Comments on: Why the RIAA should have won (though the fine was too high)
Record labels should have won case against Minnesota woman who was probably sharing copyrighted music on Kazaa. The problem is the $220,000 penalty.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Politics and Law
News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Politics and Law topics
&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/8601-13578_3-9792175-1.html?communityId%3D2071%26targetCommunityId%3D2071%26blogId%3D38){kind=small}
Who listens to the same music for more than a couple weeks anyways? You can always check it out again.
A second problem I have is the testimony by the record labels about the supposed lost jobs due to file sharing. Oh play the violins! There is no clear proof that these job losses are exclusively due to P2P, considering the economy over the past decade. Perhaps it's also due to outsourcing or the lackluster quality of most of their works. Again, no burden of proof, only an emotional argument. Perhaps the defense should have used emotion as well: <violins>"Members of the Jury, these large multibillion dollar corporations just want to persecute this poor single mother of two. She lives on a poor Native American reservation. No one has compensated her for how we stole her people's land and heritage, yet they want to take away her ability to feed her children with their greedy lawsuits for something everyone, including your children, are doing". </violins>
Real bright folks. You make me happy I ran off and now live in horribly expensive Bay Area, Calif where everyone is either filthy rich or barely making it. No sane person here would allow this; actually the EFF HQ is just down the block from me.
The point, if you missed it, is basically this: big business won, and won far too greatly, since law follows the interests of the powerful, not the everyday person. This verdict's resulting punishment was a laughably awful example of how U.S. legal system is in the gutter for the average person. That is crystal clear. Another example that it is time for the Middle Class to do something about U.S. failure to care for its own.
what they should do is ask the file sharing sites to block copyrighted **** and stop *********** on their citizens .in Central America not one *********** on their people as the American do,
If I were that woman would aready make up my mind and go to hell with the judge who robed her future
If it were the creators of the copyright material I might have at least some concern; but the artists will be lucky to see a penny on a dollar for their creative effort.
I bought a record turntable. Now I play my ancient LPs.
I miss buying new music, but cds do not hold up long enough to be worth the purchase, and I don't like the way they sound.
If I am understanding this correctly, the RIAA illegally accessed Ms. Thomas' computer and downloaded a copywritten song from her hard drive, without her permission. Did the RIAA ask Ms. Thomas if they could use the file?
How does the RIAA know she didn't purchase the music at the store, rip the songs to her hard drive and share her music through Kazaa so she could access it from zork, at her friends place or wherever she wanted to as was her right?
Just because I leave my front door unlocked and open at night does not mean that I want people to come into my house and steal my things. Nor does it make me guilty of a crime if someone chooses to do so. The criminal is the person who stole the item, not the person from whom it was stolen. In this case, the thief is the RIAA. Since when did jurisprudence dictate otherwise?
This is a ridiculous turn of events. What is next? Betty Crocker suing housewives because the recipe for their apple pie was stolen by someone when the pie was left to cool on the window sill?
Unless you can catch someone in the act of stealing or have sufficient evidence to prove they stole an item, you can't find them guilty. Go after the downloaders, those are the real thieves. Good luck, they are a heck of a lot harder to catch.
On this note, check out Rep. Berman's legislation from a few years ago that would effectively allow hacking of pirates' PCs.
See:
http://www.news.com/2100-1023-946316.html
Technology has made the recording industry redundant, just like the Voyagers, or the canal boat owners.
The RIAA can fade away as an entity we liked, or they can be beaten out of existence. This makes me want to beat on them.
computer could be infected by Trojan so both upload/download
was completely unknown to her (and if in this case she is found
guilty, millions of Windows PC users whose computers are
infected by Trojans and (re)sending spam are guilty as well; this
may include the judge) 3) Her connection could be hijacked
(many people use wireless inhouse connection and leave it
unprotected *** On the other hand, Amazon allows to search
inside of books it sells without advising the author and
publisher (I am the author of one of books and I specifically
asked the publisher and was ensured that they are not aware. I
do not mind, but does it mean that I and a publisher can get
billions from Amazon?) Or if some of RIAA covered authors is
caught using illegally the lyrics from some poet, should not RIAA
then collectively found responsible and was forced to sell all the
assets to compensate?
When Kazaa is installed, it uses the system's userid as the default userid for Kazaa. Most people never change it oreven notice it. When she logged into Windows, it probably uses the same name.
Intent is not implied by ownership. Just because I own a gun does not mean I intend to break the law with it. She could just have easilybeen using file trading software to share files with herself in a remote location using her IP address. I do it all the time.
The judge's rules to the jury never have to be followed.
She's no poster boy to be used to attack the RIAA and their thug like actions. - Agreed but she isn't guilty of anything either.
Hacker X is always possible. I routinely use my neighbors wi-fi grids.
The rights of authorship have been sold out by our government.
The Berne convention works but not for authors or songwriters
in this country...so long as you pay a buck the adminstrator of
the rights can abuse your creation as they desire.
as far as this case goes..Frankly, theft is theft and it should be
dealt with accordingly...this person knew she was stealing songs
and her defense is a joke...she should be fined just for being a
bad liar..."Prove she was at her computer"...give us all a
break...and changing the hardrive...her lawyer should be fined
for taking the case in the first place...!!
Perhaps some parents will now discuss stealing songs is a
crime..stealing anything is wrong ... explain that to they're
children.
But, I am not guilty if I repeated lend my (fundamentally insecure) CD to friends as often as she shared them. If my all of friends rip my CD (my guess that adds up to more people than Ms. Thomas shared with), will RIAA come after me?
C-Net -- GET A CLUE! All of your readers deserve the smame (not-too-high) fine as Ms. Thomas.
I am not saying that theft is ok and I don't agree with it. I feel the fine was way to large and that if Mrs. Thomas would have had a few experts on her side she would have won or deadlocked a jury.
So this is what the RIAA does, they go after this lady that doesnt want to settle. I dont know her financial background, but is she collectable, who knows? In a back-room deal, they tell her to go through with the case, let it go all the way to a jury, see what happens. They take care of her legal expenses, and never collect the judgement.
You may say why? What do they accomplish???
Look at the news stories on this case from the last 2 days. Look at the people that suddenly are saying "We shouldnt download music" again. I think they got their wish.
Is it too far-fetched????
Finally, my views on this don't contradict those of others who believe that the music business needs a new business model to adapt to changing times.
Fred Moolten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMl9CZ90eVA
A: None proved. The numbers they provide are
mystical. They fail to provide any evidence
that any one these freeloaders would have
actually bought these songs. So,*where's the
actual real damages?
B: All this proved, is nothing more than, the
huge effect these organizations have on our
law making process's. To load the law with
their lobbying money's to extort the public
using those laws and the judicial system. To
extract justice? I don't see any justice
served in this case, just lobbing money's
working is pioson.
2: The Bush administration claims the verdict
proves our system works, ounce again it
shows how far the the current administration
is out of touch with reality. It also shows
where our government efforts are focused,
business, people have become a distant
second.
d: Thier's murder convictions out their
carrying less penalty than this judgment.
Let bring reality back to life and fix our
broken system before its to late. For its
certain that our country is not governed by
the people for the people any more.
- Lars from Metallica should pay her fine.
- by GeekGirlInFurs October 6, 2007 12:28 PM PDT
- Or go in halvsies with Don Henley. Yeah, I'd like that.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 5 pages (163 Comments)