RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download 305
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Court has ordered UMG Recordings, Warner Bros. Records, Interscope Records, Motown, and SONY BMG to disclose their expenses-per-download to the defendant's lawyers, in UMG v. Lindor, a case pending in Brooklyn. The Court held that the expense figures are relevant to the issue of whether the RIAA's attempt to recover damages of $750 or more per 99-cent song file, is an unconstitutional violation of due process."
oh don't worry.... (Score:5, Funny)
"See, we have a team working full time copying the bits by hand."
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Yes your honor, we encode the bits into a 1 oz. gold coins and mail them to our other office where they are melted down and made into a plaque for this specific case"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's what they did. Duh.
Re: (Score:3)
Worse still if this person ripped the CD and shared that on the internet, if the RIAA really thought about it, they could claim that ANYONE who downloaded the song illegally ultimately sourced it from this individual. This is even more true if they did it before the CD was even released (say by having a preview copy).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Prove the song was downloaded 750 times (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but I can't think the courts would refuse to admit a methodologically sound series of independent experiments into evidence, whereby the experimenter seeds a number of files (of varying popularity) with unique, recognizable bitprints, then measures and documents their distribution. The RIAA probably holds the position that a filesharer is responsible not only for the direct downloads he generates, but for subsequent distribution of the file as well. 10 * 10 * 10 gets you over 750 pretty fast.
Admitting the study into evidence might make them have to adjust the damage amounts to consider each song's popularity, but it could conceivably justify an average of 750 copies in circulation * $0.99, over time.
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure how that would stand up. The other filesharers down the line would be the ones committing infringement and the RIAA would have to go after each and every one of them. IANAL, but if I run a red light and the eight cars behind me decide to run it too--I'm only responsible for one infraction, the other eight drivers made their own choice to run it after me even if I 'enabled' them to break the law by not stopping and forcing them all to stop behind me.
(Yeah yeah, criminal is different than civil, the analogy isn't a great fit to the actual situation, etc. It's a car analogy. We like those. Just go with it.)
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your on-topic sig (Score:5, Insightful)
I think of it as "dumb record mangling." My copy of the CD of Led Zeppelin's first album (that I bought at Recycled Records) has two songs that won't play, despite the fact that there are no visible scratches or other defects.
So I ripped all the songs to
In fact, the DRM on that CD and listening to my workaround to its designed defects is what convinced me to stop replacing my tapes and LPs with CDs, and to write the above linked article.
I'd already got a CD copy of their Presence album and it lacked presence. So I tried sampling the LP and guess what? My burned CD of the LP sounds better than the factory CD, which obviously suffers from bad remastering.
The record companies are obviously run by idiots who think their customers are all fools. Sadly, the idiots may be right.
-mcgrew
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Minority Report (Score:2, Funny)
Those held a single name. Imagine the size of the balls you'd need to record an entire song.
Movie makers; they have the biggest balls in the industry.
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be ironic if the lawsuits brought by the RIAA in an attempt to preserve/enhance strong copyright ended up severely diminishing U.S. copyright law instead?
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Thankfully their firm is downtown boston so tons of stupid companies go to them daily. These patent trolls are losing money quickly and it's great to see the RIAA is running into the same issue.
They need to update thier business model or face becoming extinct.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
for a song download cd for $5 and get a hard copy sent for $10 total. With album art !
software lets say a game , seed a torrent sell the cd key via email for $10 or $20 ! no cd needed in the drive.
movies $8 download $12 physical disc and $15 for Hd version your choice.
how about movies sent to a tivo or music to a tivo ? There are so many solutions but no one wants to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone says this but nobody actually explains WTF they mean. These guys manufacture music. How exactly can they run a business without charging people to buy the music?
They are talking about these folks a) providing a service that people need and b) doing it at a reasonable price
You can buy a DVD, with extras and the soundtrack for the movie for $10.00. However, if you go out and buy the CD of the soundtrack, it is $18.00? CD's cost
Nothing "ironic" (Score:5, Interesting)
They were in a lose-lose situation before they started. Ignore the problem, and the copyright law is useless. Try to enforce your rights, and the legal protections degrade, as you observed.
Fighting the mob is very difficult — but they are trying. At least, a watered-down law may still be a law they may be able to enforce...
Re:Nothing "ironic" (Score:5, Insightful)
They were in a lose-lose situation before they started. Ignore the problem, and the copyright law is useless. Try to enforce your rights, and the legal protections degrade, as you observed.
I bought many CDs in the couple of years up until the lawsuits began, I bought a few since, but at this point I won't buy any, and I discourage people from giving me any albums. I'll still buy indie albums, or at least the ones that come from non RIAA affiliated labels, when I can be reasonably sure they aren't paying dues.
They wouldn't be this unpopular if they were just enforcing their legal rights, they're this unpopular because what they are engaging in better resembles extortion than seeking legal relief. Their lack of interest in following typical courtroom procedures, and the very fact that their evidence is frequently unverifiable all but ensures that they will be both loathed and despised for years to come.
They also wouldn't be this unpopular if they were prosecuting their own relatives for similar acts of infringement. I think that was one of the more egregious points, when that child of an executive was caught red handed. Rather than being forced to settle or being drug into court, he was given a stern lecture from his father.
Honestly, how can anybody observe any of that, and still feel like it was a lose-lose. They didn't have to destroy their own image to make the pirates pay. The amount of damage they have themselves willfully inflicted on themselves has been huge. What with the random lawsuits, DRM and the rootkit ready audio CDs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, really it wasn't. The biggest problem they had was that they weren't selling a product wanted to buy, and that they weren't putting most of the money into making a compelling product. Most people are decent enough, but most people aren't sufficiently stupid to pay for an item that they don't value.
And yet, people go right on buying CDs and downloading this product which isn't wanted, according to you. They do this despite the (however remote) possibility of legal action against them. If people honestly didn't want the music the (companies which make up the) RIAA would be out of business already. They would have no income and no means to continue their day-to-day operations, let alone the lawsuits.
You can criticize their methods, but you can't honestly say they don't produce a product that at le
Re:Nothing "ironic" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing "ironic" (Score:5, Insightful)
What we're seeing now is reality reasserting itself over these nonsensical laws. If the RIAA had recognized what was happening and concentrated on developing a workable business model, they wouldn't have put themselves into a lose-lose situation. But the industry as it pre-existed were so abusive of performers' rights that I'm not sure that was even possible. The Internet has made the value of the distributor nearly worthless -- anybody can distribute now, just slap your MP3s onto a web server. Since any workable business model has to accurately reflect the value the distributor adds to the music production process, their revenue would've gone from >95% of the pie to less than 5%. The MPAA is in much better shape because movie production involves a lot more capital (they add much more value to the process), and their final product is more realistically priced ($20-$30 for a DVD or BR/HD-DVD feels about right to me for the value I'm getting, so I don't have much problem justifying to myself paying for it).
Re:Nothing "ironic" (Score:5, Insightful)
There is however potential -- if they want to adapt. And there's signs they're -slowly- getting it. All major record-companies in Norway experimented with various DRMy non-cds, and had massive problems. They've stopped. All of them. Today, unlike 2 years ago, when you buy a CD you actually get a CD.
Online music is also changing to plain unencumbered formats, away from DRMy ones. The DRM -doesn't- stop piracy, and it prevents a lot of otherwise honest customers from shopping. Me for example, I'm happy paying say 2/3rds of the price of a physical-cd for a downloaded-cd (I reckon it's fair the reduced distribution-costs should benefit me to some degree too), but I absolutely refuse to pay even a -single- cent for DRM-encumbered music.
So, in short. The old-fashioned music-industry is doomed. They've got a choice though: do they want to figth the future tooth and nail until it arrives anyway and they're extinct. Or do they want to evolve and adapt and be relevant -- allthough in a different form than today -- also in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything it encourages piracy. Since the pirate copies don't have DRM and are thus more valuable to the customer. It's also the case that the "pirates" don't tend to want to restrict distribution by grography, thus it can quite often be the case that the choice is between "pirate" copy and no copy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically they want to be the sole p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing "ironic" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Are we down to mob rule where if the mob doesn't want to pay then they don't have to?"
Yes. We've been there. Prior to 'now' there were physical restrictions in place holding the mob (or, general public) at bay from getting what they want for nothing (shoplifting laws and penalties, quality degradation from analog copies, etc.). Those restrictions have been largely removed. The legal threat is now akin to the speed limit. Once someone buys any one thing, and shares it, it will be available to everyon
Well Deserved Backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not trying to preserve copyright, they are trying to make it into something unAmerican that violates the US Constitution. In other words, their actions have destroyed copyright regardless of success or failure. They have used several techniques to make their exclusive franchise eternal, have redefined the meaning of the franchise from protection against commercial publication to nonsensical "making available" and "unauthorized copy," and worst of all have made a civil mater into a criminal one with unusual punishment. To do this they have trampled free speech, due process, the fourth amendment and have technically sabotaged legitimate competitors. That's not copyright, it's information and market control straight out of the former Soviet Union.
It will be good to get back real copyright law and put it in balance with the way information really flows. The goals of copyright law is encouragement of the public domain and to advance the state of the art. People should not lose their house for sharing a few songs, books, movies and other material with their friends. Businesses that can't compete in freedom don't deserve to exist.
$750 (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always been amazed by the gall they have quoting that number. What other type of copyright infringement can claim 757.6 times the value of the product as damages? When the SPA goes after companies using pirated commercial software they don't look at an old copy of Windows 98 and try claiming $8000 as damages, do they?
Re:$750 (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you legally fight them, they have Congress on their side: you pay THEIR lawyer bills.
Re:$750 (Score:5, Insightful)
"I've always been amazed by the gall they have quoting that number."
That's the minimum statutory amount. Per S504:
Note that the record labels are asking for the minimum allowed. Could be much worse!
"What other type of copyright infringement can claim 757.6 times the value of the product as damages?"
Any other type of infringement where the retail value of the product is around a buck -- that is, not much. The $750 is arbitrary; ie. it'd be the statutory minimum amount if you were nailed for sharing copies of, say, PhotoShop... in which case the ratio would be much lower than 750:1.
The $750 minimum is out-of-date; a remnant of the days before it was so easy to share so much music. It was written in a time when it took a lot of work to distribute 1,000 unique pirated songs.
Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 answers, but I think that a more fitting statutory minimum should be in the neighborhood of $50 per work. Yes, I know, information wants to be fweeeeeeeeeeeeee, but for as long as copyright law is still around, the courts should be able to issue judgements that are an effective deterrent. If I were nailed for sharing 100 songs and the RIAA could only collect a statutory minimum of $5K from me rather than $75K (as under current law), I'd still get the point that perhaps I shouldn't have helped make other people's information so free after all.
Re:$750 (Score:5, Funny)
Copy drug punishment (Score:2)
I don't think the laws have adapated to the fact that people are happy to give away copyrighted material for absolutley nothing.
There are two types of groups breaking copyright now.
The actual pirates, copying material and selling it for their own commercial gain, to the detriment of the owner of the IP, and then you have the kids, mothers, grandmothers, students and anyone else dabbling in copyright infringment for personal use.
As with many drug laws in many countries, they have developed laws to severley p
Re: (Score:2)
The $750 minimum is out-of-date; a remnant of the days before it was so easy to share so much music. It was written in a time when it took a lot of work to distribute 1,000 unique pirated songs.
Actually, it was written in a time when there was significant economics of scale. Imagine this:
100 people each make 100 copies of 1 work, swapping physical copies (no further copyright violation) so they have one copy each = 10000 illegal copies, 100*750$ liability.
100 people each make 1 copy of 100 works using a P2P network = 10000 illegal copies, 100*100*750$ liability.
Basicly the damages increase immensly when you go from "few works*many copies" to "many works*few copies".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"It does not say $750 per song downloaded giving a sum of no less than $billions."
The key phrase in the portion I quoted is "per work." It refers to distinct works, not multiple copies of the same work. For example, the Jammie Thomas judgment was based on the number of unique songs she was sharing, and was not a count of how many times each might have been downloaded from her PC.
Re: (Score:2)
"And what if the number of songs is 10000? You'd need to be fined for half a million to "get the point"?"
Slippery sloping can be fun, but let's call it what it is. Does anybody reading this really have 10,000 songs in their share directory? That's about 30GB of music, if my math is correct. It's also about 10X of the threshold for criminal infringement. It's probably best to stick with numbers that are applicable to the real world.
"The minimum should only apply to the complete fine, not each item. An
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anybody reading this really have 10,000 songs in their share directory? That's about 30GB of music, if my math is correct. It's also about 10X of the threshold for criminal infringement. It's probably best to stick with numbers that are applicable to the real world.
I don't move in music sharing communities, but I know many people with HDs bought for the exclusive reason of keeping shared movies. Going to a "campus party" with at least 1TB free is the norm.
"The minimum should only apply to the complete fine, not each item. And then even $750 would make sense."
That's an interesting idea, but it's a bit like the flat tax: the large-scale pirates would get off easy, and the little guys would get the rough end. Can you imagine what the record labels might do if the law were changed so that the minimum statutory were $750 total? They might start suing college students with one song in their share directory. And, your hypothetical fellow distributing 10,000 songs might only be liable for a $750 fine.
You are right. A big part of the problem is that the RIAA customizes the legal attack to dodge or use the standing laws. A low statutory minimum just forces them to pull bigger infraction numbers, a higher one lets them build bankruptcy amounts with a very small amount of songs.
I'd try the "small minimum, reasonabl
Re: (Score:2)
obvious (Score:3, Funny)
downl0wned!
Am I the only one? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Short of the public getting up and saying enough is enough, I don't think we will see any lawmaker get up and notice this. If they do they will probably be given a hefty donation to their "re-election" campaign and the spouse of the lawmaker hired for a job pouring milk in the head quarters for $250 k a month.
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever paid attention to all of those 10,000 page "free trade" treaties we keep signing? Almost every treaty has a provision regarding copyright. Generally each treaty requires stronger and stronger copyright provisions. If congress actually did come to their senses and balance copyright law, we would be in violation of tons of treaties and subject to massive economic sanctions.
Balanced copyrights will require a worldwide effort and support from the heads of state of dozens of countries...just to get started.
Re: (Score:2)
I am just guessing based on things I have read elsewhere, but I suspect that those provisions are usually included at the insistence of the U.S. and if the U.S. asked to have them dropped, many of the treaty partners would do so in a second.
Re: (Score:2)
Here the judiciary arm of US gov. is asking itself whether this rigmarole makes sense, but this debate will not affect treaties in the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music (Score:5, Interesting)
You can find many other such artists, and free, legal music hosting sites in my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [goingware.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music (Score:4, Interesting)
iRATE Radio will be relaunched soon (Score:5, Informative)
So if you find that iRATE doesn't work well for you today, give it a week or two and it should work much better.
Good for the Goose (Score:2, Insightful)
As the saying goes "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". If the RIAA can press for wide ranging discovery that is intrusive for the defendants, they have to be able to do the same to plantiffs when they're after information that is relevant to their defense.
I would hope that a judge wouldn't accept costs more of than 70c per song since that's about how much they get from iTunes (the cost per download shouldn't include Apples cut of the 99c since of course that's Apples income not the Record C
This is really slow (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is really slow (Score:5, Informative)
2. It took us 6 months to get the revenue information. Now it's been 4 1/2 months so far to try and get the expense information.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the request. It is comprehensive and complete. Please post the response you get. I am interested in the other information you requested such as the setting of the clocks, (you should have asked for time zone for all and if DST was in effect) as well as all the information on how the data was collected, even to the naming of the text file. Great job. I hope they provide the information. I can't wait to add the Media Sentry
Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
I guess the next question is to actually ask if these statutory damages are constitutional or not, which is being asked now. Really, what else is there?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what is being asked, more or less (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Too true. But getting The Judges to even accept the case will be tough. Better hope it gets past their clerks and 3 of them 'like' the case enough.
---It appears that they are claiming it's a 5th and 14th amendment violation, specifically the due process parts. My guess is the argument is based along the lines of the fact that the fines are excessive in relation to the damage. While it is not uncommon for fines to exceed damages,
Re:That's what is being asked, more or less (Score:5, Informative)
Explicit encouragement of promotion? (Score:2)
Elsewhere Michael D. Crawford posted the following:
by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Tuesday November 27, @12:52AM (#21488871)
(http://www.geometricvisions.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 02 2005, @05:35PM)
You don't have to pay the iTunes Music Store to download music legally. Many musicians offer free downloads of their music as a way to promote themselves. I'm one such artist [geometricvisions.com]. You could really help me out if you shared my music over the Internet.
--
If we were to talk about t
Re: (Score:2)
A receipt? The physical media? A purchase at the DRM-hut? Buying from a used store/pawn shop?
How can we be guaranteed that we are getting an authorized copy?
Many places print receipts. Is that good enough?
Physical Media: is it legit or a fake press from a dupe factory?
Does fair-use allow us to convert a DRM-hut media to mp3? I thought it does, but DMCA says there can be no disseminating tools.
Used/Pawn shop? First sale doctrine covers us here. Hopefully.
Now th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Creative Commons has the Attribution-ShareAlike license. Which is sort of like the GPL for non-code.
There is also the Free Art License:
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ [artlibre.org]
I put my stuff under CC BY-SA as well:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22drew%20Roberts%22 [archive.org]
And people use it:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Peter%20Rodgers%22 [archive.org]
http://www.archive.o [archive.org]
Re:That's what is being asked, more or less (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Justice Brennan said in the case Furman v. Georgia (1972) about "Cruel and Unusual Punishment":
* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,"
* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
The Slashdot crowd and the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time a story like this comes up I read as many comments as I can and think, "Well fuck, if it's this obvious to everyone here that what's happening is out of line and in some cases illegal, why can't that message be communicated more broadly?"
I have an extensive list of information I've been saving from Slashdot just on the off chance I ever get an RIAA letter in the mail (I d/l maybe an album per month, 90% of the time I buy it after listening). If I find myself facing one of these suits, I would immediately turn over to my lawyer everything I've compiled to be sure they're aware of what should be argued and what RIAA claims are total BS.
Is there an existing repository for information like this, or is it time people like us Slashdotters created one?
Re: (Score:2)
About these lawsuits: Their settlements do NOT waive their right to still sue you. They'll just claim it was for those 5 songs.. they are worth750$ per song, dontchaknow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is there an existing repository for information like this, or is it time people like us Slashdotters created one?
The story submitter is a Slashdotter/lawyer [slashdot.org] who has a site dedicated to this sort of stuff [blogspot.com]. Of course, for legal advice that's not technically advice, I pay att
Re:The Slashdot crowd and the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
He is a second year student at USC (University of Southern California)
The attorney letter is from Holm Roberts & Owen LLP from their Denver office.
The school passed on the letter and when I called the school's Acting Litigation Manager - was told that the school would pass on student info if a lawsuit is filed and the school receives a subpoena.
To say I am disappointed at the school's passive position is an understatement. California has very strong laws requiring schools to protect the privacy of students - and if there should be legal action would be compelled to act in protecting student privacy.
Since the school has very strong ties with the recording / film industry, and the LA basin is full of attorneys and judges that are graduates, the lawyer I consulted suggested settling.
hummmm
Re: (Score:2)
5 or 6.
And all of the rest?
Re: (Score:2)
Instead they should have had stone hard evidence that those PEOPLE, not computers, or IP addresses were trading songs. Instead, they rely on easy to lie data.
Re: (Score:2)
USC is a private university [google.com].
California has stringent laws concerning privacy.
Does a private university have in loco parentis on students who enroll there?
The Kentucky State Supreme Court says according to the case Gott v. Berea College [wikipedia.org] that they do have that right. They successfully claimed their right was derived from the contract between the student and the College.
I'm wondering if this is how they wish to play that... if it so, good luck.. not it'll do you any good.
Can't scare New Yorkers (Score:3, Interesting)
750 (Score:5, Funny)
Judge:Are you sure?
RIAA: "Ok, it's really 70 cents for the song, $749 for lawyers and $.30 in PR"
Judge: Come on now?
RIAA: "Alright, it's $.03 for the song, $200 for lawyers and $549.97 for your reelection campaign and all the free downloads of "The Gap Band" you can handle? How's that sound judge? Judge? Judge? Is this thing on?"
Re:750, continued (Score:2)
RIAA: Nonsense! Everybody has a price. Ours is just spectacularly high.
Punitive Damages and Unusual Punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
"statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.[7]
In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional."
If the song costs $1, and punitive damages of $749 are assessed, it's almost certainly unconstitutional. So why should it be legal statutorily?
Re: (Score:2)
A lawyer charges 400$ an hour. You need 15 hours billable time to fight 12 "songs" or settle and have possibility of suit later.
Or lets fight it out.. You win a unconstitutional punitive damage challenge.
They sue you for 12 more songs.
Sounds like a winner...
Just like the S.L.A.P.P.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But I think a little critical thinking could topple that argument. It's ea
A glance into the crystal ball (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA lawyer: "You asked for the reason of asking for 750 dollars per song shared, and here's the result:
70 cents per song earned.
An average of 1100 downloaders per song and per source.
That would net about 770, we rounded down in favor of the defendent."
Judge: "I see. And where do you get those numbers? The 1100 downloaders per song and source?"
RIAA lawyer: "Statistics" (slams five pounds of paper onto the judge's desk."
Judge: "I see. But wouldn't after some time a saturation set in? With everyone feeding 1100 downloaders, and each of them again feeding 1100..."
RIAA lawyer (pauses): "Indeed. Well, then let me also file against the defendent for running a pyramid scheme."
Re: (Score:2)
It would kind of make sense... (Score:2)
More than 10 to 1 ratio of damages is improper (Score:5, Informative)
Bittorrent and fair use? (Score:2, Interesting)
Torrents are made up of a bunch of little pieces. Could someone even prove that you actually had a substantial amount of a specific file if you were in a swarm of seeders? Could you claim fair use given the fact that you might only have a piece of a file in question? Just a th
Re: (Score:2)
The judiciary may not understand all the deep technological points involved, but you can bet that they have a huge experience of people trying to worm thei
Their math (Score:2)
Cost of lost sales from people you share the song to - $749.25
1+1=3
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously yours is the most concise yet most informative post in this thread.
Pity i used my mod points yesterday...
Re:Simply put... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think RIAA's lawyers should be tasered in the nuts once for every one of these suits they bring, but that's just my opinion, I could be overreacting....
Nawwwww...
Re:Simply put... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm too weak, sorry! (Score:2)
Waiting to be ashamed publicly, specially in front of all the filesharers... priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
legal fees
Being B1tchslapped by Judge...Priceless
Martin Luther King said "One has a moral... (Score:2)
One reason it's important to do so is that the US Supreme Court doesn't render advisory opinions; to have the Court overturn a law that makes something a crime, somebody has to actually break it, be tried and found guilty, appeal and then lose in the appellate courts, then appeal to the Supreme Court.