 KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | they wont see a dime im guessing this is RIAA showboating, and likely a viable deal will get sealed behind EULAs and NDAs and other legal acronyms.
because nobody could pay 1.9mil, would be easier to refuse and do the time for contempt of court.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 | |
| | | If you have never had the opportunity to serve on a Jury, once you do, you realize how stupid people really are. | |
|
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Re: they wont see a dime said by CatchingSpy:If you have never had the opportunity to serve on a Jury, once you do, you realize how stupid people really are. For which side are the stupid people on? I think often you could argue for either side...and in somecases, also the guy in the long black robe. | |
|
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: they wont see a dime said by cdru:For which side are the stupid people on? I think often you could argue for either side...and in somecases, also the guy in the long black robe. Clearly neither the defendant nor her attorney acted very smart here. OTOH the majority of the members of the jury should have received a failing grade in Math and who knows if the guy in the long black robe was bought and paid for. | |
|
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | Re: they wont see a dime said by Sammer:OTOH the majority of the members of the jury should have received a failing grade in Math I wouldn't necessarily say that.
Suppose you approached a record company, and wished to purchase a license to a popular song. Said license would grant you the right to distribute the song to several millon people. How much would you expect to pay for it? $80K per song doesn't seem unreasonable.
That's essentially what the defendent did. She "shared" each song on Kazaa; e,g. made it available to several million others. On top of that, the jury determined she did it willfully, with full knowledge that she did not have the permission of the songs' owners to do so. Well duh.
To me this isn't much different from the situation with Cable TV 25-30 years ago. "Everyone" would steal service by climbing up on poles, and doing their own hookups; no one thought it was "wong". That all changed when the Cable industry got agressive, and started suing people left and right. | |
|
| | | | |  wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD | Re: they wont see a dime That isn't even close to what the defendant did. I don't know how many people downloaded each song, but it wasn't several million. Ten would be a more realistic guess. Let's see... 24 songs x 10 copies x $1 = $240. Hell, let's give her punitive damages, and triple the award: $720.
I really am amazed that two separate juries have come back with such insane judgments.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | |
|
| | | | | | nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | Re: they wont see a dime said by wmcbrine:I really am amazed that two separate juries have come back with such insane judgments. I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if the jury itself was bought or otherwise "incentived". It just doesn't make sense. Surely the people who served on the jury can't be THAT dumb. right? right??? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Admittedly, I didn't read the entire article, but wasn't this case where all they proved was that she was sharing the songs, rather than providing evidence someone actually downloaded the song from her?
If that is the case, wouldn't the act of copyright infringement only occur until data was transferred in whole to another client?
Kind of like being found guilty of armed robbery when the only act you've committed thus far is having a firearm and living across the street from the bank: "Well you might rob the place, so here are your matching bracelets".
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i think all P2P cases should be treated like shoplifting. if they(they=Entertainment Industry) want to call it theft then charge it the same as someone who stole the albums from Walmart.
would likely gain more support that way too.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | I think we need to wipe the a s s of the RIAA. THE CEO is a prick and old, and needs depends to get around on any air flight longer than 2 hours.
You know the point that the RIAA has made is that more of us should continue download cause who wants to pay for their bull s h i t games!!!
And by the way 1.9 million? Is that the going rate to purchase a song? and what punitive damages? I see here is that 24 songs were downloaded and not paid for. So the fair and constitutional thing to do is make the person pay up!!!! They should pay 10 times the average market value which is .99 cents.. so 9.90 would be 10 times, and fair market value....
X 24 would be 237.60...
THAT WOULD BE FAIR and for most people that don't have that kind of money right now would be a fair value to collect.
but to try to collect on 1.9 million? They would collect more money at the fair market x 10 then they would at 1.9million of which the family can still claim they can't pay and the judge can't do a damn think..
However to order to pay 237.60 would work, and if the attack was in that way then it would be fair. But 1.9 million? thats like 79997 times market value. so that would be that this user has just paid for 80,000 songs.
so RIAA where is the music BEE-OTCH!!!
Someone should get rid of the RIAA some how.. They are bad for business.. kinda like the former BUSH administration.. CROOKS!!!
Dead to the music industry!!! | |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | That's one reason I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: That's one reason said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... I'm a little bummed that my musical tastes really don't have me buying from a RIAA publisher, either -- I can't boycott what I don't buy anyway. (I buy about 6 CD's a year, mainly A-Cappella stuff, usually from the artist directly.)
But, no matter, RIAA's sales will continue to plummet because anyone can record, produce, and even market their own wares these days.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Comcast Digital ..
| Re: That's one reason said by funchords:But, no matter, RIAA's sales will continue to plummet because anyone can record, produce, and even market their own wares these days. That is the truth! Have you seen the technology at music retailers like Sam Ash Music Store and The Guitar Center? Man, you can produce studio-quality tracks for almost nothing these days.
I worked at Sam Ash Music 11 years ago in NYC and let me tell you the technology has jumped significantly in 11 years.
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil. | |
|
| | | said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... Me neither. I pay for music online and try and teach my kids right from wrong.
No matter how you attempt to justify wrong behavior, it really just is wrong. It is sad and shameful how much piracy is promoted here. | |
|
| | | | Re: That's one reason said by yt:said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... Me neither. I pay for music online and try and teach my kids right from wrong. No matter how you attempt to justify wrong behavior, it really just is wrong. It is sad and shameful how much piracy is promoted here. While your at it why don't you teach them that Cruel and unusual punishment is wrong too? Or do you agree that there should be an organization that makes you pay $80,000 per song you "illegally" download?
What I want to know is how the RIAA knew that the songs were pirated and not acquired from free trials of stuff and pepsi caps for "free music downloads"? You know why that question wasn't asked? Because you don't. I have a lot of music, but maybe I just drink a lot of pepsi? Or signed up for a music service a long time ago, downloaded their music and canceled. Our legal system is so corrupt. | |
|
| | | | | Re: That's one reason said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:While your at it why don't you teach them that Cruel and unusual punishment is wrong too? Or do you agree that there should be an organization that makes you pay $80,000 per song you "illegally" download? I am not in any way defending the RIAA, but the 8th amendment does not apply in civil cases, it is a protection ONLY from the government.
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:What I want to know is how the RIAA knew that the songs were pirated and not acquired from free trials of stuff and pepsi caps for "free music downloads"? You know why that question wasn't asked? Because you don't. I have a lot of music, but maybe I just drink a lot of pepsi? Or signed up for a music service a long time ago, downloaded their music and canceled. Our legal system is so corrupt. You'd still be violating current copyright law by sharing your pepsi awarded songs. You got them for free, but you did not get permission to share them. It's no different than sharing the songs you yourself ripped from a CD you purchased. You don't own it, you pay to use it yourself.
I am a part time musician, and even I think the rules suck for the consumer. Then again I've always preferred entertaining my fans rather than punishing them for liking my music.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | |  nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Re: That's one reason said by Camelot One: Then again I've always preferred entertaining my fans rather than punishing them for liking my music. Given the quality of the vast bulk of RIAA-protected "music", I'd say that having listened to it should be punishment enough. 
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell | |
|
| | | |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | said by Camelot One:It's no different than sharing the songs you yourself ripped from a CD you purchased. You don't own it, you pay to use it yourself. What is interesting is that it is completely legal for you to give that same CD to a person so they can rip the songs.
--
A is A | |
|
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: That's one reason said by John Galt:said by Camelot One:It's no different than sharing the songs you yourself ripped from a CD you purchased. You don't own it, you pay to use it yourself. What is interesting is that it is completely legal for you to give that same CD to a person so they can rip the songs. It's probably true if expressed this way:
What is interesting is that it is completely legal for you to give that same CD to a person
so they can rip the songs
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by yt:said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... Me neither. I pay for music online and try and teach my kids right from wrong. No matter how you attempt to justify wrong behavior, it really just is wrong. It is sad and shameful how much piracy is promoted here. While your at it why don't you teach them that Cruel and unusual punishment is wrong too? Or do you agree that there should be an organization that makes you pay $80,000 per song you "illegally" download? Cruel and unusal applies ot CRIMINAL cases. This is a CIVIL case.
What I want to know is how the RIAA knew that the songs were pirated and not acquired from free trials of stuff and pepsi caps for "free music downloads"? You know why that question wasn't asked? Because you don't. I have a lot of music, but maybe I just drink a lot of pepsi? Or signed up for a music service a long time ago, downloaded their music and canceled. Our legal system is so corrupt.
Um she was found guilty of SHARING her songs. Next time try knowing something about the actual case before you comment. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: That's one reason said by BF69:Um she was found guilty of SHARING her songs. Next time try knowing something about the actual case before you comment. Before you jump all over the poster, perhaps if you reading comprehension was up to snuff you would see the ARTICLE says "but in Thomas's case the evidence was clear her family downloaded 24 copyright-protected songs. " | |
|
| | | | | quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | Re: That's one reason said by imanogre:Before you jump all over the poster, perhaps if you reading comprehension was up to snuff you would see the ARTICLE says "but in Thomas's case the evidence was clear her family downloaded 24 copyright-protected songs. " That's a common, well-known mistake by the media. They usually call it "downloading" when sharing is the issue. But I assume you knew that. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: That's one reason said by quatrix:said by imanogre:Before you jump all over the poster, perhaps if you reading comprehension was up to snuff you would see the ARTICLE says "but in Thomas's case the evidence was clear her family downloaded 24 copyright-protected songs. " That's a common, well-known mistake by the media. They usually call it "downloading" when sharing is the issue. But I assume you knew that. I can only comment by facts provided by the media, if you want to guess what they were trying to say, they by all means lets do that. Perhaps they actually mean 24,000 songs and not just 24? | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by quatrix:That's a common, well-known mistake by the media. They usually call it "downloading" when sharing is the issue. But I assume you knew that. Maybe I don't understand your statement, but it seems from your wording that you believe downloading is not the issue/illegal (when the media speaks of it). You do realize that the moment you download a copyright protected anything that you have not been been authorized to (such as paid for), you have violated copyrights, right?
A download is a digital copy. When you illegally download and violate the owner/creator's* copyrights, they have the right to collect compensation from you, or else collect civil damages from you for that copy(s). If you distribute a copy(s), you are liable for those copies in addition. If you sell those copies, you can be criminally charged in addition.
Both downloading and distribution/sharing are the issues.
*Owner is the creator, unless its work-for-hire in copyright law.
Sorry if I misunderstand statement as I have read it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: That's one reason said by Paralegalese :said by quatrix:That's a common, well-known mistake by the media. They usually call it "downloading" when sharing is the issue. But I assume you knew that. Maybe I don't understand your statement, but it seems from your wording that you believe downloading is not the issue/illegal (when the media speaks of it). You do realize that the moment you download a copyright protected anything that you have not been been authorized to (such as paid for), you have violated copyrights, right? Actually no. As has been covered, re-covered, hashed, re-hashed, and donkey beaten 100 times on this very forum.......with the exception of film - which enjoys a special copyright protection, downloading is not a copyright violation, nor against the law. Its the "making available to others" part where you run afowl.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: That's one reason said by Camelot One:said by Paralegalese :said by quatrix:That's a common, well-known mistake by the media. They usually call it "downloading" when sharing is the issue. But I assume you knew that. Maybe I don't understand your statement, but it seems from your wording that you believe downloading is not the issue/illegal (when the media speaks of it). You do realize that the moment you download a copyright protected anything that you have not been been authorized to (such as paid for), you have violated copyrights, right? Actually no. As has been covered, re-covered, hashed, re-hashed, and donkey beaten 100 times on this very forum.......with the exception of film - which enjoys a special copyright protection, downloading is not a copyright violation, nor against the law. Its the "making available to others" part where you run afowl. I'm sorry. That's incorrect.
“Copyright owner”, with respect to any one of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, refers to the owner of that particular right. A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission. “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/us···00-.html
(a) Initial Ownership.— Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
(b) Works Made for Hire.— In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A (a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
From your tone, I'm sure you think you're right. We disagree, and I am not here to argue it with you or anyone. I've posted the title as due diligence. Happy downloading. | |
|
| | | | | | said by BF69:Cruel and unusal applies ot CRIMINAL cases. This is a CIVIL case. Um she was found guilty of SHARING her songs. Next time try knowing something about the actual case before you comment. So your telling me you have 0 rights when it comes to the court of law?
quote:
but in Thomas's case the evidence was clear her family downloaded 24 copyright-protected songs.
If you think that's wrong your telling the wrong person. Email Karl Bode and tell him to correct the article | |
|
| | | | | | said by BF69:Cruel and unusal applies ot CRIMINAL cases. This is a CIVIL case. The eighth amendment makes no discretion between criminal and civil prosecutions in the context of cruel and unusual punishments.
--
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: That's one reason said by Nightshade:said by BF69:Cruel and unusal applies ot CRIMINAL cases. This is a CIVIL case. The eighth amendment makes no discretion between criminal and civil prosecutions in the context of cruel and unusual punishments. Thats because it doesn't apply to Civil cases at all.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | | | |
See 10 replies to this post |
| | R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
3 edits | said by yt:said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... Me neither. I pay for music online and try and teach my kids right from wrong. No matter how you attempt to justify wrong behavior, it really just is wrong. It is sad and shameful how much piracy is promoted here. How did you read what I posted as condoning piracy? did it ever cross your mind that:
1. I just haven't bought any CDs at all.
2. I buy them directly from the artist.
3. I support independent musicians.
Do you really think that woman deserves to pay 1.9 million dollars even if she indeed downloaded the music tracks?
How about you pay $300,000 next time you get a speeding ticket? I mean, you were putting other people in danger and all the cars you passed by while committing a crime (which you could have damaged if you caused an accident) were worth that much if not much more.
Actually, according to that valuation in the verdict, each car you crossed would be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,600,000,000... I hope you have deep pockets. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: That's one reason I was referring more to the article posted and some comments other than to your post. Your wording just tee'd up a response. Didn't mean to imply you condoning piracy. | |
|
| | | |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: That's one reason said by yt:I was referring more to the article posted and some comments other than to your post. Your wording just tee'd up a response. Didn't mean to imply you condoning piracy. I condone piracy. The RIAA has said that playing a song on the radio is piracy and since bands aspire to have their songs played on the radio it means they must like piracy. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by yt:No matter how you attempt to justify wrong behavior, it really just is wrong. While you're right that copyright infringement is wrong do you justify the past history of members of the RIAA that includes price fixing, payola, drug dealing, etc. not to mention the current abuse of our legal system. | |
|
| | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | | | said by yt:said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... Me neither. I pay for music online and try and teach my kids right from wrong. No matter how you attempt to justify wrong behavior, it really just is wrong. It is sad and shameful how much piracy is promoted here. Why is it upsetting? What are you teaching them music isn't an expression of the human experience but something you buy like an object? | |
|
|  MadnessLike a flea circus at a dog show
join:2000-01-05
Quincy, MA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... I usually buy vinyl, myself. 
--
No keyboard present or keyboard error. Press <F1> to continue.... | |
|
|  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Agreed. In my case, the overwhelming majority of what I like to listen to now is simply stuff that couldn't be had by a RIAA label to begin with... or any label for that matter.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
|
| Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| said by R4M0N:I haven't bought a "mainstream" CD in years... That doesn't mean you support piracy
Those who buy the most cd are the biggest pirate
How ironic? | |
|
drakus
join:2002-07-12
Valparaiso, IN | What happened to $0.99 per song? Wow!!! must have been downloaded 80,808 times to be worth that much. Could have bought it for $0.99. Now out of that $80000 per song, how much is the artist's/songwriters & so forth actually going to get. I am guessing RIAA's lawyers are probably getting $300 - 500 per hour (maybe more) so they must have only put in about 160 hours worth of work (based on $500 p/h). So how much is the RIAA actually giving to the people that actually do the work for the music? | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 |  A nutjob
Here is a sampling of what she lied about:
1) Destroying her HD after receiving an order for it to be submitted for evidence.
2) It was hernickmane@kaaza but she claimed her BF, who hadn't lived in the house for 1-2 years prior actually downloaded the music, or perhaps her kids. Both of which she claimed were using the same limited account -- yet somehow managed to install Kaaza?
3) She ignored 2 warnings sent by her ISP, one via FEDEX because she thought they were "terms of service updates or something"
4) She blamed her ex-BF, then her kids, and said there was a huge conspiracy by the RIAA, the courts, and the prosecution to "get her"
She doomed herself with this "defense of ignorance" and her lawyer was an idiot for not knowing that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from being guilty of an offense. So now the RIAA has a legal precedent to sue people for $80k a song thanks to "poor little ol'" Jamie Thomas. | |
|
|
See 22 replies to this post |
|
| | Help me understand this. Were the songs that Ms. Thomas downloaded left in a folder that was open for further redistribution or are they simply saying that $25 worth of music downloads is worth millions of dollars? | |
|
|  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: Help me understand this. said by stufried:Were the songs that Ms. Thomas downloaded left in a folder that was open for further redistribution or are they simply saying that $25 worth of music downloads is worth millions of dollars? I'm not even going to bother looking more closely at this, but it is odd the way the article was worded. Unless the source being downloaded from specifically warned about copyright infringement, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, if I can right click a link and save the file to my hard drive, am I going to be held responsible for making sure that what I downloaded was not copyrighted? Is just the act of saving a file being punishable by thousands of dollars?
There has to be more to it than just downloading a few songs. | |
|
| | | I believe that she had shared out the 24 songs in question. Catching people who download songs without sharing them out is next to impossible. (Note that downloading via Bittorrent often means you're sharing it out during the download as well.) The media often confuses sharing with downloading.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: Help me understand this. She must have been sharing these songs on Kazaa. (the application she was apparently using)
If it was just a downloaded picture, song, or video and nobody was redistributing or profiting from them, it would seem incredibly ridiculous for anyone to have to pay $80,000 or more for each of the files. I understand that ignorance is no excuse, but if these files were deleted, that should satisfy the copyright holder, and they can go after whomever made the files widely available to others without their permission.
Where did they find this jury panel? Any of them have some new offshore accounts that were recently opened? As if the RIAA would use any of their money to make a payoff, no matter how much the public image from the court case decision would help their crusade. | |
|
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| .... We know two things for certain:
-She was proven a liar, thus punished for that
-RIAA is still extortionist, using tax dollars (federal court) for their own gains
(I like how they paint her "single mother" when she was married, now divorced. Hey, I feel bad for anyone extorted by RIAA, but if you are gonna lie about it, ... I'd plead insanity...those Arbitron secret signals made me do it!) | |
|
| jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: .... Was the divorce just a ploy to try and protect what few assets she might still have had? It wouldn't surprise me. | |
|
|  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Love them or hate them, the RIAA has the same right as anyone to seek redress in federal court. It's not "using tax dollars". | |
|
| | | Haha!
Metallica made me do it! Those pilfering grab-asses!  | |
|
 gballMaster YodaPremium
join:2000-11-28
South Bend, IN | WOW 80,000 a song huh?
When are these guys gonna get a clue. Thats not the reason why your losing CD sales!!
I have't bought a CD in over 4 years and don't plan to ever again. | |
|
|  Sr TechPremium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Re: WOW Same here, I do not buy music anymore as well just listen to it on the radio. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
1 edit | said by gball:80,000 a song huh? When are these guys gonna get a clue. Thats not the reason why your losing CD sales!! I have't bought a CD in over 4 years and don't plan to ever again. I wouldn't give a cupful of warm p*ss for the stuff that is out there now.....  | |
|
| | | They apparently love to make enemies of the public. On another note, I wonder what happens if they try to serve on someone who actually owns a CD, but was too lazy to rip it themselves and download it instead? | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Disgusting
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Disgusting said by pnh102:If this isn't cruel and unusual punishment, I don't know what is. Too bad for her that only applies to CRIMINAL cases not CIVIL ones. | |
|
| | nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Re: Disgusting said by BF69:said by pnh102:If this isn't cruel and unusual punishment, I don't know what is. Too bad for her that only applies to CRIMINAL cases not CIVIL ones. Which is part of why people love to push civil penalties be created for things that are already handled under criminal law.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell | |
|
| | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: Disgusting said by nixen:Which is part of why people love to push civil penalties be created for things that are already handled under criminal law. You mean like wrongful death lawsuits? Yeah, those already exist. | |
|
| | | | nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Re: Disgusting said by jester121:said by nixen:Which is part of why people love to push civil penalties be created for things that are already handled under criminal law. You mean like wrongful death lawsuits? Yeah, those already exist. And yet it's not double-jeopardy, nor does the verdict of one really weigh in on the outcome of the other. But, I digress.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | So... going by a local case here...
someone who steals something from the store gets a jail sentance of 90 days plus a $500 fine.... someone who steals something from the internet gets an $80,000 fine.... why are they so outragiously different? how about instead of the $80,000 per song... they do what the justice system does... you steal multiple things you probably will get concurrent sentances and fines.... not stacking unless you did something REALLY bad.... prosecutors know the stupidity of stacking sentances in most instances, why doesnt civil court? heck why even take this to civil? if its more then $500 take it to criminal court... $500+ stolen in PA is a FELONY!
oh wait in criminal court there is a burdon of proof... I forgot... we can't have that now.... | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: So... said by neufuse:going by a local case here... someone who steals something from the store gets a jail sentance of 90 days plus a $500 fine.... someone who steals something from the internet gets an $80,000 fine.... If the guy stole the something from the store and then attempted to sell said items he'd get more than 90 days and $500 fine.
oh wait in criminal court there is a burdon of proof... I forgot... we can't have that now....
they had plenty of proof. She was retarded. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: So... she didn't sell it though (the music) she distributed it... that's the difference... but even if she did sell it the FBI would fine her up to $250,000 in a one time fine for all offences combined... but give you much more jail time... but in the end... still not almost $2 million
and for the proof, I'm not talking about this one specific insance... I'm talking about ALL their cases which some of them had VERY little physical evidence to prove that specific person was the one at fault... | |
|
|  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by neufuse:someone who steals something from the store gets a jail sentance of 90 days plus a $500 fine.... someone who steals something from the internet gets an $80,000 fine.... why are they so outragiously different? The reason that they are so outrageously different is because the internet scares the living shit out of the entertainment industry.
The old guard of content providers days are numbered and they know it. | |
|
| | Scapgoating He's right though... The constitution does say (in basiceez) that one cannot be punishd so outragously that the punishment instills fear in other who would commit the same crime.
The RIAA won't see any money because their goal isn't to actually collect. They just want to go on record (record?... hmmm) that they actually won the case. Winning cases are like notches on a cane. The more you have, the more you can gloat. | |
|
| | RIAA Who? There are no debtors prisons, so even after such a judgment, she will not go to jail for not paying. She will, however, have collection agencies hound her forever. She can just file for bankruptcy and be done with it.
1. BCWIPE is a great software tool that wipes a HD to MIL standards- 7 passes etc.
2. I do not condone P2P, but any knucklehead should know not to do it on your own network. IP logging tracks you down.
3. I always wipe my HD and reload software quarterly as a matter of habit to clear malware, virii, and such  .
4. Try using a different more secure OS like LINUX. | |
|
Reviews:
·Shaw
·TELUS
| Does the punishment fit the crime? 9 grand for downloading one song? How do they come up with that number? If a song is worth 2 bux if you pay for a download, thats about 2 chocolate bars.
What would be the punishment if someone walked into a store and stole 2 chocolate bars? Probably a misdemeneor and not a fine nearly that large.
how did the riaa get so the punishment vastly outweighs the crime? | |
|
| | Just using TV & radio Those are my main sources. More variety & current. Course
I just heard FAME song from a car rolling by on West 49th
St in midtown Man'h where some of it filmed. Trailer looks
cool as to performers. Time for a new gen. No fines, jury
duty, judges, artistic rips or any of that. Just wondering what next car driver selection brings.
And where's Ricky Martin tunes? Day after his TV performance everything moving played him from taxis to
horseless carriages. That was fun. Except maybe for Cher
last one there hasn't been any such pop hit.
Guess the Bloomberg anti noise fines had impact.
Geez he even raise the dog poop fines, LOL. But not 6 figures like for this mom. And hey she isn't even screaming discrimination as a NA. hmm. That's an out.
Play on....
| |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
2 edits | The real Nemesis of the RIAA
iMultiMix 15 USB |
( »www.alesis.com/imultimix16usb )will just about do everything a artist needs to produce music. Notice this one can store everything on an iPod. and this board will set you back 599.99.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Re: The real Nemesis of the RIAA Yes. I can produce studio quality music in my garage with Ableton and Guitar Rig on a 5 year old laptop. Hell, you can produce some really nice studio quality music with just Ableton. | |
|
| |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: The real Nemesis of the RIAA said by badtrip:Yes. I can produce studio quality music in my garage with Ableton and Guitar Rig on a 5 year old laptop. Hell, you can produce some really nice studio quality music with just Ableton. Got a VAIO?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | That's one of the many nemeses that they face. It used to be that the major labels were *the* place to turn to to produce your song, distribute your song, and promote your song.
As you stated, the production of songs can now be done by a $600 piece of equipment instead of a million dollar sound studio. The Internet has made distribution easier. All that's left for the labels is promotion. Yes, bands could do that themselves, but that's one area where knowing who to call and how to pitch things could come in handy. That's why I think the recording labels will eventually morph into music ad agencies (which will get cuts of sales but not own copyrights).
The other nemesis they face is competition for entertainment bucks. People used to spend their home entertainment money on music. Now they can spend it on games, DVDs, music, and much more. So even with all other things being equal (music quality, etc) people will spend less money on music than they used to.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
| | Record Label and Artist Responses It would be interesting to ask and post online the responses of the record labels and artists (of the infringed songs) to see if they personally believe that the per-song fine is reasonable.
And to whom will RIAA pay with the judgment money (if they ever get it)?
The record labels hide behind the RIAA so as not look like the bad guys--it's time to call them out. (With so many record labels being represented by RIAA, what about anti-trust issues?) | |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
1 edit | Reality Check This verdict will render one of three results depending on who you are:
(1) Satisfies the **AA legal counsel because they get their legal fees/costs
(2) Gives the *AA fanbois and other ki$$-a$$ smarmy corporate $hill$ something to gloat abuot
(3) Gives communities like TPB yet another reason to exist
In the court of public opinion, the RIAA didn't accomplish anything but to drive another nail in their own casket.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
| | | Re: Reality Check Don't forget...
(4) Now the outrageous claims that piracy is costing the economy trillions of dollars are now justified | |
|
| | Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| Re: Reality Check said by backness:Don't forget... (4) Now the outrageous claims that piracy is costing the economy trillions of dollars are now justified piracy is a form of free advertisement
if there was no piracy of games, movies, software
the industry is either out of business or no one is interested
to kill pirates is to kill earthworm that make the soil fertile and suitable for fruitful crops
despite their use of insecticide which kill some earthworm aka pirates and we wonder why they complain why their crop isn't doing so well either
yes the riaa, mpaa are shooting themselves in the foot by making an example out of a few unlucky ppl they chose to blackmail, sue, threaten unlawfully. | |
|
| | |  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: Reality Check said by jadebangle: a few unlucky ppl they chose to blackmail, sue, threaten unlawfully. I don't think it was unlawful at all. She violated the copyright statute. Simple. | |
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | The $1.92 million playlist Now available in a handy torrent format. Get it if you dare (or want to do so in protest against the RIAA) at TPB:
»thepiratebay.org/torrent/4962775···elves_to
Of course most of those songs on that list I don't even like.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
| |  Evidence doesn't need to exist...
If the data is downloaded onto an external encrypted drive, it may not even be requested by the court. If it is, oops, you forgot the password.
Even when ACTA passes and "copyright infringement" becomes a capital offense, and the cops kick down your door for downloading last night's episode of HOUSE, once the power is cut a TrueCrypt volume dismounts. It can't be remounted without the password, which you forgot, sorry.
ACTA:
»88.80.13.160/wiki/Special:Search···ta&go=Go
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count···greement
Using binary usenet (about $10 a month) frees you from the need to use a sharing app. Using iPRED or another VPN can mask you from the RIAA/MPAA.
Evidence doesn't need to exist. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
approval from:
jrudol 
| Excessive Fines Many people have brought up the distinction between the Constitutional prohibition against excessive fines as it relates to criminal charges as opposed to civil claims. While it is true that this applies only to criminal charges, there is still a constitutional law argument against excessively large civil fines. What you would have to argue is that the excessive fines violate a civil defendant's Due Process rights.
Due Process, as it relates to civil trials, means that a defendant should have adequate notice of the proceedings and that the proceedings are fundamentally fair.
There has been a United States Supreme Court Ruling where excessively large punitive damages in a civil case were deemed to violate Due Process. The case involved a guy that purchased a BMW. Said BMW was shipped on a cargo ship and the paint faded. The dealership repainted the vehicle and did not tell the buyer (thus the car was worth less that what he contracted for). The buyer found out and his lawyers discovered that BMW had a procedure wherein the sold damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for a certain amount. Plaintiff was awarded around $5K in compensatory damages for the diminished value of the vehicle and $4 million in punitive damges. The punitive damages were to "punish" BMW and other car dealers from selling damaged cars as new.
The Supreme Court stated that the punitive damages were so out of line to the compensatory damages as to violate BMW's Due Process rights. The court reasoned that the high punitive damges really acted as a criminal sanction against BMW.
The problem with the current case is that the damages are statutory in the Copyright Law. So the plaintiff will have to argue that the statutory damages in the Copyright Law are unconstitutional. The argument could go that the $1.9M award is so out of whack with the actual damages to the RIAA. Of course, it is extremely difficult to calculate the actual damages.
Wow, sorry about the long post. Us attorneys are known to be long-winded. | |
|
| Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| Re: Excessive Fines the court system are corrupt
when you have baffoon running the justice system don't expect fair trial or any justice
their like a bunch of immature little pricks who could careless if you can afford to pay 100 dollars or a million dollars
next thing they be saying, we thought you were rich thats why we fined you excessively
well what kind of moron fine someone way above what they can pay... how idiotic is this?
this is not against a corporation but an individual with limited budget.
the ppl who run our court system are the biggest loser
they will do anything for a lot of money even if it has to appear out of thin air. | |
|
| GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | said by MS Attorney :
Us attorneys are known to be long-winded.
OT: But "Us" attorneys usually have better grammar. | |
|
| | | | Re: Excessive Fines That's why "we" attorneys have legal secretaries | |
|
|
|
·
