Over the last few months the court case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset vs. the RIAA has gained a lot of attention from technology websites and traditional newspapers. A quick recap is that Jammie Thomas-Rasset was accused of sharing 24 songs on Kazaa; Jammie lost the case and was fined $80,000 per song for a total of $1.92 million dollars. The amount was challenged as being "excessive, shocking and monstrous" considering that each songs sells for $1.00 - $1.29 on the free market. This would be similar to stealing a snickers bar from Walmart and being required to pay back $80,000 in damages. While arguing about stealing is not the point of this article that matter of the fact is that the Department of Justice received backing from the Obama administration saying that the ruling was "constitutionally sound".
If each track were to cost $1.29 the total value of the 24 tracks would come out to around $31.00. To say that the damages done by stealing $31.00 was equal to $1.92 million dollars is not only excessive but tarnishes the record industry as being greedy and lacking common sense.
It's unlikely that Jammie will be able to over turn the ruling considering the judge had the backing of the Obama administration on the subject. Unfortunately for Jammie those 24 songs will most likely keep her in debt for the rest of her life.
Greedy greedy greedy!
The RIAA cares about as much of what people think of them as the Nazis did. This woman is being used as a scapegoat to scare other downloaders. That's generally what happens in politicized cases.
Unless you're rich ofcourse. If you're rich you can get away with anything in America. Madoff went just a bit too far, but for every Madoff there are thousands of white-collar criminals that continue to get away with their criminal activities, exploitation of taxpayers, and subversion of the US government and Justice Department.
Greedy greedy greedy!
i dont think they care
remember their april fools joke, where you could make down payments on your childrens future copyright infringements
i think theyve given up on motivating ppl to buy music, and just want to scare them now
Call me Devil's Advocate.
She should have been sentenced to pay a reasonable fine for each song or maybe a large settlement. $1.92 million is nothing short of disgustingly greedy and unfair. This settlement only further proves how corrupt and idiotic the US "justice" system is.
Call me Devil's Advocate.
Then the RIAA should be forced to prove how many people downloaded the songs she shared and charge her. It shouldn't be an arbitrary monetary amount.
But keep in mind the fine is for punishment and a deterrent as well as reimbursement
Oh yeah, Lawyers have to be paid too.
Anything more is, simply put, charging her for the crimes committed by OTHER PEOPLE.
Let's say, for example, she uploads to Bob, and Bob uploads to 20 people. She gets caught and charged for her uploads as well as Bob's uploads. Later, Bob gets caught. What crime can they charge him for, since they've already ruled against Jammie for Bob's uploads?
Call me Devil's Advocate.
Maybe so, but think of that logic: if she shares it with 2 people, and those 2 people share it with more 2 people and so on and so forth, she gets fined for sharing it something like 50,000 times. But she didn't, really, she shared it twice. Those two people she shared it with also shared it twice, but are eligible under the same terms for that same fine. What if those two people also got caught? They fall under the exact same chain, so does that mean the fine should be split between them?
If someone actually Stole a CD and sold it to someone else, it's equivalent to them being charged £50,000 for that one CD based on the premise that the person they sold it to will sell it on to someone else, who'll then sell it on to someone else and so on. It does add up at all.
Anything more is, simply put, charging her for the crimes committed by OTHER PEOPLE.
Let's say, for example, she uploads to Bob, and Bob uploads to 20 people. She gets caught and charged for her uploads as well as Bob's uploads. Later, Bob gets caught. What crime can they charge him for, since they've already ruled against Jammie for Bob's uploads?
A suburb I live near had a problem with vandalism, in order to stop it they started making the fine be the total amount it cost the city to fix all vanadlism since the last person was caught. One kid busted a toilet with a sledge and ended up paying almost $100k in fines.
It may seem ridiculous but it worked and was fair imho.
Lawyers will be paid no matter what. Which make you wonder what the RIAA is getting out of this since it is obvious they will never be able to collect that money.
Whhaaaaatt??? People do sue for estimated damages. That is what law suits are all about. For instance, a car accident victim going to medical school to become a brain surgeon might be able to claim damages for the lost of the salary they could have made if they had become a brain surgeon. This happens a lot.
[quote=Joshie said,]
A suburb I live near had a problem with vandalism, in order to stop it they started making the fine be the total amount it cost the city to fix all vanadlism since the last person was caught. One kid busted a toilet with a sledge and ended up paying almost $100k in fines.
It may seem ridiculous but it worked and was fair imho.[/quote]
how is that fair? how is a toilet worth 100k?
Call me Devil's Advocate.
to be fair, some Blu Ray movies are way cheaper than a 40 minute cd. It'll kill the RIAA in the end.
Call me Devil's Advocate.
What you're saying is false and baseless extrapolation. (see: http://xkcd.com/605/)
If they are going to litigate based on "possibilities", they should be able to prove the exact consequences of her sharing each song. ie they need to show proof that she shared it to someone, who shared it to 10 more people.
Following from this, the person who reshared her songs after downloading them from her should have to pay part of her bill, and also, the person who shared it to her. It's only fair.
In fact, what this all leads to is, that in a real justice system, the full burden would fall on the person who initially ripped and published the items involved. But because we live in a hyper-capitalist society where big business can rape the consumer around every corner, the burden of proof is ignored, because that would be too hard on poor starving artists living in LA.
Call me Devil's Advocate.
Then the RIAA should be forced to prove how many people downloaded the songs she shared and charge her. It shouldn't be an arbitrary monetary amount.
And they should be forced to account for the number of people who listened to it off her ipod and then went out and bought the album and subtract a figure based on that.
Your question has been answered. It's about fear, and ruining lives. RIAA is essentially like the KKK. They burn one family's house down in order to make all of the other undesirables leave. They are accomplishing their means by ruining lives.
2) That being said, I can see where these kinds of amounts could come from given that one song could be shared thousands of times, then each of those could be shared thousands more times, etc etc, ad infinitum.
3) Both those things being said, the judge showed remarkably poor judgment in allowing the fines to reach the maximum in this case. While it's not illegal, the amount is absurd. Did the RIAA even show that she had intent to distribute the songs, or was she just not familiar with how the software worked?
Funny, I just thought that since we are such a litigious society, I wonder if maybe she could sue the creators of Kazaa?
The problem reside in the fact that Sharman Network own Kazaa and they are in Australia. That cannot make matter easy.
IMO if a person performs copyright theft for their own consumption then the punishment should fit the crime, a track worth 1.50 USD is worth 1.50 USD and not 80,000 USD whether it was through p2p or off the telly..
IMO if a person performs copyright theft for their own consumption then the punishment should fit the crime, a track worth 1.50 USD is worth 1.50 USD and not 80,000 USD whether it was through p2p or off the telly..
If the 'perpetrato'r knows how P2P works and leaves their machine on purposely for sharing then it isn't just one song. I am a Usenet person myself. The few times I need to use P2P I get my stuff and then get out. Having a 101/15 connection helps.
Boycott RIAA!!!
The Obama administration is only following the law, I am very proud of Obama and is a lot better than what Bush was.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like bush either, but this is excessive, and cannot be supported morally under any law. If he were following the law, I could see him endorsing something pro-active, and within the means of the law, not 1.92 Million for 24 songs.
Maybe community service, or a shorter fine.
So you think Obama is better than Bush, but he agreed with the Bush admin on this fine. We know you live up Obama's backside, but come on... this fine is over the top.
See this is where 8 years of Bush confuses people...
The DOJ is NOT the Obama administration. Beyond the appointment of the Attorney General, that is where the connections usually end. From that point forward the DOJ is an independant body that is HAS to defend the law. (Even if the law sucks.)
The Bush DOJ was an arm of the Bush administration, much like Nixon wanted it to be during his time and when the AG then didn't do what Nixon wanted he fired him and tried to maintain control of the actions of the DOJ.
Obama or his staff probably never even reviewed or had any input or opinion on this case, and that is where the confusion is, as even the summary above suggests that Obama 'backed' the DOJs actions, when they did not.
Bush blurred the line of the Administration and agencies like the DOJ, and that is sad.
If you 'really' think the DOJ is suppose to do what the President 'wants' go see any topic from the 90s where Janet Reno and Clinton did not agree and she even opened up the special investigation on Whitewater, which as Ken Starr even said, there was nothing to it...
What flavor of Kool-Aid did you drink ?
I would continue to share out even more music.
I would continue to share out even more music.
No doubt. It can't get any worse.
Yeap, but this time, be smart, use Peer Guardian.
Isn't that just as stupid? because that doesn't block what you think it does....
Ever heard the expression: "tongue in cheek"
Yes, but who gets to define 'excessive'?
Well, let's see. A woman of very modest mean, a native-american single-mother with 2 kids, living in a modest home somewhere in Minnesota. If she had to pay a $1000 fine, would have to rely on food bank to feed her kids. Lawyers had to take her case pro bono. I don't think you need an university diploma to decide on this one.
Yeap, it's excessive.
Yeap, it's excessive.
So if she causes $1.92 million worth of damages she should not have to pay it simply because of her home life? Another person does the same thing she does but can afford it so he should pay the ridiculous sum? No. It's not excessive to what the person is able to pay, it's excessive to what damage the person has done.
Wow, that's a good one. Damages ? $1.92 million worth of damages ?
Are you for real.
The constitution also says that the government's responsibility is to reflect the views and values of the people. Shows you shouldn't believe everything you read
Are you for real.
I didn't say she did, or that the verdict was just. I was debating your reasoning as to why the amount is excessive.
I'm not really sure why it matters if the Obama administration is backing the judge on the decision. Obama is not the boss of the country Judges. He isn't "king" of America. The most he can do is appoint supreme court justices and execute the law of the land. The Judicial system is a separate entity that does not answer to him.
The President appoints all Federal judges, not just the Supreme Court.
If I remember well, that judgement mention that the penalty had to apply to the case and not be set so high as to try to deter other from doing the same thing. Which is exactly what this case is all about.
It matter to the extent that you have the executive branch trying to interject themselves in a case that is still at the state level. They were not require to do so. You can read the brief right here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18593475/DOJ-Bri...masRasset-Award
or are you arguing that conservative righteous strongly support breaking the law !? lol
QF to the mother ****ing T.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com
This lawyer is working very hard to help victims of RIAA extortion program. Read some of this stuff, you will be enlighten.
And you can contribute to his defense funds that he has setup:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#contrib
Oh of course, if you're not downloading anything illegal, you can install on your computer the control software (basically, govt-authorized and govt-distributed spyware) that will monitor your connection and report back to the govt about incoming/outgoing data...Problem is, if you have a Wi-Fi connection, didn't secure it properly and some person used it to DL stuff, YOU're the one who gets the blame, the fine and all the problems. Hey, after all it's your IP address...imagine older people getting a new computer with Wi-Fi and then being prosecuted for downloading the mp3 or movies that the teenage neighbor actually DLed.
That was for the Hadopi part. The Loppsi law is supposed to give authorisation to the police to intercept and retrieve your e-mails, web nicknames, logins & passwords, IPs, hardware specs, as well as the authorisation to install Trojans on your computer. If Loppsi passes, France is going to look a lot like China.
Oh of course, if you're not downloading anything illegal, you can install on your computer the control software (basically, govt-authorized and govt-distributed spyware) that will monitor your connection and report back to the govt about incoming/outgoing data...Problem is, if you have a Wi-Fi connection, didn't secure it properly and some person used it to DL stuff, YOU're the one who gets the blame, the fine and all the problems. Hey, after all it's your IP address...imagine older people getting a new computer with Wi-Fi and then being prosecuted for downloading the mp3 or movies that the teenage neighbor actually DLed.
That was for the Hadopi part. The Loppsi law is supposed to give authorisation to the police to intercept and retrieve your e-mails, web nicknames, logins & passwords, IPs, hardware specs, as well as the authorisation to install Trojans on your computer. If Loppsi passes, France is going to look a lot like China.
That law will never pass. Period.
The article makes the point of why should she be fined so much when the tracks can be purchased for $2 USD each
I say exactly, why did she steal them when she could have legally purchased them?
She made the choice to break the law and is now whining because she got caught
I do NOT support the RIAA or Obama, but come on people, she broke the law and now must pay.
Do I agree with the size of the fine, no, but that is the current law that she violated. The law should not be applied capriciously based on someone's financial means or whether the offense is popular or not.
The recording industry is corrupt and seriously greedy, and the government should be ashamed of itself for allowing such over the top punishments. Sure she broke the law, but for heaven's sake make the punishments fair.
The recording industry is corrupt and seriously greedy, and the government should be ashamed of itself for allowing such over the top punishments. Sure she broke the law, but for heaven's sake make the punishments fair.
It is easily found on the internet the fines for doing what she did. Yet, she decided to disregard the warnings.
I should feel sorry for her getting caught?
The fines and penalties are high to discourage people from committing the act.
I should feel sorry for her getting caught?
The fines and penalties are high to discourage people from committing the act.
What if the punishment for speeding, even 1mph over the limit, was that the government seized your car and banned you from driving for life?
Would that be excessive? Regardless of whether or not the punishment was known, or high to 'discourage' behavior, punishments are supposed to fit crimes. That's called justice.
Damn right. And also it is important to remember that this is NOT a criminal matter. A copyright violation is a CIVIL matter.
I should feel sorry for her getting caught?
The fines and penalties are high to discourage people from committing the act.
What if the punishment for speeding, even 1mph over the limit, was that the government seized your car and banned you from driving for life?
Would that be excessive? Regardless of whether or not the punishment was known, or high to 'discourage' behavior, punishments are supposed to fit crimes. That's called justice.
If you don't like the crimes outlined for an offense, get involved in politics and do something about!
It annoys me when people complain about something, but won't do anything to try to change it
How do you know that he won't at the next elections ?
The fee is excessive but she could have settled for $5k but she chose not to. And most these posts are from sympathizers who believe she should be fined $100 if anything. Most people support file sharing because they themselves do it however most people are not totally stupid so instead of coming out in support of it, they shift their argument to something like this.
The invertigative arm of RIAA, MediaSentry, are been criminally prosecuted in many state right now for having done private investiguation without the proper license.
It's only one of the mistake that will be brought in the appeal case. The judge erred on many point. The biggest was the fact that he decided that their defense of fair use couldn't be presented to the jury. The plaintiff filed a brief at the last minute, which prevented the defense from duly preparing another good defense. That's why there is no doubt, this case will be overturn on appeal and also why the Big 4 Cartels probably requested the help from the DoJ. They're scare.
I'm not sure backing is the right word, the executive branch can't decide what to accept or what to reject, that is the purpose of The Senate and Congress.
Which are richly paid by the RIAA. Who do think actually wrote the DMCA ?
Thank You, been looking for that.
and technically they didnt need to worry because its an analogue copy... making digital copies is why the DMCA exists
Each individual pays for internet access. therefore he or she is entitled to what the internet has to offer. If you give a kid a match hell play with fire; if the government truly doesnt want the internet used in a way that from their point of view, is considered "illegal", then they must simply stop it from ever happening, they do have the resources.
Thats like for example banning copied dvd's but selling dvd burners in stores, or making free sattalite feed illegal but selling free to air sattelites. Even though it is our responsibility to make sure we dont break these "laws put in place to protect us", they sure as hell arent helping the situation. Thats my 2 cents. I live in Canada, we download here like there's no tomorrow, we share over the Internet, guess thats one more reason why to come to Canada.
Each individual pays for internet access. therefore he or she is entitled to what the internet has to offer. If you give a kid a match hell play with fire; if the government truly doesnt want the internet used in a way that from their point of view, is considered "illegal", then they must simply stop it from ever happening, they do have the resources.
Thats like for example banning copied dvd's but selling dvd burners in stores, or making free sattalite feed illegal but selling free to air sattelites. Even though it is our responsibility to make sure we dont break these "laws put in place to protect us", they sure as hell arent helping the situation. Thats my 2 cents. I live in Canada, we download here like there's no tomorrow, we share over the Internet, guess thats one more reason why to come to Canada.
That is entirely backwards. You are saying that because you can find child pron on the internet, the person who pays for internet access has a right to it without any consequence?
Each individual pays for internet access. therefore he or she is entitled to what the internet has to offer. If you give a kid a match hell play with fire; if the government truly doesnt want the internet used in a way that from their point of view, is considered "illegal", then they must simply stop it from ever happening, they do have the resources.
Thats like for example banning copied dvd's but selling dvd burners in stores, or making free sattalite feed illegal but selling free to air sattelites. Even though it is our responsibility to make sure we dont break these "laws put in place to protect us", they sure as hell arent helping the situation. Thats my 2 cents. I live in Canada, we download here like there's no tomorrow, we share over the Internet, guess thats one more reason why to come to Canada.
That is entirely backwards. You are saying that because you can find child pron on the internet, the person who pays for internet access has a right to it without any consequence?
Ummm ew? Child porn is illegal first of all, before it even goes on the internet, so lets leave that convo at that. It seems you missed the point, the internet is for sharing, its a community. Whats the difference between me owning a movie and inviting all my friends over to see it, or each of them having a copy of it and watchin it on their own? The difference is why should retailers settle for selling one money when they could sell n + 1 movies. It always comes down to money, and its sad that its always down to dollars and cents.
They are not the one making the most money. These days they make more money from live concert than from CD sales. Especially if they are with one the Big 4 Cartels (RIAA). Don't blame them for any of this.
That's what the Big 4 Cartels failed to realize early in the advent of the internet. Instead of trying to adapt their business model to take full advatange of the new technology that was developped on the internet, they choose to sit on their big derriere, buy themselves a few politicians, and rely on the government and the court to protect their outdated business model (re: selling CDs).
Yes you can actually.
The internet is for sharing of LEGALLY obtained, public domain content.
That means movies/songs you have the legal right to share, home videos/songs you made or songs/movies the original artist said is free to distribute
If the original author has not given authorization to freely distribute the content, then it is ILLEGAL to usurp that author's right to charge for their content
It would like you decided to invest years into writing a cookbook and you get it published and listed for for sale in a bookstore. Only to have one person scan it in and then post on the internet where people can download it for free. That prevents you from getting revenue and making a living
That means movies/songs you have the legal right to share, home videos/songs you made or songs/movies the original artist said is free to distribute
If the original author has not given authorization to freely distribute the content, then it is ILLEGAL to usurp that author's right to charge for their content
It would like you decided to invest years into writing a cookbook and you get it published and listed for for sale in a bookstore. Only to have one person scan it in and then post on the internet where people can download it for free. That prevents you from getting revenue and making a living
Its illegal to do anything that the government cant control or get their hand in the cookie jar, remember that. There will always be music to download and ways of downloading them, and in the end, nothing can stop that, no matter what.
It would require an unfathomably massive infrastructure overhaul.
(I know some bands have already began to give away music but sooner or later the RIAA will be gone.)
@Defiantly
I see we had the same idea
We can all understand if she shared some critical information with the enemy, which then resulted in other human beings to be attacked or killed, but being physically punished just for sharing an artwork is absolutely RIDICULOUS. How many of you have seen a picture of Mona Lisa or just about anything you can think of, and how many of you have seen an image on some site, thought it was "cool" and proceeded to make it a wall-paper on your desktop, which was then seen by others, who did the same thing - YOU ARE ALL THIEVES in the eyes of a law, but you all know that this is ridiculous and unsubstantiated and worth a lot less than your life. Yet no-one is willing to reason sensibly in this case, c'mon people!!!
What if this was your mother, brother, sister, daughter or son - I bet that RIAA and their damn lawyers never has targeted their employees or siblings of their employees, who I am sure number in thousands and to say that no one of them has ever shared/downloaded is preposterous - so what kind of "justice" is that - especially in America? This is just sad...
However, Im sure you would be mad if you worked hard to create some form of art, weather it be a song or a painting, and have it taken by someone and distributed out to thousands, without any monetary gain. Kind of makes you say "whats the point of even doing it." The RIAA is trying to protect its artists by suing this lady. Sure, they are going about it the wrong way, but in reality they do have the right to protect what is theirs.
Im more than sure that they know there is no way in hell she can pay. This is meant, at stated a million times before, to be a warning to others. Of course it wont work for sh*t for deterrence, but the RIAA has to do something.
The RIAA is trying to protect the artists rofl this is the joke of the year.
The RIAA guys try to justify high salary jobs nothing more nothing less. If the RIAA would not exist there would not be less or more pirating of copyrighted contents. The artist would not make less or more money.
If that is what you think, read this:
"UK singer Morrissey, “would like it to be known that he has not been consulted by EMI/HMV/Parlophone with regards to two forthcoming boxed sets of Morrissey singles. Morrissey does not approve such releases and would ask people not to bother buying them,” he says in a post on true-to-you.net.
He goes on »»»
Morrissey does not approve such releases and would ask people not to bother buying them. Morrissey receives no royalty payments from EMI for any back catalogue, and has not received a royalty from EMI since 1992.
Morrissey also does not approve of, and was not consulted on, the Rhino box of Smiths CDs, or the Warner releases of Smiths LPs on 180 gramme vinyl.
He, “last received a royalty payment from Warners ten years ago, and, once again, he would ask people not to bother buying the reissued LPs or CDs,” he says sadly."
EMI and Warner are both part of RIAA.
The issue is not that she downloaded free songs, the issue is that she was sharing them perhaps unknowingly. Users have YET to be sued for downloading content they are not sharing.
If more people had the "I don't want to pay for anything" mentality, things might be different.
Exactly... If I ever got caught doing something like this and was fined (20*~20 songs = 400$) I would be more likely to be scared into paying for everything in the future.
If i got fined 1 million dollars putting me 999 thousand bucks in debt, i would never be able to pay for anything for the rest of my life. Good job RIAA. go fack yourselves.
If they were going to do this in a somewhat reasonable manner, they should go fine a lot of people small amounts (that wouldn't require going to court) like a parking ticket...... WAIT, NO! That makes too much sense for the idiots working there.
You didn't read what I said - i said small amounts that DONT REQUIRE GOING TO COURT.
Actually, that is exactly what they are doing. All the people that get sue are offered a chance to settle for 3 , 4 or 5K. Many just do that to avoid paying for a lawyer. RIAA brag that 6 or 7 thousand have settle that way. Many expert challenge that number.
I call it extortion.
1) sharing the song she downloaded with other people.
2) running in the background when they try to close it.
Most people think "kazaa, limewire, frostwire, etc" are places to just download music. You can argue up and down that you did not know that the program you used to download 'FREE' song was also sharing every ripped cd on your computer to everyone else in the world. I try to educate my customers and recommend, at a bare minimum for my customers to disable any and all sharing options inside their P2P software.
So to go on and say that these users are 'willful infringer's is not exactly true. They never 'nail' someone for downloading a copy of something, they always nail them for sharing it. You never see someone nailed for 'downloading' except in the torrent world since you download and share at the same time.
BTW I really had high hopes for this administration since obama was ok with a reform of the DMCA for more fair-use rights, but this makes me second guess my decision to vote for him.
Looking at cases like this I say to others and myself who would criticize me"I can think of 1.92 million reasons why it is a bad idea to pursue "somewhat" illegal actions without adequate technology to protect yourself. I acquired my high end equipment via EBay for under 5K over a course of time and I educated myself on how to use it or I got help from others. Properly configured and I have a pretty good level of confidence that the RIAA will never be knocking on my door. And if they do..My response to them will be..prove it..and they best have more than an IP address provided by my ISP.
This victim of greed by the RIAA could have avoided it by purchasing a used application layer firewall for under 1K and downloading a number of disk encryption utilities that are virtually unbreakable by the best minds out there. The $99 Linksys or Netgear you got from BestBuy is not going to stop the RIAA that has some very smart geniuses working for them with unlimited resources.
Without concrete evidence.they have no case.
Quite wrong on this one. Those so called expert that RIAA are using (like Jacobson of MediaSentry) have prove in court proceeding to be real bumbling idiot (a la Clouseau) that don't understand the technology they are using. They made the most egregious testimony you could ever hear.
The problem is that most of these defendant have loosy lawyer because they can afford better and the poor people on these jury don't understand a word they are told.
This does seem like over excessive fine to me
But since it US thier probably are loopholes to get around the bill of rights.
I say keep the ridiculous fines coming - let the RIAA keep digging its own grave.
or what? What do you think you are going to do?
Without concrete evidence�.they have no case�.
Big talk coming from someone who has yet to have a run-in with The RIAA or other major company that you illegally steal from. The joke however is that you've purchased over 5k in hardware/software to thwart these companies when you could have spent that money to legally obtain the same thing. I would also assume that if they did come knocking at your door you would pee your pants like every other person out there.
I like the music group ColdPlay. There was a time I didn't know who they were until I heard a song of theirs in a movie. I did go to a "FREE" file sharing site to hear more of their music and found I really enjoyed it. I then went to a music store to purchase their live album and DVD. Keep in mind that some of their b-side music is not available for purchase at any store and iTunes.
I somehow feel that the RIAA would not care that I did go and actually purchase the content, but would instead try to make me an example to deter others from using file sharing sites. I choose to prevent this by deploying security to prevent my "questionable" internet activities from being traced to me, as should anyone who is going to engage with using these sharing websites and other sites the RIAA has on their hit list.
As for "peeing in my pants", nah....I would most likely ask them for a warrant and then call my attorney. And immediately after, offer them tea or a good old American Coke with some insect poison in it, just for them...after all.....isn't the definition of a politician...."blood sucking insect"....
The 5K of equipment I have is for my own personal tech needs.....I pointed out in my original post that you only need a 1K or less cost app layer firewall and some good/free encryption software. Oh, and some knowledge of how to use......
If Obama is the executive branch, and these rulings are the judicial branch, how exactly can Obama back it, and why should any court care about Obama's opinion in the matter?
If Obama is the executive branch, and these rulings are the judicial branch, how exactly can Obama back it, and why should any court care about Obama's opinion in the matter?
Anybody can file a brief in any case if you feel you have an interest that need to be heard. The defense filed post-trial motion to reduce the judgement on the basis that it's not constitutional. The DoJ filed a brief to defend that it is constutitional.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the judge, who maybe would like one day be name on the federal court, will he cross the president or help this poor defendant. Make your bet.
$1.00 to $1.39 per song c. $30.00 for 24 songs theft, does not constitute the number of times the c. $1.00 songs were stolen, or how many times the "Jammie originals" were / are subsequently copied. Would these 24 songs have been pirated 2 million times?
The next question is, are these songs available on YouTube (as music or video). The probability is they are. So in fact the RIAA and the artist have lost control of the royalty (unless Google are paying per click). It's pretty simple ripping from YouTube
The RIAA can pointless pursue the little guy (for money they don't have) all they want. The days of making big money selling recorded music are over. That is why all big artists now go on tour, and rarely release new albums. The same is happening in the film industry. You can watch the latest film online for free, there's a Firefox add-in (Video Downloadhelper 4.61) that takes you straight to the sites. The film industry have to make their money quickly on first release. They must rely on fans to buy the DVD - the same goes music CD's.
Hang the parasite RIAA, the same fors for the patents industry. Let lawyers make their money somewhere else. Innovators will still make plenty of money, lage corporations will have to tighten their belts.
The Grateful Dead had it right. Tape and trade our music all you want. We'll make our money of concerts and swag. Which is shown by them topping the carts in touring gross.
Honestly, music is art and art should be free for people to enjoy. As a fan I would be happy to pay a fair price for a high quality track or album. But why not share you music at low quality for everyone to hear. The more people who listen to you music, the more people who actually buy album (or download, i.e., iTunes) and go to your shows. That is where you should be making most your money anyway.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.