RIAA To Appeal Thomas-Rasset Ruling 275
frank_adrian314159 writes "The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 million fine for file sharing to $54,000. '"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.' Joe Sibley, an attorney for Thomas-Rasset, said his client would not settle for the $25,000 that the RIAA has asked for. '"Jammie is not going to agree to pay any amount of money to them," Sibley said, adding that it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.' In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine."
Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Interesting)
The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 fine for file sharing to $54,000
That wouldn't be a reduction. That would be a dramatic increase.
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. RIAA should respect copyright law. Instead of bribing politicians to pass ever more draconian measures to punish customers, they should accept fair use, and P2P sharing, then build a business model to take advantage of today's technology.
These freaks need to be brought to heel. Whatever happened to "The customer is always right!" ??????
We, the customers worldwide, DEMAND that when we buy something, we can use it as we see fit. And, we demand that copyright rights expire in a timely fashion - 15 years max. We refuse to support the parasites who think that buying up the rights to songs of long dead artists should ensure their luxurious lifestyles into the next century.
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is most p2p file sharing of copyrighted material IS in violation of current laws. There is no fair use for downloading an entire song, movie or TV show. There is no justification that makes this ok.
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then simply don't listen to it or watch it.
That being said, your point regarding bringing the RIAA to heel is valid, they are abusing and violating the laws just as much themselves. That makes both parties wrong, and both parties subject to legal penalties.
In this particular case IMHO both parties need to change their behavior and work together to solve the problem. You can't have something for free, it costs money to produce and the people doing it need to be paid. The companies that make up the RIAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels [wikipedia.org] need to realize that artists and their fans are changing and adapt, they cannot make money they way they did before and trying to is what causes the conflict.
You cannot enforce a business model yet you need to realize that entertainment IS a business, and an expensive one.
Compromise people :)
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is , is it normal that people , who had absolutely no part in creating music ( they just bought the rights when they were cheap ) , have the right to get profit from an artist who is long dead ?
And , is it normal that they sue someone who downloaded that song , for a cost a 1000x higher than the original costs ( i don't know any album that costs $54,000 ).
Plus , in my country , i'm already paying artists , each time i buy cd-r , dvd's , or other equipment. So , when anyone asks , i just have to point them to my stack of linux distro's .
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Insightful)
In this particular case IMHO both parties need to change their behavior and work together to solve the problem.
She's being convicted of sharing 2 albums over the internet. That's about $30 worth of goods. If this were a theft case, she might be looking at between 200 to 2,000 dollar fine depending on jurisdiction. She's not. She's looking at paying out 54 thousand dollars for sharing 24 songs. That's an entire student loan! She could have gotten a masters degree with that money, but instead she's being convicted of sharing 24 songs. Even 24,000 is huge, as that's rent for two years, and a punishment that is quite literally a thousand times harsher than the crime. Don't get me started on how silly 1.9 million is: the judge was right to call it "monstrous and shocking."
It's a bit hard to side with goliath on this one. The previously offered $3,000 dollar penalty is a LOT more in scope, though still a bit silly. But that should be codified into law, rather than a compromise that the other side is "willing" to offer instead of the utterly without reality $80,000 per song currently. And if you listen to her lawyers, that's exactly what Thomas-Rasset's lawyers are trying to get passed: a constitutionality ruling on the truly silly financial numbers being thrown around. And good on them for that. Congress obviously isn't going to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is most p2p file sharing of copyrighted material IS in violation of current laws. There is no fair use for downloading an entire song, movie or TV show. There is no justification that makes this ok.
So on the one hand we have lots and lots and lots and LOTS of people downloading materials of the web, in violation of current laws. On the other hand the elected officials who represent these people pass, modify and enforce laws making what the electorate has accepted as normal illegal.
Apparently the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"On the other hand the elected officials who represent these people pass, modify and enforce laws making what the electorate has accepted as normal illegal."
And, there is the core problem. Elected officials forget who they work for. Instead of representing voters, they whore themselves out to the highest bidder. If all the facts could be laid out, and the VOTERS were to express their will by way of a series of referendums, we might end up with something that I disagree with, but something that I could li
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Insightful)
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway.
It's not stealing because it's not stealing. Stealing is when you permanently deprive someone of their property. It's also not a whole load of other crimes that have nothing to do with the transfer of digital information, e.g. it's not arson (even though you've "burned up their profits") and it's not assault (even though you've "hit them where it hurts"). Pretending it's a particular crime to make it sound worse just makes debate more difficult and confuses the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, what about the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can see their collections agent accosting them saying, "I want my two dollars!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are too nice. I would pay them in pennies.
Come to think of it, even if I had to settle for $25,000 I would still pay them in pennies.
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Funny)
You are too nice. I would pay them in pennies.
Come to think of it, even if I had to settle for $25,000 I would still pay them in pennies.
I would donate good money, pennies of course, to see that.
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Informative)
Legally, I think they are obligated to accept it since it's legal currency being used to pay a debt.
The law may actually specify limits precisely so that someone doesn't try to have fun at the creditor's expense that way. I've no idea if US has that in its legal tender laws, but e.g. here in Canada, cent coins are legal tender only for debts not exceeding 25 cents, dollar coins are legal tender only for debts not exceeding 25 dollars, etc (limits are defined for all coin denominations). There are no restrictions on bank notes, though. I also know that Australia and NZ have similar restrictions, and it looks like so does EU.
Re: (Score:2)
how about a fake $2 bill?
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, monopoly money. Do not pas go, do not collect $2.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about the money though, and even if the courts knocked it down to that number, I don't think defendant would go along with it so willingly. Personally, I'd give 'em the two bucks too, but I'd demand my change back from those fuckers.
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA offered to settle for 25 grand, with some conditions that would make the lawsuit results not apply to other trials, if I understood correctly. I believe they feared this would cause a precedent and as a consequence they'd get such small fines.
Now of course they play the good guys
Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"for limited times"
Author's life is NOT a limited time it is an indefinite time which while it nearly certainly will end it is not certain to end.
Re: (Score:2)
But when it gets retroactively extended again...
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
What? Of course it will end. Everybody dies.
Are you sure?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for Corporations who have all the rights of a person, none of the responsibilities , and are basically immortal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quote -> it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.' In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine."
God BLESS this woman.
- Dan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
God BLESS this woman
Why? She illegally shared a huge number of songs. When caught, she tried to frame her kids for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She lied repeatedly under oath.
Given a chance to settle for a reasonable amount (about $1/song for the number of songs she actually pirated), she refused.
Why exactly should we support or admire this moron?
Re: (Score:2)
Given a chance to settle for a reasonable amount (about $1/song for the number of songs she actually pirated), she refused.
If she refused to settle for a $1 for each song that was actually proven to be distributed, then yes, she is a moron. Could you please provide a citation here? Every story I've seen on this case states the RIAA asked for amounts in the thousands.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Informative)
I thought they had only proven 24 songs. At least that's what the article says.
"Last year, a federal jury ruled Thomas-Rasset, a mother of four from Brainerd, willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs."
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Informative)
She was sharing thousands. Only 24 were involved in the trial. However, since their initial offer was made before they sued, the correct number to use in determining the per song offer is the number of songs actually shared, not the number later used at trial.
Do you often pay for things just because somebody says you owe them money? The correct number was the number they could prove at trial, not the one they pulled out of their ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because she is dedicated to having the unconstitutional statutory copyright-infringement damages declared unconstitutional. If I was in her position, I would offer to settle the case for a payment of $2-million.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? She illegally shared a huge number of songs. When caught, she tried to frame her kids for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She lied repeatedly under oath.
Lying under oath is perjury, and that is a criminal offense... something for a federal prosecutor to handle. Such matters do not apply in deciding an award in civil litigation, and for such matters to be taken into account and thereby have the award raised to an obscene amount would set dangerous precedent in future RIAA litigation regardless of whether the future defendants lie like Thomas-Rasset.
We can deal with the perjury later when this civil suit is dealt with, and for Thomas-Rasset to accept anything
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, P2P song sharing wasn't created when copyright laws were made, and the creators didn't have this scenario in mind when they wrote the law. These fines were meant to deter commercial pirates, not a
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Insightful)
Why exactly should we support or admire this moron?
Because the RIAA uses extortion tactics generally seen with mobsters and in banana republics. $1.2 million is obviously a ridiculous amount of money for an individual to pay for any crime related to copyright. $25,000 is also a hell of a lot of money for 90% of us.
I believe the RIAA should not be involved in these lawsuits, no more than automaker be involved in fining speeding drivers. Let the police do the work.
I would say a 2-3 months jail time and a nice criminal record would be enough of a deterrent. I see a big conflict in having the RIAA profit from these lawsuits.
You have any sources on that? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why? She illegally shared a huge number of songs. When caught, she tried to frame her kids for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She lied repeatedly under oath.
Do you have reliable sources for that, or are you merely engaging in defamation? Because I'm pretty sure she wasn't found guilty of destruction of evidence (and I do know about the hard drive--it broke down and she forgot the date she took it in to get it repaired according to what I read). The other stuff is less clear. The main evidence it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
God BLESS this woman.
Huh? God bless Gandhi - he refused to bow down to the 'Evil-Ones' of his situation, but didn't try to lie, cheat, or blame his kids for anything.
Seriously, blaming your children of something because they can't be persecuted isn't worthy of any admiration. If a kid blames someone else for something she did, I'd spank her.
Being stubborn in the face of adversity is not admirable when you only do it because all other attempts of squirming away have failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I thought the summary was sarcastically alluding to the fact that the actual monetary damages were more on the order of a couple bucks.
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:5, Funny)
No, the summary is correct: The $1.92 fine is in 2008 dollars. The $54,000 is in 2010 dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mispleling in summory (Score:4, Informative)
I betcha that if Thomas-Rasset would agree to a private, sealed settlement for a dollar, the RIAA would jump on it. They simply do not want this decision to stand.
If the case is settled, then this decision will stand. This decision stands for the proposition that even in a case where the plaintiff wilfully infringed, and even lied under oath at the trial, the maximum possible recovery is $2250 per infringed work.
Ah, to be judgement proof... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jammie Thomas-Rasset lost in court. She should have settled in the first place.
But really, she's judgement proof: whether its $50K or $5M or $5B, they can't get blood from that stone, she's Judgement Proof [wikipedia.org].
So really, its principle on both sides. The RIAA wants a scary number to prevent solvent people from fighting these cases, and she wants the RIAA to get zippo. Neither will give in, and dollars-to-doughnuts says the judgement of at least $50K will withstand appeals and the RIAA will be left to try to collect it before just giving up, with both sides in that case winning: the RIAA gets their huge verdict through and tested, and Jammie Thomas-Rasset gets to tell the RIAA's bill collectors to go F-themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if Thomas-Rasset refuses to settle. Either they will set a precedent that the fines are ridiculously high, or the RIAA will win the appeal and this matter will head to the Supreme Court.
Re:Ah, to be judgement proof... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA will win the appeal, it will head to the Supreme Court, and they will uphold the damages. From FindLaw [findlaw.com]:
If it wasn't clear before, recent rulings have made it abundantly clear that you should expect no justice of any kind from the Supreme Court.
Re:Ah, to be judgement proof... (Score:5, Informative)
You misunderstand the precedent. Your cite says that that the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to excessive fines when the government had nothing to do with the fine. That makes sense because the Eighth Amendment bars the government. The Supreme Court has held that excessive punitive damages violate the Constitution, but the Due Process clause, not the Eighth Amendment. [wikipedia.org] I note without further comment that the person getting screwed in that case was BMW.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I don't like Roberts either but to uphold the damages in this case they have to throw out nearly 50 years of work saying punitive damages in Civil cases can't exceed 10 times the damages (effectively setting the max at 9x damages). There were cases as recent as the LAST session of the SOCOTUS where they upheld the 9X rule in civil cases without government involvement. I wouldn't put it past Roberts to issue a verdict that completely contradicts other verdicts but he's gonna have to work hard to say mor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The District Court judge already called the $1.92 million fine "monstrous and shocking." With a few more victories like this, RIAA can really go out of business already.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a very pyrrhic victory for the RIAA, given that they originally wanted two million, and the precedent would be set for a fortieth of that.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need it "through and tested", the 1.92M$ verdict went around the world and they got all the FUD they could possibly want. The idea that you can be fined millions of dollars for file sharing will stay in the public mind regardless, until there's a decision that says you definitely can't. So the RIAA got very little to gain and everything to lose here.
Re: (Score:2)
So the RIAA got [...] everything to lose here.
And I hope they do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am very much hoping that this will end up in at the SCOUTS so we can have a clear answer on many of these ambiguous legal issues.
Re:Ah, to be judgement proof... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with being judgment proof is you lose any opportunity to have a career in the future. To remain judgment proof, you can never take a job where the wages can be attached. Therefore you remain a ward of the state on welfare for the rest of your life with only the guarantee of any real job being robbed. Working like deadbeat dads with cash under the table is the only way to raise your ability to purchase a car, insurance, housing, etc.
I don't expect the RIAA's bill collectors to ever let up looking for the money. They have a strong incentive to never let her rise out of poverty.
They seem to think they have the right to be completely inhumane in her treatment and show no attempt at compassion in the least.
This stance will of course come back to haunt them. I and many others have simply stopped supporting the industry in any way. I don't buy from any label involved in this and won't until they change. The change doesn't appear to be any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Have I missed something here? I'm not from the US but I'm pretty sure that you can declare bankruptcy there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're wrong. Judgments from a civil lawsuit are dischargeable. You may be confused because fines that are punishment for a crime are sometimes not dischargeable. This case, however, was not a criminal case.
---linuxrocks123
Re: (Score:2)
You can also leave the country.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This stance will of course come back to haunt them. I and many others have simply stopped supporting the industry in any way. I don't buy from any label involved in this and won't until they change. The change doesn't appear to be any time soon.
When they began their bullying 10+ years ago I committed myself to stop buying CDs until they stopped. If you walk into my place-- right there against the wall is a rack piled full of CDs, frozen in time. I was a fairly heavy buyer, but one day it was enough is eno
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they probably aren't making money on any of these, but a standardized and substantially less fee means that their numbers they use in their pirating statistics just got kicked into the ground. An actual judgment means that anti-RIAA folks can actually stat
Re: (Score:2)
The point is for there to be news items that say:
RIAA wins 54 MILLION DOLLARS in Illegal Music Download case!
It's not about the money per se, it's about media splash to hopefully deter others from doing the same. The IRS uses the same tactic - they just go after the big fish ( Like Martha Stewart) and theoretically, it will dissuade others from cheating on their taxes. Nobody there really believes that they can recover their "losses" by suing. Anyway the real losses, from a strict dollars and cents perspective, are not worth suing over, This is PR via the courts.
Small correction. Martha was busted for insider trading, not cheating on her taxes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, but thank you for playing. She was convicted of lying to a federal agent during an investigation even though a) she was not Mirandized, b) she was not under oath and c) what she lied about was not against the law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a) She didn't have to be Mirandized. She wasn't arrested at that point.
b) Doesn't matter. She wasn't in a court of law.
c) Doesn't matter. It's against the law to obstruct justice and lie to the FBI.
Read item 23 [thesmokinggun.com] and item 26-27 [thesmokinggun.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not an appeal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So - in a trial limited to "the issue of the appropriate amount of statutory damages", what really is discussed during the trial?
The RIAA has consistently been working the angle of statutory damages and avoiding the question of actual damages.
Are they going to have to argue actual damages moving forward?
It sounds like the trial would be a trial of the RIAA this time around, and not so much on Jammie Thomas.
It would seem that they would be limited too, in the discussion of the damages by the tracks she was d
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not an appeal (Score:4, Informative)
So - in a trial limited to "the issue of the appropriate amount of statutory damages", what really is discussed during the trial?
Well, there was no proof of a distribution, so I would imagine the key issues would be, for each of the 24 songs:
-what was the wholesale price of an authorized download?
-what would the expenses have been? and
-what percentage of unauthorized downloads represent lost sales.
I.e. if the mp3 download of a particular song would have sold for an average wholesale price of 71 cents, the royalties would have been 31 cents and the fixed expenses 5 cents, and for every 5 unauthorized downloads there would have been 1 lost sale, I would compute the actual damages as follows:
71 cents minus 36 cents = lost profit of 35 cents
20% x 35 cents = 7 cents actual damages.
Under Supreme Court deadlines, any award of statutory damages exceeding 28 cents for that recording would be suspect, and any award exceeding 63 cents would be presumptively invalid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't necessarily matter what they earned. Remember, the subject here is damages to the copyright holders. So the real issue would be their net (not gross) on the royalties paid. That is a far smaller amount than the retail price.
Jane. As usual, you are correct.
My sentiments exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
As a side note, I once got out of a $500,000 lawsuit by taking the opposing lawyer outside, pointing to my old ragged motorhome, and telling him "That's my only asset; I'm living in it, and I'm pretty sure I owe more on it than it is worth... you're welcome to try to take it away from me, but you're going to have to find it first! Now, how much effort do you really want to put into this case?" Once you convince them their best case scenario will simply drive you into bankruptcy and they will collect nothing anyway, they're not so keen on taking cases on contingency anymore -- especially meritless ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the opposing lawyer should be disbarred.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think all lawyers should be disbarred, but that's another topic for another time.
Re:My sentiments exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
the opposing lawyer should be disbarred.
Not if the opposing lawyer went straight to his client and said "Hey, be sensible here." The lawyer does not tell the lawyers client how they will proceed. It's the other way around. The lawyer interprets the law for the client, and tells them what is reasonable, and what is not. If the lawyer's wages are based on winnings, then the lawyer can also decide that it's not worth his time (i.e., no winnings = no wage). But if a client has the money, and wants to continue to pay despite good advice, a lawyer will happily do your bidding, even if it is futile.
Personally, I'm in favor of imposing reality on people. Lawyers can be assholes for many reasons, but not working for free is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA isn't hiring lawyers; they are lawyers. They really have nothing to lose from dragging this out as long as possible.
Even if the $54k settlement goes to the SCOTUS, it will stand. And $54k is plenty of deterrent for 90% of the US. That's about 10~15 years of garnished wages for most people.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you pay off a $54k settlement in 2 years? Even if you have a $100k/year job, you probably don't have the money to pay off that much debt that quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But $50k for someone making $100k a year isn't 6 months. That's closer to 18 months. For $100k a year, I'd put away $15k+ in 401(k), $5k in Roth, $15k in taxes, and half of what's left discretionary. I'd need something like $30k to live a whole year. $15k would last someone making $100k a year for 6 months. So yes, someone may be able to write a check for $
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, on $100K income in most states, you'll end up with about $65K take-home (with no pre-tax deductions), but you seem to be allocating only $15K instead of $35K to the government. Even with $20K pre-tax, the $80K remaining will end up as about $50K take-home.
Second, I did say "at least". There are a lot of people who are having problems finding equivalent employment in 12 months.
Third, $30K/year expenses is less than $3K/month. Many of those people making $100K are what I like to call "house poor" in
Appeal the constitutionality? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless the RIAA has figured out a way to successfully amend the U.S. Constitution through the courts(hint: they cannot), then there is not a damned thing that is going to change. I believe that corporations should be limited to receiving the real losses for IP theft. If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD, and if someone steals a movie, then the MPAA would get the cost of a movie ticket or DVD/Blu-ray disc, depending on which version is stolen. It is only fair, as thes
Re: (Score:2)
Although I'm sure at this point, even though the actual damages would by 0.99 per song, the court costs / lawyers fees are easily 25 thousand.
The point is, she *has* been found guily, and there comes a point where the appeal and counter-appeal process eventually has to end. At that point, do you want the RIAA claiming a 1.92 million "victory" or a 25 thousand "victory" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, figuring it at 24 songs at $1 each and adding treble damages to punish, the total award should be about $96. I think that is the victory I would like to see the RIAA be able to claim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD
What about when they upload the song? As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99. The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
What about when they upload the song? As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99. The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.
The industry could state the cost of that kind of license is a godzillian trillion dollars, so no, it is not sensible at all. Actual cost per song plus treble damages for willful distribution is the more than enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Willful? What Willful (Score:2)
Huh? So it *is* possible to use the "cat walked on my keyboard" defense and win? How can downloading music without adhering to the defined licensing terms not be willful? Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law (no matter if if it is a good or bad law).
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't count as wilful if you are not aware that the work is copyrighted. You might be able to argue this if she downloaded the music from someone else (so it didn't come with a copyright notice) and believed that it was shared by the band for promotion, but she'd have to convince the court, and that's not very likely.
Her lawyers really dropped the ball in this case. For example, the RIAA's lawyers argued that she is responsible for the transitive closure of the people who downloaded the song
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. They could be responsible and she could be responsible. In fact, both they and she could be 100% responsible, as the law is neither mathematics nor justice.
its not 'greed'. (Score:5, Interesting)
its distortion of justice, abuse of law, and exploitation of democracy.
private interests are suppressing individual citizens to protect their near monopoly gained profits through legal system. in addition to that, they buy lawmakers and manufacture laws that will protect ill gained profits in expense of freedoms of citizens, as in the acta case.
yet still, a lot of you just label this with a simple, insufficient word, 'greed'. this is not greed. its beyond greed. it has started to become a precise replication of feudal society back in middle ages, albeit, the feudalism has democracy as a storefront. we are supposedly free, yet, as citizens, our relative wealth and liberties compared to those small minority percentage on top of the pyramid didnt change by comparison. neither did the percentages of the wealthy and the ordinary had changed. just, the average standard of living globally has changed. back in middle ages wealthy could afford stone mansions adorned with gold while eating exquisite food whereas the ordinary person would live in thatched roof wooden huts eating gritty bread and cheese, now the wealthy can afford to take private jets halfway over the world on a whim while having hundred thousand dollar champagnes whereas the ordinary person has to work his/her butt off for your average meal. everything is the same in regard to justice in the society.
now, just like everything else that has happened before and had an effect to equalize the situation, empowering the ordinary people and making them less dependent on rich overlords, internet is being suppressed on numerous excuses and grounds, one of which being 'intellectual property rights'. if you put this in a different context with different wording, like into middle ages, you would find that it has no difference from the concept of 'lord's hunting rights in the forest'. and internet is very very detrimental to those 'rights'. it empowers individuals, ordinary people can rise up to noticeable wealth without having to be subservient to any overlord on top with shareholdership or conglomerate ties, and become a threat to existing aristocracy.
no, this is not a matter of simple 'greed'. this is a matter of freedom, and unfortunately, its being fought in the same basic ideals on which it was fought back in middle ages - inequality created due to skewed ownership rights and resulting control scheme. which is unfortunate, because it shows that nothing changed in principle compared to the middle ages, despite the stage and the costumes have changed.
Re: (Score:2)
No seriously this is very well put, and I would like to hear more.
Re: (Score:2)
do you believe you can convince enough politicians of that to make it matter?
.
It is unimportant what politicians believe if RIAA and MPAA are deprived of any income.
Accept nothing from RIAA/MPAA, give nothing to RIAA/MPAA. RIAA/MPAA will go away as they
so richly deserve. At work, I'll veto the purchase of a system that has too much Sony IP in it
if I can obtain alternatives for less than a 10% difference. Mostly, the alternatives cost
less with interoperability that is better than the Sony selection.
For the
boy .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney has balance sheets and accounting books and X number of employees to show what IT'S doing with the IP. What do you have? Other than "but but but feudal system!?"
feudal lords had balance sheets, accounting books, X number of employees, chancellors, stewards, inspectors, taskmasters, sergeant at arms and innumerable other types of offices under them, working for them. even the smaller nobles, 'landholders', or with the term in early middle ages, 'freeholders'.
yea, i say 'but but but but feudal'. because it IS feudal. however, you are quite ignorant on that matter, seeing as how you can show having accounting books and balance sheets as being something differentiating the modern feudal estates from middle age ones.
actually it is worse today. back in feudal times, the lord, estate owner, had an obligation to feed the peasants, who were tied as serfs to his/her estate. it was a double sided oath, a social responsibility. today, the estate owner is even free from that obligation, while retaining all the privileges of being an aristocrat.
and there are people like you too, justifying the system of inequality through various excuses so that you can accept the reality you are living in, and cope up with it.
Hold on... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting side question: J.D. Salinger just died after writing profusely (and profanely) for over 50 years. Much of that will now presumably be published. Does the copyright start on the date he finished writing
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of copyright law is to allow those who bought the law to have complete control over what the rest of us do with any creative work, ever, no matter what the cost to us. Given that, the $1.3 million dollar judgement is quite low.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to pirate shit knowing full well that it's illegal and not give a damn because "everybody's doing it and *they* don't get arrested
If you're going to rant, learn the facts. Copyright violation ("piracy") is a civil matter. Therefore, downloading or sharing a song is, in fact, not illegal. You cannot be arrested for it. If you are arrested for downloading or sharing a song (or 25,000 songs) you have a very good case for false arrest and imprisonment if you can find a half decent lawyer who gets copyright law.
The only way copyright violation can become a criminal matter involving arrest is by running it as a for-profit enterprise.
Irrespe