First RIAA Lawsuit Heads to Trial > RIAA sucks!!

RIAA sucks!!

Uh huh

reply to thesimonsens

Re: RIAA sucks!!

reply to Mmmmhmmm yah

Re: Uh huh

think whatever you want. I could care less. I saw the letter with my two eyes- next time we make the 2 hour drive to his bar I will try to get the damn thing to scan

Tell the bar to take exception to the requirement of having only copyrighted music on the jukebox. Unless the jukebox company is solely responsible for the music put in their machines and THEY require only copyrighted music due to whatever arrangements they made with the labels or ASCAP, etc that bar has absolutely no legal requirement to comply with that letter.

If that bar received any letters from the RIAA or individual record labels regarding performance royalties they need to make sure the sender of such letters know they have absolutely no authority in such matters.

reply to thesimonsens

Monday update

quote:

---

Defendant Jammie Thomas, a 30-year-old single mother of two who works at a nearby Indian reservation, could be forced to pay nearly $4 million in damages. She's accused of unlawfully uploading 25 copyrighted works from some of the biggest names in the industry. Her defense is simple: She didn't do it and the industry must prove she was behind the internet protocol (IP) address the RIAA says was used to share 1,700 songs on the file-sharing site Kazaa in 2005.

"The plaintiffs don't have the evidence that she downloaded anything," Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder told jurors. "The best that they can come up with is somebody out there in cyberland ... offered on Kazaa some copyrighted material."

The industry in this case is only suing over 25 songs, with damages up to $150,000 per violation, because it doesn't want to exact too big of financial penalties by going for all 1,700, testified Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief. "The damages would be substantial," she said. "We have no intent in pursing cases like that."

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis is quickly moving the case along. Twelve jurors, six men and six women, were chosen in about 70 minutes early Tuesday. Pariser, the first witness, was immediately called after lawyers gave their brief, opening arguments. During jury selection, panelists did not appear computer savvy. Five of them have a digital music player and only three knew where they got the music for it -- from iTunes. One juror, a construction foreman, said he had never been on the internet. One juror was excused who said she had used a peer-to-peer site to download copyrighted music..........

...........Pariser testified that hijacked music and purchased music sound the same, at least with the recordings in question. She played for jurors about 30 seconds of Journey's "Don't Stop Believing."

Not surprisingly, both versions of the Sony-copyrighted tune -- the purchased one, and the downloaded copy --sounded the same. Pariser, in the witness stand, briefly weaved back and forth to the melody, while the gallery and jury box sat stone faced.

---

quote:

---

No longer bopping to 80s power ballads, Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, showed the jury her tough side this afternoon as testimony continued in the trial of an accused music file sharer.

Under direct examination by recording industry lawyer Richard Gabriel, Pariser emphasized the lengths to which the music industry goes to find, develop, produce and promote talent. "Selling music is the only way a record company makes money," she said. "If (downloaders) take it without compensation, it kills the company."

She added that in the last few years, "I've seen thousands of hardworking employees lose their job because of piracy."

Then Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"

Given that five people in the jury box own iPods or MP3 players, Pariser's statement has the ring of a strategic error -- indicting, as it does, anyone who made a mix tape in the 80s, or who loaded up their iPod from their CD collection. But it had no visible impact on the jury.

---

quote:

---

The RIAA launched its bizarre sue ‘em all marking scheme in September 2003 and the Big 4 and their reality conversion specialists such as the RIAA’s Cary Sherman, who’s expected to give evidence, claim the campaign is working.

However, from day one the numbers of file sharers have consistently risen and according to AP, quoting an unnamed source, “the number of households that have downloaded music with file-sharing programs has risen from 6.9 million in April 2003 to 7.8 million in March 2007, according to industry tracking”

---

reply to thesimonsens

Re: RIAA sucks!!

reply to SRFireside
Only time you have to pay ascap fees in a tavern at least around here is if you have run your own dj setup. If you have a dj come in then they should pay the fees, if not then they will coem after you. As far as the jukebox goes it was owned by the vending company and they took care of ascap, and we got our percentage out of the jukebox every week when they emptied it. There was a stipulation on th emusic in the jukebox as we could have ours put in but it could not be on a burned disk had to have the original so we just made copied for ourselves to keep and the original went on the box. That was not ascap though it was the vending company.

I bet the situation would be different if that tavern had a radio on instead or was playing a CD from a stereo. Those royalty collection companies are vultures at times. Ever hear about them suing the Boy Scouts for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire?