Agreed, the jury in this case should be ASHAMED of themselves. There are people who are at fault accidentally killing other human beings who receive less punishment than they are handing out for someone "stealing" 30 songs.
The verdict handed down in this case is a life destroying verdict for a young man. That the RIAA keeps appealing for its huge award is DISGUSTING.
Giant corporate entities are working at utterly destroying one person's life. The RIAA deserves every ounce of contempt and disdain it gets from the people.
For companies that like to believe that they create things that move human emotions and make people think, the RIAA collectively is a horribly dark, twisted, and evil group of people (and the MPAA is even. worse.)
Frankly, your attempt to put words in my mouth, impugn my credibility, and suggest some ulterior motive (to the point of demanding to know who my employer is) is insulting, rude, and unprofessional. But I'm sure you didn't actually intend any of that and will apologize momentarily.
Mr. Theaetetus
1. Don't hold your breath.
2. I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll and/or shill, and will ignore you accordingly.
You can say whatever you want, but the documents don't lie.
By suggesting that this didn't really happen, you are misleading anyone who cares to accept you as credible, and your motivations for doing so are curious indeed.
You can play whatever games you like, but I deeply resent your suggestion that the summary which I wrote was somehow inaccurate. If you don't intend any "offense", don't say something I wrote was wrong when it's right, and the only thing "wrong" is your outlandish argument that the papers do not mean what they say.
The standards for contributory infringement were established in MGM v Grokster. To be secondarily liable the defendant must have encouraged or induced the infringement. Mere 'negligence' would not suffice.
Nope. A swarm is nothing like a conference call, because you aren't interacting with every member of the swarm, but just a few members at a time - restricted by how many connections your bandwidth can actually handle at a given time. Regardless, the reported "offenses" are so separate in *TIME* that there is no guarantee that the Doe's in this case were actually online and part of the swarm at the same time as each other. Even if they were the chance that they actually shared parts of the movie between each other is so low as to be nil.
You really should read the documents linked to - they might be in legalese, but it is close enough to english for just about anyone to follow. And it does explain things simply enough for anyone to be able to understand them. Yes, there is an explanation for how a BitTorrent swarm works in the actual motion and it was written in such a way as to be understandable by any of the legal professionals - including the judge in the case.
And regardless of whether or not "participating in the same swarm" is a legal theory that holds water and fulfills the requirements of the rules, well... There is the fact that these "joinders" benefit only the plaintiffs in the case and create hardships for the joined defendents that break the required "fairness" of the legal system. (Yes, the legal system is supposed to be fair - surprising, no ?) So the joinder should be undone anyway:)
Again, read the actual motion. These arguments are covered in depth and explained in excruciating detail inside it. To tell the truth, I will be surprised if this motion doesn't go through. Doe #4 has a *LOT* of legal precedent on his side:)
My impression was that CNET was the RIAA's best buddy lately. I was involved in a case where the RIAA leaked a cease and desist letter to CNET 3 or 4 days before it was received by the named recipient.
The main problem with the music industry is not the artists, they don't make any money off album sales; not because of pirating, but because the distributors suck every last penny from the sales. The RIAA is not made up of artists, they are made up of distributors. The distributors are no longer needed in digital distribution, so they are losing money, the artists are not losing money, as they always made their money from the live performances.
When you try to defend the music industry, really think about who you are defending because it isn't the artists.
Very well said.
I think the time will come that musicians will be making some real money from the recordings, which has never been the case before, because they get to keep a much, much higher percentage.
It was a sad day for the big labels when indie artist Amanda Palmer brought in over a million dollars ($1,192,793, to be exact), independently of the labels, to mix, distribute, and promote her new album. On her Kickstarter page there's a video where she explains the whole thing, and points out that if she'd financed the album by letting a record label do it, she herself would wind up receiving zilch from the album sales.
All she needed was a twitter account, a facebook account, a Kickstarter account, and 25,000 friends.
I think that was just my bad wording, what I was trying to say was that he was basically telling the judges to ignore what was written down.
That's exactly what he said. The judge said something like "the statue requires that there be a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease, or lending. So you agree that that occurred here?" The RIAA lawyer responded "well your honor you have to read the statute holistically".
I.e., the RIAA lawyer was asking the judge to ignore the clear words of the statute. Only an RIAA lawyer would have that much chutzpah. This guy was really struggling.
And the courts ruled that making available is not distribution.
Correction: the lower court ruled that making available is not distribution.
Correction. THIS court, in a previous case not involving RIAA mp3 files, ruled that making available is not distribution. Which is why Judge Davis ruled that making available is not distribution.
In actuality, Jamie Thomas made thousands of songs available. The RIAA only picked a small subset for trial..... Wonder why they only tried to go for a mere 30 or so?
Think it could it have anything to do with the fact that there's no such thing as "making available" in US copyright law?
My favorite moment in the argument was when the judge asked the RIAA's lawyer (Paul Clement) whether he agreed that the statute requires, for distribution, that there be a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a license, rental, or lending. And Clement asked the judge not to rely on the words of the statute, but to read the statute 'holistically'.
I never knew the RIAA was so holistic. Maybe next they'll be wearing beads and tie-dyed t-shirts.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, the jury in this case should be ASHAMED of themselves. There are people who are at fault accidentally killing other human beings who receive less punishment than they are handing out for someone "stealing" 30 songs. The verdict handed down in this case is a life destroying verdict for a young man. That the RIAA keeps appealing for its huge award is DISGUSTING. Giant corporate entities are working at utterly destroying one person's life. The RIAA deserves every ounce of contempt and disdain it gets from the people. For companies that like to believe that they create things that move human emotions and make people think, the RIAA collectively is a horribly dark, twisted, and evil group of people (and the MPAA is even. worse.)
Very well said.
Frankly, your attempt to put words in my mouth, impugn my credibility, and suggest some ulterior motive (to the point of demanding to know who my employer is) is insulting, rude, and unprofessional. But I'm sure you didn't actually intend any of that and will apologize momentarily.
Mr. Theaetetus
1. Don't hold your breath.
2. I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll and/or shill, and will ignore you accordingly.
The complaint (PDF) included a 3rd claim for "negligence". Complaint, paragraphs 47 to 58.
The defendant moved to dismiss the 3rd claim for "negligence" on preemption grounds and the EFF filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the request for dismissal of the negligence claim on preemption grounds.
Thereafter the Judge granted the motion to dismiss the 3rd claim for negligence on preemption grounds.
You can say whatever you want, but the documents don't lie.
By suggesting that this didn't really happen, you are misleading anyone who cares to accept you as credible, and your motivations for doing so are curious indeed.
You can play whatever games you like, but I deeply resent your suggestion that the summary which I wrote was somehow inaccurate. If you don't intend any "offense", don't say something I wrote was wrong when it's right, and the only thing "wrong" is your outlandish argument that the papers do not mean what they say.
If you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living, and for whom?
It seems to me that every time I post something on slashdot, you're there trying to belittle it.
You know who I am. Who are you? Since you have an agenda, you should disclose what it is.
The standards for contributory infringement were established in MGM v Grokster. To be secondarily liable the defendant must have encouraged or induced the infringement. Mere 'negligence' would not suffice.
Nope. A swarm is nothing like a conference call, because you aren't interacting with every member of the swarm, but just a few members at a time - restricted by how many connections your bandwidth can actually handle at a given time. Regardless, the reported "offenses" are so separate in *TIME* that there is no guarantee that the Doe's in this case were actually online and part of the swarm at the same time as each other. Even if they were the chance that they actually shared parts of the movie between each other is so low as to be nil. You really should read the documents linked to - they might be in legalese, but it is close enough to english for just about anyone to follow. And it does explain things simply enough for anyone to be able to understand them. Yes, there is an explanation for how a BitTorrent swarm works in the actual motion and it was written in such a way as to be understandable by any of the legal professionals - including the judge in the case. And regardless of whether or not "participating in the same swarm" is a legal theory that holds water and fulfills the requirements of the rules, well... There is the fact that these "joinders" benefit only the plaintiffs in the case and create hardships for the joined defendents that break the required "fairness" of the legal system. (Yes, the legal system is supposed to be fair - surprising, no ?) So the joinder should be undone anyway :)
Again, read the actual motion. These arguments are covered in depth and explained in excruciating detail inside it. To tell the truth, I will be surprised if this motion doesn't go through. Doe #4 has a *LOT* of legal precedent on his side :)
Why, thank you.
My impression was that CNET was the RIAA's best buddy lately. I was involved in a case where the RIAA leaked a cease and desist letter to CNET 3 or 4 days before it was received by the named recipient.
I'm surprised they would turn on CNET
The main problem with the music industry is not the artists, they don't make any money off album sales; not because of pirating, but because the distributors suck every last penny from the sales. The RIAA is not made up of artists, they are made up of distributors. The distributors are no longer needed in digital distribution, so they are losing money, the artists are not losing money, as they always made their money from the live performances.
When you try to defend the music industry, really think about who you are defending because it isn't the artists.
Very well said.
I think the time will come that musicians will be making some real money from the recordings, which has never been the case before, because they get to keep a much, much higher percentage.
It was a sad day for the big labels when indie artist Amanda Palmer brought in over a million dollars ($1,192,793, to be exact), independently of the labels, to mix, distribute, and promote her new album. On her Kickstarter page there's a video where she explains the whole thing, and points out that if she'd financed the album by letting a record label do it, she herself would wind up receiving zilch from the album sales.
All she needed was a twitter account, a facebook account, a Kickstarter account, and 25,000 friends.
That is exactly the part I was referring to. Thanks :)
I knew exactly which part you were referring to.
Let me tell you... a lawyer who tells a judge to look at things 'holistically' is
[1]-an idiot, and
[2]-in trouble.
So this guy fits in well with the RIAA.
I think that was just my bad wording, what I was trying to say was that he was basically telling the judges to ignore what was written down.
That's exactly what he said. The judge said something like "the statue requires that there be a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease, or lending. So you agree that that occurred here?" The RIAA lawyer responded "well your honor you have to read the statute holistically".
I.e., the RIAA lawyer was asking the judge to ignore the clear words of the statute. Only an RIAA lawyer would have that much chutzpah. This guy was really struggling.
This clip is just begging to become the next big internet meme... Can't someone mix it up and put a good beat on it?
Good idea. I hope they emphasize the "holistic" argument by the RIAA lawyer; that was the high point for me.
Paraphrase:
Judge: you agree, do you not, that there must be a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a lease, rental, or lending?
RIAA lawyer: don't look at the words of the statute, those will only confuse you... you've got to interpret the statute holistically
What do I think? I think RIAA can suck it.
You are not alone
Jammie doesn't get distribution rights, so why should she be paying for distribution rights?
If you keep on being logical like that, you'll never be hired as an RIAA lawyer.
The 8th Circuit is bound by New York Times v. Tasini, which held that placing a work in a database for public download was distribution
Oh so this is a slam dunk then. You must be very pleased.
Good answer, and a worthy place for the money to go in this case. I second NYCL on this one.
Now, now, I was just kidding. Wouldn't want the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit suing me for copyright infringement :)
When a dinosaur dies, it's tail thrashes around a lot, and does a lot of damage
That statement got me really curious. ...just how is it that you come to know what happens when a dinosaur dies?
+5 Funny. Too bad I'm not a moderator.
And the courts ruled that making available is not distribution.
Correction: the lower court ruled that making available is not distribution.
Correction. THIS court, in a previous case not involving RIAA mp3 files, ruled that making available is not distribution. Which is why Judge Davis ruled that making available is not distribution.
In actuality, Jamie Thomas made thousands of songs available. The RIAA only picked a small subset for trial. .... Wonder why they only tried to go for a mere 30 or so?
Think it could it have anything to do with the fact that there's no such thing as "making available" in US copyright law?
Who owns the copyright to the audio?
Me.
That'll be 99 cents please. You can make payment to my Dwolla account.
1. Tell everybody on Slashdot about a free mp3 file involving an RIAA case
2. ???????????
3. Profit!
What I think? $2250 per file is still WAY too much
I agree. The actual out of pocket damages are around 5 cents per unauthorized download. $10 for a 99-cent download would be enough.
Oops, my mistake... Not "license, rental, or lending", but "lease, rental, or lending"
This is, I guess, the lighter side of the Law.
My favorite moment in the argument was when the judge asked the RIAA's lawyer (Paul Clement) whether he agreed that the statute requires, for distribution, that there be a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a license, rental, or lending. And Clement asked the judge not to rely on the words of the statute, but to read the statute 'holistically'.
I never knew the RIAA was so holistic. Maybe next they'll be wearing beads and tie-dyed t-shirts.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I can read a hell of a lot faster than most people can talk.
Agreed. I spent an hour listening to that file. If I'd had a transcript I could have read it in 10 minutes.
You're the lawyer; You tell us!
I've never before experienced such humility on Slashdot. You must be new here.
You're just saying that because I get your sense of humor.
:)
So your post is now at "0", up from "-1"?
I'm grad.
And may I say that I don't want you to be at the bottom of the ocean, either, at least until it's your time