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."
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:12 peers? HA! (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 to do what's right.
Re:Idiot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (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 basically had to assign a dollar value to how much they thought copyright was worth. Since almost all of it was for commercial purposes they aimed a bit high.
At least, that is the best I can gather. Perhaps a copyright lawyer will come by and put me in my place.
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:2, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (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 role in undermining Prohibition, for example.
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:Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone please correct me with some solid evidence that I'm wrong! I don't want to be right about this...
Practical reason (Score:2, Interesting)
If you download a CD, they can claim damages of $18. Even if you pump that up, the liability is so small that it's not worth the letter.
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 will be required every month for protection money, though the "protection" that is provided comes in the form of the racket itself not causing damage to the store or its employees.
Threatening people with lawsuits and then offering them a chance to pay to avoid "what might happen to you" - is racketeering. It's also extortion: [wikipedia.org]
Extortion or outwresting is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either obtains money, property or services from another through coercion or intimidation or threatens one with physical or reputational harm unless they are paid money or property.
The RICO act seeks to prevent people from using these tactics to make money. And threatening people with lawsuits and offering them a chance to pay protection money rather than go to court (and have to pay even more for a lawyer to properly defend themselves) is a protection racket.
It's really that simple.
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:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Interesting)
"We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict." U.S. v. Thomas.
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.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, 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.
You know, that would make a great anti-riaa commercial. If someone just had the balls to actually make it and put it on display somewhere.... Make it kinda like the TRUTH ads about cigarettes, show some downtown city street, some guy hawking stolen cds on a table on the street: "You know, if you want to share music, just steal the cd's, this guy will get a night or two in jail and a small fine".. cut to some kid on his parent's computer downloading something: "but by simply downloading and sharing music with friends, you and your family could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, dragged through the court system, and ultimately be forced to declare bankruptcy. You make the call, its clear the RIAA would rather have you to steal their CDs from the stores than let your friend hear the music"...
Tm
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: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, 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: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
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.
Simple solution (Score:1, Interesting)
The actual damages will then never differ from zero, and punative damages are no longer applicable (statutory or otherwise) since there is no cause for punishment.
Re:The music wasn't hers to share (Score:2, Interesting)
Sharing without the consent of the owner is not sharing, it's stealing. It's hard to understand that perhaps, but please look at your own reaction in this thread: you claim the right to deny your personal infromation to others and you place conditions on its sharing, yet you don't respect the others' right to do the same!
I am not attacking you personally, I am trying to point out where you are wrong.
Re:Unfortunately inevitable... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Can she still file bankruptcy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A wakeup call (Score:1, Interesting)
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: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!)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Practical reason (Score:1, Interesting)
Why is this an issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem that RIAA has is people distributing files across the Internet. This lady was guilty as hell (and stupid). Ordinary people, stitting on a jury, decided that she was in the wrong. She was busted distributing music.
They have never gone after someone who has just ripped their CDs, they are after people sharing them. Every case they have brought, every John Doe they have issued, has all been in relation to content being shared across the Internet. In fact, I don't recall any cases yet about people even downloading music, just sharing (or in many cases with P2P you end up automatically resharing what you download, Bittorrent's nature implies redistribution as you download as a result of the packet trades). If that were the case they'd be all over the IRC channels using old school direct transfers.
Why is this an issue? All the arguements, all the complaining, and all the irrelevant comparisons. The issue is trafficing of bootleg music. Not ripping your music to MP3, AACS, FLAC, OGG, APE, etc. The RIAA has never shook someone down for ripping "Blade Runner" (which the person owns) to their laptop for a flight or their HTPC. They go after people for Ripping "Blade Runner" then posting it to a P2P network. If you aren't distributing it on the Internet then they don't really have an issue.
I just don't get what the problem here is. As far as I've seen this is no different in nature then the last 30 years or from that matter last 130 years.
Artists blast record companies over lawsuits (Score:1, Interesting)
"They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir.
"They should turn their attention to new models."
"This is not rocket science," said David Draiman of Disturbed, a hard-rock band with a platinum debut album on the charts. "Instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet."
After three consecutive years of double-digit sales losses, and having lost a court battle against file-sharing Web sites such as Kazaa and Morpheus, the Recording Industry Association of America -- the industry's lobbying arm -- trained its sights on ordinary fans who have downloaded music. On Monday, the RIAA filed suits against 261 civilians with more than 1,000 music files each on their computers, accusing them of copyright violations. The industry hopes the suits, which seek as much as $150,000 per violation, will deter computer users from engaging in what the record industry considers illegal file- swapping.
This unprecedented move brings home the industry's battle against Web downloads, which the record business blames for billion-dollar losses since the 1999 emergence of Napster, the South Bay startup the RIAA sued out of existence. The suits are expected to settle for as little as $3,000 each, but the news was greeted with derision by the very people the RIAA said they moved to protect, the musicians themselves.
"Lawsuits on 12-year-old kids for downloading music, duping a mother into paying a $2,000 settlement for her kid?" said rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy. "Those scare tactics are pure Gestapo."
"File sharing is a reality, and it would seem that the labels would do well to learn how to incorporate it into their business models somehow," said genre- busting DJ Moby in a post on his Web site. "Record companies suing 12-year-old girls for file sharing is kind of like horse-and-buggy operators suing Henry Ford."
Artists are feeling the downturn in sales, too. "My record royalties have dropped 80 percent since 1999," said Steve Miller, whose greatest hits album has been a perennial best-seller since its 1978 release. "To me, it's one of the weirdest things that's ever happened to me because people act like it's OK. "
Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.
"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.
Many artists painted the record industry as a bloated, overstuffed giant with too many mouths to feed and too many middlemen to pay, selling an overpriced, often mediocre product.
"They have all these abnormal practices that keep driving the price up," said Gregg Rollie, founding member of Santana and Journey. "People think musicians make all that money, but it's not true. We make the smallest amount."
The RIAA did not initiate these lawsuits to defend artists' rights, the musicians say, but to protect corporate profits.
"For the artists, my ass," said Draiman. "I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection."
Artists also see the opportunities for promotion the Internet offers. Most acts maintain Web sites, and virtually every one features some free downloads. Country Joe McDonald said he posts more than 50 tracks available for free downloads on his site, countryjoe.com.
"Who doesn't want to get paid for their work?" said Wayne Coyne of the indie-rock band Flaming Lips. "But I think it works to musicians' benefit for people to be able to occasionally listen to their music and, if they really like it, go out and buy it."
the Damages, corporate VS personal (Score:1, Interesting)
However with time, something called "personal" copyright infringement has risen thanks to the internet, yet these SAME laws meant to apply to the counterfeiters get applied to individuals infringing for personal use. The laws and penalties really need to be amended for the two tiers.
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:The music wasn't hers to share (Score:3, Interesting)
One day, we'll see the light. Until then, at least the corporate oppression has marketing values.