going 65 in a school zone doesn't warrant 200,000+ in fines, why should sharing 24 mp3s?

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

iembalm wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

iembalm wrote:I'm all for copyright.

No, you're not, at least based on this thread.

So you agree with the monetary penalty handed down by this jury? Because that's my point, not that illegally and knowingly downloading and sharing music is acceptable. When a corporate entity is allowed to influence a jury such that the punishment is this over the top, in any industry, that's a problem.

So you're kinda sorta for copyright?

Jesus, go put on a suit and tie and work for Seagram. Artists should have the right to copyright their work and profit from it. The contract they sign determines how they are compensated. I am saying that this verdict and this judgement is a fucking wet dream for the megalithic corporate vampires who run the industry. So, say I spent my college years downloading music and allowing other people to reach into my computer and copy files I keep there. For this I can either settle for $14,000 or - and now we have a nifty little precedent since someone actually went to trial and lost - I can fight the industry and their $800/hour law firm, and if I lose get saddled with a quarter million dollar, life-destroying judgement against me.

Answer the question Bradley: do you think the award this jury handed down was appropriate to the offense?

Colonel Panic wrote:She should not have denied that it was her account. That's kind of a stupid defense, unless she was operating a wireless access point or something. If she was, she could always say that somebody else must have been logging onto her wireless router without her knowledge and running Kazaa.

I think this is a rare case because of her blatant inability to disguise herself at all. First of all, she's on Kazaa, which has been monitored for a long time. She was listed under her email address and not a nick. After she was warned via IM, she went out and bought a new hard drive, trying to hide her tracks.

It was the wrong case to get to trial. And I think the judgment amount is outrageous. But this woman screwed up in an ignorant manner. The jury could have hit her for the maximum but settled somewhere in the middle range. But they might as well just set the amount at four gajillion because even the minimum amount of damages hurts.

Bought a new hard drive? How did she figure that was going to help? What a 'tard.

The woman may have been an idiot since she was warned, but the amount she has to pay is completely arbitrary. It's bullshit. She probably grabbed some Akon, and now she's fucked. Fuck that ridiculous jury, and fuck the RIAA.

I guess my take on this is that the fine is not based on the actual cost. By that I mean if she had !,000 songs lets say and she downloaded them from itunes she would have spent $1,000 or if she had bought CD's each with 10 songs on them she would spend $1,600 about so a fine of about $5,000 would be more fair based on her income and offence.

That said this whole thing and the internet radio laws and such are really a attempt by the record companies not to control copyright but to control means of distribution and the control of distribution.

The fact that the biggest acts of the last 20 years have not had any hits on the radio and were huge live acts but it was not reflected on the radio or anywhere else (dispite the large crowds at their concerts) is really the fact that in the 1980's these companies had grown too large and went from finding artists to creating products -brit pop - boy bands - metal bands. Thus the Ramones who were pretty much the Beatles to my generation had no radio hits. It was not because they were not popular or did not have a huge fan base who wanted to hear those songs on the radio.

At this point the record companies are afraid because the screwed up system where they own half the artists copyrights through publishing plus the publishers share as well as the record money and a percentage of the airplay upon which their whole scam (which is more of a loan sharking operation than a legit business) is falling apart. As small bands have all the DIY tools to break through their barriers.

are the artists whose music she downloaded going to be compensated as part of the settlement? if so, how much will they receive for each song?

Colonel Panic wrote:Bought a new hard drive? How did she figure that was going to help? What a 'tard.

Gee, maybe her old hard drive died.

It happens, you know.

iembalm wrote:Answer the question Bradley: do you think the award this jury handed down was appropriate to the offense?

You are quite the bulldoggish fake-o litigator!

I must be held accountable.

Hmmm... What should have been the appropriate damages award in this RIAA downloading case?

$20?
$200?
$20,000?
$200,000?
$2M?

I don't know!

However, in my eyes, we're addressing the wrong question. That is, if we review copyright infringement damages on the basis of economic fairness, then we're simply adopting RIAA's general position without any fundamental reassessment of copyright protection.

Here is my perspective -- I urge fundamental limitations to copyright and contractual protections for all types of content licensors (e.g., music, movies, software, etc.). In fact, I could probably be talked into doing away with most, if not all, copyright protections altogether. Here is a good layman's perspective on the issue.

On the other hand, iembalm, you're "all for" (or at least kinda sorta for) copyright laws. However, you only support the enforcement of such laws in the event that it meets your particular standards for morality and justice (e.g., such enforcement must not be "life-destroying").

Without raising in detail the nightmarish enforcement standard that your articulated position would create, just note that the damages argument that results from these downloading cases is a simple red herring. In essence, and with apologies to George Bernard Shaw, you haven't rejected RIAA's game; you're just haggling over price. By focusing on the fairness of copyright infringement damages, we're assuming that there should even be damages in the first place. In doing so, we're buying into a line of thinking that helps RIAA and their ilk preserve the broad copyright laws that support their dying business models.

And, as a result, little ladies from the rez will get caught in the gears from time to time.

Recording Industry Association of America spokeswoman Cara Duckworth declined to comment on the group's plans for enforcing the judgment.

My guess is "pound of flesh."

Skronk wrote:She probably grabbed some Akon, and now she's fucked.

Actually, according to this,

A 12-person jury deliberated four hours after two days of testimony and ruled that Thomas must pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs named in the lawsuit, including tracks by Aerosmith, AFI, Green Day, Journey and Guns N’ Roses.