LimeWire Sued Again, Publishers Seek $150,000 Per Song 168
betterunixthanunix writes "Another lawsuit has been filed against LimeWire, this time by the National Music Publishers Association. They claim that LimeWire also damaged them, and seek $150,000 per infringement, putting the maximum possible damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. LimeWire seems to have become the latest music industry punching bag. 'David Israelite, chief executive of the publishers' association, said his organization had decided to bring the complaint because most publishers were not represented in the record company lawsuit and they were now confident that they had a winning case. ... LimeWire, which says it is trying to start a new paid subscription model, said in a statement on Wednesday that it welcomed the publishers to the table. '"
$150K per song? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but NO song is worth that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$150K per song? (Score:5, Informative)
Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.
To demonstrate how ridiculous that number is, in the case Apple vs. Psystar with Psystar selling hundreds of computers with illegal copies of MacOS X installed, Apple asked for $30,000 for copyright infringement by copying MacOS X 10.5, and another $30,000 for copying MacOS X 10.6. Not per copy, but for all copies made. Apparently Apple didn't see making computers, cracking OS X copy protection, duplicating the software, installing it, and then selling it, as "willful infringement", but just as ordinary inf
Re:$150K per song? (Score:4, Informative)
Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.
To demonstrate how ridiculous that number is, in the case Apple vs. Psystar with Psystar selling hundreds of computers with illegal copies of MacOS X installed, Apple asked for $30,000 for copyright infringement by copying MacOS X 10.5, and another $30,000 for copying MacOS X 10.6. Not per copy, but for all copies made. Apparently Apple didn't see making computers, cracking OS X copy protection, duplicating the software, installing it, and then selling it, as "willful infringement", but just as ordinary infringement.
That's completely, entirely incorrect. Apple was not seeking statutory damages at all, but actual damages, which they could prove because Psystar helpfully kept sales records. They got $2.7 million in settlement.
Re:$150K per song? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.
That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I generally agree with you, it is logical to ask for damages that are higher than what you really lost. If I evade taxes to the tune of 1000$, and the court fines me for 1000$, I have no reason not to evade taxes again. Thats why I need to pay the 1000$ + statuary damages/added fines/etc.
The same is here. If the total damage you, allegedly, caused are 60$, the law suit should be for more than that, in order to deter you from doing it again. Of course, 150,000$ per song is excessive, but you catch m
Re: (Score:2)
Okay fine but IRS fines are reasonable (a few hundred dollar fine), not $150,000 per line item on the tax form
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with you, just wanted to clear the point about suing for more than actual damages. I agree that 150,000$ is way too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Should limewire be fined at all. Sure they contribute no differently than public roads contribute to crime. Limewire to be competitive has to provide the cheapest file sharing service possible, it cannot afford to monitor and inspect every file shared using their software, after all it is not their network, not their hardware and they are not selecting the files to be traded.
As always it should be up to the people who feel their current copyrights have been infringed to prove infringement occurred and to
Re: (Score:2)
I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.
That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)
Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.
That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)
Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......
Either you advocate that the copyright holder find those individuals and go after each of them individually for the 3 copies each person made, or, you reject the notion of personal responsibility entirely (in which case I'd like you to pay the electric bill I ran up and the car insurance I purchased, y'know, for the sake of consistency). Since those two positions are mutually exclusive, you may choose only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[...] or, you reject the notion of personal responsibility entirely (in which case I'd like you to pay the electric bill I ran up and the car insurance I purchased, y'know, for the sake of consistency). Since those two positions are mutually exclusive, you may choose only one.
Well I was going to choose to pay your bills but you posted as AC, so never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......
Not my problem. If I kill a guy, and then give the gun to somebody else who kills 3 more people, I'm not responsible for that. I'm only responsible for my OWN actions not those down the line. Similarly a son is not responsible for the crimes of the father. That form of justice was eliminated long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.
I wouldn't even call that logical. If somebody else shares the song, they're the one infringing, not you. Theoretically the same individual song transfer could rack up a huge pile of fines from different people.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If somebody else shares the song, they're the one infringing, not you
If I'm uploading each song to 3 people (on average) then yes I am the one infringing.
Re: (Score:2)
That was poor communication on my part. I was replying to yours but also reading "(99 cents per song * 150K downloaders, perhaps)".
It was intended to support your point but I didn't do enough to make that clear, my bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people.
CNET logged 206 million downloads of LimeWire before it stopped hosting the app.
240,000 a week.
Your upload can be replicated endlessly -
and theoretically traced back as the ultimate source for millions of downloads.
When theory becomes practice, the statutory limit on damages protects you.
The vanity of the uploader - who signed or captioned his videos - made this easy to see on LimeWire. You'd be offered 45 links to begin a download, all unmistakabl
Re: (Score:2)
Your upload can be replicated endlessly and theoretically traced back as the ultimate source for millions of downloads.
He is not liable for any re-uploads made from the copy that he had illegally made for someone. He's only liable for those copies that were directly made with his participation.
To me, a share ratio sounds like the most reasonable way to estimate the actual damage amount. If it's 3x for a given file, then 3 copies of file have been made. It's still an approximation, of course, as in practice the file is not atomic, and he had probably shared some bits of it with more than 3 people - but, on the other hand, ha
Re: (Score:2)
My ratio is like .00027, so I would owe them around 63 cents.
Leech FTW!
Re:$150K per song? (Score:5, Funny)
Not even the greatest song in the world?
Not even as just a tribute to the greatest song in the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not there are worse music videos:
(1) Alien Love Calling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0aq1ff22s0 [youtube.com]
(2) In Sovyet Union, music video play YOU! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you mean by "worth". If you mean what it can be sold for, you're absolutely correct. If you mean the benefit to its listener, you're absolutely wrong.
And that's why capitalism doesn't work well when we're talking about ideas and artistic creations - the societal benefits of an idea go up the more people have easy access, while the financial value of that same idea goes down. This is different from, say, a toaster, where selling one toaster has no effect on the financial value of another iden
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but NO song is worth that much.
Agreed... in fact, some bands should pay me to listen to their music.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
subject changing is the first sign of a weak argument.
Re:$150K per song? (Score:5, Insightful)
To what end? It's not like the thousands (if not millions) of people who support the Arizona law are being listened to. I've given up on complaining to congress. They don't even listen when you threaten to have them voted out. Money talks in Washington and if you don't have money you aren't heard. I can't tell you how many times I've emailed congress (literally thousands of times) about various issues where I wasn't in the minority (or at least, the mostly non-vocal) with the position I held and I get the same old tired form response with a few key phrases tossed it to make it look like they even care.
Want to fix this? Stop buying RIAA member's products. If that means giving up your favorite bands, so be it. I'm willing to go completely indy (or even music-less) if it means someone finally listens. Don't give the RIAA your money. Don't go to concerts by member bands. Don't engage in gross copyright infringement of their members (or at all, really). The NMPA hasn't been hurt by this. They just want a piece of what they see as the gravy train. They are just another four-letter abbreviation. Stop consuming (this encompasses illegal downloading as well as legitimate purchases) products from their members, too. Turn to indy bands who have trader-friendly and file-sharing friendly policies. Turn to indy labels who have the same. Support those who support your point of view. Lobby the bands instead of congress. Enough people telling them that they will not consume their product at all will get them to change their point of view rather quickly. No music artist wants to be poor and destitute. No group can have concerts if no fans will show up.
This is a two-way street. If consuming their products lets them keep the old way of doing things, stop consuming their products.
*watches his karma go away*
Grocery store (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop buying RIAA member's products.
It's getting harder to find a grocery store that won't play music of an RIAA label over its speaker system.
Re: (Score:2)
no kidding.
Re:$150K per song? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. No one except the record labels buys any RIAA products or services. The RIAA is a bunch of lawyers and office workers whose purpose is to go around suing people among other things.
2. Everything you say here will go largely unheard because the people who are buying don't come to slashdot and wouldn't listen if you took the message to the streets.
We live in a society filled with really stupid people doing a lot of really stupid things. Accept it and move on. You are preaching to the choir on this but you're also a bit wrong. It is pretty hard to escape contributing to the RIAA's food supply. First you have to stop buying music. Next, you have to stop watching movies and TV shows and listening to the radio because the music industry gets a cut when music is included in other works, performances, playbacks and presentations. And once you have done those two simple things, you have to convince the rest of the world to do the same thing. The first two parts are relatively trivial. That last part will prove to be impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
"First you have to stop buying music." - check
"Next, you have to stop watching movies and TV shows" - check
"convince the rest of the world to do the same thing." - crap, I KNEW there was a catch here somewhere!
We've all heard people referred to as "sheeple". It's not so "in" as it was just a few years ago, but we've all heard it. The flock is led just anywhere the shepherd wants it to go. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a shepherd. The flock prefers to follow some stupid pied piper. I guess they don't m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. No one except the record labels buys any RIAA products or services.
Incorrect; the RIAA is the major record labels, just like the Teamsters Union is the truck drivers. The truck drivers have collective bargaining, the record labels have collective suing.
First you have to stop buying music.
Wrong again -- you only have to stop buying RIAA music. There are far more independant musicians than "signed" musicians, you just don't hear them because the radio only plays RIAA musicians. Go down to your local bar on
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You say to change this you need to stop buying RIAA members products, but that will only lead to "See, our sales dropped due to people who are illegally downloading our songs..." - arguments on their behalf, which leads to even more frantic prosecution of downloaders...
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously missed the part where I also said to stop downloading illegally.
And you missed the part (Score:3, Interesting)
And you missed the part where it doesn't matter whether there's any piracy at all. All the parent poster said was "our sales are falling. it must be pirates" as used. If there's no evidence of pirates, they must be hiding. they will (and you too) use circular reasoning to ensure that they get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop buying RIAA member's products
No, stop sharing their music. If you want to stop this, stop putting their stuff up on torrent sites and limewire and YouTube and wherever else. If you want a song, go buy it on Amazon or wherever. I know they don't want you to rip a CD (or your friend's CD) and put their songs on your iPod either, but really that's uneforceable and not really worth worrying about.... Just stop sharing online.
Re: (Score:2)
than suffer the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is completely the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Want to fix this? Stop buying RIAA member's products."
Negative. The only way to fix this, given what you say about congress, is to start killing RIAA members, AND congress members.
That's the ONLY way this bullshit will EVER stop, is to show them with absolute certainty that we will no longer tolerate this shit.
It would be interesting if your battle call was heeded. What if the nerds at /. really do decide to start a revolution? I imagine the first order of business would be to draft a new constitution and then arguing over whether to use 4 or 8 spaces for tabs and whether or not to line wrap at 80 character.
Re: (Score:2)
No, violent crime is the best response to a tyrranical group of people.
This was proven in the Revolutionary War where we were labeled terrorists.
Learn from history, or be a fool and be doomed to repeat it.
And since you posted AC, odds are you're the fool.
Re: (Score:2)
And for civil rights, people were willing to get in each others faces and do more than send off angry emails. I have yet to see one even medium-scale protest about this except online.
And by changing our purchasing habits, we are giving voice to dissent, we are loudly challenging an unjust law. In this case, though, the civil disobedience aspect of it is NEVER argued because it is a meaningless argument. How does your civil disobedience in this manner provide you with no benefit while still making your point
Re: (Score:2)
How long did you try that for? Not very long, I imagine. Get documentation from the companies that you advocate (indy labels and bands) buying from to show that sales aren't down to gross copyright infringement, but they are down because you've taken your money elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
And this represents a complete and utter failure in copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said otherwise. Read the rest of the thread and my comments therein.
Really? (Score:2)
$150,000/song? Why not all of the money on the planet Earth or anything of value in solar system? That sounds like a more reasonable sum.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the parent brings up a good point, albeit sarcastically:
Why not just play this out? Isn't there some legal strategy LimeWire could pursue to not only continue losing (while taking it to higher and higher courts), but to increase their damages by orders of magnitude each time? After they owe more than the combined wealth of all resources humanity could ever potentially obtain, surely someone somewhere will realize something was wrong with that picture.
On a related note, has anyone ever sat down and thought of bankrupting the music industry with legal fees? That is to say, to make their legal bills exceed their revenue, and for all defendants to basically be unable to pay a dime? They would see dollar signs all the way until they starved to death...
Re: (Score:2)
After they owe more than the combined wealth of all resources humanity could ever potentially obtain
Unfortunately that would not actually lead to a recognition that these damage sums are too high; rather, it would simply lead to a conclusion that there is no valid way for Limewire to do its business, and it would be shut down. Now, if we were dealing with an individual being required to pay these ridiculous amounts of money, then we might see some real reform. "Might" is the operative word there...
Re: (Score:2)
When I read your post i remembered a scene from Gurren Lagann
Adiane:"Careful, fire at that angle, and you'll kill us both. Are Humans that stupid?"
Yoko:"Hate to break it to you, but yeah, we are."
Re: (Score:2)
So, why not all the money on earth? Because that would require them to work for it.
Scape Goat (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if both guns work exactly the same?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. I can go door to door selling knives for the purpose of cutting food but the second I start selling the same knives for the purpose of slitting your wrists or killing your neighbors pets, it becomes something the courts will decide.
If I open a gun store for hunting and protection, that's fine. If I open the same gun store and put a sign out that encourages you to shoot police on sight so you never have to worry about tickets again? Pretty sure you aren't going to be in business long.
Sell a car for t
Re: (Score:2)
Even if both guns work exactly the same?
Open up a chemical supply store. Same chemical two product advertisements:
1. Ammonium Nitrate - Excellent fertilizer for your grape vines.
2. Ammonium Nitrate - As seen in Oklahoma City. (Customers who purchased this item also purchased Fuel Oil)
Context matters.
Re:Scape Goat (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Scape Goat (Score:4, Informative)
If a product has a legal use, but the user uses it for an illegal use it isn't the manufacture’s fault, but the consumer who did the illegal action.
That's the Betamax doctrine. [wikipedia.org]
Limewire was sued under the inducement doctrine. [wikipedia.org] If a manufacturer or provider of a service induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable. I don't know the specifics for Limewire, but they probably, at some point in the past, advertised Limewire as helping users download music, movies, games, etc. without having to pay for them. There are probably also internal company emails in which the executives/managers acknowledge that illegal use is important for the success of the product. These were the things that got Grokster in deep shit.
The betamax doctrine isn't much of a shield to secondary liability anymore, at least when the manufacturer/service provider's business is greatly benefited from the copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
If a manufacturer or provider of a service that induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable.
I think there is a strong case that they do, let me start with the following so you can see where I'm coming from.
Postulate: Downloading doesn't violate copyright owners right to control distribution, uploading, however, does. We all talk about downloading, but we're talking about a system that combines consumption and distribution. The courts have never been leveraged against leechers or non-p2p downloads. I feel this is strong evidence that even the RIAA must agree this to be the case or they would b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The difference between Limewire and CD Drive manufacturers is that Limewire actively encouraged the use of their services to pirate media"
You're wrong about that. That was FROSTWIRE that did that, as Limewire is open source (stupid move when you're trying to charge for a pro version that only needs a single bit flipped to become pro) and Frostwire made the 'pro' version available for free. Frostwire actively advertised the piracy aspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be young. They have done that (or at least very similar) before.
FrostWire (Score:2)
I switched to FrostWire a while ago. I'd be interested to see how they try and come after an open source project.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, you do realize Limewire is the open source project and Frostwire is the modified version made to be pro for free?
Re: (Score:2)
3. Watch project die swiftly and efficiently.
More like: 3. Watch all the development activity move to China, and to other countries that don't give a fuck about keeping the record companies happy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a flaw in step #2 of the algorithm. Specifically, it does not account for major developers that exist in jurisdictions where laws and/or legal doctrines that allow for such lawsuits to be successful apply.
Still in use? (Score:1)
Book Publishers Sue Private Lending Libraries (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The closest thing to a public library (Score:2)
Cue the scaremongerers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any proposal that involves tax dollars being used to pay for media will be labeled as "socialist"
Then why haven't the anti-socialists already moved to shut down existing county libraries and state-university libraries?
now confident that they had a winning case (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a lot easier to sit back and wait for someone else to set a legal president and jump on the moving band wagon
Which band wagon is that? The President's or preceding President?
Can Indie artists get in on the lawsuit bandwagon? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are getting 150K for ANY song then can I get at least get 100K per song of my greatest hits album. (That people on Limewire might have downloaded by accident).
It's Kazaa all over again (Score:2)
They target Limewire because they made the mistake of having a company at the forefront of their P2P application. Companies make nice, big targets for lawsuits.
BitTorrent, on the other hand, has the necessity to give people the IP addresses of their peers, since it's a functional requirement to get the data, so the obvious targets are the peers themselves.
*continues downloading through more anonymous means*
The sad thing is... (Score:5, Interesting)
...that when LimeWire usage peaked there was no really viable online music store in most parts of the world. So basically the publishers ignored the market, the market supplied to it's own demand, and now the publishers seem to think they are entitled to ridiculous sums of money?
Sad.
Re:The sad thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No government, not in the even the feds, turn over the fine directly to the victim of a real theft, but they want to enable $150k in damages for a copy of a song that retails for a $0.99?
The $150k in damages is for a license to distribute the song. Do you think Apple pays $0.99 once in exchange for putting a song on the iTunes Music Store? Michael Jackson paid $225k each for the distribution rights of a bunch of Beatles' songs. The whole "but it only costs $.99 cents!" argument ignores this reality.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things that I find really unjust about our system, taken as a whole (which is dangerous in a federal system, I know, but bear with me) is that when a normal person is robbed, the state gets to fine the robber and keep the money. The victim of the theft is left with some abstract "justice" in the form of an imprisoned thief and the state pockets the fine instead of transferring it, tax free, to the victim of the theft.
You're confusing criminal and civil law. Restitution need not be a goal of criminal trials (although it's often added to sentences anyway). But the victim is free to pursue a judgment in a civil trial if he thinks he's been wronged, regardless of the criminal outcome. That's what civil courts are there for.
LimeWire? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people I know who use Limewire are teens, tweens, and nontechnical college kids. Limewire uses the Gnutella G2 protocol, though it can also handle bittorrent downloads as well. Content, I'm guessing, is fairly consistent between the eMule and Gnutella networks. Bittorrent works well for complete albums, but is a bit less adept at working for single songs (which is what most of my limewire using friends tend to do).
Like most things in life - especially technical ones, popularity and ease of use trump tec
the real reason limewire is being sued: (Score:5, Informative)
the founder has gobs of cash:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/business/media/24limewire.html [nytimes.com]
first wall street trader i ever felt sorry for. his other passion is alternative transportation: he rides his bike to work every day. not your average wall street sleazeball
and he idealistically thought that an honest p2p play was a good idea, downplaying the shortsighted sociopathology of the music publishing industry. bad bet
now if limewire were some open source project with nothing but pseudoanonymous college students behind it, it would still be sued into oblivion, but there would be no follow up lawsuit seeking to drain the defendants of all their worth. this guy, on the other hand, is going to made destitute, simply for the crime of thinking positively about the real future of media. unfortunately, the zombie legal past of media has marked him for death
music industry: the next limewire won't be fronted by anyone, and there will be no way to block it, and no one to sue. the internet has permanently changed the legal status quo of media. you have a bunch of laws from the days of vinyl records, that are simply unenforceable in the age of the internet. your job now is shut up and die, blood sucking assholes
YOU'RE NOT NEEDED ANYMORE. YOU AND YOUR UNENFORCEABLE LAWS ARE A HISTORICAL ANACHRONISM. JUST FUCKING DIE ALREADY
Blood meet Stone. (Score:2)
What is the point. Its not like Limewire actually HAS any money. You can sue them for 100 million or 10 Quadrillion, it doesn't matter as you won't ever see it.
The only thing I can see is the industry trying to set precedent for awarding maximum statutory damages. Which IMO is totally wrong in the first place. Does ANY sane person actually really believe that 150k punishment actually suits the crime for COPYING ONE SONG. It is just silly.
I'm waiting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, something like this? [slashdot.org]
What does Desmond Dekker think? (Score:2)
"Get up in the morning, slaving for bread, sir,
so that every mouth can be fed.
Poor me, the Israelite. Aah."