AfterDawn: Tech news

Woman to pay full record label damages herself

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 05 Oct 2007 17:23 User comments (39)

Woman to pay full record label damages herself Jammie Thomas, the first person to be found guilty of willful copyright infringement by a jury as a result of an RIAA P2P lawsuit, said that she will not seek any financial help to pay the $220,000 judgment. "I'm not going to ask for financial help," she told The Associated Press on Friday. "If it comes, I'm not going to turn it down, either." Over 26,000 people have been sued by the RIAA for sharing music online.
Thomas' case was the first to make it to trial. She was accused of sharing 1,702 songs using the Kazaa P2P client, but only 24 of those songs were subject at the trial. The jury found that Thomas willfully violated the copyright of all the tracks, and awarded damages of $9,250 per song to the record companies.

This verdict has given the RIAA stronger legal precedence to use in future cases. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis had wanted to instruct the jury that the record companies would have to prove that actual copying took place in order to show copyright infringement. However, record company attorney Richard Gabriel argued that in other cases, simply making files available was found to be infringement, forcing the Judge to change his mind.

"Record labels don't like that because it's harder to prove," said Andrew Bridges, an attorney who has argued for the Computer & Communications Industry Association that copyright holders should have to prove the offered material is actually used. "It's all about whether they get a free pass to impose onerous damages on people without actually having to prove a case."

Source:
Yahoo (AP)

Previous Next  

39 user comments

16.10.2007 4:39
duke8888
Inactive

The RIAA now has set a legal precedence and will go after every Tom Dick and Harry. They will now step up the monitoring of P2P and go after everyone. I quit using the P2P over 2 years ago when a friend of mine at the FBI warned me about the things to come. Hollywood is now going after people who download movies and will be filing law suits in the same fashion they have been compling a list of 1000's of people who have downloaded them. I will buy my media from a legal source if I really want to hear music. I subscribe to Sirius so I get all types of music for my 13 bucks a month. Its a new world we live in.

26.10.2007 5:27
vinny13
Inactive

That's American, right? They can only sue Americans?

36.10.2007 5:34
duke8888
Inactive

No not really, look at what Bush did in Russia he forced them to take down the MP3 website or face financial sanctions. Also look at the UK they are forcing web sites with illegal mp3 and movies to shut down so its not just in the USA. The courts all over the world are full of media types of cases

46.10.2007 5:48

Legal precedence really only makes much of a difference in criminal cases. The most they can do is tell the next jury how they won this case and how it is exactly the same. For a good example of how much trial precedence matters in civil matters, consult the criminal trial of OJ Simpson versus the civil trial of OJ Simpson.

Precedence matters in situations where the law is not clear. An example being if the whole thing went to a criminal trial and that person had a wireless router and still lost. The next prosecutor of a criminal trial could point to that case as precedence for why a wireless router is not a viable defense. Ultimately, precedence makes only a hair of difference in any civil jury trial. It will always be up to 12 of your peers to decide your financial culpability based on your unique circumstances.

In most legal sytems there are two types of precedent, Binding and Persuasive. Binding precedent must be followed. Persuasive precedent is just what it sounds like, an argument for or against something, but not a deciding factor in a case.

Binding precedent only occurs when the matter to be decided is identical to the one currently being decided. This is almost never the case in civil trials and is not the case here.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Oct 2007 @ 6:04

56.10.2007 5:50
vinny13
Inactive

I just hope none of this happens to us Canadians, because were cheap lol

At least I am anyways...

66.10.2007 7:14
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by MrGrimace:
Legal precedence really only makes much of a difference in criminal cases. The most they can do is tell the next jury how they won this case and how it is exactly the same. For a good example of how much trial precedence matters in civil matters, consult the criminal trial of OJ Simpson versus the civil trial of OJ Simpson.

Precedence matters in situations where the law is not clear. An example being if the whole thing went to a criminal trial and that person had a wireless router and still lost. The next prosecutor of a criminal trial could point to that case as precedence for why a wireless router is not a viable defense. Ultimately, precedence makes only a hair of difference in any civil jury trial. It will always be up to 12 of your peers to decide your financial culpability based on your unique circumstances.

In most legal sytems there are two types of precedent, Binding and Persuasive. Binding precedent must be followed. Persuasive precedent is just what it sounds like, an argument for or against something, but not a deciding factor in a case.

Binding precedent only occurs when the matter to be decided is identical to the one currently being decided. This is almost never the case in civil trials and is not the case here.
Most of what you say is true but the future will dictate how and when they go after John Doe if he doesn't settle up and if another jury will give a positive verdict which I think they will do.

76.10.2007 8:25

Quote:

Most of what you say is true but the future will dictate how and when they go after John Doe if he doesn't settle up and if another jury will give a positive verdict which I think they will do.

It is impossible to predict the outcome of any trial without knowing the evidence. I personally think the defendant in this trial had poor evidence to support her claim. Another person might have a different set of circumstances. (Like actually being innocent)
I agree that a legal source is the best option for anyone looking to listen to music (I personally really like the new amazon store and am using it frequently).
I also think that the RIAA and others like them are dying organizations. The chief responsibilities of organizations like the RIAA is to protect their artists interest, to assist in distribution of music to the consumer on a wide scale, and to evaluate and standardize delivery methods for that music. But lets take a look at each of these responsibilities in today's logic.

Evaluate and Standardize Delivery Methods
The RIAA has done an admirable job in keeping all their artists on a similar medium. But in most cases they put out multiple formats and let the consumer decide what they wanted (CDs) and what they didn't want (Digital Tape). The problem is that in a networked world, the consumer can create, use, and improve upon hundreds of different formats. In this case the people have screamed what they want and the RIAA (until recently) ignored their consumer and refused to license any kind of tracks for digital distribution.

Protect Their Artist's Interest
I am confused as to why when I buy a $15 dollar CD that probably cost a total of (being generous) $5 to make and pay the worker to create, that only about $1 (if that) gets into the person actually doing the entertainment. One could rationalize that it costs money to produce the master tracks. But that cost should be more than offset by volume. I look forward to seeing how much radiohead is going to make off of their "pay what you like" for their new CD (I bet its more than they would have made as a CD release)

Distribution
This is, without a doubt, the place where the RIAA had dropped the ball. Because they did not embrace the new format, (which would have cost little as it is digital) they created a situation that lent itself to the only distribution method being illegal. They are finally catching up, but the damage has been done.

So lets see: Standardization; late to the game, Protecting their artists interests; artists would be better served protecting themselves, Distribution; late to the game.

As a result of all their past screw-ups, they are now suing their own consumer base. This will only serve to anger those consumers and push them away from supporting the organization. As the government works for the people and not for a corporation (In a perfect world at any rate), new legislation will support the majority. And the RIAA is slowly poisoning its majority image.

86.10.2007 9:23
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:

Most of what you say is true but the future will dictate how and when they go after John Doe if he doesn't settle up and if another jury will give a positive verdict which I think they will do.

It is impossible to predict the outcome of any trial without knowing the evidence. I personally think the defendant in this trial had poor evidence to support her claim. Another person might have a different set of circumstances. (Like actually being innocent)
I agree that a legal source is the best option for anyone looking to listen to music (I personally really like the new amazon store and am using it frequently).
I also think that the RIAA and others like them are dying organizations. The chief responsibilities of organizations like the RIAA is to protect their artists interest, to assist in distribution of music to the consumer on a wide scale, and to evaluate and standardize delivery methods for that music. But lets take a look at each of these responsibilities in today's logic.

Evaluate and Standardize Delivery Methods
The RIAA has done an admirable job in keeping all their artists on a similar medium. But in most cases they put out multiple formats and let the consumer decide what they wanted (CDs) and what they didn't want (Digital Tape). The problem is that in a networked world, the consumer can create, use, and improve upon hundreds of different formats. In this case the people have screamed what they want and the RIAA (until recently) ignored their consumer and refused to license any kind of tracks for digital distribution.

Protect Their Artist's Interest
I am confused as to why when I buy a $15 dollar CD that probably cost a total of (being generous) $5 to make and pay the worker to create, that only about $1 (if that) gets into the person actually doing the entertainment. One could rationalize that it costs money to produce the master tracks. But that cost should be more than offset by volume. I look forward to seeing how much radiohead is going to make off of their "pay what you like" for their new CD (I bet its more than they would have made as a CD release)

Distribution
This is, without a doubt, the place where the RIAA had dropped the ball. Because they did not embrace the new format, (which would have cost little as it is digital) they created a situation that lent itself to the only distribution method being illegal. They are finally catching up, but the damage has been done.

So lets see: Standardization; late to the game, Protecting their artists interests; artists would be better served protecting themselves, Distribution; late to the game.

As a result of all their past screw-ups, they are now suing their own consumer base. This will only serve to anger those consumers and push them away from supporting the organization. As the government works for the people and not for a corporation (In a perfect world at any rate), new legislation will support the majority. And the RIAA is slowly poisoning its majority image.
The nation's recording industry is hoping publicity over a federal jury's decision ordering a 30-year-old single Minnesota mom to pay a nearly quarter-million-dollar fine for illegally downloading music will finally get the attention of tens of thousands of others across the country.

"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies that sued the 30-year-old woman, said after the verdict was announced late Thursday in Duluth, Minn.

In closing arguments to the jury, the attorney used Cold War-era terminology in asking for a tough verdict in the first recording industry downloading lawsuit to go to trial (many other defendants in similar suits have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars). "I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," Mr. Gabriel told the jurors, who reached their verdict after less than five hours of deliberations.

The attorney's call for more than just a slap on the wrist underscores the grave challenges for the recording industry and its traditional sales model, which has seen already falling sales of CDs plunge another 20 percent the first three months of the year alone, largely because of illegal downloads. A generation of young music fans has grown up downloading music -- both legally and illegally -- and shows little sign of stopping.

Despite more than 20,000 anti-piracy lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Association of America against individual downloaders since 2003, use of peer-to-peer file sharing networks that allows illegal downloads has grown almost 70 percent the same period, according to Web use analysts Big Champagne. The average number of peer-to-peer users grew from 5,518,899 to 9,350,369 in the same span.

Obviously, many downloaders do not think they will be caught, let alone fined. "This is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound," Justin Jacobs, a 20-year-old junior at the University of Pittsburgh, said of the Minnesota jury's decision.

Mr. Jacobs, the assistant arts and entertainment editor at The Pitt News, said the industry should instead be looking at lowering CD prices and other ways of reaching out to young music fans.

"The record industry needs to look at what's really going on here -- instead of saying, 'You shouldn't be downloading,' they should look at why kids are downloading. When they do, they'll realize what every writer and every critic and every fan has been saying for years -- that albums are overpriced, that albums themselves are bloated with tracks that aren't necessary," he said.

It is a watershed period for the recording industry in more ways than one.

Just days ago, as the file-sharing suit was headed to the jury, one of the biggest names in pop music worldwide -- Radiohead -- announced it is releasing its latest record online, letting fans set their own price for the download.

The announcement sent shock waves through the music business, even though the band, not currently signed to a major label, said it may release a traditional, physical version of the album, called "In Rainbows," next year.

In the Minnesota case, single mother Jammie Thomas was accused of using the file-sharing service Kazaa to share 24 songs by bands such as Guns 'N Roses, Aerosmith, Green Day and Gloria Estefan. They were among 1,702 song files the companies alleged she shared in all.

The jury found she broke copyright law by sharing the files and ordered her to pay the six major record companies suing her $9,250 for each of the 24 songs -- $222,000 overall.

Many other file-sharers sued by the RIAA had settled for a few thousand dollars, but she decided to fight in court. Under copyright law, she could have been charged between $750 and $150,000 per infringement.

It was a major win for the recording industry's legal strategy. The judge in the case ruled the jury could find copyright infringement whether or not anyone downloaded the files Ms. Thomas shared. Just placing the songs on the file-sharing service was illegal.

That is bad news for file-sharing services, said Randall A. Notzen, a partner at The Webb Law Firm, a leading Pittsburgh intellectual property firm.

"The jury in this case in effect emphasized that those who sign up for free file-sharing services, when there is also other evidence of copyright infringement, are not in a position of saying they did not know what they were doing.

This case will likely have a larger impact of tending to pressure, and ultimately erode, free file-sharing services that share copyrighted materials," Mr. Notzen said.

The verdict could also embolden legal efforts by other traditional media outlets going through growing pains -- and losing money -- in the digital age.

On the same day as the file-sharing verdict, NBC Universal Chief Executive Officer Jeff Zucker told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that "we are losing the battle" against computer piracy and joined calls to name a White House anti-piracy czar to oversee national policing efforts.

Mr. Zucker touted a study from a group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey claiming piracy is a $60-billion-a-year enterprise, costing the U.S. economy 373,000 jobs and $2.6 billion in lost taxes.

Others, including consumer and intellectual freedom groups, respond that downloading and computer usage will not go away, and the entertainment industry must find a way to embrace it, rather than go after their fans with lawsuits.

"Every lawsuit makes the recording industry look more and more like King Canute, vainly trying to hold back the tide," wrote Hugh D'Andrade of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit.

"As for EFF, we continue to believe there is a better way forward."

96.10.2007 9:42

So... is that the associated press article?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Oct 2007 @ 9:55

106.10.2007 11:22

Ok it's one thing if someone in your family needs an operation and you have to pay an absurd amount of money for medical care, or maybe you have a civil suit brought against you for an actual crime that truly affects another person. Those are two examples that you really don't have any choice but to pay the allotted amount of money.

This case however has no legitimate purpose; you have a single mother who has to worry about her kidís future. Health care, college, and the overall quality of life should be the first and foremost things parents have to consider. Well the judicial system has decided that paying a quarter million dollars to various corporations comes before all of that.

The riaa president was on cnn yesterday, he had the balls to say that they had no hand in the amount of money to be paid for the 24 songs and that "the amount was entirely up to the jury". When asked if the riaa would pursue the full $220,000 he tried to brush the question off, (even that blood sucking piece of crap knows how bad this decision makes him and the riaa look). When he was specifically asked if they were actively pursing the full amount of money he said something along the lines of,"$220,000 is much higher than the average settlement for similar cases and given the circumstances of this case we would be willing to settle for less... but the defendant has refused to talk to our lawyers". So after all of his bs/pr spin he blames the jury for this woman having to pay them in installments for the majority of her life.

The sad thing is I think it will take a half dozen similar cases before the american public even bats an eye, and several more cases before serious questions are asked bringing this crap to an end. Ultimately I believe that the riaa getting their way will lead to their own demise. They can buy all the power they want but once the public turns against them all the money and power actually works against them, anyone remember Enron?

116.10.2007 11:51
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by redux79:
Ok it's one thing if someone in your family needs an operation and you have to pay an absurd amount of money for medical care, or maybe you have a civil suit brought against you for an actual crime that truly affects another person. Those are two examples that you really don't have any choice but to pay the allotted amount of money.

This case however has no legitimate purpose; you have a single mother who has to worry about her kidís future. Health care, college, and the overall quality of life should be the first and foremost things parents have to consider. Well the judicial system has decided that paying a quarter million dollars to various corporations comes before all of that.

The riaa president was on cnn yesterday, he had the balls to say that they had no hand in the amount of money to be paid for the 24 songs and that "the amount was entirely up to the jury". When asked if the riaa would pursue the full $220,000 he tried to brush the question off, (even that blood sucking piece of crap knows how bad this decision makes him and the riaa look). When he was specifically asked if they were actively pursing the full amount of money he said something along the lines of,"$220,000 is much higher than the average settlement for similar cases and given the circumstances of this case we would be willing to settle for less... but the defendant has refused to talk to our lawyers". So after all of his bs/pr spin he blames the jury for this woman having to pay them in installments for the majority of her life.

The sad thing is I think it will take a half dozen similar cases before the american public even bats an eye, and several more cases before serious questions are asked bringing this crap to an end. Ultimately I believe that the riaa getting their way will lead to their own demise. They can buy all the power they want but once the public turns against them all the money and power actually works against them, anyone remember Enron?
The issue isn't about money! Its about principle of the issue. For years people have been getting free songs without having to pay for them. Your example about the medical expenses doesn't apply in this case its to bad she was stupid to go to trial and lost and she was very fortunate the amount was that low. The RIAA didn't have a hand in the amount awarded as that is controlled by the courts/jury. Forget about ENRON that was criminal. Its like saying you work hard for your money and you have all of the hight toys you would want and then someday people walk into your house and pick and chose what they want and take them you would be mad as you had the rights to those items, the same thing applies to the songs she didn't have the rights to share them for free without cost. This is not a free society you pay for what you want and need. So the outcome of this trial was fair to both sides. This is going to make people who use P2P who downloads music, video, and copyright software take notice go get a job and pay for them if you need them!

126.10.2007 12:00

On a side note. I was wondering if anyone knows the way the RIAA got their information. This is entirely a civil case. How did they get permission to search this woman's computer etc... Assuming the police obtained the information, why are the police executing search warrants for civil cases? Just a thought.

136.10.2007 12:01
duke8888
Inactive

I was involved in a copyrighted issue which was the first of its kind back in 1993 by Playboy and it set the standard for the courts to follow: I lost and was lucky I didn't have to pay what she did. They went after me because I was a small site without deep pockets to defend my case and I lost and signed a no disclosure agreement as terms of the judgement.

Here is a brief Copyright History

1990 - Circulation of Computer Software

A modification of the first sale doctrine to prohibit commercial lending of computer software. Libraries can still lend software provided the "copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright."

1992 - Amendment to Section 304 of Title 17

Congress made the previously optional extended period of copyright protection an automatic renewal. This dramatically curtails the entry into public domain works protected by copyright before 1978.

1993 - Playboy Enterprises Inc. vs. Frena

The Florida Northern District Court found that Frena, an electronic bulletin board operator, had violated Playboy's copyright when one of their photographs was digitized by one subscriber and downloaded by another. "Intent to infringe is not needed to find copyright infringement. Intent or knowledge is not an element of infringement, and thus even an innocent infringer is liable for infringement; rather innocence is significant to trial court when it fixes statutory damages, which is a remedy equitable in nature."
1994 - Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music Inc.
The Supreme Court ruled that 2 Live Crew's paraody of Roy Orbison's song, "Pretty Woman", was fair use. The court found that a commercial use could be a fair use especially when the markets for an original work and a transformative work are different.

1996 - Database Protection Act

A bill introduced to protect databases for 15 years from unauthorized extractions of more than an insubstantial part of the database contents. Extremely controversial legislation, with many attempts at crafting a compromise from 1999 - 2002.

146.10.2007 12:04
duke8888
Inactive

Here is more legal information explainning the issues at hand.

http://www.law.stetson.edu/courses/mfkline.htm

I was in her shoes and I know how it feels but she was stupid enough not to pay the few thousands dollars I had no such choice.

156.10.2007 12:06

^^^ dugg down for crazy pro riaa rant

166.10.2007 12:11
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by MrGrimace:
On a side note. I was wondering if anyone knows the way the RIAA got their information. This is entirely a civil case. How did they get permission to search this woman's computer etc... Assuming the police obtained the information, why are the police executing search warrants for civil cases? Just a thought.
This is how they do it, first they hire a forensic consultant who in turn can monitor the P2P software for files in folders, sharing and files downloaded. It is the same software that the FBI uses, they then goy a court order but she tried to reformat the hard drive but she put the P2P software back on her system and what got her the judge said she had the download file on her system and to him that was enough proof. Innocent people don't reformat their hard drives!

176.10.2007 12:13
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by plutonash:
^^^ dugg down for crazy pro riaa rant
I am not pro RIAA and I don't wave their banner for them. But when a company or person holds rights to items it is theirs. I have copyrights on my photos I use to have for my web site and if you took them and started to sell them I would come after you as well. If someone took money out of your bank account you would go after them as well. So don't say I am pro RIAA

186.10.2007 12:19
duke8888
Inactive

A lot of people using this system really don't see the big picture here. They don't understand the legal side of the issue. All they see are I can be next for stealing software/videos/music and that sucks I don't want to pay for them I want them for free. Hit them were it hurts don't buy their music/videos/software that will hurt them in their pockets and by downloading them you are hurting them in their pockets. If I want a song I will go to a paid site and pay for it. I will not buy Microsoft Vista Operating system as I do not want to pay for headaches to a giant rich corporation who is trying to control the world. So why would I want that piece of crap on my system for free? The day of free lunches looks like they are at its end so all should be aware they are watching and searching you out. I had my daughter remove her P2P software over q year ago as I didn't want to have any problems and the smart users will do he same. The rebels won't do that they will keep doing what they have been doing until they get caught to their stupidity!

196.10.2007 12:29
duke8888
Inactive

The next cases we are going to see is by Hollywood in reference for movies.

Hollywood had court papers served in the past to the people who wrote Decrypting software:

DVD Decrypter
DVD Shrink
RipIt4Me

They had to take down their sites and remove their software and now the only place you can get them are overseas. The author for DVD Decrypter lived in the UK and he was told if he continued to develope updates he would be sorry. The same went to the other authors.

For the past 2 years they have been monitoring the web for video downloads and they know everyone who posted and shares them. A friend who works for the FBI said lots of this info was provided by the operators of those Warez sites they arrested. So a list exists and how they plan on using who knows.

206.10.2007 12:43

Quote:
Originally posted by plutonash:
^^^ dugg down for crazy pro riaa rant
I am not pro RIAA and I don't wave their banner for them. But when a company or person holds rights to items it is theirs. I have copyrights on my photos I use to have for my web site and if you took them and started to sell them I would come after you as well. If someone took money out of your bank account you would go after them as well. So don't say I am pro RIAA
This is slightly different. In this case the money is still there in the bank account. The person just has a counterfeit perfect copy of it. Chances are pretty good the people who are downloading these songs for free weren't going to buy them anyway. The whole issue gets into the fuzzy issue of potential income. I agree illegal file-sharing is wrong, but I think you could use a better metaphor.

You seem rather adamant about this whole thing and I think it is great to have a different opinion on a board like this one.

216.10.2007 13:05
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by plutonash:
^^^ dugg down for crazy pro riaa rant
I am not pro RIAA and I don't wave their banner for them. But when a company or person holds rights to items it is theirs. I have copyrights on my photos I use to have for my web site and if you took them and started to sell them I would come after you as well. If someone took money out of your bank account you would go after them as well. So don't say I am pro RIAA
This is slightly different. In this case the money is still there in the bank account. The person just has a counterfeit perfect copy of it. Chances are pretty good the people who are downloading these songs for free weren't going to buy them anyway. The whole issue gets into the fuzzy issue of potential income. I agree illegal file-sharing is wrong, but I think you could use a better metaphor.

You seem rather adamant about this whole thing and I think it is great to have a different opinion on a board like this one.
If people would stop buying it would hurt them where it counts in their bank accounts but music/software/movies are like electronic drugs there will always be a need for them by the junkies who crave them. As for me I refuse to buy MS Vista because of the strict copyright guards in place. Recently they had a bug disable 1000's of legal owners of their software causing them to hurry and get out a fix. This is bad PR for MS as usual but they are the only game in town so we are at their mercy. The sales for this version of their operating system is way behind and some PC makers are going back to XP for their customer systems. That tells you MS does it again they should be the ones to pay for their stupid bug ridden software , just stop buying it. Because of the slow sales this is slowing down their development on their next release.....

226.10.2007 13:50

Quote:
The issue isn't about money! Itís about principle of the issue

Actually it is about money, the money a single mother isn't going to have for her kids. How long would it take you to pay $220,000? the principal of the issue is the fact that by simply sharing songs an entire family's life is ruined. Is it illegal yes, does the punishment fit the crime? hell no!

Quote:
Your example about the medical expenses doesn't apply in this case itís to bad she was stupid to go to trial and lost and she was very fortunate the amount was that low.

The medical expense analogy was pointing out a more dignified way to put someone in debt for life. maybe she was stupid, but the amount was defiantly not low.

Quote:
The RIAA didn't have a hand in the amount awarded as that is controlled by the courts/jury. Forget about ENRON that was criminal.

The lawyers paid by the riaa influence the court/jury and manipulate them. This ruling against this woman is criminal mainly because she is never going to be able to pull 220,000 dollars out of her a**. The riaa has certain similarities to Enron, like the extreme lack of oversight and the iron curtain that surrounds their ivory tower preventing anyone from seeing the methods behind their madness.

Quote:
Its like saying you work hard for your money and you have all of the hight toys you would want and then someday people walk into your house and pick and chose what they want and take them you would be mad as you had the rights to those items, the same thing applies to the songs she didn't have the rights to share them for free without cost.

First of all a song isn't a material object, its not like a chair or tv it has monetary value but it's only data. The "walking into peopleís houses" is what happened to this woman. people accessed her computer and made copies of the songs in her shared folder. The question is did she know about this and if she did was she fully aware of the consequences?

Quote:
This is not a free society you pay for what you want and need. So the outcome of this trial was fair to both sides.

No this is a capitalist society soon to be a police state if cases like this continue to be taken seriously. Ok fair on both sides? the riaa lawyers and spokesmen are practically immune to individual attack and act as a whole to ruin one personís life only to make an example out of them.

Quote:
This is going to make people who use P2P who downloads music, video, and copyright software take notice go get a job and pay for them if you need them!

People do pay for all of those things and no one needs them, it's a matter of knowing if you actually want them. Some would just like to sample them to make sure they're not buying a crappy movie or cd and never watch or listen to it again.

Even if she blatantly "stole" all of those songs how is a $220,000 fine justified? yes she did something stupid and she should in some way pay for it, but this isn't just about her itís about her kids as well. The riaa are responsible for jeopardizing the future of a family. The riaa doesn't need all that money, thatís chump change to them. They're are plenty of other ways this case could of been handled with out bringing in the financial aspect. sadly when news like this comes out the only thing the majority of people pay attention to is the amount of money not the reasons why, it's shock value and nothing more.

236.10.2007 14:00
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
The issue isn't about money! Itís about principle of the issue

Actually it is about money, the money a single mother isn't going to have for her kids. How long would it take you to pay $220,000? the principal of the issue is the fact that by simply sharing songs an entire family's life is ruined. Is it illegal yes, does the punishment fit the crime? hell no!

Quote:
Your example about the medical expenses doesn't apply in this case itís to bad she was stupid to go to trial and lost and she was very fortunate the amount was that low.

The medical expense analogy was pointing out a more dignified way to put someone in debt for life. maybe she was stupid, but the amount was defiantly not low.

Quote:
The RIAA didn't have a hand in the amount awarded as that is controlled by the courts/jury. Forget about ENRON that was criminal.

The lawyers paid by the riaa influence the court/jury and manipulate them. This ruling against this woman is criminal mainly because she is never going to be able to pull 220,000 dollars out of her a**. The riaa has certain similarities to Enron, like the extreme lack of oversight and the iron curtain that surrounds their ivory tower preventing anyone from seeing the methods behind their madness.

Quote:
Its like saying you work hard for your money and you have all of the hight toys you would want and then someday people walk into your house and pick and chose what they want and take them you would be mad as you had the rights to those items, the same thing applies to the songs she didn't have the rights to share them for free without cost.

First of all a song isn't a material object, its not like a chair or tv it has monetary value but it's only data. The "walking into peopleís houses" is what happened to this woman. people accessed her computer and made copies of the songs in her shared folder. The question is did she know about this and if she did was she fully aware of the consequences?

Quote:
This is not a free society you pay for what you want and need. So the outcome of this trial was fair to both sides.

No this is a capitalist society soon to be a police state if cases like this continue to be taken seriously. Ok fair on both sides? the riaa lawyers and spokesmen are practically immune to individual attack and act as a whole to ruin one personís life only to make an example out of them.

Quote:
This is going to make people who use P2P who downloads music, video, and copyright software take notice go get a job and pay for them if you need them!

People do pay for all of those things and no one needs them, it's a matter of knowing if you actually want them. Some would just like to sample them to make sure they're not buying a crappy movie or cd and never watch or listen to it again.

Even if she blatantly "stole" all of those songs how is a $220,000 fine justified? yes she did something stupid and she should in some way pay for it, but this isn't just about her itís about her kids as well. The riaa are responsible for jeopardizing the future of a family. The riaa doesn't need all that money, thatís chump change to them. They're are plenty of other ways this case could of been handled with out bringing in the financial aspect. sadly when news like this comes out the only thing the majority of people pay attention to is the amount of money not the reasons why, it's shock value and nothing more.
Again she was stupid to go to trial she could have gotten off with a fine of $2,000.00 she was given bad advise possibily a lawyer as that is who makes out on cases like this. Yes her life is ruin as she will never be able to own anything again, nor will she be able to get a checking account or savings as soon as the accounts are open the courts will seize them. If she owns a home she will have a judgement against it so yes you are right they ruined her life forever just her mistake to go to trial and a victory for the bad guys they got what they wanted a dumb shumck to take them on so they could prove this issue and now have a foundation to take on all commers.

246.10.2007 14:03

Originally posted by duke8888:
The next cases we are going to see is by Hollywood in reference for movies.

Hollywood had court papers served in the past to the people who wrote Decrypting software:

DVD Decrypter
DVD Shrink
RipIt4Me

They had to take down their sites and remove their software and now the only place you can get them are overseas. The author for DVD Decrypter lived in the UK and he was told if he continued to develope updates he would be sorry. The same went to the other authors.

For the past 2 years they have been monitoring the web for video downloads and they know everyone who posted and shares them. A friend who works for the FBI said lots of this info was provided by the operators of those Warez sites they arrested. So a list exists and how they plan on using who knows.
A simple Google search will give you access to DVDdecrypter, shrink and many other dvd ripping and authoring programs, for free. That has nothing to do with downloaded videos. Warez sites? Until not too long ago all of those programs could be found here on AD, hardly a "Warez" site. Only because of changes to Finnish law did their availability here become an issue.

256.10.2007 14:14

This just goes to show you that the RIAA has too much money and are willing to spend millions for these suits. Whether they have enough evidence or not they don't care. Cause enough chaos to scare people and that suits them just fine. They complain of no money but what of the money they use now?
I can't believe (but know it true) that this is the world today where corporations are given the right to destroy everyday people. Corporations today are becoming vicious and cruel just to maintain dominance. All hail the mighty $.

266.10.2007 14:18
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Originally posted by duke8888:
The next cases we are going to see is by Hollywood in reference for movies.

Hollywood had court papers served in the past to the people who wrote Decrypting software:

DVD Decrypter
DVD Shrink
RipIt4Me

They had to take down their sites and remove their software and now the only place you can get them are overseas. The author for DVD Decrypter lived in the UK and he was told if he continued to develope updates he would be sorry. The same went to the other authors.

For the past 2 years they have been monitoring the web for video downloads and they know everyone who posted and shares them. A friend who works for the FBI said lots of this info was provided by the operators of those Warez sites they arrested. So a list exists and how they plan on using who knows.
A simple Google search will give you access to DVDdecrypter, shrink and many other dvd ripping and authoring programs, for free. That has nothing to do with downloaded videos. Warez sites? Until not too long ago all of those programs could be found here on AD, hardly a "Warez" site. Only because of changes to Finnish law did their availability here become an issue.
It does have to do with the issue we are talking about infrigment wherther they are downloaded as they had to be decrypted before being posted! I know two of the authors and they told me the whole story. You can download those programs but companies like Sony have copy guards that these programs are usless against! RipIt$Me took the prior two programs and urtilize it into his package but they came for him and he had to cease as he was smart and didn't want to be made an example of like Ms Thomas!

276.10.2007 14:50

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by duke8888:
The next cases we are going to see is by Hollywood in reference for movies.

Hollywood had court papers served in the past to the people who wrote Decrypting software:

DVD Decrypter
DVD Shrink
RipIt4Me

They had to take down their sites and remove their software and now the only place you can get them are overseas. The author for DVD Decrypter lived in the UK and he was told if he continued to develope updates he would be sorry. The same went to the other authors.

For the past 2 years they have been monitoring the web for video downloads and they know everyone who posted and shares them. A friend who works for the FBI said lots of this info was provided by the operators of those Warez sites they arrested. So a list exists and how they plan on using who knows.
A simple Google search will give you access to DVDdecrypter, shrink and many other dvd ripping and authoring programs, for free. That has nothing to do with downloaded videos. Warez sites? Until not too long ago all of those programs could be found here on AD, hardly a "Warez" site. Only because of changes to Finnish law did their availability here become an issue.
It does have to do with the issue we are talking about infrigment wherther they are downloaded as they had to be decrypted before being posted! I know two of the authors and they told me the whole story. You can download those programs but companies like Sony have copy guards that these programs are usless against! RipIt$Me took the prior two programs and urtilize it into his package but they came for him and he had to cease as he was smart and didn't want to be made an example of like Ms Thomas!
Sorry, what I meant was downloaded videos have nothing to do with the DVD programs. Sony ARccOS protecftion is easily circumvented with other programs, as DVD decrypter has not been in development for sometime. Even so there are still ways to use DVD decrypter to rip DVDs with recently updated copy protection. There are several guides here on AD.

286.10.2007 16:24
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by duke8888:
The next cases we are going to see is by Hollywood in reference for movies.

Hollywood had court papers served in the past to the people who wrote Decrypting software:

DVD Decrypter
DVD Shrink
RipIt4Me

They had to take down their sites and remove their software and now the only place you can get them are overseas. The author for DVD Decrypter lived in the UK and he was told if he continued to develope updates he would be sorry. The same went to the other authors.

For the past 2 years they have been monitoring the web for video downloads and they know everyone who posted and shares them. A friend who works for the FBI said lots of this info was provided by the operators of those Warez sites they arrested. So a list exists and how they plan on using who knows.
A simple Google search will give you access to DVDdecrypter, shrink and many other dvd ripping and authoring programs, for free. That has nothing to do with downloaded videos. Warez sites? Until not too long ago all of those programs could be found here on AD, hardly a "Warez" site. Only because of changes to Finnish law did their availability here become an issue.
It does have to do with the issue we are talking about infrigment wherther they are downloaded as they had to be decrypted before being posted! I know two of the authors and they told me the whole story. You can download those programs but companies like Sony have copy guards that these programs are usless against! RipIt$Me took the prior two programs and urtilize it into his package but they came for him and he had to cease as he was smart and didn't want to be made an example of like Ms Thomas!
Sorry, what I meant was downloaded videos have nothing to do with the DVD programs. Sony ARccOS protecftion is easily circumvented with other programs, as DVD decrypter has not been in development for sometime. Even so there are still ways to use DVD decrypter to rip DVDs with recently updated copy protection. There are several guides here on AD.
Yes there is but it requires several programs to do many steps that the program did in one. I use DVDFab HD Decrypter it is the best and easiest to use why clutter up your system with all of those programs. I can't understand why Sony does the changes so often there are fixes for it in hours a waste of their time and they aren't fooling anybody.

296.10.2007 17:00

I agree, DVDFab HD Decrypter is one of the best and easiest to use all in one programs, with an excellent free version as well. As I mentioned, the ARccOS protection is easily circumvented, DVDFab is updated every 1-2 weeks.

So, are you saying that you make backups of your legally owned DVD collection? Considering your previous experience with similiar matters...once bitten, twice shy, as they say :].

306.10.2007 17:20
xhardc0re
Inactive

can she declare bankruptcy & give Hollywood the Middle Finger? LOL!

316.10.2007 18:14

9,250 bucks for 3 minute .WAV file that's plain obscene.

326.10.2007 20:43
vinny13
Inactive

Originally posted by Leningrad:
9,250 bucks for 3 minute .WAV file that's plain obscene.
.WAV? Dude WTF is wrong with that jury! There .WAV files for God sake! Where are the .MP3? Or .AAC? Anything but .WAV, except for that other one that starts with a .F...

If I was put in that situation, I would say,"Screw ya'll," and pay a maximum of all those song's CDs in total. It's only fair.

337.10.2007 1:15

Quote:

The issue isn't about money! Its about principle of the issue. For years people have been getting free songs without having to pay for them. Your example about the medical expenses doesn't apply in this case its to bad she was stupid to go to trial and lost and she was very fortunate the amount was that low. The RIAA didn't have a hand in the amount awarded as that is controlled by the courts/jury. Forget about ENRON that was criminal. Its like saying you work hard for your money and you have all of the hight toys you would want and then someday people walk into your house and pick and chose what they want and take them you would be mad as you had the rights to those items, the same thing applies to the songs she didn't have the rights to share them for free without cost. This is not a free society you pay for what you want and need. So the outcome of this trial was fair to both sides. This is going to make people who use P2P who downloads music, video, and copyright software take notice go get a job and pay for them if you need them!
Your excuse is very poor at best, it doesn't follow the law at all.

This person has said they didn't have the sogs nor the P2P program installed the RIAA exp[ert also confirmed this.

The problem with your example is that the people have the stuff on them, you keep forgetting this for some reason.

This is the example you should have used:
You go and buy music
then you blame someone else for stealing your music then sue them
they can prove that they don't have the music etc
yet your still paid out

becuase the law has it that if your sued for stealing then your up for paying what ever the fine that is given.

You keep th8inking that these people have the stuff on them and get found out having it, but even the RIAA experts don't find anything to prove they have the stuff on them.

This isn't the same case as what you got busted for becuase you had the photos, this person had nothing yet still got fined.

I don't live in Amercia... (thank god for that I think) yet I would assume this to go against the core laws in the USA.

347.10.2007 1:21

Originally posted by duke8888:

For the past 2 years they have been monitoring the web for video downloads and they know everyone who posted and shares them. A friend who works for the FBI said lots of this info was provided by the operators of those Warez sites they arrested. So a list exists and how they plan on using who knows.

There's a big big differance between wearz and scene mate.

Scene don't sit in the public.

As for DVD decrytor the code as a program isn't allowed on a computer but if you have it writen your allowed to have it by law in the USA.

You can buy the T-Shirts with the code on it.

The funny thing is it was the MPAA that released the code, they left papers on a desk and they got photographed by the media who then put the code up all over the net and news papers etc.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 07 Oct 2007 @ 1:27

357.10.2007 5:50
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Originally posted by duke8888:

For the past 2 years they have been monitoring the web for video downloads and they know everyone who posted and shares them. A friend who works for the FBI said lots of this info was provided by the operators of those Warez sites they arrested. So a list exists and how they plan on using who knows.

There's a big big differance between wearz and scene mate.

Scene don't sit in the public.

As for DVD decrytor the code as a program isn't allowed on a computer but if you have it writen your allowed to have it by law in the USA.

You can buy the T-Shirts with the code on it.

The funny thing is it was the MPAA that released the code, they left papers on a desk and they got photographed by the media who then put the code up all over the net and news papers etc.
Yes they were very unsecure in their info they have noboby but themseleves for that one LOL>

367.10.2007 5:52
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by xhardc0re:
can she declare bankruptcy & give Hollywood the Middle Finger? LOL!
Banlruptcy will not dismiss a judgement handed down by the courts OJ tried that with no luck every penny he gets go to the familys of the decease.... She is screwed for life thats what happens when you take advise from scum sucking lawyers she should have paid the 2 grand and end of story.

377.10.2007 11:48
japhy
Inactive

Another case of where only the slime ball lawyers win. This issue would be mute if music was affordable to buy. I will say hell no to buying a 15 year old CD for 15.99, who in there right mind would pay that much.

Thankfully there are wonderful Russian sites where I can buy my classics at a reasonable price.

PS. duke8888 I do buy Cd's but I refuse to pay more then 9.99 for a CD. That is why download services are so attractive to the average person, you can buy that one good song off an album for .99 and give the rest of the album the bird. You can tell that to your guerrilla marketing bosses.

3814.10.2007 1:02

Quote:
This is how they do it, first they hire a forensic consultant who in turn can monitor the P2P software for files in folders, sharing and files downloaded. It is the same software that the FBI uses, they then goy a court order but she tried to reformat the hard drive but she put the P2P software back on her system and what got her the judge said she had the download file on her system and to him that was enough proof. Innocent people don't reformat their hard drives!
This is stupid. A lot of Linux distributions are available for free download by way only of P2P. Quite a lot of them cannot afford the bandwidth charge that hundreds of thousands of downloads would entail.

Although I have not much interest in most of the music available on P2P I do have uTorrent that I use for my Linux work.

I do format my hard disk frequently. May be the RIAA should now go after all the possible P2P client hosting sites & get the info on all those who downloaded the software. With a judge taking such a view they can't lose!

3917.10.2007 3:21

Well i wonder what she does if she can afford to pay this herself.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive