Comments on: RIAA loses mistrial appeal

The Recording Industry Association of America has been dealt another blow in its only copyright infringement case to go to trial.

[Pete Bardo]

Good luck, Jammie! I'm wearin' my t-shirt.

[tm_anon]

If the RIAA wins, wouldn't that mean that under the same law, it's illegal to have any software or hardware that could possibly be used to rip and burn CDs, even if that software/hardware is being used only to make copies of something created by the user? In order to break a copyright law, you have to do something, namely, you have to copy that thing. Just being able to do so IS NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. I have blank CDs, I have music on my computer and I have burner software and a DVD-R drive, does this mean I should also be sued for potential copyright infringement and have to pay the RIAA 200k?

[Penguinisto]

The people 1, RIAA 0.

...and for the sake of all of us everywhere, and more importantly our right to not be bullied by extortionists by any means, legal or not.

[ittesi259]

So would it be illegal for an ISP to cut off service at the demand of the RIAA without going through the steps of changing their Terms of Service and giving the customers notification that they would do this? If I was cut off from my service for doing something someone though was illegal I would sue on the basis of the Terms of Service if they were not changed.

[Joe Nova]

Buy indie, non-major label music. Boycott SONY, EMI, and Warner Brothers music.

[vickita1961]

That's what I do. It's been years since I bought more than a handful of songs from anyone other than the hand of the musician, at a table at the back of the bar/tent/whatever. It's very satisfyiing, and the music is better.

[ralphmcmac]

Matey. I could not agree with you more. I Pretty much have been doing this consistently for the past 2-3 years. These companies have a right to make money but certainly not the right to screw people over which is what they have done for such a long time. I now buy music predominantly from bargain basement stores so I'm not adding to their profits. I don't purchase anything from Amazon regardless of how cheap it is because it's another plot to gain advantage. People will say it's about choice but ultimately it's about the music industry clawing back control because they failed to innovate. I want to see music distributed online for a cheap/decent fee. I'm not payjng more than £8:00 for an album any more.

[JeffW42]

If the RIAA was consistent, they would be suing the largest contingent of abusers who make their music available to others free of charge: public libraries!

[Penguinisto]

You do know that libraries pay an ASCAP fee, right?

[vickita1961]

"Under this new arrangement, users that the RIAA suspects of illegally sharing music will be asked to stop their activity."

So, all the RIAA has to do is *suspect* that someone is doing this, and boom, they're "convicted"? Greaaaaat, I feel so much better now.

[Dalkorian]

Well yeah, isn't that the American way? Guilty because we said you are, regardless of what you do or did. There are no "innocent" people charged, only the guilty. You can trust the RIAA, they would never lie to promote their illegal activities.

Oh wait.

[contentcreator--2008]

Everyone knows you have to put the quarter into the parking meter, or you get the big fine in the mail. It's the only way for things to work. Especially when not only are you not paying your parking, you're keeping everyone else from paying theirs too.

Massive copyright theft can not be allowed to become a way of life. This is an issue that CAN NOT be lost, the economic future of the world is based on intellectual development, not flipping burgers and tilling the soil --- not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)

[Imalittleteapot]

So, if I buy fruit seeds from someone who sells fruit seeds or just take the seeds from fruit they sell and grow more fruit at home and then share the fruit with my friends then is that illegal? I bought the CD and the seeds. I just happen to know how to grow more of both. How come I'm not allowed to grow more music and share that with my friends?

[sanenazok]

@teapot: CD's ain't fruit seeds. You're copying a finished product without authority. When you buy seeds, in order to get fruit, you need to first put in work and the product you're selling (fruit) reflects the work you've put into turning seeds into fruit. Copying CD's is just that- making copies.

[htimsleinad]

Actually, while at face value the fruit analogy seems to be flawed, it is important in the broader argument about intellectual properties. Fruit varieties are often protected by patents that do make it illegal to propagate them without permission form the developer. Arguing that they are different cases based on the amount of work required to reproduce the original is disingenuous.

If we are to to judge both cases of copying/growing by the same common sense reasoning, we should be paying artist directly for live performance (the actual creation of the product) and farmers fro growing produce. We should not be paying third parties for the promotion and distribution of something that is not really theirs.

[sanenazok]

@hti: why is my problem "disingenuous." What do patents have to do with anything here. When you buy fruit in the market, guess what, you're making sure that the grower is compensated. The market wouldn't buy fruit if nobody bought it. Unless you work for the government, people only get paid for completing actual work. So if some promoter or distributor is getting paid, that's because they did something worthwhile. Money, ain't fruit either, it doesn't grow on trees. In a modern economy, we pay for nothing directly...there are intermediaries for everything. What do you pay directly? Do you know why the world is set up in this way? It's the most efficient, "local food" dreams aside.

[jtjt145]

To contentcreator--2008: Obviously you are not thinking straight!
You are one of those modern day extortionists who think that a one-time performance in the studio will earn you a life without ever having to work in the future again. Imagine: Everybody around you rich and poor will will rush to make sure your blessed lifestyle will not run out of money.
Keep dreaming lad, but you are gonna be another roadkill of reality.
Joanna K

[Imalittleteapot]

Interesting responses here.

[Imalittleteapot]

sanenazok: Oh I see your point, but it does in fact take work to make CD copies. However, do to technology it takes significantly less. Are you saying because I found an easier way that I should no longer be able to do it?

[pbg3445]

And if you park at a meter with time still on it, are you a criminal?

Copyright is a limited right. It was set up to encourage the creation of intellectual and artistic work, so that, ultimately, the public domain would be enriched. Originally it wasn't even for the life of the creator.
Music is specially problematic: If music is publicly performed, distributed for free over the radio, where then is the absolute right of intellectual property? If copying a file is theft, isn't public broadcast throwing stuff out into the street?
It's made all the more difficult by the fact that the only way to sell music is largely to play it for people. So the only way to sell it is to give it away.
The world of the future will be built on information, it's true, but that does not mean that the future is served bylocking up that information and charging for its access. It's weird to those in the Econ 101 mindset, but vetrry often the best way to profit from information is to give it away.
That's why there is a public domain, even though corporations have been rtrying mightilyto destroy it.

[Imalittleteapot]

My prediction is they take her back to court, and then continue to publicly claim that they are no longer suing file sharers on the technicality that this case is one they were already pursing.

Second prediction is that they make these deals with the ISPs, but a few months or so down the road they produce some crackpot study with numbers that are hand selected to prove their point that since they claimed they weren't going to sue file sharers anymore P2P music piracy shot through the roof as proof that lawsuits deter piracy. Then they start suing people again as they continue to kick people off line in cooperation with the ISPs all based on the false assumption that you can accurately identify someone based on IP number alone.

Even though everyone one in your house and the guy next door and the wardriver across the street that is tapping into your wifi has the same IP as you. Question, if everyone you lived with had the same finger prints and some people that drove by your house knew a way to copy your finger prints as well, would we still use fingerprints in court even when no other evidence was available?

[sanenazok]

The "wardriver" theory was what she tried using in court and it didn't pass muster! I guess this will serve as an incentive to secure networks, no? Your question about fingerprints: sure people would still use it. It would greatly narrow down a list of suspects. In this chick's case there was other evidence: mostly she used the name username on the P2P network as she does for her e-mail. That's pretty darn good evidence that it was her...unless the eveeeeil wardriver did it. If she wins, she'll go out and find the real culprit...maybe write a book...maybe break into a hotel room to reclaim her property.

[Imalittleteapot]

You didn't really answer my question. There may have been other evidence in this case, but what if an IP number is all you had? Is that really enough?

[Dylan_Wisor]

http://thepiratebay.org/
Bite me, Warner Bros.

[Dalkorian]

Here here! Take what you can, give nothin' back! Aargh!

[D3vildog699]

OORAH!

[demented_pants]

I'm really not sure if this will go as far as the supreme court, seeing as how this is really not a constitutional issue. Additionally, there's a pretty solid body of precedent and law built up that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused - innocent until proven guilty, and that good old Fifth Amendment says you don't have to incriminate yourself.

[Dalkorian]

Precedent? Amendment? What is this witchery of which you speak? Caution friend, the RIAA may find you guilty of witchcraft if you keep this up! They already determined you are guilty, defending yourself is just a waste of taxpayer time and money.

What do we do with witches? BURN THEM! What do we burn with witches? MORE WITCHES!

"The night is black without a moon,
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.

Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.

The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.

They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness to danger us
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,
That those who know whats best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand."

- Rush, Witch Hunt (Moving Pictures)

[t8]

The answer to many woes is to be born with a static IP address embedded on an RFID chip and placed in your forehead or hand. When you access the network it is you and you alone and this will also enable all kinds of convenience too. If your number doesn't show up for some time, then you are presumed dead or trying to live without modern convenience.

Not saying I agree with it, but all the woes will lead to this, mark my words.

[Sausagebiscuit]

I can imagine the spam now. Hi Mr.t8 V1agra 4 U spam spam etc. Not to mention all of the privacy concerns that would raise.

Glad you see you don't agree with it.

[Sausagebiscuit]

No, it's not stealing. It MAY be Copyright Infringment, however.

[sanenazok]

The title of the story is very misleading: it implied that they lady won actually all she does is not loose on the motion for a new trial which she had already been granted. I don't think it matters very much in the end, all that will change is her story. Before it was that it "wasn't her" even though she used the same pseudonym as always. Now she'll demand that RIAA prove actual downloads. They'll put it to a jury and the jury will find infringement as to a few dozen works as opposed all the works she "made available." That's still a judgment in the tends of thousands.

[cohaver]

Format control and Technology RIAA Should spend more time Funding Technology and research into controlling it own Media Formats. Every user should have Fair use Rights when buying copyrighted media . In age Technology only Americans will pay the price in Courts. Technology Research into Format Controls Will be better in World wide Control of Media. RIAA members Use the Cheapest Format Distribution that Leaves big holes in the Format For Pirate Distribution. Using the Cheapest Format Technology is entrapment to the end user. If i left 1000.00 dollars cash in street how many people would take it. If i placed it in a Armored Truck how many people would take the cash.

[davewc39]

Let me tell you what i think about the RIAA. THEY ARE DESPERATE and crawling. Maybe, they would be know what if feel like to be one of us, that is 2 words "general public." The olds saying goes, if you arrest a prostitute in a corner, then that prostitute will pop up somewhere else at a different corner. Well, thats the same point that i'm making is, if you try to stop 1 software company, then 10 other software companies will pop up, so on and so on. The next thing for RIAA is a "bailout" for the recording companies. Well, i have news for them "i don't think so". Look, RIAA, if United Airlines and Circuit City can file Chaper 11, then you can do the same. United Airline is doing fine people are still flying. Circuit City is doing fine and people are still shopping. So, RIAA, if you know whats good for you and from the consumer. GET LOST!!! AND GET A LIFE. RIAA if you have to mess with people and the privacy of their own, then i have news for the RIAA, YOUR WEIRD AND A FRICKIN FREAK. I have news for the RIAA......BEWARE OF THE CONSUMERS, SOFTWARE, AND THE SUPREME COURT, BECAUSE WE ARE FIGHTING BACK TO KICK YOUR ASS.

[davewc39]

Let me tell you what i think about the RIAA. THEY ARE DESPERATE and crawling. Maybe, its about for them to know what if feel like to be one of us, that is 2 words "general public." The olds saying goes, if you arrest a prostitute in a corner, then that prostitute will pop up somewhere else at a different corner. Well, thats the same point that i'm making is, if you try to stop 1 software company, then 10 other software companies will pop up, so on and so on. The next thing for RIAA is a "bailout" for the recording companies. Well, i have news for them "i don't think so". Look, RIAA, if United Airlines and Circuit City can file Chaper 11, then you can do the same. United Airline is doing fine people are still flying. Circuit City is doing fine and people are still shopping. So, RIAA, if you know whats good for you and from the consumer. GET LOST!!! AND GET A LIFE. RIAA if you have to mess with people and the privacy of their own, then i have news for the RIAA, YOUR WEIRD AND A FRICKIN FREAK. I have news for the RIAA......BEWARE OF THE CONSUMERS, SOFTWARE, ISP (INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER) AND THE SUPREME COURT, BECAUSE WE ARE FIGHTING BACK TO KICK YOUR ASS.

[D3vildog699]

Crush The RIAA, Crush DRM

Sue me if you want, you'll put me in jail before i willingly give them any of my money for Crippled Media. You'll have to PULL the money from my accounts before i cut you a check. We aren't the only pirates in the water, the RIAA just has a bigger fleet.. for now..

[nicmart]

Why is it that Congress is so inept at writing laws -- even those which benefit political contributors -- that the courts are constantly called upon to resolve matters. Who benefits from this confusion?

[syberlink]

Both the RIAA and Directv sued a total of 60,000 people many of who were innocent. Even though they knew of their innocence, they collected money from them then locked them into an agreement not to tell or not to report them for the false court complaint. The US justice system refused to help those falsely accused and failed to stop the suits even though they knew the court complaints were bogus. To bring the justice system back into the fold of protecting innocent people, those falsely sued need to send a strong message. The next time they are a juror before a court, do just what Justice did to them. Ignore Justice. Cast your juror vote against justice. The next time you are a witness, do not come foreword. This way eventually Justice will learn what it is like to be ignored when crimes are committed against you by huge companies you never had a chance against. Huge corporations should not be immune from braking the laws just like the consumer.