- Related Stories
-
RIAA verdict playback
October 8, 2007 -
TorrentSpy lawyer battling 'copyright extremism'
July 31, 2007 -
RIAA settles with 12-year-old girl
September 9, 2003
(continued from previous page)
But if the RIAA isn't going to stand up for its rights, who will, asks Chris Castle, a copyright lawyer and former executive with A&M Records and Sony Entertainment.
The music industry can't rely on the federal government. He points out that the Copyright Office has far less power than other regulatory bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Trade Commission.
"The copyright office has virtually no enforcement powers," Castle said. "That's left up to the Department of Justice and they haven't done much about this problem. If the RIAA didn't do anything about piracy, then nothing would get done."
The other thing to consider is what would happen if the RIAA halted the lawsuits. Some critics say that the litigation is hardly any deterrent. They point to studies that indicate that file sharing continues to grow even though the RIAA has sued more than 26,000 people.
While it remains highly unpopular, the RIAA has a fiduciary duty to track down file sharers, whoever they might be, said Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, a company that monitors traffic to entertainment sites. He said that he's talked to many people in the industry that believe the RIAA could potentially face lawsuits from artists if they failed to protect their rights.
"They have to do everything they can to prevent piracy," Garland said. "Or else how long will it be before the estate of Cole Porter or The Beatles file suit against you. The RIAA acts as agents for hundreds of thousands of artists and for millions of songs. They have to demonstrate to the artists and also to Wall Street that they are doing everything that they can to fight piracy. You can't just say we gave up protecting their work. I don't think they have the option to do that."
In all the talk about the RIAA beating up on Thomas, Lamy wanted people to know that the RIAA doesn't choose any of the people it files suits against. There is no way for the RIAA to know anything about the people it files lawsuits against, Lamy said.
"We know someone was using a computer and IP address to distribute songs. We know information like the time they used it but we don't know anything about that person.
"We would undoubtedly be criticized if we were selective in enforcing our rights," Lamy continued. "We're not. We target theft, period."
See more CNET content tagged:
RIAA, public relations, file-sharing, jury, fight
The industry association is not charged with protecting artists. It's goal is to protect the industry and it's members.
For decades the industry has run roughshod over the artists and now it wants to play the "we're protecting" card?
No...no...no.
Folks what we have here is a denial of sorts. Bands like RadioHead and Nine Inch Nails have dumped labels and are going on their own. Many other artists have made inroads into popularity without using labels.
Acts here in Texas have been raking in cash by going it on their own and using only distributors for their wares.
There are two things to consider here
1) The Internet has been very good about removing middlemen and that is just what the RIAA's members are, middlemen. They do not create a product; they create an image of a product which they then try to sell to the market. It's up to the public whether or not to buy into that manufactured reality. Take poor ol' Britney as an example. She doesn't have talent but she has looks and the studios have computers that can enhance her voice. So voila...some palatable tunes were produced but not due to artist talent.
2) The other thing to consider is that the RIAA's members are dinasaurs. The RIAA and MPAA are trying to save mastadons from extinction. In the 1970's and early 80's these organizations' members had party-like atmosphere's. If you had an in, you could get a cushy job there doing little. But that began to change in the mid-80's and as home-recording grew, the industry was stuck with an archaic methodology of bringing artists/pushing artists onto their pedestals.
Twenty years ago, if you had a cd, tape, or vinyl album, you were often encouraged to make copies of these. There supposedly was some fee added to the cost of every cassette which covered the consumer. We made mixtapes and shared with our friends. Many times, the original tapes wore out, got stolen, misplaced, or tossed out a car's window.
The consumer would then dutifully march to the store to buy a second copy. Me, I have paid for four copies of Styx's "The Grand Illusion" and three copies of Rush, "2112."
This was additional revenue tacked to sales of new music products. The industry came to expect it. But fast forward 20 years years and now individuals are smarter than that. We now make cd-quality copies of our media and keep the copy in the car, a digital (mp3/mp4) copy in our media player, and keep the original nestled with its brothers in the cd rack at home. It's safe there and if the copy gets damaged, I can always burn another.
This is where fair-use comes into play. This is what we need lawmakers to address. This is the crux of the consumer's position and it drives the industry crazy because every time I burn a copy of a piece of media for my own use, I am depriving the industry of another sale that it used to count on.
This is where the industry has lost money. They should stop counting the cd sales lost because of alleged acts of piracy. I would venture that 95% of those downloading those songs by those artists, would never, in fact, open their wallets to pay for those songs. They were available, so the downloader took them and they would not be willing to pony up 15.99 to 16.99 to pay for the cd, especially ones with built in copy protection/drm.
And that opens another can of worms and I'm out of time to write about it.
Meanwhile, I cannot find a single flaw in your post. It's biz-biz-biz: This is about money, not "rights" or "talent" or "protection", unless those rights, talent, and protection lead to the pot at the end of the rainbow. To this day I have three cases with hundred of old cassettes in them - old-school mashups, metal tape of Japanese pressings of Pink Floyd (and, um, a copy of "Grand Illusion), and whatnot. I still have about a thousand LP's in storage around here somewhere. I "own" all of this, right? I can rip them to MP3, I can put a copy on my PC and my iPod and un the deck in my car. Even though I bought that copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" twenty five years ago, I own it. Fair play.
So here's some questions for the fray: can I, as an owner of Styx's "Grand Illusion" on vinyl, and a cassette copy I made as well, download that song from Napster without punishment? Do i own the right to that album, or do I own the "instance" that I bought back in 19-whatever?
Better: What if I have a wireless network and I share my folder of perfectly legal ripped music so my media PC in the den can pick up the songs via Media Player to play back on my stereo - am I breaking the law if my neighbor hacks my security and copies my songs?
Opportunity knocks, and there's money on the table.
Not true - never was. There is a tax on blank media, but copying commercial media was still viewed as illegal by the industry. There was just no realistic way for them to know about it occuring. copies passed around on the "sneaker net" even today enjoy this status. Trafficing on the open internet leaves all sorts of footprints which can be traced to you and the industry has siezed upon this as a way to finally go after casual copiers.
You rant avoids the idea that this was not a case about fair use. This was a case about P2P filesharing, which even in my anti-industry view does not fall under fair use in any way shape or form.
There's a bunch of stuff I have bought multiple times due to loss, or damage. Cassettes were the worse back in the 80s. I had a ton of them get eaten alive in whatever deck they were in. I still see tapes thrown out on the side of the street, unraveled with 50 yards of it's inner guts.
CDs get scratched or cracked and as a consumer, you should have the right to make a copy of that and use the copy while leaving the original safely tucked away.
I'm a huge Radiohead and NIN fan so this recent news pertaining to them is ecstatic.
I think I am on my 5th copy of Pink Floyd's THE WALL. This time it's ripped in MP3 V0 and FLAC so if it's lost, it's not gone for good.
we're watching the death throes of a dinosaur here folks. Take notes.
"We know someone was using a computer and IP address to distribute songs. We know information like the time they used it but we don't know anything about that person." I realize the burden of proof is much lower in civil court but doesn't the above statements pretty much prove there was never a case against this woman? I wonder what was said in court.
Much the same as if you own an automobile and your son takes it out and kills someone in an accident: you can be party to the civil lawsuit.
To me, this is another act of the desperation by a dying dinosaur. The current political climate has allowed the RIAA, MPAA, et cetera to write the law as they saw fit. Often this is in direct conflict with previous statutory and case law. Hopefully, the appellate courts will see this and throw this turkey out.
There is no existing law that says that an IP address is the same as a person. Most systems use DHCP or dynamic IP addressing and it would be impossible to associate a particular IP address with a particular person. The trial court didn't see this, but I think the appellate court will.
As has been pointed out several times here, the RIAAs position on file sharing is so incredibly vague and ambiguous that it is meaningless. Appellate courts don't like vague and ambiguous laws.
BTW, the standard for evidence in civil trials is "preponderance" of evidence - 51%. This is a much easier standard to meet than "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases.
1.) Jinx.com sells Anti RIAA T-Shirts. Everyone who owns an iPod
should also wear Anti RIAA clothing. Wouldn't it be great to see
kids on MTV sporting this swag? Post if you know of other
companies that sell Anti RIAA merchandise.
2.) If you code, participate in a DRM-cracking community.
3.) If you don't code, contact your local newspaper and write an
editorial.
4.) Everyone, tell your local music store managers that you are
not buying RIAA Member music and why.
IS THERE GOING TO BE A PROTEST RALLY DURING THE APPEAL
PROCESS?
IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL IDEAS PLEASE POST!
That will send a clearer message to the RIAA than anything else.
And we don't have to stop listening to music either.
There are hundreds of ways to get free of charge the same music we have been purchasing.
So I can sue anyone for anything and get away with it with no proof of wrong doing?
In cases before this it was proving that RIAA has paid people to hack into people computer. It is so easy to fake an IP address who to say the hire hackers didn't do it?
But they didn't prove that her IP address was "hacked". So therefore they have to take it as being the real deal, and used by her to download the music.
I hate how everyone is saying that IP addresses are easy to "hack". You can't just up and do it *easily* despite claims from those uneducated enough to actually do so, but claim that they can at the flick of the wrist.
I doubt anyone really spoofed her public IP address, and I doubt anyone would go to the trouble of routing their music downloads through her computer (acting as a proxy of sorts I suppose) to get their content. Why bother? Why go to the trouble?
It doesn't make sense. She used Kazaa, she's lying, and she uninstalled it before handing over evidence that could prove that she did it. Seems the most logical course to me.
I think the dude in the article hit the nail on the head...this will end when an artist has the balls to sue RIAA for not protecting their rights.
Baulderdash. The internet was built with certain goals in mind. Now the RIAA has certain goals in mind. All they can think about is to sue 12 year old girls and single moms 'because they have no choice.'
Wrong! They could, all along, develop a system that works better for this issue. (not saying there is any way to stop someone from playing a song into the air and re-recording it via a microphone)...but within reason the music distribution system can be completely different.
The internet is very unsecure, now...but those who could change that, aren't the one's being sued.
The system is broken, and the RIAA doesn't have a clue what to do, or what is effective. Maybe they are hoping if they harm enough little girls that will drive Congress to fix the real issue.
Maybe...but they are some pragmatic sob's if that is the case.
Right now, the RIAA is in a crumbling building. Record executive themselves are saying that the old model is outmoded, that it is time to embrace the digital age. One estimate is that 95 percent of music downloaded is illegal. Well, that would mean that the RIAA would have to sue 95 percent of the people who listen to digital music then. Good luck. NOT.
sued for downloading music--she's being sued for sharing it.
She may have owned the music already; we have no way of
knowing.
The law (DMCA) is such that you can download all you want and
it is technically legal; but if you share even one track on line the
RIAA can come after you with the full force of the law. Many
who get caught in this trap are not even aware that they are
sharing--it is the default setting on Kazaa and other such
programs. You have to be a bit tech-savvy to change the
settings, and most of the folks being sued are not.
According to this article she was found guilty of sharing 24 songs. (Though it also mentions she was accused of sharing 1700, so I'm not sure what's real.)
Yet you can go down to the average "Buy More" and get a stack of 100 DVD-R's or CD-R's and burn til your hearts content at home. Not to mention the device used to do the copying/burning is usually designed and manufactured by the same company.
What else are these blank DVD/C-R's supposed to be used for if not to burn tracks and movies that people have copied???
It is like these big corporations are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are saying "Don't do this... but here, have all the technology and devices at your disposal that are only used for that specific purpose."
Like saying, "don't smoke marijuana" while handing you a joint.
Its easy to determine that we live in the decline of the American civilization.
This woman has lied and is trying to make herself a martyr. Dick Durbin is using this as a way to get votes. (Sen Durbin, you've already lost my vote ...)
Lets get real. She broke the law. While Kazaa may have legitimate purposes, it takes a concious act to make works available via Kazaa to the public. Knowingly placing copyrighted works that you don't own the copyright to means that you knowingly broke the law.
Why such steep fines? Simple. Its a deterrent. How many of you have done what she did and haven't been caught?
But back to the quote from the poster wiles01.
I do burn DVDs. Oh, not the movies that you rent from video stores. I burn back ups of portions of my hard drive so that in case of an emergency I have those documents available.
I also burn training videos for my wife's company.
(Internal training that they produced for their sales associates.)
I've also burned DVDs of my photos that I've taken at friends' weddings, and our trip to South Africa.
So you see, there are legitimate uses for DVD burners, just as there were legitimate uses for the VCR. (But that's probably before your time.)
Don't make this woman a martyr because her hands aren't clean. "Hacker-X again..." oh please.
But fear not, if the RIAA/MPAA had their way, you would not have the ability to do this because any recording device (starting way back with the VCR) would be illegal to own or operate. So don't encourage them.
Indeed, what else can you do but assume the worst of your customers, treating them like pirates before they've even shown themselves as such, and then proceed to sue them for more money than they ever would have individually given or taken from you, combined.
Want to prevent the artists from tanning your hides? How about taking action to update your business models so that customers who are willing to engage in a legitimate, good-faith exchange of goods aren't increasingly put off by the shackles you attempt to put on fair use.
The best way to protect copyright is to ensure that the **products** you produce from it are attractive to a wide range of customers. Copyright doesn't entitle you to anything if you aren't making it into a product that people would actually buy.
They way they make their money is by selling seats to their shows. Anything that can be done to sell those tickets is worth it to them, record sales is small in comparison. Record sales is simply a way to advertise for concerts.
In the say of file sharing, one of the best things that can be done is to let people sample their music for free. This lets people be introduced to their product with much easier than if they are required to spend $15-18 to purchase it.
Besides, didn't CNet report on a study done a couple years back that found that people who fileshare spend more money on average to purchase music than those that don't?
The truth is that the music industry is a bit more complex than making records vs concerts.
You need to make records that get air time so that you can get people to your concerts where you make the most of your money.
No records, no audience, no money. Sure you can attract the groupies and make a local name for yourself, but its the CD that gets you your audience.
If you're suggesting go indie and put your work on your website or make it freely available? That might work. But now you're one of a million garage band dreamers who never get the massive audience that they crave.
What is amazing is that no one has talked about how fair use is getting trampled upon by the RIAA. Instead you focus on a woman who made a mistake of fighting it
You want to try your theory out, find an unknown band, record a music video and put it on U-toob. ;-) Let see how many concert goers they attract.
recently; Courtney Love had a long piece at Salon which
explained the workings of the record industry, and Janis Ian had
a lot of information at her site.
With the exception of Metallica, who are the RIAA's best friends,
most artists don't like this RIAA crusade. As noted, they make
very little money from CD sales anyway, and, if they are
industry-owned, next to nothing from legal downloads either.
They make their money from concert tickets and gear.
The recording industry, in its infinite wisdom, is now also
cracking down on over the air and internet radio stations,
demanding payment for the playing of their music. Stupid,
stupid, stupid--how else do they expect their artists to get
exposure?
If you want to support an artist, go see their show or buy a T-
shirt.
I want the RIAA to win though. Why? Not because I'm against file-sharing. Not because I think the RIAA is "right" to pummel a single mom with legal fees she can't pay, but because: I'm sick of everyone on the Internet looking to a sob-story and taking the side of the "little guy" for the sole reason that they happen to be on the low-income side of society.
If it was a rich guy would could afford these fees, would anyone have cared *just as much* about who will win this case? Because it's a single mom on low-income, everyone jumps to her side, which I guess is expected, but nonetheless, it clouds the view of the overall case. It becomes about the "bad guys" (the RIAA) picking on the little guy, but it's really about the RIAA getting after *just another P2P user*. But people can't see it that way for some reason. Sympathy always comes first.
I'm against the RIAA just as much as the next guy, but focus on the facts people, don't just support her because she has two kids and makes less than $40,000 a year. Support her for the right reasons, if you can find any.
As for the site that was set up for donations, I'm not donating because I have my own bills to pay. She got into this mess one way or another, so she can get herself out. The world doesn't owe her anything, and her *cutesy little speech* about how "this isn't about me anymore, I'm not alone" has worked wonders on all of you people and brought you about to donate to her.
Can someone donate some money to me? I don't happen to have enough at the moment because I spent it all, but I really want a new cellphone. Don't you feel bad for me? Please donate to me.
#1, if it were a rich guy, he'd have zero 'need' for free downloads, you moron.
#2, maybe the reason people can't see it YOUR way is because they actually have a shred of intelligence...whereas you're simply shredded.
#3, the RIAA was ostensibly set up to protect intellectual property and thereby stimulate creativity. But, in this and prior cases, the majority of the 'artists' being 'protected' have expressed their desire that the RIAA (an industry-backed, NON-profit org, after all) NOT prosecute these loyal customers! Obviously, in ignoring these pleas, the RIAA demonstrated yet again that they exist solely for the purpose of protecting CORPORATE profits, NOT the artistic content providers.
#4 This woman's defense centers on her claim that it was her I.P. address. NOT her computer, that was held accountable of the offense of making copyrighted material available. Somehow, in your omniscience, you've declared her guilty anyway, but that's easily attributable to the simple and obvious fact that you're an ass.
#5 The charge should NOT be for making the tunes available. The 'crime' does not exist until that availability is exercised by the recipient...even moreso, as there is no direct profit to the supplier...
We don't feel bad for you...SAD for you perhaps. It must be terribly difficult making your way through life as a moron....
They would have had a better chance if they just finned her 10K instead of 222K.
A settlement like this just promotes downloading because everyone will realize that they are going for the big bucks which you don't have anyway so people will just represent themselves in court get a huge settlement and not have to bother paying.
Now, lets parallel this to what happened. The RIAA sues a working mom who makes $30,000 a year for making 24 songs available on the internet (didn't sell pirated material, just made the material available). The RIAA wins a judgement of $220,000. The pirates in china continue to SELL more than nine times pirated material than legal, amounting to billions in lost revenue. Hmmm...
Now can you understand why many are upset about this?
strong arming the public.
Sharing of cassettes has been going on for years and so have CD's
too! And now iPods are another way for folks to enjoy music.
The RIAA is just a bunch of sour grape types, who want to rake in
as much profit as possible for themselves and not necessarily for
the creators of the music.
This strategy also has a history...it is unequivocably proven to not work at all.
It just somehow feels good to certain people...to attack and harm, it gives them a good feeling.
But its so ridiculous. Suing a group of people to 'send a message'...hasn't worked much in the history of time, not when the people you are sending a message to, truly aren't avid court watchers. That generally only works with certain legal sensitive audiences.
No, what does work is seeding so many bad songs, that paying 99 cents to go to a store to get the song seems quite appealing. What works is putting responsibility on ISPs to curb downloading...i.e. don't let these people do it in the first place.
Making it so appealing to kids, and then tryign to punish their parents after the fact, is the most assinine idea ever, and saying they have no choice, is beyond absurd.
They have many choices.
She also has the choice, if it's her downloading the music, to refrain, and go and buy it instead.
Like you said, there are so many choices.
Rich or poor, the laws still apply to everyone. Poor people should not be shielded, even if it sounds harsh.
If the ISP can report who did the crime, the ISP could have just blocked the crime in the first place.
If you can report on it, you can block it.
They won't admit that, they don't believe it, they don't want it to be true. Becauase part of their value proposition is for your low monthly bill, you get the world of the internet, for free.
But this is exactly what computers do best...if you can report on it, you can stop it.
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD
That's how computers work. Any download that you can discover via ISP records, could have just been blocked at the ISP level. If they can record the action...they can stop the download from taking place.
Why should an ISP be the police force? BECAUSE PEOPLE RUN SOCIETY. We don't want the 'tempt and punish' game, to be run any longer.
Just stop making the downloads easy.
- SAVE Jammie Thomas
- by dannie francis October 9, 2007 8:05 AM PDT
- We're ALL sick of the BS. SAVE Jammie Thomas
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (182 Comments)