Verdict Reached In RIAA Trial 1001
jemtallon writes "The jury in the previously mentioned Captiol v Thomas story has reached a verdict. They have found in favor of the plaintiffs, Capitol, and ordered that she pay a $222,000 fine for 24 cases of copyright infringement."
Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Without such defense, a simple "preponderence of the evidence" (the criteria for a civil case) was inevitable.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
i guess they're just trying as hard as hell to make sure i don't listen to new music (which they're doing anyways--all of it sucks!) and i don't spend any money beyond what i have already spent building my collection. i might by emi music because i can get that in a format that will play on both of my devices, but that leaves all the other riaa companies in the lurch.
regardless, a $222,000 verdict for 24 songs is ridiculous. i haven't listened to a cd in my life that was worth $20,000 a song.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Funny)
They have such as system in place already. Its called "Fergie".
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like getting a year in jail for a speeding ticket, or a $1000 fine for eating a grape in the supermarket produce section. It's just completely out of proportion to the punishment deserved. Sure, the music companies have the right to defend their interests, but fining a single, working mother more than she probably makes in five years is just vicious.
Congrats, RIAA. I wonder if that 200,000 dollars will make up for all the people alienated by the action? If you consider how many millions of dollars companies spend on advertising, the bad press generated by this story would be more than enough to offset the financial gain created by the fines and any reduced piracy. I mean, personally, the overwhelming majority of my music has been legally acquired in the past few years, but this makes me wonder why the hell I'm doing that, and whether I should actually be pirating more. Yes, I want to support the artists who produce the music, but I don't want to support these bullies.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider what likely went on in this woman's mind. She was an avid fan of music. She has acquired music probably with no real issue with the market prices. She most likely bought both albums and singles - a perfect music-industry customer. Then a new medium arrived where you can community-build.. Share interests.. Share similar tastes in music.. Sure it's free, but if anything else, the medium is more attractive.. Less restrictive than portable physical medium.
As any good netizen, she wants to contribute.. So while she may very well have downloaded quite a bit.. She was more than happy to share what she had (considering the neglegable cost to her - just setup time).
Consider that she's probably spent her whole life making mix-tapes.. Copying a CD or VHS to family and friends. We've had 20 years of built up social 'morals' with respect to sharing with friends. All perfectly legal.
So now RIAA starts tries to define the rules of this new media. US Court enforced 'backup copy' protection is in uncharted territory. People aren't profiting on piracy, they're merely part of a social network. The term Piracy is a horrible bastardization.. Piracy is when you pilfer (often via death) the wares of other sea-goers that are helpless. You then sell the pirated goods (boot-leg) at various ports.. People come to know that if you want cheap 'knock offs' you go to a port and buy from the pirate and their minions. There's an obvious moral imperative when you buy such boot-leg, because you must know that someone probably died to provide these cheap goods to you.. So using the terms Piracy and Boot-legging are supposed to associate large amounts of guilt.
So later boot-legging was the audio-taping of concerts against the permission of the artists. This was really an arbitrary determination by artists and labels that is akin to no 3'rd party food in a Theater. No moral obligation, merely an attempted monopoly by the vendor. If they can do it fine.. But I strongly oppose federal laws that encourage this behaviour - such that a Movie theater could hand a citizen over to the police for eating cokes bought at home.. Or likewise bringing a tape-recorder to a concert.
Back to our lady. Does she see the various RIAA advertisements? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps she's a perfectly naive and innocent girl. Maybe she knew full well that the RIAA was cracking down on Kazza, and she had the 'stick it to the evil empire' mentality.. Many rock-fans and alternative-fans were made to think this way through the very music that they're being sued for. Bitter Irony I would say. Most likely, however, she acted indifferently, much like the selection of our presidents are a matter of indifference to most Americans. The RIAA is slowly becoming irrelevant, and we are watching it's death-throws. US music is abominable compared to the rest of the world. The quality of work has continously degraded for the past century - thanks to the ability to amplify profits through brain-washing (repeated paid-for spots on radio/TV). Audiences develop a taste through repeated use.. And it's sad, but taste Americans are developing is mostly bland (with a few category exceptions). Singers have less and less attractive sound. Music is extremely repetative from one song to the next (if not already synthesized). Lyrics are a joke. The message is less and less condusive to society building or even renewing (even older angry Rap represented a contemporary cry for change).
This debate is endless. I don't expect to convince others that Patents and Copy-Right are evil capitalistic ventures of the old British Empire that unfortunately worked their way through the likes of Benjamin Franklin and others into the US.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing you point out is paramount. Since this was a civil case, the fine should be only enough to promote equity rather than be punitive in nature.
Another interesting thing is that, averaged out, this adds up to $9250 per infringement. At that price the defendant could have physically stolen about 600 copies of each work (assuming around $15 per work). So it pays to remember that the fines for physically stealing copyrighted works are much less than infringing on them.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Set up an account (Not that hard)
2. Put money in your account (not hard at all)
3. Hope they have a song you want (They might, they might not)
4. Buy the song (Just takes a click)
5. Put the song on your iPod (not hard)
6. Put the song on your generic mp3 player (Oh wait you can't....)
7. Play the song on Linux (Oh wait, I have to use restricted drivers....)
8. Share the songs with your friends (Oh wait, it can only be copied to a certain amount of computers...)
And downloading the song illegitimately
1. Get the file (not hard unless you don't have seeders)
2. Put the song on your mp3 player (not hard)
3. Put the song on your Linux computer (you can usually get in
4. Put the song on your iPod (easy)
5. Share the songs (really easy)
So besides price "pirating" songs has so many advantages that the RIAA and others stupidly ignore in support of more DRM and higher prices rather then making it much easier for people to download and share songs, after all, your not going to buy a song if you haven't heard it for free somewhere else.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
What the RIAA doesn't understand is that a LOT of people are perfectly willing to pay for the songs, we just don't want to pay for copies of them that we don't have control over. I run Linux on all my computers and my work is a linux shop, DRM'ed music is hardly even an option (not that I would pay for it if I could, I'd get a CD in a second over a DRM'ed piece of crap).
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Set up an account - at Amazon MP3 Music Store [amazon.com], MP3Tunes [mp3tunes.com], eMusic [emusic.com], others in time...
2. Hope they have a song you want (they might, they might not... probably not yet)
3. Buy the song (Just takes a click or two)
4. Put the song on any mp3 player (done, no drm at these stores!)
5. Play the song on Linux (well, need an mp3 codec but whatev, you need one in windows too)
6. Share the songs with your friends (Complaining that it's hard to share songs with your friends is the whole purpose of DRM. If you'd respect copyright and let your friends buy their own MP3's, we wouldn't need DRM. You're not legally allowed to redistribute copyrighted songs without authorization from the copyright holder - that goes way beyond fair use imho)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:4, Interesting)
Physically stealing something tangible (eg a CD) is so much less important because it is so much "harder". The risk from stealing an object is physical and is already accounted for in law. The risk from downloading/distributing 0s & 1s is... nothing.
The only way to equalize this imbalance is with a financial cost. You may not agree with the size of the statuatory penalty, but it's hard to disagree with the idea that there should be some punishment.
To put it in perspective, imagine how hard it would be to physically rip $220,000 worth of CDs, in comparison to filling up your bittorrent queue and then seeding.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Informative)
One thing you point out is paramount. Since this was a civil case, the fine should be only enough to promote equity rather than be punitive in nature.
Another interesting thing is that, averaged out, this adds up to $9250 per infringement. At that price the defendant could have physically stolen about 600 copies of each work (assuming around $15 per work). So it pays to remember that the fines for physically stealing copyrighted works are much less than infringing on them.
This was actually addressed in the Ars Technica writeup of the case. Normally the damages for copyright infringement are a few hundred dollars ($300 max rings a bell). In the case of willful infringement, however, damages can increase up to $150,000 per incident. The jury found that the defendant had engaged in such willful infringement, and could have awarded up to $3.6 million ($150,000 for each of 24 songs being distributed).
Re: (Score:3)
The normal range for statutory damages is $750 to $30,000. The defendant can try to get the minimum lowered to as little as $200 (in ordinary cases) though this is usually difficult. Or (as these are mutually exclusive) the plaintiff can try to get the maximum raised to as much as $150,000, and usually has an easier
there is still a relationship (Score:4, Interesting)
To my knowledge several law professors are of the opinion that this line of argument has a decent chance of success in copyright cases, but it hasn't yet been tried.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... / PUNATIVE Damages (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that juries hate to be lied to. She clearly came across as a liar. I suspect there had to be a better defense. Such as admitting to downloading a few songs but not understanding that her music would be uploaded.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Congress approved the penalties when copying works could not be done very cheaply. Therefore, non-commercial copyright infringement was almost non-existent. When it did happen, it was on a very small scale. I'm sure some MSTies here recall the tape trading of MST3K episodes. I wouldn't be surprised if that was about as big as copyright infringement got before the Internet became popular.
The statutory damages assumed that all infringement was for a commercial purpose. Congress
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Informative)
Okay.
In the 1976 Act the amounts were $250 - $10,000, and could be lowered to $100 or raised to $50,000. Congress amended this in 1988, making the new amounts $500 - $20,000, $250, and $100,000. Congress amended it again in 1999, making the new amounts $750 - $30,000, left the minimum possible floor at $250, and $150,000.
I'm thinking that the forces that got Congress to raise the statutory damages in 1999 were well aware of how cheaply copying could be done for. Likewise, the idea that not all copying was commercial and that individuals acting noncommercially could run afoul of copyright laws was well known at that time.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Next time you want to sell CDs on the sidewalk in $LARGE_CITY, make sure they're stolen copies rather than bootlegs. Your monetary penalty will be much less. You're looking at jail time for passing stolen merchandise, but that's criminal court so you get a free lawyer and the burden of proof is higher.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Informative)
I am a big proponent of it. unfortunately, talking about it gets my excluded form jury duty.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather believe these guys:
The condemnation of jury nullification is a relatively recent event in the nation's history. In the North around the time of the Civil War, juries often use nullification in order to protect runaway slaves, which were required by law to be returned to their so-called "owners." Now, though, we've gone from jurists encouraging nullification when needed, through active discouraging using nullification, through dismissing potential jurors who even know what nullification is, all the way to fellow jurors being encouraged to rat you out for dismissal if they suspect that you might be making decisions based on nullification.
Nullification at one time was thought of a person's last best defense against bad laws. This case is a perfect example of why we still need it, so that people can affect the outcome of such cases in a just and equitable manner, not merely in a way that lobbyists have paid politicians for.
Oh well, chalk it up to yet one more noble goal of our system that's gone down the drain. However, people need to know that in spite of anything the courts tell you, you do have the right of nullification. As a juror, you need to make decisions not only on the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law as well. As has already been pointed out, though, don't give any indication that you're smart to know that or you will be immediately dismissed.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody else in this discussion had a valid point. You are sitting on the jury for Rosa Parks [wikipedia.org]. Technically she broke the law. Do you find her guilty? Go back further. You are sitting on the jury for a runaway slave. Technically he also broke the law. What if you were on the jury for the Scopes Trial [wikipedia.org]?
Hmm, jury nullification is starting to sound better now, isn't it?
There is also a good reason why our constitution requires a trial by a jury of your peers. If the law you are accused of breaking is fundamentally unjust then do you really deserve to be punished for breaking it? Are you telling me that if you were sitting on the jury for any of the above examples you'd allow a conviction to happen? Or how about some modern examples? Would you send a terminally ill person with cancer to prison for possessing medical marijuana?
Short of armed insurrection, the jury system is our last line of defense against Government abuses of power. No wonder the courts and "good lawyers" (to quote you) hate it.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. is supposed to be a society committed to justice and the spirit of the law. The quote from U.S. vs Thomas makes it seem like the letter of the law is most important. It isn't. Or at least it shouldn't be.
That's the WHOLE POINT of trial by jury "of your peers". If the letter of the law was the only criteria for judging guilty vs. innocent, then it wouldn't matter at all who's peers sat in the jury box.
My "personal issues" are exactly what makes me a much better juror than some thoughtless Turing machine. [wikipedia.org]
U.S. vs. Thomas is a travesty if you value trial by jury as envisioned by our founding fathers.
Give the FIJA [fija.org] site a thorough reading. It ought to be mandatory grade-school curriculum.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a crock.
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Chief Justice John Jay [psu.edu]
"It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams [levellers.org]
"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." - Oliver Wendell Holmes [findlaw.com]
"In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." -- Constitution of the State of Maryland [md.gov]
At the time of the framing of the Constitution, it was well understood that a jury meant a panel of persons empowered to render judgment on both the facts and the law. The ignorance - or straight-out power grabbing - of later judges cannot remove this right.
(I also note that despite the erroneous statement you quote, the court did find the dismissing the juror was an error and remanded the case for new trial.) [findlaw.com]
There is a large difference between "having personal issues" that make one partial to a person involved in the case, and judging the law and finding it wanting.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
The government can't punish you for returning an acquittal, regardless of the reasons for doing so (and they're reluctant to ask if they do at all); but they can certainly (and should) prevent you from sitting on the jury if they feel your impartiality will be threatened by your personal issues.
It has everything to do with the reason for having a "jury of your peers".
The reason that we have a right to a jury of our peers (and not, say, a professional jury of lawyers or policemen or other vested groups) is that there is the understanding that unfair laws will get passed and unfairly used as weapons.
Rosa Parks was actually arrested and taken to jail by the police for the real crime of not giving up her seat to a white person. She did do something that was against Alabama law, so would you as an Alabama juror convict her and send her to prison? That would be your only choice, unless you knew about jury nullification.
There was a guy in Georgia who spent 10 years in jail for the crime of "conspiracy to create marijuana" -- in spite of the fact that he was not found to have possessed or done anything illegal. [creativeloafing.com] His crime was knowing that some of his customers were using the equipment he sold them to grow marijuana.
Jury nullification is a fantastic tool that needs to be used more often, because we have too many miscarriages of justice in this country. 12 states have rebelled against marijuana laws and instituted medical marijuana policies so far, but the federal government insists on ignoring the will of the people and continues to promote "Prohibition 2.0". Should a person using marijuana for medical purposes be convicted if they are following the law of their state?
The system may not like jury nullification, but it is the best tool that jurors have to help stop the havoc that unfair laws can cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The music wasn't hers to share (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow 24 songs shared to some unknown but probably reasonably small number of people translates into $222k in damages? Considering a song is $1 on iTunes, she'd have to share each song to over 9000 people to cause that much in lost revenue (not that the full $1 goes to the record companies, but we can pretend...). At the low end, a song might be 2 megs? So she'd have had to share nearly half a terrabyte to accomplish this. That's a lot of data for 24 songs!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it not fair to the few people sued, but yes, that's exactly how the deterrence part of our judicial system works right now.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because the facts are not in despite (effectively proving somebody did something that violates the written letter of the law) does not mean that a jury must also be compelled to render a guilty verdict. A jury has the authority to question both the merits of the case and the law itself when rendering its verdict, although nobody ever informs juries of this right. Jury Nullification played a major
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone please correct me with some solid evidence that I'm wrong! I don't want to be right about this..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right, I've seen plenty of viruses download random songs, this makes perfect sense. Now back to why Chewbacca lives on Endor...
Re:Download virus (Score:5, Informative)
It's a civil case.
It's a civil case.
How many more times?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Libraries can count on the doctrine of first sale [wikipedia.org]. At the current time, they have nothing to worry about.
Appeal fund? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Appeal fund? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Appeal fund? (Score:4, Funny)
12 peers? HA! (Score:4, Insightful)
For music.
This jury of 12 idiots decided to ruin someone's life for 24 songs. Great going, guys.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This jury of 12 idiots decided to ruin someone's life for 24 songs. Great going, guys.
Remember that one of the purposes of juries is to override corrupt government and bad laws. The defendant was guilty technically but morally innocent. Juries deliberate in private for just this reason - they can agree to return a not guilty verdict when the law outrages them. The law exists to reflect the community's sense of outrage at misconduct. When conduct does not elicit outrage, juries need to be brave enough
Two points (Score:4, Informative)
2. Juries in America are specifically picked to exclude anyone in the slightest bit knowledgeable about the activity in question (to avoid both bias and to avoid questioning the testimony of expert witnesses due to -- right or wrong -- assumption about the dispute in question), and they are picked to avoid people who have done similar crimes in the past (again for bias reasons).
Pretty much the only people in America who haven't downloaded a song illegally are people who thing it's inherently immoral or unethical. These people would not be sympathetic to the defendant.
Now we get to see where this goes on appeal.
Re:12 peers? HA! (Score:4, Insightful)
And you know what? I doubt they care even a little bit. See, and that's the thing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are you protecting these assholes? If your story is true, you have nothing to fear by smearing their name. Personally I'd like to know who these thieves are so that I can be sure never to buy one of their books.
her defense just didn't wash (Score:5, Informative)
It's a shame that the defendant of this first RIAA jury trial turned out to be a liar with a bogus defense. But apparently, that's who she was. Given the facts brought out in the case, I don't see how the jury could have found for the defense.
Boycott or shut up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Boycott or shut up (Score:4, Funny)
Target the executives (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's time to find the houses of the RIAA executives, hack their wireless, and share from them. Capture the data and send it to the RIAA and say "Hey, please sue them."
Re:Target the executives (Score:5, Insightful)
Open and shut case, but crazy fines! (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecution:
Tried to get the RIAA president to testify, who has nothing to do with the facts of the case.
"Music has value" (Score:4, Insightful)
Boycott the record companies into extinction.
Somewhere along the line people who are capable of being artists (i.e. each of us) were reduced to being "consumers". It's time we stop just accepting this as a matter of course.
We need to treat this like WAR. (Score:4, Insightful)
This Case Was Decided ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Instruction no. 14 proved to be a sticking point, as Thomas' counsel Brian Toder told Ars tonight that the judge's proposed instruction indicated that the plaintiffs must show that an actual transfer took place in order for there to be a finding of infringement. "
Later, the judge reversed his opinion, at which point I knew this was over, but was at least still hopeful that the damages would be somewhat reasonable.
According to the coverage at Ars, it was pretty clear that the RIAA had found the right person; they had used this same account name for an email address that a witness had verified was hers. The only remaining question in my mind was how well the making available argument would hold up before a jury. Unfortunately, it appeared as though the defense didn't focus any attention on this critical part of the prosecution's argument (until the 11th hour when the judge was deciding what instructions to give the jury for deliberations). Had the defense been pounding the drum of "making available is not provable infringement" instead of "let me show you how fast you can rip a CD", then this jury (and perhaps even the judge with respect to the jury instructions) may have been compelled to decide differently.
In any event, it is what it is. The RIAA set their desired precedent, but for me there are still a couple of lingering questions:
1. Is this really a good thing for the RIAA? I mean, we've heard about the lawsuit threats against dead people, grandmas, and kids, but now there is an actual verdict in a jury trial that pins a $220K judgment against a single mother. I have this feeling that this case is going to make much greater waves in the main stream media then the no-go lawsuit threats (dismissed with/without prejudice) or the tens of thousands of settlement cases. Because of this I also think there is a huge potential for blowback on a large scale, not just in the geek circles.
2. Does the judge have any discretion to lower the damages? It seems as though he's given the defense every opportunity to succeed, from the "this courtroom is not your soap box" comments to the RIAA, to initially requiring evidence of a file transfer actually taking place in the jury instructions. If he does have discretion, I would be surprised if he didn't use it.
All in all, this is a sad situation. Single mother, probably with little to no idea what she was doing, targeted by the RIAA, then levied with enough fines to ruin her life. The RIAA, a lawsuit happy organization continuing to rob artists, consumers, and own our government, are having a champagne toast tonight thanks to their victory in court today. Enjoy your victory, and as far as "setting a precedent," you should be careful what you wish for.
Most telling quote of the whole ordeal (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is what can happen if you don't settle," RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse.
Notice how they throw in an impassioned plea to roll over and take it? This court case is nothing about justice - it's an extension to their protection racket. (quote from here) [wired.com]
When, oh when, will somebody step in and nail these guys with a RICO suit? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a protection racket - plain and simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure it is. Read a link from the article - racketeering. [wikipedia.org]
A quote:
Typically, this usage is based on the example of the "protection racket" and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that it created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed. Example: in a protection racket, a representative from the racket informs a storeowner that a fee of X dollars
That does it for me! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now sue me.
QUIT THE MUSIC SCENE ENTIRELY!! BOYCOTT MUSIC (Score:3, Insightful)
The ONLY thing the morons at RIAA will ever understand is a cash flow interruption. But to make this work, everyone has to be in on it. No file sharing, turn it all off for one week, no music purchases of any kind, turn off the radios, don't listen to any form of recorded music.
It's not a hard thing to imagine. Maybe the better thing to do is to stop being a consumer and start being a creator. Get an instrument and make your own music!
Then you can give it away on KaZaa.
So if you get upset about what RIAA does to protect their cash flow, get off your butt and stop playing their game. Start playing a new game. Make your own music.
And quit whining about RIAA. There are bigger issues ahead beyond "I can't listen to what ever music I want. I must be entertained at all times."
24 Artists Need a Class Action... (Score:4, Insightful)
A wakeup call (Score:5, Insightful)
In a case where there was zero evidence of the defendant having transferred any of those files?.
It is one of the most irrational things I have ever seen in my life in the law.
If the Judge doesn't set aside the verdict sua sponte, I expect there to be motion practice to set aside the verdict, based on its obvious unconstitutionality and numerous other reasons, and if that fails I expect there to be a successful appeal.
It is an outrage, and I hope it is a wakeup call to the world that we all need to start supporting the defendants in these cases, and the attorneys who are sacrificing so much to represent them. And the support cannot be with words, it must be with check books. And it cannot be next year, it must be now.
All the business people who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy, and freedom of expression which is the internet, need to get behind the RIAA's victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly.
The RIAA ghouls smelled blood in Duluth, and I guess they were right.
But it isn't over.
Re:Intellectual property is fiction (Score:5, Funny)
(This post was written by a would-be novelist, but is 59,970 words too short to qualify as a novel.)
ridiculous for you maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Not many people know this, but that's the price they originally wanted to charge per song on iTunes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How unfortunate... (Score:4, Insightful)
I do agree though that this reaching verdict is unfortunate for those who want to challenge the RIAA. It would be better if verdicts came out against the RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trial courts don't set precedent. (Score:3, Informative)
Precedent will not be set until this goes to an appeals court. They may well try it, but the evidence doesn't look so good. Their only solid grounds for appeal in my opinion is over whether or not the
Tragedy of the commons in 3... 2... 1... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're better off using a P2P program that's designed to hide your activity than slapping TOR over one that isn't designed for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !! (Score:5, Informative)
> "Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !!"
Re:Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:5, Insightful)
She will go bankrupt and tell the RIAA to eat a dick, but they already knew that. They just want to get it in the paper, "Jury awards 222,000 to RIAA from single mother who shared mp3s online." That's all they're looking for.
Re:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:4, Interesting)
The new bankruptcy law really doesn't change much of anything except for "The means test" and the previously mentioned credit counseling. The means test is just a formula they plug your numbers into to see if you can file or if you have to try to pay the credit card companies back as a Chapter 13 for an additional year.
The supposed "Reform" was bought and paid for by the credit card companies because apparently they needed the changes to keep from losing money even though they are insanely profitable. One thing they got was the minimum payments on your credit card is doubled so if someone might be having trouble making payments they now will certainly be delinquent and that will get the interest rate jacked up to 30%. (Thank god the government is helping us out like this!)
Re:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't automatically assume that a civil judgment will be discharged in bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy has become more difficult and the consequences more far-reaching. It is not an easy way out.
Re:Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it will be automatically discharged, unless RIAA contests it in adversarial proceeding. If they wanted to be real pricks they could probably drag it out for some time. This is nothing new, Scientology has done it to a bunch of their critics.
That said, bankruptcy judges typically take a rather dim view of creditors that try to do this -- the whole point to bankruptcy is to give the honest person a fresh start (there aren't supposed to be debtor's prisons in the US). Besides which, the whole point of the RIAA suits isn't to collect money. It's to get the headline of "Jury awards $220,000 to RIAA for file sharing". There is exactly zero chance that they will ever collect any sizable sum of this money, bankruptcy or not. Take a look at OJ Simpson. How long has he dodged that judgment?
That's a myth. It's become more expensive for those filers that retain an attorney, because of the new requirements imposed under BAPCPA [wikipedia.org]. There's also the added cost of the required credit courses and consoling, but this is typically not a huge expense.
Another myth. The consequences of filing BK didn't change at all under the new laws. The only 'consequence' that changed is that you have to wait 8 years before you can file again, vs 6 years under the old laws. The biggest consequence of filing bankruptcy is that it goes on your credit report for 10 years. It's a myth that you won't be able to obtain credit after a BK. I'm two years from my Ch 7 and I have a car loan at 5.5% and $5,900 worth of credit limits. I could probably obtain more if I wanted to (why bother?)
It is what it always has been -- a last ditch safety net for those with no hope of ever repaying their debts. Unless this woman makes a huge amount of income and can realistically pay this debt back in the next five years, this sounds like the perfect reason to file bankruptcy to me. With few exceptions (student loans, taxes, child support) we don't allow debtors prisons/debt slavery in the United States.
And yes, I've been through all of this. I filed Chapter 7 under the old laws. I still maintain a relationship with the attorney that did my case. I wound up becoming his computer consultant. He would be the first to tell you that not too much changed under the new laws. 95% of his clients are so deeply in debt that they qualify for a Ch 7 even after the "means test" imposed by BAPCPA. The image of scores of deadbeat debtors with the money to repay their debts abusing the bankruptcy system was nothing more then propaganda put out by the credit industry.
Re:Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !! (Score:4, Interesting)
Suck my cock, you fucking troll. Mighty big of you to pass judgment on me when you have no idea what forced me into bankruptcy to begin with. Ever stop to think that the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical debt? Yes, I learned my lesson -- next time I won't get cancer while between jobs with no medical insurance.
Two years ago I was hopelessly in debt. Debt that would take me 20 years to repay. Now I have almost $4,000 in my 401k, $3,000 in savings/short term investments. The car that you are passing judgment on me for is a fucking Suzuki Reno. Yeah, I'm living the high life with my $10,000 hatchback.
Bankruptcy is supposed to be a fresh start for the honest debtor that is so deeply in debt that it will take a literal lifetime to pay it off. My BK attorney had a general rule of thumb: If you owe 75% of your annual income in debt (not counting your mortgage) then you'll be paying interest for the rest of your life. By the time my medical bills were done with, I owed roughly 300% of my income in debts.
So, I'll say it again. Suck my cock you fucking judgemental troll. I deserve to get modded down to oblivion for snapping like this -- but you deserve to have the shit beat out of you by the Narn Bat Squad.
Re:Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whoops (Score:5, Insightful)
a. don't use a swarming protocol like Bit Torrent (not a good choice for small files anyway) and,
b. make sure you're a leecher (not lecher, as I assume most Slashdotters already are.) As I understand it, all these cases have come about from the people making files available, not the people actually downloading them.
Re:Whoops (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whoops (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, I could write a client that keeps track of which pieces I downloaded from whom. A swarm of these clients could ensure they got full copies from each of the targets. More expensive in bandwidth and they'd have to be leechers (legally), but doable.
Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:5, Insightful)
The moral of the story? THE RIAA IS SCARED STUPID. She had 400 CDs at one point!!!!!!! They just sued the shit out of one of their best customers!
Fuck these people. Hey, I just 'stole' a CD. Yep, I got a perfect digital copy of the recording and the recording industry didn't get a DIME. Know what I did? I bought a USED CD! Roll up a hondo and snort that Sony.
So that's the moral of the story. BUY USED MUSIC. Hey, old vinyl is cheaper than iTunes and sounds better too. It's the best way to 'steal' from the music industry because it's 100% legal, and it robs them of a sale from a person WHO IS ACTUALLY WILLING TO PAY MONEY FOR THE MUSIC.
If you're a musician, record yourself, it's far easier than it ever was. Then sell your own stuff through iTunes or something if you want to get paid. You don't need these people unless you want them to pay for publicity or your recording (but they'll just take it out of your check anyways).
It sounds way better than mp3, it's cheaper, and best of all you'll be doing YOUR part to help kill the record industry!
Re:Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:5, Interesting)
For one, I've bought used music and had to deal with scratches on CD.
Secondly, selling out of the used albums may indicate to record owners that there's demand for the full albums.
I haven't bought an album from the RIAA since 2001 - and I make -damn sure- to check RIAA radar before I go out and buy.
But that's not the only place I hurt them.
See, right now I'm about to film a documentary. And to do that, I need a camera, a recording device for audio, and a laptop computer to take with me.
I COULD have gotten the Sony camera, but instead I went with the Canon HV20.
I COULD have gone with an Sony MD recorder, but instead I'm going with a Zoom H2
I COULD have gone with a Sony Vaio, but instead I'm going to be buying from ANYBODY ELSE.
And the background music will be licensed from Magnatune.
Re:Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:5, Interesting)
Any decent place will give you a refund, or at least I would hope so. The really cool places will let you listen first, which is awesome and is really a big plus for buying used. Buy from whoever treats you right, RIAA or not.
"Secondly, selling out of the used albums may indicate to record owners that there's demand for the full albums."
This isn't necessarily true, it goes both ways. A big demand for used music encourages people to SELL their music too (and for stores to buy it), and the higher the demand, the bigger the secondary market and the bigger the loss to the record industry. Some people will just buy and rip, not saying that's right but when you add these people in, you can have CDs changing hands many times. This is a bad thing if it really taints the used market, but the worst that will happen is further DRM which will piss off customers much more but end up getting cracked anyways. Either way it weakens their position.
"I haven't bought an album from the RIAA since 2001 - and I make -damn sure- to check RIAA radar before I go out and buy."
There ya go. Awesome suggestion. I didn't even know about them. Pretty much none of the CD's I've bought lately have come from them. That really says something.
"I COULD have gone with a Sony Vaio, but instead I'm going to be buying from ANYBODY ELSE."
Good idea. It's funny, but I think IBM hates Sony as much as you do- I mean they make the hard drives people load their MP3s on AND the Cell Processor
How you REALLY hurt the RIAA: don't sign with them (Score:4, Insightful)
So that makes no sense. If you can really hit them in their bottom line by doing something everyone agrees is OK, then they have to take it and like it or do something really dumb like going after the secondary market.
But here's how you REALLY hurt the record companies... There are already places where you can take your album, sell it on itunes, and keep 100% of the royalties. That will fucking kill the record industry as long as these places:
.1. Make the product high quality (nice bitrate) and more convenient than piracy (super fast downloads, instant previews, incredible selection- so no waiting or hunting everywhere, and still no DRM)
.2. Charge a reasonable price that makes people feel like they got their moneys worth, especially compared to the hassle of stealing.
So you only need to make piracy inconvenient and charge based on the much, much lower costs of distribution rather than trying to keep it all.
If this exists, artists keep their work and their royalties and even if half their songs get stolen it's good advertising and they will still come out FAR ahead of the pennies-per-dollar contracts the majors sign people to (if they sign them at all).
Re:How you REALLY hurt the RIAA: don't sign with t (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does a musician need to make money hand-over-fist anyway? The whole modern model of producing and selling music is artificial and absurd anyway. I've gotten to where I never buy CDs anymore, and I never download music either. It's entertainment. You won't die without it. And, if organizations like RIAA weren't around, maybe there would be more regional differences in music again. You know. Culture. The thing that's missing today.
Re:How you REALLY hurt the RIAA: don't sign with t (Score:4, Informative)
The way for an artist to make big money in the music buisness is to sign on with a record company, take thier promotion and then stay popular for long enough to get out of the "abusive" initial contract. After that they can either break out on thier own or get a much better contract with a record label. It is the staying popular that is the difficult bit, one hit wonders will never reach that point.
Re:Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:5, Funny)
its about empowering artists, not gatekeepers (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be missing the joke. Buying used CDs will not actually kill the record industry, any more than piracy will. But the record industry should and will eventually have to change, and it will ultimately benefit both consumers and musicians much more- but at the big boys' expense. This is because their primary role, putting physical discs on shelves, is no longer necessary. That's just how technology works, it changes things- but they want to blame something they think they have (some) control over.
When everyone has a huge hi-def screen connected to a ultra-high bandwidth connection, television companies and movie chains will no longer control distribution of content either. Everyone from Joe Schmoe to NBC will have their own spot on the dial. Movie theaters will have to get into the 21st century in a big hurry or they will be a thing of the past too.
The main thing that's happening is not piracy, that's a consequence of the technology but not the fundamental shift that these people most fear. They need to maintain their control of the distribution system far more than they need to contain piracy. Piracy can't get much worse in music and people are still making money. Piracy will always be a psuedo tax on any information industry but the real shift will be who makes the money.
You bash indie movies, music etc, but it's just a consequenece of lowering of the barriers to entry. The big boys can still play, and will still make whatever you're willing to pay for- they will just have much more competition. (That being said, big budget popcorn movies are definitely going to be an endangered species- mostly because video games will almost completely kill them. People will have to go back to telling stories.)
You complain, but you will love it. You're disrespecting indie music and movies because you have a preconceived view of them- you won't once more people like you start doing that stuff, and once technology makes creativity king once again. While high end equipment gets cheaper, better and more user friendly, people's ears and eyes will notice the high end less and less. When industries begin to mature, that's what happens.
So, now remind me... what part of musicians keeping more of their money and their rights is going to discourage them from producing good music again?
Re:Whoops (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only do you think it is "illegal" to download music, but you've also taken the ridiculous position that there is anything more than a million to one chance that you will be one of the unlucky few to get noticed by these vultures.
I suppose you're afraid of terrorist attacks too.
Those willing to serve... (Score:3, Insightful)
Those willing to serve - those who want to serve - get to make the decisions - which in a democracy is as at it should be.
The jury is most likely to be middle class, middle aged, small-C conservatives, with a strong sense of civic obligation. The same men and women who take their right to vote seriously.
The successful trial attorney does not romanticize t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a court of appeals does not re-try the facts (Score:5, Interesting)
The court of appeal does not re-try the facts.
The court of appeal is not interested in facts. It is interested in process - how the judge and jury came to their decision.
The appellant must make a clear and convincing legal argument that the trial judge made a fatal error. In the admission of evidence. In his instructions to the jury. Something of that sort.