Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Penalties need to be changed
What really needs to be done is for the copyright infringement penalties to be changed. They were set with commercial pirating operations in mind, but they are now being applied to home users. As the article points out, a user who accidentally sets their entire hard drive to be shared including 2 ripped (legally owned) CDs' worth of music, could face a couple hundred dollars in fines. Is bankrupting individuals and making them lose their homes fair punishment for infringing intellectual property rights on a couple of songs?
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | I agree, if the punishment fit the crime, there wouldn't be so much backlash. Nobody says that speeding tickets should be repealed, we just pay them and control our speed better next time. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Jason Levine
Agreed. The punishments really are insane compared to the harm or the crime.
See that's been the biggest problem with a lot of this. Most everyone realizes that copying protected works is not kosher, but, most people don't agree with the heavy-handed tactics and draconian punishments metered out by the laws, either.
Every few years or so they keep lowering the bar for what is "enough" infringement while increasing the penalties-- massively. I mean seriously--- copy some MP3's and face felony charges? Thousands, even Hundreds of thousands in fines? 10 years in prison?!? I mean COME ON. I could rob a place and face less punishment! I could get busted for stealing cars and committing burglaries and face far less.... sheesh... I mean, seriously, stop and think about the crime alleged and then consider the punishment.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
kpatz
MY HEAD A SPLODE
Premium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | You could murder someone and face less punishment than by sharing an MP3.
I guess that means music is more valuable than human life?  |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX | reply to Jason Levine
As I understand it, the RIAA lawsuits generally offer to settle for a few thousand dollars.
It's like anything else... there are maximum penalties, but the norm is very different. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
1 edit | It's not really a settlement for a few thousand dollars. How it works is the record label sues "you" as a John Doe (along with a thousand other John Does). They get a judge to approve an order for your ISP to turn over your personal information. Then they drop the John Doe lawsuit.
At this point, you are technically not being sued by the record label.
They then contact you and tell you that you need to call a Settlement Office number or get sued. If/When you call the Settlement Office, you are strongly urged (under threat of multi-million dollar, life-ruining lawsuits) to accept their "settlement offer."
However, recall that you still aren't technically being sued. So it's not a settlement. In addition, the "settlement offer" is very one sided. In it, you would admit to everything that the record label accuses you of. You also agree not to discuss the lawsuits, "settlement", or any other aspect of the situation with anyone. However, no such restrictions are applied to the record label. So the record label gets to portray you in the news media as a captured pirate and you can't argue that you were wrongly identified and "settled" as the cheaper option. You also, by admitting to copyright infringement, open yourself up to other lawsuits by other copyright holders (such as the songwriter's association).
If you don't accept their offer, then the lawsuit begins, of course. However, at the time that the "settlement" occurs, there is no pending lawsuit against the individual.
For more information on how the record label lawsuits work, I'd suggest reading Ray Beckerman's detailed summary here:
»recordingindustryvspeople.blogsp···#exparte
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Thanks for the details.
From my POV, the "settlement" (if it's not a settlement what should we call it?) is a good deal. Writing a check for $3K or so is a whole lot more preferable than going through a huge lawsuit and court case. If nothing else, the fact that a lawsuit was filed against you kills your credit and your ability to get many kinds of employment.
I admit that I was a Napster user in the early days, but got rid of it as soon as the legal questions started. It's just not worth it.
One of my kids was into music sharing also but I had several direct conversations with her and told her people were being sued and she had to get rid of it. She finally did. A few months later she mentioned to me, rather incredulously, "You know, you were right, Dad. My friend's sister just got the letter and her family had to pay like $4000."
I just don't understand the outrage against the RIAA. It's wrong to take copyrighted music and put it out there for anyone to download! Just don't do that and you'll be fine. No RIAA in your life. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by MyDogHsFleas  :I just don't understand the outrage against the RIAA. It's wrong to take copyrighted music and put it out there for anyone to download! Just don't do that and you'll be fine. No RIAA in your life. Except that's not entirely true. There have been plenty of cases where the RIAA lawsuits were filed against people who couldn't possibly have engaged in the actions that the RIAA claims that they did. One example that springs to mind is a grandmother accused of downloading hip hop and rap music from Kazaa. One problem: Her Macintosh computer was completely unable to run the Kazaa software. If it weren't for the publicity the case generated, she would have likely been forced into a "settlement" even though she was innocent. (I doubt she had the funds to fight the RIAA.)
Even while they backed down, the RIAA still didn't admit that they were wrong. They claimed that they were just dropping the lawsuit "for now" and could bring it back at any time if they felt like it.
In the end, the recording industry doesn't care who they sue or whether their evidence is correct or not. They care that they are suing enough individuals that it would scare the pirates into not sharing files. It's all about numbers to them, not really catching copyright infringement.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Jason Levine :Except that's not entirely true. There have been plenty of cases where the RIAA lawsuits were filed against people who couldn't possibly have engaged in the actions that the RIAA claims that they did. One example that springs to mind is a grandmother accused of downloading hip hop and rap music from Kazaa. One problem: Her Macintosh computer was completely unable to run the Kazaa software. So, how did it happen? The RIAA investigators obviously found someone sharing this music, using an IP address that her Mac had pulled. I read a couple of the articles but no one was specific on this.
I suspect that somewhere, somehow, a PC was plugged into her cable modem and the sharing happened. No one ever looked in her house to see what the setup was. She claims no one ever visits with a laptop or a PC, or uses her Mac. So I ask again... how did this happen?
Even while they backed down, the RIAA still didn't admit that they were wrong. They claimed that they were just dropping the lawsuit "for now" and could bring it back at any time if they felt like it.
In the end, the recording industry doesn't care who they sue or whether their evidence is correct or not.
I think you're ignoring the facts. The RIAA DOES believe their evidence is correct. They say so in the articles about this case. They just gave her a break because they weren't willing to pursue it, for whatever reason.
The RIAA also says this was the only case out of the 300-odd in this round where there was a complaint of mistaken identity. So to say the RIAA "doesn't care whether their evidence is correct" is unreasonable, don't you think?
My opinion is that the EFF and their proponents actually have a hidden agenda... to decriminalize copyrighted file sharing, or at least to make the music and video industries offer their product over the Internet for free or a very low cost. What they are doing is using every PR and legal trick they can, like finding the "Nice Innocent Grandma Assaulted by Jackbooted Thugs!" and playing up that case. And you are buying straight into that PR hype without examination.
I'd have more respect for them if they simply came out and said what they stood for, but also said that the current law is what it is, and people shouldn't be sharing copyrighted material over the Internet.
They care that they are suing enough individuals that it would scare the pirates into not sharing files. It's all about numbers to them, not really catching copyright infringement.
Umm, duh. Of course their agenda is to incent people to behave legally. They can't sue everyone who shares copyrighted material, there's too many of them. What would you do if you were the RIAA and you were faced with rampant piracy? One way of course is to completely change the music/video industry's business model, and that may come, eventually. But, how do you avoid getting simply run out of business in the meantime? |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by MyDogHsFleas :So, how did it happen? The RIAA investigators obviously found someone sharing this music, using an IP address that her Mac had pulled. I read a couple of the articles but no one was specific on this. It could have been quite a few things. A wireless router that was left open (or a network that was hacked into). It could also have been a problem on the RIAA's end (or rather the people the RIAA hired to find the illegal file sharers). They could have detected activity at one address and written down a different address.
said by MyDogHsFleas :I think you're ignoring the facts. The RIAA DOES believe their evidence is correct. They say so in the articles about this case. They just gave her a break because they weren't willing to pursue it, for whatever reason. The problem is, their "evidence" doesn't match up with the computer that the woman has. There have been other questions as to the quality of their evidence in other cases as well.
said by MyDogHsFleas :The RIAA also says this was the only case out of the 300-odd in this round where there was a complaint of mistaken identity. So to say the RIAA "doesn't care whether their evidence is correct" is unreasonable, don't you think? The only case that they claim was mistaken identity. But how many of those who accepted the settlement offers were also cases of mistaken identity who just didn't have the time/money to fight for their innocence? If there were any, by signing the settlement they can't come forward and the RIAA can claim (by virtue of the fact that they signed the settlement) that it wasn't mistaken identity.
I myself have said in the past that, were the RIAA to sue me, I'd be tempted to sign the settlement simply because I don't think I would have the time or money to fight the lawsuit. (I don't download or share music so I would be innocent.) Recent developments have emboldened me, so that I think I would now fight the charges. However, if you were to have asked me a few years back, I would have responded that I would *not* have been happy about it at all, but would have seen settling as my only real option.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
