Why the RIAA should have won (though the fine was too high)

The Recording Industry Association of America probably should have won its lawsuit against a Minnesota woman accused of sharing songs through the Kazaa file-sharing network.

There was enough evidence linking Jammie Thomas' computer to an IP address that was offering a slew of copyrighted songs to other Kazaa users. A jury in Minnesota, hardly the record labels' home turf, unanimously thought so too.

The problem isn't the verdict. It's the penalty.

After decades of special-interest lobbying by large holders of intellectual property rights, U.S. copyright law has spiraled out of control. It's been transformed from limited protections of authors' rights for 14 years to a juggernaut with criminal enforcement, sky-high penalties, and up to 120 years of legal protection.

Copyright no longer abides by the fundamental principle of law, which is that the damages awarded should be related to any harm committed. No wonder Jammie Thomas got slapped with a $222,000 bill. (And I wouldn't be surprised to see attorney's fees add another $100,000 on top of it.)

"It doesn't strike a regular person that by passing a CD around the neighborhood, they should have their house taken away," says Lew Rockwell, president of the free-market Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. "And by electronic means it shouldn't be any different."

Copyright law is, as Berkeley law professor Pam Samuelson points out, way too verbose; it's now swollen to an unbelievable 200 pages long. It's complex, incomprehensible, designed to favor large copyright holders over defendants, and thoroughly out of touch with reality.

This should be no surprise. The technical term for this is "rent-seeking," meaning special-interest coalitions who pressure the government to transfer wealth to them. The general public (reasonably) can't keep track of the minutiae of proposals to expand copyright law, but RIAA lobbyists can devote 100 percent of their time to the job. What happens is that copyright law continues to clamp down on Americans, inexorably, like a ratchet.

Consider what aggressive rent-seeking has achieved for the music and movie industries--and some certain large software companies--in the last decade alone: The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (more P2P penalties). The No Electronic Theft Act (file-swapping criminalized).

So what should Jammie Thomas have been required to pay? She's accused of sharing 24 songs, or two CDs worth. We don't know how many people downloaded those songs, but if 10 people did, that's perhaps $250 in value. If 100 people did, that's $2,500, and so on.

Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University, is no fan of copyright law at all. (He'd abolish it.) But his suggested penalties for physical larceny are worth taking into account. "My view is two teeth for a tooth, plus expenses, plus cost of capturing, plus a scaring penalty" that would provide additional deterrence and avoid allowing the wealthy to flout the law, he said on Friday. In other words, let the punishment fit the crime.

Under the judge's interpretation of copyright law, unfortunately, the RIAA wasn't required to prove how many songs were downloaded. Maybe nobody did; maybe thousands of people did. All the RIAA needed to do is prove Thomas made them "available" through Kazaa.

Although we can't make any reasonable estimate, we can nevertheless say it's unlikely that Thomas would be required to pay $222,000 plus attorneys fees if copyright law were reasonable, fair, and just. But it is now none of those, so she is.

[Renegade Knight]

Won?

Yeah they won the battle.<br />Did they win the war?

[DougDbug]

They won big-time!

This is the first case to go to a jury, and the RIAA won. It's not a lot of money to the RIAA, but it's a lot to an individual. Anyone who is has been caught, now knows they bad better take any settlement offer they can get. <br /><br />Up to this point, it wasn't clear if the RIAA would ever be able to prove it's case to a jury. This outcome changes everything!<br /><br />This will put a "dent" in file sharing. Maybe not a huge dent, but at this very moment thousands of people are "cleaning" their hard drives, and thousands of parents are warning their children, "You better not do it!"

[georgiarat]

I Believe She May Have Shared the Music

If she did then it was illegal. What bothers me beyond the <br />expansion of Copyright to the degree it is, is the nature of the <br />law itself. The RIAA did not have to prove anyone ever <br />downloaded a song only that it was available. So, could that be <br />expanded to mean someone who has books in a public room <br />with a copier could be charged because it was possible <br />someone COULD copy the book. I know this only applies to <br />Digital content for now but one never knows what a judge will <br />do to expand the law if given an opportunity. The law as <br />defined in ridiculous and its application by the RIAA is next to <br />criminal in itself.

[Pete Bardo]

You go, Georgia!

This core arguments of this case are not limited to digital content. The statute cited in the judge's instructions to the jury appears to pertain to any copyrighted work.<br /><br />And this is really the reason we can not idly watch as RIAA rips our world apart. If they have their way, it will be illegal for us to rip a cd for storage on our own MP3 player.<br /><br />We've all been sold on this new technology, but it's turning out that if we use the equipment to do what the salesmen have told us the stuff will do, we have broken a law!<br /><br />Then consider this. If it is illegal to copy and distribute copyrighted works, is it also illegal to be in possession of these new age bootlegs? Are we going to need to save records of how we acquired each and every mp3 on out iPods? <br /><br />OMG, this really sucks!

[madmax2008]

downloaders are in the wrong, not the file sharer

thats the core concept that has been violated, at least in Canada the courts ruled that the file sharer is not committing a crime<br /><br />someone could have a rip of CDs they own, and the file sharing program will scan your harddrive and make these available for sharing, and these programs auto start when the computer starts, most computer users do not have that much technical knowledge to even know that this had happened.<br /><br />what if you have an open share on your harddrive and no file sharing programs installed? Are you still going to be fined because of lack of computer knowledge?

[nicmart]

Excellent

That is a very fine commentary by CNET's best writer.

[contentcreator--2008]

Damages could be too low, too.

RIAA only pursued 24 songs out of 1700 on her computer to keep things manageable. A higher estimate could be 1700 songs * 100 avg downloads/song * $1.00/download: $170,000. Plus, once uploaded, a song can continue to be distributed indefinitely into the future, even if the machine is disconnected. So one person can do a lot of damage.<br /><br />The professor who thinks copyright law should be abolished should quit his job and write a book about it --- once copyright is the only thing putting food on his table see what happens.<br /><br />If you want to listen to music, watch movies, use software --- don't steal it. Nobody *has* to make it for you to steal.

[zhumanji]

What's the point of this comment?

The damages were over $50,000 GREATER than your own example. And your example was based off 1700, not 24. Maybe they should have charged her with the full 1700 songs, then she would have paid LESS, according to your calculations.<br /><br />By your own example, she should have only paid $2,400. Are you by chance in corporate accounting?

[Soc6]

Research does a mind good.

Do you mean Prof. Block should write a book like these books? Maybe he should help others write books too. Oh yeah he has. <br /><br />As author:<br /><br /> * Defending the Undefendable (1976; translated into Chinese, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian languages) ISBN 0-930073-05-3<br /> * A Response to the Framework Document for Amending the Combines Investigation Act (1982)<br /> * Focus on Economics and the Canadian Bishops (1983)<br /> * Focus on Employment Equity: A Critique of the Abella Royal Commission on Equality in Employment (with Michael A. Walker; 1985)<br /> * The U.S. Bishops and Their Critics: An Economic and Ethical Perspective (1986)<br /> * Lexicon of Economic Thought (with Michael A. Walker; 1988)<br /> * Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995 (with James Gwartney, Robert Lawson; 1996)<br /> * The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors (2006)<br /><br />As editor:<br /><br /> * Zoning: Its Costs and Relevance for the 1980s (Ed.; 1980)<br /> * Rent Control: Myths &#38; Realities (Ed. with Edgar Olsen; 1981)<br /> * Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (Ed. with Michael A. Walker; 1982)<br /> * Taxation: An International Perspective (Ed. with Michael A. Walker; 1984)<br /> * Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation (Ed.; 1985; translated into Portuguese 1992) ISBN 0-88975-067-X<br /> * Morality of the Market: Religious and Economic Perspectives (Ed. with Geoffrey Brennan, Kenneth Elzinga; 1985)<br /> * Theology, Third World Development and Economic Justice (Ed. with Donald Shaw; 1985)<br /> * Reaction: The New Combines Investigation Act (Ed.; 1986)<br /> * Religion, Economics &#38; Social Thought (Ed. with Irving Hexham; 1986)<br /> * Man, Economy and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard (Ed. with Lew Rockwell; 1988)<br /> * Breaking the Shackles; the Economics of Deregulation: A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Experience (Ed. with George Lermer; 1991)<br /> * Economic Freedom: Toward a Theory of Measurement (Ed.; 1991)<br /> * Libertarian Autobiographies (Ed.; forthcoming)

[declan00]

Damages and 24 vs. 1700

A few points:<br />1. Another poster already listed the books the good professor has written, so I don't need to.<br />2. You're right that the defendant might have shared 1700 songs. But that figure wasn't proven in a court of law (was the evidence sound?) so I'm going with the 24-song figure.<br />3. You're right that the song can continue to be distributed indefinitely, but so can a ripped CD. Each CD is a digital master copy. Same with unprotected iTunes purchases, Emusic, etc. So that's an interesting but not necessarily telling point.

[dbsnider]

Your IQ could be too low, too.

The copyright law is supposed to address the right to copy. The plaintiff was not copying the music. The downloaders were. If anyone should be fined, it is those who downloaded without paying. The RIAA can go about seeking to fine each downloader $1.00 per song.<br /><br />If you had a copy of my book on your desk, and someone came along and borrowed it from you, then went and made 10,000 copies of it, should I be able to hold you liable for each illegitimate copy that was made without your direct involvement?

[contentcreator--2008]

It's called Rationalizing

Of course the prof has written some books while being paid a nice cushy university salary. It comes with the job. Been there, done that. Like I said, would he only write books without the job, if no one paid? Is that what you want---everyone who creates intellectual property to have another job, writing books, music, movies, as a hobby on the side? <br /><br />And just because there was already an existing, less convenient, way to appropriate intellectual property doesn't make an easier way right.<br /><br />If I borrow your book, walk into a print shop, hand it to the guy behind the counter, and say "do what you want" there's no doubt that you're going to be held liable for anything he does, and that's exactly what you're doing by setting up your machine to share copyrighted content.<br /><br />Yes the downloaders are in the wrong too, but so is the person making it possible. Just like a "fence" for stolen goods. <br /><br />I'm not a fan of record labels, it's my assumption that they will be disintermediated soon. But keep in mind that it's not just the headlining artist and label whose income you are stealing. The labels are generally paying for the rest of the little guys, the studio musicians, the recording studio, all the guys listed in fine print and more.<br /><br />When I read all the postings in these threads, they pretty much all just smell of people who don't want to pay their fair share, trying all kind of weasel-y rationalizations for why they shouldn't have to. <br /><br />Someday maybe you'll get a job, and your pay will depend on people paying for your hard work. And if they steal it, you won't be paid. Then we'll see.

[laughability]

$1.00 per download is WAY TOO HIGH

When trying to figure out damages in a lawsuit like this one, you can't just assign retail price to each download and count that as "lost revenue." That's completely inaccurate. First of all, the record companies don't collect $1.00 for every download; secondly, when the price is free, a lot more people are going to download it than if the price was $1.

[0neplusone]

Let I help U

I would like to help you to do some simple syphern and merlterpleyein.<br />1 song at $1.00 per download = $1.00<br />1700 songs at $1.00 per download = $1700.00<br />Now aint that there a little sumpin, sumpin special....<br />I hope I have helped you and the AAIR..I know its crooked and basacwards but so is the RIAA.<br />I would like to ask everyone to stop buying music.<br />Tell everyone you know to know longer buy any music.<br />I would like to thank Radio Head for their great move.Everyone Please, Go buy the new Radio Head CD.<br />Outa here like a rocket!!!!!<br />zooooom&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

[0neplusone]

TalkBack: Damages could be too low, too.

I would like to help you to do some simple syphern and merlterpleyein.<br />1 song at $1.00 per download = $1.00<br />1700 songs at $1.00 per download = $1700.00<br />Now aint that there a little sumpin, sumpin special....<br />I hope I have helped you and the AAIR..I know its crooked and basacwards but so is the RIAA.<br />I would like to ask everyone to stop buying music.<br />Tell everyone you know to know longer buy any music.<br />I would like to thank Radio Head for their great move.Everyone Please, Go buy the new Radio Head CD.<br />Outa here like a rocket!!!!!<br />zooooom&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

[zhumanji]

How about a little math...

So if she was required to pay $220,000 that's the equivilent of around 11,000 worth of physical CD sales. An artist will make roughly $0.17 from each unit, which works out to $1,870. It's a little better if the artist wrote all their own songs, too: $0.25 x 11,000 = $2,750; A top-name artist (like, say, Bob Dylan) might make as much as $2 from each CD sale: $2.00 x 11,000 = $22,000<br /><br />As you can see, any way you slice it the artist is going to get screwed. Of course, I should mention also that the only way the artist would receive any of this legal income at all is if it is specifically covered in their contract--NOT a standard provision by any means.<br /><br />I'm almost proud of the jerks, actually. They've been screwing the people who make the music for decades. Now their screwing the people who buy it, too. If you've got stock in the big labels, I urge you to SELL. Like, now.

[bluemarko1234]

Backup?

I've seen these comments a few times. Does anybody have any real evidence that the majority or even a small percentage of artists get such a small amount from a CD? Given that anybody with even a modicum of success seems to have unlimited funds, that would imply they are selling tens of millions of copies, and that just isn't so, except for the really big acts.<br /><br />And what does that mean: "...if it is specifically covered in their contract--NOT a standard provision by any means"? You're telling me most contracts don't allow for royalties? I find that pretty hard to believe, does anybody have any backup on that claim?

[Warren Taylor]

RIAA

Lets see these are the same people who brought us price fixing and payola, so we'd by what they wanted us too at their prices and now they sue. Oh and by the way, aren't these same record companies owned by the corporations who make the hardware and control the phone/cables lines that in able people to share information? oops I mean copy illegally.

[Warren Taylor]

RIAA

Lets see these are the same people who brought us price fixing and payola, so we'd buy what they wanted us too at their prices and now they sue. Oh and by the way, aren't these same record companies owned by the corporations who make the hardware and control the phone/cables lines that in able people to share information? oops I mean copy illegally.

[doubtful1]

amen

"I'm almost proud of the jerks, actually. They've been screwing the people who make the music for decades. Now they're screwing the people who buy it, too."<br /><br />i couldn't have said it better. i've been making the same argument since the start of all this. it's simply a demonstration that what goes around comes around. the jerks that run the entertainment industry have gotten rich off of too many less than business savvy artists over the years. they've legally absconded with the works and dollar value of these people then shoved them aside when they had no use for them anymore. <br />i hope internet music distribution eventually puts the thieving record companies out of business completely. then they won't be able to foist musical turds like ashley simpson and britney spears on us.

[atglabs]

Her Defense Sucked

I take exception with the presumption that Jammie really did all that file sharing, primarily because her attorney failed to show that folksy jury that even one or two of them could be found guilty just as they did Jammie.<br /><br /><br />I was particularly dismayed by the defense saying that there were many exploit techniques that could have made it look like she was doing the downloading, but then just rattling off some buzz words like bot, rootkit, etc. to a non-technical jury.<br /><br /><br />I work in the security industry and it is trivial to infect a computer so that I remotely can intercept what the user sees and types, making it easy to get her username for various web sites and such.<br /><br /><br />It's also easy then to remotely install a P2P file sharing program so that the user never sees it. I could then populate the hidden music folders by downloading from other p2p sites, and share the downloaded files back to the network. I could also remotely copy the music files from the hijacked computer to my system without exposing my IP address or running P2P software.<br /><br /><br />In other words, I can make it look just like Jammie had downloaded and was sharing the music, with her being completely unaware of my use of her computer.<br /><br /><br />Additionally, since remote exploits by hackers are often unstable and can overwrite critical parts of the hard drive, it would explain why she had to have the hard drive replaced.<br /><br /><br />Why, oh why, don't defense lawyers ever want to shed a little ego and consult with security experts when a little googling would show that a security breach could easily have been at fault. Just rattling off name like BOT, Hijack, Rootkit, etc. without trying to find out what they are and what they could do to aid your defense position, seems to be neglect of duty by the attorney.<br /><br /><br />I don't think he even set it up so that an appeal based on these techniques could be made, mostly because he didn't get the "finding of facts" to cover such exploits.<br /><br /><br />Sorry Jammie -- I don't think anyone was expecting your defense to be so poorly done.<br /><br /><br />Jerry

[Martiniman86]

I totally agree...

I am an intermediately tech savvy person and I'm also a lawyer. I think the defense totally dropped the ball on this case. I don't know how to set up a BOT or a Rootkit because I never had the need nor the desire but I could just Google the info and accomplish it if I were a malicious person, which I am not. Though, I did just Google the info while writing this comment and learned that there is a wide variety of firmware rootkits that would allow me to install malicious software on an unsecured wireless router that would allow me to then gain access to the host machine on that network. From there I would have cart-blanch to do a lot of downloading. I have three people in my apartment building out of the 12 that have wireless routers that I could do this to, hypothetically speaking of course. That is just one method people! (Lock your routers people! Duh! Read your routers install guide...) That means in my case I could exploit one quarter of the networks in my apartment building to do my bidding. There are tons of other methods. All the defense had to do is create reasonable doubt by suggesting that simply a neighbor was using her computer as a proxy. Among other ways of creating doubt via all other available methods.

[dargon19888]

OK sherlock, riddle me this...

She ditched her hard drive one month after she was served. Not a year earlier.<br /><br />She also used an id that was known and easily traced back to her.<br /><br />Third, the fact that she used the service and placed the music to be available, the intent was there. Hence the judge's rule to the jury.<br /><br />She's no poster boy to be used to attack the RIAA and their thug like actions.<br /><br />Her lawyer had his hands tied and the "hacker-x" excuse isn't plausible.

[anonymous1977]

I agree but...

How do you prove this in court? How do you prove to a jury something happened or possibly could happen, if you have nothing tangible to document those theories. If you have no documentation to support those theories, the RIAA would have objected to any testimony of those theories as hearsay and had it thrown out as evidence.<br /><br />I agree the defense could have done a better job, but you also have to remember the financial constraints she was under. Experts have to be paid and where was she going to find the money for that?<br /><br />Hindsight is always 20/20 and there are many things that could now possibly have helped her defense, but it wasn't until after this case started that this information was becoming public, not before. Maybe if she wins an appeal, all this information will find a way into the case that was not available to her before, and given by people who are willing to show how these theories are possible without it costing her a small fortune.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Amen

Anyone who believes that you can secure a Windows platform to the extent necessary to protect against PC identity theft is living in a dream world. <br /><br />No one can secure an undocumented, closed source operating system. Period. You don't have a clue what is really in it. I have seen Windows boxes configured to the most paranoid settings possible (see <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nsa.gov/snac/index.cfm?MenuID=scg10.3.1" target="_newWindow">http://www.nsa.gov/snac/index.cfm?MenuID=scg10.3.1</a>) hijacked in under a day in so-thought 'safe' networks. You can't secure what you can't see, what you don't even know is there.<br /><br />Her lawyer really, really sucked. <br /><br />You'd think the EFF would have at least offered to have some credible computer experts on hand to testify on the defendant's behalf. They could have set up a quick demo, shown the techno-rubes of the jury just how easy is is for me to become you, without your SSAN, just your IP address. <br /><br />Hell, all they needed to show was that she had a crappy (or blank) Windows user password and an XP box with remote desktop sharing (aka WTS) enabled.<br /><br />Perhaps the best way to defend against this kind of crap is to turn off our firewalls, rip out the A/V software, blank the passwords, fart off the security patches, then make the a-holes at the RIAA prove Windows is trustworthy enough to record accurate forensic data. (Not even close)<br /><br />This will make anyone think twice about cooperating in any more EFF legal misadventures.

[perzi71]

RIAA

Apparently, Declan McCullagh, is on the side of big buisness and government. Well all I can say isit`s the beginning of the end, of freedom that is. I think Nazi Germany started with the government intervening in private people`s lives.

[declan00]

You found me out. I admit it.

Yep, I'm on the side of big business and big government. You found me out. <br /><br />Never mind that the main point of the article was //attacking// big business rent-seeking in Washington DC.<br /><br />Never mind that I interviewed and quoted Lew Rockwell, who has devoted his life to //criticizing// big government.<br /><br />Never mind that I interviewed and quoted Walter Block, who is an anarcho-capitalist who would actually abolish almost all of the federal government (maybe all of it, I haven't had that exact conversation with him).<br /><br />Yep, you found me out.<br /><br />Note to everyone else: This is sarcasm. And it shows what happens when someone doesn't read beyond the headline.

[mattumanu]

RE: RIAA

"I think nazi germany started with the government intervening in private people`s lives"...<br /><br />Why is it, that with all the resources available to people these days, it's still impossible for modern people to get any kind of fact in their heads and form a coherent thought? <br /><br />That's not what happened and Nazi Germany.

[pikal99]

War?

Ask the lady that has to pay the 222k+ She will say the RIAA won the war.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Unless

We were to pass the hat and collect enough to pay it for her....

[-fjtorres-]

Not quite...

A better example might be to say she made a bunch of photocopies of a book and put them outside the local Borders.<br />At that point it doesn't matter if anybody read the copies or just tossed them in the trash or ignored them. The violation is in offering them up. In the eyes of the law, she was publishing somebody else's content.<br />You folks remember the terminology from Apple's old propietary network file sharing over Appletalk?<br />Publish and subscribe?<br />Well, she was publishing music over Kazaa.<br />The law doesn't require subscribers; only the publishing.<br />Don't like the law?<br />Call your congressman and/or senator and tell them to change it.<br />But as long as the law stands, publishing somebody else's property, even for free, is illegal.<br />*That's* what the jury (properly) said.<br /><br />BTW, the jury *could* have fined her a whole lot less than $200K. ($750 per song instead of $9000 per song). They chose not to. Think about that, children.<br />They just saw no reason to cut her a break.

[Userxyz1234]

What parents should do

I have a teanager son. He does not want to carry CD player - just MP3. But I am not allowing him to make mp3, as when they are on our family computer - they are not safe. My computer educated friend explained how easy is to make a computer "Zoombie", you just have to miss a few windows security updates. So if he makes mp3, they can be downloaded by other people and then I'll get a big bill from RIAA. I talked to other parents in the class, and some do the same, but most say that is not as big problem as it looks to me. But till somebody will guarantee that I'll not be sued for my own music, my son will have to listen to radio, even if it is online radio. Have not bought a single CD in the last 4 years, and actually had to return or re-gift 5 CD that were given as a gift to him. I just showed this article to him, and now he understands why we have this rule in our house.

[AlchemicalOne]

You really shouldn't worry.

There's really very little chance that your computer could ever happen to a computer provided you have a decent virus scanner. Also, a zombie computer is usually used for denial of service attacks and spam, not p2p file sharing or using your IP. Creating a zombie for filesharing is slightly pointless. <br /><br />These zombie programs usually come tied to some software, usually something that seems nice and useful but becomes a pain once downloaded.<br /><br />More than likely if you're accused of using p2p for sharing music it's because:<br /><br />A) You were or someone with access to the computer was.<br />B) Your wireless network is not secure.<br /><br />Reason A is pretty self explanitory. B is something most people need to learn, you don't leave your home network open unless you plan to be responsible for what happens on it. A little common sense goes a long way, and is much better than becoming insecure and basically limiting yourself.

[jpg366]

If OJ can do it, so can she

I suggest any of us who get on such a jury go for "jury nullification." There is no good reason for such draconian law, and there is nothing they can do to us if we vote to acquit.

[PhillyGeek]

US LAW IS ASS BACKWARDS

This shows how screwed up this country is really is - Rape a 5 year and you only get 3-5 out in 2.5 years for good behavoir to commit the crime again - Share a few songs and lose any future financial and get slammed to never recover. <br /><br />This jury, judge and this country are a joke just like the RIAA - they aren't protecting anything other then money in there own pocket.<br /><br />Welcome to the new communinst USA - and the start of a new cold war oppsite the last - Russia is free and we are confined. Personally i wish this girl would have consulted an IT professional - To spoof and IP is not hard and that would have left enough doubt to at least get the idiot people of the jury thinking - A personal note who was her lawyer because they should be sued for malpractice - what a law firm of **********!

[bluemarko1234]

Stupidity

These types of comment are just that, stupidity.<br /><br />Come on, she connected to Kazaa so she herself could download illegally. That they happened to nail her for supplying downloads just goes to illustrate that the law DOES make it hard to convict on this point.<br /><br />But you know she did it on purpose, she certainly knows that, and any fake "well it could have been anybody" defense is just a con, plain and simple. Maybe she could have made the claim more convincingly, who knows, but I for one am glad she didn't convince a jury to ignore common sense.

[staypuff]

Copyright Law

Well, I think the copyright law was made for big business. When someone goes out and lay down his hard earned money to by this stuff. They expect it to be theirs. But no, it only means that you are renting this CD or DVD and tapes. You don't own them. The law should be changed to when you lay down the money for it all. The rights should change over to that person that paid for it. Otherwise, in short. Big business is doing legalize stealing from the consumer. And getting away with it.

[chuck_whealton]

Re; Copyright Law

I agree with you that I don't like paying for something with copyrighted material and not actually OWNING it. I don't mean owning the work itself in that I can make copies AND sell them, but basically (as you stated) we are just renting the material and also have to submit to it with all of it's copy protection schemes.<br /><br />My infant occasionally damages (i.e. - scratches) DVDs without realizing it. I don't always catch it before it happens. With what goes on nowadays, I can't even legally make backup copies of the DVDs I purchased because of the copy protection on them. Yet I legally purchased them. I don't see anybody in Hollywood offering to replace them for the cost of the media. After all, I DID purchase the RIGHT to use the copyrighted material on the damaged media, right?<br /><br />There's another thing I've noticed with patent protection versus copyright protection, and some have disagreed with me on it - no problem there...<br /><br />Somebody should do a story on length of copyright protection time for a song versus length of patent protection time for a lifesaving pharmaceutical.<br /><br />Looks to me like the pharmaceutical ends up loosing patent protection WAY before copyrighted audio works. Billions of dollars usually go into producing a single lifesaving pharmaceutical and those patents are usually good for a bit over 20 years, depending on a number of factors, if I understand correctly.<br /><br />I don't necessarily consider that unreasonable.<br /><br />However, after 1977 the copyright protection for a song is good for the life of the author plus 70 years, 95 - 120 years depending on other factors and there are other rules for works prior to 1977.<br /><br />Now with people's feelings against pharmaceutical companies aside, you're telling me that a pharmaceutical company can spend billions of dollars producing a life saving drug, loose patent protection in 20+ years, but the RIAA can continue filing legal actions for 70+ years for copyrighted songs (depending on a number of factors)?<br /><br />I'm sorry, but it seems to me there's a problem here, and it's not the length of time it takes for a pharmaceutical patent to expire.<br /><br />I feel that there's no way a song should get longer protection than a lifesaving drug. Again, this is putting any feelings against pharmaceutical companies aside.<br /> <br />Charles R. Whealton<br />Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[staypuff]

And another Thing

It used to be by law that you could make one <br />copy for backup. In case anything happens to<br />the original. I know that "Big Business" was <br />trying to change that Law. I was wondering <br />if they had succeeded in doing so. If your <br />product gets damage they should replace it.<br />Like Computer companies, You go out and buy<br />a brand new computer from places like Best Buy, <br />Office depot and other places like that. 9 times <br />out of 10. You will not get the software that is <br />loaded in that machine on disks or CD's. And a lot<br />of people that don't know that their restore software might be on a partition called D:\ and if <br />they had a DL DVD recorder where they can record that for backup software. If they have a melt down<br />they will not have software to install back on the machine. So, where do you get the software other than buy everything that came on it. Or pay the tech support of the store to put things back on. Sorry, just another beef about, how big business screws the consumer.

[gearpig]

copyright law

You show a gross lack of understanding for what copyright law is about. I write music. I publish my CDs my self online. I am not big business. I am very small business. Copyright law is as much for me as for the big labels. When I create music, I should have the right to make the profits for myself, or not, as I see fit. Not as some lame file-sharing self-righteous jerk who wants to steal music sees fit.<br /><br />Downloading someone's music without paying for it IS stealing. Rationalizing it, crying about it, screaming about it or name calling does not change that. <br /><br />If you don't like being called a thief, don't steal. If you you steal, get used to being called a thief, and the consequences that go along with it. If you download music that you should be paying for, you are a thief just like the guy who robs a bank or breaks into a house. Thieves suck. Got it?

[t8]

The world is a sorry place

Perhaps it's just as well it won't be around forever.

[aaydogan]

RIAA and record labels: Go to H*ll!

You are no longer needed by any one. If someone wants to <br />express themselves through their art then they should do so for <br />the pure satisfaction of it. Who says that the creators of intellectual <br />property deserve to be compensated indefinitely? If you want to <br />make a living try some other line of work. If you feel the need to <br />express yourself then publish directly, let the consumers who truly <br />appreciate your creativity reward you directly and let the the <br />untalented corporate jerks who can't carry a tune to save <br />themselves go to hell.

[rfielding]

Most of the music industry artists could be tossed in jail on drug charges

When an Islamic country gives a death penalty to a mother for <br />adultery, people manage to see past the fact that adultery is <br />illegal and wrong just about everywhere, and protest loudly <br />about the fact that the punishment in no way fits the crime. <br /><br />If this is the price of having an American Entertainment Industry, <br />then I'd much prefer to see full-time, professional art become a <br />thing of the past. Civilization can put talented people to better <br />uses.<br /><br />What civilization cannot have, is the risk of a family shattering <br />event caused by a petty crime that every kid will eventually <br />commit - sharing what should not be shared. Even record <br />industry executives have kids commiting this crime, and they <br />aren't having their lives confiscated. The great irony is that <br />sharing is one of the most important values that kids are taught, <br />which is not problematic when dealing with physical objects.<br /><br />No amount of advertising is going to fix this. The entertainment <br />industry is the enemy now. The lesson in this penalty is that you <br />should stay far, far away from commercial entertainment; the <br />lesson about stealing is almost secondary.<br /><br />Let the stone throwing begin. If the music industry really <br />believes in the rule of law, most of the artists that create their <br />content should be doing their prison sentences for drug <br />charges.

[aunjar]

Play with Fire, Get Burned!

Let?s face it, we all new that it would only be a matter of time before the record and movie industries started really cracking down on the common everyday sap.<br /><br />This poor woman is just paying the price for being stupid. In fact, according to studies many of us, especially teens are being stupid every time we make our music available on a peer to peer site.<br /><br />This is just the Recording Industry Association of America - RIAA, the big boys finally being able to make good on their threats to bring the full weight of the law down on scofflaws.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I for one firmly believe that if I buy something, whether it is a CD or DVD it should be mine and I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Unfortunately, the law says otherwise.<br /><br />My suggestion for anyone who does not like the law is simply this? Make them change it, don't buy the music, don?t buy the movie.<br /><br />We spend billions, maybe more on CD's and DVD's and the best way to tell them no is to show them. But, herein lies the problem... How do you organize such a movement? How do get the masses to work together?<br /><br />It's difficult enough to organize the people in you neighborhood to have a successful block party. Imagine what it would take to achieve something of this proportion.<br /><br />Until someone finds a way to make it happen remember... Play With Fire, Get Burned!

[mike.gw]

Yep, the writing was on the wall years ago!

Back when the original Napster was hot, I loved it. In fact, I think Napster may have helped jumpstart the move to broadband for many. I know I switched from dialup to cable so that I could enjoy my Napster searches with minimal delay. Admittedly, I was not a good Napster participant. Because I didn't want my computer slowed down by other Napster queries, I always turned off the option that allowed my computer to share my music files. I only used it to find a particular song I liked and downloaded it on occassion.<br /><br />Once I saw the RIAA getting involved in lawsuits against Napster and their users, I uninstalled the software, and never resorted to the alternatives that cropped up like Kazaa or BitTorrent. Then again, I never had to, because iTunes and the iTunes Music Store seemed to come along just in time. I thought that 99 cents was very reasonable for individual downloaded tracks, and searching, paying, downloading and loading my iPod were made very simple by this iTunes software.<br /><br />I never wanted to steal music. I just wanted to find it easily, buy just want I wanted, and obtain it at a reasonable price. iTunes allowed that where traditional CD sales did not. In fact, I purchase all my music via iTunes, and plan to do the same with movies as well. I'd rather have mu AV library on central digital storage, than individual disks any day. Organizing is just so must easier.<br /><br />Like aunjar said, Play with fire, Get Burned. iTunes/iPod/Apple TV, for me, is the way to go. Simple, affordable and legal.