Sony Exec: RIAA Lawsuits Cost Us Millions

This is very interesting. A Sony executive is put on the stand in the lawsuit Capitol Records vs. Jammie Thomas, and she admits all sorts of funky things. Doesn't she know you can lie under oath?

One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing.

The admission came during questioning over the amount of damages the RIAA is seeking in the case. Toder asked Pariser how much Sony was suing the defendant for, and she replied that the amount was for the jury to decide and that the labels weren't suing for actual damages. As is the case with the other file-sharing lawsuits, the record industry is only seeking the punitive damages available via the Copyright Act, which can range from $750 to $150,000 per song. "What are your actual damages?" asked Toder.

"We haven't stopped to calculate the amount of damages we've suffered due to downloading, but that's not what's at issue here," replied Pariser, who was reminded by Judge Michael Davis to answer the questions actually asked by Toder, not hypotheticals.

Toder then pressed the Sony executive on the question of how many people actually downloaded music from the defendant. "We don't know," she replied. "I can't identify any other entities aside from what SafeNet reported, but I know that many others did... that's the way the system works." [...]

The next line of questioning was how many suits the RIAA has filed so far. Pariser estimated the number at a "few thousand." "More like 20,000," suggested Toder. "That's probably an overstatement," Pariser replied. She then made perhaps the most startling comment of the day. Saying that the record labels have spent "millions" on the lawsuits, she then said that "we've lost money on this program."

This is fascinating. One of the theories for why the sue-your-customers strategy continues is that the lawsuits pay for themselves with so many out-of-court settlements. Clearly that's not the case.

Let's see,they don't have any idea what actual damages they're suffering, the lawsuits are costing them millions, they're throwing away any goodwill they may have had in the marketplace ... why do they keep it up? Who was it who said that a functional definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result?

This is extremely interesting. Especially this part:

Quote:

---

Toder then pressed the Sony executive on the question of how many people actually downloaded music from the defendant. "We don't know," she replied. "I can't identify any other entities aside from what SafeNet reported, but I know that many others did... that's the way the system works."

---

It seems to me that if Sony can't demonstrate that people specifically downloaded music from Thomas, they've got a gaping hole in their case.

Any of our resident lawyers want to flesh this out a bit for the rest of us unwashed masses?

Ars has another article about other testimony by this exec:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-stealing.html
Basically, in her mind you need to pay them each time you listen to the music. Fair Use? Whats that? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ars

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

---

And people wonder why I have a Sony boycott going...

I've actually had a complete reversal on this topic. Lemur, between your endless parade of atrocities and a weeklong series of articles I heard on NPR, I'm switching sides. Screw the recording industry, I hope they all go bankrupt and I hope sellouts like Metallica go bankrupt right along with them.

Why the dramatic change of heart?

All along, I've viewed this case as an effort by an industry to use legal means to protect its intellectual property. As a semiconductor guy that sees knockoffs made of my company's chips available in the gray market all the time, I could sympathize with that.

But that's not what the recording industry has been doing. They're not going after competitive threats that are costing them market share or depriving them of profits, at least not intentionally (every now and then, I'm sure they actually do sue an actual bad guy, but that's not their intent). Their intent is to spam the world with lawsuits. Their trolling. The tip point for me was when a senior executive for one of the recording companies actually got quoted, with respect to innocent people that have been hit with 50K legal bills trying to ward off 100k lawsuits "Hey, when you fish with a dragnet, you're going to catch some dolphins.". In other words, they have no idea who they're targeting. And they vehemently fight to the end resisting paying the other side's legal bills, even when it's been patently proven that their lawsuits were malicious and without merit. They sued one woman who has advanced multiple sclerosis. The woman doesn't even know what a computer is at this point, let alone can work one to run or contact a piracy server, and even when presented with this information, they kept coming after her, running up her families legal bills (like they didn't have enough worries with medical bills).

This whole effort is about an industry running scared that has allowed its lawyers to engage in the most evil of practices. They deserve to go belly up, and frankly, the fact that so many judges are complicit in this by not assigning judgements based on malicious lawsuits against the RIAA has me convinced that our whole legal system is more corrupted than I had previously thought. This is bigger than any cadre of sheisters. This is the legal establishment continuing to try to establish an aristocracy on the rest of us, and the judges in these cases are every bit as guilty as the RIAA lawyers.

Now, if I write the RIAA or call them, they'll list me as a defendant in their next round of claims, so that option is out. What else would you recommend that I could do that would really put the screws to them? I don't buy CD's anymore, I already get everything off of I-tunes. I don't want to get hauled into a courtroom for my own personal lawsuit, but I'm willing to a a lot else.

Attention: Sony hates you. Sony hates you more if you buy something from them. If businesses had no oversight they would all be like Sony. That's the way the system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Attention: Sony hates you. Sony hates you more if you buy something from them. If businesses had no oversight they would all be like Sony. That's the way the system works.

---

You'll never get anywhere name-calling against a corporation. They'll just forward your name, email address and any other personal information you give them to their lawyers and they'll 'create' a history of illegal downloading activity and sue you over it.

The trick is to hit them where it hurts. Don't buy Playstations. Don't buy games for Playstations. Don't buy Sony portable DVD players. Don't listen to Sony artists on the radio. Seriously. Shut the radio off when Madonna comes on. Don't listen to anything by any of these guys. I was sad to see the Allman Brothers band on their website. I'm going to pack up all my old vinyls and CDs and send them, along with a big "F-U" letter, to Gregg himself, down in Macon, Georgia. Maybe when artists realize how much people despise them for the practices done in their name, they'll apply some pressure on the rats in the legal department to stop what they're doing.

Actually Don as an avid console gamer I can tell you that the best way to put the screws to Sony would be to target their one profitable divison. The games division. All the others, music, movies, home electronics. Not doing so well.

So in other words, Sony is wasting millions for no good reason at all.
They are saying their are losing money thanks to downloading and now they are saying that they have no idea if it does or not ??
Is Sony being run by monkeys or something ??
Wait, scratch that. Monkeys probably would have changed tactic when realising that one type method isn't working.
Sooner these guys and other companies like it get's knocked out the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The trick is to hit them where it hurts. Don't buy Playstations. Don't buy games for Playstations. Don't buy Sony portable DVD players. Don't listen to Sony artists on the radio. Seriously. Shut the radio off when Madonna comes on.

---

Good advice Don, but I suspect the executives' world view is so skewed by now they will conclude: "OMG, our sales are falling - must be the pirates! We're not suing enough 12 year olds, grandmothers and dead people."

Any band who makes money using a record company is a joke. Bands should make money playing shows or releasing official copies of their albums. EVeryone should be able to record noises that they hear and listen to them anytime they want. If this happened, better bands would have more money - label created pop bands would have none.

the whole lawsuit issue smacks of a McCarthy era witch hunt by cruel, detached corporations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

So in other words, Sony is wasting millions for no good reason at all.
They are saying their are losing money thanks to downloading and now they are saying that they have no idea if it does or not ??
Is Sony being run by monkeys or something ??
Wait, scratch that. Monkeys probably would have changed tactic when realising that one type method isn't working.
Sooner these guys and other companies like it get's knocked out the better.

---

Unfortunatly they still got enough money to affect policies... Upphovsrättsförslag möter hård kritik
Wouldn't surprice me if Sony is another member of the American trading chambers.

And for those who cannot red Swedish, its criticism against a law suggestion that would force the internet companies to give up your personal information for suspected copywright crimes. And that's by the company run antipirate bureaus and not by the police. All in the same sueing style that goes on in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Unfortunatly they still got enough money to affect policies... Upphovsrättsförslag möter hård kritik
Wouldn't surprice me if Sony is another member of the American trading chambers.

---

Yeah I read about that.
I sure as hell hope it gets shoot down.
They got very little public support for the copyright law that got into place when the Social democrats got into power and I can't imagine that this has even less.
Would be political suicide but with the current goverment I wouldn't be suprised.
Doesn't matter if you download or not, companies shouldn't be allowed to get personal information on you unless you give it to them yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You'll never get anywhere name-calling against a corporation. They'll just forward your name, email address and any other personal information you give them to their lawyers and they'll 'create' a history of illegal downloading activity and sue you over it.

The trick is to hit them where it hurts. Don't buy Playstations.....

---

That's.... the point I was trying to make.

Don, glad you had a change of heart. Reasonable measures to protect one's intellectual property is one thing, gestapo-like militant extortionate legal tactics is another.

Fighting these tactics in general is relatively easy to do. Just don't buy music. Don't buy new CDs, tapes, etc... I'm not saying go do something illegal, but don't feed the beast. If you can't kill it with fire, then starve it to death. I believe what we are seeing now is the RIAA thrashing it's first of a long series of death throes.

Also regarding Sony, I'd like to remind folks of their less than glorious past. Sony as a company has been arrogant beyond reason in the past, both in regards to their customers and the marketplace. They've repeatedly tried to push proprietary formats on customers in an effort to get a stranglehold on the market and userbase, and have most of the time failed miserably. Look at Betamax, look at those Minidiscs. The problem with those wasn't quality, indeed they were in many ways superior to the comptetition, the problem was how much they charged for them, and the fact that they locked out other vendors and manufacturers, or made it so costly to produce it wasn't worth it. They've done this repeatedly, more than just those two examples, and almost always fail miserably, yet they keep at it.

OK Whacker, how the :daisy: does this relate to the topic you ask?

The point here is that Sony is akin to Microsoft in terms of size, capability, and financial reserves. If we want to hit them where it counts, don't buy ANYTHING Sony. No TVs, stereos, walkmans, consoles/games, electronics, anything. Sony is big enough and makes enough money that this is why they often try to push these obsurd proprietary new formats and products, because they can afford to siphon money off of one part of the business and sink it into another because of the size of their income. If you want to choke that beast, then you'll have to forgo your Wegas and Playstations, and everything else. Hit em where it counts, in the pocketbook.

Whacker, you forgot to mention rootkits - repeatedly. And lying about them. And not admitting anything about them for a while. And then trying to settle, for example, with Canadians, for less damages than they were charged with in the US. 'cause, you see, Canadians are second-class customers.

Don - glad to have you on board, matey! Arr, them thugs be walkin' the plank soon, ye'll see!

Yes, I've also decided long ago not to buy anything from Sony, ever. And I haven't - and, shockingly, I survived just well. :yes: So it's perfectly doable.

And I agree with Whacker on the points he made - good points, mate. I'm glad I'm no longer the only vocal anti-corporate whack (pardon the pun ~D) on these boards.

And yes, the RIAA's techniques are nothing short of extortion: give us 3k, and we won't sue you. Not to mention that they don't actually have any proof, most times. But hey, they've got deep pockets, and most people are scared and intimidated, and don't wanna go through the whole court crap, so they just pay up. So their tactics work, for the most part.
But yes, they're finally starting to lose ground - about damn time, too.

Wouldn't buying a PS3 and then other companies Blue-Ray discs screw Sony?

They lost money on every console sold in the hope they will make it up in games... so buy it for a blue-ray player only and make them pay for the privilege of your ownership... warped I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Wouldn't buying a PS3 and then other companies Blue-Ray discs screw Sony?

---

Wouldn't work out. Part of the reason Sony has always pushed for proprietary formats is the licensing dough. Even if you never bought a Blu-Ray disc from Sony studio, they would still get their licensing cut from the other studios.

They don't push their pet formats for nothing.

Blodrast, I don't think being anti-corporate has anything to do with these issues. There are plenty of companies that do their thing, make their money, and don't go out of their way to harm people. Anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior are not the foundation of capitalism, but rather a sickness, a malfunction within the system.

The music industry had many opportunities to adjust to the changing reality of a digital world, but they were unable and unwilling to do anything. This crisis started to show up during Web 1.0, when the hype and hysteria for all things online was out of control. Somebody was willing to plow millions into Pets.com, but the music industry couldn't field anything competitive. Nothing. And now they seem to think they can sue their way into a different business environment. That ain't capitalism, that's autism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Any band who makes money using a record company is a joke. Bands should make money playing shows or releasing official copies of their albums. EVeryone should be able to record noises that they hear and listen to them anytime they want. If this happened, better bands would have more money - label created pop bands would have none.

the whole lawsuit issue smacks of a McCarthy era witch hunt by cruel, detached corporations.

---

You know anyone in a band? Bands are not there to be you're best friends or give you their art for free. They obviuosly work hard on what they give you (well mostly). If you actually listen to their music then it's because they have made something you like, if they want to make a living off what they do, what the heck is wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

You know anyone in a band? Bands are not there to be you're best friends or give you their art for free. They obviuosly work hard on what they give you (well mostly). If you actually listen to their music then it's because they have made something you like, if they want to make a living off what they do, what the heck is wrong with that?

---

Nothing wrong with that but to say that they live off record sales is wrong.
Only the very big names can survive on records sales and you have to sell alot of records as well since the label takes the vast majority of the profit and leaves the artist with bread-crumbs.
The main income however is doing live concerts where the artist can enjoy most of the profit.

I wonder if this whole download thing is because the labels know that the artist don't need them anymore and all this mass-sueing is simply a way to gather the flock back so to speak.
Mean if no one downloads then the artist have to rely on the labels again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

[indent]One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing.

---

I woke up tonight and was certain to have heard millions of people shout "Told you so!!" at the same time. Seems I was right.
This is so ridiculous and pathetic. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Blodrast, I don't think being anti-corporate has anything to do with these issues. There are plenty of companies that do their thing, make their money, and don't go out of their way to harm people. Anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior are not the foundation of capitalism, but rather a sickness, a malfunction within the system.

The music industry had many opportunities to adjust to the changing reality of a digital world, but they were unable and unwilling to do anything. This crisis started to show up during Web 1.0, when the hype and hysteria for all things online was out of control. Somebody was willing to plow millions into Pets.com, but the music industry couldn't field anything competitive. Nothing. And now they seem to think they can sue their way into a different business environment. That ain't capitalism, that's autism.

---

Fair enough, the term isn't quite accurate, I agree. I'm abusing it a bit, because what I really mean is that I don't like huge conglomerates that establish monopolies (or duopolies), that abuse the system, that bribe politicians to pass laws in their favor (which are almost always detrimental to the regular folks), that treat their customer like crap, that get away with stuff that normal people would never get away with, and so on.

But see, it's kinda hard to put that whole paragraph every time I wanna say that, so, instead, I use a blanket term that, while innacurate, sometimes succeeds in conveying the actual message - or at least kinda gives people an idea of what I mean, without me having to spell it out.

Hope this clarifies what I meant, and yeah, you're right, the term I was using isn't accurate or correct. But now that I explained what I really mean, I hope it's clear that it does apply to this case :)

Referring to the last part of your post, I'm not so sure that this is not capitalism. I agree that it may not be the "by the book" definition of capitalism. But, in practice, this seems to occur all the time. So while it might not be a notion ingrained in the very definition of capitalism, it seems that it may be an unavoidable disease that always appears in a capitalist environment.
If you want an analogy, it's a bit like saying that communism isn't inherently bad. And it's not, on paper. However, experience shows that all attempts to put it in practice failed miserably - the version that was on paper was never achieved, and instead we achieved all sorts of malformed spawns that were very, very bad.


Anyway, back on topic, there's been some interesting stuff in this trial. I hope you folks realize that this is a pretty important case for everybody, even if you're not doing any filesharing or any of that. Don't think "it won't affect me". There are cases where the RIAA sued innocent people, thank you very much. Also, when you get one of those extortion letters, it's pretty much irrelevant whether you're guilty or not - do you really wanna go to court and fight them ? (It's best if you do, but it's not that simple, is it: it costs money, time, effort, stress, possibly reputation, etc).
Besides, if you've ever bought a music CD, then it affects you - because that's what this is all about: establishing if they can continue bullying and suing people to preserve their old business model at any price; this is why you're paying $13-$20 for an audio CD - and possibly getting a nice rootkit on the side. This is _exactly_ why you have nice laws like the DMCA (and their equivalents) passed. This is why you have DVD regions. This is why they are trying to push laws that will make pay as often as possible for the same thing you own - oops, I meant "the same thing you rent" from them.

Anyway, enough ranting, here's some nice coverage of the trial from ArsTechnica.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-v-thomas.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Judge bars RIAA president from testifying in Capitol Records v. Thomas

By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 03, 2007 - 05:51PM CT

Duluth, Minnesota — Testimony in Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas wrapped up today after Judge Michael J. Davis decided against allowing RIAA president Cary Sherman to testify in the case. Sherman was to have been called this afternoon after representatives from the record labels involved in the case finished testifying as to their ownership of the copyrights.
Related Stories

* Defendant's counsel hammers away at piracy picture painted by RIAA
* Debate over "making available" jury instruction as Capitol v. Thomas wraps up (updated)
* First RIAA trial gets under way with jury selection, opening statements
* RIAA anti-P2P campaign a real money pit, according to testimony

After a brief recess this afternoon, plaintiffs' counsel Richard Gabriel and defendant's counsel Brian Toder made their cases before the judge as to the relevance of Sherman's testimony. Toder argued that Sherman's testimony was not relevant to the question at hand, the fact of whether Thomas was liable for copyright infringement. Gabriel said that Sherman would be able to tell the jury why this case was significant and, more importantly, describe the harm the RIAA believes piracy has caused to the music industry.

"I don't want to turn this case into a soap box for the recording industry," Toder argued in response.

After Judge Davis initially struck Sherman from the witness list, Gabriel continued pressing his case, saying that Sherman would be able to draw the jury's attention to "the massive problem of file sharing" and testify that the RIAA is "not out to get millions in damages, but to prove a point." With the judge refusing to reconsider his motion barring Sherman testifying, the case wrapped up with witnesses from UMG, Warner Bros., and EMI Records North America, all of whom testified that the record labels did indeed own the copyrights to the recordings in question.
Thomas takes the stand

The Federal Courthouse in Duluth

This afternoon also marked the appearance of Jammie Thomas on the stand. She was called by the plaintiffs immediately after lunch, who started by questioning her about her experience with computers. After establishing that she has accounts with Match.com, MySpace, plays games online, and has an Internet account at home, Gabriel then asked her if she posted to the "anti-RIAA blog" Recording Industry vs. The People under the username "tereastarr." After answering in the affirmative, questioning then turned to whether there was another PC in her home the night Media Sentry discovered the tereastarr@KaZaA account. She said that there was not.

On a number of occasions during her testimony, Gabriel asked Thomas to refer to her depositions, reminding her that she was under oath when she gave the depositions and was under oath on the stand. Gabriel then proceeded to show the jury the ubiquity of the tereastarr username in Thomas' online persona. The jurors saw screenshots of her pogo.com and match.com profiles and the Start menu from her Compaq Presario PC, all of which had the tereastarr username.

Gabriel also questioned her on whether any of her ex-boyfriends had used the computer and as to when she started password-protecting the admin account on her Windows XP machine. He established that after breaking up with a boyfriend in 2004, she began using a password for her admin account and that she was the only one who knew what it was.

The questioning then turned to her CD-ripping habits. In her deposition, Thomas said that she ripped no more than six or seven CDs per day, but on the stand today, she said she could have ripped over 2,000 songs in a little over two days. When shown the screenshots taken by Media Sentry of the KaZaA share, she said that she "understands that the labels say this is a screenshot of the PC they found on KaZaA," but denied ever downloading or using KaZaA.

Gabriel then turned to her eclectic music collection, comparing some of the bands seen in the KaZaA share to found in her My Music folder upon forensic examination of her hard drive. He rattled off bands such as Lacuna Coil, Cold, Evanescence, Howard Shore, Green Day, Black Sabbath, Creed, Belinda Carlisle, A.F.I., Dream Theater, Sheryl Crow, and Enya, concluding by asking, "Does it surprise you to learn there are more than 60 artists you listen to in the shared folder?"

"No," replied Thomas.

Gabriel then asked her about her days as an undergrad at St. Cloud State University and some research she had done on Napster. In 1998 or 1999, she did a research project, creating an account on Napster and downloading some music to a college computer. Thomas agreed with Gabriel's assertion that she concluded at the time that using Napster was legal.

In another indication of the degree to which the recording industry is leery of copying music, Gabriel then asked her about burning CDs. Thomas said she had burned two or three compilation CDs for boyfriends, including one called "From me to you" given as a Valentine's Day present to her ex-boyfriend Kevin Habemeier. She also disputed Habemeier's testimony about the circumstances surrounding the notice she received from ISP about the notification of copyright infringement.

Under cross-examination by her attorney, Thomas explained the date discrepancies. She originally had said that she bought the PC from Best Buy in 2003 and that the hard drive was replaced in January or February of 2004. After her forensic expert inspected the hard drive and found that it wasn't manufactured until January 2005, she then said that she bought the PC in 2004 and that the hard drive was replaced in March 2005. "I was a year off on everything in my deposition," she said. He also said that the "jury could do the math" on whether it was possible for her to rip 2,000 or so tracks over a two-day period given the demonstration earlier in the day.

Toder then concluded by asking her if she ever had KaZaA on her computer and if she had ever downloaded the KaZaA application. She replied in the negative to both queries.

With the record company representatives done testifying and Sherman barred from appearing in court, both sides rested their cases and began work on the jury instructions. Closing arguments will begin tomorrow morning, with each side given a half hour to summarize their cases. The jury will then begin deliberations, and we may have a verdict to report tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Blodrast, I don't think being anti-corporate has anything to do with these issues. There are plenty of companies that do their thing, make their money, and don't go out of their way to harm people. Anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior are not the foundation of capitalism, but rather a sickness, a malfunction within the system.

---

As a card carrying conservative, I feel the need to point out that the problem is more about bad government than capitalism. It's the DMCA and laws like it that enable companies to use such draconian tactics and it creates the legal framework where they can sue away without making a case that could stand up otherwise.

Corporations will always do what they think will make them the most profit- that never changes. You get into trouble when the government starts to take sides and passes laws giving unfair advantages or support like this.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As a card carrying conservative, I feel the need to point out that the problem is more about bad government than capitalism. It's the DMCA and laws like it that enable companies to use such draconian tactics and it creates the legal framework where they can sue away without making a case that could stand up otherwise.

Corporations will always do what they think will make them the most profit- that never changes. You get into trouble when the government starts to take sides and passes laws giving unfair advantages or support like this.
:bow:

---

All too true, the problem is that the American government IS the suits. It's my sincere impression that these days the corporate execs are doing nothing but squeezing their respective businesses for as much as THEY personally can get out of it, as long as they can, and the consequences and future of the business be damned. It's a trend that is sometimes subtle, sometimes not, yet if one looks close they can see it. My employer is one of those that's one of the worst, a once proud, strong business that had fierce employee/employer loyalty, now a burnt out husk and a shell of it's former self. I can't speak specifically to other organizations, but in my case, it's a generally universal opinion amongst those of us who are left that it's as big as if not worse than Enron.

I think corporations in theory are great, it's when one lets the greedy execs have their way with little to zero repercussions that it goes downhill. In general I believe in a hands-off policy from the government, BUT we also do need to ensure that employees are not abused and misused, executives are held personally accountable, and that a competitive market is maintained and monopolies are prevented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I think corporations in theory are great, it's when one lets the greedy execs have their way with little to zero repercussions that it goes downhill. In general I believe in a hands-off policy from the government, BUT we also do need to ensure that employees are not abused and misused, executives are held personally accountable, and that a competitive market is maintained and monopolies are prevented.

---

And that's never gonna happen as long as legally a corporation is a person and thus corp itself, and not the people behind it are responsible for it's actions

I don't get the $222k fine for 1,700 songs she offered Link to news story; if each file/song nowadays is worth 99 cents from 'legal' download sites, were each of her @2,000 files downloaded one-hundred-eleven times?

Or did she merely have to sign on to Kwazaa 111 times with her 1,700 songlist? The judge's jury instructions sound a little dodgy to me; I'm not sure the law was read correctly there (setting aside the actual 'goodness' of the law itself, for now).

There are 25,999 more such suits pending. If those folks 'settle' for half that = just under 3 billion bucks for the Labels.

I majored in English, not Math, so I may have misplaced a few zero's. Feel free to correct my numbers, please.

But even if it's only 300 million, or 30 million, I wonder about awarding the alleged damaged parties so much cash, when they (by the testimony cited by the OP) cannot even fix their actual damages.

And does that money go to the actual original content-provider, the artist? Or where? Or who?

Actually, she was found guilty of sharing 24 songs. The verdict was for "willful" infringement, meaning the fine could have been as high as $150,000 per song ($3.6 million).

It's too bad this was the case to go to court and get the publicity. The other case, which was a bad deal, the RIAA lost and is dragging its feet paying attorneys' fees.

Unfortunately, it looks as though the major record labels and their sock puppet (the RIAA) will take this as a vindication of their sue-our-fans strategy.

Forget about the idea that this will generate a lot of cash for them. There's no way the defendant will actually be able to pay a quarter million dollar fine, so all they've done is force a single mom into bankruptcy. Hope it was worth it.

-edit-

Well, the sock puppet hasn't wasted any time getting its gloat on:

"We welcome the jury's decision," the RIAA said in an e-mailed statement following the decision. "The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner.

"When the evidence is clear, we will continue to bring legal actions against those individuals who have broken the law," the statement continued. "This program is important to securing a level playing field for legal online music services and helping ensure that record companies are able to invest in new bands of tomorrow."

According to attorneys at Fish & Richardson, a law firm that specializes in intellectual property law, the verdict was a decisive win for the RIAA.

"The RIAA's got a strong track record. Now, people are going to settle faster. The RIAA has won a substantial victory," said Mark Fischer, a principal in the firm. "One of their biggest challenges has been to go after consumers. [That] has been validated by a jury. At this moment, it has seen a real validation of its enforcement."

There's a few problems with that case Lemur. First, apparently the woman really WAS guilty. Nevertheless, her attorney seemed to be pretty incompetent, he didn't try to refute any of the "evidence" that was provided. My issue is that if future cases are decided based on this, there's going to be some big problems.

As I see it, the problem is twofold, but both are related. First, the amount the jury decided on. Asinine, period. It's something like $9250 per song, which was nuts. You could physically steal a CD and be far better off. Second, and related, is the fact that the assigned this much. The point of the civil case is to assign damages relative to what exactly was done, NOT punitive measures. Clearly that's not remotely what happened here with the jury.

I can only hope that she gets better legal counsel and appeals based on the the fact that the jury's ruling was obscenely out of whack with what the actual value of the infringment was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

Nothing wrong with that but to say that they live off record sales is wrong.
Only the very big names can survive on records sales and you have to sell alot of records as well since the label takes the vast majority of the profit and leaves the artist with bread-crumbs.
The main income however is doing live concerts where the artist can enjoy most of the profit.

I wonder if this whole download thing is because the labels know that the artist don't need them anymore and all this mass-sueing is simply a way to gather the flock back so to speak.
Mean if no one downloads then the artist have to rely on the labels again.

---

That's not what I was talking about. I didnt say they all made their living off selling records, but they should be able to make money off them.

I remember in a case a while back the judge asked the RIAA prosecution team to justify the prices that they were putting on the songs being shared by various users; never heard the result of that, but it'd certainly be an interesting exercise in futility to watch.

I think that as many cases as possible of this kind should be brought to court, simply for the publicity factor. Unfortunately, without the offer of free legal counsel, that's never going to happen ~:(

God knows if they sued everyone who downloaded music for that amount they'd bankrupt half the country :grin2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur's link

And what was the formula? Something like X times Y, to the power of Z -- where X is the lack of a sustainable business model, Y is an aggravated response to a non-existent threat, and Z is the inability to differentiate between customers and thieves.

---

:laugh4:

EDIT: On that note, guess what was in my RSS inbox today? Source not noted, as it links to illegal material; any mentions that I have seen have been edited out.

Food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by An Open Letter To The CRIA

To Whom It May Concern at the CRIA:
I have been an avid music collector for many years, and have approximately 1000 CD’s in my collection, not counting albums that I have purchased over the internet and own only digital copies of. I purchase approximately 30-40 new CDs per year. However, thanks to your recent decision to block Canadian users from accessing D, I have decided that I cannot continue to support this backwards, dysfunctional industry with my money any longer, and as such, I do not plan on purchasing music ever again if it means that one penny goes to your organization.
I listen to heavy metal music, a form of music that “the industry” stopped supporting many years ago, so I have a hard time feeling any sympathy. Sites such as D have done far more to promote the music I love than your organization or the industry in general has ever done. I can find out about new artists and new releases from artists that are never promoted. I can listen to music from artists that have never been played on the radio, will never be shown on MuchMusic or MTV, and never have a review or even mention of their new album written about in the local newspaper. From listening to this music, I can make an informed decision if I wish to purchase the album or not, as I am not going to gamble $15-20 on something that I haven’t heard anything off of before.

25 years ago, I primarily learned about music from friends who dubbed a copy onto a cassette tape, where I could listen to it and make a decision if I wanted to buy the tape for myself. Now, many years removed from school, my “gang” of friends to share music with has shifted from cassette tapes and the school cafeteria to sharing mp3’s online. I listen to some things that I don’t like, and consequently, I don’t buy those albums. What I do like, I buy, or at least I used to, before your decision intended to stop me from hearing new music.
The industry cries that record sales are down, and blames this all on internet downloading. I won’t be so naïve as to say that internet downloading has no impact on the sales. Downloading has certainly stopped me from making the stupid purchases where I heard one single that I liked and bought an entire album only to find out that the rest of the songs are crap, and the CD sits collecting dust on my shelf. But for every CD that I didn’t buy based on those premises, there are 2 or 3 other CDs that I did buy because I heard of them for the first time on a site like D.
In the meantime, the music industry itself needs to recognize that they are to blame for sagging record sales. For years, they have been marketing recycled crap, and people are getting tired of it. On the odd occasion that something fresh and new accidentally slips through and gets radio play, the music industry immediately signs a seemingly infinite number of clone bands that makes the “new, fresh” sound boring almost instantly. It seems the music industry doesn’t even care about making or promoting good music any more. Instead, they market a young, pretty face that can dance provocatively and lip-synch well, and push this on the radio stations to play while getting the tabloids to print large pictures of their breasts. If bands like AC/DC or Motorhead were to emerge today, they would never be successful; not because of poor record sales due to downloading, but due to the fact that they’re ugly so the record company wouldn’t promote them, if they picked them up at all. In the meantime, they’re falling all over themselves to promote Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, or any teenage tramp that can be airbrushed to look sexy.

The record labels cry about downloading cutting into the profits of the sales of albums. They put out “greatest hits” albums by 20-year olds with 2 or 3 albums under their belts, released with one new track to try and sucker the fans that already have both albums into spending another $20 for one new song, or re-releasing a 3-month old album with a “previously unreleased bonus track”. Then they can’t understand why people aren’t buying them, and cry foul that people are downloading the one new song instead.
I know not only the record companies are crying. Artists that have been around long enough to have enough clout to get a cut of the record sales are concerned about their cut, like Metallica that also clamor that “downloading is evil”, and then go on to sell over 9 million copies of their last album instead of 9.1 million. Boo hoo. Meanwhile, many younger, smaller artists favor downloading, because they know it’s the only way that people will get to hear the music and in turn come out to see their shows, because the record label sure as hell isn’t promoting them. But they can’t say that out loud, can they? If they do, guess which band is going to get dropped by the label?

So tell me, what does the CRIA do to promote metal? Oh, right, you’ve got a link to the top 50 “metal” albums in Canada, which after a quick glance at the top ten this week includes punk acts like Dropkick Murphys, Finger Eleven, and Billy Talent, and rock acts like Nickelback and Queen, but very little that resembles heavy metal. (Perhaps you should ask the Celtic punk band, Dropkick Murphys, what they think of being labeled as “metal”.)

And also tell me, without D, where would I have found out about bands like Evile or Dublin Death Patrol and made a decision to purchase their album online (because no record store that I have found in Canada carries either one). And god forbid the CRIA would care about the promotion of Canadian talent, such as longtime recording artist Annihilator, which released one of the better albums of 2007. However, I have yet to see their new album sold in any store in Canada, including HMV’s flagship store on Yonge Street in Toronto, and I ultimately had to buy a copy from a UK website. Considering the only place I had heard about this album was having downloaded it from D, do you really expect anyone to make this kind of effort to buy an album without ever having heard it?

The record labels and CRIA have gone to great lengths to tell us that downloading and sharing music is killing the music industry. Open your eyes and you will see that the music industry dinosaur has already been killing itself for years, and by resisting technology rather than embracing it and using it to their advantage. “Oh, but they have,” you try to insist, pointing to the sites devoted to selling music in mp3 format online. I notice that most of the metal bands I am interested in are still not available through these services. I also notice that buying an entire album ends up costing as much, if not more, than if I went to buy it in the store, even though there are no longer costs of materials or shipping that have to be paid for, and once again, I fail to come up with any sympathy for the music industry. I hope the music industry does die, because I know that music itself will not die so with the corrupt aspects of the industry gone, only then might music once again flourish.

Sincerely,
A former music buyer

---

That's a great letter. :2thumbsup:

Private copies are legal in Germany. I thought it was the same in the US.
Apparently not, according to Pariser:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wired

Then Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"
Given that five people in the jury box own iPods or MP3 players, Pariser's statement has the ring of a strategic error -- indicting, as it does, anyone who made a mix tape in the 80s, or who loaded up their iPod from their CD collection. But it had no visible impact on the jury.

---

Of course it had no impact on the Jury which was obviously packed with ignorant luddites:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wired

(Username, pirating, Kazaa and file-sharing network all had to be explained.) What's more, witnesses and attorneys also were forced to define playlist, P2P protocol, encryption, share folder, burning, ripping, internet protocol address, meta data, hex code and even pirate rip groups -- which were described as clandestine organizations poised to upload music before it is even released.
Jurors were also schooled in the definition of the trace route, screen shot, binary folders and even computer forensics. Some of the definitions were elementary at best.

---

:inquisitive: Shouldn't the members of a Jury be familiar with the subject being at trial? Or is it just my naive European perspective? I for example wouldn't feel up to being a member of a Jury in Wall-Street related lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

That's a great letter. :2thumbsup:

---

I feel bad though. I'm certain whoever received it tracked it to it's source and filed a willful infringement of copyright protections lawsuit against the guy. Remember, they're lawyers. They know better than anybody else. And if some guy has the chutzpah to lecture them, they're going to make him pay.... dearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Private copies are legal in Germany. I thought it was the same in the US.
Apparently not, according to Pariser:


Of course it had no impact on the Jury which was obviously packed with ignorant luddites:



:inquisitive: Shouldn't the members of a Jury be familiar with the subject being at trial? Or is it just my naive European perspective? I for example wouldn't feel up to being a member of a Jury in Wall-Street related lawsuit.

---

Okay, without looking it up, what's the difference between a proxy server and a firewall?

And even if you do have the definition at the tip of your tongue, could you find 12 peers that would be able to give flawless answers without looking it up?

What's more, legalism is all about defintions. One of the problems with 'finding of fact' in legal cases exists when people work off multiple definitions whereby they all think they mean the same thing but upon closer scrutiny, may actually mean slightly different things.

For example, how many people know that assault doesn't actually require you to touch somebody? Everybody thinksthey know what assault is, but in reality, assault is the threat of the use of force. When most people think of the word assault, the definition running through their heads is that for battery.

I'm not arguing with you that the plaintiffs attorneys probably did engage in some jury selection so they had some sheep in the jury box, but your assertion that you have to be intimately familiar with the material of a case in order to sit on a jury for a case is troubling. I don't want only doctors and nurses to be qualified for jury duty in medical malpractice lawsuits. I don't want only law enforcement personnel to hear to wrongful death lawsuits on 'bad shoots'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Okay, without looking it up, what's the difference between a proxy server and a firewall?
And even if you do have the definition at the tip of your tongue, could you find 12 peers that would be able to give flawless answers without looking it up?

---

I could post a definition but I think that's beside the point. No, I probably couldn't name 12 RL peers to give flawless answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm not arguing with you that the plaintiffs attorneys probably did engage in some jury selection so they had some sheep in the jury box, but your assertion that you have to be intimately familiar with the material of a case in order to sit on a jury for a case is troubling. I don't want only doctors and nurses to be qualified for jury duty in medical malpractice lawsuits. I don't want only law enforcement personnel to hear to wrongful death lawsuits on 'bad shoots'.

---

I didn't make an assertion, I posed a question. But I see your point.
My motivation was my disappointment about the outcome and I thought that the jury probably wasn't competent enough to decide. In Germany it would be a single Judge who'd decide, which can be as big a problem as your Jury system. I didn't intend to say that the American legal system is inferior.
The plaintiff just made a bad case. Tough luck. I for one welcome our new RIAA overlords. :grin2:

GAH! GAH! and Thrice GAH!

As far as I can tell, the record industry (sorry, I refuse to call it the "music industry" any more) know that they are clinging on to a corpse, and are trying to suck the last few drops of blood out of it. They really missed the boat with online distribution, and fortunately a lot of newer bands are more clued up on how to make themselves known to the public. I'm not sure how much longer it will last, but I don't think it will be too many years before physical recordings are as rare as telegrams are today.

For my part, I shall continue not buying anything from Sony, but now with a reason other than I just don't want anything they produce :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Private copies are legal in Germany. I thought it was the same in the US.

---

Private copies are legal in the US as well under fair use, as long as encryption methods are not circumvented to create the copy (this being a DMCA violation). The exec doesn't know what she's talking about.

As for juries, generally lawyers from both sides try to get idiots on the case, so they can tell them what to think. People with actual knowledge on the subject get excused.

This case is a great example of how screwed up the RIAA members are. This woman owned hundreds of CDs, listened to lots of different kinds of music, and was one of their better customers. And they forced her into bankruptcy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Private copies are legal in the US as well under fair use, as long as encryption methods are not circumvented to create the copy (this being a DMCA violation).

---

That's just completely idiotic. Companies can simply take away the rights you have by putting on copy protection? And the costumer can't do anything about it?

That's :daisy: up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's just completely idiotic. Companies can simply take away the rights you have by putting on copy protection? And the costumer can't do anything about it?

That's :daisy: up.

---

It's the same over here dude.
Our consumer rights is slowly fading away.
Hell, these days we don't own anything.
Any CD, DVD or game is still the property of the publisher and not the person that bought it.
We are merely renting/borrowing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's just completely idiotic. Companies can simply take away the rights you have by putting on copy protection? And the costumer can't do anything about it?

That's :daisy: up.

---

It's even worse than idiotic. Copyright infringement would be a civil lawsuit, bypassing DRM is a criminal offense under the DMCA. The only legal personal copies of DRM'ed digital media are bit-for-bit copies, i.e. those with the DRM intact. Bypassing DRM gets you jail time.

This is what happens when corporate interests are more important to the lawmakers than those of their constituents. For those outside the US, you should fight any attempt by the movie and record industry to subvert your politicians. They already own ours, it's too late for us. Save yourselves. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

It's the same over here dude.
Our consumer rights is slowly fading away.
Hell, these days we don't own anything.
Any CD, DVD or game is still the property of the publisher and not the person that bought it.
We are merely renting/borrowing it.

---

I do not think that's the case here. Remember the "DVD-Jon"-case, where the courts found that the program he had made(which bypassed the copy-protection allowing you to copy DVD's) was legal. Not entirely sure if they also ruled it legal to use though...

@ Drone: How do you make a "bit-for-bit" copy? And will they work as a back-up? Or will you have to bypass the DRM to produce a fully functional copy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I do not think that's the case here. Remember the "DVD-Jon"-case, where the courts found that the program he had made(which bypassed the copy-protection allowing you to copy DVD's) was legal. Not entirely sure if they also ruled it legal to use though...

---

Well our courts have found torrent files legal and yet we still don't "own" the copy of the cd, DVD or game that you go and buy in a store.
We used too but not anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@ Drone: How do you make a "bit-for-bit" copy? And will they work as a back-up? Or will you have to bypass the DRM to produce a fully functional copy?

---

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the DRM must be intact. So, for instance, you were to buy a song from iTunes that is in FairPlay/DRMed AAC format. Copying the AAC file to a CD-R is fine, but running a tool to convert this file to a straight mp3 is illegal.

The DMCA is how media companies intend to destroy the concept of fair use. The whole point of DRM is to make you buy the same thing over and over again. Record companies can't rely on people buying the White Album on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD anymore. The storage and distribution methods have changed, and they aren't very happy about it.

drone is correct: the copy protection must be intact. Bypassing/circumventing that is illegal under DMCA.

This effectively means that if you're trying to play a DVD under linux, you may find yourself breaking the law. Welcome to stupid laws 101!

The problem is that when you try to rip a DVD to make a backup for yourself, afaik you cannot duplicate the DRM part - those tracks cannot be reproduced from the original media.
I cannot remember the source for this piece of info, unfortunately, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt until I can remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

This effectively means that if you're trying to play a DVD under linux, you may find yourself breaking the law. Welcome to stupid laws 101!

---

If you're using linux you're probably a terrorist or gangster anyway. :clown:

FWIW, here's the $222,000 playlist. Probably the most expensive twenty-four songs in the history of music.

• Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
• Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
• Janet Jackson "Let's What Awhile"
• Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
• Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
• Journey "Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believing"
• Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
• Aerosmith "Cryin'"
• Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
• Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
• Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
• Bryan Adams "Somebody"
• No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
• Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
• Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
• Destiny's Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
• Green Day "Basket Case"

And CNET weighs in.

Quote:

---

"It doesn't strike a regular person that by passing a CD around the neighborhood, they should have their house taken away," says Lew Rockwell, president of the free-market Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. "And by electronic means it shouldn't be any different."

---

Quote:

---

She's accused of sharing 24 songs, or two CDs worth. We don't know how many people downloaded those songs, but if 10 people did, that's perhaps $250 in value. If 100 people did, that's $2,500, and so on.

Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University, is no fan of copyright law at all. (He'd abolish it.) But his suggested penalties for physical larceny are worth taking into account. "My view is two teeth for a tooth, plus expenses, plus cost of capturing, plus a scaring penalty" that would provide additional deterrence and avoid allowing the wealthy to flout the law, he said on Friday. In other words, let the punishment fit the crime.

---

The whole idea of compensation/restitution based on damage incurred seems to have flown out the window. Double un-good, guv, IMHO.

I think we need userrights for chairs, basically when someone else than the owner wants to use a chair, a new user license has to be purchased first.
The only downside I see is that kids cannot afford to play going to Jerusalem on birthday parties anymore because their parents can't afford it, though judging by the amount of banks in public parks, we might see a tax increase as well.

And 222,000$ is quite a lot of money, I guess that includes some money for the poor bosses of certain companies who almost couldn't afford their new yacht because of a few downloads.

For non-Germans, going to Jerusalem = "Musical Chairs".

I remember reading about vacationing Germans 'reserving' beach chairs with towels, sometimes hours ahead of their actual arrival. Do we charge them for the un-occupied time, or just actual butt-in-seat time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

For non-Germans, going to Jerusalem = "Musical Chairs".

I remember reading about vacationing Germans 'reserving' beach chairs with towels, sometimes hours ahead of their actual arrival. Do we charge them for the un-occupied time, or just actual butt-in-seat time?

---

Thanks for the translation, dictionary gave me both option, guess I chose the wrong one. ~D

And charge them for the whole time of course. If they won't pay for the time they just reserve it, consider the seat not reserved.

All other information (aka software) you buy a license to use the content that is then repackaged onto whatever format the computer(s) use.

Music on the other hand is still so 20th century where you buy the media and use it to play the information.

=][=

Shouldn't the jury been made of peers in this case 12 P2P?

Looks like Ms. Thomas has had a change of heart, and decided to Appeal the decision in her case.

Quote:

---

"... Every single suit they have brought has been based on this making available theory, and if we can win this appeal, they would actually have to prove a file was shared and by someone other than their own licensed agent."

---

In not-completely-unrelated news, both Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have broken from the music labels, and are marketing themselves directly to fans, without a middleman. And so it begins ...

From NiN:

I've waited a LONG time to be able to make the following announcement: as of right now Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate. Look for some announcements in the near future regarding 2008. Exciting times, indeed.

Regarding Radiohead's even more daring move:

In Rainbows will be released as a digital download available only via the band's web site, Radiohead.com. There's no label or distribution partner to cut into the band's profits — but then there may not be any profits. Drop In Rainbows' 15 songs into the online checkout basket and a question mark pops up where the price would normally be. Click it, and the prompt "It's Up To You" appears. Click again and it refreshes with the words "It's Really Up To You" — and really, it is. It's the first major album whose price is determined by what individual consumers want to pay for it. And it's perfectly acceptable to pay nothing at all.

A good move by NiN and Radiohead.
Hopefully more will follow their example, I really really hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

A good move by NiN and Radiohead.
Hopefully more will follow their example, I really really hope.

---

:2thumbsup:

When it comes to art, I prefer anarchy. A far better model IMO to truly distinguish talent from one-hit-wonders compared to the current dying model: the audiences will decide who's worth hearing, not some robber barons from Fortune 500.

So Radiohead are busking on the internet...

Quote:

---

Remember, they're lawyers. They know better than anybody else. And if some guy has the chutzpah to lecture them, they're going to make him pay.... dearly.

---

Mwah hah ha ha ha :devil:

I absolutely LOVE being the spawn of satan.:2thumbsup:

Why does American law allow for exemplary damages in so many cases? IIRC the usual remedy in UK law is either damages (how much did your infringement costs the rights owner) or an account of profits (how much did you make).

Which, economically, seems right to me. If you want some sort of terror-remedy, that should be the job of the criminal law. You know, with criminal law type safeguards, like beyond reasonable doubt.

Looks like the floodgates have opened: Madonna has dumped the record industry, and is going direct. So have Oasis and Jamiroquai.

The only real question now is how fast will the music industry model come tumbling down. When Radiohead led the way in offering their music directly to fans many predicted that the move was the beginning of the end; Madonna may well be the tipping point from where we will now see a flood of recording artists dumping record labels and where todays model will shortly become a footnote in Wikipedia.

We can hope :thumbsup:

Getting better and better but still too early to tell.
When Metallica does it I might crack a smile over it.

http://xkcd.com/14/
http://xkcd.com/86/


I don't know if anyone else here is into xkcd. If not, I may have just strayed too far in revealing my bizarre sense of humor.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

http://xkcd.com/14/
http://xkcd.com/86/


I don't know if anyone else here is into xkcd. If not, I may have just strayed too far in revealing my bizarre sense of humor.

Ajax

---

Don't worry, you are not alone. :2thumbsup: xkcd has some great strips!

On a related note, the music studios have decided to sue usenet.com ...
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...ac96b95a3324c4

Sorry to un-necrotize this gem from October 2007, but there is new and shocking information:

CNET has the story of Jammie's second trial:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of willful copyright infringement on Thursday in a Minneapolis federal court and must pay the recording industry $1.92 million.

In a surprise decision, the jury imposed damages against Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused to sharing more than 1,700 songs, at a whopping $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was ultimately found guilty of illegally sharing..

In 2007, the Recording Industry Association of America claimed in a lawsuit that Thomas-Rasset pilfered 1,700 songs. The RIAA eventually culled that number down to a representative sample of 24.

Thomas-Rasset lost a previous trial in October 2007 when a jury rendered a $222,000 verdict against the Minnesota native. U.S. District Judge Michael David threw out the decision after acknowledging he erred when giving his jury instructions.

According to Ars Technica reporter Nate Anderson, Thomas-Rasset gasped when the dollar amount was read in court.

For the four largest recording companies, the jury's decision is an affirmation of the legality of the industry's copyright claims.

"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do," said Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman. "We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day 1, we have been willing to settle the case and remain willing to do so."

According to Ben Sheffner, a copyright advocate and former attorney for 20th Century Fox who attended the entire hearing, one of Thomas' attorneys is willing to discuss a settlement with the music industry.

---

Two Million Bucks? Man. That hasta fall under the "excessive bail... fines..." prohibition of the 8th Amendment. Guilty or not.

Just who are these jurists?! That's the part that really gets me. State-sanctioned war on consumers isn't crazy unprecedented. But I'd like to think that the consumers would stick up for themselves...

Didn't lemur post an article about how they stopped suing people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As a card carrying conservative, I feel the need to point out that the problem is more about bad government than capitalism. It's the DMCA and laws like it that enable companies to use such draconian tactics and it creates the legal framework where they can sue away without making a case that could stand up otherwise.

Corporations will always do what they think will make them the most profit- that never changes. You get into trouble when the government starts to take sides and passes laws giving unfair advantages or support like this.
:bow:

---

The corporations control government and force the government through things such as lobbying and filling back pockets so laws like that can be passed, just saying. :bow:

Good luck collecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Good luck collecting.

---

Exactly. How does imposing an uncollectable fine encourage compliance and respect for the law?

A: It doesn't. It rather encourages the opposite: disrespect for the law, hatred of the litigants, and disregard for "the system".

Apparently, Orgahs aren't as well versed with some of the crazier insurance policies marketed out there.....

Sony can file an insurance claim for "unrecoverable damages judgement" and get the insurance company to pay. Which, based on the current state of baillouts....


....means you and me. :inquisitive:

I don't think it's any accident the penalty phase took as long as it did.

I never thought of that, Don; thanks for the insight. :bow:

Woah, I started reading this new thread on copy protection with all those new insights, until I came across a strange post a of a person called Husar that I had never seen before, only to check the post dates... :sweatdrop:

Umm yeah, so 2 million for offering some songs, yeah, right. ~:rolleyes:
Here in europe that would be equal to "enjoy your unemployment money" for most people as it wouldn't really make sense to work anymore for the rest of your life. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Two Million Bucks? Man. That hasta fall under the "excessive bail... fines..." prohibition of the 8th Amendment. Guilty or not.

---

From what I've read, she is guilty of the infringement. Instead of appealing the judgment from the first case, she (or her lawyers) decided to appeal the verdict. Her representation was less than stellar, she was obviously guilty, and the feeling is that the jury decided to punish her for wasting their time.

There is no way the plaintiffs will get that money. Hopefully she appeals again (with better lawyers), and gets this judgment reduced on 8th amendment grounds. Otherwise, they will just garnish her wages for life (25% maximum, I believe), and take her estate when she dies.

There is no way the plaintiffs will get that money. Hopefully she appeals again (with better lawyers), and gets this judgment reduced on 8th amendment grounds. Otherwise, they will just garnish her wages for life (25% maximum, I believe), and take her estate when she dies.

Time to get a battered old camper van and hit the road...

Almost sounds like fun...