Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Eerongal on June 19, 2009, 07:18:14 PM
-
Federal Jury: Music Downloader Owes $1.92 Million (http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/music/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218100335)
Does this seem wrong to any one else? Sure, stealing = wrong, etc., but the amount of money they had to have put into this litigation, and the amount they'll get out of it (read: none. She can't afford that, she'll file for bankruptcy), and all they're gonna do is garner more hate for themselves.
-
I've always thought the RIAA was going about this the wrong way. There's no way that they can ever stop file sharing just by winning a bunch of lawsuits. As you said, all that they do is make people more angry at them. For instance, this women was told she had to pay $80,000 per song. Almost anyone who sees that is just going to be pissed off.
-
I completely agree with the record companies the need to make an example is great... theft is a big problem and all these a holes who think there is nothing wrong with what they do need to be slapped and there parents skinned for doing such a poor job instilling mores into their kids
-
Frankly, I doubt that what they're really after here is the money. I think it's the conviction that counts in this case, because now there's legal precedent (times two, since it was at the Federal level). It's going to be much easier for them to get favorable rulings in future cases, which means they can now start going after bigger fish who might actually be able to pay that sum per song.
-
Frankly, I doubt that what they're really after here is the money. I think it's the conviction that counts in this case, because now there's legal precedent (times two, since it was at the Federal level). It's going to be much easier for them to get favorable rulings in future cases, which means they can now start going after bigger fish who might actually be able to pay that sum per song.
Actually, the victory hurts the RIAA more than it helps, according to analysts. Because of the size of the amount they demanded, she ables to legally challenge it on constitutional grounds. (as paraphrased from a quote by Ben Sheffner, a former entertainment lawyer and copyright proponent).
Also, because of the victory last year, or so, from the case of Barboza vs. New Form, it sets a precedence for her to have it discharged via a bankruptcy hearing. The outcome of that ruling established that in order for the debt to be non-discharchable by bankruptcy, it has to have been "Willful and malicious", meaning that they have to be able to prove that she intended to harm and/or but out business the RIAA, and not just petty theft, which they have no evidence of.
-
Oh, I get that it's not about the money here. They just wanted a legal victory. However, the average person reading that article will just be pissed off by the fact that this woman has to pay 80,000 per song. I'm understand that she broke the law. I understand that what she did is considered (yes, even by me) to be morally wrong. And yet, I don't think that this is really helping the RIAA any.
Sure, they may get more successful lawsuits, and even make up some of their losses if they do catch some of the people who can afford to pay. But the point that I'm trying to make is that the RIAA is trying to stop something through legal procedures that can't be stopped that way. Everyone who downloads music (or anything else for that matter) illegally most likely knows what they are doing at the time. Yet most of them assume that millions of other people are doing it and they won't get caught. And they're right. Most people who illegally download music don't get caught. Because of the scale of the problem and the nature of the crime (very private and difficult to prove), they won't really be able to get to the root of the problem ever. Instead, they'll be making money off of lawsuits preying on those who probably really didn't do that much.
For example, divide 1.92 million by 80,000. 24. This woman downloaded 24 songs illegally. Really? We're expecting her to pay 1.92 million dollars for an infringement that's relatively minor compared to what some people have done. I just can't help but feel that what the RIAA is doing doesn't really move their cause along that much, and it hurts their public image.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that illegally downloading music is wrong. But I don't think that the RIAA is helping themselves at all.
And once again, Eerongal posted before me. Oh well, I'll leave my points up anyway.
-
And once again, Eerongal posted before me. Oh well, I leave my points up anyway.
What can i say, ninja'ing posts is my specialty! :P
-
Well, the article quotes an RIAA representative at the bottom saying that they're willing to settle for less than the (truly ridiculous) amount of $80,000 per song, so that seems to indicate that they're just happy with a conviction on the books. Whether they're going about their little monopolization scheme in the right way or not is a moot point. They've chosen their path and they're going to follow it as far as it will take them. :P :-\
-
I don't care if you can't pay a fine if you are poor do with out the latest music go buy cd's at a pawn shop! and they should probably go after more people criminally not civilly hard time would be a bigger motivation to avoid illegal downloads
-
I don't care if you can't pay a fine if you are poor do with out the latest music go buy cd's at a pawn shop! and they should probably go after more people criminally not civilly hard time would be a bigger motivation to avoid illegal downloads
To charge people for copyright infringement for criminal purposes requires that the person have done it for financial gain. If they didn't, you can only sue them in a civil case.
-
Reivse the law... with all the attention it gets you think congress would have done something about it....
-
I just wanted to point out that the 80k per song is entirely the fault of the jury. They could have set a penalty anywhere between $750/song and $150,000/song. They chose about half the maximum. I think even the minimum would have been too much.
Also worth noting that this is the second trial. Basically, the original judge felt that his instructions to the jury led them to impose too high a penalty. The original fine as about $9000/song, or about 200k total. Thomas went back to court in hopes of reducing the fine...and this is what the jury does to her.
(Also, illegal downloading was never the issue, as the RIAA had no evidence that downloading took place. The issue was sharing, as the RIAA's vigilante company MediaSentry found 24 songs in Thomas' KaZaA (or however the crap you capitalize that) shared folder.)
The RIAA didn't ask for this. The only concrete dollar amount they asked for was the original settlement offer of $5000. I'm not defending them, as I generally think they're a bunch of corporate slimeballs who profit by exploiting the artists whose interests they claim so loudly to be protecting. But I must correct inaccuracy; it's how I'm wired.
After following the coverage of the case, the evidence that she's guilty is pretty compelling. Even still...what was that jury thinking?
-
Reivse the law... with all the attention it gets you think congress would have done something about it....
Theft can't be criminal on the federal level in general. This case is on the federal level, which means it has to processed civilly. Revising this changes a lot of laws, it's not as simple as "rewriting" this law. Generally, the only thefts that are considered criminal at the federal level are thefts that involve federal agencies or interstate commerce. Or, of course, any case that involves an additional criminal act (of course), like murder, assault, etc. (which i *HIGHLY* doubt this case involves that. Beating people up over the internet is hard)
Also: Just because i found it and it pertains to this, here are the songs she (or children or whatever) downloaded that she's getting charged for.
Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Aerosmith "Cryin’"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Green Day "Basket Case"
Found it here if anyone wants to read the accompanying article. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/trial-of-the-ce/) Though it's basically just the list supplied and comments.
-
Wouldn't sharing illegal songs on the internet to anyone in the world count as "commerce over interstate lines?"
I've told most of my friends this, and now I'm telling you guys.
Downloading music, games, movies, via torrents or shareware programs is STUPID.
You've been caught.
It's not a case of if you are going to be caught, if you've used torrents, then you've already been caught. It just depends on if they decide to go after you or not.
Someone told me about this program that lets you see who is monitoring you. I mainly use torrents to download tv shows I miss, etc. After running this program (I wish I could remember the name of it) it showed me getting hit by several companies that all worked for RIAA or MPAA, etc. We are talking like hundreds a minute.
When you use a torrent you are basically posting your IP address to the entire internet and saying, "Hey, I downloaded this and let other people download it from me!"
Now newsgroups . . . those are the bomb. :D
Best 11 bucks a month I spend.
-
Nice analysis of what might happen next: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars
-
Wouldn't sharing illegal songs on the internet to anyone in the world count as "commerce over interstate lines?"
I've told most of my friends this, and now I'm telling you guys.
Downloading music, games, movies, via torrents or shareware programs is STUPID.
You've been caught.
It's not a case of if you are going to be caught, if you've used torrents, then you've already been caught. It just depends on if they decide to go after you or not.
Someone told me about this program that lets you see who is monitoring you. I mainly use torrents to download tv shows I miss, etc. After running this program (I wish I could remember the name of it) it showed me getting hit by several companies that all worked for RIAA or MPAA, etc. We are talking like hundreds a minute.
When you use a torrent you are basically posting your IP address to the entire internet and saying, "Hey, I downloaded this and let other people download it from me!"
Now newsgroups . . . those are the bomb. :D
Best 11 bucks a month I spend.
Depends on how paranoid the sharer is. I'm sure most of the people they would REALLY want (People giving out gigs upon gigs of music) to stop are probably rocking programs like peer guardian, using proxy servers, etc. Also, newsgroups aren't totally secure either, if someone *WANTED* to dedicate the resources to finding even those who post illegal things anonymously on them, they could, however, they are *MUCH* more secure than standard file-sharing fare.
Also: the laws pertaining to "Interstate commerce" refers specifically to physical goods being shipped over state lines, and with data, this really isn't the case, since you aren't disrupting anyone's shipment of the song by downloading it :P
-
Hate to say it but Eerongal is right about the interstate commerce... but internet crimes like stalking are getting alot of intention so a whole new family of laws should emerge within the the nesxt couple of years
-
Hate to say it but Eerongal is right about the interstate commerce... but internet crimes like stalking are getting alot of intention so a whole new family of laws should emerge within the the nesxt couple of years
Yeah, that's the issue in courts, the current laws as written usually don't apply, and internet technology is moving way faster than congress EVER will when it comes to creating, passing, and approving laws. Really, yo me, it seems most of these sort of issues caught the courts/government/whatever by surprise.
-
Copyright violation is a criminal act. It should be prosecuted as one. It should be prosecuted harshly.
The place you can prove criminal intent is with the sharer. One who violates the copyright by publishing to the internet. Going after the consumer has always resulted in miscarriage of justice, violation of civil rights and failure to actually reduce the incidents. The only effective attack on consumption of illegal materials is to train people not to value them. Criminal or civil penalties on the consumer doesn't accomplish this training.
-
Copyright violation is a criminal act. It should be prosecuted as one. It should be prosecuted harshly.
The place you can prove criminal intent is with the sharer. One who violates the copyright by publishing to the internet. Going after the consumer has always resulted in miscarriage of justice, violation of civil rights and failure to actually reduce the incidents. The only effective attack on consumption of illegal materials is to train people not to value them. Criminal or civil penalties on the consumer doesn't accomplish this training.
That's, honestly, how it should be done. Stop the supply, and you stop the downloading.
He who controls the spice (or in this case, digital media i guess) controls the universe!! :D
-
On a positive note, the Pirate Party got a seat in the EU...
-
Copyright violation is a criminal act. It should be prosecuted as one. It should be prosecuted harshly.
The place you can prove criminal intent is with the sharer. One who violates the copyright by publishing to the internet. Going after the consumer has always resulted in miscarriage of justice, violation of civil rights and failure to actually reduce the incidents. The only effective attack on consumption of illegal materials is to train people not to value them. Criminal or civil penalties on the consumer doesn't accomplish this training.
That's, honestly, how it should be done. Stop the supply, and you stop the downloading.
He who controls the spice (or in this case, digital media i guess) controls the universe!! :D
Except for the part where you have to, you know, actually stop the supply. I posit that even if they could, it wouldn't prove worth their while.
The best way to stop illegal downloading is legal downloading. No hamstringing either, like being stingy with the back catalog on Hulu. If the media companies were to get serious about digital distribution, I expect they'd gain a lot of customers back from the torrents.
-
This is our world now. The world of the electron and the switch; the beauty of the baud. We exist without nationality, skin color, or religious bias. You wage wars, murder, cheat, lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto." Huh? Right? Manifesto? "You may stop me, but you can't stop us all. - Agent Bob (Reading from The Hacker's Manifesto
-
the beauty of the baud.
I read this and thought "The lady of the lake for the modern day man!"
-
Miyabi pretty much just made the point I've been trying to make this whole time, but much more eloquently than I have. This really isn't productive. Now, I don't know what the best way to go about stopping illegal music downloading is, but there has to be something better than suing individuals.....
-
There really isn't a way to stop it. You can discourage it. I mean, I download music. Generally I own the CD already and I'm too lazy to take it out of my car to put it on my computer. OR if I download something I don't have it's to see if I like it. If I like it I usually buy a CD, if I don't like it I delete it. *shrugs* I guess it's all in how it's being used and how other people see it.
-
slightly related:
ASCAP wants to charge people per ring of their ringtones in a public place. (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/ascap-wants-be-paid-) They're claiming it's a public performance.
-
ASCAP generally lives up to its name. Or, at least, it would if the acronym had another 'S'.
-
slightly related:
ASCAP wants to charge people per ring of their ringtones in a public place. (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/ascap-wants-be-paid-) They're claiming it's a public performance.
I weep for the future of mankind when stuff like this appears.
-
Well at least it doesn't appear likely that they'll actually get it. I won't worry about it too much until they actually do get awarded royalties for each time a cell phone rings. Or until they start winning lawsuits against phone companies for allowing us to have our phone ring without paying royalties.
-
Well at least it doesn't appear likely that they'll actually get it. I won't worry about it too much until they actually do get awarded royalties for each time a cell phone rings. Or until they start winning lawsuits against phone companies for allowing us to have our phone ring without paying royalties.
It would be really, severely stupid if they did. Also, if they did, you think anyone would actually pay? How do you even enforce something like that? Bollocks.
-
Apparently the RIAA is in court with one J. Tanenbaum about more file sharing at this moment. One RIAA executive has stated that the damages of the previous case of $150,000 per song was "absolutely appropriate"
-
How else can the RIAA afford to pay all its administration 6 figures? (I hear the president of the RIAA makes 7 figures)
-
That's a very impressive salary for a regulatory agency's head. The fact that the president of a company that does so little can make that much is quite disgusting. Then again, if you look at it as a massive law firm it makes the salaries less crazy, if no less infuriating.
-
Lawyers that make millions of dollars of cases invest millions of dollars into them....and very few lawyers make millions my father is a lawyer and i've grown up around him and his law school buddies and from what i can tell the average salary, once your business is established, is about 150k a year
-
I've nothing against lawyers. My sister's a lawyer. The thing I have a problem with is lawyers that have no apparent morals and/or work for slimy companies. The RIAA, for the most part, is basically a website squatter (I hate, HATE, HATE, HATE squatters!) combined with a patent-gathering company(Patenting an idea and protecting it from infringement is fine with me. Purchasing patents and making all of your money off legal settlements is not.). The RIAA's product (it's not even theirs, which makes it even worse) is 99% intellectual property, 99% of the products they sit on are worthless, but by existing they drive prices of their clients' products up. And then the patent gathering part sues the crap out of anyone who uses a sequence of three notes from a song from a label they represent.
-
Lawyers have morals..or half of them do the most ethical and unethical people are found in that profession. The reason people often think they don't is because they are an advocate for their clients interest and therefore will do all they can, but with in the perameters of the law, to mislead you and leave there client in a favorable postion. I.E. So and So sues RCA for model A burning down their house...well it was model B which is very different from model A... they DO NOT have to provide the other side with that information and RCA may not have to pay a cent because they can prove it wasn't model A
-
That's a very impressive salary for a regulatory agency's head. The fact that the president of a company that does so little can make that much is quite disgusting. Then again, if you look at it as a massive law firm it makes the salaries less crazy, if no less infuriating.
It's not a regulatory agency, but maybe you didn't mean to say it was.
-
It's not a regulatory agency, but maybe you didn't mean to say it was.
They aren't a government agency, but they do regulate the recording industry pretty effectively (partially just by being so huge). *shrug*
-
It's not a regulatory agency, but maybe you didn't mean to say it was.
They aren't a government agency, but they do regulate the recording industry pretty effectively (partially just by being so huge). *shrug*
Well, not really. They're an advocacy group. They don't regulate, they advocate. And as such, they provide watch-dog services for the major record labels (thus the sue-happy nature of the RIAA, which is all too eager to keep its pockets padded), and get congress to enact laws that the RIAA likes (giving it more power to sue).
-
Tenenbaum's trial has concluded with him owing $23,000 per song for 30 songs. that's less than the previous case, but still quite pricey IMO for stealing a little more than a CD's worth.
-
SUPER AWESOME NECROMANCY REVIVIFICATION BUMP!
The dollar amount on this has been reduced to $54,000 by the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10440602-261.html)