backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by jimhsu.. on Nov 8 at 8:29 AM


Thomas fined $1.5M by jury  (Source: AP)
It's like Deja Vu all over again

The battle between Jammie Thomas and the Recording Industry Artists Association (RIAA) has reached epic proportions. The battle revolves around allegations that Thomas illegally shared music and downloaded pirated music using the peer-to-peer sharing platform Kazaa. 

Thomas was back in a courtroom fighting the jury award that would have seen her pay $1.92 million for illegally downloading 24 songs working out to $84,000 per song. The judge in the case reduced that fine to $54,000 in an appeal stating, "The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music."

The RIAA later offered to settle with Thomas for $25,000 to be paid to a music charity. Thomas and her attorney refused the offer, and the RIAA then rejected the judges reduced fine of $54,000. After the reduction was rejected, the case went back to court. The jury deliberated for two hours according to the 
Star Tribune and came back with bad news for Thomas. The jury awarded the RIAA a record fine of $1.5 million, which is about $400,000 less than the original judgment against Thomas.

A RIAA representative named Cara Duckworth said, "We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognize the severity of the defendant's misconduct. Now, with three jury decisions behind us, along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions."

Neither Thomas nor her attorney was available for comment on the decision. Looking at the history of the case, it would be unsurprising for another appeal to follow along with another plea from the Thomas camp to reduce the fine.  Thomas' attorney Kiwi Camera said in closing arguments, "She may have engaged in the conduct. That doesn't mean they can take her head and stick it up on a pole."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Heh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/4/2010 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The RIAA later offered to settle with Thomas for $25,000 to be paid to a music charity. Thomas and her attorney refused the offer


quote:
The jury deliberated for two hours according to the Star Tribune and came back with bad news for Thomas. The jury awarded the RIAA a record fine of $1.5 million


**Facepalm**




RE: Heh
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2010 10:40:01 AM , Rating: 4
She could have even set up her own music charity, like the "Jammie Thomas charity of musicians to fight the RIAA" and won, but no, she didn't and they popped her with a huge fine.

:(


RE: Heh
By sprockkets on 11/4/2010 6:31:16 PM , Rating: 5
You think that is bad?

From a poster reflex-croft at the ars forum:

quote:
Some points here for the angry mob:
- She was guilty of this and she knew it
- She was caught red handed
- She was offered a settlement of around $5000 if she agreed to cease the infringement
- She lied in court about her guilt
- She lied in court and attempted to claim her children infringed
- She lied in court and attempted to claim her boyfriend infringed
- She destroyed evidence when it was requested - After the first court case, she was offered a settlement of $25,000, the raised price was due to court costs to the RIAA
- After the second case the RIAA said they were still open to settlement, but she rejected it
- For a third time her verdict has been upheld, but its unlikely she will do the smart thing and settle
- She has the right to declare bankruptcy when all is said and done, and eliminte the entire judgement against her, effectively paying a penalty of seen years bad credit Even now I would bet the RIAA would settle for a tiny fraction of the judgement. The only person standing in the way of this happening is Jammie Thomas. She won't take responsibility for her actions. She does not have to be an 'indentured servant' or even in debt for very long. $25k is the equivilent of a new car. $5k is almost nothing, especially when someone pointed out that even a best case scenario for her had her at $4300 in fines. The only reason there are judgements this large are because of her direct actions.

There is an issue of personal responsibility here. It amazes me how few seem to understand that fact. She dug her grave, now she has to lie in it.


RE: Heh
By Flunk on 11/4/2010 10:48:35 AM , Rating: 5
The think the bigger question here is how they can substantiate that theft of an item that retails for $1.30 has caused the RIAA to lose out on $84,000.00 of income. That they are assuming that she distributed 64615 copies of each song, of which they can't prove. In fact the only thing they can prove is that she did have copies of those few songs.

I don't understand how such a gross miscarriage of justice can possibly continue. This entire thing is ridiculous beyond all reason.


RE: Heh
By MrTeal on 11/4/2010 11:16:15 AM , Rating: 5
I think the obvious lesson here is that if you plan to steal songs online, don't bother. Break into a Wal-Mart instead, steal all their music, and then torch the store. The punishment is likely to be smaller that way.


RE: Heh
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/4/2010 11:22:24 AM , Rating: 1
"I think the obvious lesson here is that if you plan to steal songs online, don't bother, unless you have a neighbor who you don't care for who has an open Wi-Fi connection. Or break, steal all their music, and then torch the store. The punishment is likely to be smaller that way."

There, fixed.


RE: Heh
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 11:38:23 AM , Rating: 5
The whole thing is just fucking disgusting. And I don't care what people rate me or say. Justice system? The justice system was supposed to PREVENT this type of thing.

I'm just so incensed after reading this article I can barely type. The whole world has gone crazy. This is NOT America anymore!

I want a national referendum on file sharing. This needs to be a national issue where the people's voice can be heard. Not in backroom dealings between the RIAA and big Government. This woman's entire life is destroyed, and for what? How many more will follow?


RE: Heh
By Einy0 on 11/5/2010 10:26:35 AM , Rating: 2
Thank You, Well said...


RE: Heh
By amanojaku on 11/4/2010 11:39:48 AM , Rating: 5
What are you talking about? What song on this list ISN'T worth $62,500???

Aerosmith "Cryin'"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Dark"; "Rhythm Is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Green Day "Basket Case"
Guns N' Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Janet Jackson "Let's Wait Awhile"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believin'"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Sarah McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"

Outside of GnR and a couple of other songs on the list the RIAA should consider itself lucky anyone listens to them at all. Brian Adams? Vanessa Williams? Hell, if I was on the jury I would have been held in contempt of court for laughing at the prosecution (prostitution?)


RE: Heh
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Pour Some Sugar on Me" has resulted in countless women taking their clothes off and thus is worth the fine all by itself. ;)


RE: Heh
By Boze on 11/4/2010 7:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe when you were young and cameros were cool, FIT. Its a different ball game out there nowadays... playa.


RE: Heh
By Solandri on 11/4/2010 1:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
You have to keep in mind the RIAA is double-dipping (or multiple-dipping). The $80k+ per song award is just for this one person. Conceivably the RIAA could sue everyone who downloaded these songs and collect $80k+ per song from each of them. If you tally the award properly that way, then it's obviously grossly disproportionate.

Either the penalty per song has to be proportionate to the crime of not paying ~$1 for a song she downloaded for personal use, or the award has to be viewed as a penalty against some sort of copyright infringement ringmaster and indemnifies everyone else who downloaded the song from being sued. You cannot sue one person for damages caused by thousands of downloaders, win, then go about suing those thousands for the exact same crime.


RE: Heh
By GruntboyX on 11/4/2010 10:56:17 AM , Rating: 5
She may have some nice Lawyers representing her, but 25,000 dollars and 1.5 Million are probably the same amount to her. Either way it will cripple and break her. It is probably why they keep appealing to get the fine reduced. Especially since the RIAA offered thousands of people the opportunity to settle for 2k on a website.


RE: Heh
By Lazarus Dark on 11/6/2010 9:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
thank you. guilt wouldn't matter in the least for most people. How many people have 5 grand laying around? Not me. Most people I know would have to file bankrupcy considering they are probably already 10 grand in the whole on credit.

Even if they offered a payment plan, it could take most people 5 years to pay off.


RE: Heh
By kattanna on 11/4/2010 11:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
I find it kinda funny. did she honestly think that the RIAA was finally going to back down or something?

does she not realize how she has become the poster child for the RIAA?

she clearly violated piracy laws and no jury was going to be able to over look that.

is the fine excessive? you bet. but they are doing it to try to send a message to others knowing full well they will never get that kind of money from this lady.

its ALL about sending a message to others.


RE: Heh
By ppardee on 11/4/2010 3:09:53 PM , Rating: 3
Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

It is AGAINST THE LAW to send a message this way. Plain and simple. This is like fining someone 3.4 BILLION dollars for stealing a new car. No one would ever consider that not excessive. $25,000 is reasonable, $1.5/$1.9 million are not.


RE: Heh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/4/2010 6:18:47 PM , Rating: 4
That only applies to the government imposing them on you. In a civil trial between two non-governmental parties there are no such restrictions.


RE: Heh
By lyeoh on 11/5/2010 7:49:05 AM , Rating: 1
That's why it's strange when people keep saying "small government will be so much better!".

No big diff between a big corrupt government bound by the US Constitution and a small corrupt government in league with big corrupt corporations. In fact the latter might be worse since the corps are not bound by the Constitution or the FOIA etc.

Too many people seem to be obsessed over quantity of government. Should be about quality not quantity.


RE: Heh
By Etern205 on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Heh
By jonmcc33 on 11/4/2010 11:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. The problem is that the songs are only worth $0.99 each. So to ask for $1.5 million out of that?


RE: Heh
By marvdmartian on 11/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Heh
By JediJeb on 11/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Heh
By Holly on 11/7/2010 4:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much songs she was able to distribute... let's say every song would go for $2... that is 750,000 songs to share... Let's say average song is 4MB... that is over 3TB upload traffic... Damn does this lady own fiber network internet connection?


RE: Heh
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 12:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
I want to know where they get these juries! I don't think anyone I've ever met would find 1.5mil to be anywhere in the realm of reasonable.


RE: Heh
By Suomynona on 11/4/2010 3:24:15 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, and haven't any of the jurors ever heard of jury nullification? How is there not a single person on the jury that finds a $1.5 million dollar fine to be ridiculous? All it takes is one!


RE: Heh
By melgross on 11/4/2010 4:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not in a civil case.


RE: Heh
By morphologia on 11/4/2010 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
I want to know who was on the jury. Lars Ulrich? Bono? Justin Timberlake?


RE: Heh
By Denkou on 11/4/2010 4:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the settlement agreement would have been for her to abdicate the previous judge's ruling that the damages awarded from the second trial were excessive. This would have set precedent for the RIAA lawyers to use in future cases for damages awarded. I don't know the lady's financial situation but she's isn't paying for her lawyers and was probably advised against taking the settlement for legal reasons.


RE: Heh
By chris00 on 11/5/10, Rating: 0
lol.
By epyon96 on 11/4/2010 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 4
RIAA really wants to be vilified as the most hated organization in the 21st century.

They ruin people's lives. They ruin student's lives. All for the sake of protecting copyright?

Is it worth it? When is enough enough? At what point does the defense of copyright become so trivial in the bigger scheme of things?

She did not profit from it. She is doing something that is done by everyone else in that age bracket. She is getting punished for a crime very few in the public believes is a crime. Whatever message that RIAA wants to send is already lost long ago. They effectively killed her life.





RE: lol.
By djcameron on 11/4/2010 11:17:31 AM , Rating: 3
But if they don't do this, then revenues might decline. If revenue declines, then how are Lohan, Beiber, and Hilton supposed to afford rehab? For that matter, if the entertainers don't get paid big money, how is Charlie Sheen supposed to afford his $55,000/month child support payment? That poor child, he might have to settle for a used Ferrari for his 16th birthday!


RE: lol.
By geddarkstorm on 11/4/2010 3:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
They might have to trade in their Gulfstream IV private jet for a... a... Gulfstream III *voice wavers* it's madness!


RE: lol.
By bruce24 on 11/4/2010 11:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They ruin people's lives. They ruin student's lives. All for the sake of protecting copyright?


quote:
She did not profit from it. She is doing something that is done by everyone else in that age bracket. She is getting punished for a crime very few in the public believes is a crime. Whatever message that RIAA wants to send is already lost long ago. They effectively killed her life.


The RIAA wants people to stop illegally downloading music and to do this they are going after people they can prove have been serving up music. When they find people, they present them with two options, settle for $5K or less or go to court. This woman denied doing any wrong, went to court and lied and has been found guilty multiple times.

The RIAA don't seem to really care about the money the courts award, they just want to make the point that it is a crime and that if caught there are consequences.


RE: lol.
By cosme on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: lol.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 12:05:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nice to see a rational reply finally. This woman stole something.


Nice to see people are still confused about this issue. Nobody has been tried of or accused of theft with file sharing. She didn't steal. It's called IP Infringement.

quote:
Why do so many people think that illegally downloading copyrighted information is no big deal?


Define big deal? Dude someone could rape your kid and get less of a punishment for it. Come on, be rational.


RE: lol.
By cosme on 11/5/2010 10:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Define big deal? Dude someone could rape your kid and get less of a punishment for it. Come on, be rational.


Well, that's just sad, isn't it?

This woman had a chance to get off with a slap on the wrist for breaking the law. She chose not to take it. That's not rational, why should the RIAA then have to be rational with her?

IP infringement, illegal downloading of copyrighted content, whatever semantics you want to argue - it is a very big deal with more and more people working in industries that mainly produce intellectual property in digital format. We're setting up a precedent that if it's on the internet, anyone can take it, legal or not. We are reducing the incentive for skilled professionals to create quality content. That just isn't rational.

If you like something enough to want to use it, you should pay the person who created it. It's not rational to expect an economy to work otherwise.


RE: lol.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: lol.
By Firebat5 on 11/6/2010 11:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry I just can't resist this one.

"It's called IP Infringement."

Yes you are correct. "intellectual PROPERTY infringement." Now, if its "property," then someone owns it by definition. If someone takes what you own without permission (in this case she didn't obtain permission), it is stealing. Plain and simple. If you don't like this, change the legal definition of intellectual property to exclude whatever you think it is that should not be considered someone's property. But right now in this country, this woman did steal something, and then distribute it.


RE: lol.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2010 12:09:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The RIAA don't seem to really care about the money the courts award, they just want to make the point that it is a crime and that if caught there are consequences.


You make the RIAA out to sound like it's the justice system itself.

The courts don't exist so you can use them to "make points" via destroying peoples lives to make examples out of them. Laws, if broken, should have exact and detailed penalties to them. The courts are flying by the seat of their pants and allowing the RIAA to dictate any terms it sees fit.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not saying what she did was right, but if you don't think this is a bloody abortion of justice then you're just warped.


RE: lol.
By bruce24 on 11/5/2010 10:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The courts don't exist so you can use them to "make points" via destroying peoples lives to make examples out of them.

They want to protect their business, that is their point, and one function of the courts is to protect businesses.

quote:
Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not saying what she did was right, but if you don't think this is a bloody abortion of justice then you're just warped.

You seem to be stuck on the amount the jury awarded and want to use that to negate the original wrong. I have to wonder how many people would be upset if the jury came back and awarded the RIAA $5000....the high end of what the RIAA reportedly asked for in the first place.


RE: lol.
By Jalek on 11/5/2010 12:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want to protect their business

That being attorneys working for a portion of whatever they can collect on copyright holders' behalf.

At this point, they probably need the lottery win level judgment to pay the costs for the gang of lawyers approach.


RE: lol.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/5/2010 12:13:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You seem to be stuck on the amount the jury awarded and want to use that to negate the original wrong. I have to wonder how many people would be upset if the jury came back and awarded the RIAA $5000....the high end of what the RIAA reportedly asked for in the first place.


So sophomoric. I have to wonder why you think this is even an argument.

Our whole justice system and how it's viewed socially is based around the penalties being somewhat proportional to the crime itself. This isn't the Middle East, we do NOT destroy peoples lives for petty crimes. Of course people think over a MILLION dollars for sitting on your computer and downloading 12 songs is absurd! If someone was fined a million dollars for jaywalking, would you be ok with that too?

Not to mention the entire method the RIAA is using to determine the "damages" is ridiculous beyond belief! Remember innocent until proven guilty?


RE: lol.
By bruce24 on 11/5/2010 10:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
sitting on your computer and downloading 12 songs is absurd!


It seems you don't even understand the case, they took her to court for sharing songs through kazaa...distributing copyrighted songs.

quote:
Not to mention the entire method the RIAA is using to determine the "damages" is ridiculous beyond belief! Remember innocent until proven guilty?


The RIAA didn't award the damages, a jury did. The RIAA originally asked for between $3K and $5K before even going to court. As far as the size of the award, the jury after finding her guilty could have gone as low as $750 per song, but it seems they didn't like be lied to.

" Under the Copyright Act, each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just. If, however, you find that the defendant’s conduct was willful, then each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of up to $150,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording
downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just."


RE: lol.
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 12:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
I get your argument about the RIAA, this is their business; I expect them to protect it. However, I don't understand how any jury, ever, would feel like 1.5 million dollars is a reasonable punishment for this crime. That's the insane, unreasonable part.


broken jury, broken courts
By chromal on 11/4/2010 10:31:21 AM , Rating: 4
I don't understand why these juries keep awarding outlandish fees for cases involving non-commercial infringement of an album or two's worth of tracks. I don't understand why they feel the plaintiff in a civil case can dictate the sentence. But it does seem to consistently point to an aspect of the statutory damages system that needs to be reformed before attempting to be applied to any more defendants in US courts.




RE: broken jury, broken courts
By Gungel on 11/4/2010 10:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and if a political party uses a song for a commercial without permission from the artist the RIAA is not doing anything. Even though the song can be heard by millions for free without the artist receiving a cent. I guess they really can't go after someone that just received millions in political "donations" to support a restrictive DRM that guarantees to stuffs the pockets of the RIAA for years to come.


By superunknown98 on 11/4/2010 10:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, she did something wrong, stole, but did not benefit financially from it. Neither did she plagiarize the music as her own. Why should anyone be able to demand exponential value of stolen goods? I know it's the way the court system works as a means of a deterrent, but its unnecessary.

If someone stole colonel sanders magic recipe and gave it to their friends who only used it for their own consumption, no profit, would it be ethical to fine them 1.5 million dollars?

This is about on par with getting caned for spitting gum in the street. Is that the kind of country we are?


RE: broken jury, broken courts
By Luticus on 11/4/2010 10:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, this sum for that small on an infringement is insane... lol wonder what they'd do to someone with thousands of songs (as most people have).


RE: broken jury, broken courts
By Ghost42 on 11/4/2010 1:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
lol, back when Napster was at it's peak I had just over 96k MP3s. If I still had those I guess it'd be worth $6b - $8b. There was people I knew who had even more as well.


RE: broken jury, broken courts
By The Raven on 11/4/2010 11:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
Do they take the promotional service that she was doing into consideration? With the fees that the record companies charge the artists, that would take care of her punitive burden and more!


RE: broken jury, broken courts
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
"Jury Awards RIAA $1.5M"
By rpsgc on 11/4/2010 10:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
How can any sane person award those pathetic bilious vile leeching pathetic excuses of human beings (RIAA) any amount of money whatsoever?

What is wrong with people? Are they daft? Or just plain stupid?




RE: "Jury Awards RIAA $1.5M"
By Flunk on 11/4/2010 10:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know, but I think what it shows more than anything else is how the civil court system is broken beyond repair.


stupid
By Shadowmaster625 on 11/4/2010 2:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
So another person is forced into the underground economy. If she is smart she will collect welfare while working under the table. And of course downloading more songs.




Corporate Bullying
By chris00 on 11/5/2010 9:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
This is such a gross peversion of so-called justice that I just had to add a comment. I don't even know how this system can even be referred to as a "justice" system. This is corporate bullying at it's worst in collusion with courts to impose outrageously disproportionate punishment for a very minor infraction.

I think we also need to start to differentiate between something that is illegal and something that is "morally wrong". Sure, she broke "the law". But what is the law? Often this is no more than a set of rules designed and lobbied for by corporations for their own greedy profit, and has very little to do with actual justice. The current financial crisis was brought about by "lawful" yet utterly immoral acts.

The fact is that when virtually eveyone who owns a computer has downloaded some music illegally at some point in their lives then it becomes quite clear that society as a whole does not see this as particularly morally wrong, at least not to any great extent. Infact it is probably only the fact that it is actually illegal that causes people to believe that there is something immoral about it in the first place.

When this is justice, we live in a very dangerous world. A world where corporate bullies rule at the expense of the lives of ordinary people.




By Beenthere on 11/5/2010 10:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
I hope they take everything she has or ever hopes to have if she is this mentally challenged. Denial is a choice not a destination.

I hope they prosecure every pirate and make them pay a minimum of $10K for every copy. Prison time would be useful too. Then maybe they'll get a clue?




Simple question:
By jimhsu on 11/8/2010 8:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
Why is "copyright infringement" not a misdemeanor?

The RIAA has tried every avenue to persuade the public that copyright infringement is theft -- through "you wouldn't STEAL a car", crazy music videos to make you stop downloading, long explanations about starving artists, etc. So, why not try infringement cases as theft? Steal a CD, steal 12 songs -- it's all the same, isn't it? So enforce it consistently with $100 or so and a slap on the wrist. See, punishment warrants the crime.

To me at least, an accusation of infringement (and the enormous legal damages associated) would have to be based on PROOF that the damages caused by distribution warrant such monetary damages. This is hard to prove but easy to disprove -- almost all P2P clients keep some sort of access/transfer log, and if not, your ISP probably does (at least for the non-encrypted connections that the RIAA can actually see).




You People Just Don't Get It
By mgilbert on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By smartalco on 11/4/2010 1:56:54 PM , Rating: 3
You seem to be operating under the assumption that this was the only person on the entire planet who distributed these songs. Since they explicitly state that she downloaded them first, this can't possibly be the case.

Either way, the only way she cost the RIAA 1.5 million is in court fees.


RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By ians55 on 11/4/2010 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
I just see it as a big greedy corporation makes a scapegoat out of ordinary person. I highly doubt that she would buy whole album because of one song, so that "lost income" is just an utter baloney. Just IMO.


RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By moriz on 11/4/2010 2:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
can you definitively prove that millions would have downloaded from her? from her alone? unfortunately you can't. without definitive prove, the only thing she can be reasonably charged for is about $.99 per song. you are operating in the realm of "what might happen", which doesn't stand. if it does, we'll be castrating every child born of rapists because they MIGHT become rapists themselves.


RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By XZerg on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By isayisay on 11/4/2010 6:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it is people like YOU who don't get it. But then again... neither do the music industries, so guess you are in good company. Why don't you go join them threatening the life of some random housewife.

The music industry will continue to act like smucks of the worst kind because there is so much profit in it for them.

While downloading music for free is theft, don't think the music industry is free from crime (which they aren't being held to task on)...price fixing. Individual songs for $1 and CDs that have been priced $10 to $15 for 20 years. Given all the vast technological production and distribution improvements over the years, their fixed costs have dropped through the floor. Natural competition should have seen the price of music come down or value of what is being provided increase. Neither has happened.

But... my prediction is all of this hate from the RIAA is going to just be bypassed... as more and more people get smart phones and internet connected home/TV devices, people will shift to an on demand approach and will simply stop buying music... they'll listen to stream music via their phone, laptop, home PC, blu ray, etc.... buy a $5 to $10 service (rhapsody) and then be done with the RIAA boneheads.


RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By snikt on 11/4/2010 5:27:57 PM , Rating: 1
So if a musician, any musician, willing shared his or her music, its still illegal?


RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By Boze on 11/4/2010 7:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not if they own the copyright themselves.

Penn Jillette laid it out pretty good on his Penn Point when a viewer asked him his views about file sharing.

Penn doesn't actually "own" any of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! on Showtime, he merely writes (some of) it, performs in it, and advertises it, but the copyright lies with Showtime. As he pointed out in his Penn Point, he benefits as long as you watch the show, regardless of whether you watched it on your television because you subscribe to Showtime, or whether you found a copy of the show some other way.

http://revision3.com/pennpoint/feed/MP4-hd30


RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By JediJeb on 11/5/2010 5:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on if they own the rights to the music.

In my opinion the laws should be changed so that only artists can own rights to their work. If multiple artists share in creating the work then they all receive shares of the rights. Corporations should not be able to own or purchase copyrights, nor should any other person be able to purchase the rights to another's work. Just like Michael Jackson buying the rights to the Beatles songs, that should never be allowed. This would prevent crafty entities from swindling less savvy artists out of their works as has happened many times in the past.

If a record company wants to promote you then they should have to work out a licensing deal with artists for distribution rights, but the ownership still stays with the artists. Same goes for books, movies, TV shows, ect. One caveat would be that a corporation could also be an artist, such as a movie studio that hires a writer to produce a script, but if a script writer writes a script on his own, then the rights should be bound to him.

I think overall this would bring more benefits to the artists because then the record companies would have to cut better deals with them or they could simply take their work to another company. I think a good example of how this would work would be like how it happened with George Lucas and Star Wars. He kept the rights to his creation, but cut a deal with 20th Century Fox to back him in production and distribute it. Both made a fortune on that deal and still are making money with it. George Lucas owns all rights to anything having to do with Star Wars, as it should be, but how much ownership do most bands or singers have to the work they create? Or even most writers for that matter?


RE: You People Just Don't Get It
By Azure Sky on 11/7/2010 8:30:48 PM , Rating: 1
not if the RIAA or their componant companies can do anything about it, they have raided with their own police force music stores selling cd's and tapes made by local underground artists (uniq music that said artists own rights to) and called said music "pirated" because it was on burned disks and home recorded/copied tapes rather then pressed disk.....

no, im not kidding.....and our govt allowes them to get away with this illegal action(having their own police forces and raiding private homes and offices and taking "Evidance" as they see fit)

gotta love the US govt and legal system, utterly fucking useless....unless your a large company.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki