Housing bubble in the early 1990s. Gov't intervention caused the pain to go on forever. Now we have our own housing bubble and if Bernanke, Bush, and all the legislators get their way, we too will face more than a decade of lousy economic conditions. Just forclose it all, take the hit, and recover. That would work a lot better.
You sorta need to read the news a little. Number one, it was a civil case meaning a private entity sued a private entity for money. The police were never involved and there was never any question that she would go to jail. There was no door kicking -- there was a discovery process by which the plaintiff asked her to turn over relevant evidence. She destroyed that evidence rather than stand by her acts. Because the government was not a party, and because this was not a criminal trial, jail of any kind was not on the table. Secondly, it's over the top to compare her acts, i.e., making available for free the work of other people, to the acts of those who are fighting for freedom or saving people's lives. An insult actually.
The lawyer's fees are a bargain compared to the value of the publicity. They didn't do this to get $222k from someone (though that's a nice side effect in their mind) -- they did it for the news coverage.
That was actually part of the problem -- pretrial she said it had been replaced before the notice. During the trial it came out that she replaced it AFTER the notice. Her explanation to the jury was that she "mis-spoke" in her earlier testimony. So rather than help her, her earlier deposition testimony actually made her look like a liar.
You are incorrect. This was a civil case, not a criminal one, so first off, the jury didn't decide she was "guilty". What the jury decided was that she infringed on the Plaintiffs' copyrights. Then the jury chose the number of infringing acts, and assigned a value between $750 and $150,000 for each infringement. For whatever reason, the jury went with $9250 for each, or $222k total. Here is the verdict form they used: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/riaa_verdict_form.pdf
As should be clear when you read it, "guilt" is not at issue, only "infringement". You will also see that jury was responsible for the dollar figure.
Although I'm not into conspiracy theories at all, the thought had crossed my mind. Given the reports on what the evidence was, I can't imagine any reason for this case to have gone forward. Of course, a rather possible stream of events short of conspiracy is this:
Thomas is approached w/ settlement but refuses to pay the usual $3500.
She gets an attorney and obstinately makes noise about the injustice of it all.
The case gets set, discovery starts, and the RIAA realize they have a winner.
At the same time, the defense realizes the case is a dog -- approaches RIAA for a second chance at settlement.
RIAA knows they have media gold and refuse to settle, or make an offer that is ridiculously high -- a high settlement would serve their media purposes as well as a win at trial.
Thomas is now stuck and just goes along for the ride -- trial happens and the rest is history.
That's probably closer to what happened, but it's still tempting to think it was a complete setup.
Well, you'd have to go read the jury instructions. There were two levels: non-willful: 750-30k. If it was willful, then up to 150k. Both willful and non-wilfull are "per song".
Punitive damages is a term with a special meaning. No punitive damages were awarded in this case. Statutory damages could have been as high as $150,000 per song. While that level may well be punitive in a colloquial sense, we are talking a special usage -- not a conversational usage.
Because they decided her acts were willful, the range went up to $150,000. They went with a figure on the very low end of the range -- bottom 6% -- so it clearly could have been worse for her. I'm sure the RIAA isn't crying, but they'd have much rather seen a seven figure award for the sheer shock value the headlines would get.
From the various things I read, her attorney questioned her for about three minutes. Add to this all the soon to be repeated evidence against her, plus the fact she put on no expert witnesses at all, and I have to wonder, why the heck did she go to trial with this dog of a case? Reportedly, she spent $60k on attorney fees.
Anyway, if the damages award is not dischargeable in bankruptcy (something I would hope she looked into prior to trial), she is just screwed for life.
I suppose her only hope is on the issue of whether "making available" requires the RIAA to show someone downloaded the stuff in her shared folder. But the appeals are going to be very expensive. Even if she wins, it will be pyrrhic victory. I just don't understand.
Win or lose it is publicity for the RIAA, particularly the reports that Thomas has paid $60k in attorney fees so far. Even if she wins, people will hear how much it cost her to win. But, if the reports are to be believed, she ain't winning this one -- she put on no experts (couldn't afford them) nor did she offer anyr testimony to substantiate alternative reasons for how the files got shared if it wasn't her.
I expect the jury to come back with a damage award of some kind -- probably not $750 per song because the math is hard. It'll use $1000 or some multiple where the two leftmost digits are divisible by 5 because the math is easy: 24 * (x*10 or 0) + (1/2 * 24 * 10).
Crap. If I like an song a lot, I end up listening to it over and over and over incessantly. Longest was around 3 weeks. And when I say incessantly, I mean constantly -- just leave the song on repeat. If I'm that stuck and I turn it off, I get uncomfortable as it imperfectly echoes through my head. If I try to listen to something else, I just get frustrated. So anyway, I have a certain subset of songs for which I've really gotten my money's worth.
Here is an example of a for profit company giving something back. Novell may not be on everyone's favorite list, but there are plenty of companies that actually see the potential for profit by doing things that are helpful. I was personally annoyed at how 9/10 posts in the TomTom thread were simply "they make more money by not being good citizens" posts, and yet those posters intentionally ignored how doing good things can lead to a stronger bottom line, even if the path is not as direct, by building community interest. Anyway, I'm going to make it a point to shun penny wise and pound foolish companies here on out. Start flaming.
And if you read all the way through, I suggested that penny pinching like that might cost them money overall. People I know ask me for my opinion about electronics -- as in they tell me what they want to do, I tell them what to buy, and they do it. Make me happy and I bring my own money plus a bunch more. Make me unhappy, and the manufacturer loses my money plus a bunch more. At some point, it is penny wise and pound foolish to be a poor corp. citizen. Are we there yet? Doubt it. Will we get there? Probably.
The ROI is getting geek mindshare. As I mentioned before here, I've been the key factor in the computer purchases several people I know made -- five computers in 24 months. None of these people use linux, but they still ask me what I think. That amplifies the value of my opinions five fold.
Because the Linux-using community represents such a small percentage of their customer base...
But wasn't that part of the point of the summary -- they saved a ton by using a premade OS rather than building their own. What's so hard about giving back to the community a tiny little something. After all, it is that very community that made their profits possible in the first place. It's about good citizenship, not an extra two cents profit per device.
Plus, it really is true that linux users probably affect more sales than just the machines we buy for ourselves. I know I have personally influenced the buying habits 5 other users in the last 24 months (all non-linux users). Get the geeks excited about your product, you'll sell to them and everyone they know. So that two cent loss caused by giving back, might turn into an extra dime profit over all.
I agree that people scare stupidly easily (see: boston) but this isn't a good example.
So it seems that unless you are a pot-bellied, glued-to-the-tube, backyard BBQ, All American meat head, there's no place left for you in the good 'ol US of A. Before we know it, all the smart people, or people with different ideas, will be in jail or litigated into bankruptcy and living under bridges where the cops can more easily harass them. I'm so proud to be an American -- now where's my remote?
That's what a defamation suit is for, but if you look around, they specifically aren't claiming defamation -- they're just dealing out take down notices under the draconian anti-speech rules in Britain. Secondly, given the author's position, he is quite likely a highly knowledgeable source. Last, even if totally false, he has by his own aggressive actions made the problem worse, which was my point.
If this jerk had simply kept his trap shut and his legal team leashed, I would never have heard of him. But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
OK, don't take this as a suggestion because I hate the telecos in general. I tried vonage for a while for my business but there was this strange problem of people calling my number and getting a "disconnected" message. Mind you, this was 2 years ago but my business depends on a working incoming number so I had to bail. When I switched back to Qwest, I noticed they had a $75 "unlimited long distance in the U.S." plan (business service) for one line. I was sad to have to give up my two lines for $50 with vonage which included the same type of service for all of N. America (US + Canada), but it had to be done. I was losing more than $100 price difference between the cost of two lines. So anyway, grit your teeth and check out your normal crappy POTS carrier. They may have something that will work -- order it, then go take a shower with powerful disinfectant soap to clean off.
I haven't RTFAd, but the summary implies that Woz thought Apple should have gouged for a longer period. Is that a worthy thought for someone held in as high esteem as Woz? Sounds very accountantish.
Slashdot Mirror
Housing bubble in the early 1990s. Gov't intervention caused the pain to go on forever. Now we have our own housing bubble and if Bernanke, Bush, and all the legislators get their way, we too will face more than a decade of lousy economic conditions. Just forclose it all, take the hit, and recover. That would work a lot better.
You sorta need to read the news a little. Number one, it was a civil case meaning a private entity sued a private entity for money. The police were never involved and there was never any question that she would go to jail. There was no door kicking -- there was a discovery process by which the plaintiff asked her to turn over relevant evidence. She destroyed that evidence rather than stand by her acts. Because the government was not a party, and because this was not a criminal trial, jail of any kind was not on the table. Secondly, it's over the top to compare her acts, i.e., making available for free the work of other people, to the acts of those who are fighting for freedom or saving people's lives. An insult actually.
Less than half? More like just over 6% of what she could have lost. She got off pretty light compared to what could have happened ($3.6m).
The lawyer's fees are a bargain compared to the value of the publicity. They didn't do this to get $222k from someone (though that's a nice side effect in their mind) -- they did it for the news coverage.
That was actually part of the problem -- pretrial she said it had been replaced before the notice. During the trial it came out that she replaced it AFTER the notice. Her explanation to the jury was that she "mis-spoke" in her earlier testimony. So rather than help her, her earlier deposition testimony actually made her look like a liar.
You realize the jury also directly set the amount of damages?
You are incorrect. This was a civil case, not a criminal one, so first off, the jury didn't decide she was "guilty". What the jury decided was that she infringed on the Plaintiffs' copyrights. Then the jury chose the number of infringing acts, and assigned a value between $750 and $150,000 for each infringement. For whatever reason, the jury went with $9250 for each, or $222k total. Here is the verdict form they used: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/riaa_verdict_form.pdf
As should be clear when you read it, "guilt" is not at issue, only "infringement". You will also see that jury was responsible for the dollar figure.
That's probably closer to what happened, but it's still tempting to think it was a complete setup.
Well, you'd have to go read the jury instructions. There were two levels: non-willful: 750-30k. If it was willful, then up to 150k. Both willful and non-wilfull are "per song".
verdict form: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/riaa_verdict_form.pdf
instructions: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/jury_instructions.pdf
Punitive damages is a term with a special meaning. No punitive damages were awarded in this case. Statutory damages could have been as high as $150,000 per song. While that level may well be punitive in a colloquial sense, we are talking a special usage -- not a conversational usage.
Because they decided her acts were willful, the range went up to $150,000. They went with a figure on the very low end of the range -- bottom 6% -- so it clearly could have been worse for her. I'm sure the RIAA isn't crying, but they'd have much rather seen a seven figure award for the sheer shock value the headlines would get.
From the various things I read, her attorney questioned her for about three minutes. Add to this all the soon to be repeated evidence against her, plus the fact she put on no expert witnesses at all, and I have to wonder, why the heck did she go to trial with this dog of a case? Reportedly, she spent $60k on attorney fees.
Anyway, if the damages award is not dischargeable in bankruptcy (something I would hope she looked into prior to trial), she is just screwed for life.
I suppose her only hope is on the issue of whether "making available" requires the RIAA to show someone downloaded the stuff in her shared folder. But the appeals are going to be very expensive. Even if she wins, it will be pyrrhic victory. I just don't understand.
Mod me troll, Jury came up w/ 222,000 for 24 songs or 9250 per song.
Win or lose it is publicity for the RIAA, particularly the reports that Thomas has paid $60k in attorney fees so far. Even if she wins, people will hear how much it cost her to win. But, if the reports are to be believed, she ain't winning this one -- she put on no experts (couldn't afford them) nor did she offer anyr testimony to substantiate alternative reasons for how the files got shared if it wasn't her.
I expect the jury to come back with a damage award of some kind -- probably not $750 per song because the math is hard. It'll use $1000 or some multiple where the two leftmost digits are divisible by 5 because the math is easy: 24 * (x*10 or 0) + (1/2 * 24 * 10).
There's my prediction, mod me troll if wrong.
Crap. If I like an song a lot, I end up listening to it over and over and over incessantly. Longest was around 3 weeks. And when I say incessantly, I mean constantly -- just leave the song on repeat. If I'm that stuck and I turn it off, I get uncomfortable as it imperfectly echoes through my head. If I try to listen to something else, I just get frustrated. So anyway, I have a certain subset of songs for which I've really gotten my money's worth.
Here is an example of a for profit company giving something back. Novell may not be on everyone's favorite list, but there are plenty of companies that actually see the potential for profit by doing things that are helpful. I was personally annoyed at how 9/10 posts in the TomTom thread were simply "they make more money by not being good citizens" posts, and yet those posters intentionally ignored how doing good things can lead to a stronger bottom line, even if the path is not as direct, by building community interest. Anyway, I'm going to make it a point to shun penny wise and pound foolish companies here on out. Start flaming.
And if you read all the way through, I suggested that penny pinching like that might cost them money overall. People I know ask me for my opinion about electronics -- as in they tell me what they want to do, I tell them what to buy, and they do it. Make me happy and I bring my own money plus a bunch more. Make me unhappy, and the manufacturer loses my money plus a bunch more. At some point, it is penny wise and pound foolish to be a poor corp. citizen. Are we there yet? Doubt it. Will we get there? Probably.
The ROI is getting geek mindshare. As I mentioned before here, I've been the key factor in the computer purchases several people I know made -- five computers in 24 months. None of these people use linux, but they still ask me what I think. That amplifies the value of my opinions five fold.
But wasn't that part of the point of the summary -- they saved a ton by using a premade OS rather than building their own. What's so hard about giving back to the community a tiny little something. After all, it is that very community that made their profits possible in the first place. It's about good citizenship, not an extra two cents profit per device.
Plus, it really is true that linux users probably affect more sales than just the machines we buy for ourselves. I know I have personally influenced the buying habits 5 other users in the last 24 months (all non-linux users). Get the geeks excited about your product, you'll sell to them and everyone they know. So that two cent loss caused by giving back, might turn into an extra dime profit over all.
So it seems that unless you are a pot-bellied, glued-to-the-tube, backyard BBQ, All American meat head, there's no place left for you in the good 'ol US of A. Before we know it, all the smart people, or people with different ideas, will be in jail or litigated into bankruptcy and living under bridges where the cops can more easily harass them. I'm so proud to be an American -- now where's my remote?
That's what a defamation suit is for, but if you look around, they specifically aren't claiming defamation -- they're just dealing out take down notices under the draconian anti-speech rules in Britain. Secondly, given the author's position, he is quite likely a highly knowledgeable source. Last, even if totally false, he has by his own aggressive actions made the problem worse, which was my point.
If this jerk had simply kept his trap shut and his legal team leashed, I would never have heard of him. But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.
OK, don't take this as a suggestion because I hate the telecos in general. I tried vonage for a while for my business but there was this strange problem of people calling my number and getting a "disconnected" message. Mind you, this was 2 years ago but my business depends on a working incoming number so I had to bail. When I switched back to Qwest, I noticed they had a $75 "unlimited long distance in the U.S." plan (business service) for one line. I was sad to have to give up my two lines for $50 with vonage which included the same type of service for all of N. America (US + Canada), but it had to be done. I was losing more than $100 price difference between the cost of two lines. So anyway, grit your teeth and check out your normal crappy POTS carrier. They may have something that will work -- order it, then go take a shower with powerful disinfectant soap to clean off.
I haven't RTFAd, but the summary implies that Woz thought Apple should have gouged for a longer period. Is that a worthy thought for someone held in as high esteem as Woz? Sounds very accountantish.
Old saying: If there is one lawyer in town, he goes broke. If there are two, they both get rich.