US woman fined $222,000 for..

Jesus Wept · 05-10-2007 3:39pm

mise_me_fein wrote:

What's the difference between 22 and 22,000 in the eyes of the judge.

21,978

Surely he can do basic subtraction, he is a judge ffs.

vorbis · 05-10-2007 3:40pm

That is jsut bizarre logic limklad.
A punishement for a crime must be appropriate!
If you got executed for robbing a car, it wouldn't be deserved just beacuase you lost the court case!

In this case, 220,000 is laughable, I'd expect an appeal to reduce it. If she'd robbed 20 cds from a store, she would just get a fraction of this fine!

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 05-10-2007 3:48pm

Peanut wrote:

Hmm I really don't think so, if anything they have totally shot themselves in the foot with this one.

There can't be any other reaction than a public backlash against the disproportionality of the fine.

What I meant was that it would work in their favour from their twisted point of view... in line with their whole making-examples-of-people game plan.
I'm thinking about this in the context of why her selling this music (as claimed earlier in the thread) isn't making the news reports.
If they can get people to believe a punishment that was really for selling music is the punishment for sharing a few songs, then it's a major win in the scare-tactics game they seem so fond of.
As for public backlash, I'd like to think there would be one, but I don't think there will be... the phrase "docile masses" springs to mind.

pickarooney · 05-10-2007 3:50pm

gurramok wrote:

22 was changed to 24 in bbc article during the morning, talk about semantics

In that case the fine should be amended to $242,424 to fit the crime.

enda1 · 05-10-2007 3:52pm

So she was sharing 24 songs. But surely it depends on how many downloads of these songs there were to establish the impact it had on the record company?? I mean if 100 people downloaded each of the songs then 2400 songs were downloaded.

For some reason people equate downloading a song (freely) with robbing the songs monetary equivalent from the record company but I wouldn't have a tenth of my music collection if I had to pay full price for it so I don't think this is the case.

So anyway all I'm saying is that surely the amount of downloads is far more important than the number of songs she supplied. Still the fine is probably WAY over the top!

Keyzer · 05-10-2007 3:55pm

limklad wrote:

If she knowingly and intended to committed the crime of robbing other people earnings then, she should expect to be punishment, no matter how severe.

Stealing is taking risks, get away with it or get caught. Going to court is like gambling, you win or lose. How much you lose by, depends on the odds and determination of others. Punishment in court is supposed to be a deterrent against future breaches of law

Lets be honest man, she didn't kill anyone or molest children.....
She downloaded/uploaded a few songs and was fined $200,000 + ....

That, in my opinion, is a crazy punishment...

Fine her a couple of thousand dollars, enough to give her a wake up and give her some community service.
Don't ruin her life....

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 05-10-2007 3:59pm

Peanut wrote:

..Add to that the arrogance of the RIAA lawyer - "This is what can happen if you don't settle," - smugness and barely veiled threats like that do not go down well with the public.

Yeah I read that on the BBC news website earlier and recoiled with horror... such disgusting gloating.
I checked back a bit later and the report had added quotes like "we don't want to litigate"... no doubt some PR clean-up job.

Lemming · 05-10-2007 4:02pm

seamus wrote:

I don't think that's the case. At least in this country anyway, sharing your files is in itself a copyright violation - it is a form of "publishing" the content, when the person doesn't have a licence from the copyright holder to publish or distribute the content.

The person who downloaded the content technically isn't committing an offence unless they listen to/use the content - being in possession of the content isn't a breach of copyright.

I think the judge has indeed opened a can of worms here. He stated that the woman making the files available was enough to deem her guilty. This opens several questions.

1. Who made the files available
2. Was she aware that the files were available.
3. What did she do once she became aware that the files were available.

What the judge said in his brief was essentially that regardless, it was she who violated copyright (to make life easy for the RIAAfia), not the person who actually chose to carry out the act of copyright violation.

That is a serious, serious f*cking flaw in his argument.

Oh, and the reason why the RIAAfia are not pursuing the downloaders is because they can't "prove" who's doing the downloading. They can't prove who's doing the uploading either for that matter, but they can find scapegoats. So their strategy is undermined from the word "go". It's like prosecuting the person who's car got stolen and not the bank robber who used it to get away from the bank.

interestingly though, this court judgement could possibly leave the RIAAfia wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide open to a RICO case when they attempt to collect their "winnings". Appeal the sentence and file a counter-suit on grounds of losses actually accrued.

gurramok · 05-10-2007 4:22pm

limklad wrote:

After saying the above, if you steal (and not staving for food), you must pay for the crime.
After all, what about all of the legal costs of bring this case to court?
Lawyers, Judge, clerical staff, records keeping,Guards, police, Witness, etc, and costs of investigation, costs of fatalities. Could I go on?

I say $222,000 is cheap once you add up all the costs and you need to make people think before committing this crime again.
[/COLOR]

LOL..she DID NOT STEAL anything.

She has not been convicted of anything.

She has been sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement through sharing music files for free(until someone provides a verifiable link that she was selling then she was not selling) over Kazaa.

She is only one of 26,000 been sued who decided to fight the accusation in court which is a basic right.

And the reason why the other 25,999 didn't fight was not because they are guilty but because they cannot fight the super-rich RIAA in court due to high legal costs.
Everyone has a right to fight a lawsuit, the rest settled out of court due to exhorbant costs involved without a whisker of guilt proved.

What it proves is that the litigation laws on copyright are absurd, the EU recently have a similar copyright law with recent persuasion from the spouse(MEP) of a Vivendi executive to push it through the EU parliament.(Digi rights forum would have more info on this part)

Overheal · 05-10-2007 4:53pm

Hmmm heres a hack-thought: write a worm virus that seeds illegal MP3s onto someones computer.... actually that just sent a chill down my spine: dont.

artists make far too big a deal over it: they make PLENTY of cash - they could retire like a regular person off of 1 or 2 tours easilly. When you think about it like that its really stupid:: surely the idea is you want more people to hear the music and maybe they'll buy your other **** like your DVDs of live performances or *ghasp* even attend a live performance.

But I dont blame the artist I blame the Label: most artists are sensible and the other half only see the color of money.

In an ideal setting it shouldnt be a crime but the Label is within a capitalising business model: they are legally bound to turn a profit most especially to their shareholders - they need to protect that.
Having said that though this kind of thing really can put a stain on a company's public image.

TheAlmightyArse · 05-10-2007 9:47pm

limklad wrote:

If she knowingly and intended to committed the crime of robbing other people earnings then, she should expect to be punishment, no matter how severe.

How did she rob other people's earnings? Point to the money she took. She didn't take anything from anyone's pocket.

Venom · 05-10-2007 10:38pm

maple wrote:

ridiculous fine, far outweighs the "crime". they're just making an example of her. Plus she was sharing the songs, not making a profit of selling them on.

This is high profile case for the RIAA and the big fine is merly used as scare tactics to make other people afraid to pirate music.

limklad · 05-10-2007 11:14pm

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

How did she rob other people's earnings? Point to the money she took. She didn't take anything from anyone's pocket.

gurramok wrote:

LOL..she DID NOT STEAL anything.

She has not been convicted of anything.

Incorrect, she stole "the right" for the owners of the songs to earn an income from them in which they invest their own money into. It was their property/product and she gave it away for free.

It like me saying that people can stay weekends at your house for free and handed them the keys, or you stole a bar of chololate from a shop and gave it away free to someone else

Is $222,000 not a conviction!! it hardly a slap on the hand.

limklad · 05-10-2007 11:21pm

Keyzer wrote:

Lets be honest man, she didn't kill anyone or molest children.....
She downloaded/uploaded a few songs and was fined $200,000 + ....

That, in my opinion, is a crazy punishment...

Fine her a couple of thousand dollars, enough to give her a wake up and give her some community service.
Don't ruin her life....

Is $222,000 (156,846 EUR) not a wake up call for her and for others? They can no longer break this particular law without serious consequences.
Would you hear about this crime if the fine was $6,000?

Remember this is the US (Land of extremes) not Ireland (land of liberal punishment laws) where young murders (first timers) can get out of jail within 5 years with good behaviour and with crowded jails have to be released so a judge can jail someone else for not payng a tv fine. A few years ago this actually happen here, where a mother was jail for not paying her TV licence and fine and was jailed, a female murder got out because they was no room left in the jail. They (US) do not do things in small measures. It has to be noticed.

If you are so worried about the Punishment, why don't you and others help pay the fine by donating!

TheAlmightyArse · 05-10-2007 11:36pm

limklad wrote:

Incorrect, she stole "the right" for the owners of the songs to earn an income from them.

That's assuming she would have bought the songs otherwise. Who's to say she would have? It seems unlikely. We can assume that she has a finite income, because realistically, everyone does. We can also assume that since she didn't spend any of that income on the music she downloaded, she must have spent it on something else. That something else must be of greater priority to her, so she almost certainly would have spent money on it over the music anyway.

So what have the song-owners lost between the two scenarios of her buying something else and not downloading the songs, and buying something else and downloading the songs? Imaginary potential money that never existed?

limklad wrote:

It was their property and she gave it away.

As far as I'm aware, she just took a copy of it for her own personal use.

limklad wrote:

It like me saying that people can stay weekends at your house for free and handed them the keys, or you stole a bar of chololate from a shop and gave it away free to someone else

Er, no it isn't. In your analogy, you're depriving someone of the use of their house, or the use of their chocolate bar. She didn't actually take any of their property. They still have it, and the use of it.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-10-2007 11:54pm

That's the US of A,
where Kevin Weber got 26 years to life for stealing 4 chocolate chip cookies.

MooseJam · 05-10-2007 11:54pm

The fine is way overboard, if that was me who was fined I would go postal at the RIAA offices

Nailz · 05-10-2007 11:58pm

Oh the American justice system does it again... :rolleyes:

An Citeog · 06-10-2007 12:03am

The fine is way overboard and is simply a case of the RIAA covering up their own inability to embrace technology. I think this will have the opposite effect to that desired by the RIAA and the public outcry will badly effect them.

Here's an interesting blog I found on the whole subject of the future of the music industry: clicky

limklad · 06-10-2007 12:33am

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

That's assuming she would have bought the songs otherwise. Who's to say she would have? It seems unlikely. We can assume that she has a finite income, because realistically, everyone does. We can also assume that since she didn't spend any of that income on the music she downloaded, she must have spent it on something else. That something else must be of greater priority to her, so she almost certainly would have spent money on it over the music anyway.

So what have the song-owners lost between the two scenarios of her buying something else and not downloading the songs, and buying something else and downloading the songs? Imaginary potential money that never existed?

read http://www.courant.com/business/hc-downloading1005.artoct05,0,112892.story

The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March 2007.

Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful."

Possibility of 7.8 millions lost sales. If this was your song where you invested and invested your own money (cost of promoting and paying others to get it to market) and invest your own time into, would you be mad too!! Or you just sit there and say it only your song.

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

As far as I'm aware, she just took a copy of it for her own personal use.

She not only downloaded copyright material, but she shared the music by uploading it to the web through Kazzaa.

The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs on which the case was focused. The companies said she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.

In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account.

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

Er, no it isn't. In your analogy, you're depriving someone of the use of their house, or the use of their chocolate bar. She didn't actually take any of their property. They still have it, and the use of it.

If I use your view and apply it to films, copyright material.
If you copy a film that is currently in the cinema and gave it away free for all to see. Are the Film makers not losing out?

Or Books
Copy the copyright Books and give it away for free!! Are the Publishers/author not losing out in lost income?

If you take anything or deny sales from the rich or poor and not benefit from it, it is still stealing.

limklad · 06-10-2007 12:50am

MooseJam wrote:

The fine is way overboard, if that was me who was fined I would go postal at the RIAA offices

And then you just made yourself a target for them to go after you. From there point of view, Why would you be angry unless you are guilty or intended to steal their product?

by the way the law states

Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful."

if you take the 24 songs they accuse her of stealing and multiply by $30,000 then the fine should be $720,000. They claim she shared 1702 songs in violation of their copyrights, then multiply that by the max fine equals $51,060,000, that $51 Millions in potential fines

Firetrap · 06-10-2007 1:08am

It's a bit harsh IMHO. Will IMRO decide to pursue Irish people who've used P2P to download music?

leninbenjamin · 06-10-2007 1:09am

the music industry espouse such bull**** in these matters.

one, the figures they produce tend to be highly questionable. there has long been questions of dodgy accounting practices on their part to relieve musicians of some of their due royalties. in fact the only reason we havn't seen this verified or properly refuted is that no individual can afford to foot the bill for an audit.

they have lost earnings over the past decade or so, and they would like us to believe that this is fully from illegal downloading. i've read a number of independent studies though that maintain that in reality the loss as a percentage of potential income is in single digits, no higher than 8%. the rest of this loss in earnings comes from the industries own incompetancy, reasons such as their failure to invest in the new technologies of distribution, their failure to produce the talent the public want, marketing the wrong bands/musicians and so on.

another issue here is that the industry clearly does not appear to be acting towards the group it's supposed to represent. their actions are causing musicians to potentially lose income by preventing the distribution of their music. Radiohead would not be as popular or as successful as they are today if it weren't for Naptser. their label had effectively abandoned them in the American market. and i've seen plenty of cases of my own peers who purchased the CDs of bands they only heard of in the first place through filesharing, as the record label failed to market them. have a look at the CMCC for example to see an example of some artist who feel their labels are failing to represent them as they wish.

in cases like these the industry are shooting themselves in the foot. they are outdated, they clearly fail to understand their rapidly evolving market and their resorting to lawsuits is a last ditch effort to maintain their control. pretty soon artists (and companies who enforce DRM like microsoft, because they fear they'll lose potential markets by having the music industry shun them if they don't comply) are gonna realise that they don't need the industry, in fact there's a fair few examples out there already. again, Radiohead are one.

if the woman was proven to have been selling the downloads then fair enough she deserves some sort of action. but if she was just engaging in filesharing, while she may have been infringing the letter of the law she's done nothing morally wrong in my opinion.

Edit:
oh and Firetrap, its not the musicians organisations who usually pursue these matters, it's the phonographic ones. in Ireland its the [URL="Http://www.irma.ie]Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA)[/URL]. they've been launching suits since 2005. their proudest moment it seems came a couple of months ago when they got a conviction of 6 months for seeing counterfiet CDs and DVDs at a market.

limklad · 06-10-2007 2:04am

leninbenjamin wrote:

the music industry espouse such bull**** in these matters.

one, the figures they produce tend to be highly questionable. there has long been questions of dodgy accounting practices on their part to relieve musicians of some of their due royalties. in fact the only reason we havn't seen this verified or properly refuted is that no individual can afford to foot the bill for an audit.

it is up to the Musicians to audit the companies to prove this.
It should be part of their contract. But In this case the musicians is suffering too fr lost of income.

leninbenjamin wrote:

they have lost earnings over the past decade or so, and they would like us to believe that this is fully from illegal downloading. i've read a number of independent studies though that maintain that in reality the loss as a percentage of potential income is in single digits, no higher than 8%. the rest of this loss in earnings comes from the industries own incompetancy, reasons such as their failure to invest in the new technologies of distribution, their failure to produce the talent the public want, marketing the wrong bands/musicians and so on.

Many studies are often bias or interpreted by many different points of views. It is always difficult to believe studies, unless repeated many times by completely independent people, who do not interact with each other. How the study is setup can have errors in it from the beginning. They have been studies into how studies been done. I have read that one study that if you eat pineapple regularly, that it will prevent knee pain. If that was true, we all be eating pineapple and the price of pineapple would go through the roof.

leninbenjamin wrote:

if the woman was proven to have been selling the downloads then fair enough she deserves some sort of action. but if she was just engaging in filesharing, while she may have been infringing the letter of the law she's done nothing morally wrong in my opinion.

File sharing is fine, provided it not copyrighted. Stealing is morally wrong no matter how you see it or who has the item you want to take. People can dress it anyway they like so it won't upset their own conscious, so they can sleep at night.
The Best known person whenever fact or fiction is “Robin Hood” Who stole from the rich and gave to the poor for free, but even he admits he stole and never hid it. Others have benefit from his actions. While you and most of the world would side with him as generally most people in the world who are poor would. His actions would make him popular and then justify stealing is right in this case. If you are poor and the rich are around you, Stealing is tempting to take from them (rich or perceive rich or detested rich) to have more items for oneself. Stealing from robbers is still stealing.

leninbenjamin wrote:

oh and Firetrap, its not the musicians organisations who usually pursue these matters, it's the phonographic ones.

Also the musicians who been cheated cannot afford the legal & investigation/surveillance costs to go after you for denying them the right to sell the songs for income, unless they are in cahoots with the Labels.

Fanny Cradock · 06-10-2007 2:19am

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

That's the US of A,
where Kevin Weber got 26 years to life for stealing 4 chocolate chip cookies.

He was a career criminal. But, yes, ridiculous nonetheless.

leninbenjamin · 06-10-2007 3:01am

limklad wrote:

it is up to the Musicians to audit the companies to prove this.
It should be part of their contract. But In this case the musicians is suffering too fr lost of income.

that's my point though, they can't foot the bill to investigate this.

limklad wrote:

Many studies are often bias or interpreted by many different points of views. It is always difficult to believe studies, unless repeated many times by completely independent people, who do not interact with each other. How the study is setup can have errors in it from the beginning. They have been studies into how studies been done. I have read that one study that if you eat pineapple regularly, that it will prevent knee pain. If that was true, we all be eating pineapple and the price of pineapple would go through the roof.

yeah. but any study i've read that blames file-sharing for loss in earnings has industry backing. not reliable either.

limklad wrote:

File sharing is fine, provided it not copyrighted. Stealing is morally wrong no matter how you see it or who has the item you want to take. People can dress it anyway they like so it won't upset their own conscious, so they can sleep at night.
The Best known person whenever fact or fiction is “Robin Hood” Who stole from the rich and gave to the poor for free, but even he admits he stole and never hid it. Others have benefit from his actions. While you and most of the world would side with him as generally most people in the world who are poor would. His actions would make him popular and then justify stealing is right in this case. If you are poor and the rich are around you, Stealing is tempting to take from them (rich or perceive rich or detested rich) to have more items for oneself. Stealing from robbers is still stealing.

in my opinion you're being very black and white on a what is a very grey area.
But i dont believe myself it can be fully labelled as such. the industry is still very strong, often there is no direct loss involved as people would have downloaded music they wouldn't have had the income to buy anyway. had the sharing not occured in many cases the industry would have been no better off... and there are so many different applictions of it. what about the user who finds out about the band from file-sharing, likes them, subsequently buys the record. he's still labelled as stealing in your opinion, but he's given back what's fairly due. or what about the person who has the music on LP or had a CD destroyed. they already own the rights to listen to the music, so there is no theft involved. my point, you apply the same logic to all instances. not every incident of it is stealing... what's legally wrong is not just morally wrong every single time like you suggest.

limklad wrote:

Also the musicians who been cheated cannot afford the legal & investigation/surveillance costs to go after you for denying them the right to sell the songs for income, unless they are in cahoots with the Labels.

well, again it's not so simple. the musician can exist without the copyright but the company can't exist without it. the argument is that primarily the companies who are the one's who would accrue from any such action, not the musician so it wouldn't be worth it for them to pursue it.

thefinalstage · 06-10-2007 12:09pm

Em, the drop in cd sales comes from the rise of video gaming. That is all.

Lemming · 06-10-2007 12:16pm

thelastangryman wrote:

Em, the drop in cd sales comes from the rise of video gaming. That is all.

I posted about this a few years ago on boards.ie, and it has precious little to do with video games or anythign else.

The "slump" at the start of the 21st century in CD sales? The RIAAfia had overproduced stockpiles, and cut back on production to clear those stocks. Thus appearing like a slump.Of course, they conveniently didn't make this very publically known since it served their purpose during the whole Napster debacle.

Combine that interesting little nugget of information with the added fact that they have, over the last ten years, focused their energies on a single market - 12 - 16 year olds ,thus alienating everyone else. Most of what has been released has been poor quality dross that isn't worth buying. They aren't investing in artists any more, merely cash cows.

MooseJam · 06-10-2007 12:49pm

Lemming wrote:

They aren't investing in artists any more, merely cash cows.

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement, what about Britney !

Fanny Cradock · 06-10-2007 12:55pm

thelastangryman wrote:

Em, the drop in cd sales comes from the rise of video gaming. That is all.

You what? I cant see any parallels.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-10-2007 12:59pm

Fanny Cradock wrote:

He was a career criminal. But, yes, ridiculous nonetheless.

Apply the same logic to this part of the world and how many junkies who pay for their habit by a bit of burglary ... could we afford that many prisons ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/riaa_wins_first_music_sharing_jury_trial/

US District Judge Michael Davis ruled the labels did not have to prove the songs were transfered for Thomas to be held liable. The act of making the songs available is enough to constitute copyright infringement, he said.

Davis instructed the 12-member jury the range of the fine was $750 to $150,000 per song.

Hands up anyone who has bought all the music they wanted ?
Back in the 80's we did up a list of artists, not albums or songs, that we would like to have and most of us had to agree before anything went on the list. The list was 4 foolscap pages long and growing, each line representing maybe a one hit wonder, but usually several albums. It would have cost the guts of $22,000 to buy that in record shops.
IMHO most people just buy a tiny fraction of the music they would like to because their disposable income won't cover extortionate prices.
Do people like music ?
Almost all radio stations worldwide play mostly music.
So if prices were dropped then people probably wouldn't spend much more money but they certainly wouldn't spend a lot less.

the_syco · 06-10-2007 2:44pm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/riaa_wins_first_music_sharing_jury_trial/

US District Judge Michael Davis ruled the labels did not have to prove the songs were transfered for Thomas to be held liable.

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

So, let me get this straight? Not only do they not have to prove it, but they're saying that unless you settle out of court, ie: not in a court of LAW, they'll charge you a lot more? Bully boy tactics, imo.

thefinalstage · 06-10-2007 3:37pm

Fanny Cradock wrote:

You what? I cant see any parallels.

People only have so much time and so much money to spend. Since gaming has taken off as an easily accessible alternative some of that money is used to buy games and some of that time is used to play the games. Thus sales on cds will fall.

leninbenjamin · 06-10-2007 3:54pm

thelastangryman wrote:

People only have so much time and so much money to spend. Since gaming has taken off as an easily accessible alternative some of that money is used to buy games and some of that time is used to play the games. Thus sales on cds will fall.

nah, the gaming industry is having a much greater impact on the film industry than the music one. you'll find anyway that a lot people will still listen to music when they play games.

and in general the rise and impact of the gaming industry on other markets is being vastly overestimated.

Xcom2 · 06-10-2007 4:59pm

So do the 22 artist's in this case get a check or a bank transfer for the $10,000 each that they are entitled to?

Fanny Cradock · 06-10-2007 6:33pm

thelastangryman wrote:

People only have so much time and so much money to spend. Since gaming has taken off as an easily accessible alternative some of that money is used to buy games and some of that time is used to play the games. Thus sales on cds will fall.

You seem to be drawing conclusions based on no actual facts. I could easily claim that the increased sales in motorbikes or aftershave is crippling the music industry.

It doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see that sales in CDs are falling because of their greater expense in relation to their legally downloadable versions and because it is so damn easy to download stuff illegally. I still prefer to pay for something that is tangible (including the inlay card), but clearly I'm in the minority there.

As an aside, I wonder could anyone clear up the whole ambiguous legality (if it is that) of music blogs. In my experience, you can go onto a music blog aggregator, type in a band name - it will list all blogs on their database that have stuff by said band/ artist - and start downloading. Usually there is a link that will take you to Itunes store or some such, but surely this is only to placate the record industry. Are music blogs with downloadable content tolerated simply because nothing can be done about them?

Manic Moran · 08-10-2007 5:32am

where Kevin Weber got 26 years to life for stealing 4 chocolate chip cookies.

Though I'm not familiar with him, can I presume this is under the Three Strikes Rule? In which case, I guess the theory is that if his first few convictions didn't teach him good moral values, it was simpler just to take him off the streets for a good stretch.

So, let me get this straight? Not only do they not have to prove it, but they're saying that unless you settle out of court, ie: not in a court of LAW, they'll charge you a lot more? Bully boy tactics, imo.

It's a standard procedure, also used in plea bargaining. You don't -have- to settle, but the advantage to doing so is that you can get away with less punishment than what may be expected after going through the whole legal process. No court fees for starters. This costs/time issue applies to both sides, so settling is generally preferable. If you choose to fight it, then you can find yourself liable to the full extent of the law. In other words, it's not a case of the courts charging you a lot more, it provides an opportunity for you to accept being punished by being charged a lot less. Consider it a 'guilty' plea without the hassle of court appearances. The courts do not look down on you for not settling.

NTM

Lemming · 08-10-2007 11:29am

Manic Moran wrote:

It's a standard procedure, also used in plea bargaining. You don't -have- to settle, but the advantage to doing so is that you can get away with less punishment than what may be expected after going through the whole legal process. No court fees for starters. This costs/time issue applies to both sides, so settling is generally preferable. If you choose to fight it, then you can find yourself liable to the full extent of the law. In other words, it's not a case of the courts charging you a lot more, it provides an opportunity for you to accept being punished by being charged a lot less. Consider it a 'guilty' plea without the hassle of court appearances. The courts do not look down on you for not settling.

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.

As a result, I would love to see the RIAAfia strung up by the balls in a federal court on serious RICO charges.

Cormster · 08-10-2007 12:08pm

seems quite a high amount - probably a bit unfair but it certainly sets an example.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-10-2007 9:40pm

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 ??

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?

US woman fined $222,000 for..

Comments