That said, I sincerely doubt the RIAA will ever see a penny of it. You know she's going to file Bankruptcy (Ch 7, IIRC, the one where you don't have a re-payment plan, because no way is she going to pay TWO-HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS back in 20 years, let alone the ~5 a Ch 13 is for.).
And you know what? I doubt they care even a little bit. See, and that's the thing... this isn't about a redress of grievances. It's about deterrence, about control, and I'm sure they're feeling like they just did one hell of a job justifying their salaries right now. On the other hand, whether this judgment will have any effect whatsoever the level of illegal downloading is another story. It might even make the problem worse: I know I'm feeling like grabbing a couple of tunes just for spite.
Yes I do, and no I don't. It would trust my doctor with my privacy... but I wouldn't necessarily trust anyone that works for him. I sure as hell don't trust any major corporation with my privacy. I don't care who they are, and with globalization more and more of the medical services sector is going overseas. Medical transcription, for example, has gone to India bigtime, and there have already been a number of high-profile data theft cases.
Really makes you want to start eating lots of vegetables, lay off the mainstream American diet, and start exercising, really, it does. Whatever it takes to keep myself as far out of the medical system as I can.
No different from, say, getting your car repaired. The best way is to ask around, find somebody competent, and stick with him (or her.) It also helps to learn a little about the subject as well... makes it harder to have the wool pulled over your eyes.
The other thing to remember is that, if you want to illegally download songs:
a. don't use a swarming protocol like Bit Torrent (not a good choice for small files anyway) and,
b. make sure you're a leecher (not lecher, as I assume most Slashdotters already are.) As I understand it, all these cases have come about from the people making files available, not the people actually downloading them.
The error you're making (the same one the RIAA makes, more deliberately and with malice aforethought) is assuming that N downloads corresponds directly to N lost sales. That's just not true, and I'm sure you know it. I have no idea what the actual ratio is, but I guarantee you that it's not one to one. Furthermore, there's simply no way to quantify exactly how much infringement occurred. Obviously an estimate was made, but the number was pulled out of someone's ass. You're also confusing theft with copyright infringement, but that topic has been beaten to death here on Slashdot, and I'm sure that someone will eventually make the difference clear to you.
In any event, this is a travesty of justice. The problem here, as I understand it, is that the statutory penalties for infringement were meant to deter large-scale piracy of copyrighted works, because the people who drafted those laws couldn't conceive of anything like a global network. The idea that a single individual could have the capability to make thousands of copies and distribute them worldwide never occurred them. Consequently, applying said laws to individuals is insane, destructive to society, and serves little purpose. They will tell that "Well, you see, it's for the deterrent effect. We have to have those big numbers to scare people away from copyright infringement." Now, I understand the principle: but given the terabytes worth of illegal downloads that occur in the U.S. alone each year, I'd say the law has failed in that regard, and failed miserably. Besides, this woman is already out her legal costs, and slapping a five or ten grand judgment on top of that would probably scare her away from ever using an Internet connection again. A quarter of a million dollars? Legal? Apparently so... but it isn't just. I don't care how much you feel the copyright holder's interests need to be protected, but when all is said and done, are twenty-four MP3 files really worth what was done to this person?
I sincerely hope that your own ignorance of our laws trips you up in some way, puts you on the wrong end of the justice system. Not a quarter mil's worth: I don't wish you that much ill. Our legal system is so complex that everyone, everywhere, is already a criminal, to one degree or another. The only reason that this particular transgression is so noteworthy is that a number of powerful, obscenely-rich interests long ago had the law skewed heavily in their favor, and now they've chosen to use those tools to destroy individuals, not the pirates they were intended to be used against.
I guess I'm just saying that, if something like this happened to you, you might find yourself changing your tune.
Re:Draw your own conclusions...
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
Well, just for the record I was kidding (if you've read any of my other posts you realize that I'm not supporter of the existing music industry.)
I haven't bothered investing in music since the late seventies (yes, in the last days of vinyl) because a. I recognized a lousy deal when I saw it and b. I'd investigated the music industry a little, and once I understood who I was dealing with I stopped. People here on Slashdot like to call that "voting with your dollars." So... I voted. Now, that doesn't mean I don't buy music now and then, but I only buy secondhand discs. Let someone else give the studios and the Recording Industry Association of America's lawyers their cut: I haven't given those bastards a penny in over twenty years, and I don't plan to start any time soon.
Remember, the ultimate goal of these politicians is to have such a dizzying array of laws that they can arrest anyone at any time and always have a "legitimate" reason.
Too late. Besides, that's only an issue while we still have the vestiges of the Constitution to protect us. When we finally devolve into a true totalitarian state (or are simply annexed by one, which is probably more likely) they'll no longer need a dizzying array of laws to justify their actions. They'll just do whatever they please to the citizenry, as totalitarians are wont to do.
Really, there ought to be prosecutions involved. This is malfeasance in office, maybe influence peddling, I don't know. Can any lawyers enlighten us as to what kinds of illegality might be involved here, if any?
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I sincerely doubt the RIAA will ever see a penny of it. You know she's going to file Bankruptcy (Ch 7, IIRC, the one where you don't have a re-payment plan, because no way is she going to pay TWO-HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS back in 20 years, let alone the ~5 a Ch 13 is for.).
... this isn't about a redress of grievances. It's about deterrence, about control, and I'm sure they're feeling like they just did one hell of a job justifying their salaries right now. On the other hand, whether this judgment will have any effect whatsoever the level of illegal downloading is another story. It might even make the problem worse: I know I'm feeling like grabbing a couple of tunes just for spite.
And you know what? I doubt they care even a little bit. See, and that's the thing
All trials are about what might have happened. It's all about the degree of certainty.
Yes I do, and no I don't. It would trust my doctor with my privacy ... but I wouldn't necessarily trust anyone that works for him. I sure as hell don't trust any major corporation with my privacy. I don't care who they are, and with globalization more and more of the medical services sector is going overseas. Medical transcription, for example, has gone to India bigtime, and there have already been a number of high-profile data theft cases.
Really makes you want to start eating lots of vegetables, lay off the mainstream American diet, and start exercising, really, it does. Whatever it takes to keep myself as far out of the medical system as I can.
No different from, say, getting your car repaired. The best way is to ask around, find somebody competent, and stick with him (or her.) It also helps to learn a little about the subject as well ... makes it harder to have the wool pulled over your eyes.
The other thing to remember is that, if you want to illegally download songs:
a. don't use a swarming protocol like Bit Torrent (not a good choice for small files anyway) and,
b. make sure you're a leecher (not lecher, as I assume most Slashdotters already are.) As I understand it, all these cases have come about from the people making files available, not the people actually downloading them.
The error you're making (the same one the RIAA makes, more deliberately and with malice aforethought) is assuming that N downloads corresponds directly to N lost sales. That's just not true, and I'm sure you know it. I have no idea what the actual ratio is, but I guarantee you that it's not one to one. Furthermore, there's simply no way to quantify exactly how much infringement occurred. Obviously an estimate was made, but the number was pulled out of someone's ass. You're also confusing theft with copyright infringement, but that topic has been beaten to death here on Slashdot, and I'm sure that someone will eventually make the difference clear to you.
... but it isn't just. I don't care how much you feel the copyright holder's interests need to be protected, but when all is said and done, are twenty-four MP3 files really worth what was done to this person?
In any event, this is a travesty of justice. The problem here, as I understand it, is that the statutory penalties for infringement were meant to deter large-scale piracy of copyrighted works, because the people who drafted those laws couldn't conceive of anything like a global network. The idea that a single individual could have the capability to make thousands of copies and distribute them worldwide never occurred them. Consequently, applying said laws to individuals is insane, destructive to society, and serves little purpose. They will tell that "Well, you see, it's for the deterrent effect. We have to have those big numbers to scare people away from copyright infringement." Now, I understand the principle: but given the terabytes worth of illegal downloads that occur in the U.S. alone each year, I'd say the law has failed in that regard, and failed miserably. Besides, this woman is already out her legal costs, and slapping a five or ten grand judgment on top of that would probably scare her away from ever using an Internet connection again. A quarter of a million dollars? Legal? Apparently so
I sincerely hope that your own ignorance of our laws trips you up in some way, puts you on the wrong end of the justice system. Not a quarter mil's worth: I don't wish you that much ill. Our legal system is so complex that everyone, everywhere, is already a criminal, to one degree or another. The only reason that this particular transgression is so noteworthy is that a number of powerful, obscenely-rich interests long ago had the law skewed heavily in their favor, and now they've chosen to use those tools to destroy individuals, not the pirates they were intended to be used against.
I guess I'm just saying that, if something like this happened to you, you might find yourself changing your tune.
Well, just for the record I was kidding (if you've read any of my other posts you realize that I'm not supporter of the existing music industry.)
... I voted. Now, that doesn't mean I don't buy music now and then, but I only buy secondhand discs. Let someone else give the studios and the Recording Industry Association of America's lawyers their cut: I haven't given those bastards a penny in over twenty years, and I don't plan to start any time soon.
I haven't bothered investing in music since the late seventies (yes, in the last days of vinyl) because a. I recognized a lousy deal when I saw it and b. I'd investigated the music industry a little, and once I understood who I was dealing with I stopped. People here on Slashdot like to call that "voting with your dollars." So
Bloodsucking leeches.
Nah ... that was Jimmy Doohan.
Any way you slice it, this is bad news for masochists.
Yes, the FA is actually part of a script for Rowan Atkinson's new feature film, "Mr. Bean Goes to College."
Remember, the ultimate goal of these politicians is to have such a dizzying array of laws that they can arrest anyone at any time and always have a "legitimate" reason.
Too late. Besides, that's only an issue while we still have the vestiges of the Constitution to protect us. When we finally devolve into a true totalitarian state (or are simply annexed by one, which is probably more likely) they'll no longer need a dizzying array of laws to justify their actions. They'll just do whatever they please to the citizenry, as totalitarians are wont to do.
Souunds like you're a fellow Niven fan.
... including some large Russian models.
Are there any small Russian models? Those guys built to scales that would give an inferiority complex to a Texan.
I don't think "when pigs fly" was intended to describe unpowered ballistic flight.
the pirated version is quantifiably better than the real thing, to the point that I'd willingly pay a premium for the pirated version.
The good news is, there are plenty of small companies that would be perfectly happy to take your money.
I can give them a hint ... CA.GOV.
Deleting CA.GOV? I didn't realize that FEMA was planning was to actually erase Arnold Schwarzenegger.
... most ipod users apparently don't use the apple store much, so it shouldn't represent a problem for most people.
Does that mean iPods truly are, after all is said and done, little more than repositories for stolen music like the RIAA says?
Does that apply to Jesus? I understand he's been logging souls for centuries.
You do know that logging IPs is not the same as enslaving people.
Really, there ought to be prosecutions involved. This is malfeasance in office, maybe influence peddling, I don't know. Can any lawyers enlighten us as to what kinds of illegality might be involved here, if any?
They're just the investigative arm of Congress.
What it really comes down to is whether you are capable of standing up to a police interrogation.
That hot chick on Television who asks if I have worms, and sells antivirus software. That's one pluggable security model right there.
Yes, but that's an iterative solution with a known end condition.
please type the word in this image: frontal [lobotomy???]
This is Slashdot. Nudity.