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.
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.
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. 😉
Re: Woman to play $80,000 per illegal download = nearly 2 mil
Originally posted by chithappens**** the jury, **** the artists. I say download away.
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.
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
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.
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.