Comments on: RIAA wins key victory; accused file sharer must pay $220,000

Federal jury orders woman to pay $9,250 for each song she shared online. EFF says copyright attorneys already lining up to help should there be an appeal.

[jokera_us]

technology rules!

why are there capabilities in Realplayer,Windows Media player, I-tunes to "extract" "copyrighted" songs and put them on your computer? is there another stipulation that you can "copy" them to your own harddrive but if you share them its piracy? what a farce!

so if i make a "mix cd" like the old mix tapes and give it to a friend am i violating copyright laws of distribution?

the technology is going to win no matter what. you create the ability for worldwide distribution and you dont want people to do it? the music industry has a lot of catching up to do!

what about all the media at the library?

what about a warranty for the discs so if they get scratched or chipped i can have a refund / replacement?

yeah it takes time and effort to make a song. it cost pennies to make a cd. who gets shared the most? the people who have records out and money already in their pockets get widespread fame and then by word of mout people get "tuned" in.

thanks for my two cents.

[Penguinisto]

...and this is why you do not use Windows.

I'm not saying that other operating systems are foolproof.

I am saying however that Windows is so easily cracked and zombified that it is drop-easy for some kid to turn your machine into his personal posession... and most times you won't even know it's happening. IT is far harder to do that with other OSes.

I'm more than willing to wager that this woman had her box turned into a bot, and only knew about it when she got hit with the lawsuit.

The RIAA isn't interested in jack. The sent no C&D notices, sent no warnings at all... only a demand for money.

I hope all you Windows users out there keep that in mind...

/P

[SeizeCTRL]

LMAO

Do you really thing music pirates would take over a box, remotely install Kazaa on it just download individual songs?

In the time it takes you to download ONE song on Kazaa, Limewire and other P2P clients, you can download a FULL album via bit torrent... so it only seems logical that any serious pirate would shun Kazaa and other P2P clients in favor of faster and better technologies.

This had nothing to do with Windows... NOTHING!!! This lady clearly used Kazaa and got caught. She used the same login name as she used for other things. She swapped hard drives after she got her first legal notice and that original drive has never been seen for evidence. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's a duck.

I hate the RIAA, but some times you got to face the facts. As much as I hate to admit it, my first thought was that she was guilty as charged. She was hoping that this SINGLE MOM thing would pull some sympathy out of the jury but it didn't.

The same thing would have happened if you used WINE on Linux and ran Kazaa. It had zero to do with what OS she was on and every thing to do with what she did, especially after the fact. The timing of the hard drive replacement is extremely fishy.

[mithodge]

Constitutional?

If you ask me, the Federal copyright law should be tested by the courts for whether it infringes on the 8th amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Since it is a federal law, it should be held under this precedent, and the allowance of this amount of money should not be for individuals, but rather corporations where $250,000 is relatively not an excessive amount of money.

[mithodge]

...for you aspiring lawyers...

Here is the US code on copyright infingement, which should be tested in the courts on whether it violates the 8th amendment.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html

[anon6]

Boycott RIAA NOW

What kind of legal system do you have when an average citizen has to be forced by the law to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading music files that she's not profiting from? Are you aware that this could easily bankrupt her, all because of computerized music files, as in an electronic, non-physical things that can be infinitely duplicated, not a house or gold or anything material that she was taking away. Don't even attempt to try to convince me that an audio file and a piece of bread are the same; I have a degree in computer science and I will laugh at you. Music is in fact manifestations of vibrations of air molecules. Intrinsically, they are worth absolutely nothing (loud noise may actually damage your ears), so if even one person wants to pay for your so-called music, you should rejoice. Don't whine to me about the oh-so-poor artists because I'm also a struggling musician myself. If people wanted to share my music, I should be flattered, not trying to sue them and ruin their life, like what they did here. The best composers in history had NO fancy copyright laws or a team of bloodthirsty lawyers, and they survived by producing great music continuously and selling directly to their own patrons and employers. If you imagine you're not getting paid enough for your precious music and don't like it, get another job. Don't ruin people who never agreed to pay you a cent to begin with. Because of such rulings I may never pay for anything associated with the RIAA again, and I urge all decent human beings to boycott them.

[CharlesCheok]

Lesson to RIAA - Boycott Music

Some one should start the process of boycotting buying music.

Let this be a lesson to the RIAA.

The customer can have a choice to buy the artiste music.

Let us use our time in a more productive environment. Lets not listen to music. Lets avoid getting accused of downloading music illegally.

Buy only what you need to listen to. Its cheaper than being sued in court.

Perhaps one day this will happen.

Music listener.

[phade3]

RIAA: Big Bullies

I wonder f the RIAA has the best interests of artists at heart when an artist is ripped off by record companies. No amount of downloading has ever cheated an artist out the amount of money that record companies have duped from artists for years with bogus expenses/

If I buy a cd for $13 bucks and find after listening to it that I only like two of the songs on the whole cd, am I given money back from record companies from selling sub-par music cd's with "filler songs" they put on the cd to "take up space ?" Uh no I'm not ! I'm stuck with a cd filled with trash songs that some artist had sitting in the junk pile and the record company decided to make the artist put those songs on a cd and sell it.

[musicboy2003]

Filler music complaint

So, why don't you go to Amazon or any major CD retailor and give the CD a quick listen to each tune before you buy? That's what I do, and I end up passing on most of the CD's I listen to! Or why don't you just download what you want? And why is it that any person or organization that stands up for the artist, the creative entity, is some kind of "bully"? I agree with the person who said they hope everyone is as understanding when someone steals your ID and steals from you. There is a ton of "filler" music out there these days. Entire CD's of pure, gold-plated crap, in fact. But that doesn't give anyone an excuse to steal the good stuff. We use words like download, clone, file-sharing, etc to diguise the fact that we are ripping someone off who should get a payday for their creative endeavors.

[madmax2008]

article doesn't mention she is a single mother

the RIAA could have just let people off with a warning if they agree to stop sharing files, that doesn't seem to be the case. Why is that music sales have been increasing in spite of the availability of online music? This contradicts the claim that they are losing substantial profits from MP3 sharing.

[TruSpeak]

Stop spouting the same old BS

NOT one reliable business study have ever said that music sales have been increasing since the file sharing trends began. In fact the music market has been declining an average of 10% or more each year. If you have any proof that music sales have been increasing, please share it here with the rest of us instead of just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. The RIAA has already tried the warning route several years ago when they first began this campaign and look where it got them. Not one person was deterred because they figured they would keep doing it until they get a warning if they even get caught. Beside, what does her status as a single mother have to do with a legal case? Just because she is a single mother, she can do any illegal act without suffering the consequences? Try being that understanding next time some single mother steal your ID and forge checks in your name or ruin your credit history.

[joe1776]

THE PUBLIC LIBRARY - Check out your CD FREE and LEGAL

This is all so stupid. You can go to your public library and REQUEST ANY CD YOU WANT and they will buy it and add it to their collection. Then the RIAA can't sue our kids.

If everyone TODAY would DONATE ALL THEIR CDs to their LOCAL LIBRARIES, the RIAA would be castrated overnight.

[inachu]

RIAA goes after people on welfare.

RIAA would not go after people who are rich.

[bkeliikoa]

Did she deserve to lose

People are so clueless about computers nowdays that its sad. Heres a real possibility. A friend, family member, etc. came over and installed kazaa on her PC to see if they could find a few songs. Kazaa automatically shared her music and ran in the back ground without her knowing. I work on PC's for friends and families and the first thing I do is disable all the crap that starts up automatically without them knowing.

The only reason they found in favor of RIAA is the jurors lack of knowledge in regards to computers and networking. The defendant should have paid a networking specialist to get on the stand and then counter sue the RIAA for a bogus case.

[illegallydead]

Be Smart People

I seriously doubt that the RIAA loses all that much money from stuff like Limewire, KaZaA, and such. Those two are really the only holdouts (iMesh and Morpheus have gone legit), and with these, you get questionable quality on a lot of the stuff you download. With giants like iTunes selling music, the RIAA gets there fair dues.

Also, people really needn't worry, after all, they can only bust you for UPLOADING. Downloads are fine. (although this kind of cripples the network, and makes everything ********.

Take a look though at ThePirateBay.org
Absolutely love there attitude towards legal threats...

[George Riddick]

There are holes in this crime family

IF THE EFF, STAR-STRUCK LAWYERS, AND OTHERS WANT TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN THAT STEALING IS OKAY IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. JUST DON'T GET THEM TO TEACH THAT TO MINE ... PLEASE.

**************************************************

What a Strategic Blunder!

You know, I have never agreed with the folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, or other groups who seem dedicated to changing the long standing laws of copyright protection in this country. But I have noted one thing.

Their allies seem to include some of the brightest young minds in this country. From the law professors and students at Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Duke, and others ... to the lawyers at some of the most prestigious IP firms in the land ... to the engineers and scientists at some of our leading technology companies in this country ... the intellectual brainpower in this self-described "new wave" group has been impressive.

How this group could allow a strategic blunder like what we've just seen come out of Duluth is beyond me. Why these organizations didn't get involved, study the case thoroughly, and encourage Ms. Thomas, and her obviously inexperienced attorney, to surrender is truly phenomenal.

This is not the individual, the attorney, the forum, or the time I would want a precedent such as this established. What a strategic blunder!

Maybe these people are not nearly as smart as I gave them credit for. Apparently, they all sat back and naively thought (make that "wished") that Ms. Thomas would somehow end the RIAA onslaught forever.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, and lobbyists in this entire country put together.

I thought good lawyers advised their clients of the downside of their attempts to "change the law of the land" and could be sanctioned if they chose to pursue only "the big payday" or their personal "15 minutes of fame" instead. Read the copyright laws. Displaying and downloading copyright-protected works owned by others without their permission is illegal. It has both civil and criminal consequences. And, as in the case of Ms. Thomas in Duluth, they can be severe. She will have to pay back nearly $500,000 by having her pay check garnished for the rest of her life.

But she doesn't get any sympathy from me. If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money as well. None of us - right or left - want to live in a lawless society. It's interesting to debate legal principles and consequences, but fearing to go outside for a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is not something we have had any experience with in this country at all. Thank goodness!

And if you don't think organized white collar crime families are behind much of this Internet piracy epidemic, you'd better think again.

COUNTERPOINT:

Here is the one issue I have discussed with my 20-year-old son and I do have "conflicts" with. Google infringes more legitimate copyrights every single day than Ms. Thomas could do in a lifetime. Do we now have a country that has completely different standards for the billionaires than we do for the normal working folks? If so, I sure hope this is short-lived as well. I think I'd rather give up the coffee and the bread than have to worry about Google stealing from me every single day.

What's your opinion?

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]

[MagnatronicPuzzabottom]

Counterpoints

A) Cars can be used to kill people. Want car-ownership made illegal? I didn't think so. P2P has PLENTY of legitimate uses. Incidentally, I'm an independent musician and if I found out my music was downloaded thousands of times on Kazaa, I'd be thrilled!

B) Just out of curiosity I Googled "ImageLine" and came up with links to a number of companies which us that name. Do you want to be the one to pick a war with all of them in court? I'm sure this has crossed your mind before and you decided to be cool about it, right? After all, it would cost you a helluva lot of money and it would also bring you massive ill-will from all those other companies' customers! Now put that noggin to good use and help us all figure out how to modify current copyright law to reflect this notion.

[m.o.t.u.]

Yes you do George........

You do have a country that has different standards for Billionaires than those for ordinary working folks.

You live in a Capitalist Society - the greatest the world has ever known - so far.

Why ask a rhetorical question?

It's no great secret, the Billionaires make the rules - of course.

I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but after all, isn't that the logical outcome of Capitalism?

Still - Empires come & Empires go.

Kind Regards.

[vhac]

You sound like a broken record

There is a method to your postings, it is called propaganda!! Yes stealing is bad, robbing is worse but CEOs do it all the time. There are a few name, Worldcom, Enron, United Airlines, CEOs of music, movie industries. While you all use artists as a pity pictures, you rob them blind. More profit sharing for singers/writers with online sales? Nah. Who will fill your pocket?
Quote
"If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money as well."
Really? 24 songs for $200,000 if she would actually steal from a B&M store?

[clsmithj]

$9250 should not equal the price one song of 24

That's highway robbery, especially considering the person could have bought all the CDs for each album that 1 of those 24 songs came from and her total would have probably wouldn't have been no more than $200. But $220,000 yikes.
I'm not surprised by the fact that RIAA couldn't determine if the user had download music but they had records of her sharing.
This has been common knowledge amonst the file shairing community for years that you can easily be caught if you are shairing music rather than simply downloading from peer-to-peers.
I can clearly see the message here is for people to not illegally download and instead push the encouragment for folks to download legally.

[blufindr]

So let me get this straight: With every other thing in the world, the purchase of it enables me, as the consumer, to do as I like (incl. share with my friends/total strangers). With CDs and so forth, however, the rights reside with the record company. Why?

One should think that if this were merely regarding the intellectual rights of the music, it would be the artists that pursue litigation from pirates. After all, it is they and not the companies that write and play the music. The companies merely publicise, distribute, and manage sales - which could be done by the artist themselves anyway. Surely, this means that the record companies can only bust a chop about the unauthorised distribution of the music - which, by the way, should not cost $9kps (thousand dollars per song).

Apparently not. Apparently, once a band signs to a record company, their work is permanently the intellectual property of the company. I wonder whether it would still count as piracy if a band member was the one to upload the songs. Probably, still.

Given that again, the record companies have no right to ownership to these songs, we should be asking ourselves who the real thieves are.

Let's all boycott these companies and listen to unsigned bands instead. The internet, after all, is a wonderful resource for brilliant and (for the time being) undiscovered bands.