Comments on: Four reasons why the RIAA won a jury verdict of $220,000

The recording industry just won a huge legal victory against illicit file-sharing. How? Two key decisions the judge made helped a lot.

[liveoilfree]

RIAA joins BIG OIL in squashing the people

GM bought control of the Nickel Metal Hydride battery patents, needed for all production EVs, in 1994 and tried to suppress them. After they did, they sold the rights to Texaco on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, Texaco announced it would become part of Chevron (Standard Oil). The next year, Chevron funded a winning lawsuit that extracted $30M from Toyota, after which the existing Electric car production line was shut down, and the remaining RAV4-EV sold to the general public. There are still 328 in the hands of the public, still running well, the high mileage one 131,000 miles.

But no more can be made, and no more batteries made, because Chevron controls the patent rights.

[keepingmediahonest]

Tired, old "big oil" bashing

When will the perennially paranoid learn that the real world doesn't work that way? They need to stop repeating outdated untruths and do some current research.

For starters, check the Wikipedia entry for Cobasys and A123Systems. Electric vehicles will be along just as soon as they are commercially viable.

[bluemarko1234]

You folks just aren't getting it

I'm constantly flabbergasted by the comments on this subject. It's really simple: copying someone else's work is stealing, plain and simple. It doesn't MATTER whether you think the owners overcharge, you have a choice to either take their price, or NOT buy the product. If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it or use it.

Technicalities aside, this person knowingly chose to distribute stolen material. That makes her a thief, at eh very least accomplice before the fact (assuming she owned even one copy of the material she was distributing). But in law, accomplice is the same as the perpetrator.

Facts are facts, you opinion of the RIAA is irrelevant. The jury did their sworn duty, to apply the law. Most of you seem to have issues with that, but I for one am glad to see the rule of law applied.

[Michael K.]

I concur

I agree, whatever your feelings are, the law is clear, and should be followed.

[NYOPTS]

you are confused

this isn't a criminal but a civil case. not even copyright law defines file sharing as 'theft' -- that trope is an invention of the music biz.

[FellowConspirator]

Not stealing.

It's infringment. The RIAA never claimed nor did the case conclude
that the person stole anything or was a thief.

The jury gave a fair opinion based on the presenation of the
plaintiff and defense. However, had the defense been more
rigorous it could have been demonstrated that the RIAA had no
evidence (none that was presented, anyway) of the person involved
in the copying, only the device that was used to do it.

[mattumanu]

she may not have knowingly chose

>>Technicalities aside, this person knowingly chose to distribute stolen material. <<

If I remember correctly, During installation Kazaa does like all other programs and asks the user what file folders they wanted to make shared. It did this, but doesn't really explain what that means. I might be mistaken, but the language was something along the lines of "choose default folder to share". There have been users who have inadvertantly made their entire "my documents" folder shared, not realizing what that means. Imagine what can happen if someone makes their entire C: drive shared?

Oh wait... I'll be some of you have actually done that right now. Maybe everyone should check.

[Mikeatle]

Correct...almost

No Sweetie, you aren't getting it. Few people dispute the legality of what the woman did. The problem is with the damages sought by RIAA. And don't be so "glad to see the rule of law applied." Without true justice and mercy, the rule of law is nothing more than a system by which heartless bureaucrats can squelch dissent. Learn to operate within a balanced system in which the "rule of law" is tempered by mercy or someday you might find yourself on the rude receiving end of the "rule of law."

[Eliakim2]

I'm "getting it"...

What I'm "getting" is simply that if RIAA had their way, and can
pay for the legislation to "get it their way", they would have it so
that we pay for everything that we merely listen to and hear. You
could own a CD and you would be charged (through the playing
mechanism) a charge for every playing. It would automatically
go out of your account and into theirs, via the playing
mechanism.

Now, that's the way they want to go. And if they can influence
and buy legislation, then that will "make it right and legal" for
them to do so.

HOWEVER, just because someone is able to buy legislation, from
legislators in Congress, doesn't mean it's the right thing, even
though it may be declared "legal and mandatory". And thus,
when people ignore what they do not deem to be "right or just",
they will become "criminals" according to the "law" (i.e., the law
that was "purchased" by RIAA).

Your argument is that since our current legislation is the best
that RIAA could "buy", that this makes it right and just.

Well, sorry, a lot of people don't agree with that and neither do I.
When law is considered and seen as unjust, it will be ignored
and many people will become "criminals" in the eyes of that law.
That's the way it's going to become, when thousands, hundreds
of thousands and millions of people totally ignore the law and
RIAA because of their unjust and unreasonable ways of acting
and "buying the best legislation money can buy" regardless of
any other considerations.

And, as we have seen, throughout the world's history, just
because something is a law, doesn't at all make it either right, or
just or even wise. In this case, with the RIAA, it is neither right or
just or wise.

And that's the way it is...

[rkinne01]

Re: You Folks

I agree with you about the theft of the music but the punishment must fit the crime. This woman has to pay over $200 grand for 21 songs, doesn't that strike you as a bit excessive? We're talking roughly $9500 per song versus $1 per song on I-Tunes. I do think this is a case of corporate bullying by the RIAA, they could have reached a much more reasonable compromise with this woman but refused to do so. The issue I have with the jury is not that they found her guilty its the bloated judgement amount they gave the RIAA. The RIAA is taking people to court who are already unhappy with the music industry, is this really the best way to handle this situation? All suits like this will do is further alienate potential customers.

I too purchase my music but with all the stinkers the music industry is putting out I can see the allure of Kaaza and other P2P networks. The problems with the sales of the entertainment business cannot be fully blamed on piracy but are due mostly to the lackluster product that is produced today. Instead of The Beatles we get Jessica or Ashlee Simpson, if the RIAA wants to make more money, then find artists people WANT to listen to instead the drivel we're spoon fed these days. If the RIAA thinks they're going to revive the music business by taking house wives to court then they're more clueless than I could have ever imagined.

[gravityfactory]

I disagree

Sharing is not and has never been wrong.
The music/film industries are not going out of business - many, many people buy the music to share with others is a right not a crime. Lawyers can make anything sound like anything and the followers of society will believe them without question.

I make copywritten content, I know my content sells - I also know it's shared. if someone profits from my work - that's illegal, but offering it to others, many of whom couldn't buy it anyway is no harm no foul. It offers greater exposure and can and has been better for my bottom line.

[fredmenace]

Flat out incorrect

Your post is just plain wrong. Neither copyright nor patent confer any sort of ownership over ideas. They just grant exclusive rights over their use for limited times. And the only reason they do so is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". That is to say, the entire reason for copyright and patent in the first place is to INCREASE WIDESPREAD AVAILABILITY OF IDEAS by providing a carrot for authors to publish and inventors to manufacture. (The idea that copyrights and patents are EFFECTIVE at doing so is untested, and, I suspect, wrong, but that is the whole rationale.)

[rdupuy11]

law

People want the law applied, but they don't want bad laws, and it is not only a right, but a duty to consider how society should be run.

There is something wrong with a society that charges 300 fine for speeding through a school zone at 100 miles per hour, and charges $9250 dollars if 'Happy Birthday to You' was playing in the background on your family videos you posted to your myspace blog. (hint: its copyrighted, did you pay?)

Lets make a minor violation, a minor violation, and add some reason and some scope to the way things work. RIAA wants a big club....Cable companies are even worse...they want to make copying a felony, and have the police force be there very own cable bill collection agency...taxpayers subsidizing the collection activities of a monopoly no less.

Lets give some balance back to the system.

[NYOPTS]

not 'theft'

Intellectual property law doesn't define illegal reproduction as 'theft', which is why this person wasn't facing charges in a criminal court. 'Theft' involves depriving someone else of their property.

[bluemarko1234]

No?

So, if I come onto your property and take your TV (thus depriving you of your property), would you consider it theft?

[pmchefalo]

Federal Attorneys Say It Is Theft

"Stealing the intellectual property of others is no different from any other form of thievery," said U.S. Attorneys Silsby and O'Connor in a joint statement. "It is a priority of our offices and the Department of Justice to protect the intellectual property rights of our nation's inventors and creators."

MP3 files included.

http://www.cybercrime.gov/brinkPlea.htm

[worleyeoe]

INSTRUCTION #5 - PAY ATTENTION TO IT PEOPLE!!!

5. Anything you see or hear about this case outside the courtroom is not evidence.

As previously noted, it doesn't matter what you and I think. It matters what the law says. This jury found this woman guilty of breaking the law of the land, people. Had any of you naysayers been on this jury, then you'd be given your opportunity to cast a big fat NO vote. But you weren't there, and given the "evidence" and the instructions from the judge, you might have found it very difficult to let your opinions on the matter keep you from following the judge's instructions.

[bluemarko1234]

Exactly

Unfortunately, all too many of the posters to this article seem all too willing to ignore law, and vote their opinions.

That's one problem with a jury system. It's partially overridden by appeals, judge's instructions, etc., but is all too common.
Let's all celebrate that THIS jury chose to do its duty.

[Eliakim2]

What all potential jurors must know!

You were saying:

But you weren't there, and given the "evidence" and the
instructions from the judge, you might have found it very
difficult to let your opinions on the matter keep you from
following the judge's instructions.

Well, a key item for all potential jurors to know is that you can
ignore every last single instruction from the judge on how you
are to make your decision. The juror is the last line of defense in
regards to laws that the public considers to be "illegal" even
though they may be "laws".

So, all potential jurors: keep that in mind that you can make
your decisions totally on your own and can completely disregard
how the judge says you "must" make them! Keep that in mind,
at all times, for the next time you're on a jury!

[Leria]

I wouldn't have

If I was on this jury, I would not have found it very hard to go against the judges instructions at all.

In fact, I would have been the lone holdout on the jury, and would have made the case be a stalemate or whatever they call it.... deadlocked, I think is the term.

[fornus]

PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!!! - WE ARE NOT SLAVES

"As previously noted, it doesn't matter what you and I think. It matters what the law says."

The above statement is one of the most offensive things I've ever read. The law, the judges, and the government were created to serve the people. If a juror thinks that a law is unjust, IT IS HIS DUTY TO DISREGARD THAT LAW -- regardless of the judge's instructions.

The right to serve on a jury is one of our most powerful rights. Do not throw away this privilege by turning off your mind when you step into a jury box.

[keepingmediahonest]

Bad link in the article

In "Reason #3," the link to the judge's reasoning (Here's his reasoning)points to the plaintiff's statement of case, not to the decision.

[bobby_brady]

MP3Sparks.com is now accepting credit cards, share more!

I plan on sharing more files! Also, Mp3sparks.com has been accepting credit cards. You get to select your own encoding, you are charged about a 15cents per song.

Also I just gave my friend 1.5Gigs of mp3 songs. He in turn will share it with other friends. In addition, we've set up a "mp3" email account for other friends to download and upload from.

Screw the RIAA!

[gordonliu]

Easy to Use = Gettin Rolled

if you can download something with a double click interface (aside from usenet...) its a surefire way to get rolled.

also, people dont seem to place the same value on digital IP as they do on physical items. it is one of those things, like the role of the internet in society, that the majority of people need to catch up on.

every time you hear a bunch of geriatrics in the senate talking about the internet, you know that the world is changing.

one day, people will look at someone downloading a song and say: that person is a thief, plain and simple, rather than the sentiment today that is, oh the RIAA are a bunch of monsters, I'll never buy a CD again, and all of this.

its still property and theft. I am by no means saying that the suit is reasonable, it is not.


there will come a day when the laws concerning theft will specifically include theft of digital information using the internet.

[m.meister]

digital IP

You may be correct that our easy to be bought Congressmen will create laws to
make us all thieves. RIAA has been paying them generously to do so.

Mind you, that does not make it right either. I personally believe that RIAA is no
better than a Mafia, looking to extort money from people. They go on fishing
expeditions, threaten you with a huge lawsuit unless you pay up. Even if you've
done nothing wrong, you are clearly now in danger of losing if they come
knocking on your door. Sadly, our "Justice System" has allowed this to happen
without push back.

This victory is just a new weapon to use in their continued extortion. And for the
record, I have yet to hear RIAA describe in detail just how all those funds they've
collected have made their way to the artist. In fact, it never does. The artist (the
ones they claim to "protect") will never see a dime.

I think the value of RIAA's property is overinflated, just like their claims of billions
in lost revenue from piracy.

Sadly, our Gov't is now acting against all but a few of its citizens. It protects only
those that pay into the Congress fund via lobbyist. We may be a nation of people,
but our government for the Corporation first, people second.

[cyberscan]

Actually, It's Copyright Infringement

Theft can be compared to someone taking a vine from a nursery without paying for it.

Copyright infringement can be compared to someone buying a vine, rooting a cutting, and passing it on to a friend. Copyright infringement is not theft, it is simply a violation of a right holder's monopoly on distribution.

The huge verdict is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution which states.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Unfortunately, copyright "law" permits excessive fines or punishment in violation of this provision. Assuming each of the titles at issue in this case are on separate CD's and the price of each CD is $20.00, the damages awarded should have been less than $1000 + lawyers' fees. The price of buying these CD's would have been around $480.

Another issue should have been deliberated is whether these titles deserved copyright and if so for how long. The U.S. Constitution provided for copyright so that sciences and USEFUL arts would be promoted. Are the titles at issue USEFUL, or are they more trash promoting behavior detrimental to society?

Jurors should also be aware of the powers they have when deciding issues. The Fully Informed Jurors Association has a website that educates jurors about their powers. It can be found at http://www.fija.org .

[fredmenace]

Wrong

As has been pointed out many times, ideas are not property. Copyright and patent only confer limited exclusive rights for limited times, NOT OWNERSHIP. And the entire justification for granting those rights is as an incentive to increase widespread availability of the ideas in question (at which I think current copyright and patent law are failing miserably).

Other than maybe a few electrons, nothing has been "stolen" in cases of copyright or patent infringement.

[strykernyc]

I trust the DEVIL more than the IRAA

It is illegal for the IRAA hacke into anyone personal computer. so why are this monster evil company violating ppl privacy and hacking into person computers?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE HAVING A GUN TO MY HEAD ASKING FOR MY MONEY AND THE IRAA TAKING MY MONEY??? I CAN'T DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE PERSON WITH THE GUN AND NOT GO TO JAIL. CAN I DO THAT AGAINST THE IRAA? NEGATIVE.
DON'T BUY MUSIC. MUSIC NOW DAYS ARE TRASH. HOW ABOUT NAME THE ARTIST WHO FILE THE SUE??? WHAT DON 'T THEY LIST THE NAME OF THE SINGERS? THEIR MUSIC PROBABLY SUCK ANYWAY AND PPL WONT BUY THEIR MUSIC.
FK THE IRAA. I AM DOWNLOADING MUSIC USING SOMEONE ELSE WIRELESS INTERNET SO HOW ARE THEY GOING TO SUE ME? THEY ARE GOING TO SUE THE WIRELESS INTERNET OWNER AND NOT MYSELF. BIG FLAW IN THE SYSTEM

[m.meister]

For the record: RIAA

For the record it is RIAA.
Pronounce it like the last two syllables of diarrhea.

[bluemarko1234]

let's try this...

Okay, in order:

It's the RIAA, not IRAA, read the dozens of posts above...

Yes it's illegal to 'hack' into a personal computer UNLESS there is a warrant listing probably cause

The difference between a gun and the RIAA is choice, you can CHOOSE to pay for their product or go away.

Plus... oh to hell with it, the idiocy of you post just drills into my brain, and nothing will cure you.

[plee9]

RIAA is trying to set an example.

The only way for them to stop people from ripping cd's and publicizing them on P2P is to set an example. Passing around non-drm'd music does not have as much impact as circulating on P2P. I believe they are targetting P2P.

[savagesteve13]

Don't buy music until the RIAA dissolves

You can survive, its a big world out there.
Unless you punish the industry, they won't stop this abuse.

[chuck_whealton]

Re: Don't buy music until the RIAA dissolves

Well, for the record I do NOT advocate piracy. I believe it's wrong to be downloading music, software, etc., illegally. However, I also believe that the RIAA has gone way too far. In fact, they've gone far enough that I consider their actions to be as bad, if not worse, as those they go after.

$220,000? I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

I can't remember when the last time was that I bought a new CD (with the exception of one as a present to a colleague). I do this because I agree with the original poster that the RIAA's actions warrant backlash from consumers.

I have enough LEGITIMATELY purchased music from when I was younger that it'll last me the rest of my life.

If a new artist comes out with something good, fine, I'll just have to catch it on the radio. They can thank the RIAA for my lack of patronage.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[MuseSun]

How would you like for all your work to be unpaid?

I am the wife of a very talented musician/composer. Instead of
flipping burgers, selling cars, or building houses, he makes
beautiful music for you and the world to listen to. And when
consumers of his talent take his music (his work) for free, we
don't have money for food, housing, etc. Why is that o.k.? It's
not. It's not about the big bad record companies (we don't like
them either). It is about compensating the people who create the
art for their work. You can't go down the street to the art gallery
and walk away with whatever you like without paying for it.
Unfrotunately, technology has made it easy for you to do that
without feeling like a thief. But make no mistake, anyone who
downloads music illegally is a thief. And should be prosecuted
like a thief. They are taking food away from my family. How
would you like for us to take all the money out of your bank
account if the technology facilitated it? Musicians have a right to
be paid for their work just like anyone else. We are already
seeing the beginning of a creativity drain (look at some of the
crap out there today) because there is little motivation to create
good art if you cannot or will not be compensated for it. That
may not worry you today, but in time you and the world will feel
that impact.

[jeolmeun]

Then musicians should work like everyone else.

How much is fair compensation for a musician? How many hours do you work on a work of art? Now how much more money do you want for the time you were not working on the art? After your cost of producing the art is paid for, how much more money do you want? How much money do you want before making the work public domain? Do you agree with the original copyright law?

[Eliakim2]

Pay directly to the artist...

If the artists were paid directly and the RIAA was totally
bypassed, then more people would probably be willing to pay,
considering that the money the artist would get could be double
or triple the amount they get now -- and -- the amount the
consumer would pay would be around 1/10 of the amount they
pay now.

Get rid of the RIAA, pay directly to the artists and you'll find
more people willing to pay them and not the RIAA ripoff artists.

[Tomcat Adam]

You don't know anything.

1)How are you a thief?
Am I a thief if I use a camera to take a picture of the Mona Lisa? How about if I take a picture of an artist? The artist is deprived of NOTHING.
The whole "theft" angle depends on the assumption that a person would have bought the subject had they not pirated it. 99% of the time this is NOT true.

2)Artists make the much greater majority of their money from concerts and memorabilia sales. They get an average of between .03 and 3 cents for every CD sale.
Divide this by the average number of songs per CD (16) and they really, really don't get much per song.

The only one this is remotely hurting is the RIAA, who were dying because of their crappy business practices looooong before people could record music.

[bwvla]

Are downloads the true reason?

1) Nick Drake died in 1974 in his twenties still unknown and penniless despite putting out 3 albums and retrospectively being considered one of the best musicians of his generation. He was not brought down by the internet obviously. Talent does not guarantee success or income. In fact with music downloads unknown artists are more likely to spread their name and work in order to make substantial income.
2) The best way for a performer to make a dollar still is via performances. Even most large musicians make much of their income out of concerts. Less known musicians make their money playing social events, or working for the man doing jingles or playing backup for better known artists.

While I sympathize with your husbands struggle to make a living in music. I don't think downloads are the main reason you aren't living in a large house and driving cars that are paid off. Some may want you to think that, but lets be honest musicians without a royal/corporate patron have been starving since the beginning of time.

I would challenge you to see how you can USE th e internet to promote your husband and make your struggle easier!

[jcrow62]

Oh Cry me a River

Since when did artistic expression become tied to monetary
gain? If you love what you do, then that should be motivation to
do it. Not money. Money will come for those who are talented
as you say your husband is.

The fundamental problem here is greed on behalf of the
Record companies. They have created an institution for
corporate benefit which gives very little to the artist and charges
more than what people are willing to pay. The artist is now
pidgeon-holed into this paradigm because there exists no
alternative.

What you want is for us (the consumer) and you (the artist) to
just sit around while we take it up the rear. Why? So some CEO
of a record company can live in exorbinant wealth created from
the beauty that is inherent in us all. If the system is corrupt,
then IT NEEDS TO CHANGE! By siding with the RIAA, you are
helping them to the ends which they desire: to screw us all out
of that which we deserve.

In australia it cost $30 usd for some cds. Tell me that is not
corruption.

An .mp3 is a lossless format. This means when you "steal" it
from a p2p, you are not taking it in it's original form, but a
diminished form. The RIAA wants to gloss over this "little" detail
because they want you to shop on itunes to buy an inferior
product for the same price as the cd.

Consumers should have market power. Creators of musical
treasures should have market power. Not corporate America.
Fight the power. We would all benefit from REVOLUTION.

[jerseycars]

RIAA and Artists out of touch

Whether you agree wityh the ruling or not, the RIAA and the Artists that it prespresents are out of touch with reality. They thought they could continue to over-charge and underspend forever. That is not the reality of our world. Your customers and employees will get what they are worth. One way or another. If you choose actions that make people look for alternatives, you are heading in the wrong direction. I chose a long time ago not to buy anything from an artist represented by RIAA. And I am a musician myself. The Artists and the customer have been getting ripped off for a long time. That is why the industry will have to change. I hope the record companies are listening. If they had adapted earlier, this all would have been avoided.

[Mack1015]

Reminds me of the story

Regarding the jury instructions, reminds me of this story...

A couple went on vacation to a fishing resort up north. The husband liked to fish at the crack of dawn;
the wife preferred to read.

One morning the husband returned after several hours of fishing and decided to take a short nap. The wife decided to take the boat out. She was not familiar with the lake so she rowed out, anchored the boat, and started reading her book.

Along comes the Game Warden in his boat, pulls up alongside and says, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?"

"Reading my book," she replies as she thinks to herself,
"Is this guy blind or what?"

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.

"But, Officer, I'm not fishing. Can't you see that?"

"But you have all this equipment, Ma'am. I'll have to
take you in and write you up."

"If you do that I will charge you with rape," snaps the
irate woman.

"I didn't even touch you," grouses the sheriff.

"Yes, that's true... but you have all the equipment ..."

[bluemarko1234]

Funny

Meant to comment earlier, but got stuck doing 'real' work.

Funny story. Not 100% applicable IMHO, but thanks for the laugh.

[freeminds]

Good Insight

Mack1015, thanks for your story. It is about as close to the truth as it gets.

Jury instruction 15 will be viewed on appeal as bad law, creating reversable error. The appellate determination will turn on the statutory meaning of "authorize" in Section 106.

However, it would not surprise me if the RIAA paid Ms. Thomas her entire judgement to allow the verdict to stand. The internet changes everything. The RIAA's machinations to preserve its franchise (instead of the legitimate financial interests of the artists) are the death throes of a dinosaur.

[techforumz]

LOL

LOLOLOLOLOL

[wayno_d_wino]

what if...

...i digitize my vinyl records (which i bought used for less than 1 USD apiece).. save them at 128kbs (complete with vinyl ticks and pops)and put them on my own http server -- where they are linked to from my personal blog (on blogspot)...

am i guilty as sin???

the idea here if for people to be able to listen to one song at a time... not wholesale search and download and distribute thousands of titles...

[code4life]

doesn't make sense

NYOPT, you lost me. your reasoning is full of semantics and specious arguments. let me ask you a question: do you think it's right to ask for permission before sharing an artist's work? would you not agree that his wishes must be respected, even if he said no? for BOTH creativity and revenue reasons, i think ppl should respect the copyright laws.

[Leria]

Anyone who is truly making music to be creative

Will not care if they are paid or not, therefore the copyright laws are specious at best when referring to music, at least.

Just like the true game developers make games in their own homes to the same level as the 'big name' guys, and release them for free on the internet.

[Warren Taylor]

Greed

If I hear one more artist claim he makes music because they of their love of music, I'll puke. If I see one more artist whine that people steal their music, then show me 1 or 2 of their MTV cribs and cars I'll vomit. Greed gets you $200 per ticket at a show , if the brokers don't sell them all. Record Co are dead, the only way they think they are valid are if they sue their own customers. Remember when they fixed the price of CD's?

[l_pavon]

I agree with the GREED comment

If i cant afford to go buy a CD, instead I'll DL it, then maybe even go to the show if i like it, other wise why spent so much on buying CD's? It's not like the artist dont have enough $$ already anyway...reading about the poor lady getting sued just makes me sick.

[oxtail01]

So you validate illegal activity?

You don't have to look far to find greed. It's not the sole domain of the entertainment industry. So if CD price fixing was a crime, why wouldn't giving away someone elses property not be so? Sorry, greed may be bad but it's irrelevant to this argument.

[bluemarko1234]

Copyright vs Property rights

The whole question of copyright vs property rights seems to confuse people.

Let me be straight: my company builds physical items, which we sell or lease. Now I am paid for product produced. ONCE. Doesn't matter how many times someone sells or transfers the items, I take my $$ at the beginning.

So that said, I have always been a little unclear why 'artists' or 'authors' want to be paid over and over for the same original work.

But be that as it may, the fact is the law sets out certain rules and laws to govern how so-called 'creative' works are treated. That law says the authors or their representative (that's all the RIAA really is, when you boil it down, they pay or have paid the artists for their rights to a work)have a right to control copying of the work.

It's plain, it's simple, it doesn't matter whether we call it theft or infringement or doodlywop. It doesn't matter whether the infraction is considered criminal or a tort or a tart. All that really matter is that it's something we as a people (through our government) chose to control in a certain manner. If you choose to go against those rules, you can, should, and will be punished.

[Eliakim2]

Just don't get caught!

You were saying:

All that really matter is that it's something we as a people
(through our government) chose to control in a certain manner.
If you choose to go against those rules, you can, should, and will
be punished.

If you disagree with the way the law is now, just do it differently
and do it as civil disobedience. And if you don't want to pay any
penalties for your disagreement with what you may consider to
be unjust and insane laws (with the way the RIAA wants to do
things), just get smart about getting caught and "don't get
caught!"

Design more robust and strong tools to make it impossible to
catch people and harder to prosecute and go underground if you
have to. "Protest" in this fashion if you want to.

And, certainly, do "protest" and break the law, if you consider it
unjust. The founding fathers of our country would have been
jailed and executed if they all got caught. Instead they "won the
war" and redesigned the government the way they wanted to
and in a way that was more just.

Go ahead, be just like the founding fathers and protest and
break the law! It's your protest!

[Timeotech]

Re: Copyright Vs. Property rights

Artists DO deserve to get paid for their work, BUT they do NOT deserve to get paid an UNLIMITED amount of money for their work. The rules of capitalism as they currently stand, do NOT make sense for intellectual property (IP) that can be reproduced an unlimited number of times for (almost) FREE! Never in the history of the world (before the IT age) was there a product that was 99.999% research/development cost, and only 0.0001% production cost, and our rules need to be CHANGED to deal with this new concept. Abusing this concept is how a few men recently aquired obscene amounts of money (Bill Gates, Oracle CEO, Disney CEO, etc). Simply put, after society has paid a certain amount of money for a some IP (say 100 times the development cost), that property should THEN BELONG TO SOCIETY. They idea that some piece of IP is worth an UNLIMITED amount of money is simply a travesty of justice. Sadly, instead of fixing these rules, the corruption of our congress has resulted in the rules becoming MORE abusive (when Disney recently bribed enough congressmen to get the copyright laws extended to a ridiculously long period of coverage).

On top of that, the rules are pathetically ONE-SIDED, in that the record/software companies don't even follow THEIR OWN RULES! According to copyright laws, when you buy a CD you are paying 25 cents for a piece of plastic, and $16 dollars for a LICENCE to own a copy of the music. And YET, if your CD gets accidentally broken, will the record companies sell you a replacement for 25 cents LIKE THE LAW SAYS THEY SHOULD? NO!!!! They make you pay $16.25 for a licence YOU ALREADY OWN!! Is this not stealing on their part? How many times have they been fined for their illegal double charging?!?! NEVER!! Before you people call a single mother a thief, consider all the ways these record companies have violated the spirit of FAIR capitalism.

[l_pavon]

I agree with the GREED !

If i cant afford to go buy a CD, instead I'll DL it, then maybe even go to the show if i like it, other wise why spent so much on buying CD's? It's not like the artist dont have enough $$ already anyway...reading about the poor lady getting sued just makes me sick.

[Leria]

The Music Industry is wrong and the ruling is wrong

This is a case where the jury made the wrong ruling, and where the RIAA was simply out of touch with the reality, which is that they are trying to prop up an economic model that does not work anymore in this day and age.

Frankly, it's time for the government to step in, tell the movie, music and game companies that they have to make all their things available for purchase over the internet at a lesser price than in the stores.
That way, people could buy NON-DRM'ed music, movie and games, put them on their own legally bought disks (I would even be willing to use a proprietary program from the companies, as long as it was JUST one that they all agreed on), and stop trying to screw their customers over for multiple purchases of the same exact thing over and over and over and over..... ad. infinitium.

I have no sympathy for the RIAA in this case, and all the sympathy for the woman in this case, who should appeal, because there were numerous problems with the judges instructions and the fact that the lawyer for the defense did not call any technical people to the stand to defend this woman and point out that there were numerous ways that someone could have been filesharing from her computer without her knowledge: trojans, worms, etc.

Not to mention that this ruling is..... outrageous and unconstitutional on it's face as well.

[bluemarko1234]

Wo, scary

So you said:
"Frankly, it's time for the government to step in, tell the movie, music and game companies that they have to make all their things available for purchase over the internet at a lesser price than in the stores."

Check out the definition of 'free market economy', or even 'democracy'. In fact, for an example of why that WON"T work, try 'Soviet Union'

You honestly think the government, ANY government, is capable of correctly managing an economy that way, by fixing prices, by telling companies what they should and should not sell, and where, and for how much?

Never happened before in history, will never happen in the future, until/if we evolve into a super intelligent, super altruistic race of master beings.

Another quote:

...who should appeal, because there were numerous problems with the judges instructions and the fact that the lawyer for the defense did not call any technical people to the stand..."

FYI your own lawyer's competance is not grounds for appeal.

And:

".... outrageous and unconstitutional on it's face as well."

Exactly how would it be unconstitutional?

Just asking

[Eliakim2]

Defense: an "open WiFi" home account...

In terms of a defense for sharing files on a home network to the
outside world, one might consider having an open WiFi router at
home. You'll have to beef up every computer that you have to be
secure in and of itself, if you're going to have an open wireless
router at home.

I do that. I've got a wide-open wireless router that anyone can
come by and connect onto my Internet connection and do
whatever. I do check to see who has been on there and how
much it's getting used. The logs roll off in just a couple of days
so that there is never any record of who connected to the
wireless router and who has connected through this Internet
connection. Everyone gets the same "outside" IP number, by
going through this one wireless router and there's no way to
know who got what connection at any time, or is someone
drives by regularly and uses it every day.

I leave mine wide open because I use all sorts of other wireless
routers, all over the place, when I travel which are wide open. I
regularly connect with many other internet connections as I
travel. Some are free at businesses and others are at people's
homes. Mine is wide-open so that others can connect onto
mine, too.