US woman fined $222,000 for..

leninbenjamin · 08-10-2007 10:17pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Good.
Now that it's been established that the fine for copyright infringment in the music sector is just under $1,000 per incident,
when can we expect SONY & First4Internet to pay for LAME open source software that was pirated and put on millions of CD's ??

nah what this clearly established that the fine for any infringement charged with, regardless of whether actually proven or not, is proportionally related to the income of the prosecutions legal team.

Manic Moran · 08-10-2007 11:20pm

Lemming wrote:

The problem with this standard procedure MM, is that in the case of the RIAAfia, they aren't applying due care to whom they "select" for threatening behaviour, and their investigative (to use that word incredibly loosely) methods could be bettered by a 10 year old child. Thus, there are many people who are completely innocent being coerced and intimidated, i.e. extortion is taking place. And now, given what this incredibly f*cktarded judge (whom I suspect has a hand in the pocket of certain .. "lobbying" organisations), even if you are innocent you cannot contest these cases because you are guilty until proven innocent and the courts aren't listening to what you have to say.

You're making a couple of pretty couragous assertions there.

Firstly, their investigative methods were obviously sufficient to win in a jury trial. If you're saying that a 10-year-old could have done that, then it seems likely that the infringement was pretty darned flagrant and the case was a slam-dunk in which case, frankly, she should have settled. On what is your claim of non-bias on the part of the judge based? And obviously she had the ability to contest the case as it went to a jury trial, and it seems a jury of her peers decided she was wrong in the eyes of the law as well. Where is the coercion on innocent people? Either you're making intellectual property freely available without the owners' permission, or you're not.

NTM

Ghost Train · 08-10-2007 11:43pm

Your one has done her first interview since the verdict, on cnn website, think she says she'll appeal

leninbenjamin · 09-10-2007 12:29am

Manic Moran there having cases brought against them when they havn't even downloaded the software. have a read of this. dropped because of the public backlash mainly, and also this . The RIAA have basically shown they'd sue God himself if they thought they'd get away with it.

Manic Moran · 09-10-2007 2:07am

dropped because of the public backlash mainly

Reading those articles, it seems to me that they were dropped because it they had the wrong people. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

NTM

leninbenjamin · 09-10-2007 10:18am

Manic Moran wrote:

Reading those articles, it seems to me that they were dropped because it they had the wrong people. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

NTM

yes and no. in the case of Ward, the case was dropped because she clearly didn't fit the stereotypical profile of a file sharer. if she was 30 years younger, all other things being equal, the outcome in my opinion would almost certainly have not been the same. and that's the issue for me: why is evidence that isn't even good enough to bring a case to court in some instances, more than acceptable to garner a successful case by the RIAA in other instances?

EamonnKeane · 09-10-2007 1:17pm

How is Kazaa or BearShare any different to a library? If I wrote a novel, and a library loaned it out a dozen times, I would only get royalties for that one copy. Stop illegal book-sharing now!

09-10-2007 1:33pm

EamonnKeane wrote:

How is Kazaa or BearShare any different to a library? If I wrote a novel, and a library loaned it out a dozen times, I would only get royalties for that one copy. Stop illegal book-sharing now!

The main differences are that a Library
Purchase the book,
Retain ownership of the book
Lend the book for a period of time
The borrower reads the book
The borrower does not save a copy of the book
The borrower does not allow others to make additional copies of the book etc
The borrower returns the book
The library lends out the book again.

The music industry are making a big mistake in targetting file sharers as potential music buyers are less likely buy online but instead just save streaming audio and not share it.

It wil not encourage people to buy legitimate music just to find other ways to get around the "system"

Edit: easier to read.

Terry · 09-10-2007 1:33pm

Kazaa and BearShare and the like do not pay any royalties whatsoever.

enda1 · 09-10-2007 1:41pm

Terry wrote:

Kazaa and BearShare and the like do not pay any royalties whatsoever.

I think the point was that somewhere along the line the song was bought.
In a library, does the book cost much more for the library to buy? Something like the videoshop idea?

Lemming · 10-10-2007 2:54pm

Manic Moran wrote:

You're making a couple of pretty couragous assertions there.

Firstly, their investigative methods were obviously sufficient to win in a jury trial. If you're saying that a 10-year-old could have done that, then it seems likely that the infringement was pretty darned flagrant and the case was a slam-dunk in which case, frankly, she should have settled. On what is your claim of non-bias on the part of the judge based? And obviously she had the ability to contest the case as it went to a jury trial, and it seems a jury of her peers decided she was wrong in the eyes of the law as well. Where is the coercion on innocent people? Either you're making intellectual property freely available without the owners' permission, or you're not.

NTM

Actually MM, the RIAAfia's "investigative" methods are well documented and the flaws have been widely discussed in tech circles. There are gaping holes in much of their methodology and very little credible proof on the integrity therein. A case was dismissed in Europe over this because the defence team was clued in to the implications. This has yet to happen in the US, and of course, the courts seem to find words coming from whomever has the largest paycheck lawyer most credible it would seem. The RIAAfia are also known to have a large warchest for lobbying, and they do - both politicians and senior justidiciary.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-10-2007 1:07am

enda1 wrote:

I think the point was that somewhere along the line the song was bought.
In a library, does the book cost much more for the library to buy? Something like the videoshop idea?

No.

Actually in some cases like the copyright library in Trinity they get the book free.

Can the RIAA guarantee that when the DRM'd music goes public domain in years to come, they will have copies of the music to distribute ?

US woman fined $222,000 for..

Comments