In Round 2, Jammie Thomas Jury Awards RIAA $1,920,000 793
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Well the price went up from $9250 per song file to $80,000 per song file, as the jury awarded the RIAA statutory damages of $1,920,000.00 for infringement of 24 MP3s, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. In this trial, although the defendant had an expert witness of her own, she never called him to testify, and her attorneys never challenged the technical evidence offered by the RIAA's MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson. Also, neither the special verdict form nor the jury instructions spelled out what the elements of a 'distribution' are, or what needed to be established by the plaintiffs in order to recover statutory — as opposed to actual — damages. No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional." Update: 06/19 01:39 GMT by T : Lots more detail at Ars Technica, too.
Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
For once I am simply (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What are the lawyers thinking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What are the lawyers thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's think about this (Score:5, Insightful)
They have just judged that she should pay 1/3 more than a typical American will make in their life.
What's wrong with this picture? Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...
Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
My thoughts about this award is that it makes it quite clear that the average person posting on slashdot does not know anything about law. If you read slashdot, you'd think that there would have been no possibility of RIAA winning because they are incompetent idiots without a clue.
Apparently not.
Note to self: don't depend on /. for legal news.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.
Just like the rest of us who work for a living?
Re:Why oh why didn't she settle? (Score:5, Insightful)
The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion.
The expenses can be recouped in the following manner: the RIAA pays the legal expenses they incurred. If we get into a fender bender, and I sue you for damages, that's okay. If I spend 3 million on my legal team over it, that's me spending money foolishly. You shouldn't have to pay for it.
I did say should... applying logic or "should" statements to legal proceedings is it's own type of illogical, I know...
Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.
To absurd degrees considering how trivial an offense it was. That's what makes them bad guys.
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.
Re:Come on people (Score:5, Insightful)
She lied about her hard drive, thinking it would get her off. I don't like the RIAA, but she deserved this.
Um, no. For lying under oath she deserves to face perjury charges, not have her punishment be magnified 1000 times.
Re:Can they do anything else (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's a valid perspective? I don't agree with it -- John Carmack already gets paid enough for his work to keep doing it (even with piracy possibly sapping the numbers), and for being accused of downloading a couple CDs worth of songs this woman's now on the hook for enough money to record, publish and promote two platinum-level albums -- but if you're trying to figure out the jury this perspective is probably where you should start.
Oh, and you got the moral wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
> Moral of the story: don't break the law
In my eyes the moral is: don't let large corporations twist the law into an distorted abomination....
The most ironic part of this whole mess is that the jury system was designed to exactly defend against this kind of abuse of the legal system, but because big government and big corporations have gotten so good at controlling the public's behavior, it is actually working out in reverse....
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't much care for the RIAA, but everything brought in as evidence was against her, and she couldn't come up with shit-all that might even bring a shred of reasonable doubt (let alone the much greater amount that they'd need to win a civil case).
If you actually think she's innocent, you're out of your mind. She did it. Is the punishment just? Hell, no. But I don't see how any intellectually honest person can take her defense as anything but the most pathetic thing around.
right verdict, wrong result (Score:5, Insightful)
As a lawyer, I'm not surprised by this outcome. I admit to not closely following this case. But from what I've read, her defense arguments were really weak. Oddly enough, Ars Technica says it best:
I really can't emphasize that last part enough. Winning a civil trial isn't about being "right" in any objective sense. It's about convincing normal people. If your explanations (technical or otherwise) go over their heads or seem implausible, you will lose. If the jury senses any sort of deception or dishonesty, you will lose. Sometimes if they just plain don't like you, you will lose. Clearly erroneous results can get overturned on appeal, but may cases are close enough calls that an appeal won't help.
On the facts above, I'd have found her liable too. It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used. That creates a reasonable inference that she used Kazaa on it. While there are many ways for her to rebut this presumption, the flimsy conjecture offered doesn't cut it. Especially if she seemed less than forthright.
That said, the damages award is completely insane. I'd have given nominal damages, enough to hurt but not crippling (on the order of $100-500 per song - yes, below the statutory minimum of $750). It will get reduced on appeal, but not to that level. Maybe something on the order of a few thousand per song. My guess is that the jury really disliked her dishonesty and smacked her for it with huge damages.
I won't criticize her lawyers since I don't know all the details. Maybe these were the best arguments they had. Maybe their client chose to use this defense against their recommendations. Undoubtedly the news reports distorted the story. Whatever the case, the defense was really weak. This verdict was predictable.
Absolutely Nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet. Let Big Music Die Now Please!
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are they finding these jurors at? Where is the constitution on this one? I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias. How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides? Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant, open Wi-Fi anyone? This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights, this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
On the bright side, sometimes when something so stupid happens, it forces a change in the law. And certainly, this verdict (a) will itself be set aside, and (b) gives added ammunition to the lawyers like myself who are arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.
Re:Well . . .Here's How (Score:5, Insightful)
All they had to do was find 12 citizens just like themselves.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's fairly clear she was guilty. There was some doubt, but I'm not surprised she was found guilty at all.
I am surprised at the amount. I figured it would be reduced to be more reasonable. My big problem with all this is the damages. $18,000 per song is 900 CD sales per song at $20 a CD.
For simple infingement (not intentional theft) I could see $100 a song, or $250 a song. But $18,000 is ludicrous.
I was hoping the damages would be overturned as bankruptingly high and unconstitutional. I was hoping we'd get a precedent of vague reasonableness in this kind of thing.
Nope.
But the guilty verdict? Unsurprising.
Re:What are the lawyers thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because the realization that the expert witness (I read the written testimony, and I know Yongdae Kim as a colleague: he is an excellent and honest researcher and professor) can't really contribute to the defense.
This is a civil trial, in terms of probabilities. The probability of misidentification of the computer goes way down when you remove the wireless, password protect the computer, and go from there.
The problem is, Media Sentry's evidence is pretty compelling: Identify her IP, identify her commonly used username, identify the songs, and she wasn't offering up a defense of being a poisoner/spreading bogus files.
As much as you'd like to believe it is nonsense, an honest expert witness for the defense would be forced to acknowledge all of this.
Yongdae Kim's written testimony mostly covered cases which could not have occured (no wireless, etc) and which were specifically ruled out by the judge for being irrelevant possibilities, or which would be exceedingly unlikely (a trojan on the system soley for KaZaA, IP address hijacking which, if Ms Thomas's computer was on, might result in RST storms from unexpected data, dropping the hijacker, by a hijacker who anyway was trying specifically to frame Ms Thomas), and on the stand he'd have to say so.
This is likely why Dr Kim was not put on the stand: during mock cross examination, Ms Thomas's laywer realized just how damaging Dr Kim's testimony would be in the hands of a plantiff's attorney.
Eighth Amendment - One Line (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen a lot of people claim that defendents in copyright infringement cases should use NYCL. Forgive my bluntness, but do we really have any evidence that NYCL is a particularly skilled lawyer? Is he more likely to obtain a favorable verdict than the lawyers that these people are using? It seems like we're assuming that he's a good lawyer because he's on our side.
*Dons flame-retardant suit*
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever tried to make a living by driving around the country doing shows? It is, after a short time, soul sucking and demeaning. But that is the only way even a great artist with fairly broad appeal can make a living in this day and age, because of morons like you.
Since when have musicians EVER made any significant living off of derivative works OTHER than performing live? Mozart did it, Elvis did it, Metallica did it. Artists have never been able to make a substantial income from record (or sheet music) sales. It wasn't until Beethoven that the idea of making money off of copies of musical works even really took off.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's NOT a valid perspective. I know of nobody here that says people shouldn't get paid to perform work. But that's the troll/flame that he keeps on pimping until somebody actually starts believing it. He's full of it. It is those who advocate strong copyright who want to sit on their butts and collect the rent. They are the true pirates who use guns to lock down ideas. We must not allow this to continue.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing "valid" about it. He is lying when he says that we think people shouldn't get paid for working. What I demand is that they actually work for their money the same way I do. I have no divine providence over my finished work, nor should anybody else.
Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen a lot of people claim that defend[a]nts in copyright infringement cases should use NYCL. Forgive my bluntness, but do we really have any evidence that NYCL is a particularly skilled lawyer? Is he more likely to obtain a favorable verdict than the lawyers that these people are using? It seems like we're assuming that he's a good lawyer because he's on our side.
Agreed.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's a valid perspective?
You can say that again. Seriously, $2M for 24 files? WHAT THE FUCK?
Re:Why oh why didn't she settle? (Score:1, Insightful)
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
Here's a hint: $5,000 is still inappropriate for the crime.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's the case they were wrong. Given the compensation typical for a struggling artist (or even a minor-league success story) signed to an RIAA label. Selling his CD's himself, even with a signifigantly lower volume I have a hard time believing they would have trouble being just as broke as they already are.
Ignorance may explain the situation, but it does not excuse it.
How about this, if these artists were doing the suing themselves do you think they would ask for $1,920,000 in damages?
Jury nullification (Score:2, Insightful)
> And what, if the law as given by the judge obliterates common sense?
The whole point of jury trials, when they were established after independence, was to prevent a corrupt legal system or judge from victimizing an innocent public. They were a reaction by the Founding Fathers against Americans having been jailed by British courts with no posibility of defense.
It's a pity that that isn't the first instruction which is given a jury in every trial --- a reminder of the real reason for their being the last word, and the information that, yes, they can totally ignore the letter of the law if they so desire. Or at least, they used to be able to do it. The legal system has been eroding that power slowly but surely, as we get further and further removed from the spirit which freed all Americans from tyranny, more than 200 years ago.
Re:What are the lawyers thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Continuing to support Jammie Thomas-Whateveritis only makes us look like stupid pirates.
Maybe some people are just stupid pirates?
Some people's attitudes going into it ("I don't care about law, it doesn't make sense to me so I'm going to download anything and everything I want. In fact, I'll download more than I can ever watch in my lifetime just because I can!") appear to come from a stupid pirate mentality...
Not to say I agree with RIAA, etc., but I don't think I can agree with the other side of stupidity, either. :)
Re:What are the lawyers thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would defense make such a point of asking whether the statutory maximum of $150,00[0] (I think it was) per song?
I too was wondering why the defense counsel referred to big numbers in the trial, referring to $3.6 million; usually that would be the plaintiffs' game, unless the judge -- as judges often do -- forbid the mention of such things.
Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
For simple infingement (not intentional theft) I could see $100 a song, or $250 a song. But $18,000 is ludicrous.
Well, it's $80,000, not $18,000. However, I cannot possibly see even $100 per song as justified. As far as I know, these file sharing programs require that you distribute about the same amount of songs that you download yourself. Or, turning the argument around, the amount that others download from you is about the same as what you download, so on average any song that is made available for downloading will be downloaded _once_. Damages are at most $0.70 per song (that's what the music company makes if I download a single song from iTunes). So even if we assume without justification that these songs were downloaded from her computer ten times each, that's only $7 per song.
I always though that statutory damages are not meant as a punishment, but as a means to give the copyright holder fair compensation in situations where the actual damage is impossible to establish. So I would agree that the RIAA deserves not the amount that they can actually prove, but a reasonable estimate of the actual damages. $80,000 in damages would be Ok if we could reasonably estimate that a song was downloaded about 115,000 times from her computer. Which is ridiculous.
Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry if I phrased the question trollishly. I think a better way of putting it is this: If I were accused by the RIAA, do you think you'd be a good lawyer to represent me at trial. If so, what are your qualifications? I don't do much infringing anymore, so I'm unlikely to need your services, but I'd be interested in knowing. Its my impression that you're very knowledgeable, but since I'm not a legal expert, my impressions mean nothing. Sorry if you've already gone over this.
I don't really think it's for me to say. And I don't think your comment was trollish in the least. You were cautioning people against retaining a lawyer just based on the fact that they like him. And when I said "agreed", I meant it.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no "realistic" value for lost sales here. Because no sales were lost. Except maybe to the negative publicity from this. In fact more sales were probably gained by sharing. The whole thing is completely bogus. And it's little more than a racket to protect the middlemen and gatekeepers. We should be hammering them on the head with the RICO statutes.
Re:Well . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
At the latest, since Sgt Pepper's.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
....Just like the rest of us who work for a living?...
Without the existence of copyright, all human creativity would cease. Oh wait... that is how it was for thousands of years before the modern age. I wonder if the ancient Egyptians had a copyright on the design plans of the pyramids.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, after a short time, soul sucking and demeaning
So you mean... it's like... HAVING A JOB?!?!?!?!?
"Artists" who think that one weekend's work and a year or two of sacrifices and chances should allow them to live luxuriously for years after get no sympathy for me. Buck up and welcome to reality. This recession's full of it.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
One: Jealousy is not a valid reason why copyright is wrong.
Two: If you wire up someone's house, that person pays for all the materials, labor, and profit it takes for you to have your own house and food. $1 will barely buy a single outlet, let alone the box, wire, circuit breakers, or labor to install it. So a person who lets people have songs for $1 but keeps copyright, is hoping to put food on the table through volume sales. If it was required that the first sale cover all costs and some profit -- albums might cost $100,000. Everyone else gets the song free after the first sale, but if nobody bought the album in the first place, nobody would have the song at all. That's part of the social contract behind copyright -- the creator can let people have access to the work at an affordable price, but keeps enough control over the work that he/she can try to sell it to many people. That benefits society because instead of waiting for a patron to pay for the whole enchilada, we all get the work for a modest price while the artist takes the risk making or losing money on his/her efforts.
Three: A smart electrician (gets paid upfront) has almost no risk -- the job is simple profit. For an artist, there is an enormous risk of getting nothing after working very hard. If you don't like that some artists in essence win the lottery, then ensure that all artists get to earn a living wage. Society gets a lot of low cost high quality art from artists who do not win the publicity lottery, so it might actually cost more if artists got paid like electricians.
Some math... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets presume each of the 24 songs in question (of the 1702 songs being shared by that IP) is available on itunes with a price of 99 cents. Lets also presume that statutory damages were actually limited to the revenue lost by the company (which they apparently aren't). And finally that the 24 songs were each 5MB and the cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps.
For the 24 songs in question to incur $80,000 in damages each, therefore, they would have had to be downloaded a total of 1939394 times, for 9696970MB of downloads. This would, at 256kbps, take 3507 days (about 9 and a half years). Kazaa had only existed for about three years at the point of infringement. Also, for that matter, that ignores the remaining 1678 songs.
Going the other direction, if all 1702 songs were saturating the upload speed of the modem for the history of Kazaa (call it 3 years even to make things easier) you'd have been able to upload 1009152MB, or about 201830 songs, divided evenly over all 1702 songs that's about 118 times each. At 99 cents each that's $2803.68 in statutory damages.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
The music industry has gotten into a state where a few big companies control the market. They don't need to control the artists, because they control the customers.
Distribution isn't the primary issue. It's easy enough to sell music over the internet, etc.
The problem is exposure. Most people don't really get a song into their head until they've heard it a couple times. Your average casual music buyer doesn't go through the trouble of searching for music they like, but just buys (or steals) music that they've heard somewhere, and enjoyed.
Because most of the channels of passive exposure are so controlled, the vast majority of customers are really only available to those who sign onto a big label.
This control of the market allows them to charge ridiculous prices, and pass on a very small amount to the artist.
All this doesn't make piracy right, but it does make it understandable.
How is a person even supposed to even find bands that they like? I haven't heard a song on the radio or television which interests me in years.
I still buy a lot of CDs, and go to a lot of live shows, but most of them I learned about by downloading from the internet.
The current system will fall at some point unless it adapts. The large record companies made some very smart moves which made them a lot of money. Now the world is changing, and instead of looking for new ways to make more money, they're trying to use their money/power to stop things from changing through fear of litigation.
Convince people that they have to play by your rules, or you'll sue them into the ground. The only problem is that a lot of them will just give you the finger.
On the Andy McKee thing: 8,676 thieves? I've never heard of the guy. I could go download his album, making the number 8,677. Maybe I'd like it, and go buy it. Maybe I'd listen once and decide I don't like it. In either case, Andy doesn't really know. Maybe a bunch of those people he's ranting to DID go and buy his CD legitimately. Maybe they hated it, and the download saved them from spending a bunch of money on something they don't like. The only ones who are stealing, at least morally, are the ones who like the music, keep it, and don't buy the CD.
Have it your way Andy. I won't download your album.
psst.. You might have just lost some sales.
That ice's the copyright discussion for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to change the law. Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim. If I can pay property taxes on my land, I can pay it on my IP.
Re:Well . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, here's a though experiment for you nerds.
Let's say they summon you to jury duty for two weeks. Now you have to forego your paycheck and the comforting glow of the CRTs in your mom's basement, just to listen to some certified moron lie about everything. Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off? I would.
Anyway, my understanding is that there's no process for 'jury nullification' in civil trials. I don't think the jury acted unjustly, however the law is clearly ridiculous.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong
You don't pay people for there work every day. There are thousands of artists out there right now whose work you are not paying for. Artists you've never heard of.
Why does it make a difference if you see their work or not? It doesn't affect them.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on this decision, my music folder is worth almost $5 billion. How come I have to work for a living, then?
Oh, right, that's not real money, and copyright infringement does not mean actual loss of money for the RIAA. Not to mention I live in Hungary, where fair use covers this. To the guy that got slapped with the $2M, however, is fucked.
Now, who's the bad guy again?
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
It's worse than that. The people advocating the strong copyrights also have never created any copyrighted material in their lives. They instead take it from others and give them a tiniest pittance and collect all money earned for themselves in addition to owning the person who really created it. A similar situation would be a letting agent who collected rent on behalf of a landlord but only gave the landlord about 3% of the rent and kept the rest for himself and also had a contract where if landlord wants to rent out any other properties that they must do so through the letting agent.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The US copyright system, which is being forced down the throats of more and more nations, was a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED monopoly in the form of government imposed copyrights We, The People got in return a richer and more diverse Public Domain for all of us.
Somehow this is what seems to get lost in a lot of copyright discussions. Not to give a complete history of the copyright, but there was a time when we had no copyright, and people wrote books, painted, composed music, and performed it because they wanted to, and often they found ways to get paid for their expertise and talent. One common way was to do work that someone else wanted them to do on commission, whether they wanted to do it or not. Though many artists wished to have control over their own work, it was just silly to expect as much. Another artist would copy your painting, or another author might rewrite your story, and that's how culture developed.
And basically all that was fine until the the printing press arrived, and book publishers started making a fortune from printing books, neglecting to pay the authors. People recognized this as unfair and discouraging to those who might want to write a book, so they invented the idea of the copyright. The idea wasn't to ensure profitability for publishers by forcing readers to pay for the right to read a book, nor was it meant to allow authors to control the destiny of their work, but it was solely a way to help authors get a share of the huge profits publishers were already making.
Flash forward to the present, and now copyrights are being manipulated in such a way as to have almost the opposite effect that was intended. Copyrights are being used to guarantee profits for the publishers, while the artists are being denied their fair share of the profits. If anything, the Internet should allow us to go back to pre-copyright days, since distribution doesn't really require a "publisher" in the same way.
Now I'm not saying we actually should drop copyrights, but only that convention has twisted the purpose of the copyright and given bad expectations about what copyrights will accomplish. Now we think that people own, buy, and sell ideas. Further, that if you own an idea, you should retain ownership and complete control forever. That's just an unsustainable situation.
Re:Absolutely Nuts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
If as an electrician I design and wire someone's electrical system I get paid once, there are no future payments if the house is sold or if guests come use the system I installed.
Something like that is a poor analogy, because no matter how many electrical systems you do, it requires the same amount of time and resources to do the next system as it did to do the last system. Once someone writes a book or releases a song, though, other people can duplicate them easily (and almost for free these days). Copyright was meant to ensure that artists had a fair chance to make enough money to live on so that they would be able to continue to create art, which greatly benefits society. Obviously, the copyright laws in many countries have been perverted to greatly favor publishers (not even the artists, which makes it even worse). Hopefully it isn't too late to restore the laws to a sane level.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
Why attack a user with a different opinion?
I assume they'll stop as soon as they don't have to hide in the shadows for using rational thought.
I'm sure a statistician who browses /. could run some numbers of pirated downloads in 2008 as they relate to prosecutions, maybe even with a comparison to winning the lottery or being struck by lightning.
It's hard as a middle class american to justify a cable bill and an internet bill when I can watch HDTV from any country, and have what I want when I want it all on my PC. If I want, I can even take it on laptop or USB stick and watch it anywhere humans can conceive of going. I know it sounds absurd, but it's true.
Let's face it, American culture has two things that will not make this go away any time soon:
1) A hungry addiction which can only be fed by consuming huge amounts of visual media.
2) An Ever increasing ease to get that media via the internet.
Right now, the piracy movement of the internet has the best distribution of visual media on the globe today.
You'd think, with all the money the other side of the argument has, they would be able to come up with a viable alternative. Instead, it seems like they're grasping at straws at the end of an era in which they reigned. Almost like they're being left behind for new technology, and feel sore.
Just as Video Killed The Radio Star, the internet is doing to TV and CD. It's time to re-invent or die.
Petty Theft (Score:2, Insightful)
Downloading been called no different than shoplifting by members of the music industry - why is it not prosecuted accordingly? This woman lifted $23.76 worth of music. If those were candy bars she'd be slapped on the wrist with a small fine or light jail time.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
No, wrong. Each song is worth like $2 with statutory damages of HOLY FUCK BANKRUPTCY.
I can't say I agree with the size of the damages, but that's no excuse to completely misrepresent the issue.
Re:Wrong-o (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the above still does not bring the cost of one song to $80k.
If the judge wanted to punish her for the way she behaved during the lawsuit, that would've been a separate item on the ruling.
Where's the proof that each song was downloaded by 160k people who were standing by with cash in hand ready to buy it from iTunes and downloaded it instead?
Or, we are looking at a business model where RIAA can sue for unlimited damages. How convenient. If I break my leg on mall property can I sue them for my imaginary careers as a ballet dancer *and* NBA player which I have not started yet?
Trouble in the air (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, taking every last thing a person has leaves you with someone who has nothing to lose. One of these days the RIAA's laywers are going to win a punitive suit against the wrong person, and I just hope that I am nowhere near the building the lawfirm is in when it happens.
Re:Absolutely Nuts (Score:1, Insightful)
No distribution was ever shown. The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show. THIS IS INSANE!!!
I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet. Let Big Music Die Now Please!
I agree 100%. This is absolutely insane. These bastards have spent decades sucking wallets dry and screwing over the artists in the process.
Let big music die now -- no question!
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
You've made the statistical mistake of comparing one artist in a generation to every artist of our day. How many composers do you know from the classical period? Have you ever heard of Andrea Luchesi? Probably not. For every Mozart, there are hundreds of Andrea Luchesis. Just as now there are hundreds of artists like Brittany Spears.
Patronage was horrible. You had to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what your royal sponsor demanded of the evening. You art would be filled with things only to please your king. See the music of Haydn for an example of this. In some cases, a patron would even modify the work of art however he desired. It sucks.
Besides, there was no one like Brittany: no one had her mix of innocence and sexual confidence. She was popular for a reason. If you don't understand why, it just shows that you are also out of touch with the tastes of modern culture.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong-o (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, she's guilty. Yep, she lied. Nope she shouldn't have to pay $80,000 per song despite that and anyone suggesting that this is reasonable needs their head examined. For the lies perhaps contempt or perjury charges should be laid. For the infringement she should have to pay the retail price of what she downloaded plus what she uploaded.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that the copyright system in the U.S. wasn't created as a social welfare system for artist: it was created to encourage production which would enter the public domain soon enough.
Imagine if the estate of William Shakespeare still got a cut of every print and performance of his works. Would we every see them in high schools? How about Dickens or Twain? What if literature coursebooks had to pay huge sums of money for the right to republish thousand-year-old manuscripts?
Think I'm being disingenuous? I'm not. I should be able to freely use, remake, dramatize for the theater, and cut up over half of the movies on this list [wikipedia.org], but I couldn't find any listed as public domain in my ten-minute attempt. The Presley estate shouldn't still be making money off of music written and recorded fifty years ago, if indeed the estate is the entity holding the rights. Automatic extension has made it virtually impossible to know who actually holds the rights when you care enough to license that seventy-year-old movie for inclusion in your film.
The original Copyright Act [earlyamerica.com] offered protection for fourteen years, with an optional extension of another fourteen years. I don't see the problem with that or why it needed to be changed.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Patronage was horrible. You had to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what your royal sponsor demanded of the evening. You art would be filled with things only to please your king. See the music of Haydn for an example of this. In some cases, a patron would even modify the work of art however he desired. It sucks.
I realize that you were trying to contrast patronage with what we've got now, but I don't see the real difference between what you've described and being under contract to a major label.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you feel that you have no voice in the government, the way to change the government is not through anonymous piracy. Engage in civil protest or violent revolution -- whatever works for you.
I'm starting to be sick of this idea you and others repeat over and over again.
If I feel I have no voice in the government, I will do exactly as I please, just like everyone else.
For example, I can decide that I'll only follow laws to the extent I can be forced to. Thus, I might break any and all unenforceable laws, just for the sake of it.
And I don't really care if it's "the way" as you say.
Creating a government that doesn't represent the people can obviously be great for its members and the people powerful enough to manipulate them (and so, it).
Expecting everyone else to follow the rules because it's the right thing to do...
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
--Most of us here are for fair copyright--
Or even -minimum- copyright. The purpose of having it at all, is to encourage the creation of works. So it follows that the length of protesction, and the strength of protection should be the minimum required to stimulate such creation.
What length that is, and what strength that is, is offcourse debatable, but I haven't seen any coherent argument that todays rules aren't MASSIVE giveaways.
Does -anyone- honestly believe that there'd be less music released if copyright was for 28 years (the original terms in USA) rather than life-of-author plus 70 years ? Would *any* musicians go "Screw that, if I can only profit for the next 28 years, I'm not gonna bother!" -- does that sound plausible to you ?
Does anyone write computer-games, expecting to earn significantly from them for a period LONGER than 28 years ? I seriously doubt it, and I don't think it'll be easy to find anyone who -does- believe that.
In economic terms, 28 years is (more than!) two thirds of forever anyway. If you assume 4% deprecation pro year (i.e. that given a choice between $100 now or $104 one year from now, you consider both offers similarily attractive) then a fixed income-stream has 70% of it's value in the first 28 years.
And -that- is assuming the income-stream is fixed, which is HIGHLY unrealistic, to the contrary, I would guess that most copyrighted works have 90% of their sales in the first 5 years after release. For some classes of works, such as computergames even this is understating it, I bet most computer-games have 95% of their dollar-value in sales inside of the first 3 years after release.
Re:Well . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Dr. Kim was also precluded from testifying as to whether song files were conspicuously placed in a shared files folder or were wilfully offered for distribution."
And bang goes the case. She's been done for wilful infringement but can you really imagine this woman sitting at home cackling "that'll show them RIAA lot"?
Can't control the flow of information. (Score:1, Insightful)
You can't control the flow of information. People will download what they want. Is anyone really sympathizing with the corrupt organizations who steal millions, if not billions of dollars from the United States and the people?
They steal from us because they can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.
We steal from them because we can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.
The difference is, they have billions of dollars and the most disgustingly immoral and unethical teams of lawyers that money can buy.
We don't. And even if we did, they still have more powerful friends.
Fuck the RIAA. Downloading songs isn't unethical, its a legitimate fucking financial strategy. These corps can teach us one thing - The law only applies if you get caught.
Re:Can they do anything else (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh trust me, I have the highest contempt for the courts right now.
This verdict will be the cause of derision internationally, and will provide endless fodder for those who are fond of laughing in their beer at the USA. Unfortunately, they will have a pretty irrefutable point.
Actually, I believe most of us chose to laugh at selected parts of the USA, this is just some extra fodder. It's not necessarily that we're fond of it, it's that you're definately not helping.
Your "justice" system has been a laughing stock for a looong time, as have your executive branch (come on, electing Bush, TWICE!), your televangelists, your puritans (omg, a boob on telly!), your failed healthcare and educational system, etc.
However, there's lots of good stuff in the people of the United States, most of it is the drive, the belief that you can accomplish things. Too bad it's dwarfed by everything else...
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
And they say that people with religious faith are illogical...
In the US, we have this thing called a "representative democracy": If enough people cared about the issue to take the time to participate, it would bring the issue to a head and cause a response or change.
Apparently you missed the memo: The official stance here on Slashdot is that nobody loses money - it's all just ones and zeroes, after all. And, we wouldn't have bought it in the first place, so obtaining it through copyright infringement doesn't count as a lost sale. Also, "teh MAFIAA" are evil, greedy corporations depriving us of our God-given right to be entertained for free. Also, they have abused the principle of copyright, and so, we're entitled to any copyrighted material for free, to punish them. It's like Rosa Parks, dontcha know? Civil disobedience, only without so much risk.
Please, try to get with the program.
Re:Wrong-o (Score:2, Insightful)
Does not compute.
Re:Well . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm sure that many people on the jury felt that it was just and moral to punish a felony perjuror with a hefty fine. It's not like they got 12 drunk yahoos of the street. They got 12 average people. As statutory damages are intended to be punitive here, can you blame the jury for being punitive?
I mean, perjury (IMHO) is one of the worst things you can do. It's a complete subversion of the justice system. It's ratfink low.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
wow.
everyone in any creative industry throughout the globe does one weekends work and then retires?
This is news to me, as someone in that industry. But thanks for your dismissive, insulting abuse. Its what reminds us never to make music, games, movies or any other content aimed at people with your attitude. You may think content sucks. It doesn't, its just made for people who don't hate and loathe the content creators, and for those who are happy to pay others for entertaining them.
BTW if you REALLY believe your post, why the hell are you sat here, instead of on your private island after last weeks pop recording session? It's easy right? so why are you not giving up your career to do it?
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
As a small voice of support for your position, this is more or less how Prohibition got repealed. The cumulative affect of a very significant portion of the population simply ignoring the law until it could no longer stand. I'm not saying it can or will work for copyright, there were additional factors in Prohibition relating to the public health risks posed both by the smugglers and dangerously unregulated booze production that just don't exist in this case, but it is an analogous if not identical situation.
Having said that, I definitely feel that most of the parties involved in this dispute are being unreasonable. Content creators (or rather the huge companies that "represent" them) are clearly overreaching what they can reasonably claim both in terms of length of copyright and what rights are granted. The Government is clearly giving more weight to the rights of content companies than to rights of consumers, which is both unfair and a violation of its mandate. Many if not most of the "information wants to be free" crowd seem perfectly content to drive the people who create content completely out of business. This is doubly foolish since it both hurts the content creators, in the end, the consumers themselves. Rather like "fishing out" an area, many of these voracious consumers of content may find that should they ever succeed in in their quest they will have no content to consume.
It seems to me that while the concept of copyright is sound, its terms and duration are currently excessive. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to "unmake" regulation. I am not really sure what the answer is.
Re:Can they do anything else (Score:5, Insightful)
internationally, this success creates a major problem for the RIAA's efforts to get draconian IP laws passed by foreign governments.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is very damaging to the RIAA. That's another example of the point I've been making that they have the dumbest lawyers working for them. They don't know when to stop being greedy; they could easily have asked for a lesser amount, but chose to ask for anything up to the maximum. Now look how much good they have done for their clients.
Re:Well . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
So one comment, on one person's opinion, means that the only impression you'd get from reading Slashdot is there being "no possibility" of a win?
Why not just reply to that person's comment, if you really wanted to say "Ha I told you so" (which isn't very insightful to say so after the fact, unless you actually did predict it beforehand), instead of portraying Slashdot as a whole to be in the wrong?
Yes, you're very clever. You can explain how some random person who tried to make a prediction turned out to be wrong, by reading off the facts that we're now all aware of, given that it's happened.
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Justifying piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW if you REALLY believe your post, why the hell are you sat here, instead of on your private island after last weeks pop recording session? It's easy right? so why are you not giving up your career to do it?
Because I'm not a hypocrite.
/entitled/ to over $14 million (1/7th of $100M) from our federal government that they probably never intend to pay, and I never intend to collect (because I'm entitled to it does not mean I think I deserve it). You unknowingly use my family's inventions every day, at low cost, because my grandfather never enforced his patents, and now they're public domain, as far as I know/care.
You direct your question to a very interesting case study. I pursue art, in many different mediums, as a hobby. Legally, I am
I was born (or indoctrinated) with a very strong work ethic, and I feel a great sense of satisfaction by using it.