Comments on: Music copyright lawsuit targets Microsoft, Yahoo, Real

A lawsuit filed in a U.S. district court claims Microsoft, Yahoo, and RealNetworks did not properly license more than 200 compositions that they offered through their streaming services.

[VVunder]

The RIAA suit against Jammie Thomas-Rasset is currently sitting at $80,000 per violation.

The $150,000 the plaintiffs are seeking here seems like a deal compared to that, since obviously Microsoft, Yahoo, and Real had a bigger distribution of the claimed infringed properties than she did over P2P.

I'm not saying either case makes much sense, but with that precedent, I don't see why this one shouldn't go the plaintiffs way either, provided an actual infringement occured...

$150,000 per song is cheap with that as the precedent.

[Stormspace]

Here here! My thoughts exactly. What's good for a penniless mother that made no money on the deal is certainly good for mega-corporations providing infringing product for profit.

[Inconnux]

RIAA is a dinosaur organization... 99.9% of the music today is Formulated crap. I don't pirate my music simply because there's nothing worth pirating.

[rober013]

anything, that goes into a computer, is always going to be copied. a computer, is always smarter, than the software that goes into it! the computer is always going to analyze the software, to make it better; far more usable to the user, and ...

[Maccess]

I wonder how long it will be before they start suing people who "listened" to improperly licensed music while sitting in a Hotel lobby, Airport Lounge, or Restaurant.

"...our investigation showed that you were sitting in the JFK airport lounge between 1000-1030hrs while a copyright violation was being committed. To avoid further legal action, please settle in the amount of $10,000 or $1,000 per song heard during that period that you were waiting for your flight."

[rage-demon]

Actually, it's my understanding that most taxi cabs won't turn on the radio becasue they would be forced to pay a copyright fee for every song that's played over radio that a 2nd party may overhear (despite the fact that music played over the radio is FREE to ANYONE who has a radio receiver).

So in this case, it's the person playing the radio (i.e. in your example the RIAA *would* force JFK to pay a copyrigth fee for playing music in a public place.)

[stevicus]

I though the going rate per copyright violation was $80k, not $150k. Yes, content creators should get paid but at some point it does indeed get ridiculous.

[Binary Minds]

The only way this stupidity is going to stop is if every person on the planet stops listening to music in any form (legal or otherwise). No-one will need to store or provide streaming music any more, since no-one will be taking it. With no end user market and no-one left to sue, the musicians and recording industry will be out of jobs and maybe then they can go and get a real job and actually work for their zillions that they currently obtain by fraud (and they say *we're* the criminals!).

So come on people, let's all make a stand and burn those CDs and MP3s.

People?

Hello?

{:v)

[Altotus]

Thus the incompetent law makers have given the whole store away by whole store figure it out for yourself the figures exceed the wealth of this nation. Do you follow this argument? Greed pigs indeed. Your representatives voted for this and that which is above is as is below. Why am I quoting Hermes Trismegistus from the emerald tablets of Thoth? Continuity try to beggar the little people and the big guys (the only holy of holies in this system) have to take the medicine as well. Not perhaps a well considered plan to **** off the people of this country and then the big money as well. Not a good day to be a politician perhaps they can request protection from the consequences of their action from the RIAA. Yea they can request that only little people that are poor people without money be sued not rich corporations withe billions in cash (and large buildings full of lawyers) and the intelligence to act in their self interest unlike the citizens of this country.People who are so stupid to say things like "its the law" without realizing that law is made in the name for the people by their elected representative (never underestimate the collective stupidity of the people). Of course these representatives are beholden to the real source of their reelection that is money because money gets the advertising that gets votes as most voters allow their opinion to be formed in 30-60 seconds by a advertisement thus the collective stupidity of the people becomes apparent, The stupidity of the representatives illistrated as well since they give as much attention to the laws passed as the electorate gives in choosing the representative. This is not fixable in the current system as the volume of laws passed exceeds the ability of a representative to read the content and comprehend the content as well as the consequence of what they pass into law (kinda ironic that the citizens have no excuse of ignorance of the law when the volume exceeds the capacity of a human to comprehend) therefore lobbyist exist to advise the representatives how much money exists to reelect the representative when they support the laws that organization like the RIAA want. The poor little people have no real input given the 30 seconds influence they have to make up their mind. Well this super simple view is more than the average citizen knows about political life given that their edification is available in 30 seconds paid for by people like the RIAA when the representative buys the commercial air time to tell the people essentially vote for me his self interest is not involved in an educated citizen other than the message vote for me ( or else don't vote for the other guy). The question is where were you represented where was your voice in this process? Anyone?

[man_w_balls]

This sounds like a Kurt Vonnegut interpretation of a fictional legal society. Unfortunately it's a pretty accurate picture of the legal system of the USA.

[williambertram]

I think it's an embarrassment, and also a horrible waste of money and resources to allow the entertainment industry to abuse our courts as a means of generating revenue.

My opinion is that judges in these cases are not taking into account the actual value of the music. They are taking the entertainment industry estimated value. How many copies of Grand Funk can they really claim to sell? I like Grand Funk, and I'm sure they still sell records, but to be honest it's old music people have heard on the radio for the past 30+ years. My opinion is that the actual value of this music should be based on numbers NOT provided by the seller / plantiff.

Why don't judges put some of the ownership on the entertainment industry? They have yet to produce a format that cannot be copied. Everyone, including the judges, should KNOW that music purchased on CD is easily copied, and therefore is the leading cause of piracy. Shouldn't the courts pressure them to produce more secure media? It's a drain on the system, and the courts should stand up and tell them to find another way to generate revenue. We should tell these entertainment industry parasites that they will start selling ALL music / movies / games on media that cannot be copied by 2015, and failure to do so means they forfeit their right to sue for copyright infringement.

If you ever want to see what's wrong with America, or why our economy is in such bad shape, take a look at the parasitic entertainment industry.

[a3th3r]

Sony BMG tried that, and it caused many more problems than they tried to resolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal#New_York_and_California_class_action_suits)

Unfortunately outside of DRM protected MP3s there is little that can legally be done to protect an audio file. Even that is ineffective.

[georgiarat]

Next, the administration will propose that those who pay for their music have a tax added so that those who choose not to pay (too poor) can cover the costs of the legal litigation against them. It's only fair!

Don't laugh about the airport comment earlier. The administration is already working with the University of Iowa to perfect a system of using GPS in autos so that the federal gas tax can supposed be replaced by a mile driven tax. What is not being discussed is that the Obama administration can use this to track the movement and location of an individual by vehicle as well as cellular phones. They will know where you go, who you meet with, etc. This is frightening to those who care about individual freedom.

[a3th3r]

First off, these are state sponsored programs currently and not national (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-20-roads_N.htm). Go speak to your assemblymen or senator.
Second, I highly doubt Obama cares where you drive.
Third, if a national were put in place it would be the responsible of the Supreme Court to ensure that it complies with the constitution and does not violate any rights. The Supreme Court has a long history of reversing or requiring changes to various bills passed through Congress on the grounds of being unconstitutional. If you are unhappy with their findings then start a movement for reform.

[umbrae]

Copyrights are just bad.

[paulej]

Copyrights are not bad. People who create things need to be paid for their work. That said, having a sond and then saying that 15 different people have some "right" in that is complicated and only self-defeating for the music industry, in my opinion. These companies needed to license the "sound recording" and the "underlying composition"? Oh, my head hurt. I'm not even sure what the heck that means, to be honest.

[karpenterskids]

This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous...when will the madness end?!

[drbyte]

How desperate. The revenue streams must be drying up even faster than projected. No more yayo!