Topic 'Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more!' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666634 en Wed, 23 Mar 2022 15:02:06 EDT Wed, 23 Mar 2022 15:02:06 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22676011 said by Thespis:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

And two separate juries found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a civil action. She was found to be responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.
Totally different burden of proof...
I stand corrected! Thanks for the update.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22676011 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:20:02 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22672372 said by MyDogHsFleas:

And two separate juries found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a civil action. She was found to be responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.
Totally different burden of proof...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22672372 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:12:37 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22672370
It's not generally possible to simply lose your copyright to a work, unless it's been forfeited by unintentionally failing to comply with the conditions for federal copyright protection in effect at the time. But, that is very timeframe and law specific. Dissolution of a corporation doesn't necessarily equate to abandonment.

Now, whether a company that has gone defunct even cares about enforcing its copyrights is a different matter.

Edit: You can also expressly try to abandon your copyright in a work, but you have to make some kind of overt act displaying your intention to abandon the copyright.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22672370 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:12:14 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22671321
As I understand it, if a company owns the rights to a fixed work and then goes out of business without a transfer of ownership to another party, the work in question instantly goes into public domain. This is why you see so many recent movies (within the last twenty or thirty years) that end up on DVDs in the dollar store under distributed by a ton of different companies. I know one or two IP lawyers sometimes haunt these discussions and if they'd like to chime in with a clarification, that'd be great.

Here's a site that gives more info on such titles:

»www.openflix.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22671321 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:52:09 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22668165
No matter what you say....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22668165 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:42:08 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22668003
you said:
"Copyright holders HAVE to enforce their copyrights (and trademarks) or they could be invalidated."

I said:
"copyright holders do not have to enforce their copyrights or they are invalidated"

you certainly dig deep by referencing the berne convention, but your reference addresses whether or not there was a copyright notice on the infringed work; if the work did not have a copyright mark and the rights holder cannot prove the infringer had knowledge the work was copyrighted, the court can "reduce or remit" damages - the rights holder's copyright is not invalidated, he just doesn't get the big payday he was hoping for.

US copyright has the same kind of "innocent infringement":

An innocent infringer is someone who has authored a work which infringes a prior protected work, but where the author did not realize he was infringing the protected work. This innocence is only a valid defense to a claim of copyright infringement if the original protected work did not include a copyright notice.

In this case, statutory damages are reduced to a specific amount ($200/per).

In fact, last year a case was ruled this way:

"A judge has ruled that a teenage girl who admitted to downloading music over KaZaA will only have to pay damages of $200 per song, instead of the $750-30,000 normally allowed under the Copyright Act (and the $750 per song sought by the RIAA). The reason for the cap comes from Whitney Harper's "innocent infringement" defense, in which she argues that she did not knowingly infringe the record labels' copyright. "

this isn't invalidating a copyright. with trademarks, you WILL lose your trademark if you fail to police it.

I'm not aware there is any way to lose a copyright, except when the period of copyright has passed. since that period is now a ridiculous "life of the author + 70 years" and will probably be extended again when a copyright owned by a big corporation is about to expire (see Mouse, Mickey or Eldred v. Ashcroft), copyrights are effectively "forever" in the U.S.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22668003 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:17:59 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667691
From who? and for what?

You'll get no such thing ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667691 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:36:19 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667619
Do I need to go back and identify specific users? Some of whom are probably posting on this thread? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667619 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:24:11 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667596 said by Pv8man:

said by Ikarasu : " Asking someone who probably gets $8 an hour to pay 1.2 Million dollars is pretty much a death penalty "

Thank you, that's exactly my point.

These crimes are NOT worth ruining peoples lives.

Also, matt says she will be fine in 7 years after filing bankruptcy.

LOL, ya...she'll be just fine after she looses her home and can't get another because of her bad credit.

What world do you live in "Matt" ?
What wrong with do not steal. If you don't steal you don't have serve the time. She bought on own when she decided to break the law.
--
Caddy]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667596 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:20:16 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667410 said by nasadude:

copyright holders do not have to enforce their copyrights or they are invalidated - that is true for trademarks, not copyrighted works.

based on this, you clearly have a poor understanding of copyright and you clearly feel copyright holders are entitled to whatever penalties they can get, regardless of whether they are excessive or not.
Here we go again.

I suggest you read up on the Berne Convention and the removal of the required copyright symbol, which has led to cases of the damage amount being reduced because the infringer wasn't aware the work was copyrighted. This has in turn prompted copyright holders to seek out infringers and bring them to trial under civil law for facing what is essentially an invalid copyright. If no one knows your work is copyrighted and you don't attempt to enforce that copyright, the court can deem it is not enforceable.

I am not a copyright lawyer, but this is fairly common knowledge if you have researched these issues at all.


(5) Innocent violations. —

(A) In general. — The court in its discretion may reduce or remit the total award of damages in any case in which the violator sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667410 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:55:25 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667319 said by Matt3:

said by Pv8man:

These crimes are NOT worth ruining peoples lives.
A crime is a crime is a crime. If you really cared, you'd petition the people who enacted the laws rather than whine when they are passed and someone is convicted and subject to said penalty.
petitions don't work with congress - you have to bring $$$. so far, the RIAA is outspending us all.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667319 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:42:58 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667307
based on this, you clearly have a poor understanding of copyright and you clearly feel copyright holders are entitled to whatever penalties they can get, regardless of whether they are excessive or not.

in a "perfect" world, these kinds of infringements would result in penalties that reflect the actual harm to rights holders, plus some additional penalty for deterrent effect. The penalties being applied were put in place for commercial infringers (think small warehouse with dozens of replicating machines, producing physical discs), not individuals with no intent of profiting.

despite the fact that infringers could face bankruptcy at the hands of the RIAA, this course of action has done literally NOTHING to stop file sharing.

The RIAA is a stupid dinosaur of an organization with no clue how to adapt to the digital age. the sooner they go extinct, the better off all of us will be.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667307 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:41:33 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667298 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667298 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:40:21 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667259 said by Pv8man:

These crimes are NOT worth ruining peoples lives.A crime is a crime is a crime. If you really cared, you'd petition the people who enacted the laws rather than whine when they are passed and someone is convicted and subject to said penalty.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667259 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:36:44 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667239 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667239 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:34:05 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667206
Thank you, that's exactly my point.

These crimes are NOT worth ruining peoples lives.

Also, matt says she will be fine in 7 years after filing bankruptcy.

LOL, ya...she'll be just fine after she looses her home and can't get another because of her bad credit.

What world do you live in "Matt" ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667206 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:29:14 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667193 said by Ikarasu:

When someone refuses to pay their rent, or damages the place they're renting (Which is doing basically what you said) How much are they awarded?

It's usually cost + time. Not theoretical, well, you could have blown up the house, pay us $20,000 in damages!

The penalty IS stiff. She should have to pay - but come on, $18,000 a song? $100 a song is stiff... but at least people would be able to walk away without ruining their lives.

They should also put a cap on it when it's for personal use. It should hurt the person where it counts, make them think twice about ever doing it again... and that would send more of a message to people not to do it. This whole 1.8 million dollar thing is a joke... I doubt it'll deter anyone, because in all likelihood.. It will be thrown out.
It's $80,000 per song and it's because she made the songs available for others to download. She is allowed to make copies for personal use. She is not allowed to make them available for others to download on Kaazaa, Limewire, or any other file sharing service.

And I doubt it will be thrown out. It's been upheld by two juries already. Eventually she'll run out of appeals.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667193 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:27:40 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667157
It's usually cost + time. Not theoretical, well, you could have blown up the house, pay us $20,000 in damages!

The penalty IS stiff. She should have to pay - but come on, $18,000 a song? $100 a song is stiff... but at least people would be able to walk away without ruining their lives.

They should also put a cap on it when it's for personal use. It should hurt the person where it counts, make them think twice about ever doing it again... and that would send more of a message to people not to do it. This whole 1.8 million dollar thing is a joke... I doubt it'll deter anyone, because in all likelihood.. It will be thrown out. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667157 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:24:20 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667124 said by Ikarasu:

You don't see anything wrong with the way these punishments are?
Nope. She can file bankrupcy and in 7-10 years, she'll emerge just fine or if that's not allowed, I'm sure the courts can work out a payment plan for her. Again, she was offered a settlement and refused it. So they already tried to work with her and she refused, thus exposing herself to the full penalty of the law.

Everyone who thinks the penalty is too stiff, I encourage you to start allowing others to give away your services and work for free -- without your permission of course.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667124 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:20:07 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667097 said by Matt3:

said by nasadude:

I don't think they really proved the distributing part, since the only "distribution" was to mediasentry, as an authorized agent of the RIAA. per my post above, I just don't think the judge and jury know enough to realize the distinction. The RIAA never proved anyone other than mediasentry obtained a file from Thomas, so they have no idea if anyone else ever got anything thru her.
All it takes is a single distribution. It doesn't have to be 10, 100, or 1,000. And there is nothing wrong with MediaSentry being the one it was distributed to. Copyright holders HAVE to enforce their copyrights (and trademarks) or they could be invalidated. So, in this case, since the penalty is $80,000 per song, tough shit. She knew what could happen if she decided to go to trial and lost.

Do I think $80,000 per song is excessive? Absolutely. But the penalty has to be high enough to deter any potential criminals. I really have a hard time feeling sorry for this lady when she's not even attempting to call out technicalities and is instead taking the "Who? Poor little ol' me?" defense ... which is going to allow the RIAA to set a precedent.

Don't be surprised if they start bumping up the "settlement" amounts going forward based on this judgement. You thought bankrupting a college kid was bad? Sorry Charlie, this is business.
This is what is wrong with America these days :(

I don't care if someone steals songs, a CD player from a store, or $10,000 from a bank (Given no one is hurt). Are these crimes really worth ruining someones whole life over?

You don't give the death penalty to jaywalkers. Why give one to file sharers? (Asking someone who probably gets $8 an hour to pay 1.2 Million dollars is pretty much a death penalty...).

Protecting your content is one thing, and yes, it should be done. Going 100 MPH in a 30 MPH zone is a $200-300 ticket... and you risk lives. sharing a song is an $18,000 fine, and the onlything that COULD be hurt, is future sales.

You don't see anything wrong with the way these punishments are?

There have been a lot of deaths over jaywalking/speeders. The onlything thats hurt when someone downloads a song, is the million dollar artists/billion dollar record labels lose a few bucks, instead of earing 100 million, they earn 99.99999 million.

[Edited to add:]
Why don't we charge $20K to people who jaywalk, deter some deaths? Because those with money are more important, and most people aren't stupid enough to fine such a huge amount for something so minor. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22667097 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:15:52 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666895 said by nasadude:

I don't think they really proved the distributing part, since the only "distribution" was to mediasentry, as an authorized agent of the RIAA. per my post above, I just don't think the judge and jury know enough to realize the distinction. The RIAA never proved anyone other than mediasentry obtained a file from Thomas, so they have no idea if anyone else ever got anything thru her.
All it takes is a single distribution. It doesn't have to be 10, 100, or 1,000. And there is nothing wrong with MediaSentry being the one it was distributed to. Copyright holders HAVE to enforce their copyrights (and trademarks) or they could be invalidated. So, in this case, since the penalty is $80,000 per song, tough shit. She knew what could happen if she decided to go to trial and lost.

Do I think $80,000 per song is excessive? Absolutely. But the penalty has to be high enough to deter any potential criminals. I really have a hard time feeling sorry for this lady when she's not even attempting to call out technicalities and is instead taking the "Who? Poor little ol' me?" defense ... which is going to allow the RIAA to set a precedent.

Don't be surprised if they start bumping up the "settlement" amounts going forward based on this judgement. You thought bankrupting a college kid was bad? Sorry Charlie, this is business.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666895 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:46:44 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666768
number 1. She was not intentionally distributing the songs, the program does that automatically.

number 2. So you think it's perfectly reasonable for them to decide how much damage they have done, without showing any proof???

Hey "Mydoghsfleas" ....I put a picture up for my avatar....

But you used your "avatar downloading program" and now it shared my picture to others....

You are illegally distributing my picture, and look at all the damage it has caused...

It does not matter that I don't have proof of damage...You owe me a few million bucks....because I say you caused damage

NOW PAY UP !!! or get a lawyer so we can make you pay more for trying to defend yourself and your families future.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666768 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:29:41 EDT Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666715 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666715 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:23:31 EDT She's not arguing she's innocent any more! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666634
So everyone who said she was an innocent victim should post their apologies now.

....

waiting

....

While I'm waiting, here's my analysis of what her lawyer is saying now:

"She did it, but the evidence should be thrown out."

"She did it, but the award is too high and should be reduced."

"She did it, but the law is unconstitutional."

I'm not qualified to discuss the first and third, but on the second one, people are comparing the award to the cost of buying the album/song. I think that's ridiculous. What she's being penalized for is not stealing works, but stealing AND DISTRIBUTING works. It's the distributing part that multiplies the harm thousands of time (no one really knows how many). ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Shes-not-arguing-shes-innocent-any-more-22666634 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:13:40 EDT