I don't buy any Sony products, period. So no PS3 for me... oh well.

dolo54

dolo54

ark_v2

Moonshadow101

releasing your own creations in a way that it would be easily piratable is not entrapment

for some reason, copyright laws allow entities like the RIAA to subpoena ISP's for your traffic information without getting a signature from a judge, so they subpoena a massive amount of ip addresses (about 200-1000) that they believe are sharing their files.

then, they send a letter to the owners of the ip addresses telling them what they will be charged with, and asking them to settle. this isnt illegal either, and your own lawyer would probably recommend that you settle.

also if you brought the case to court, they only have to prove the "preponderance of evidence," which basically means its just as likely that you did it than you didnt, so its really easy for the RIAA to get the ruling in their favor.

sickforska

poidog

lightshow

kevjohn

Screw the RIAA.

axiomatic

So those "To catch a predator" shows are not entrapment.

And I believe that once entrapment is used as a defense, it opens the door for the other side to enter past incidents as evidence. Frankly, it's a horrible defense to use.

Paul

Now that's impressive.

-Isn't supposed to be a jury of your peers?
-Only the prosecution in a criminal case does not have the opportunity to appeal when they lose. Otherwise you have one appeal as of right, and additional appeals after that only if the higher court wants to take the case.

Paul

Even today, new bands want to get "signed" with an RIAA-backed label because they are too lazy to market themselves. This has to stop! Without the motivation of "getting signed" many bands wouldn't exist. We need to change this situation by removing the RIAA from the equation and re-defining copyright laws so that musicians are fairly reimbursed for a set period of time after the creation of the work. This would give a larger chunk of profits to these bands directly and provide incentive for them to create music. It would also allow people who didn't want to pay to obtain the music legally if they were willing to wait (say, a year) until it was in the public domain.

If I were on that jury I would have had to find that she was guilty, since the judge instructs the jury that they have to uphold the law (no matter how stupid). But I would have awarded the absolute minimum. That's why the jurors are idiots.

gizmodome

If it's speech than as soon as it leaves the mouth of a musician; it belongs equally to everyone. If it's property, than musicians and the RIAA should be liable for any damages caused by their products... if any study ever concluded that there is a link between certain forms of music and drug use; the RIAA should be held liable.

The problem is they want it both ways, they want to be considered speech in some contexts and products in other contexts.

But the fact is that speech, belongs to everyone. And in a digital age that means the only legitimate sources of revenue for artists are concert sales, tips, and merchandise.

Think that's unfair? Well imagine if physicists copyrighted their formulas...

fightcopyright

Spaceboy

FLskydiver

Digital media shared online DOES NOT EXIST. It's 1's and 0's indistinguishable from all the other 1's and 0's going through your intertubes. Heck, even the 1's and 0's aren't really 1's and 0's!

Nobody looses anything they paid to press, package, stock, store or retail.

Sure, someone (okay, lots of someones) collaborated together over possibly a great many hours (days, weeks, or months) to arrange a great many of those invisible, not really existing 1's and 0's in a specific order. Their time could be said to be worth something. But their is NO established, regular rate of compensation for such time. The equipment used to created, record, and mix the virtual 1's and 0's definitely has a more easily defined value (but the equipment isn't usually destroyed in the process, so one need really only compensate for depreciation).

I personally believe the people involved in creating the digital media I enjoy, and those who financed its creation, and those involved with making me aware of it in the first place, deserve to be compensated in some way - since their efforts provide me with enjoyment, It only seems fair that they should receive an equal level of enjoyment from me (see: reciprocity).

I'd recommend sexual services...

FLskydiver

Angus

I own a license, right? I shouldn't have to buy it twice because they chose a fragile storage medium, and since they won't allow me to make a backup for personal use, what choice do I have?

Steel_Pelican

Rustydog

If you theorize that someone Could have downloaded a song from the lady's computer, pull the ISP logs and PROVE IT.

Fining someone (not to mention the IN-SANE sums that are awarded in civil court -McDonald's coffee anyone?) for what MIGHT have happened instead of what you PROVE DID happen, is like issuing death sentences on every single driver going through a highly-pedestrian town center, because they MIGHT have run over 150 people.

Ex: If the song COULD have been downloaded 100 quadzillion times in the frame, but the IP logs show over x traffic that in REALITY it was twice, fine her $2.00.

The RIAA and record companies do not have a moral leg to stand on. -It's like Bill Gates suing someone for anticompetitive and monopolistic business practices. -Anyone who defends them in any way is equally immoral.

Ex: 15% Revs for Artists at best, ~'Stolen' Publishing, Slug Fees, Breakage, Artist-Expensing Everything, etc. etc. etc.

Check Out these Links from Jonathan Coulton:
[www.jonathancoulton.com]
[archive.salon.com]
[negativland.com]
[www.janisian.com]

wonkydonky

I almost reported your post. That sort of rationalism doesn't belong here. Everything should be free and ours for the taking. Back to your bizarro world, heretic.

I wonder if Ms. Thomas feels like a martyr.

saintchuck

Noone considers you are a martyr except for other freeloaders. Leave the freedom fighter tag for those that deserve it like Mandela and the Dalai Llama.

IP is granted protection in this country. If you're caught distributing (even free of charge) music, movies, or software without the copyright holder's permission you may find yourself penalized both criminally and/or civilly.

What is shocking about that is that some find that shocking.

I don't like the state of DRM either but this doesn't cause me to fall into the infantilism of self-absorbed pirates.

AlfaSpider

even though used CDs (much less ripping them) is probably TOTALLY copyright violation for the RIAA.

Seriously, the big four need to fall into a pit to hell and die there.

Bloody_Sorcerer

"That said, I personally think if I buy a movie on DVD, I should be able to rip it and put it on my iPod. Which side of the DMCA fence this falls on I believe is still up for debate."

And that is what angers me about all this. I have to put up with DRM and the DMCA because some people think they are entitled to steal music for asinine self-serving reasons.

I see little difference between commenters on these articles and the ones concerning the iPhone. Don't like the rules, fine, don't play the game but don't force me to listen to you whining when you get smacked with the consequences of breaking the rules.

As far as the damages award, were there any jury instructions concerning it? I didn't see any (even on Ars, which had a contributor in court). The amount seems arbitrary but reasonable considering the possibilities (though unrealistic in relation to her ability to pay, which has no bearing).

saintchuck

That said, I personally think if I buy a movie on DVD, I should be able to rip it and put it on my iPod. Which side of the DMCA fence this falls on I believe is still up for debate.

@josejuan05: ok, bear with me, but what is so nefarious about the RIAA that a lawyer should not take their case? They aren't child molesters or murderers; they are a corporate entity that, albeit vigorously, wants to defend their property. And yes, when the artists freely sign their contracts, the music becomes the RIAA's property.

What I would like to know/understand is the damages award. I want to know how the jury came up with $9200 per song. Is it an economic model based on the number of people that could have connected to her copy (going on the idea that the RIAA didn't need to prove anyone actually did). Is it somehow based on an estimate of sales lost? I'll need to read the case, though I doubt an explanation is in there.

-p-

psxndc

Stay broke and you can't pay the bastards.

JDBishop5

It is sociably acceptable among a small group that do it.

It appears you are justifying copying music by saying you have more important things to spend your money on. That argument could be made for armed robbery (I'd get a job but I have more important things to do with my time), stealing a car(same argument as yours) or even murder (didn't have time to wait for them to decide to give me their watch so I shot them and took it).

If the award were only the price of the song, what disincentive would there be? Pay for music or don't pay unless I get caught? Alot of people wouldn't have a problem, morally, with the latter, unfortunately.

saintchuck

But in this day and age, piracy is sociably acceptable. It is wrong, and I'd be the first to admit it. There is not even a fraction of right in it. But, people don't want to pay. Lets bring up the phrase 'starving artist'. There is a reason for that. Now it's just a matter of selling a media rich piece of plastic, with a bunch of stupid pictures on it, for a justifiable price that seems to always rise... Excuse me, but iTMS or Napster (legal) doesn't seem too bad. 0.99 for a song is nice. But DRM is still there (per the label apparently). Do I pay for music? No I don't. Honestly, I have alot of other things in life that I pay for. If I could get free cell phone service, free digital television or free petrol for my auto, I would. However, it is not possible (Yes I know about ways to get ALL of those for free, but it's not a matter of launching a program, typing in something, and then double clicking to have it in my hands (figuratively speaking)).

Should we steal the candy when the shop keeper has turned his back?

Imahottguy

Fierock

The jury was bought? What part of the evidence or testimony leads you to the opinion that she shouldn't be found guilty?

Rhetoric doesn't do any good. Hate the RIAA, hate the law. That is up to you but to say that the jury was bought when the defendant offers no defense other than 'I didn't do it' is ludicrous especially considering what the plaintiff presented.

In my opinion, she willfully and knowingly offered copyrighted material for download on Kazaa. Apparently the jury felt the same way and awarded damages to the plaintiff within the limits prescribed by the law (on the low end of the limits, by the way).

She broke the law and got caught. Most people don't have to worry about getting caught but who wants to take the chance of being caught now.

The valued local bands you like are still there and always have been. The large bands (that use to be valued local bands) signed with a label are also around. One doesn't preclude the other from existing. If you don't like the RIAAs actions then let them know by not buying music produced by a RIAA member.

saintchuck

Thinking Peasant

Pinkmeister

I am for total freedom of information for everybody, nonetheless i understand that not everybody thinks that way, but what RIAA is doing is B*LLSH*T

I have 60 Gb. of mp3s, RIAA come and get me xD

santox

Your capitalism and democracy are just bullshit. It's everything for Corporations, CIA, government and mafia. Not for people.

Detress

BenjaminDover

Some people will say that we depend on record companies and labels for bands to get known and promoted... I say f that.

I'd rather have more valued local bands selling music for fair prices than this screwed up culture we live today.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Of course, they could uphold the jury verdict, in which case we're all screwed. But still!

Metcalf

Mecharine

mbodey

josejuan05

let's look to the heart of why copyright law exists . . . a little deeper than just the fact that the RIAA owns the rights to all this music. the fathers of this nation first adopted the ideas of copyright and patent protection to ensure that there would be incentive for creative endeavours.

when music was not being recorded, this was never a problem. artists didn't much mind when another artist performed their piece. however, with the invention of recordable media, we saw the rise of record companies. at that time, they were a necessary evil. it costed a lot of money to record an album and distribute it. thus, the non-artist record companies began "backing" projects and taking an ownership interest in the IP. the artist didn't have much leverage to speak of.

so i get that these record companies were a necessary part of music history. shoot give them a place in the music hall of fame.

but in this day and age, where the costs of recording an album and distributing it are so manageable, it seems silly to keep the same system we had in place from the inception of recorded music. we speak of protecting the rights of the RIAA. but they shouldn't have these rights to begin with. those rights were intended to promote creativeness.

i'd make the argument that record companies thwart creativeness. although the rise in digital recording has aided in the widening of the spectrum of niche music, record copanies haven't promoted it. all we get is what sells . .. . cookie cutter BS.

doodoostain

josejuan05

M e d i a d d i c t

Husher

Sqube

My only hope is that beyond the sensationalist headlines is some mention of outcomes that haven't gone as well for the RIAA, like Capitol v. Foster.

paul

Also, don't be so fast to label people as sheep following the "easy" norm. I stopped dealing with recordings (both purchased and pirated) years ago and basically now I stick to various broadcast media for entertainment now (internet radio). Software piracy is another matter, however......

lightshow

zjgz

ryan7107

Yes, the record companies are evil. Really fucking evil. Absolutely no argument from me on this point.

Yes, you absolutely should have the right (not privilege, right) to manipulate media you purchased. This means that if you want to put it into your MP3 player, that is your right.

Where your right should end is at mass distribution. I feel that the defendant in this case violated that boundary. As such, as much as I despise the RIAA and the companies they represent, the jury's decision was right. The defendant was not making some political statement here; it clearly crossed a line.

I would have found for the plaintiff, also, though I feel that the penalty that was exacted was really excessive.

Perhaps, though, if we started respecting the IP of these companies, evil though they are, we might have a leg to stand on when we bitch about DRM. Think about it.

kc2idf

eddiehart

Still, don't you feel like we're just trying hard to justify our own immoral actions. I don't think stealing becomes okay just when it's easy, feels anonymous and everyone's doing it, even when you label the victim an 'evil corporation'.

Ben

givemeyourtots

The RIAA leaves the torrent up seeding for days and gathers IPs. If the seeders ever drop down to let's say, just one (the RIAA) and then more people pick it up, and start downloading, aren't they propogating the issue?

Isn't this entrapment somehow? I wouldn't have downloaded the file unless 1. it was out there and 2. it was seeded. Right? No?

agrajag42

@jriga: What? What?

Statements that have neither truth in fact nor soundness in logic do not serve the cause.

FYI:

Criminal charges don't come with fines; criminal convictions sometimes do.

Criminal convictions for murder and rape may include some form of monetary penalties, surcharges, and/or fines, but they are minimal compared to the actual heart of the sentence: The prison term.

Civil cases for wrongful death may lead to monetary judgments, not fines. These are substantially larger than the fine for "1 single track." See e.g. Goldman v. O.J. Simpson ($33.5M)

92BuickLeSabre

so, i think we should have an option to SURRENDER THE LICENSE and get reimbursed for any music that we purchase through CD or upload that sucks. this would be a small way to get the RIAA (and slacker artists) back for this type of injustice....
refund us for crappy songs that we download or purchase that we're not 100% satisfied with. especially with CDs...how many times have you purchased an entire CD only to find that 1-2 songs are worth listening to??

this is the only way i would feel that punishment like this would fit the "crime". it's not a fair system to punish music listeners who don't have the right to return music purchased through ANY vendor.
blech. die RIAA members (and the idiots on the jury panel in this case), die.

BoycottRIAA

no, now i just buy from the russians.

and that's it. when the RIAA figures out how to take them down, I'm done, except maybe if i can find some indie bands that don't suck too much.

i will NOT be a part of supporting corporate / RIAA labels.

lizard

xxenclavexx

simmo

The artists mindlessly take advantage of all the lovely gifts extended to them and rack up a huge debt. Many don't see their first dime of album sale money until they go platinum, and countless thousands of other artists who failed end up owing exhorbitant sums well after they get out of the music business. Before you try to play devils advocate, why don't you at least make an effort to get acquainted with your devil first, eh?

lightshow

jriga

NONONO, you're getting it all WRONG. Stop buying albums from MAJOR LABEL artists. Support the indies in any way you can, shows, merchandise, albums, ect ... the indies aren't affiliated with the RIAA ... it's the BIG 4 that's causing all of these problems.

If you're going to support a major label artist, just go to their show ... which those funds go directly to the artists and not the RIAA.

dead_red_eyes

The damages awarded aside, based on the evidence the RIAA put on, that the username on Kaaza matched usernames at other sites, that the files shared reflected Thomas's "eclectic" musical tastes, and that the files were all on a computer only she had access to, it is more likely than not that she put them up for sharing.

I haven't read the opinion, and therefore don't understand the elements that they needed to prove (I don't understand how you can violate a copyright if no one actually downloads the song, which they clearly said they didn't have to prove), but if the RIAA only had to prove that she likely put the files up, they met that burden.

Soooooo many armchair lawyers on the 'net. Makes my head hurt.

-p-

psxndc

sparomn

Ben

The post made me throw up a lot.

*sigh*

Haven't bought a CD is several years and I definitely don't intend to start.

low_dirt

thetbg

this is an awful precedent to be setting in an age of terrible precedents

lightshow

- THIS IS THE RRRRR-IIIII-AAAAA-AAAA!

Windhawk

Ben

Bender

RoninianHoon

I think the craziest thing is that you get caught for sharing, not downloading.

xxenclavexx

Maybe now people will stop bitching about having to pay $2 for Guitar Hero Tracks on Xbox 360.

DeadPlasmaCell

And i don't See why th RI double A and the big Four are trying their hardest to prevent music pirating..

It's kind of like yellow lights, people are supposed to slow down, but everybody speeds up.

People aren't SUPPOSED to pirate music, but EVERYONE (or, it seems like everyone) does

Andham

wonkydonky

EQC

I'll agree wholeheartedly that the damages awarded are insane, though.

Kesh

"the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas' share folder"

And:

"This is what can happen if you don't settle," he said.

Invasion of privacy and threats. This is really scary stuff. Seriously, they are threatening people to settle so they don't have to go to court, how is this not illegal?

dirtybacon

joshieca

EQC

xxenclavexx

agrajag42

xxenclavexx

My options of moving to asian countries for work are looking more appealing. I've officially lost faith.

dirtybacon

OtterKing

nojo

trebas