Comments on: Usenet.com ruling, a 'whittling down' of Betamax defense

Judge's ruling against Usenet.com, its lawyer says, undercuts classic immunity against liability in copyright cases. The RIAA disagrees.

[Havoc70]

RIAA, MPAA both a couple of Leech companies doing nothing but harassing the public, useless idiots

[Lerianis3]

I have to agree, but to play Devil's Advocate...... Usenet.com had to have known that what they were doing was BLATANTLY illegal. Advertising ANY service as a way to get illegal ANYTHING is not a good idea and is illegal in itself, to be blunt.

[Renegade Knight]

@Lerianis3

Offering a news service isn't blatantly illegal. The entire case stemmed from them knowing that it was used for illegal file transfers. The same issue exists universally. If this is taken to it's logical extreme, every digital media distribution method and all companeis that distribe, move, or ship are also liable. That's all MP3 makers. All trucking companies. the USPS, UPS, Fed Ex. All computer makes. Monster Cable etc.

There is a reason Sony Betamax won. The real question is now "at what point does a company who full well knows it's services, products, etc. are used for illegal things have to interceede? Should Usenet check every posted message? Should the USPS open every package? Should monster cable build in a sniffer into their already expensive cables?

[baggyguy1218]

If the RIAA does not like there product to be copied and transfered, then they should stop making that product until they find a way of making it impossible to do so.

[Lerianis3]

Renegade Knight, you are right: just offering a news service is not illegal. However, advertising a news service online as a way to get ILLEGAL MOVIES AND MUSIC is illegal, and that is what I was trying to point out. These companies in question who are offering access to Usenet should NEVER use the 'illegal' word in their advertisements in any way, shape or form.

[Altotus]

You bet your ass the public is inflamed the law makers will have to tale this in the teeth not the RIAA lets lay responsibility where it belongs the political leadership of America.

[Lerianis3]

Yep, you are exactly right. The way that companies are able to get away with things like this are because our politicians are in the hands of the corporations and have not realized that most people's idea of 'stealing' has changed to only encompass actual PHYSICALLY TANGIBLE things..... not things like online downloads.

[contentcreator--2008]

No, Lerianis, you're wrong --- you only WANT to promulgate this idea that only tangible things have to be paid for, or that most people believe that. It is completely and utterly idiotic in today's world, where much of the value added and effort spent by people is on intangible intellectual efforts. The idea that "bits are free" will not and can never work. The majority of people realize that -- but some people just don't want to pay, and don't want to get caught. We can negotiate about price, but only when there is no stealing.

[unknown unknown]

@contentcreator--2008 Technically he is right, stealing and copyright infringement are different. The these large media companies have succeeded in co-opting the term.

"you only WANT to promulgate this idea that only tangible things have to be paid for, or that most people believe that"

If various surveys, comments by representatives from the U.S Dept. of Commerce, and the speeches at CISAC's World Copyright Summit by those in the entertainment industry and certain members of congress, known for their support of said industry, are to believed then their is sizable chunk of the population that do believe it.


"It is completely and utterly idiotic in today's world, where much of the value added and effort spent by people is on intangible intellectual efforts. The idea that "bits are free" will not and can never work."

Oh but it does work. The ones that give the bits away free just make their money else where. Trent Reznor for example, has been very successful with this model. He gave his last album and 400GB of high def concert footage away as free downloads but still managed to make millions selling CDs, tickets, and other premiums (eg. http://theslip.nin.com/physical/). Clearly it can work for some, which is a lot different than never.

[Lerianis3]

unknown unknown gets it right: The fact is that people who give away their products online are MORE than able to make up the difference elsewhere. Sure, they will not get 'super-rich' in most cases of their products anymore, but they WILL be able to make a good 100K a year and have a middle class life, which is basically all you need really.

I'm middle class and am pretty happy with the way that things have turned out for me thus far.

[Charybidis]

Hey, let's litigate to make money since we can't generate the album sales we used to 20 years ago.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

Next RIAA will sue hard drive manufacturers for "facilitating piracy", since much like hammers and swimming pools, hard drives can be used in illicit acts.

[drbyte]

Usenet? There are so many ways to get free digital files now, and they are so organized about it, plus legit businesses advertise on the sites no matter how private or underground they are. Then are sites that do nothing but catalog the different releases the minute they come out.

Seems like these guys are like 10 years behind. I remember the Usenet back when everyone thought AOL dial up was a standard.

[Lerianis3]

You hit the nail on the head. There are SOOOO many ways to get so called 'illegal' music, games, etc. today that the MPAA and RIAA are fighting a losing battle against time!

[unknown unknown]

"certainly there's no question that Usenet.com caused multimillion dollars worth of damage."

There is a question, because the vast majority, if not all, of the damage figures from the entertainment cartels are completely made up. The RIAA and the label who fund them have done more damage to their own business than all the file sharing of the past decade combined. They've earned scorn from the vary people they want to sell to. It's not just pirates who hate them.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

I do buy media.. but not if it has a RIAA sticker.

[Renegade Knight]

"As for what the RIAA is going to ask for in damages, Pariser said the RIAA hasn't come to a dollar figure yet but "certainly there's no question that Usenet.com caused multimillion dollars worth of damage." "

Wrong. Usenet caused zero actual damages. It would take Usenet uploading the files themselves for usenet to have caused any damages whatsoever.

That there is a finding of damages means that our laws are askew in that we are not holding those who casue damages laible and instead holding those who's services were a part of the means and methods the actual infringers chose to use.

[SaturatedFats]

Renegade, it doesn't sound like you understand either the facts or the law as regards this case. The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/17016091/20090630usenetorderandopinion>court's order and opinion</a> is online and it's worth reading. Usenet made a business of targeting customers who were looking to pirate copyrighted material. The evidence of their bad acts was overwhelming and only made worse by their deliberate destruction of evidence and other obstructionist behavior during the litigation. These guys did everything possible to earn the outcome they got!

[8301]

Using that logic, manufacturers of automotive radar jammers and detectors should be shut down. They, too, actively enable others to break the law. If Usenet destroyed evidence and obstructed justice, then they are guilty of the same, but they aren't to blame for others' decisions.

[SaturatedFats]

8301, it seems doubtful you've read the decision. You really should. There is some discussion in there that directly answers your point, comparing USENET.com, which offered an on-going service, helping customers pirate, even when they knew conclusively that's what was going on, and Sony's sales of Betamax VCRs which they knew could be used for copyright infringement. The difference is that once Sony sold a VCR, that was pretty much the end of it. Certainly, Sony didn't hand-hold customers who were asking for help pirating.

[Lerianis3]

SaturatedFats, again: they did NOT know that was what was SOLELY going on. The fact is that on Usenet there are plenty of LEGAL downloads, legal postings, etc.
What got them in trouble, like Napster, was ADVERTISING THEIR SERVICE AS A WAY TO GET 'ILLEGAL' MUSIC! That illegal word is what got them into trouble. You NEVER, EVER want to use that in your online or offline advertisements.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

RIAA likes to seek 1300 fold damages per song..... well beyond what's either just or legal

[RyanShab]

From the survey's ive done in my classes accross many university campuses, I have noticed that a VAST MAJORITY of piracy is not costing the record labels much money. It is because people will either pirate a song or not listen to the music at all. Most say that the music put out today is not worth the money. In any case, the record companies would not be receiving any money from these people.

I wonder if the money spent to litigate all these cases ends up costing more than the record companies would have received if everyone who chose to pirate instead of buy actually went and bought the songs.

I know personally, I wouldnt buy the music out there anyway. So either let me listen to it or dont even bother to make the music because I WILL NOT PAY FOR IT.

[sciontcya]

I'm sure car thieves claim they "weren't going to buy a new car" as they hotwire one off the lots...
But the car company isn't losing money in you lame argument.
GM is lame, I won't buy one, so if I steal one, it's no loss to them!

Brilliant.
Left-wing whack-jobs who teach our kids...

[El_Segfaulto]

@sciontcya

There is a world of difference between downloading a song (intangible) and stealing a car (tangible) and equating the two is extremely deceitful. I have to ask again, have you ever recorded a TV show, a sporting event, music off the radio? That's all illegal too! Although from the last part of your comment I assume you're too busy being spoon-fed your beliefs by Bill O'Reilly to actually use any sort of critical analysis on the situation.

[unknown unknown]

@sciontcya there is a difference. Cars are a scarce goods, and when one is stolen you deprive the owner of it's use or the dealer of the sale. MP3s and other digital music formats are infinite good, which meaning their marginal cost (the cost of producing one more) rapidly approaches zero, unlike the car. That means when you download an illegal copy it doesn't cost the record labels anything and you're not depriving anyone of the original's use, since files can be copied ad infinitum. It's only a lost sale if the person who downloaded it would have bought it, which is only speculation.

Your analogy fails.

[SaturatedFats]

El_Segfaulto, you're wrong. The SCOTUS decided the matter in the Betamax case twenty years ago and what they decided is that you do have a fair use right to make a recording of something on TV or the radio for your personal use. What you don't have is the right to then distribute that recording.

[Lerianis3]

RyanShab, you got it right. I'll be honest here: I have 'pirated' music to try before buy..... UGH! Most of it is dross.... not good enough for even my 10 year old cousin to listen to, and she isn't very picky about her music.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

No sane person purchases any product sight unseen (unheard)... this includes software EULAs sealed neatly inside the box

[Altotus]

I don't believe its illegal to record whatever is transmitted over the air.

[Michichael]

I love how they can say that because somebody downloaded their crappy product that the selfsame person would pay for it. There's countless research out there that shows that 90%+ of the downloaded content gets deleted shortly thereafter because it's inferior in quality.

[filipiak]

Please provide links to three or four, independently financed, real-world, research-quality documents, that back up your statement: "There's countless research out there that shows that 90%+ of the downloaded content gets deleted shortly thereafter...".

If it gets deleted, does it make it any less illegal?

If Bernie Madoff runs a Ponzi scheme, and he distributes the money to (himself and) his early/favored investors, is he any less guilty?

How people *feel* about this doesn't matter. It's against the law. Period.

If you don't like it, don't whine about the RIAA or the MPAA. Work to get the law changed.

Good luck with that.

[Michichael]

I never said it wasn't illegal, Filipiak. And why don't you turn to research pushed by Stanford, MIT, or other colleges on this subject - there's a lot of it out there.

Like I said, I never argued that it wasn't illegal, just that their argument for damages is absurd, obscene, and unjustified. 75,000 dollars per song? Under no scope of any company in the world does it cost 75,000 to make a song, and copyright infringement doesn't deprive the creator of the content from using it. There is no loss or impact whatsoever. There is /projected/ loss. And their projections are wildly inaccurate for the purposes of padding their own coffers. The content creators won't see a dime of any of this anyway. They're trying to claim, like I said, that every single person that downloads is the same as a lost sale. It's not.

Applying this model elsewhere would mean that every person that has ever listened to the radio is a lost sale on the songs played on the radio. That's not how it works. That's not a valid business model, but judges are either corrupt or too stupid to see through this FUD.

As for If it gets deleted, does it make it less illegal? Yes. Because you no longer have the infringing work. Downloading doesn't make it illegal, providing it to others without a license does. Just an FYI.

[SaturatedFats]

Michichael, whether most downloaded content is inferior and whether it's quickly deleted is pretty irrelevant, because the evidence in this case is that people were paying roughly $20/month for MP3s. Both because they were paying for it and because they were MP3s, which we all know how to rip directly from CD, there's no reason to believe these were anything but high quality and that USENET.com's customers expected to keep them. In any event, it certainly wasn't an arguments the defendants decided to raise (probably because they knew they'd be laughed at!)

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

Yup, it would be a sure bummer if ALL usenet providers adopted the technology policy of NOT keeping logs longer than 24 hours.

[jemiller0]

Yeah, let's bring down Usenet. Nevermind the fact that it existed since probably before MP3 was even invented.

[jemiller0]

Hmmm, I quick Wikipedia search says that Usenet was invented in 1979 and MP3 became a standard in 1991. Maybe the RIAA should sue the people who invented Usenet. Afterall, they should have been able to see into the future to see the evils that would be perpetrated with the technology.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

rule 1: don't talk about usenet

UseneXt had a big hand in raping this 'rule'

[faceless128]

this isn't an indictment against the USENET itself, just Usenet.com, a service provider that sells access to the USENET. Usenet.com openly advertised that their service could be used to illegally download protected material. Then, they tampered with evidence and sent potential witnesses to Europe. They dug their own grave.

When a USENET provider who doesn't openly advertise piracy and doesn't hide evidence and people loses in court, then there is reason to worry.

[El_Segfaulto]

Very true! The first rule of usenet used to be you do not talk about usenet.

[rmullen0]

The RIAA will not be satisfied with only taking Usenet.com down, they will try to take down Usenet itself because they can't control it.

[8301]

"As for what the RIAA is going to ask for in damages, Pariser said the RIAA hasn't come to a dollar figure yet..."

Yeah, because it takes a team of mathematicians to calculate exactly how much money the music industry loses on each individual pirated song, just to make sure the RIAA seeks accurate damages that don't take a penny more from the defendant than absolutely necessary to cover the losses they don't even know exist, much less begin to quantify.

So how long should it take to come up with an obscenely large yet completely asinine number? "Hey guys, how much should we sue for?" "Oh, I don't know, how about ELEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS PER SONG?" What was that, three seconds?

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

Lost money?

If it was never a potential sale how is it an actual loss?

[cp256]

Dumbasses gave this case to the RIAA by being stupid and have thus harmed all digital freedom efforts in the process. We really need to mainstream a backlash against those extortionists rather than just the few token grass roots efforts. They need to be exposed for greedy corporate tyrants that they are.

[Lerianis3]

Actualy, no, they haven't. These were the SAME EXACT ISSUES brought up in the Napster case, and what made them lose the case was that 'I' word they used: illegal! If they hadn't used that in their advertisements, THEY WOULD HAVE WON THEIR CASE, because there is NOTHING you can do on Usenet to filter content, same as on the internet: people can obfuscate filenames, zip and password protect archives, etc.

It's just IMPOSSIBLE to filter everything illegal, whether is it illegal music or child porn, on the internet! Personally, I think they should just give up in both cases.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

Too bad absolute fascism is not possible.

[hutchike]

Surely if you advertise that your users can download thousands of MP3s for just $19 a month - and you don't have legit relationships with the rights holders - then you're gonna be in trouble. Real Networks runs Rhapsody in an entirely legit way by paying the rights holders - so there are viable legal alternatives to buying music or downloading illegal copies. See www.rhapsody.com for more info.

[mexnexus]

Id Love to check Jennifer Pariser, the RIAA's chief of litigation. Minivan hard disk for Mp3, her Ipod, and probably her sons ipod to check if she doesnt have "more than one copy" of some songs.

That would be major LULZ, a spokesperson for the RIAA having "music" obtained illegaly.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

no, nobody needs to watch the "watchmen". It doesn't matter that they violate laws to find evidence of law violations!

I still don't understand to this day why it was OK for people to copy as much music as they wanted when I was a teen of the 80's and Cassette Tape was all the rage. We could copy as much as we wanted then and no one cared. Now your a criminal for doing so online. All I'm saying is this just isn't consistent.

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

Both tapes and mp3s are lossy. Thank goodness we have FLAC now!

[Altotus]

The people are sheep for slaughter. The RIAA is proof!

[learn_to_adore_fascism]

That RIAA's behavior has been tolerated thus far is indicative of loss of privacy, the right to freely exercise liberty, and spine in most people.