backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Oct 17 at 2:38 PM
Jammie Thomas is down, but not out

Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman found liable for $222,000 worth of damages to the RIAA, announced on her Myspace blog that she is going to continue to fight her case in the appellate court.
 
When Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas wrapped up last Thursday, Thomas was found guilty of copyright infringement, and a jury awarded Capitol Records $9,250 for each of the 24 songs named that she made available through the “Shared Folders” feature of Kazaa. Thomas, who left the courthouse without comment, later wrote that she was “devastated” when her verdict was read.
 
“I wonder if there is a person out there who wouldn't be upset after a jury says you're responsible to pay $222,000 for something you didn't do.  I was inconsolable,” later adding that she is “going to take the RIAA's theory of making available and appeal it,” and if successful, “stop the RIAA dead in [its] tracks.”
 
According to Thomas, nearly every case brought on by the RIAA relies on the act of making a song available for sharing (usually through the P2P app’s Shared Folder feature)  as opposed to proving the music was actually shared—a precedent that sets the burden of proof very low for organizations like the RIAA. While Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas—which is significant as it is the first case of its kind to reach a jury trial—has been described as precedent-setting, the fact is courts have historically gone both ways on the “availability” argument: in December 2006, a federal judge in Elektra v. Perez ruled that making files available for download counts as distribution; around the same time another federal judge ruled in UMG v. Lindor that the “plaintiff will have the burden of proving … that [the] defendant actually shared sound files belonging to [the] plaintiffs.”
 
Meanwhile, the RIAA continues its legal battle against file sharers. Figures vary wildly on the total number of legal complaints that the RIAA has filed to date, with the upper end of that number somewhere around 36,000 suits, not including the numerous threat letters and pre-trial settlements that it has reached. Most suits settle out-of-court for sums of a couple thousand dollars.
 
Thomas remains positive, and has been rallying support for her cause at FreeJammie.com. “Stay tuned,” she writes her blog, “cause I’m taking you all along for the ride.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hrm...
By A5un on 10/9/2007 10:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they could never locate the files RIAA claimed to have been shared because this woman had gotten a new HDD? I thought all they had was her Kazaa username, which appeared in numerous places such as her online dating nickname; and that led to the conviction? For one thing, I think the judge needs a wake up call. It doesn't matter if this is a civil trial. What he's doing is setting precedence, and I think a great deal of steps should be taken to guarantee that the court decision is fair and law-abiding to even the smallest detail.

The question of whether the woman shared anything I think is not important here. What is important is that how can anyone be liable for something when the only proof shown is the connection between usernames and the woman? So what if the username was hers, or that the ip's indicate the files came from her address? That's all irrelevant. What I think any court should require is for the RIAA to establish a physical connection between the sharing and the actual person. IP's or usernames aren't just good enough for me.

This is all for the sake of the future when someone may just well have their computers hacked and start to distribute music all over the net without their knowledge through whatever p2p software they use to download freewares. The court's decision today leaves no possibility for that, and that is a very true possibility.




RE: Hrm...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/9/2007 10:53:55 PM , Rating: 4
> "I thought all they had was her Kazaa username..."

They had her Kazaa username, which matched the one she used in many other places. They also had the fact that all the activity occurred from her IP address and MAC address, and all the songs traded were ones she admitted to personally listening to. Additionally, she was found to be lying to the jury about having "no knowledge" of file sharing networks, when she had actually done a college research paper on them.

Whatever your opinion on file sharing and the RIAA, is there anyone in the country really stupid enough to believe this woman was innocent?


RE: Hrm...
By mikeyD95125 on 10/10/2007 12:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
So what if she obviously did it. When a man murders a man, it has to be proved with a lot of evidence even if he is obviously guilty. OJ was obviously guilty and he still got off. The only difference is that the RIAA has nearly unlimited legal resources and can take on private individuals with push over lawsuits.


RE: Hrm...
By SiliconAddict on 10/10/2007 1:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't a criminal case. Sadly the he bar is set substantially lower.


RE: Hrm...
By Dactyl on 10/10/2007 2:10:58 AM , Rating: 4
Yes. More specifically:

In a criminal case, every element of the offense must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In a civil case, the plaintiffs must prove their case "by a preponderance of the evidence," which means more than 50/50. If the plaintiffs can show a 51% chance that they are right, they win. If they show a 50.000001% chance that they are right, they win.

It's a little more complicated than that . . . for instance, you're not allowed to get to 51% by pure speculation; for instance, if you get hit by a bus, you can't automatically win your case against BUSCORP because 55% of the buses in your city are owned by BUSCORP . . .

Also, it's up to the judge to decide the law. It was the judge who decided that offering files online through a service like KaZaA could constitute copyright infringement, even if the RIAA couldn't show that anyone ever downloaded any of those files.

As a practical matter, you can't appeal jury verdicts (unless they're really, really, impossibly wrong*). However, you can appeal the Judge's decisions. The most important part of Ms. Thomas' appeal is the question of whether offering files online through KaZaA can be copyright infringement, or if the RIAA has to actually show that someone downloaded those files from her.

* technically, when you appeal a jury verdict, you're actually appealing the judge's refusal to overturn the jury's verdict.

You might ask: why doesn't the RIAA just download the files from Ms. Thomas and use that as proof against her? The problem with that is that the RIAA owns the copyrights, so it's not copyright infringement for them to download music from their catalogue from KaZaA!

It's nearly impossible for the RIAA to show that illegal downloading actually took place. If all they have to show is that someone offered the music on KaZaA, they have a much easier time shutting down KaZaA by scaring people.


RE: Hrm...
By LogicallyGenius on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hrm...
By therealnickdanger on 10/10/2007 9:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
Since when is stealing not immoral?


RE: Hrm...
By Aarnando on 10/10/2007 1:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Stealing is immoral; however, this woman was not sued for theft. She was sued for copyright infringement.


RE: Hrm...
By murphyslabrat on 10/10/2007 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 3
Correction, she was sued for "intended copyright infringement." The difference there is that they claimed having the folders shared equals copyright infringement.

Kind of how "looking at me funny" equals "attempted murder", and warrents violent "self-defense."

Kind of laughable. Even though it is probable that she did violate copy-right laws, they accused her for something ridiculous: the possibility that she might be violating copy-right laws. If the data was never duplicated, then there is no violation. If the data was duplicated for personal use (the most likely reason for legally having music on a hard-drive), then it falls under(should be, at least) free use.

BTW, anyone know if Kazaa uses the Window's "shared" attributes, or if you have to manually select shared folders? I know that using windows 98 and an early version of Kazaa, the built-in "shared folders" feature just set that folder's "shared" attribute to true.


RE: Hrm...
By Aarnando on 10/10/2007 1:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
My point was that she wasn't sued for stealing, but thanks for the clarification.


RE: Hrm...
By clovell on 10/10/2007 1:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good point that had crossed my mind. If Kazaa automatically shares files, that may remove some of the liability from the plaintiff in this case.


RE: Hrm...
By murphyslabrat on 10/17/2007 2:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, another point. Any time you have even played music on your computer, even a CD under most circumstances, you are violating copyright. Those files are still on your hard-drive/CD-ROM when they are copied into your RAM. The only way to "safely" play music is to stream it off of a database with distribution permission. Otherwise, you are copying the music (into the RAM), and are in violation of the copyright!

Interesting fact.


RE: Hrm...
By borowki on 10/10/2007 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA probably would have won even with the burden of proof were beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries have consistently rejected the "it wasn't me, it was a hacker" defense in cases involving child pornography. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean elimination of all possibilities. The operative word here is "reasonable." Is there any reason to suspect that a hacker would hack into her computer or spoof her IP and MAC address in order to masquerade as her? I don't see it, and neither did the jury.


RE: Hrm...
By clovell on 10/10/2007 1:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
If she had a wireless router without any type of WEP, it'd be possible to be using the same IP. I've seen people parked on residental streets or in the parking lots of coffee shops on thier laptops - not to mention neighbors. The MAC address, though, probably nailed it - along with her lying.

Sad to see this precendent set - particularly when she was stupid about it.


RE: Hrm...
By maverick85wd on 10/10/2007 8:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you are getting at, however suggesting that sharing music and sharing child pornography would be in the same ball park is outrageous.

That being said, I think lying to the jury was a bad and stupid move. As you stated, the chances a hacker would get into her computer to masquerade as her and share 24 songs are quite long.

I personally think sharing music should be encouraged. Grateful Dead had and Radio Head has the right idea; it should be about the love of the music first, not the money. I have used MP3 download apps to sample which CDs I want to purchase for several years. I admit I have also downloaded a song or two from CDs I didn't care to purchase; I would have purchased those songs from iTunes if the bit rate was better than 128kbps and it didn't tell me I couldn't listen to something I purchased on another computer.

just my two cents :)


RE: Hrm...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/10/2007 10:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
> "OJ was obviously guilty and he still got off."

I'd like to point out that OJ, when sued by family members of his victims in civil court, did not "get off".


RE: Hrm...
By SavagePotato on 10/10/2007 9:51:10 AM , Rating: 3
I guess she failed that paper.

Someone who did a paper on file sharing networks should have known better than to use Kazaa.


RE: Hrm...
By othercents on 10/10/2007 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
This is interesting information. Do you have a source?

Other


RE: Hrm...
By borowki on 10/10/2007 12:28:50 PM , Rating: 3
I have posted this link in earlier thread. Here is it again:

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1462417.html


RE: Hrm...
By clovell on 10/10/2007 2:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Additionally, she was found to be lying to the jury about having "no knowledge" of file sharing networks,
I read that she claimed to have no knowlege of Kazaa - not file sharing networks in general.


RE: Hrm...
By codeThug on 10/10/2007 3:25:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
is there anyone in the country really stupid enough to believe this woman was innocent?


Probably not.

The question is; is she $222,000 worth of guilty? More likely $222,000 worth of stupid for the lame defense she mounted, along with lying to the jury.

It also begs the question of whether or not or to what extent the RIAA may be venue shopping for convictions. I realize this woman chose to fight, and did it quite poorly.


RE: Hrm...
By ElFenix on 10/9/2007 11:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
so, you're saying that the fact that her username and the IP address assigned to her cable modem sharing the copyrighted files doesn't constitute proof of anything? such facts don't make it more likely than mere conjecture that she did indeed offer the copyrighted music up for sharing?

and the court decision doesn't say anything about the possibility of a computer being hijacked for a bot net or other malicious activity. has ms. thomas proof that her computer had been hijacked, it would have been admissible.

but she didn't have proof of that. the only people with proof of anything was the music industry. all she had was her word and her ex boyfriend's claim that she'd had computer trouble, and that was the reason she erased the drive, rather than her intentionally destroying evidence. gotcha.


RE: Hrm...
By tcsenter on 10/10/2007 12:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
Well it could be argued that DNA and fingerprints can be planted fairly easily so long as the framer had access to them at some point, yet juries convict in capital crimes all the time on DNA and fingerprints.

This was a civil trial where only a preponderance of the evidence be clear or convincing, much lower than 'beyond any reasonable doubt' as a burden of proof required in criminal law. And yes, in civil law, the defendant has some burden to put on a minimal defense or challenge the veracity of the allegations, unlike in criminal law.

Thomas didn't even bother trying to prove she was not guilty of the alleged infringment. Instead, she chose some whacky theory that RIAA is not the lawful copyright holder of the songs in question and thus has no standing to sue her at all. In other words...I'm not denying that I infringed someone's copyright, just not RIAA's.


RE: Hrm...
By murphyslabrat on 10/10/2007 1:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
What it looks like here, is that this lady was charged with sharing files. Beware, p2p users: leech only, don't seed! They can't track you if you don't share!

So don your tinfoil caps, and download to your hearts content, and keep it all to yourself. Being nice will only bring you down!
;j


This is interesting
By BigToque on 10/9/2007 10:02:19 PM , Rating: 3
As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA has every right to go after people who download and share music. The material being shared belongs to them.

That said, I believe in the right for fair use and being able to make copies of material for myself to play on any medium I choose.

In a case like this, everyone knows that this woman was downloading music. Everyone does it and nobody thinks anything of it. It sucks that this woman is in the position she is, but these are the consequence of her actions.

It sounds like they are trying to nail her with the intent to share the music (by having the music in a shared folder) as opposed to proving that she actually did share the material.

In another example, it is illegal to possess drugs, it's also illegal to sell them. You can be charged for selling and possessing with the intent to sell. In other words, you can and likely will be charged simply for having the drugs even if nobody bought the drugs from you.

Now I understand this is not an apples to apples comparison, but I do think it is a valid comparison.




RE: This is interesting
By BladeVenom on 10/9/2007 11:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
But it's legal to have MP3 on your computer. So your analogy fails.

Other cases where they argued making available was equal to copying have all been overturned. So this case is getting appealed, and I'd bet she wins in the end.


RE: This is interesting
By BigToque on 10/9/2007 11:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
But it's not legal to have MP3 files on your computer that you do not own the rights for (and it sounds like she didn't), which is why I feel my analogy is still valid.


RE: This is interesting
By gerf on 10/9/2007 11:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
But, that is not the same as sharing them.

The big question here is that the RIAA cannot prove she shared files, and can only show that this username/IP had them available.

It's like if I played Metallica really loud in the middle of a forrest. Do I owe the RIAA money for a public performance when nobody hears it?


RE: This is interesting
By kyp275 on 10/10/2007 1:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's like if I played Metallica really loud in the middle of a forrest. Do I owe the RIAA money for a public performance when nobody hears it?


Shhhh, be careful what you say, else you may find yourself getting sued!

I'm sure RIAA will figure out a way to claim that you had infringed on their copyright. Maybe something like by playing loud Metallica music in the forest caused some genetic mutations in the wildlife, creating an anti-metallica gene which eventually made its way into the human population, causing the RIAA billions in potential lost revenue!


RE: This is interesting
By rcc on 10/10/2007 12:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's more likely that Greenpeace will blow up his stereo


RE: This is interesting
By Dactyl on 10/10/2007 2:14:31 AM , Rating: 3
Re: your forest analogy: Making music "hearable" is infringement, sez the British content mafia:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071008-the-...


RE: This is interesting
By GoatMonkey on 10/10/2007 12:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
How do you prove that you have rights to an MP3 file?


RE: This is interesting
By rcc on 10/10/2007 1:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Possession of a licensing agreement?


I hope she wins
By Screwballl on 10/9/2007 9:56:49 PM , Rating: 4
and takes these bastard down. I would like to hear that they have concrete evidence showing that 1) she had this information on her computer, 2) that the files had in fact been uploaded from her computer and 3) it was when the computer was in her legal possession.
so far they got her on "the songs were available" without proving what songs, what dates, who downloaded it, any real concrete evidence.




RE: I hope she wins
By feelingshorter on 10/9/2007 11:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, reading the last article on her, I'll have to say the RIAA has a good case that she is the one who shared the songs. I really really hate to say it but I'm sure she did share the songs.

I have a theory on why there are so many damn lawyers willing to take up these cases though.

So many years ago, there were a large number of lawsuits that were publicized on the news that (whether true or not) still convinced a lot of shallow people who only care about money to become lawyers. Cases such as the McDonalds hot coffee (no anywhere as much $ gained by old woman as news/radio made out to be), and cases involving workers injured on the jobs. I remember reading several businessweek articles about these lawyers (usually older ones) that are so ridiculously rich just from retarded things...i cant even remember them but readers know what i mean.

Come 4-6 years later to the present day and we have an unprecedented number of lawyers that cannot find jobs unless they graduate at a very competitive college at the top of their class. The last sentence is not an "opinion" so much as it is a fact as stated by businessweek. It was seriously mentioned in the same light as i posted here in the last 1-3 businessweek magazines.

So there you have it. I'm not saying that the woman is right but.... i cant help but think some of our colleges are turning out shallow lawyers/thieves/assh*les looking for a quick buck. I don't believe the RIAA is paying really big bucks for all these lawsuits, since there really is an excess of lawyers in the USA right now. So they only need to hire a few top lawyers and the rest is just a bunch of suits looking for any way to make a living.


RE: I hope she wins
By jtemplin on 10/10/2007 8:54:11 AM , Rating: 1
I am not going to express an opinion on any other point/part of your post than this (which you are totally off base on); workers compensation. Nobody gets rich off work comp. If they do they are seriously disfigured, dead etc. Generally attorneys only get money from settlements in these cases. And most settlements aren't huge, in fact most of the settlements just help to offset all the little BS cases. From my experience this is seen as something similar to winning the lottery.. A huge settlement is often a result of a case where a claimant is permanently (partially or totally) disabled and the insurance company wants to try and cut their losses with a concrete sum, rather than footing an uncertain bill of a lifetime of medicals (related to the injury). 95% of the cases are little one off, not disabling, help me fight the insurance company cases.

My point here is that you are totally wrong to lump workman's comp into the "attorneys are money grubbing whores" arguement. Make the arguement all you want, but IMO the work comp guys are the "good guys". They are helping people and a lot of time they know they aren't going to make a bunch of money off it.

The idea is usually quantity over quality from my experience. /end rant


RE: I hope she wins
By Dactyl on 10/10/2007 3:05:13 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to hear that they have concrete evidence showing that 1) she had this information on her computer, 2) that the files had in fact been uploaded from her computer and 3) it was when the computer was in her legal possession.

For #1 and #3, they do have hard evidence. They tied her IP/MAC address to a single computer, that was password protected, and she said she was the only person with the password.

For #2, the RIAA had no evidence at all that anyone ever downloaded those files. However, the judge ruled that, as a matter of law, the RIAA did not need to show that evidence in order to win. That is the part of the ruling that will be appealed. (I expect the RIAA will win on appeal, but that is a different issue.)


RE: I hope she wins
By ElFenix on 10/10/2007 8:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
i'll note that the only place evidence of sharing might have appeared was erased by ms. thomas.

so, i think it is possible to craft a jury instruction along the lines of 'did ms. thomas erase her drive to destroy evidence?' and then 'if you found that ms. thomas erased her drive to destroy evidence, then you may make an assumption that evidence of sharing was erased.'

but i don't think the instruction at issue was like that.


RE: I hope she wins
By vortmax on 10/10/2007 12:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
It seems pretty clear that she's at fault, but $9,000+ per song is a little unreasonable. I'm sure the RIAA did this specifically for this first jury case as a high visibility scare tactic.


Liable, not guilty
By ElFenix on 10/9/2007 10:50:48 PM , Rating: 3
the more i read blog posts and comments on the internet, the more i realize that basics of the judicial system needs to be a high school class.




RE: Liable, not guilty
By rdeegvainl on 10/10/2007 6:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
exactly, most people don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic.


RE: Liable, not guilty
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/10/2007 7:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
Those that do tend not to call the U.S. a Democracy :)


RE: Liable, not guilty
By darkpaw on 10/10/2007 10:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
Its really sad how few people in this country have little idea how their government and justice system run at any level. Civics are usually covered as part of the broader social studies ciriculum, but I think its much more important then that. It really should be a seperate subject line all throughout schooling, not some one semester high school class.


RE: Liable, not guilty
By rcc on 10/10/2007 2:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
lol, ok, perhaps I'm dating myself, but when I went to school, it was.


RIAA has the right to go after sharers
By pillagenburn on 10/10/2007 12:49:23 AM , Rating: 5
The RIAA has the right to go after sharers; however, the problem I have is the $9,xxx loss claim *per song* that they conjur up.

I could see claiming $25-50 per song, in extreme cases (roughly the cost of the CD itself). That'd be more than fair to recoop the costs, but I have a hard time believing that there was $9200 worth of damage done.

IMO this fine imposed on her illustrates a much bigger problem with this country. That is corporate interests' control of our government, both at a State and Federal level. Our government is sold to the highest corporate bidder. If the RIAA wants something done, it's only a matter of time and money (which they have both of) before they have their way. This is not only anti-American, but it is anti-capitalist. This is why I don't download movies unless it is the free and legal way (which is almost never, even legally). There is just too much room for a frivolous lawsuit. I have chosen to just do without the music and movies, seeing as how it's largely a waste of time because most newer movies/music suck b@lls anyway.

This "Association" essentially conspires to fix CD prices (which they already have been convicted of and slapped on the wrist for, yet they still do it). There is no competition in the music market. The ideal solution would be for the public to counter-sue until they get their CD prices in-line with their costs.

'nuff said. This woman should pay $2,222 ... not $222,222 (or whatever the amount was).




By tcsenter on 10/10/2007 3:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
She certainly would have paid a small fraction of that had she agreed to settle. Instead, she went to trial with laughable excuses and out-right lies, insulted the jury's intelligence, who in turn gave her the smack down.

If you go to trial in a criminal case and are found guilty, I guarantee you will serve a lot more time and/or be fined a lot more than if you admit responsibility and plead guilty or no contest. In fact, you will usually get the maximum sentence and/or fines.

This is not unlike like the basis for plea bargain arrangements where significantly lesser penalties or charges are given in exhange for saving the tax payers and courts the significant burdens of a trial.

If you leave RIAA no other choice but to take it to trial at substantial time and cost, and you are found guilty, its akin to getting the maximum penalty. A person found guilty should have to compensate the plaintiff in full for the trouble and expense it was forced to incur by the defendant's refusal to settle out of court [and their guilt].


RE: RIAA has the right to go after sharers
By Felofasofa on 10/10/2007 7:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
I have this problem as well, $9000 per song? It's outrageous to value music like that. Are they assuming all music has the same value. Like "Satisfaction" from the Stones has the same value as something from Britney Spears, can't name a track. I think they are setting a ridiculous precendent here, and I hope it gets squashed on appeal. If the music industry priced music sensibly I don't think there would be nearly as much piracy.


By tcsenter on 10/11/2007 11:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
In civil copyright infringement complaints, the plaintiff can seek actual damages + profits, or it can seek STATUTORY damages, but it cannot seek both. In this case, RIAA asked for STATUTORY damages, not actual damages + profits.

The $150,000 maximum per song arises out of a provision in copyright law that allows a jury to dispense a royal smackdown on the defendant if the plaintiff proves (and the defendant fails to disprove) the infringement was intentional and knowing, as opposed to unintentionally and unknowing.

The jury found the defendant committed intentional and knowing infringement, thus triggering the 'royal smackdown' provision that allows very harsh damages as a punishment for the defendant's bad behavior.

There is no relationship between actual damages and statutory damages, nor is there supposed to be. Statutory damages are a way for a jury to send a message about the defendant's offensive or immoral behavior. This cuts both ways.

I'm betting you don't have much of a problem in the numerous cases where a jury has levied some superfluous damages against a corporation for bad behavior?


Immaterial
By zsdersw on 10/10/2007 8:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
The RIAA's days as the puppetmaster of the music industry are numbered. People's tastes in music are growing broader than the limited number of artists the RIAA promotes, thanks in no small part to the Internet. The RIAA knows this and is, accordingly, doing whatever it can to maintain its grip. The end of the story, though, is that they will lose that grip. It won't happen today or tomorrow, but it *will* happen.




RE: Immaterial
By webstorm1 on 10/10/2007 9:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
The more the RIAA tightens its grip, the more people slip through their fingers...


Music is art, not business.
By stevetsi on 10/10/2007 7:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
What music execs have the hardest time wrapping their brain around is the fact that although the music industry is business, music itself is still ART! Musicians are usurped for their talents to make money for businessmen - it's that simple!!
When musicians start fooling themselves into thinking that that can and SHOULD make a lot of money off their music, you get hip-hop and pop music - and, yes, it sucks. Of course, when people stop buying it and record lables suffer, accusations start flying about music file sharing hurting the music industry. CRAPPY MUSIC is hurting the music industry. Plus, at some point, musicians will have to come to the understanding that music is art, not a commodity, and they profit ONLY at the pleasure of an interested audience. Trust me, music would not suffer if musicians and the RIAA stopped making money. It would just thin the heard and great music would once again rise to the top!




MAC Address?
By yoyoma245 on 10/11/2007 2:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how they were able to obtain the MAC address of the offending machine. Would someone with some understanding of TCP/IP explain this to me?

Thanks.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki