Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link



... Just wow. I still can't see why it is in anyway fair to charge that much for this.

And what the hell are jurors angry for? They didn't make the music.

It says she's a Mom. If I were her, I'd just pass down that $29.99/month payment for the next 16 generations.

The jury sounds like children.
They wouldn't be acting like this if it were them on trial.

$80,000 for each song is so ludicrous. An entire CD is much less than that.

So, the musician had to wait a month longer to buy their next vehicle or whatever new toy they were looking forward to frivolously spending their money on. Not hard earned money either.

Will this happen to people who download comics, books, and so on?
Or, is this just for whiny musicians?

My memory's a bit fuzzy on this one, but didn't Metallica file some kind of lawsuit like this a few years back?

Im a musician, and I like to be protected when doing anything where money is inloved, but this judgemant is clearly taking th piss.

I reckon they knew there was no way to pay it, and were probably fine with that, but this was more valuable to them as a bit of fearmongering PR in a time where big losses are being made right now.

Originally posted by The Scribe


$80,000 for each song is so ludicrous. An entire CD is much less than that.

So, the musician had to wait a month longer to buy their next vehicle or whatever new toy they were looking forward to frivolously spending their money on. Not hard earned money either.



You say that as if the musicians get all the money, hell or even a tenth of the money from album sales/downloads. It's not about them.

$80000 a song? That's about 80,000 times what the music was apparently worth anyway.

Originally posted by chithappens
You say that as if the musicians get all the money, hell or even a tenth of the money from album sales/downloads. It's not about them.

Haven't you seen the South Park episode about downloading music?

Just watch Cribs and you will see what I mean.

Lil' Bow Wow had a car before he could drive.

Cribs is a rental show

so, I know stuff works differently in America than it does in Canada, but how did they possibly come up with the figure of 80 000 a song?

Like, I'm a pretty big file sharer, and I don't think there are any individual songs that I have distributed enough to consider it a loss of more than $100 (and thats being generous) to any record company.

Like, obviously the laws are outdated, but do the courts really just get to invent punishment like that?

Originally posted by chithappens
Cribs is a rental show

lol, like the people rent all their stuff?

I'd just refuse to pay it, what they going to do about that give another fine? Or put the mum in jail

Or pay it off 1 dollar per month

Originally posted by The Scribe
Will this happen to people who download comics, books, and so on?
Or, is this just for whiny musicians?

this topic has come up in the comic books forum a bunch of times.

My thoughts are no, they wont.

Most people are idiots when it comes to music. They pick a radio station and just buy whatever it tells them is good. In this way, there is a huge market for music, and people who aren't passionate or don't care about the music are still going to buy it.

So, you can go after these people, and they wont get personally insulted that the music industry is coming after them, and more importantly, the larger music listening community wont boycott the music, because the vast majority of people just don't care (which is befuddling and annoying to say the least).

When it comes to comics, groups like DCP and Minutemen are obviously comprised of people who love comics. The people who download and seed are all also huge comic fans. Just because of the medium, it is highly unlikely that anyone pirating and sharing comics is not passionate about them (they likely also buy comics).

If Marvel or DC (another reason, only 2 major companies, one can't do something that makes the other look good) were to attack comic piracy, they are attacking one of their most loyal fan bases, and literally risk huge internet reaction and loss of sales, as lifelong fans will now feel like the company they supported for 20 years is trying to attack them.

Originally posted by inimalist



lol, like the people rent all their stuff?

Most of the time this is the case. Hardly anyone is making that sort of money making music anymore and it was hardly true decades ago, hence all these former music greats doing reality TV and the such.

There are a list of exceptions but a lot of people just blow money.

Tupac, for example, was broke because Suge Knight was taking all the money but he never was the type to look it over so he died with less than $10,000 in the bank (but he never was that sort of spender so Knight was just pocketing it all). NWA broke up because Easy E was taking all the money (even are Dr. Dre made diss records about Easy E, Easy was making money from the royalities = super irony). TLC made less than a buck for every album sold and had to split it between the three of them.

what i dont understand if its ilegal to do file sharing or download free songs videos then how the hell do those sites still stay open. they should get on the asses 1st of the people who keep those sites running. not the downloaders. if theres no site to download them then theres no downloaders.

Originally posted by chomperx9
what i dont understand if its ilegal to do file sharing or download free songs videos then how the hell do those sites still stay open. they should get on the asses 1st of the people who keep those sites running. not the downloaders. if theres no site to download them then theres no downloaders. Torrents are a very good and useful tool, which, admittedly gets used for illegal means, but they shouldn't persecute search engines for looking for them.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I'd just refuse to pay it, what they going to do about that give another fine? Or put the mum in jail


A)Deduct your wages

B)Jail time

C)Liquidate your assests

D)All of the above

Answer: D, all of the above

Originally posted by Bardock42
Torrents are a very good and useful tool, which, admittedly gets used for illegal means, but they shouldn't persecute search engines for looking for them. they persecuted torrentspy. before they blocked only usa searchers from using the site now its closed for good. read what it says on there site cause they are getting more and more serious every day about the downloading free crap. www.torrentspy.com

Originally posted by chomperx9
they persecuted torrentspy. before they blocked only usa searchers from using the site now its closed for good. read what it says on there site cause they are getting more and more serious every day about the downloading free crap. www.torrentspy.com

Yes, but what I said.

Originally posted by inimalist


If Marvel or DC (another reason, only 2 major companies, one can't do something that makes the other look good) were to attack comic piracy, they are attacking one of their most loyal fan bases, and literally risk huge internet reaction and loss of sales, as lifelong fans will now feel like the company they supported for 20 years is trying to attack them.

Except the flaw in that argument is that if you're downloading them illegally then you're neither loyal nor supporting the company regardless of how much you like the comics. Quite the opposite in fact.

this reminds me to clean my hard drive and delete things that just waste space.. *cough..... how did they even fight her and know she was downloading songs? music

band

Whoever said this was scaremongering is correct.

They're trying to make an example of this woman, because if there was a simple and easy way to shut off all illegal file sharing - well they would have done it by now.
Hence the over exaggerated ridiculous sentence.

We didn't have any serious examples of anyone being persecuted for downloading songs illegally - so we have it now.

They're implementing a tactic of you policing yourself - they shake their fat corporate finger at you and say ''this can happen to YOU''.
This way you will police yourself, instead of them doing it, which is near to impossible.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
this reminds me to clean my hard drive and delete things that just waste space.. *cough..... how did they even fight her and know she was downloading songs? music

band IP

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They're trying to make an example of this woman, because if there was a simple and easy way to shut off all illegal file sharing - well they would have done it by now.
Hence the over exaggerated ridiculous sentence.


Yet it's an unfair and totally bullshit example, smelling of corruption, since the music industry has billions on it's side.

If someone steals $100.00 worth of clothing, no Judge or Jury will penalize them with paying back $8 million in damages. There is no precedent for this, wait, now there is.

The fine should fit the crime, simple as that. She stole $24.00 dollars worth of goods, that's not even a felony.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet it's an unfair and totally bullshit example, smelling of corruption, since the music industry has billions on it's side.

If someone steals $100.00 worth of clothing, no Judge or Jury will penalize them with paying back $8 million in damages. There is no precedent for this, wait, now there is.

The fine should fit the crime, simple as that. She stole $24.00 dollars worth of goods, that's not even a felony.

Exactly. It smells of corruption and geed. But they are counting on scaring everyone shitless and with that making few more millions.

Appaling.

Originally posted by The Scribe
Haven't you seen the South Park episode about downloading music?

Just watch Cribs and you will see what I mean.

Lil' Bow Wow had a car before he could drive. Not all musicians are rich like that

Originally posted by chomperx9
IP

what a relieve.. sure as hell cant track me then. i guess i can carry on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet it's an unfair and totally bullshit example, smelling of corruption, since the music industry has billions on it's side.

If someone steals $100.00 worth of clothing, no Judge or Jury will penalize them with paying back $8 million in damages. There is no precedent for this, wait, now there is.

The fine should fit the crime, simple as that. She stole $24.00 dollars worth of goods, that's not even a felony. i think they need to blame the person who uploads the torrents that are ilegal on to the site. they should get on them 1st because they are the main ones to blame since they originally copied or how ever they get the document in the 1st place. if they dont upload it on to the site then theres no downloaders.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
what a relieve.. sure as hell cant track me then. i guess i can carry on. let me guess someone has hide my ip 2009 ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
i think they need to blame the person who uploads the torrents that are ilegal on to the site. they should get on them 1st because they are the main ones to blame since they originally copied or how ever they get the document in the 1st place. if they dont upload it on to the site then theres no downloaders.

There's no real "upload", since it's usually peer-to-peer. In essence, if you're sharing your music, I link up to your computer via a 3rd party software (eg torrents, orginal napster) and download directly from your computer (and others, in many cases, if it's a wide share).

Penalizing those 3rd party companies is a no go, as they're not necessaily responsible with what people are sharing, I believe they also have disclaimers when you use their services.

They ruined this woman's life over 24 songs. Ridiculous.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's no real "upload", since it's usually peer-to-peer. In essence, if you're sharing your music, I link up to your computer via a 3rd party software (eg torrents, orginal napster) and download directly from your computer (and others, in many cases, if it's a wide share).

Penalizing those 3rd party companies is a no go, as they're not necessaily responsible with what people are sharing, I believe they also have disclaimers when you use their services. so the torrents that get put on the site by the user they get uploaded on to there from some other software. well then they are to blame for file sharing not just the downloaders.

She is paying for all those who got away with it. Cruel justice.

Originally posted by chomperx9
let me guess someone has hide my ip 2009 ?


i use and do oher more questionable things

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wonder what songs it were.

I'm sure nothing along the lines of Tchaikovsky's Overture or Mozart's Concerto no. 23.

But I DO wonder what kind of genius musical art was worth so much money. Someone please enlighten us.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm sure nothing along the lines of Tchaikovsky's Overture or Mozart's Concerto no. 23.

Those are both public domain by now, though I guess specific performances would be illegal to download.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those are both public domain by now, though I guess specific performances would be illegal to download.
Which is why I said I'm sure she hasn't downloaded those, so if priceless music is not in question, again, which one is worth so much money.

Originally posted by jaden101
Except the flaw in that argument is that if you're downloading them illegally then you're neither loyal nor supporting the company regardless of how much you like the comics. Quite the opposite in fact.

my argument was, in fact, that there is a higher percentage of downloaders who also buy in the comic medium than the music. There are some people for whom knowing the content before buying has actually increased the number of comics they purchase. Obviously the same can be said for music, but I think that is less mainstream than with comics.

the argument doesn't really rely on relative interpretations of word use...

Yeah, they do this from time to time to try and remind people that it's illegal. Make a hyperbolic example of some random person in hopes that people will hear about and say 'oh shit, well I better not do that anymore!'.

It works wonders, obviously.

Brb, loading Limewire.

I'm kind of thinking this qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. That's an exorbitant amount to levy on an average person.

have any of the jurors done interviews yet?

Originally posted by chithappens
I still can't see why it is in anyway fair to charge that much for this.
Originally posted by The Scribe
$80,000 for each song is so ludicrous. An entire CD is much less than that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
$80000 a song? That's about 80,000 times what the music was apparently worth anyway.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, I know stuff works differently in America than it does in Canada, but how did they possibly come up with the figure of 80 000 a song?

Like, I'm a pretty big file sharer, and I don't think there are any individual songs that I have distributed enough to consider it a loss of more than $100 (and thats being generous) to any record company.

Like, obviously the laws are outdated, but do the courts really just get to invent punishment like that?
Originally posted by Robtard
Yet it's an unfair and totally bullshit example, smelling of corruption, since the music industry has billions on it's side.

If someone steals $100.00 worth of clothing, no Judge or Jury will penalize them with paying back $8 million in damages. There is no precedent for this, wait, now there is.

The fine should fit the crime, simple as that. She stole $24.00 dollars worth of goods, that's not even a felony.

The judgment is a combination of actual damages, i.e. the quantifiable monetary losses of the copyright holder; and statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement.




Originally posted by The Scribe
Will this happen to people who download comics, books, and so on?
Or, is this just for whiny musicians?

Anyone who unlawfully appropriates literary; musical; dramatic; choreographic and pantomime; graphic, pictorial, and sculptural; audiovisual and motion picture; sound recording; and architectural works may be liable for copyright infringement.




Originally posted by chomperx9
what i dont understand if its ilegal to do file sharing or download free songs videos then how the hell do those sites still stay open. they should get on the asses 1st of the people who keep those sites running. not the downloaders. if theres no site to download them then theres no downloaders.
Originally posted by Robtard
There's no real "upload", since it's usually peer-to-peer. In essence, if you're sharing your music, I link up to your computer via a 3rd party software (eg torrents, orginal napster) and download directly from your computer (and others, in many cases, if it's a wide share).

Penalizing those 3rd party companies is a no go, as they're not necessaily responsible with what people are sharing, I believe they also have disclaimers when you use their services.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The judgment is a combination of actual damages, i.e. the quantifiable monetary losses of the copyright holder; and statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement.


Doesn't follow, as there isn't really a precedent and claiming "quantifible" here is all but arbitrary.

If the songs are being sold for $0.99 cents each, the jury/judge is assuming she would be handing them off directly to 80k other people online and making her directly responsible for each offense with that $80k fine, which is unprovable and highly improbable.

Edit: It'd be similar to, if you permanently crippled me with your car where I couldn't work ever again, then I sued you for $100 million dollars, because it's possible that I could have made that much before I retired or died.

Though fortunately for you, there are precedents and their is legal settings for how much each body part costs, you'd be surprised how little a spine goes for.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't follow, as there isn't really a precedent and claiming "quantifible" here is all but arbitrary.

If the songs are being sold for $0.99 cents each, the jury/judge is assuming she would be handing them off directly to 80k other people online and making her directly responsible for each offense with that $80k fine, which is unprovable and highly improbable.

Exactly. First off, I've never seen evidence of how they "find" the people doing this. I think it would be a fair assumption that she downloaded more than 24 songs. Most P2P system allow you to see all the files a user will share but that doesn't mean you can find out where they are.

At my college, they would charge people $ 5,000 for a select amount of downloads if they agreed to some sort of plea., but that is also an outrageous number.

An entire album is normally worth $15 today. There is no fair reason that any corporation should be able to charge someone hundreds of times beyond that amount even if they did steal it. As mentioned earlier, someone who robs a store might have to pay back for the amount stolen, but they don't charge percentages over that. I understand media can be replicated easily, but that still doesn't condone charging someone an amount that obviously could not be paid by this woman or her future generations.

how much don they go for?

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Not all musicians are rich like that

Indeed. You gotta be in it for the love of it. Big gigs can be few and far between (Ive not been too active, myself of late) and you wanna make that money count, of course, but the reality always seems to be no matter your paycheck, someone is always there to make off of what you do, often at your detriment. Usually the record company if someone is signed, and it goes beyond renumeration with these folk.

So it garners little sympathy when those greedy people get hit for it, among many. But the artist seems to take a hit for it too.

No excusing piracy, per say, but I agree that each case should be proportional.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
how much don they go for?

When my mother was injured at work 15+ years ago, her lawyer had the spread-sheet out, iirc, I think 'unrepairable spinal damage' was around $50k. This is of cource a base and circumstances can cahnage it, but $50k for a spine? Doesn't sound like a logical base, especially when some woman is getting taken anally sans lube for 24 songs.

If you earch online for "loss of use", and maybe throw in the search 'legal', 'body parts', 'workers comp', you should find something. It does vary from state to state, but I don't think by large margins.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth


No excusing piracy, per say, but I agree that each case should be proportional.

That's my view. She broke the law and got caught, so she should pay, but this isn't fair.

Originally posted by Robtard
When my mother was injured at work 15+ years ago, her lawyer had the spread-sheet out, iirc, I think 'unrepairable spinal damage' was around $50k. This is of cource a base and circumstances can cahnage it, but $50k for a spine? Doesn't sound like a logical base, especially when some woman is getting taken anally sans lube for 24 songs.

If you earch online for "loss of use", and maybe throw in the search 'legal', 'body parts', 'workers comp', you should find something. It does vary from state to state, but I don't think by large margins.

Dude that fu**ing sucks.

I dont know how those people sleep at night.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Dude that fu**ing sucks.

I dont know how those people sleep at night.

usually with their eyes close and lying down.

Aint that the sad truth...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You gotta be in it for the love of it.

People just don't get that any more. It's all about money and material gain. So, I don't care and I encourage you to do as you please.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
usually with their eyes close and lying down.

In their jail cell for ripping people off.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The judgment is a combination of actual damages, i.e. the quantifiable monetary losses of the copyright holder; and statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement.

Yes, but again I do not care.

No one says anything about book or comic book piracy.

It's only about music and movies.

The technology is available to do these things and they thought
people were not going to use that to their advantage?

How naive these "elite" fools are.

we're not saying that the jury didn't apply the law, jus that the law as applied in this case is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's no real "upload", since it's usually peer-to-peer. In essence, if you're sharing your music, I link up to your computer via a 3rd party software (eg torrents, orginal napster) and download directly from your computer (and others, in many cases, if it's a wide share).

Partially true.


There is not host SAN to the that distributor uploads to.

However, the uploading occurs on the distributor's end. They are considered the ad hoc server. The download occurs on the downloader's side.


So, yes, there are uploaders and downloaders in the real sense of those terms...just in a P2P environment, the client-server relationship is very dynamic...as each computer in the P2P network is both.










Now, about this thread.




Stupid stupid stupid music industry. Why can't the Muslim extremists focus on the RIAA and the MPAA...they are obviously the real devils.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Partially true.


There is not host SAN to the that distributor uploads to.

However, the uploading occurs on the distributor's end. They are considered the ad hoc server. The download occurs on the downloader's side.


So, yes, there are uploaders and downloaders in the real sense of those terms...just in a P2P environment, the client-server relationship is very dynamic...as each computer in the P2P network is both.


You basically said what I said, just used correct terminology.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Partially true.


There is not host SAN to the that distributor uploads to.

However, the uploading occurs on the distributor's end. They are considered the ad hoc server. The download occurs on the downloader's side.


So, yes, there are uploaders and downloaders in the real sense of those terms...just in a P2P environment, the client-server relationship is very dynamic...as each computer in the P2P network is both.

Regardless, the software only facilitates the transfer of files, it does not provide a proprietary environment for the transfer to take place, so the software developer is not vicariously infringing any copyrighted works.




Originally posted by Robtard
Which they hit her with about 50% of the max, which is still bullshit, considering it's a bullshit law, since it allows for a much greater pay-out per actual lose to the infringed upon. I'm not arguing that she's innocent, just that the fine doesn't fit the crime.

Might as well fine someone $50k, if they steal $20.00 Gap shirt.

Technically, the punishment does fit the crime . . . as prescribed by law; it is simply not proportional to the crime.

Originally posted by Robtard
You basically said what I said, just used correct terminology.

In your defense, you put "upload" in quotes. But I figured I'd make it clear before some idiot thought that P2P wasn't uploading.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Regardless, the software only facilitates the transfer of files, it does not provide a proprietary environment for the transfer to take place, so the software developer is not vicariously infringing any copyrighted works.

The "proprietary" environment IS the P2P software being used and the computers the data is transferring over. i.e. Azerus Vuze, Bittorrent, etc.

But you are correct. It is the user of the software that is breaking the law. However, I don't think anyone was arguing that it's the software companies' fault for their software being used for illegal actions.






Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Technically, the punishment does fit the crime . . . as prescribed by law; it is simply not proportional to the crime.

This hits the nail right on the head.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
does fit the crime . . . as prescribed by law; it is simply not proportional to the crime.

or you could say that the punishment, prescribed by law, does not fit the crime, ie. it's out of proportion with the damage done.

Originally posted by docb77
or you could say that the punishment, prescribed by law, does not fit the crime, ie. it's out of proportion with the damage done.


Also true.

Perhaps they should target the initial uploader, that would make some sense.

Really, the concept of being persecuted for having the bits on my hard drive rearranged in a certain manner is odd to me. Not saying it is wrong, just that I have no absolutely matured view of digital rights.

To add to that, if there was a machine that could rearrange atoms in any way you want, would it be illegal to have it make a particular designer chair and why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps they should target the initial uploader, that would make some sense.

Really, the concept of being persecuted for having the bits on my hard drive rearranged in a certain manner is odd to me. Not saying it is wrong, just that I have no absolutely matured view of digital rights.

To add to that, if there was a machine that could rearrange atoms in any way you want, would it be illegal to have it make a particular designer chair and why?

Now this I like, in fact I've known people who buy wood and basically make a replica or imitation of a famous design. Never heard of any of them getting sued.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps they should target the initial uploader, that would make some sense.

That is what they've done before, I think.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To add to that, if there was a machine that could rearrange atoms in any way you want, would it be illegal to have it make a particular designer chair and why?

If you made it with their label, probably. Of course in a hypothetical world where it's possible to do that most companies would rapidly go bankrupt rendering the point somewhat moot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is what they've done before, I think.

You're correct. That's what they've almost always been doing with these suits.

This suit here is different than most which is why it is big news.



In fact, there are people out there that think they will only get into trouble for distrubuting and not downloading. This case proves that wrong.

If i'm not mistaken, this is their first win, mainly because the basis of these lawsuits is based on ridiculous and unconstitutional grounds and that if she wanted to, this woman could press criminal extortion and racketeering charges against the recording industry

just read ars account of jury selection in the trial (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars).

Funny isn't it, anyone who at all admitted to being remotely familiar with the technology used in file sharing was automatically excluded. Should have known it was lost right then.

Still, that jury must not have had a conscience between them to rule on 80,000 per song.

Isn't that at some level a violation of her right to be tried by unbiased peers?

admittedly the defense has the right to object to jurors too, but I don't know how he'd be able to tell the ones who were to afraid of the MAFIAA to admit to knowing how to P2P from those that really thought it was illegal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Isn't that at some level a violation of her right to be tried by unbiased peers?

Highly illegal.

Originally posted by docb77
admittedly the defense has the right to object to jurors too, but I don't know how he'd be able to tell the ones who were to afraid of the MAFIAA to admit to knowing how to P2P from those that really thought it was illegal.

Only people who volunteer and will submit to a complete computer check can be jurors.

Originally posted by chithappens
Link



... Just wow. I still can't see why it is in anyway fair to charge that much for this.

And what the hell are jurors angry for? They didn't make the music. **** the jury, **** the artists. I say download away.

1. The reasoning behind these lawsuits is that each downloaded song represents the loss of the sale of an album or albums for the company, not a violation of the artist's intellectual property. In fact the artists get nothing from this, just a reinforcement of that ridiculous myth of corporate personhood and that their exists a god given right to profit. All these things are a logical fallacy and therefore redefine such suits as suit for profit at best, extortion at worst. The precedent in Universal v. Nintendo states that is is illegal for one party to sue another if the single motive to the suit is pursuit of profit.

2. The jury was biased because the judge was obviously cherry picking the jury via biased juror instructions during selection.

3. The very existence and business practices of the RIAA violates the RICO act and the Sherman anti-trust act defining it as a criminal organization. It is illegal for a criminal or terrorist organization to sue someone in the US. It is improper for the court to represent the interests of lawlessness no matter what merit they have. The Cosa Nostra can't sue the crips etc.

Originally posted by Darth Jello

3. The very existence and business practices of the RIAA violates the RICO act and the Sherman anti-trust act defining it as a criminal organization.

which practices?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
1. The reasoning behind these lawsuits is that each downloaded song represents the loss of the sale of an album or albums for the company, not a violation of the artist's intellectual property. In fact the artists get nothing from this, just a reinforcement of that ridiculous myth of corporate personhood and that their exists a god given right to profit. All these things are a logical fallacy and therefore redefine such suits as suit for profit at best, extortion at worst. The precedent in Universal v. Nintendo states that is is illegal for one party to sue another if the single motive to the suit is pursuit of profit.

But their argument is that it's theft. Which is true.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
3. The very existence and business practices of the RIAA violates the RICO act and the Sherman anti-trust act defining it as a criminal organization. It is illegal for a criminal or terrorist organization to sue someone in the US. It is improper for the court to represent the interests of lawlessness no matter what merit they have. The Cosa Nostra can't sue the crips etc.

How does the RIAA count as a criminal or terrorist organization?

The RIAA engages in extortion by filing huge lawsuits that it tries to settle out of court by threatening a client with their size and malicious lawsuits. both how the RICO act works is that you have an entire list of federal statutes and if you violate any two of them, you're in violation and both filing malicious suits and extortion are on there. The RIAA violates the Sherman Anti Trust act because it is several companies colluding to protect their stated interests including price fixing, giving choice prices to certain retailers, lobbying the government, and absorbing or intimidating independent companies. Therefore they are an oligopolistic/cartel and are illegal (not that the sherman act has been enforced since reagan was in office, hence why every big business is essentially a monopoly that's too big to fail now).
Furthermore, the entire logic behind the lawsuit is flawed and of dubious merit and more than likely illegal. The stated purpose of a copyright lawsuit is to protect the integrity and profits of the artist and music is not a for service industry so the artist are the ultimate copyright holders of their music. The reasoning behind a company suing an individual has nothing to do with protecting the integrity or earnings of the artist and everything to do with profiting from the lawsuit, the theory being that all corporations are entitled to an inalienable right to profit. Now, because of the completely retarded outcome of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad their is some precedent for the concept of corporate personhood and this right to profit, but again, based on the ruling in Universal v. Nintendo, it's improper to file a lawsuit based for the purpose of profiting from the lawsuit. Therefore, a company can only file a lawsuit to recover lost profits. The assumption of said lawsuits and specifically the damages in this trial is that every single song downloaded would have amounted to an MP3 sale online ($1-$2) or an album sale ($10-$15), this of course would also involve a punitive fine at the discretion of the judge. Of this money, none goes to the artist since no units were actually sold.

Now, assuming that we live in a fair world where the music industry has no intended malice, at maximum for downloading 24 songs if there really was a correlation that proved that every downloaded song resulted in a lost album sale, along with a punitive element would result in a fine of no more than $1,000. with $80,000 per song, there's clearly a profit motive for the music industry and the judge, not to mention that it's a violation of the 8th amendment of the constitution preventing the leveling of unfair and excessive fines and judgments. So in essence, the music industry is profiting despite any and all incurred legal/bribery fees because theoretically, they are making $1,200,000 on $384 in lost profit.

not trying to resurrect a dead thread, but has anyone seen any interviews from the jury yet?

Wait up. So, if I google up a song right now and download it illegally, how would I be caught doing so? How in the world did the mom get caught?

Of the millions who could get caught, she's the one who got caught.

WTH. What did they do? Monitor her IP address, and when she downloads something, BAM! GOTCHA! O.o

I wonder what the songs were.



And, well, sorry to break it to the music industry, but there are actually some people in this world who LOVE music but can't afford it, so they are reduced to illegal downloads. Think they wouldn't love to buy the originals? They would, but, well, they just can't afford it.

I have no problem downloading. It means me putting myself first above the creators which I have no problem doing. If that makes me a bad person then so be it.

That's the stupidest justification I've heard to date.

Not trying to justify, I just dont have a problem putting myself first money-wise.

Originally posted by Ryo 666
Not trying to justify, I just dont have a problem putting myself first money-wise.

Don't worry about it.

He's just jealous because he has to pay $15 dollars for his favs while you get a five finger discount.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't worry about it.

He's just jealous because he has to pay $15 dollars for his favs while you get a five finger discount.

I don't listen to much music but I do DL stuff like TV shows and anime (never downloaded a movie though I support my local library!). I simply find his argument irrational, especially when there are so many perfectly good reasons to steal stuff like (even especially) music.

Not every reason is the same. That doesn't go for all things, some are just because I feel like it lol.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I simply find his argument irrational, especially when there are so many perfectly good reasons to steal stuff like (even especially) music.

lol

so you are the police of perfectly good reasons now?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't listen to much music but I do DL stuff like TV shows and anime (never downloaded a movie though I support my local library!). I simply find his argument irrational, especially when there are so many perfectly good reasons to steal stuff like (even especially) music.

I can't tell if you noticed my post was HUGE sarcasm. I have this thing where I don't like to illegally download things.


If there's some obscure anime episode that I cannot find, I'll look for it on a torrent. However, that's just about it. Oh, and, I download the stuff that Dattebayo does...but the illegality (is that a word? lol) of downloading a fansub before it's released on DVD is questionable. It's a gray area that, so far, has fallen under "artistic expression" or some shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't tell if you noticed my post was HUGE sarcasm. I have this thing where I don't like to illegally download things.


If there's some obscure anime episode that I cannot find, I'll look for it on a torrent. However, that's just about it. Oh, and, I download the stuff that Dattebayo does...but the illegality (is that a word? lol) of downloading a fansub before it's released on DVD is questionable. It's a gray area that, so far, has fallen under "artistic expression" or some shit.

not to sound glib, but aren't you a marijuana user?

why does the legality of something mean anything to you in this instance?

Originally posted by inimalist
not to sound glib, but aren't you a marijuana user?

We've been over this already. Do a search for "imbibe" under the username "dadudemon". See what you get. It will take you 10 seconds, honest.

Originally posted by inimalist
why does the legality of something mean anything to you in this instance?

I don't understand the question or the context of the question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We've been over this already. Do a search for "imbibe" under the username "dadudemon". See what you get. It will take you 10 seconds, honest.

I made the assumption because we had talked about it in the past, just making sure really

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand the question or the context of the question.

well, both are illegal, yet that doesn't stop you from doing one.

I'd understand someone making the "legally gray" argument if they never drank before they were 19, always wore a seat-belt, never failed to indicate a turn, etc.

The fact that someone can use an illegal drug, and justify that behaviour, yet not do something else because of the legal considerations, doesn't make sense to me really.

Originally posted by inimalist
I made the assumption because we had talked about it in the past, just making sure really

AHA!


So you did use the search feature...didn't you?


If not, what did you assume my post meant?

And, also, does my absurdly good memory creep you out...just a little?



Originally posted by inimalist
well, both are illegal, yet that doesn't stop you from doing one.

I am unsure what you're referring to.


Define "both."


Originally posted by inimalist
I'd understand someone making the "legally gray" argument if they never drank before they were 19, always wore a seat-belt, never failed to indicate a turn, etc.


I don't understand this context, either.

Originally posted by inimalist
The fact that someone can use an illegal drug, and justify that behaviour, yet not do something else because of the legal considerations, doesn't make sense to me really.

I am unsure what this is referring to, as well.










I am not playing dumb. I just don't understand, bro. I have assumptions, but we all know that out of 6 plausible assumptions, I'll sometimes choose the wrong one.





I think the first thing you need to do is do the search I recommended. If you don't know how to use the search feature (understandable), then let me know and I'll point you to it. That will probably change your posts and we'll have a different conversation, if I am assuming correctly on where you're coming from.

There's nothing really wrong with marijuana. Alcohol and tobacco do more damage than marijuana.

Marijuana does less damage to your health than tobacco, and it's effects are less aggressive than alcohol.

Most people under extreme influences of alcohol will try to do rational and stupid things. People who are high still have their sense of conscience, rather they are more 'chilled out' and relaxed. A high individual will almost never do something rational.

There hasn't been a single occurance of someone dying from over abuse of marijuana. There have been countless deaths of over consuming alcohol.


Yet still, it's illegal. In my opinion, it's illegal so that the tobacco and alcohol market could be more profitable. If marijuana was to be made mass produced and sold, the demand of tobacco and alcohol would lower.

So, not all things that are illegal are 'bad' or 'wrong.'

If I had the ability to download illegal music for free and not get caught, I'm going to go ahead and download illegal music. It's as simple as that. Why pay money when you can get the same songs for free? Me downloading the songs individually would be like taking away the profit of the author of the song by less then half a dollar?

Originally posted by dadudemon

I think the first thing you need to do is do the search I recommended. If you don't know how to use the search feature (understandable), then let me know and I'll point you to it. That will probably change your posts and we'll have a different conversation, if I am assuming correctly on where you're coming from.

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird

didn't you have a marijuana leaf avatar for a while...

anyways, sorry, obvious OT and irrelevant

Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA!


So you did use the search feature...didn't you?


If not, what did you assume my post meant?

And, also, does my absurdly good memory creep you out...just a little?





I am unsure what you're referring to.


Define "both."





I don't understand this context, either.



I am unsure what this is referring to, as well.










I am not playing dumb. I just don't understand, bro. I have assumptions, but we all know that out of 6 plausible assumptions, I'll sometimes choose the wrong one.





I think the first thing you need to do is do the search I recommended. If you don't know how to use the search feature (understandable), then let me know and I'll point you to it. That will probably change your posts and we'll have a different conversation, if I am assuming correctly on where you're coming from. I want to destroy you.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
If I had the ability to download illegal music for free and not get caught, I'm going to go ahead and download illegal music. It's as simple as that. Why pay money when you can get the same songs for free? Me downloading the songs individually would be like taking away the profit of the author of the song by less then half a dollar?

If you enjoy something you should purchase it whenever you can. If you don't (and don't pretend you think you're the only person who steals it) the product's quality will decrease. It's hardly a moral issue, though a there are plenty of moral reasons not to download things illegally.

This is the difference between "self interest" and "enlightened self interest".

Originally posted by inimalist
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird

Are you serious or being sarcastic?


Originally posted by inimalist
didn't you have a marijuana leaf avatar for a while...

anyways, sorry, obvious OT and irrelevant

No, I didn't.

However, I did have a couple of avatars that were people smoking it.

I might have even had something in my sig, at one point.




Anyway, I've posted twice, I think, that I don't smoke MJ beacuse it is illegal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I want to destroy you.

Why?

Originally posted by dadudemon


Why?

There are no reasons...who needs reasons when you've got...

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are no reasons...who needs reasons when you've got...

This is true. It's like getting a...

Is it the jury that chooses what the penalty is per song?

So no jury interviews so far then?

They destroyed a woman's life just because some big ass company wants more money and a corrupted Judge felt like it.

Disgusting.....on a whole new level.

Screw all of them, I was recording on tapes wayyy before this piracy crap turned up a notch and CDs/DVDs came into play.

When they started all of that crap I still wasnt buying DVDs or CDs, I would record it from TV and radio.

Either way I got it for free, so they can blow me.

Originally posted by The Nuul
They destroyed a woman's life just because some big ass company wants more money and a corrupted Judge felt like it.

Disgusting.....on a whole new level.

Screw all of them, I was recording on tapes wayyy before this piracy crap turned up a notch and CDs/DVDs came into play.

When they started all of that crap I still wasnt buying DVDs or CDs, I would record it from TV and radio.

Either way I got it for free, so they can blow me.

*blows*

doped

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is true. It's like getting a... Word.

24 songs?

LOL I have like 500,000+ songs in my hard drive downloaded 'illegally' from Ares and BearShare

I'd probably get the death penalty or lifetime imprisonment lol

i would probably get a yr or two in prison for pimp slapping the judge after hearing the verdict.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i would probably get a yr or two in prison for pimp slapping the judge after hearing the verdict.

Internet tough guy is tough.

Maybe the last judgment was more appropriate ($222,000) instead of 2 million...

Originally posted by FE Expert
Maybe the last judgment was more appropriate ($222,000) instead of 2 million...

$222 000 for no demonstrable losses in sales or other measurable harms?

2 million was too much. If $222,000 is too much as well, $80,000 would probably closer to reason.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you serious or being sarcastic?

just totally flabbergasted, I thought I was right. Like, man, obviously I'm mixing stuff up...

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I didn't.

However, I did have a couple of avatars that were people smoking it.

I might have even had something in my sig, at one point.

3 cheers for memory

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anyway, I've posted twice, I think, that I don't smoke MJ beacuse it is illegal.

ya man, my bad for sure

Originally posted by FE Expert
2 million was too much. If $222,000 is too much as well, $80,000 would probably closer to reason.

You think a record company is entitled to $80 000 when they cannot show that the person is hindering their sales, nor is their any other measurable harm being done to the company?

EDIT: What exactly is the $80 000 covering at this point? what is the point of the lawsuit even?

Originally posted by inimalist
You think a record company is entitled to $80 000 when they cannot show that the person is hindering their sales, nor is their any other measurable harm being done to the company?

EDIT: What exactly is the $80 000 covering at this point? what is the point of the lawsuit even?

Their trial expenditures, at the very least.

Perhaps record companies see the points of such trials that their targets don't. If the courts weren't so... overloaded, there would be a LOT more lawsuits like these.

Originally posted by FE Expert
Their trial expenditures, at the very least.

fair enough

Originally posted by FE Expert
Perhaps record companies see the points of such trials that their targets don't. If the courts weren't so... overloaded, there would be a LOT more lawsuits like these.

That still doesn't explain why a company is entitled to anything when they can show no material losses or harm based on a person's actions.

Originally posted by inimalist
You think a record company is entitled to $80 000 when they cannot show that the person is hindering their sales, nor is their any other measurable harm being done to the company?

Well how many places could she buy the songs from legally?

I'm pretty sure it could have happened differently with another judge. These are mere possibilities:

Judge #1: $222,000 awarded for damage with no criminal charge

Judge #2: $2 million awarded for damage with no criminal charge

Judge #3: $80,000 for trial expenditures with no damage awarded or criminal charge

Judge #4: Criminal charges without damage awarded

Judge #5: Innocent on all accounts

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well how many places could she buy the songs from legally?

can Wendy's sue me if I don't choose to eat from them?

EDIT: Can Belmont sue me if I smoke black market cigs?

Originally posted by FE Expert
I'm pretty sure it could have happened differently with another judge. These are mere possibilities:

Judge #1: $222,000 awarded for damage with no criminal charge

Judge #2: $2 million awarded for damage with no criminal charge

Judge #3: $80,000 for trial expenditures with no damage awarded or criminal charge

Judge #4: Criminal charges without damage awarded

Judge #5: Innocent on all accounts

ok

but, in a civil law suit, the party who was wronged must show damages caused by the party who did the wronging. I'm saying, there is no wrong. There are hypothetical wrongs. Courts shouldn't be giving settlements based on hypotheticals, especially to the tune of $80 000. $80 000 is more than most people make in a year. Hell, their are entire chains of CD distributors who don't make $80 000 for a record company from CD sales.

EDIT: trial expendatures are 80 grand?

haha, me = spamhound

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well how many places could she buy the songs from legally?
Originally posted by inimalist
can Wendy's sue me if I don't choose to eat from them?

EDIT: Can Belmont sue me if I smoke black market cigs?

better example:

If I grow tobacco in my back yard, then start rolling it into cigs, and giving it to people, cigarette companies cannot sue me.

If I use their label, they can stop me, but because I am not profiting, they cannot take any money. It might even be arguable if they would have a copyright infringement case, as I can draw a picture of Spiderman and sell the original to you (though not any reproductions).

More directly though, the record companies, and not the chain distributors, are the ones who are suing (unless I'm totally off). It is a violation of the right to distribute copyrighted material and not material loss of sales to the stores that is being contested in the courts, as it is impossible to prove any material loss to stores from filesharing (one can only be inferred, which is not suitable in court).

I have seen the news for other civil court lawsuits where trial expenditures were actually disclosed. The case I remember best is that the defendant was awarded $325,000 (in a discrimination lawsuit) but spent about $150,000 in trial expenditures. So $80,000 (as far as trial expenditures go) seems a realistic amount.

Originally posted by inimalist
can Wendy's sue me if I don't choose to eat from them?

EDIT: Can Belmont sue me if I smoke black market cigs?

If you reproduce their exact formulas by taking said formula from them, yes I think they can.

Originally posted by inimalist
just totally flabbergasted, I thought I was right. Like, man, obviously I'm mixing stuff up...

lol

No worries.



Originally posted by inimalist
3 cheers for memory

I'll PM you something about that.



Originally posted by inimalist
ya man, my bad for sure

Again, no worries. If it were not illegal, I'd get a prescription and vape it for sure. Lord knows that I could use some relaxation when I'm bouncing off the walls.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One need not profit from infringement to be financially liable.

You posted that before, I get it, but shokran.

I don't agree with it and was more questioning why someone should be entitled to anything when they can't prove they have lost something. That seems like court approved extortion to me.

Though you would be right to point out that something can only be extortion if it falls under specific legal definitions of what extortion is.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Actually, you can't.

actually, you can, it is the same logic as playing a cover song live but not being able to put it on an album without the artist's consent.

Artist alley at most comic book conventions relies heavily on the fact that the original product can be sold, yet reproductions cannot. I guess I'm no legal expert on it, but the case of Ween Radio (which can only play live versions of their own songs because the record company owns the rights) sort of supports this, and artists who were drawing on Artist Alley explained it to me, and they are the ones who have to jump through legal loopholes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you reproduce their exact formulas by taking said formula from them, yes I think they can.

any "reproduction" occurring in filesharing is done at the recipient's side. The material is being made available for others to reproduce. The person hosting the file is NOT reproducing anything.

It might be comparable to owning a cigarette factory, having all the things set up for someone to come in and make cigarettes, letting them do so, yet not charging anything. However, I'd say the lack of any material "production" during filesharing makes it less applicable.

I guess just to clarify, I'm not arguing against copyrights or anything. Artists should have control of their work. It's more that the laws are, like, really dumb right now.

Originally posted by inimalist
any "reproduction" occurring in filesharing is done at the recipient's side. The material is being made available for others to reproduce. The person hosting the file is NOT reproducing anything.

It might be comparable to owning a cigarette factory, having all the things set up for someone to come in and make cigarettes, letting them do so, yet not charging anything. However, I'd say the lack of any material "production" during filesharing makes it less applicable.

Except that in this case you built the factory using stolen blueprints, it's hardly the same thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess just to clarify, I'm not arguing against copyrights or anything. Artists should have control of their work. It's more that the laws are, like, really dumb right now.

What should copyrights protect, then? If they don't protect the right to only have certain people copy your stuff what use are they?

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, you can, it is the same logic as playing a cover song live but not being able to put it on an album without the artist's consent.

Artist alley at most comic book conventions relies heavily on the fact that the original product can be sold, yet reproductions cannot. I guess I'm no legal expert on it, but the case of Ween Radio (which can only play live versions of their own songs because the record company owns the rights) sort of supports this, and artists who were drawing on Artist Alley explained it to me, and they are the ones who have to jump through legal loopholes.

I don't care what an artist at a comic book convention told you, I am a Copyright Specialist / Rights Management Coordinator, and I'm telling you that it's illegal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I don't care what an artist at a comic book convention told you, I am a Copyright Specialist / Rights Management Coordinator, and I'm telling you that it's illegal.

can you explain it in the context of a musical band vs an artist then?

Originally posted by inimalist
can you explain it in the context of a musical band vs an artist then?

Just as the author of a graphic or pictorial work maintains the sole right to prepare derivatives, the author of a musical work maintains the sole right to public performance.

This means that an illustrator cannot prepare illustrations of a character that is not his work of authorship, and a musician cannot perform a song that is not his work of authorship.

This type of infringement is common, because most authors do not know that it is taking place; many authors do not know their rights; and some authors simply do not care to prosecute.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Just as the author of a graphic or pictorial work maintains the sole right to prepare derivatives, the author of a musical work maintains the sole right to public performance.

This means that an illustrator cannot prepare illustrations of a character that is not his work of authorship, and a musician cannot perform a song that is not his work of authorship.

This type of infringement is common, because most authors do not know that it is taking place; many authors do not know their rights; and some authors simply do not care to prosecute.

alright, how does this work then:

The case of Ween radio. Ween, a band, wants to let people listen to their music online, but, I guess as I understand it, their label didn't want this. This forced Ween to use the live version of their work, which they own the distribution rights to.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that in this case you built the factory using stolen blueprints, it's hardly the same thing.

What should copyrights protect, then? If they don't protect the right to only have certain people copy your stuff what use are they?

lol

I'm actually in favor of copyright laws protecting people against downloading. Whether it is or should be legal really isn't my issue. I think the way it is illegal is weird, and I would say there should probably be a little more leniency in the system than exists now, but on a whole, I'm a fan of people being in control of their own intellectual property.

For instance, I don't feel it is a "distribution" violation, in the same way that a bootlegger makes a profit from selling merchandise that is often packaged as the original.

I'm more questioning the legitimacy of a verdict that is requiring someone to pay for damages that it would be impossible to calculate. It would be like the courts reading tea leaves to pass sentences.

Originally posted by inimalist
alright, how does this work then:

The case of Ween radio. Ween, a band, wants to let people listen to their music online, but, I guess as I understand it, their label didn't want this. This forced Ween to use the live version of their work, which they own the distribution rights to.

The band maintains the right to publicly perform its works of authorship, but the label maintains the right to distribute the studio recordings; that's how.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The band maintains the right to publicly perform its works of authorship, but the label maintains the right to distribute the studio recordings; that's how.

however, in this case, the songs themselves are the property of the company, regardless of authorship, are they not?

like, if I wrote a song and sold it to Tim McGraw, I wouldn't be allowed to go out and perform it would I?

1. Adam Poe, great to see you back around these parts. I've been workin' hard and my abs are starting to come back. One of these days, I'll be as sexy as you are.


2. On topic, where do song covers come into play? Does the band covering songs have to get permission to play a cover? I ask because my coworker has done a shitload of covers and is trying to become published with his own works.....could he get into trouble for turning in a cover with his "prototype" album to the record label?

Originally posted by inimalist
however, in this case, the songs themselves are the property of the company, regardless of authorship, are they not?

Musical works are the property of the author.




Originally posted by inimalist
, if I wrote a song and sold it to Tim McGraw, I wouldn't be allowed to go out and perform it would I?

No.




Originally posted by dadudemon
On topic, where do song covers come into play? Does the band covering songs have to get permission to play a cover?

Technically, yes.




Originally posted by dadudemon
I ask because my coworker has done a shitload of covers and is trying to become published with his own works.....could he get into trouble for turning in a cover with his "prototype" album to the record label?

Potentially, yes.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Musical works are the property of the author.

ok, but that isn't always true

Record labels buy the rights to the music produced on their label, wouldn't that make the song the property of the label and not the artist?

Sort of like how MJ was able to outbid McCartney for old Beatles songs, thus giving him the rights to its distribution.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but that isn't always true

Record labels buy the rights to the music produced on their label, wouldn't that make the song the property of the label and not the artist?

Sort of like how MJ was able to outbid McCartney for old Beatles songs, thus giving him the rights to its distribution.

That depends. Is the performer the author? Is the corporation the author? Is the corporation a joint author? Does the contract of the author assign certain exclusive rights to the corporation? A determination cannot be made without more information.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That depends. Is the performer the author? Is the corporation the author? Is the corporation a joint author? Does the contract of the author assign certain exclusive rights to the corporation? A determination cannot be made without more information.

alright, makes sense

Bottom line: the music industry sucks.

Someone who ripped someone off is getting ripped off.

Shame.

World keeps spinnin'.

-AC