OT: Music downloader fined 1.9 million

[Mogut]

I am NOT sympathetic to the RIAA, I hope they just cut there own throat with this.

 

The RIAA says it didn't have to come to this. States Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman, "From day one, weve been willing to settle this case for somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000. We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do. We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable."

 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15468

[Jason Stanfield]

In principle I applaud the RIAA for going after filesharers, however they really should be going after the software authors and ISPs that allow this to continue, rather than going after individuals who have collected a couple dozen songs. Even though Ms. Thomas-Rasset was found guilty, there's no way the RIAA will ever collect $1.9 million from her.

 

It's her own fault for fighting this, though.

 

She should have realized she was in the wrong, accepted the $5,000 settlement, and maybe found a way to make that money back through anti-piracy advocacy. That she stood her ground is the reason she has this judgment against her. If the RIAA does attempt to collect -- or settle for a high amount that is within her grasp -- her financial life is ruined over this, and she has no one to blame but herself.

[Griffinator]

She can BK this and have exactly the same credit score she would have had if she paid the judgement.

 

All they did was waste an enormous amount of money (two trials) in legal expenses trying to send a message.

 

Unfortunately for them, the message they sent is NOT the one they wanted to.

 

If they had picked on one of the users out there with massive catalogs, song lists in the tens of thousands, and gone after them, no one would be sympathizing with the defendant.

 

They picked on a sympathetic character - married, mother of 4, with 24 songs on her hard drive.

 

I suppose they want to make an example of her because she fits a profile that would scare easily, but I can't see anything but massive negative backlash from the public at large.

 

This might be the straw that breaks the Big Record Companies' backs.

[Mogut]

In principle I applaud the RIAA for going after filesharers, however they really should be going after the software authors and ISPs that allow this to continue, rather than going after individuals who have collected a couple dozen songs.

Go after the gun companies while your at it.

[Jason Stanfield]

Go after the gun companies while your at it.

Different standards apply here.

 

I'll retract what I said about the software authors, mainly because I don't know if they have the ability to prevent illegal use of their software. But, ISPs that tolerate illegal filesharing are the criminal equivalent of money launderers or pawn shops that deal in stolen goods.

[Yoozer]

In principle I applaud the RIAA for going after filesharers

 

I can't even applaud them in principle since none of the money claimed will ever end up with the artists; all of it will go down for legal fees.

 

Perhaps this will finally shut up the people who continue to call it stealing, while it's copyright infringement.

 

Stealing 24 CDs from Wal-Mart gets you a $200 fine and a slap on the wrist.

 

Infringement ruins your life and gets you a 2 million fine.

 

Don't you think it's weird that it's cheaper to just take the music and run?

[Mogut]

Stealing 24 CDs from Wal-Mart gets you a $200 fine and a slap on the wrist.

 

Infringement ruins your life and gets you a 2 million fine.

 

Don't you think it's weird that it's cheaper to just take the music and run?

LOL bravo! LMAO

 

I just dont see how its different then back in the "mix tape" days (casettes, VHS). Then your ALL guilty!!!

[Griffinator]

Stealing 24 CDs from Wal-Mart gets you a $200 fine and a slap on the wrist.

 

Infringement ruins your life and gets you a 2 million fine.

 

Don't you think it's weird that it's cheaper to just take the music and run?

LOL bravo! LMAO

 

I just dont see how its different then back in the "mix tape" days (casettes, VHS). Then your ALL guilty!!!

 

Because back in the "mix tape" days, you handed one person a degraded copy of what was probably also a degraded copy (as in, a well worn tape or record)

 

Here, you're handing out slightly degraded (mp3) copies to anyone who wants them, all over the world.

[stepay]

As most people aren't lawyers, and even for some who are, they don't all practice copyright law, I think the rules aren't truly set in everyone's mind. I know I see lots of gray areas.

 

Some for examples:

 

1) What if I buy a CD and rip the music off into MP3s and keep them on my computer? What if sometime after I've done this one of my kids steps on the CD and breaks it in half? If I no longer have the receipt that proves I've purchased it, am I potentially in trouble here?

 

2) I have put music on two different computers from CDs I've bought so I can listen no matter which one I'm on. Is that ok?

 

3) Youtube -- what is the deal with Youtube? I can find a studio recording of just about any song I want there. I can then use any number of recording applications (like Audacity or Freecorder) to record the audio and save it as an MP3. Is that allowed? When things are so readily available, it just lends itself to the masses believing it is perfectly legal to do. In the case of Youtube, I'm sure we've all see things that were up briefly only to be taken down to some copyright violation (that happened when that clip of A Fine Frenzy from The Tonight Show was put up; I went to see it and it had been removed), and yet I can go see and hear Mr. Jones by The Counting Crows and Killer Queen by Queen and on and on and on. I use Youtube all the time to hear a version of a song that the band is working on. I don't think I've ever NOT been able to find a song there. It's amazing.

 

4) What if I record an internet radio station and save a few songs from that as MP3s? I didn't buy them, yet here is a VERY good recording of it. Is that legal?

 

5) What if I buy a CD and then rip the music and then later (maybe even YEARS later, I see the CD on Ebay)? Can I keep the MP3s on my machine?

 

I think if you asked 10 different people on the street these questions you might get 10 different answers.

[zyzik]

another example of stupid judge and stupid non executable law in US - she will never pay that kinda fine. This is just trying to scare other illegal internet downloaders.

 

[Tonysounds]

I just love how people feel they're "entitled" to it (it being mp3s, pirated movies, code) because it's an invisible piece of data, and isn't "real" therefore it should be free.

 

As musicians, that there is even a question over which side to take just baffles me.

 

Because you possibly don't make your house payment with your music, it's not stealing to take someone else's??? Yes, the record industry is rife with crooks, but so is every other business.

 

If people would look at mp3s as nickles instead of bytes, maybe that makes more sense???

 

When people realize their personal identity is as ripe for the picking as someone else's music, maybe then people will wake up that it IS stealing.

 

It's funny: nobody wants to give their 8hour-a-day work product away for nothing, or go play at a bar all nite for nothing (most don't anyway), but this is okay???

 

I'm always stunned when this subject comes up.

[Yoozer]

But, ISPs that tolerate illegal filesharing are the criminal equivalent of money launderers or pawn shops that deal in stolen goods.

 

Do you blame road construction companies for drunk drivers and jaywalkers, too? Makes as much sense.

 

The ISP's task is to offer a connection. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever the customer does with that connection is not their business.

 

Once you make it the ISPs business, there's no limits to the content they can block, because special interest groups will lobby the crap out of their right to tell you what you can and can't see.

 

It's funny: nobody wants to give their 8hour-a-day work product away for nothing, or go play at a bar all nite for nothing (most don't anyway), but this is okay???

 

The difference with a bar is that you have to physically present to enjoy the music. As an artist, you're offering something extra that isn't duplicated. Nobody is going to gig less because people listen to mp3s at home instead of live bands in a bar; that choice was already made the moment the DJ was invented.

[Jason Stanfield]

Stealing 24 CDs from Wal-Mart gets you a $200 fine and a slap on the wrist.

 

Infringement ruins your life and gets you a 2 million fine.

True, but that's the nature of the beast right now.

 

Shoplifting an object from a store is an easy-to-quantify crime. Stealing 1s and 0s from the internet isn't, and until enforceable laws are written spelling these things out, the only protection artists and record companies have is RIAA lawsuits.

[Tonysounds]

Regarding Stepay's and Mogut's questions, think of it as the FBI WARNING label at the beginning of videotapes and dvds you rent, and on the packaging of software you buy: "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

 

This warning used to say for commercial purposes , but here the key word is DISTRIBUTION, and putting a file into bit torrent, or limewire or (insert favorite file sharer here) is in fact distribution. Burning your LP or cd onto your computer to put into your iPod or make a mix cd, or a copy for your car isnt distribution, and verily would be hard to prove otherwise to a jury of your peers.

[Tonysounds]

But, ISPs that tolerate illegal filesharing are the criminal equivalent of money launderers or pawn shops that deal in stolen goods.

 

Do you blame road construction companies for drunk drivers and jaywalkers, too? Makes as much sense.

 

The ISP's task is to offer a connection. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever the customer does with that connection is not their business.

 

Once you make it the ISPs business, there's no limits to the content they can block, because special interest groups will lobby the crap out of their right to tell you what you can and can't see.

 

No, at least in America, you dont blame road construction companies for drunk drivers, but we do have Dram Shop Laws here, which actually do govern and hold responsible places where alcohol is dispensed to potential drivers. And if they continue to overserve a patron who then gets behind the wheel, guess what: they ARE held responsible, and can be held accountable in civil litigation. And frankly, that does make sense. Its unfortunate that the government has to get involved in peoples personal decisionmaking, but ultimately, thats how laws are written in the first place, because generally people are incapable of holding themselves accountable for anything. (But your Honor, the song was there on Limewire, its not my fault I clicked download, I didnt know it was illegal. Or But your Honor, I didnt really shoot Harvey Milk because he was gay, something in my Twinkies made me bring that gun to work, find him, and then shoot him at point blank range. Thats why there are warning labels on EVERYTHING, labels that really shouldnt have to be printed and applied to any product: Do not use this electrical device in or near the water.)

[Steve Nathan]

Stealing 24 CDs from Wal-Mart gets you a $200 fine and a slap on the wrist.

 

Infringement ruins your life and gets you a 2 million fine.

 

Stealing is stealing. The only difference is in the scale of the theft.

When I was in college (back in the dark ages), someone figured out how to rig the payphone (there's a clue how long ago this was) in the student union bldg, so long distance calls could be made without paying. Students lined up all day for days on end and used that phone. Everyone doing it, likened it to "finding a dime in the coin return", and rationalized that "the big evil phone company" wasn't going to miss a few dimes worth of profit.

Now we've got a generation of music thieves who liken themselves to "rebels of the digital millennia" and whine about the evil record companies while stealing food off the tables of singers, songwriters, musicians, engineers and producers.

[Jason Stanfield]

But, ISPs that tolerate illegal filesharing are the criminal equivalent of money launderers or pawn shops that deal in stolen goods.

The ISP's task is to offer a connection. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever the customer does with that connection is not their business.

Good point.

[Mogut]

stealing food off the tables of singers, songwriters, musicians, engineers and producers.

LOL Is that a joke? oh my.....

 

David and his buddy went out on davids dingy boat for a little weekend getaway

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2007/06/13/geffen.jpg

 

shall i post some pics of singers, songwriters or producers extracurricular activities?

 

Its my opinion music is overpriced.... all the way down the line

[zyzik]

I just wonder why thieves on Wall St were not punished but rewarded...

 

if you compare what they took, she stole nothing.

 

 

[Jason Stanfield]

1) What if I buy a CD and rip the music off into MP3s and keep them on my computer? What if sometime after I've done this one of my kids steps on the CD and breaks it in half? If I no longer have the receipt that proves I've purchased it, am I potentially in trouble here?

 

2) I have put music on two different computers from CDs I've bought so I can listen no matter which one I'm on. Is that ok?

Duplication for private use is protected under copyright law. While it's a bit behind the times, no one's going to sue you for having a CD, ripping into your computer, copying it onto your iPod, and having a burned backup.

 

3) Youtube -- what is the deal with Youtube? I can find a studio recording of just about any song I want there (edit)

Like you pointed out, some copyright holders go after these things, others don't. Some of it is tolerated as a means of advertising the music. As a rule of thumb, you're on the honor system when it comes to making a recording of streaming audio. I don't think anyone's going to send an FBI squad in full tactical gear to your house for that ... put it on Kazaa, though, and you expose yourself to a lawsuit.

 

4) What if I record an internet radio station and save a few songs from that as MP3s? I didn't buy them, yet here is a VERY good recording of it. Is that legal?

As a matter of legality, it's no different than filesharing.

 

5) What if I buy a CD and then rip the music and then later (maybe even YEARS later, I see the CD on Ebay)? Can I keep the MP3s on my machine?

Hard to say, but I think this also falls under the difference between "personal use" and "distribution". Do it to a few CDs, who cares? Do it to 50 CDs a week, then drop the mp3s into a shared folder, and you're likely to get a knock on the door.

 

I think if you asked 10 different people on the street these questions you might get 10 different answers.

I think if you asked 10 lawyers, you'd get 10 different answers.

[Yoozer]

Stealing is stealing. The only difference is in the scale of the theft.

You can get away more easily with large-scale fraud and theft than you can with sharing 24 songs that could be found anywhere at any point of time.

 

Civil vs. Criminal. Don't ever forget to make that distinction.

[Tonysounds]

stealing food off the tables of singers, songwriters, musicians, engineers and producers.

LOL Is that a joke? oh my.....

 

David and his buddy went out on davids dingy boat for a little weekend getaway

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2007/06/13/geffen.jpg

 

shall i post some pics of singers, songwriters or producers extracurricular activities?

 

Its my opinion music is overpriced.... all the way down the line

 

 

David Geffen and his boat and the activities of the celebrity rich have absolutely no bearing on this issue. I personally think $5 for a box of cereal is too much, but if I take it without paying the store (and therefore the uber-profitable corporation that makes the cereal), I'm still stealing.

 

If you're a baker, and you've managed to make millions of dollars doing it, does it matter when some kid steals a donut from your shop? NO.

 

Where does this sense of entitlement and hubris come from? It's faulty rationalist logic, and it's pandemic.

[stepay]

Stealing 24 CDs from Wal-Mart gets you a $200 fine and a slap on the wrist.

 

Infringement ruins your life and gets you a 2 million fine.

 

Stealing is stealing. The only difference is in the scale of the theft.

When I was in college (back in the dark ages), someone figured out how to rig the payphone (there's a clue how long ago this was) in the student union bldg, so long distance calls could be made without paying. Students lined up all day for days on end and used that phone. Everyone doing it, likened it to "finding a dime in the coin return", and rationalized that "the big evil phone company" wasn't going to miss a few dimes worth of profit.

Now we've got a generation of music thieves who liken themselves to "rebels of the digital millennia" and whine about the evil record companies while stealing food off the tables of singers, songwriters, musicians, engineers and producers.

 

Interesting because when I was I was in college a similar thing happened. Someone figured out that if you left the pay phone downstairs off the hook that you could call it from your room and somehow get a dial tone so that you could call anywhere for free. Funny how today with cell phones and even cheap land line calling that long distance calling is no big deal. Used to be EXPENSIVE. The phone company eventually caught wind of this and busted the biggest offenders. One girl was calling her boyfriend in Florida every night and talking for hours. She settled on the bill, but I remember it being thousands of dollars.

[richwhite9]

You can go to any college campus and buy a DVD (4.7 GIG) of MP3s for $25.00. that's around 100 albums at 128Kbps

 

Soon it will be Blu-ray with 50 GIGS. That's basically the whole rock and roll era at 128Kbps or about 1,000 albums worth of music.

 

She's a minnow.

[Mogut]

Where does this sense of entitlement and hubris come from? It's faulty rationalist logic, and it's pandemic.

I was making a point, the poster alluded to "stealing food from their plate" like we were dealing with a poor industry whos existence is on the brink, and everyone is broke.

 

But dont get me wrong... I say P2P FOREVER!!!!!!!!

 

P2P cannot be stopped, and WILL NOT stop.

[Mogut]

ps. I can remember paying $30 for casette tape around the end of the 80's early 90's

 

THATS THE CRIME lol....

 

We are talking about an industry that has been gouging for years.

[Yoozer]

David Geffen and his boat and the activities of the celebrity rich have absolutely no bearing on this issue.

True.

 

I personally think $5 for a box of cereal is too much, but if I take it without paying the store (and therefore the uber-profitable corporation that makes the cereal), I'm still stealing.

You are stealing because nobody else can now buy and consume that box of cereal.

 

If you're a baker, and you've managed to make millions of dollars doing it, does it matter when some kid steals a donut from your shop? NO.

The kid is stealing because nobody else can now buy and consume that donut.

 

It's faulty rationalist logic, and it's pandemic

 

Problem is, your comparisons are faulty too .

 

Downloading is like masturbation; if you don't do it, you're a saint; if you do, you're not far off the median, but if you brag about it, you're just stupid.

 

Yes, she should've gone for the $5K settlement offered initially. Yes, saying "it's not me" was stupid when the evidence pointed the other way.

 

However, that 1.9 million is still wayyyy above reasonable - more in the category of cruel and unusuable punishment; and the poor artists won't ever see a cent of it.

[Mogut]

Not to mention, this is an industry that fabricates CRAP and capitalizes on fake talent. THEN gives them a grammy HAHAHAHAHA! If their sneaky enough

 

 

[The Real MC]

$1.9 million?

 

For a CIVIL case? For a mere 24 songs?!?

 

Way overboard.

 

There is already legal manuevering in progress to question the constitutionality of this egregious award.

[zephonic]

I earn most of my living with writing and recording music, and I think downloading and filesharing should just be legalized.

Not for any ideological reasons, but just as a matter of practicality. It's here, it's not going to go away so let's just deal with it.

And frankly, to all you who think it's wrong, have you never taped songs from the radio back in the day? Or exchange albums with friends and then tape them? Right, I though not.

 

So stop being so sanctimonious about it. All things considered, musicians now are better off than in the old days when the record companies reigned supreme.