|
|
|
I was just sitting here looking at my monthly Desktop of
bills in Quicken and I know that if I get sick or fired
from my employment I will have to file for bankruptcy. Well
I have been sharing songs on the Internet since 1996 so I
figure I owe the RIAA a few million dollars in copyright
violation fees.
They have not subpoenaed me and I will be damned if I will
sign some piece of paper that will indict me for committing a
Federal crime. But if the RIAA sues me I can admit to it and
let the Judge give a summary judgment and I can immediately file
for bankruptcy protection. This will make all my bills null and
void and all those downloaded files I have will be 100% free.
Come on RIAA! I'm counting on you to sue me into submission.
BTW, Does anyone know if the 60 Million Americans stop
downloading music via the Internet if the RIAA will stop
showing idiot female singers kissing on MTV?
|
| |
| |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45525-2003Sep8.html
Music Industry Sues Online Song Swappers
Trade Group Says First Batch of Lawsuits Targets 261 Major Offenders
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page A01
The music industry yesterday filed the first 261 of what it promised
would be thousands of lawsuits aimed at Internet song sharers,
designed to stop what it says is copyright infringement responsible
for the ongoing depression of compact disc sales.
The lawsuits were filed in courts across the country by several music
companies and record labels, under the umbrella of the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA), the industry's trade group.
The legal offensive aims to stem the tide of online song sharing
launched by Napster in the late 1990s, and it is likely to strike fear
into the hearts of parents who have not closely monitored their
teenagers' computer habits. That's because the lawsuits were filed
against the holders of Internet service accounts, regardless of who in
the household was responsible for swapping the songs.
The lawsuits are part of a multi-pronged anti-piracy effort being
waged by both the music and movie industries. In addition to the
vigorous legal action, the music industry has launched advertising and
education campaigns to explain that freely passing around digital song
and movie files effectively deprives musicians, producers, actors,
directors and all peripheral industry personnel of billions of dollars
per year.
....
|
| |
| |
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/technology/09FREE.html?hp
September 9, 2003
NEWS ANALYSIS
New York Times
Fighting the Idea That All the Internet Is Free
By STEVE LOHR
ith the club of lawsuits and the olive branch of an amnesty program,
the music industry is waging a campaign against online piracy that
relies on both public relations and economics to attack the idea that
everything in cyberspace can be free.
That will not be easy. The Internet sprang from a research culture
where information of all kinds was freely shared. That mentality still
resonates with the millions of Internet users who routinely download
music onto their computers. But the emphatic message of the music
industry's two-step program announced yesterday is that the days of
plucking copyrighted songs off the Internet without paying for them
are numbered.
The Recording Industry Association of America said yesterday that it
had filed 261 suits against online music pirates, and it promised
thousands more. Under its amnesty program, contrite file sharers who
have not yet been sued will be spared if they erase their illicit
music files and promise never to do it again.
"These lawsuits certainly tell consumers that `free' ultimately has a
price," said Michael J. Wolf, managing partner in charge of the media
practice at McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm. "Originally, there
was this perception that consumers would not pay for content
entertainment or information over the Internet. But that perception
is changing."
Mr. Wolf observed that in their own way all media companies will have
to confront the overarching issue that the music industry is grappling
with: how to respond to the challenge of digital distribution and find
a profitable business model. "Nobody is immune," he said.
....
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:23:05 GMT, riaa@publicrelations.america.LLC wrote:
I was just sitting here looking at my monthly Desktop of
bills in Quicken and I know that if I get sick or fired
from my employment I will have to file for bankruptcy. Well
I have been sharing songs on the Internet since 1996 so I
figure I owe the RIAA a few million dollars in copyright
violation fees.
They have not subpoenaed me and I will be damned if I will
sign some piece of paper that will indict me for committing a
Federal crime. But if the RIAA sues me I can admit to it and
let the Judge give a summary judgment and I can immediately file
for bankruptcy protection. This will make all my bills null and
void and all those downloaded files I have will be 100% free.
Come on RIAA! I'm counting on you to sue me into submission.
Keith E. Wyatt, that is a dumb idea. Willful torts are not dischargable in
bankruptcy, and at up to $200,000 an infringement with the new laws, that racks
up pretty quickly.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:44:58 GMT, ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote:
Keith E. Wyatt, that is a dumb idea. Willful torts are not dischargable in
bankruptcy, and at up to $200,000 an infringement with the new laws, that racks
up pretty quickly.
Actually it's a mere $150,000. I guess you an afford it, then.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net
|
| |
| |
ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<0h3rlv85290ebqennhjvbude140cpfnba7@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:44:58 GMT, ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote:
Actually it's a mere $150,000. I guess you an afford it, then.
Chapter 13 would be the way to go. Stay under the $ limit for
unsecured claims, though.
|
| |
| |
In article <b51rlv8ukmhmd36q6pt93g667g4fbqlcm0@4ax.com>,
ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:23:05 GMT, riaa@publicrelations.america.LLC wrote:
Keith E. Wyatt, that is a dumb idea. Willful torts are not dischargable in
bankruptcy, and at up to $200,000 an infringement with the new laws, that racks
up pretty quickly.
Just out of curiousity, which of our elected "representatives" came up with
the bill that said giving someone a music file merited a $200,000 fine? Can
anybody name any comparable actions with comparable penalties? Does something
smell funny here?
|
| |
| |
Just out of curiousity, which of our elected "representatives" came up
with
the bill that said giving someone a music file merited a $200,000 fine?
Can
anybody name any comparable actions with comparable penalties? Does
something
smell funny here?
it wasn't all that long ago that Woodstock was a "free show" and smoking pot
was overlooked ... now you can do serious time and be impoverished for these
kinds of hobbies ...
|
| |
| |
riaa@publicrelations.america.LLC wrote:
I was just sitting here looking at my monthly Desktop of
bills in Quicken and I know that if I get sick or fired
from my employment I will have to file for bankruptcy. Well
I have been sharing songs on the Internet since 1996 so I
figure I owe the RIAA a few million dollars in copyright
violation fees.
They have not subpoenaed me and I will be damned if I will
sign some piece of paper that will indict me for committing a
Federal crime. But if the RIAA sues me I can admit to it and
let the Judge give a summary judgment and I can immediately file
for bankruptcy protection. This will make all my bills null and
void and all those downloaded files I have will be 100% free.
Come on RIAA! I'm counting on you to sue me into submission.
BTW, Does anyone know if the 60 Million Americans stop
downloading music via the Internet if the RIAA will stop
showing idiot female singers kissing on MTV?
I think its so despicable you would steal millions from
RIAA. BAD fringer,
The RIAA only wants to help you confess your evil
fringing ways, so you can have a clean consicence
while doing your federal time for a federal crime.
And how do you repay them? With SARCASM!
I hope RIAA sues the stuffings out of you, and takes
away your scratched up old CD's and old obsolete
MP3 player, and gets a judgment for billions against
you forcing you into bankruptcy so you have to start
over with new stuff.
And the idiot female singers do that specifically to
annoy you while you are recording their show
for later viewing. No they won't stop until you do.
So let this be a lesson not soon forgot.
-RIAA FringerPatrol
|
| |
| |
On 9 Sep 2003 14:03:55 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <b51rlv8ukmhmd36q6pt93g667g4fbqlcm0@4ax.com>, ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote:
Just out of curiousity, which of our elected "representatives" came up with
the bill that said giving someone a music file merited a $200,000 fine? Can
anybody name any comparable actions with comparable penalties? Does something
smell funny here?
It's actually $150,000, but the original proposal was $250,000.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/copyright/Default.htm
The sponsors? James Rogan and Howard Coble, two Republicans
from California and North Carolina, respectively. These are among the "usual
suspects." Another prior one was spectacular dimbulb Sonny Bono, who was so
dumb he died from it, crashing into a tree skiing downhill.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net
|
| |
| |
In article <Sfu7b.4016031$mA4.554233@news.easynews.com>,
BoatMan <BoatMan0609@aol.com> wrote:
with
Can
something
it wasn't all that long ago that Woodstock was a "free show" and smoking pot
was overlooked ... now you can do serious time and be impoverished for these
kinds of hobbies ...
I wonder how much of that money is going to get kicked back to the
elected "representatives" (i.e., the tools) who introduced this assault
on proportionality and common sense?
The first settlement: $2000 from a 12 year old girl who lives in public
housing. No, we're not greedy! The politicians must be very proud.
|
| |
| |
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3f5e92a2.41532262@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
riaa@publicrelations.america.LLC wrote:
I think its so despicable you would steal millions from
RIAA. BAD fringer,
The RIAA only wants to help you confess your evil
fringing ways, so you can have a clean consicence
while doing your federal time for a federal crime.
And how do you repay them? With SARCASM!
I hope RIAA sues the stuffings out of you, and takes
away your scratched up old CD's and old obsolete
MP3 player, and gets a judgment for billions against
you forcing you into bankruptcy so you have to start
over with new stuff.
And the idiot female singers do that specifically to
annoy you while you are recording their show
for later viewing. No they won't stop until you do.
So let this be a lesson not soon forgot.
-RIAA FringerPatrol
Merlin, you're an idiot and here's why:
You are simply missing the proverbial point. This whole lawsuit thing
has nothing to do with stealing, copyright infringement, etc. etc.
etc. Each lawsuit is merely a method of preserving the existing
business model of the RIAA and slowing down the march of technology
that as so badly blind-sided them.
Consider the simplest business model. If you can sell one song (your
forced to buy the others on the CD because that is the way it is
packaged) for $15 to $18 on a CD why in the hell would you consider
putting it out on the Internet for $0.99 for any one to download.
That is why the MP3 download phenomenon began.
And I do not want to hear any crap about development of new acts,
promotion, etc. The Internet can now do that for you, check MP3.com.
Frankly, I cannot understand why the RIAA has not been sued under RICO
for price fixing.
Just drop the price to $5/CD and I guarantee you this problem goes
away. The current CD distribution business is over and the RIAA just
does not want to let it go.
the voice of reason
|
| |
| |
tas30380202@yahoo.com (T. Smith) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3f5e92a2.41532262@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
Merlin, you're an idiot and here's why:
You are simply missing the proverbial point. This whole lawsuit thing
has nothing to do with stealing, copyright infringement, etc. etc.
etc. Each lawsuit is merely a method of preserving the existing
business model of the RIAA and slowing down the march of technology
that as so badly blind-sided them.
Consider the simplest business model. If you can sell one song (your
forced to buy the others on the CD because that is the way it is
packaged) for $15 to $18 on a CD why in the hell would you consider
putting it out on the Internet for $0.99 for any one to download.
That is why the MP3 download phenomenon began.
And I do not want to hear any crap about development of new acts,
promotion, etc. The Internet can now do that for you, check MP3.com.
Frankly, I cannot understand why the RIAA has not been sued under RICO
for price fixing.
Just drop the price to $5/CD and I guarantee you this problem goes
away. The current CD distribution business is over and the RIAA just
does not want to let it go.
the voice of reason
I'm not the fool, taswipe, yous the fool, and here's why:
Its not about the old business model at all. Its about the new
business model for the Digital Millinium.
It isn't that they are hearltess, you know. Its just that
if they can manage to extort a few thousand dollars from afew
low-income working moms by threatening to go after mom
and the twelve year-old, with the inevitable criminal and child
protective services investigations fed by the aggressive
civil discovery provided by the new Copyright laws,
then it only goes to further the appearance of viability for
their new business plan. Extort, Pump, Dump, Dissappear.
Its so simple! Follow the real money!
RIAA is only following the American Dream, trying to get
their piece of the pie, as it were. So they can pay the
lobbiest, who pays the ....do I have to spell it out for you?
So its your patriotic duty to get on board here and praise
RIAA for what they are doing to support the
Administrations big plans for stimulating the economy.
So obviously I aint no fool cuz yous da fool, fool.
--RIAA FringerPatrol
|
| |
| |
In article <f775d93f.0309100740.5ec87be6@posting.google.com>,
tas30380202@yahoo.com (T. Smith) wrote:
Just drop the price to $5/CD and I guarantee you this problem goes
away. The current CD distribution business is over and the RIAA just
does not want to let it go.
Maybe, but the studios and RIAA can't be forced to adopt good business
practices. It's legal for them to poorly manage their property and
assets. It's also legal for them to protect those assets from theft, even
if, as you contend, the only reason for said theft is their own stupidity.
|
| |
| |
T. Smith wrote:
And I do not want to hear any crap about development of new acts,
promotion, etc. The Internet can now do that for you, check MP3.com.
Frankly, I cannot understand why the RIAA has not been sued under RICO for
price fixing.
Because they have HEAPS of money, and have the lawmakers and polticians in
their pocket.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
In article <none-1009032342410001@192.168.2.4>, Larry <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
In article <f775d93f.0309100740.5ec87be6@posting.google.com>,
tas30380202@yahoo.com (T. Smith) wrote:
Maybe, but the studios and RIAA can't be forced to adopt good business
practices. It's legal for them to poorly manage their property and
assets. It's also legal for them to protect those assets from theft, even
if, as you contend, the only reason for said theft is their own stupidity.
We might want to examine our own stupidity in reelecting representatives
who let them collect a $150,000 penalty for a single downloaded song, or
hit a 12-year-old girl living in public housing for 2000 bucks for downloading
theme songs from TV shows.
When the fine for shoplifting a candy bar hits $150,000, then I'll believe
there was no corruption involved in the passage of that particular law.
It may be legal for them for them to protect their assets, but let's not
forget that they themselves have to follow the law insofar as to how they
go about doing so. I trust you'd agree that justice shouldn't only go to
the highest bidder.
|
| |
| |
We might want to examine our own stupidity in reelecting representatives
who let them collect a $150,000 penalty for a single downloaded song, or
hit a 12-year-old girl living in public housing for 2000 bucks for
downloading
theme songs from TV shows.
Why do you keep belaboring the fact that the copyright infringer gets her
housing subsidized at the expense of us taxpayers? What relevance does this
have to one's obiligation to obey the law?
|
| |
| |
In article <EV38b.137696$3o3.9810058@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
SpammersDie <y@y.yyy> wrote:
downloading
Why do you keep belaboring the fact that the copyright infringer gets her
housing subsidized at the expense of us taxpayers? What relevance does this
have to one's obiligation to obey the law?
The relevance is to the utter lack of proportionality of the penalty. But
I suspect you knew that. As I said, the day someone who steals a candy bar
faces a $150,000 fine is the day I'll consider the possibility that there
was no corruption involved in the passage of this law.
BTW, what's your motive to kiss up to these people, anonymous poster?
|
| |
| |
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:bjqjr4$c@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
In article <EV38b.137696$3o3.9810058@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
SpammersDie <y@y.yyy> wrote:
The relevance is to the utter lack of proportionality of the penalty.
What, a settlement of less than $2 in damages for illegally making a
copyrighted work available and exposed to free acquisition by an unlimited
number of P2P users? And then she repeated that offense with at least 999
other copyright works according the suit - so of course, that adds up to
$2,000 damages in total.
If you can compare that to a $150,000 fine for stealing a single candy bar,
you need serious help.
|
| |
| |
In article <lQ58b.137860$3o3.9818706@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
SpammersDie <y@y.yyy> wrote:
"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:bjqjr4$c@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
What, a settlement of less than $2 in damages for illegally making a
copyrighted work available and exposed to free acquisition by an unlimited
number of P2P users? And then she repeated that offense with at least 999
other copyright works according the suit - so of course, that adds up to
$2,000 damages in total.
If you can compare that to a $150,000 fine for stealing a single candy bar,
you need serious help.
The statuatory penalty is $150,000 per instance. IOW, by law, the RIAA, at
their own discretion, could have demanded a minimum of $150,000,000. And
that's if the songs were only dowmnloaded and never uploaded. The fact
that they didn't choose to do so is this case does not change the fact
that these penalties are absurdly disproportionate, and that for elected
representatives to have transferred this degree of power to a private
business is nothing short of shameful.
Again, what motivates you to kiss up to these people?
|
| |
| |
In article <lQ58b.137860$3o3.9818706@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
SpammersDie <y@y.yyy> wrote:
The statuatory penalty is $150,000 per instance. IOW, by law, the RIAA, at
their own discretion, could have demanded a minimum of $150,000,000. And
that's if the songs were only dowmnloaded and never uploaded.
Then you should have stuck to those facts instead of hauling in this "poor
little 12 year old in public housing" story which is just a pathetic appeal
to emotions. A $2 per instance settlement isn't even in the same ballpark as
the $150,000 per instance figure you're so unhappy about.
And my "motivations" are my business just as your motivations for kissing up
to confessed lawbreakers is yours. You'll just have to face life without
knowing.
|
| |
| |
In article <dQ78b.135427$0v4.9901086@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
SpammersDie <y@y.yyy> wrote:
Then you should have stuck to those facts instead of hauling in this "poor
little 12 year old in public housing" story which is just a pathetic appeal
to emotions. A $2 per instance settlement isn't even in the same ballpark as
the $150,000 per instance figure you're so unhappy about.
I sorry you're unhappy that I brought up the fact that the RIAA extracted
$2000 from a 12-year-old girl who lives in public housing (from the sound
of it, you think the penalty should be increased because of that). But then,
when you have the right political connections, maybe you *can* squeeze
blood from a turnip. BTW, care to make any predictions as to how much of
that $2000 will go to the artists they're claiming to be protecting?
And my "motivations" are my business just as your motivations for kissing up
to confessed lawbreakers is yours. You'll just have to face life without
knowing.
I think I have a pretty good idea.
|
| |
| |
In article <bjqjr4$c@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <EV38b.137696$3o3.9810058@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
SpammersDie <y@y.yyy> wrote:
The relevance is to the utter lack of proportionality of the penalty. But
I suspect you knew that. As I said, the day someone who steals a candy bar
faces a $150,000 fine is the day I'll consider the possibility that there
was no corruption involved in the passage of this law.
BTW, what's your motive to kiss up to these people, anonymous poster?
Shouldn't the proportionality be in terms of what was stolen, not the net
wealth of the thief?
If someone - from Warren Buffet to a "poor" person - stole 1 song, a small
settlement should suffice. But if Buffet, or the same "poor" person stole
hundreds of songs, then the fine should be much higher.
|
| |
| |
On 11 Sep 2003 18:38:16 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
If you can compare that to a $150,000 fine for stealing a single candy bar,
you need serious help.
The statuatory penalty is $150,000 per instance. IOW, by law, the RIAA, at
their own discretion, could have demanded a minimum of $150,000,000. And
No, the statutory penalty is a range of which $150,000 is the top amount. If
they want to claim more, they have to allege and then prove ACTUAL damages.
The reason for the draconian statutory damages is that it is unlikely in most
cases of individual copyright infringers (as opposed to large scale
manufacturers selling illegal infringements) that the copyright holder could
demonstrate any damages at all.
that's if the songs were only dowmnloaded and never uploaded. The fact
that they didn't choose to do so is this case does not change the fact
that these penalties are absurdly disproportionate, and that for elected
representatives to have transferred this degree of power to a private
business is nothing short of shameful.
Again, what motivates you to kiss up to these people?
He is a troll.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net
|
| |
| |
In article <none-1109032349230001@192.168.2.4>, Larry <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
In article <bjqjr4$c@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
Shouldn't the proportionality be in terms of what was stolen, not the net
wealth of the thief?
If someone - from Warren Buffet to a "poor" person - stole 1 song, a small
settlement should suffice. But if Buffet, or the same "poor" person stole
hundreds of songs, then the fine should be much higher.
If the goal is deterrence, it would take a considerably higher fine
to deter Warren Buffet than it would to deter a 12-year-old. In any
case, whether for Warren Buffet or a 12-year-old girl, a $150,000
statutory penalty for one copy of one song is grossly disproportionate.
One thing that puzzles me in all this talk about crime, stealing, and
thieves; if what this girl has done was indeed a crime, why have the
people turned over their police powers to the RIAA? True, the RIAA is
not as fettered by that pesky old Constitution as the government might
be, but still.
|
| |
| |
In article <tjf3mv4mbp1gtpsc7hfnq9rsi5g96p20eq@4ax.com>,
ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote:
No, the statutory penalty is a range of which $150,000 is the top amount. If
they want to claim more, they have to allege and then prove ACTUAL damages.
The reason for the draconian statutory damages is that it is unlikely in most
cases of individual copyright infringers (as opposed to large scale
manufacturers selling illegal infringements) that the copyright holder could
demonstrate any damages at all.
Actually, I suspect that the reason for the $150,000 statutory penalty
is that it discourages anyone but a millionaire from exercising their
right to take the case to trial. Thanks to this, all sorts of questionable
"enforcement" practices can be hidden under a rock.
|
| |
| |
In article <bjsgak$eq1@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
In article <none-1109032349230001@192.168.2.4>, Larry <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
If the goal is deterrence, it would take a considerably higher fine
to deter Warren Buffet than it would to deter a 12-year-old. In any
case, whether for Warren Buffet or a 12-year-old girl, a $150,000
statutory penalty for one copy of one song is grossly disproportionate.
One thing that puzzles me in all this talk about crime, stealing, and
thieves; if what this girl has done was indeed a crime, why have the
people turned over their police powers to the RIAA? True, the RIAA is
not as fettered by that pesky old Constitution as the government might
be, but still.
And because the vast majority of crimes are also civil wrongs. A punch to
the face. Trademark infringement. Shoplifting. Just to name a few.
|
| |
| |
In article <none-1209032123450001@192.168.2.4>, Larry <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
In article <bjsgak$eq1@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
And because the vast majority of crimes are also civil wrongs. A punch to
the face. Trademark infringement. Shoplifting. Just to name a few.
The typical commercial music downloading site charges about a dollar
a song. Do you know of any other civil wrong that has a statutory
penalty that is 150,000 times the actual damages? Sorry, but something
doesn't smell right here.
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<bjr4ap$m96@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
Then you should have stuck to those facts instead of hauling in this "poor
little 12 year old in public housing" story which is just a pathetic appeal
to emotions. A $2 per instance settlement isn't even in the same ballpark as
the $150,000 per instance figure you're so unhappy about.
I sorry you're unhappy that I brought up the fact that the RIAA extracted
$2000 from a 12-year-old girl who lives in public housing (from the sound
of it, you think the penalty should be increased because of that).
Try again. He's pointing out the irrelevancy and intellectual
dishonesty of bringing up the RIAA's maximum penalty figure into a
discussion about a specific case where the parties involved agreed to
a much lower one. I'm not surprised you'd obfuscate the issue though,
which is that this girl (along with everyone else served with a
subpoena) should've been charged the maximum amount allowed by the
law. The risks inherent in copyright infringement aren't a secret and
no one gets to cry foul when they're levied against them after the
fact; if they didn't want to be hit with huge fines, they shouldn't
have stolen material that didn't belong to them in the first place.
The companies would probably never get the money such a scenario would
demand but everyone would be laughing all day long watching the entire
Kazaa community suffer fear-driven embolisms while they uninstalled
every "shareware" program they've ever had off their computers.
Deterrence works when the targets are incredible cowards, after all.
There'd also be some comfort in the knowledge that this girl, at
least, would probably grow up into a more productive member of society
because of her ordeal.
charged the maximum But then,
when you have the right political connections, maybe you *can* squeeze
blood from a turnip. BTW, care to make any predictions as to how much of
that $2000 will go to the artists they're claiming to be protecting?
None. The artists don't own the material, the companies do, and they
have every right to stop thieves from stealing their property. Going
after the programs the pirates were using to trade in stolen material
availed the companies nothing since another program was always one hop
away. Now that the pirates themselves are being targeted, however,
their unearned sense of entitlement is being melted away by the cold,
harsh light of the real world. Easy reproduction doesn't suddenly make
theft acceptable, it just lets the thieves who are too
dickless/lifeless to commit their crimes in the outside world finally
face the punishment they've deserved for so long. BTW, do you mind if
I steal your car tomorrow? Not that I need your permission, of course.
|
| |
| |
ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<tjf3mv4mbp1gtpsc7hfnq9rsi5g96p20eq@4ax.com>...
On 11 Sep 2003 18:38:16 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
If you can compare that to a $150,000 fine for stealing a single candy bar,
you need serious help.
No, the statutory penalty is a range of which $150,000 is the top amount. If
they want to claim more, they have to allege and then prove ACTUAL damages.
The reason for the draconian statutory damages is that it is unlikely in most
cases of individual copyright infringers (as opposed to large scale
manufacturers selling illegal infringements) that the copyright holder could
demonstrate any damages at all.
He is a troll.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
RIAA, hmmm...
Well I'm sitting here looking at my original music CD (which will be
the last one I buy may I add) and it clearly states the following:
"All rights of the producer and of the owner of the recorded work
reserved. Unauthorised copying, public performance, broadcasting,
hiring or rental of this recording prohibited."
fair enough......
Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
I know some of you critics out there will be thinking "oh yeah, you
had no idea you were downloading copyright protected music....", well
actually in the case of the 12 year old girl I bet none of the files
she downloaded had a copyright statement attached so actually she
really didn't have any idea that those particular files were
copyrighted. The RIAA cant just expect people to know which file is
illegal and which one isn't and before they counteract this claim with
some silly 'web based copyright listings' they can't expect people to
double check with them every time they download a file, open a page or
move a mouse....
If the file had a copyright statement attached then that would be
different, so if they have the time to trawl through 50 million + MP3s
on the web and change the ID tags then good luck to them.
If you want to help save the internet then pass this on.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
|
| |
| |
In article <1f63ecd1.0309190603.447aab63@posting.google.com> cams0ft@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) writes:
Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
Since 1988, it has not been necessary for a work to have a copyright
notice for United States copyright protection. That's been the case
in most other countries for even longer.
Because any work is protected by copyright from the moment it is fixed
in any medium of expression, there are few contemporary works that are
not copyrighted. No matter what the hypothetical file you mention
contains, it's likely protected by copyright, although the copyright
owner may not be as likely to sue as the RIAA is.
You may doubt that you can sue for copyright infringement without
having a copyright notice, but you would be wrong. But if there is
a copyright notice, then any defense saying that the infringement
was innocent is given no weight except when considering statutory
damages.
|
| |
| |
In article <b8ed4b07.0309182325.e83240e@posting.google.com>,
No Time <omarenoryt@aol.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<bjr4ap$m96@rac1.wam.umd.edu>...
Then you should have stuck to those facts instead of hauling in this "poor
little 12 year old in public housing" story which is just a pathetic appeal
to emotions. A $2 per instance settlement isn't even in the same ballpark as
the $150,000 per instance figure you're so unhappy about.
Try again. He's pointing out the irrelevancy and intellectual
dishonesty of bringing up the RIAA's maximum penalty figure into a
discussion about a specific case where the parties involved agreed to
a much lower one. I'm not surprised you'd obfuscate the issue though,
which is that this girl (along with everyone else served with a
subpoena) should've been charged the maximum amount allowed by the
law. The risks inherent in copyright infringement aren't a secret and
no one gets to cry foul when they're levied against them after the
fact; if they didn't want to be hit with huge fines, they shouldn't
have stolen material that didn't belong to them in the first place.
The companies would probably never get the money such a scenario would
demand but everyone would be laughing all day long watching the entire
Kazaa community suffer fear-driven embolisms while they uninstalled
every "shareware" program they've ever had off their computers.
Deterrence works when the targets are incredible cowards, after all.
There'd also be some comfort in the knowledge that this girl, at
least, would probably grow up into a more productive member of society
because of her ordeal.
None. The artists don't own the material, the companies do, and they
have every right to stop thieves from stealing their property. Going
after the programs the pirates were using to trade in stolen material
availed the companies nothing since another program was always one hop
away. Now that the pirates themselves are being targeted, however,
their unearned sense of entitlement is being melted away by the cold,
harsh light of the real world. Easy reproduction doesn't suddenly make
theft acceptable, it just lets the thieves who are too
dickless/lifeless to commit their crimes in the outside world finally
face the punishment they've deserved for so long. BTW, do you mind if
I steal your car tomorrow? Not that I need your permission, of course.
If you did, I'd be willing to bet that you'd get off with a far lighter
penalty than the law prescribes and that you advocate for the one-time
copying of a single song. Run that through your head a few times before
you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
|
| |
| |
| |
