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.
Wrong, but right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Appeal fund? (Score:5, Insightful)
Son of a... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong, but right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Boycott or shut up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:2, Insightful)
They gave her that option with an offer to settle out of court. She was an idiot to take them to court.
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.
Re:Appeal fund? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
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.
No Justice. Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if you ignore the incompetence of the extortionists, no one in their right mind thinks a $220,000.00 judgment is fitting punishment for sharing a few songs. Extremism of this kind will eliminate public libraries and have anti-social consequences the most far sighted can not imagine. The defendant has been made a homeless slave to some of the world's biggest companies, and so have we all.
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:How unfortunate... (Score:2, Insightful)
We need to treat this like WAR. (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Water ? You mean like, from the toilet ? Ahhuh ! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Surprise surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
The "victory" is mixed much like my feelings... downloading the songs illegally was wrong. I find no moral standing there. Yet, at the same time, the ridiculous approach the RIAA is taking in these cases - and this equally ridiculous reward - leave me unwilling to condemn the defendant.
Oh well. I've bought one RIAA-backed album in four years, and that was a mistake. RIAA Rader [riaaradar.com]. Learn it. Love it. Tell the RIAA they can go fuck themselves with various sharp objects.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly.
Normally in any civil case, in order to be awarded damages, you must prove harm. There was no discussion of it in this case - the RIAA went in with the huge advantage of assumed harm. WTF?!?!?
If I lost both legs because the RIAA cut them off because I was protesting in front of their headquarters, and I sued them for damages, I would never have such an advantage. Since I sit in a chair all day to earn a living, the judge would only award me enough to pay my medical bills, and my wages while I was in the hospital. I could cry "but they cut my legs off!! They should be punished!" all I want to, but in most states, the judge would just be like, "Ok, show me your bills and your pay stubs, and you'll get that much.".
Where is the justice???
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: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: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:The music wasn't hers to share (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (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.
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:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Target the executives (Score:5, Insightful)
That does it for me! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now sue me.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:2, Insightful)
We have strong protection for copyrights because we believe in the ability for people to write or create books, software, art, movies, music, or other "soft" art for a living. Without copyright, these things would be just hobbies. Even free software [gnu.org] depends on strong copyright protection. Without the protection of GPL and copyright protection, GNU and Linux and other GPL software would not have the following and developer involvement and attract billions of dollars from by IBM, Sun and Google as they do today. The proof of this is BSD ("is dying") software, which has much trouble attracting developers, investors and users.
I don't mean to troll, but truly, what's the big problem? Don't distribute stuff that doesn't belong to you unless the person who owns it says it's okay. Find a better hobby and you won't get sued!
Re:The music wasn't hers to share (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.
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."
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 the jury. But neither does he bring into court the adolescent assumption, so prevalent on Slashdot, that he is dealing with a bunch of morons.
And then there is the $220,000 in "damages".
Damages in cases like these are usually framed in terms of some statutory or judicial formula.
The jury doesn't make the rules. It applies the rules.
Consider this: downloads from a service like iTunes have a generally recognized retail value of $1-$2 a track. Implying that the 2,000 tracks in your shared Kazaa folder are worth serious money. To the rights owners and their licensed - legitimate - distributors.
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
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:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Spoofing IP address (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:12 peers? HA! (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.
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:What would Tony Soprano do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comments like these might make some kind of sense if we were talking about evil corporations treating us badly because we're trying to breathe, or eat, or something like that. Instead, we're talking about downloading music, and making it available for others to download -- music that's not too hard to obtain by legal means, while at the same time plenty of music that's not similarly encumbered with restrictions is easily available. Are you honestly telling me that you're completely incapable of surviving without a copy of that new Coldplay song? Because otherwise, the whole "rise up violently against the evil corporations" stuff seems beyond the valley of the shadow of absurd. It's like getting mad at your parents and throwing stuff around the house because they wouldn't give you a cookie.
Re:Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlike any other industry I'm aware of, they can't be damaged by not buying their products.
Re:Jury Nullification (Score:3, Insightful)
The jury system is an incredibly important part of our freedom and it doesn't do us any good for you to act like it's beneath you to serve on a jury.
I used to feel the same way, until I got called to jury duty (bitching and moaning)... and then I served on a jury. And it was a fantastic experience. Yes, boring at times, but I had books to read when the judge and counsel were having private sidebars.
Back when you spent a week at the courthouse whether they needed you or not, yeah, I can understand it being annoying. These days you're more likely than not to spend only a day, and sometimes not even that, since you can call in by phone and find out whether they even need you to come down.
Re:Let me make this short and simple (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
Just don't buy music or movies..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't buy music. Don't buy movies. Don't download music or visit streaming sites. Don't go to the movies. Don't watch TV or listen to the radio. Just drop all commercial content.
If you need a content fix, buy music directly from unsigned artists. Go to concerts. See local bands. Go to a live theater.
I
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.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... AGREED (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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:3, Insightful)
Except this case was not ill-handled. The law was interpreted correctly, applied correctly, and created apparently correctly. The case was judged in a fair and equitable manner. Just because you don't like it is irrelevant. THIS is why courts and good lawyers hate juries.
You have such a de-facto right to acquit or not. You have no right, nor obligation, to make a decision based on the spirit of the law- such would entirely undermine how the law works. There is a good reason why the court system tosses our jurors who know about and are likely to practice jury nullification- because they're loose cannons that pervert the mechanisms of the courts.
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:2, Insightful)
Except that the whole point of a democratic republic is the public thing granted power from the people, those twelve random guys picked off the street are supposed to be the single the ones setting the bone, the single well qualified surgeon is supposed to guide them into setting the bone right.
Re:Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose the RIAA can look at that one of two ways:
a. She is a great customer who spends lots of money on CDs.
b. She has the potential to upload 400 CDs worth of copyrighted music for others to illegally share.
I don't think they'd be entirely wrong if their feelings more closely aligned with (b) than (a).
However, I think that $220,000 is an absurd amount of damages for something like this, even if she was guilty, which the linked-to article suggests isn't even clear cut. Something like $5,000 to $10,000 damages would be much more reasonable.
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)
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:Run that by me again.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
I hope you're right but I suspect you are not. My feeling is that Joe Sixpack and his family don't mentally associate tyranical RIAA law suits with glossy shrink wrapped Britney albums. People buy into the image of the artists/band rather than the media company behind it and have trouble associating the two.
Moreover, I think the general public view the RIAA organisation as part of the legal industry rather than part of the music industry. As soon as there is a more obvious link on MTV such as artists called 'RIAA Britney' and so on, then we'll see a change in perception. People just aren't interested enough to find out the mechanics of the situation for themselves. Most people probably are not even interested in discussing it.
Re:Steal from the RIAA- BUY USED MUSIC! (Score:3, Insightful)
hooray (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:2, Insightful)
From their site:
Copying CDs
* It's okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
* It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) - but, again, not for commercial purposes.
* Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
o The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
* The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
* Remember, it's never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.
http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law [riaa.com]
Re:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like copyright extensions. Businesses act in reliance of certain rules and then later in the game have those rules changed so they can more easily make more money.
Banks lent certain monies to certain people. They had plenty of good information at their disposal to do the risk analysis. Now that the Banks have discovered that they have been STUPID, they want the government to change the rules.
Bad bank, no money.
It is also the governments fault for allowing certain predatory lending pratices that anyone with a basic grasp of math should realize will lead to defaults. (universal default, usurious default interest rates, usurious interest rates in general)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Accountability is a good thing. She should have been forced to pay (maybe fourfold?) for the songs she got caught downloading. 220K is oppressive, though, and this verdict doesn't just stop with her.
Consider this: The RIAA has a site where you can pay settlement fees (and it accepts credit cards). The scenario: the RIAA accuses you of illegal file sharing and threatens you with a lawsuit (and thanks to this one, that threat carries more weight). Not wanting to go to court, you'll probably choose the settlement. At that point, they can extort anything from you they want.
In fact, I'd argue that their "settlement" process is little more than extortion. Most people don't have settlement money just lying around, and the site accepts credit cards, so what do people do? Get even more in debt to some large corporation. It may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like some collusion is taking place here. The people are being forced into servitude to the large, rich, and powerful corporations. It's almost like a modern day feudal system. And in this case, why? Over music.
This 220K figure is not fair. Yes, life's not fair but the law *should* be. That's the whole point of law. When the law upholds such draconian tactics, something is severely out of whack.
Re:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this. Since you have *NO SOURCE OF INCOME*, don't get a credit card! Is personal responsibility really that poor in this country now? It's always someone else's fault and never your own. And yes, when I was in college those same people were there giving away stuff to get a CC. That's also when I got my first CC, but it wasn't a problem b/c my parents had taught me about managing money years earlier. It's not very complicated and can be distilled down to two rules:
1) Spend less than you make.
2) Always be working because when you're working not only are you making money, but you're also not spending it.
By the way, while in college I was working 30 hours/week to, you know, pay for college.
Re:Boycott or shut up (Score:3, Insightful)
I object to that wording, because a vast majority (wouldn't surprise me if it exceeded 90%) of the "recording industry" (in other words, musicians who sell CDs) are not RIAA members, are not connected to RIAA's abuses in any way, and have not lobbied for bizarre copyright-related legislation like DMCA, etc.
Boycott RIAA members, but don't fuck with musicians. Do buy their CDs when you see them. It's Friday: you can probably see some of them tonight. If you haven't bought a CD in years, then
YOU DON'T ROCK
and that's about the most damning thing I can say about a person.
Oh, and I don't know the numbers for filmmakers, but there are shitloads of them who aren't MPAA members, either. Yes, I buy their DVDs whenever they're able to put something out on that format. I can't wait for Necroville [necroville.com] (in which I was a zombie extra ;-) to come out on DVD.
I guess what I'm saying is, name names. This bullshit is about RIAA and MPAA. It's not about musicians and filmmakers, so target your boycott sensibly, please.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
So you support a rigid enforcement of even immoral actions carried out under the guise of enforcement of the law? Totalitarian and corrupt governments love spineless yes men: they make day to day operations of the machines of injustice operating under the *name* of "justice" so much easier.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because she was innnocent.
Re:A wakeup call (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it might have been better for those involved to have paid the $23.76.
Or if they didn't think it was worth $23.76, exercised their choice not to buy the product.
All this wailing about the penalty does skip lightly over the plain fact that the penalty was 100% avoidable at no cost: don't violate the copyright.
Does this make everything RIAA does nice, and admirable, and so on? No.
But I'm tired of the prattle about outsized penalty. It was mid range for the violation, it could have been much more, and I see no reason to believe it was imposed out of line with the facts or the law. It was the price you pay for being found guilty here. If that seems high, you might want to not violate the law. If it seems much cheaper to buy the CD, you might want to buy the CD.
Again, this doesn't make RIAA right, or smart, or decent. But they had the law on their side and they choose to pursue their legal rights vigorously and they did and they won, most likely and plainly because the defendant was guilty.
Does this make the law right? I might differ with it, but you know what: it's the law. It was not a secret. It was not hidden in a locked box where the defendant could not see it when she violated the law.
Does this mean I have no sympathy for the defendant? In fact I do, but I can't say RIAA knocked her down and stole $220,000 from her. The penalty was exactly what she risked when she did what she did.
And as far as your suggestion that the business people who make a living selling on the Internet need to side with the defendant, you are in most cases completely 100% mistaken: their interests lie on the other side. Think about it. They may not be such jerks about it as RIAA is, but if you're making money selling IP on the net, guess where the protection of your property lies.