so.
  No, they've made it pretty clear that this is simply their new business model, intended to prop up their old, outdated business model. Where I live, they're already charging a levy on blank storage devices, assuming that everyone is going to be using them to host copied content...guilty until proven innocent. Better yet: guilty even if proven innocent...
  I'd like to be clear: I am not advocating not paying good artists for content that you enjoy, and I certainly do buy my music, always have. I don't, however, see a problem with grabbing a track or two from an artist I haven't heard (usually from a friends collection) to see if I like it enough to buy it. If a friend doesn't have the ones I'm wondering about, then yes, I'll look for it online because I can, and I'm a try before I buy kind of shopper...and more importantly, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of what I do really like, once I know I like it. (e.g. I sampled some Van Canto songs a couple months ago, played them several times over the course of a week or so, and bought all four of their albums...and am constantly playing them for friends. That's just the most extreme recent example that comes to mind) I don't see why I should be treated like a criminal for wanting to share my music with friends, or even for wanting to 'test drive' the artist before signing the lease.
  I know the major online music stores have those 5 or 10 second previews available, but I have a slow music ear and usually have to hear a song several times before I know if I'll still like it or want to throw it out the window after the first week :o) I also have no patience for 'radio' music, since I find most of the stuff they play is...err...low quality, to put it mildly, or it's great stuff...that I already have. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard a new song on a radio that excited me (yet, strangely, it does happen somewhat more often with store and restaurant music. I wind up using SoundHound a lot)
  OTOH, I do have a lot of cruft that I downloaded at the advice of others (reminds me, I have to do some digital housecleaning some day soon), stuff that I thought I might like, but turned out to be just annoying or 'meh' with repetition, so I toss it in the 'see if Jenny or John likes it before deleting' folder. I suppose the RIAA would have a 'lost profits' case against me for those tracks, since I didn't like their product enough to fork over dollars for it after I heard it, and I wasn't stuck paying them before I got to hear it...I must say, though, my real collection now has more songs from more artists than ever before, and all of it of better, more concentrated quality than in the days of mix tapes and CDs. I can buy *just* the songs I enjoy (and know I'll keep enjoying), without all the 'album filler' that used to frustrate me. I think that is the biggest reason the RIAA is panicking over 'lost profits': because people simply aren't willing to pay for filler meat any more (unless the artist is awesome, that is).
  Oh my, how I do ramble. Sorry, tl;dr , happy Friday!
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
36. Re:Heads on pikes by Drishmung · 2013-02-01 11:55 · Score: 1
  not true even remotely.
  While MAFIAA may be incredibly stupid, don't think their finance people are as stupid. It's not hard for them to figure out if it's not worth the money.
  Apparently, it is.
  If they thought about it, it's obvious that this isn't going to recover money. As the thread title says, it's about heads on pikes. The aim is to scare people into not downloading.
  Of course, even that is not really the aim. The argument actually goes like:
  
  1. We used to make lots of money
  2. We don't make as much as we used to (actually, we don't think we are making as much money as we think we should be)
  3. The kids are downloading it and not paying us
  4. Let's count every download as a lost sale...There! that's where our money went
  4. If we can stop downloading, people will buy the music instead
  5. We can afford to spend a few megabucks if it stops piracy
  6. PROFIT
  It's further complicated by a sense of moral outrage from point 3. They are CRIMINALS. It is our DUTY to PUNISH them.
  And then they sign off on their advertising budgets and promotions and schmoozing and expense accounts, because that's just a legitimate and accepted cost of doing business. Sure, it'd be nice to cut those costs, but "spend a dollar, get two back" is good financial math.
  So, the finance guys accept the cost, because of points 5 and 6.
  They won't, they can't think of downloading as a legitimate business expense, despite strong indications that downloaders spend MORE money on purchases. They refuse to consider that, maybe, their business model is broken.
  The music industry does not want to think of themselves as being like Polaroid, or Kodak, or Atari, or Nokia.
  Their finance people may be smart and competent, but right now that equates to an optimal deck-chair rearrangement, whereas what's needed is a course change away from the iceberg.
  --
  Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
37. Re:Heads on pikes by mark-t · 2013-02-01 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if the infringement can be shown to be deliberate and intentional, then it *CAN* warrant jail time. Oh, and yes, it most certainly can impact a person's criminal record.
  Where I live (Canada), there's a blank media levy also... however, the levy is not given on the presumption I will make illegal copies of works... the levy is to subsidize private copying only, an activity that is completely legal.
  The problem with incidental copyright infringement like what you describe yourself participating in is that it weakens the value of copyright for *ALL* copyright holders, not just affecting the distributor of the work being infringed upon. Because the only strength copyright has is society's duty to respect it. When society does not, the copyright has no value, and the distributor will resort to other means to protect their interests, which can and almost certainly will include taking actions which reduce the availability, practicality, and value of the work to the consumer (I'm looking at you, DRM... a direct response to copyright infringement as distributors lose confidence in copyright alone to protect their interests).
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
38. Re:Heads on pikes by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Jammie Thomas was guilty of breaking all of the laws she was accused of breaking, plus perjury and I believe obstruction of justice. Thats probably not the poster child you want to use.
39. Re:Heads on pikes by c0lo · 2013-02-01 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  So.... tell me. How many volunteers do you think you are liable to get, that are willing to take the financial risks involved with financially supporting copyright infringers?
  Ummmm.. I don't know, but you may be surprised.
  I mean... a scheme of insurance against fare fines was quite successful until threatened. And it was a scheme that offered probably a much lower rate: something like 1:15 ($20/month insurance premium against... say 30 day x $10/day trip fares=$300).
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
40. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  The United States Constitution does not "recognize some degree of intellectual property and ownership rights". Copyright is something that Congress can optionally grant, not something that it is required to grant. It is not a recognition of natural property rights in works, of any kind, but merely a utilitarian "carrot".
  The term "intellectual property" is an oxymoron, and isn't even particularly useful in a legal context, seeing as how there are significant differences between copyright law, patent law, and trademark law.
41. Re:Heads on pikes by wvmarle · 2013-02-01 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  It is a significant fine, yet much more reasonable than what happens in the US. Quite reasonable even I'd say, considering the offense committed.
  However part of the problem is that there are maybe 10s of millions of people sharing such files in France alone, and just one got fined. The chance for any individual to be next, is so small, that people simply take that risk. In the US it's not much different.
  As long as the chance of being caught and fined is about as much as winning the jackpot in a lottery, nothing will change. They would have to successfully prosecute at least a million individuals to really make a dent - a 10% chance of getting caught and having to pay a $600 fine I will be enough to have most people stop doing it.
  However the court system is no way capable of handling that many cases in a reasonable time. It is just not designed for such a case load. The RIANZ themselves also won't be able to handle it. And with a $25 fee per warning e-mail, it'd bankrupt them before they're even halfway with the warnings alone.
  So interestingly actually the NZ government did the file sharers a favour, by making cost so high for the RIANZ that it becomes effectively impossible to stop file sharing. And fines so low, that not many individuals will be seriously worried about that. Really the best of both worlds. RIANZ has their "three strikes" law, the Internet users can sleep comfortable knowing that it is totally uneconomical for RIANZ to enforce the law.
  Sadly the only ones that are losing out are the artists themselves. The very people that law is to protect. Because the more money RIANZ spends going after file sharers, the less money is available as royalties for the artists. And this way the artists are losing out big time.
42. Re:Heads on pikes by wvmarle · 2013-02-01 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure RIANZ is doing just that right now.
43. Re:Heads on pikes by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-02-01 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Unless you are Jammie Thomas."
  I'm not sure. IIRC, it was a jury that granted a huge amount for damages, then a judge (not jury) who overturned that large amount, and another judge who made it larger again.
44. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Hell, I'd contribute $100
Like policians care by crazyjj · 2013-02-01 04:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Citizens see the cost situation like this:
Cost to pursue and prosecute these cases -(is greater than)- The return in fines + the benefit to society.
Politicians see it like this:
Donations to my campaign from the media industries + Future support from my party -(is greater than)- Any backlash from voters about the cost

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Like policians care by sribe · 2013-02-01 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't $250,000 in tax money; it was $250,000 in money from the private trade association representing the labels.
2. Re:Like policians care by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Even if politicians cared they aren't the ones who benefit from this, industry execs pulling the strings of lawmaking are the true benefactors, and they didn't pay a cent to lean on people they don't like.
3. Re:Like policians care by bzipitidoo · 2013-02-01 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's what Hollywood Accounting is for. They simply deduct that $250,000 expense from the artists' revenue, without asking if the artists thought that was money well spent. To add to the insult, they likely also reduce their own taxable income by that same amount.
  Still, the money they owe artists isn't enough to cover too many such court cases.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
4. Re:Like policians care by denis-The-menace · 2013-02-01 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing a few "contributions" wont fix.
  
  --
  Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
5. Re:Like policians care by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  > > -(is greater than)-
Tax Payers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:07 · Score: 0

They've put the tax payers money to good use!
1. Re:Tax Payers by Kalriath · 2013-02-01 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  For the billionth fucking time, it wasn't tax payers money.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
File Sharing is no Crime by F.Minusia · 2013-02-01 04:07 · Score: 1

and it should be accepted as such. Capitalist games for creating misery may or may not succeed, but it is important for us to be on guard at all times. Some people will never learn.

--
Prof(Miss) A Mani CU, ASL, AMS, ISRS, CLC, CMS, IEEE HomePage: http://www.logicamani.in Blog: http://logicamani.blogs
1. Re:File Sharing is no Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  It is a crime. Just because you don't think it should be one doesn't change that fact.
2. Re:File Sharing is no Crime by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Its a crime, and a very specific one. Im not sure what school of law you went to, but I somehow get the feeling that not many of its graduates pass the bar.
3. Re:File Sharing is no Crime by Travelsonic · 2013-02-01 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.
  
  --
  If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
4. Re:File Sharing is no Crime by BradleyUffner · 2013-02-01 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.
  "File sharing" is just a convenient shorthand for copyright infringement, It's not the actual name of the crime. The same way that people talk about "possesion" being illegal when they are really talking about possession of illegal drugs.
5. Re:File Sharing is no Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Well, as of now, in the United States, it is also a crime to root your smartphone or jailbreak your iPhone. "Crimes" are created by laws drafted by politicians and industry lobbyists to expand their power base. The more citizens they can turn into "criminals," the more people they will be able to control through threat and intimidation. You haven't learned this lesson yet?
6. Re:File Sharing is no Crime by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  File sharing is not a crime, you irrational halfwit. I can legally share any file that I possess the copyright for. Oh, you mean illegal filesharing? Then why didn't you say so?
  Oh, that's right. You're a halfwit.
Defense costs by Hatta · 2013-02-01 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

This works both ways. If it cost $250,000 to prosecute in NZ, it will probably cost $250,000 to defend against in the US. Any interaction with the justice system in the US is likely to ruin one, financially if not emotionally.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Defense costs by SuricouRaven · 2013-02-01 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In the end, only the lawyers win.
2. Re:Defense costs by Technician · 2013-02-01 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wonder if this is more record labels bookeeping. We wond the case but we can't pay the copyright owner because our expenses exceeded our income.
  Anyone have an itemised list of the expenses.. What was this money spent on anyway? Sounds steep to me.. Now if only the city had to pay that rate to issue a redlight camera or photo radar ticket..
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
3. Re:Defense costs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Young lawyers make millions arguing both sides of poorly defined laws. Old lawyers make more millions writing poorly defined laws.
  Unfortunately, the best solution I've come up with involves getting a non-lawyer president (nearly impossible) to declare martial law for three days and jail all lawyers in Congress (especially the unelected staff).
4. Re:Defense costs by gl4ss · 2013-02-01 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if this is more record labels bookeeping. We wond the case but we can't pay the copyright owner because our expenses exceeded our income.
  Anyone have an itemised list of the expenses.. What was this money spent on anyway? Sounds steep to me.. Now if only the city had to pay that rate to issue a redlight camera or photo radar ticket..
  well that's exactly what it is. the 250 000 is money paid to the organizations workers.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:Defense costs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I like this. Also, we need to ratify a constitutional amendment that stipulates congress may pass no laws which cannot be read and understood by someone with a basic high-school education.
  This ignorance of the law is no excuse crap is bullshit when your laws are so numerous, complicated, and illegible that it becomes impossible to know and understand the one you're supposedly breaking.
6. Re:Defense costs by CCarrot · 2013-02-01 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if this is more record labels bookeeping.
  
  Wait, they're keeping scary bees now? In what, a haunted hive?
  Sorry, couldn't resist, it tickled my funnybone :o)
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
7. Re:Defense costs by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-01 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of people defend themselves in the UK. It is actually becoming a big issue because it slows down proceedings. The judge must try to ensure a fair hearing, and even if the people who hired lawyers win they don't automatically get their costs paid. Judges tend not to award legal costs when the defendant is an individual going up against a large company anyway.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Defense costs by Hatta · 2013-02-01 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  That would be great if it worked that way in the US. The Copyright Alert System that's going into place in the US even lets you see the inside of a courtroom. They shut you down up front, without a hearing of any sort, and you have to pay them in order to get an appeal in front of their mediator.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
9. Re:Defense costs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately, the best solution I've come up with involves getting a non-lawyer president (nearly impossible)
  The previous President was an MBA, and that didn't turn out so well for the country.
10. Re:Defense costs by Kalriath · 2013-02-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  An American high school education or a foreign one?
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
11. Re:Defense costs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  It's not just for the one case. From the article:
  
  Rianz says it has sent out around 6000 notices to alleged pirates, for which the music industry body must pay a $25 fee each for internet companies to send on to their customers.
  That's $150,000 right there, which leaves $100,000 to pay for monitoring online activity, sending out notices, lawyers' fees, etc. over 16 months.
12. Re:Defense costs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  we need to ratify a constitutional amendment that stipulates congress may pass no laws which cannot be read and understood by someone with a basic high-school education
  No.
  The Constitution itself would have to be scrapped if we subjected it to a comparable standard using a good-sized pool of Americans with high school diplomas to test it.
  Ratify? Constitution? Amend? Stipulate? Those sound like way too many 50-cent words to me, friend. I'm not sure we could put those in new laws if your amendment passed. Maybe you need to slow it down a little. You know. Make it where a person with a basic high-school education -- specifically, the person with only a high school diploma, and no dictionary, and only time to read the thing and no time to re-read it or think about it, and no real desire to re-read it or think about it anyway -- could read and understand it. While you're doing all that, please remember to take into account that our schools now regularly graduate people who can't read, and who lack the most elementary competencies in the disciplines to which they've been exposed. You're going to have a damned hard time solving any of the problems laws solve under this standard.
  The founding fathers would've been appalled at your suggestion, because that would mean making complex rules dealing with complex situations simple and elementary enough to be understood by people with no understanding of the issues or complexities involved. "We need to get rid of bills of attainder; they're rotten." "What the hell's a bill of attainder? I don't know what the hell that is!" "Ah, crap. Back to the drawing board!"
  If anything, what would happen with your amendment is that the same damned law would get written, but it would be prefaced by a gigantic "definitions" section required by your vague "high school education" standard. You'd see primers on trigonometry prefacing laws pertaining to surveying. You'd see emissions bills with things like, "Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. A greenhouse gas is one that traps thermal radiation from the sun. Thermal radiation is good for our environment in certain quantities, and bad in others. Thermal means . . . Radiation is . . . Here, environment means . . . " And on. And on. And on.
  You want to have to read that? You think the average person is going to take the time to read that?
  I know what you're getting at, but it can't -- and if it can, really shouldn't -- be done. Consider this: pretty much any law on the books in the United States could be read and understood by someone with (0) the ability to read, (1) the ability to break complex ideas down into their simpler parts, (2) an internet connection, (3) sufficient time and patience, and (4) the willingness to use (1) through (3).
  What you're really wanting to do is understand law without engaging in point (4).
  Modern society is complex. Sorry 'bout ya. The solution is not to solve complex issues with "Two men enter -- one man leaves!" That's a simple enough solution; but it's also unjust, and otherwise wholly inadequate, in most situations. (It might work well for some situations, but not for many).
  Bottom line: rethink your proposed amendment. REALLY rethink it.
  Also: IAAL, and I know that both our legal system and our laws are super-complicated, hard to understand, frustrating, and in some places unjust. But your suggestion really, really isn't going to help.
  Here ends my little smidge of Anonymous Cowardice for this Friday night.
13. Re:Defense costs by volmtech · 2013-02-02 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Love the red light cameras, they even host the video for you to view your transgression. Got to see my wife follow another car turning right one second after the light turned red. $158.00 fine.
IANAL by srussia · 2013-02-01 04:14 · Score: 5, Funny

But is it? What if someone set up a fund? Every $1 you contribute costs them roughly $400
I am not a lawyer, but I now feel a strange urge to become one.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1. Re:IANAL by DirtyLiar · 2013-02-03 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a lawyer, but I watch them on TV!
  
  --
  THINK! It's patriotic
Better by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-02-01 04:16 · Score: 2

It seems to me that RIANZ is doing better than the HADOPI as they charge the media companies $25 per warning while the cost of the French notices is only 10 euros.
Both of these are ridiculously low. Legal notices should cost at least $100.
1. Re:Better by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Totally - at least then there is a rate limiting factor, and you're less likely to see little old granny's and 10 year old girls getting sued.
2. Re:Better by Kalriath · 2013-02-01 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  €10 EUR is pretty close to $25 NZD. And they have to pay for all three, and the tribunal doesn't have to award them the costs of those back. And, they can only send one a month per person.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Easy solution. by SuricouRaven · 2013-02-01 04:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why is it so expensive? Because it has to go through all the legal process of gathering evidence, formal accusation, defence and so on. I predict that the next step will be for RIANZ to call for the process to be 'streamlined' by taking away all that expensive 'innocent until proven guilty' rubbish and just automating the lot: Enforcer bot finds suspect file, informs ISP, ISP adds the fine on the customer's next bill. So much cheaper than due process.
1. Re:Easy solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Red light traffic cameras
2. Re:Easy solution. by EmperorArthur · 2013-02-01 04:33 · Score: 2
  
  Ahh, but that's already happened.
  If you look at what the man was accused of, you'll see that he's asked to prove a negative.
  He was accused of downloading one file twice, and another file. What's interesting is that he admits to downloading the first file once, but he used bittorrent with default settings. So apparently, restarting your client now counts as a second download. What's also interesting is that he flat out denies downloading the Second file.
  So, a man comes to this thing and flat out apologizes for downloading a file. This apparently means he's lying about everything else, and bam give us money or we'll violate your rights.
  
  --
  So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
3. Re:Easy solution. by ljw1004 · 2013-02-01 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  Did you read the New Zealand case? They already did away with "innocent until proven guilty". In particular
  [14] There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues,. That is the nature of the decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work,, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged.
  http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/20135/RAINZ%20v%20Teleom.pdf
Relative Costs by nick357 · 2013-02-01 04:18 · Score: 1

Its been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. In New Zealand the price for file sharing is $616.57. Seems about right...

--
Word game?
1. Re:Relative Costs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Can I just pay my 600 bucks and then download what I like? I might consider that...
Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:21 · Score: 1

The answer to this Copyright nonsense is simple: Consume only content that you can legally share.
When it is no longer profitable to produce things that people can't share, corporations will stop producing them.
1. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  The answer to this Copyright nonsense is simple: Consume only content that you can legally share.
  When it is no longer profitable to produce things that people can't share, corporations will stop producing them.
  Ha, the answer is to go to a party with your friends and start sharing those 2 TB hard drives.
  No internet, no RIAA/MPAA snooping and they're none the wiser.
2. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ha, the answer is to go to a party with your friends and start sharing those 2 TB hard drives.
  No internet, no RIAA/MPAA snooping and they're none the wiser.
  Some people I know have been doing this for YEARS.
  Except they send the hard drives around via UPS.
  It works nicely, and the most that can happen is a hard
  drive is lost or damaged.
  It's the 21st century sneakernet.
3. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by gl4ss · 2013-02-01 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  and since a network wasn't involved it's not even wire fraud but just plain old copyright infringement even if the cops do come knocking.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at least youre honest in your utter contempt for the law.
  Not exactly sure why youre bringing the MPAA / RIAA into it, however.
5. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  There is still a valid law in England which says you have to practice archery weekly. I ignore that, in just the same way I ignore the one about copyright law.
  The serious point is these dudes have to work out a new business plan, or go out of business. When guns got invented, the archery law became irrelevant. When mp3 got invented, much of the basis on which the record industry was based on also became irrelevant.
  No matter how much they push and shove, that pesky Genie just won't go back in the bottle.
  I still pay for music, but nowadays I do so by going to gigs and buying stuff I have downloaded and like for friends birthdays.
6. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by Hatta · 2013-02-01 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  If the government won't respect the law, why should I?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Because anarchy is about the worst form of government there is.
  Our societies "work" when the majority of people follow the majority of the laws. Everyone with the attitude you express chips away at that.
8. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by Hatta · 2013-02-01 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Because anarchy is about the worst form of government there is.
  You can blame the government for not following its own laws for that. If they want me to play by the rules, they need to play by the rules. Anything else and I'm just a sap.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
9. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by Kalriath · 2013-02-01 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  Then hold your government accountable for it, rather than just ignoring the laws you don't like. Your argument is an excuse, not a justification. And it's not even a good one.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
10. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by foamrat · 2013-02-01 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  There is still a valid law in England which says you have to practice archery weekly.
  False
  In 1845, "An Act to Amend the Law concerning Games and Wagers" repealed any part of King Henry’s 1541 law making any “Game of Skill” unlawful or “which enacts any Penalty for lacking Bows or Arrows . . . or which regulates the making, selling, or using of Bows and Arrows . . . .” 8 & 9 Vict., c.109 (1845); see also Statute Law Revision Act, 26 & 27 Vict. c.125 (1863) (repealing the 1511 law)
11. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by LordLimecat · 2013-02-01 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright was not invented with ideas in mind which became irrelevant with the invention of the mp3. Copyright was instituted with the notion that ideas were protectable; it was never about distribution costs or specific medium.
  Mp3 is an "idea" every bit as much as books and art are, and if the founders were alive today there is no doubt they would agree. The whole point was to restrict access to expressions of an idea in order to allow its creator / author to enrich themselves as a reward for their labor. As "doing it on the internet" doesnt magically make the artist any money, those ideas are still relevant today.
  Additionally, even were your notion about the archery law correct, it is irrelevant. The dubious archery law is not enforced, copyright is; and that archery law doesnt come up for discussion every other month, while patent / copyrights do. Finally, that archery law has not been instituted in every single successful country extant today, while some degree of intellectual property laws HAVE.
12. Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share by gnasher719 · 2013-02-01 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Ha, the answer is to go to a party with your friends and start sharing those 2 TB hard drives. No internet, no RIAA/MPAA snooping and they're none the wiser.
  I have seen kids so fixated on downloading, they stared blankly at me when I suggested that they could actually feed the CDs they owned into iTunes on their computer, instead of downloading the music. Now the idea that you could borrow a friend's CDs, carry them to your home, and do the exact some thing with a friend's CDs, I would of course never suggested it, but if I did, they wouldn't have understood.
Bastard child of the lobbying industry by benjfowler · 2013-02-01 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

These cushy arrangements are the result of blatant political corruption. "Fund my campaign, and we'll see to it that you get these bullshit unfair laws to prop up for decaying business model and undermine the free market"
Lobbying == legalized political corruption.
The American disease is spreading, first to the Anglo countries, and developing countries with weak governments, then Europe, then everyone else.
Too bad the anti-corruption movement, e.g. Lawrence Lessig's Rootstrikers can't getting any critical mass.
1. Re:Bastard child of the lobbying industry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Any anti-corruption will never get critical mass, because we're part of the lower caste. Only those in the upper caste are allowed to make changes that affect everyone.
2. Re:Bastard child of the lobbying industry by gl4ss · 2013-02-01 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  well... the business here is really the business of sending notices and fining people. they send bills to both rights holders and to the people they fine.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
HADOPI by CanEHdian · 2013-02-01 04:36 · Score: 1

The French branch of the RIAA was much smarter: have the tax payer pick up the bill.
French President François Hollande ran his campaign with the promise he would abrogate (abolish) the HADOPI three-strikes law. Yeah, we've seen how that worked out, right, French voters? And the word on the web is that the law is just going to be changed, so you will get a 140 Euro fine right at the first "strike" with unlimited strikes to follow (instead of strike I propose the term "ka-ching", as in "Gee, that's my third ka-ching this year, and it's only February!").
For some reason, the *AA is able to corrupt everyone once they get in a position to do something.

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
1. Re:HADOPI by roc97007 · 2013-02-01 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  > as in "Gee, that's my third ka-ching this year, and it's only February!"
  I'm wondering how many ka-chings before "I was just watching these myself, but now I have to sell pirated DVDs to recoup costs."
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
2. Re:HADOPI by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  For some reason, the *AA is able to corrupt everyone once they get in a position to do something.
  I think is not *AA only.
  Remember that Canada got on the bad side of US Trade Representative which is an office of US Government.
  Of course you can make the point that first *AA infected the government, but this was a long time ago.
  When they are in a room, in the shadow cast by them you may see an eagle profile.
  (Remember)
  http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-labels-spain-and-canada-as-piracy-havens-110217/
3. Re:HADOPI by manu0601 · 2013-02-01 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  French President François Hollande ran his campaign with the promise he would abrogate (abolish) the HADOPI three-strikes law. Yeah, we've seen how that worked out, right, French voters?
  If that was the only new presidency missed opportunity, we would be happy
Price of deterrence by cabraverde · 2013-02-01 04:38 · Score: 2

RIANZ will be weighing $250,000 against the deterrent effect this will have on filesharers. NOT the return they get in fines.

Perhaps that's money well spent from their point of view. It doesn't seem like it, but I'm in no position to judge.
1. Re:Price of deterrence by roc97007 · 2013-02-01 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  RIANZ will be weighing $250,000 against the deterrent effect this will have on filesharers. NOT the return they get in fines.
  Absolutely correct. Now, everyone raise their hand who thinks $600 in fines will be an effective deterrent. Or that some effective change actually comes about before politicians lose enough face to start to get de-elected.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
2. Re:Price of deterrence by RivenAleem · 2013-02-04 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL but doesn't this also cement in case law a successful outcome, thus making all further prosecutions a thing of rote? Can they now just use the system to send out 3 strikes, then a sheriff to claim the bill and possibly skip the courts altogether?
Yeah, but all things considered... by davidbrit2 · 2013-02-01 04:39 · Score: 4, Funny

You can't spell "Pyrrhic victory" without "victory"! Yay!
This the way it's supposed to work... by judoguy · 2013-02-01 04:56 · Score: 2

Government exists to consume resources. Any benefits to the citizens/subjects are incidental.
I really believe that.
I also believe that some government is a lot better than no government. The current U.S. problem is WAY too much government.
Government is at it's best when it provides for the lightest possible framework for us to live and work together.
Sensible people can debate where to draw that line, but now in the U.S. at least, the only argument going is how much parasitic government we can have without immediately killing the host.

--
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
1. Re:This the way it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  That just makes you an idiot.
2. Re:This the way it's supposed to work... by Scarletdown · 2013-02-01 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Care to elaborate further, Mr. Obama?
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
3. Re:This the way it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  You appear to think that the Republicans are any better. This amuses me, and I'm a foreigner.
4. Re:This the way it's supposed to work... by Scarletdown · 2013-02-01 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  You assume too much. I despise both major parties equally, since they are nothing more than 2 sides of the same political beastie.
  Even though I knew he had no chance of winning, I cast my vote for Gary Johnson, as his ideals aligned best with mine (not 100%, but close enough). I refused to simply choose between either the giant douche or the turd sandwich, because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
5. Re:This the way it's supposed to work... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-03 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  You assume too much. I despise both major parties equally, .
  Yes, but only an ex Republican would say both parties are the same.
6. Re:This the way it's supposed to work... by Scarletdown · 2013-02-03 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  You guessed wrong again. I have never been a Republican, and have also never been a Democrat.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
-1, Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative

eh? even the fucking summary says says "RIANZ had to spend" not "the taxpayer had to spend" .. and if you rfta the first damn line:

The local body representing big record labels claims to have spent around $250,000 chasing alleged music pirates

then later:

Rianz says it has sent out around 6000 notices to alleged pirates, for which the music industry body must pay a $25 fee each for internet companies to send on to their customers.

that's $150k right there, plus $100k to employ people to hunt/send stuff and lawyers is hardly unreasonable .. how the hell is this "insightful" when it's contradicted by the summary
1. Re:-1, Wrong by blind+monkey+3 · 2013-02-01 09:05 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  +10 insightful, +10 informarive, -10 for reading the summary, -1000 for quoting the summary.
  At /. it's di rigueur to the read the headline and use the force to fill in the details. Shame on you AC, hand in your /. badge and pick up a /, one.
  
  Also note the deliberare typo above, this is a simple jedi trick to get people to critique the spelling and ignore the content (also works with grammar btw).
  May the farce be with you.
  
  --
  BM3
Fight the power by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:26 · Score: 0

I have a plan to make these battles interesting.
Atleast where I live, we have urinals in the mens bathroom that shows video commercials.
I know how to update these.
Make your local McDonalds show 0 day movies
profit!!!
Reminds me of a joke with the punchline: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:28 · Score: 0

"Plitty soon, no more Japanese!"
I have a morbid idea: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:33 · Score: 0

Most of this is a joke... Mostly...
In light of all of these wonderful new laws protecting copyright at incredible costs to the public. We should start recruiting depressed and hopeless (dying of some terrible chronic disease) people.
Hear me out -- we recruit them to pirate like there is no tomorrow and then when they are taken to court -- they off themselves (assuming they were going to do this anyway) and then we can blame the RIAA/MPAA/Govt. Maybe then the average Joe Sixpack will begin to rise up against our overlords and demand change. Think of the headlines! "Teenager being sued for 3.8billion dollars by RIAA kills self," "Grandma dead after government threatens suit of 8trillion dollars for downloading Bieber album," "LawSuit over Batman movie ends tragically after murder suicide"
Meh, they wouldn't care...
$250,000 to collect $616.57? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 05:51 · Score: 0

How will they make up the difference? Volume!
greece compels you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 06:06 · Score: 0

the debts of greece compel you....to be stupid
Continue? by roc97007 · 2013-02-01 06:07 · Score: 1

> The question raised is whether or not this money pit trend will continue
God, I hope so.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Title is obviously misleading by Slippery_Hank · 2013-02-01 06:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

RIANZ has paid 250k in total, the 616 dollars represents the result of the first case. They have sent out notices to roughly 6000 alleged infringers though. So if we assume that 616 is an average results ( I know that a sample of one is not very representative ), then we can expect that they will pull in 616*6000 which is approximately 3.7 million dollars. Lets wait til the dust settles to start scoring winners and losers.
1. Re:Title is obviously misleading by RivenAleem · 2013-02-04 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I made a similar comment above in response to another post, but this sounds like paying $250k investment the first time around to ensure that you set a solid precedent in the courts that is unassailable. Thereafter is is a simple case of issuing bills and charging the bailiff/sheriff with the task of recovering it.
Copyright itself may be justifiable... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 09:50 · Score: 0

...But the duration of the copyright is less so.
Although it's been said many times before, it bears repeating: Steamboat Willie is still under copyright, and probably will be for near-eternity, even though Walt Disney died December 15, 1966.
We are going to open everyones wifi. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 19:05 · Score: 0

Most will never know it there will be so much open wifi that you wont be even need a cell phone.
We are LEGION.