Comments on: Democratic congressman: RIAA's $222,000 win is 'excessive'

Will Congress lessen penalties for copyright infringement after Thursday's whopping verdict? We ask Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who's been one of the recording industry's most ardent and committed foes on copyright legislation for the last decade.

[dargon19888]

Do the crime, pay the fine.

There's a lot about this case which will make a lot of people post and say stupid things.

First, based on the "evidence" presented, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the woman had actually made those songs available to a p2p network.

Based on the instructions from the judge, the jurors had to find her guilty of copyright infringement even if there was no evidence that any infringement did take place.

As to the penalty, the jury probably determined the amount of the fine based on the fact that the woman's hard drive was replaced, thus destroying any evidence. So I guess they weren't so sympathetic....

This isn't the case that we should use to rally against the gestapo tactics of the RIAA. This woman took her chances and lost. This is not a case where someone hijacked a person's network without the computer owner's knowledge.

[skullaria]

RIAA is out in force

Well, it is obvious that RIAA has it's army of paid internet trolls out in force to defend this outrageous verdit and fine.

If you look closely, all their posts are so lopsided and it is obvious the brown nosers are all saying the same thing.

Truth is, I talked to aboug 40 people today IN REAL life that are OUTRAGED by this verdict.

The hire small companies to do their dirty work. They've been caught with their pants down in recent email exposures - think they don't hire people to troll the news stories?

Don't buy it. Sorry. RIAAs the one that needs to do the time for all their crime against their customers - and a single mom? Go ahead and add humanity. They don't seem to have any.

Most people KNOW that RIAA is obsolete. The only people that don't seem to know this is RIAA.

I hope that everyone supports bands like RADIOHEAD who are starting to offer their music directly on the Internet.

[Leria]

No evidence she did this

dargon, the only evidence they had that this woman had supposedly illegally shared songs was her IP address.... which can be spoofed rather easily, she could have gotten a virus on her computer that was filesharing without her knowledge, etc.

Secondly, the woman's hard drive was replaced because it had failed. If THAT was the reason that the jury says that they found her guilty of copyright infringement...... then it's appeal time, because there was evidence given that she took the computer back to Best Buy under their warranty program, and they are not going to replace a hard drive unless they test it and it is close to failing.

To close, you do not know that this is not a case where someone hijacked this woman's network or her computer without her knowledge. To say you do makes it sounds like you are omniscient..... and you are nowhere close to that.

[godkillzyou]

My Music Is Free... As It Should Be.

http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/download-my-music-for-free-pitch-black-poop/

http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/more-on-free-music-for-the-critics/

[K.P.C.]

Over $9,000.00 per song?

And we thought there was price fixing on CD sales!
LOL ;-)

[K.P.C.]

Just goes to show . . .

. . . Who the REAL pirates are.

[George Riddick]

$222,000 win in Duluth

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]

[Reflautas]

It was surprising and disappointing to hear Rep. Boucher advocating blanket licensing. I think he is much brighter than that. A huge problem today is, precisely, blanket licensing that treats your favorite song of all time having the same value as a song you could not bear to listen to all the way through. The music performing rights organizations got away with blanket licensing in the past because it was a more efficient way of doing things, but now that the technology is available to permit speed-of-light track-by-track licensing so that lesser known members could compete and make real money, they keep playing this game of making it artificially cherry pick the songs one prefers to license, forcing retailers to take everything under the blanket. It is beyond my comprehension why Rep. Boucher would want more mystery blankets that mostly benefit major works and the PRO's themselves. With a blanket license, it is hard for a struggling artist to even give away performance rights in order to get more play time, because under the blanket, all songs are "worth" the same amount.