jury was bought by the RIAA or something. 24 songs does not = $222,000 in loss.

*laughs at yet another uninformed poster who thinks he's got it nailed*

I think the law was designed for people and/or companies that make money off of copyright infringement. The values make sense in that instance, however, here, where no money was made, this is just a complete display of a ****ed up legal system. The punishment here does NOT fit the crime.

Couldn't agree more.

It makes me remember the Holy Inquisition, but not in the name of God this time. I agree totally with you.

It makes me remember the Holy Inquisition

What?!?!?

How the f*ck old *are* you??

Here's a little advice for all you people with wireless networks. DO NOT BROADCAST YOUR SSID. It's awful hard for the neighbors to log on if they can't see it.

I'm sure a lot of people who are getting letters from the RIAA are regular families with poorly set up unsecured wireless networks where half the nieghborhood can log and use Kazaa and all those other malware infested P2P's.

Non-broadcasting SSID, WPA2, only specific MACs allowed.

The only issue here is that if someone does break in (it is possible, and actually not all that hard), it will be that much harder to claim it wasn't you doing it with all that security.

"DO NOT BROADCAST YOUR SSID. It's awful hard for the neighbors to log on if they can't see it."

I can discover your "non-broadcast" SSID in less then 30 seconds...

With pre-calculated tables available for WPA/WPA2, nowadays you MUST be versed in some kind of security if you're going to be "reasonably" secure. Reminds me of a great story around my way here in Athens with a WPA2 guy who's SSID was, "good_luck". I'm sure he was surprised a few days later when he saw an extra machine on his network by the name of "mr_lucky".

Who cares about wireless security? I just vpn through it anyway.

Which totally isn't the point here. VPN isn't going to stop anyone from hacking access to your wireless network. All it will do is keep them from the VPN tunnel, and thus the network you're connecting to.

...unless it's a hardware wireless VPN, which is also totally not what we're talking about here. :)

The outcome was quite obvious before the actual trial. End of that story.

Maybe this attack against young people downloads is beginning to kill the golden eggs hen of giant record sales. I do not download myself, but I know several youngsters who use to do it regularly (I don't know any grown up at all), and in spite of the download all they like to have also the originals when they love the singer and have money to buy it. Bad singers instead never sell anyway. Music is essentially passion like football, and passionate people don't mind to spend money in records the same way that football lovers go to to the stadium even when they could spare by seeing the match on the TV screen. IMHO P2p interchange means losses, but it also means unexpensive advertising and promotion of the original records and an increase in the number of sales.

For every person who downloads, then buys there will always be someone who downloads and has no intention of buying.
Originals are great and I too like to have a physical copy to prove I am a fan :)
A company would much rather you buy something and find out you dont like it rather than steal something and find out you dont like it. It's the business of making money we like it or not. There is nothing in the world that justifys someone breaking a copyright law so they can sample unless their countries laws state otherwise.
Problem is these record companies like to compair today with the 'old times' when piracy was notwhere near as widespread as well.

"For every person who downloads, then buys there will always be someone who downloads and has no intention of buying". I agree with you. I wonder how many would in fact buy the original, nobody knows.
On the other side I believe times have changed for the worst against recording companies interests. Before computers age the interchange of recorded tapes and radio recorded music was very common between youngsters. You may invent computers, but you can't "uninvent" them, and nowadays we have even computer operative systems specially designed for multimedia which implement fast download and the Mp3 format as standards. Even if there were not downloads nobody is able to forbid anybody to send copies by email or use any other possible interchange system instead of paying for an original. Youngsters are very clever for it. IMO if music trade doesn't pay enough for their investments the owners of music trade should consider the convenience of investing in any other economic field instead of pursuing young people. You can't move history backwards, nor become younger, I'm afraid!

Yes even in those old days I guess they had no way whatsoever to measure even roughly how many copyright violations were occurring with teenagers copying tapes. As technology has progressed they slowly have seen the bigger picture of it all.
But also, back then all those violations happened on a personal level. You copied the latest Megadeth album from your friend or neighbour.
These days there’s absolutely no social aspect to it. Click a few buttons and you got it from lord knows where - but you got it.
I don’t know about you but when I was young, if I found a friend who had some music I liked I got excited and asked for a copy. There’s no excitement now because from day 1 I could get that music :)

Napster brought pirated music to the masses, damage done we cant reverse that now.

I agree totally.

She outa be waterboarded with our usual gentle touch, warmth and kindness. Then a short 5 year stint in Gitmo should show her the error of her ways.
Having just had a very brief glance at Anticrist's post, perhaps there are more out there that need some gentle persuasion.

What HYPOCRISY. SONY/BMG provides thieves with the means to steal their own copyrighted music. They sell computers, CD/DVD burners and blank disks to the thieves. Anybody can purchase a SONY CD/DVD duplicator, on line for about $1500.00. Who needs to make 6 bootleg copies of a new album or the latest movie at a time? Thieves need that many copies to sell for dirty money and a tax free income.

This corrupt record company/movie studio corporation is no better than crooked drug dealing cops; who turn around and arrest junkies. KCUF SONY/BMG...

Uh...

You do know that burners are used for legit purposes as well, don't you?

Not everyone who owns a burner uses it to violate copyright. :)

So the ISP logs is receivable as evidence to declare someone guilty? How to prove that AnySong.mp3 is really a song? This could be a holiday picture erroneously named with extension MP3.

"While plaintiffs' corporate representatives, including Sony BMG's, gave testimony based on opinions that have been met with considerable skepticism - such as the contention that all ripping of music from CD, even for personal use, constitutes theft"

Sooo In their mindset, Even tho I run a Media Center for my house. Burning my music to it, to use from my main PC, through out my house's different zones. Is illegal.... or am I mis-reading thier logic.

Just when you thought the communists could not sink any lower....

wow....

I feel for this person, but she should have done her homework and known better. If we're going to ice these f*cking demons in less then 10 years, the least people can do is exercise some god-dam COMMON SENSE! For goodness sakes MAN, you know this isn't a game anymore and that these tyrants are destroying (or otherwise throwing into shambles) REAL LIVES in the REAL WORLD now.

Fight back, share, download day and night, don't give a cent but Jesus Christ start paying attention to HOW you do it and again, do you homework so you don't wind up a martyr like this poor, obviously uninformed person.

The RIAA/MPAA will eventually come to their knees but if people keep doing stupid sh*t openly like this then this thing is going to get overheated very fast.

Special Note to Antichrist: Keep posting links like that man, I can see you're on the right side.. good show! :) :)

More people should use this site before putting music in their sharing folder: http://www.riaaradar.com/

4. Use the "Find similar RIAA-free albums" link next to any search result to find up to 10 RIAA-free alternatives to the albums you know you like.

What's the point in that? If your searching for a particular album, you want that album not another artist with a RIAA free label.

The point is thta most people going to that site are trying to avoid RIAA labels. Thus, the site gives you alternatives based on your selections that are not signed with a RIAA affiliated label.

Neat, huh?

i dont get something
the user was found guilty from having tracks not paid for ...right ?
why wernt those where the music came from present?
i dont use kaza ...does it work like some other p2p programs where part of a file comes from many users ?
If yes why were they not present ?
sounds like only one was singled out in this case.(what ever happen to If you were there and didnt pull the trigger your just as guilty?)

i think my point is that If every one that was part of this picture (other then one person)the jury would see all of what happen.
maybe a decision could be split
between all involved rather then just one.
eample:
222,000 others guilty = 1 dollar each

one last question(s)
where would i go to see a proof document to see who legaly owns a song?
i hear it on the radio ...but how do i know they have a right to broadcast it.
i hear it on cable/sat/others
hows do i check to see IF any of those have a right ?
just asking because It seems that the law is unclear and i dont want RIAA taking me to court for something that i do not understand but yet could get trapped in to.

an additional thought I had.

I wonder if...as a hypothetical...we can - by examining the chain of evidence they used to link to this person - understand how to inculcate ourselves from the consequences of infringing actions if we were to engage in them. Horribly immoral to actually do so, mind you, but probably won't harm our eternal souls to examine it dispassionately in the realm of the hypothetical.

Here is what it looks like to me:

Infringing song downloaded by RIAA's storm troopers
=>
IP Address and usage logs linking time/day, public IP, and (possibly) username presented to court.
=>
subpeona presented to ISP who provides name/address of a specific internet access account.
=>
Defendant served with lawsuit.

The tough one for them is how to Prove through the weight of evidence that the person being sued is the one that (with intent) made the songs available by sharing them.

They can do this in two ways:
By making it clear in court that there is name/username identification in the actual infrigning traffic that links to the defendant. An isp user account/email address with infringer's name in it and corresponding traffic through the ISP's network that uploaded the offending music to kazaa is one way. The other is to demonstrate that the user's pc is the only one that could have had access to the internet using the Public ip lnked that that account during the time in question.

This Chain of evidence is simple to subvert...never personalize your p2p software and never connect your pc directly to the cable modem. Use a router and share your internet access from time to time using your wireless network. Now your ISP can boot you for TOS violations - for the sharing of bandwidth - but you have now insulated yourself from being the only one that connected to the internet with that public IP address. The more evidence of this sharing the better off your case will be if you are sued.

Hypothetically, since I am an IT consultant. I could take it one step further. Since I have VPN access into different networks, I can leave my machine connected to a corporate network while uploading/downloading. My isp will only show encrypted traffic to/from the other network which will not be on anyones radar. The public IP that shows up will be the company's IP. The only thing that could give up the game is the VPN logs on the VPN server or firewall of the corporate network...hmmm...who manages that...oh, I do. Too bad about that log retention period getting set to only one week and the VPN logs being stored at my house near my magnet collection...on floppy disk...

Now if the FBI were involved they would track this thing back to its source quicker than you can say patriot act, trojan my pc with a keylogger, and haul me off in a black helicopter to a little room where I would confess to burying Jimmy Hoffa in my back yard, but the RIAA does not have the FBI working on these cases.

This case was only won because they were able to demonstrate:
1. By the presence of her username (similar to her name) that she knowingly installed and configured the P2P application.
2. By direct connection between her PC and the cable modem no other PC could have been used to share the files.

They could have been foiled in these efforts by:
1. Denying them the evidence gathered from the PC (read: make this PC go away - as it sounds like they were given the hard drive).
2. Demonstrating the presence of an unsecured wireless network connected to the cable modem (as of yet consumers are not liable for damages that their use of an unsecured wireless network may enable) meaning that anyone could have uploaded this music using their PC's (like a neighbor - I poached bandwidth by bridging from my neighbors wireless network for a couple weeks after he cut my cable while putting a fence on the property line - he never knew it either).
3. The use of the default username (user@kazaa or somesuch) thus preventing them from linking the username to the defendant. Better yet, the use of a purposely misleading username that linked to a name of someone not involved with the defendant in any way would have compromised a key linkage between their forensic evidence and the defendant.

Any logs of MAC addresses on the cable modem would would show the ethernet switch or Wireless access point instead of a PC network card.

This case cannot be considered other than a big fat curveball that their lawyers hit out of the park. Most other cases with competent representation and a more typical home network will be MUCH more difficult to sew up as tightly. Especially if the hard drive used to infringe is not made available to the plaintiffs.

With this weak case, she should have settled immediately (if she is in fact guilty of the infringement - which it appears from what is written here she is).
Other defendants that have stronger cases, should fight tooth and nail. Make them prove their case by a preponderance of evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases). Evidence that they have to provide instead of giving them your hard drive.

It would be interesting to know if they have ever successfully sued a ptp user that had a default installation of the app (usage logs in the isp would not link to their name/username) and/or one that had an unsecured wireless network or multi-tenant (ie frathouse) environment with transient users/pc's.

Don't forget you might want to change the MAC adress of your Network card in your OS. Then provide them with the physical network card.
Also it's a good idea to change your ISP's IP once in a while.

Good idea on the MAC as some cable modems can log this. Going through a router will also shield your MAC address. This is because MAC is OSI layer 2 and routers are layer 3. This means that your cable modem will only see traffic from the MAC address of your router/firewall. That is why the use of a firewall is so vital to a defense. There is no data that your ISP can gather that will be able to identify which machine, or even how many are behind your firewall. They can see session/NAT info and internal IP's but those are arbitrary and can be changed at will. I could have one PC's with multiple IP bound to the NIC and they could not tell the difference between that and having that same number of actual PCs other than the sheer volume of traffic that may be generated by multiple PCs.

I don't think it matters if you change your IP. The ISP keeps logs of who had what IP and when. The only thing it may do is prevent the RIAA's stooges from easily correlating infringing behavior over a long period of time to the same IP. They will still get the same info when the subpeona the ISP, it will just be in pieces.

Did you see this tidbit:

Computer forensics specialist Doug Jacobson, of Iowa State University, testified that no wireless connection was used the night in question, based on IP data embedded in the Kazaa traffic.
http://blog.wired.com/27...10/riaa-testimony-.html

Any idea how the frack he would be able to do this?

That exact thing was what made me about puke for two reasons: a) I consider myself an expert in IP routing, and find it damn strange that there's any way they can remotely claim to have proof because "they did not see 192.168.x.x addresses" (Really? He must subscribe to the theory of public-routable private IPs. Amazing). Second, I'm an alum of Iowa State, and thought the IT profs were slightly smarter than that.

Anyone know the going rate for expert witness testimony? I'm about to wh*** myself out and quit my day job...

Good question actually. I really don't know. If it was just the absense of NAT session info in the packet headers, that would eliminate any internal routing not just wireless. I don't know of a firm way of pulling apart network traffic to eliminate the possibility that a wirless connection was used. Possibly something you can look for in the layer 2 headers as a result of the wireless transmission, but I don't know how that traffic would have made it past the first router down the chain. If the cable modem was sniffing and recording every frame, it may be possible, but despite being a network engineer, I remain ignorant of how this was done. It could be that this guy perjured himself and there was nothing in the data that was collected that could indicate this. It depends upon where the data was collected and whether they recorded all info with sniffing tools or just ip logs.

My gut is that they just captured full sniffer traces using the tools that they used to gather the evidence of the filesharing (custom kazaa client that riaa stormtroopers use). This data will contain session info if NAT is used and the absense of a remote NAT (private network) would preclude a soho router in use at the plaintiff's house. It would not preclude a wirless connection per-say as you can just use a wireless access point without routing, but I don't know if a cable modem would play nice with this. Besides, from end to end this traffic undergoes several media changes (ethernet=>cable modem=>Ethernet=>optical carrier grade circuits=>then who knows what the traffic does at the far end where they are sniffing this) so the assumption that traces of wireless transmission must survive ip present may be incorrect.

You would not see the 192.168.x.x addressed themselves, but you would see the NAT session ID that the router would use to route traffic to the proper private IP when the traffic returns. The absense of this in the originating L3 frame headers would indicate the absense of a private network at the remote end. If this is the case then just make sure you always go through a router.

Oh and the going rate for expert testimony the last time I was asked to do this (ISP/Telecom case) was $250/hour plus travel and expenses.

The thought of the penalty in this case is mind numbing. I realize that the RIAA needs to make a strong point, but this is so excessive that they look more like vultures than they already did. They won but I don't see it increasing CD sales though...

The statutory damages awarded the plaintiffs in civil court need not be collected in full or at all if they are merely trying to "make a strong point".

Since we currently have no idea as to their intent to collect the awarded amount in part or in its entirety it may be a little to early to start damning the plaintiff for the damage amounts conceived of by a jury.

That remains to be seen, but with the media throwing this number around the damage may already be done.

You mention the media and attempt to establish an assertion that it may damage the perception of the RIAA in the eyes of the masses.

I find this interesting when, from everything I have witnessed, the RIAA has no shortcomings when it comes to managing the media you assert will portray them unkindly. For all intents and purposes they lie in the same proverbial bed and I do not see much likelihood, other than in the short term, that the RIAA and the mass media will be at odds with one another.

The ability of the media to sway public opinion one moment to the next is staggering and given their ties, any current backlash you may be witnessing is not likely to last.

Vast sums of money will change hands. Promises will be made. The public eye will be directed elsewhere.

I suspect that much of the Trojans and viruses on the P2p networks are discreetly from the RIAA. It would be nice to prove it and I could suck the living cash out of them like they do there victims in the court of law.

The Internet Security firms would lose revenue themselves if the RIAA got there way. No more RIAA would mean no more viruses. Who would the internet security firms help protect then?

"I suspect that much of the Trojans and viruses on the P2p networks are discreetly from the RIAA."

Honestly with all the underhanded and down right erroneous garbage these guys get away with, t would surprise me if the inbred swine didn't try something stupid.

Dont be dumb, use a proxy. duh.

New to using proxy's..

How can I do it?

A victory from the RIAA, like this one, worries me a lot. Many people have been wrongly accused of file sharing, even dead ones for example but what troubles me even more is how much stronger the strangle hold the RIAA has on the music industry will get. Like many of you, it's been a long time since I've bought a CD simply because most of what is out there is what I call two/three track CDs. The CDs I've bough were from artists I already liked or the artists were already streaming on their websites like WolfMother, for example. It so happens I fell in love with the entire CD, something that hadn't happened in years. So, I guess that other artists should do the same. By the way, didn't Bruce Springsteen stream his latest CD on lots of web streaming radio stations?

3 words.... Anonymous Proxy Server

yep..... Like the folks in Iran do so they can get real news from the real world. But in Iran if ya get caught yer head goes bouncing across the floor

Yeah no joke, those guys cut off limbs if your caught stealing. Although owing someone that kind of money might be just as bad.This lady is going to be living a miserable existance, all of her money is going to go to the RIAA

Whether you agree or not, it's the law. Victimless crime? Why have CD sales fallen off the map? If I arbitrarily emptied various Betanews users bank accounts - maybe only folks who make over $100K a year and can 'afford it', is that a crime?

Leave it to the artists - if they want to put a CD in every newspaper (like Prince in the UK) then let them. Let's assume all others would like to get paid for their work... whether YOU put a value on it is not the point.

I've not bought a CD since *thinks* 8 years now.

It's not because I don't think I should pay, but I don't think I should have to be subject to all the sh** music on the CD's I buy. Most albums I listen to only have 1 - 3 good songs.

That being said, I want to know how much $$ Amazon.com and Walmart.com have made since the inception of being able to actually download MP3's.

I want to know because for the first time since I had learned about being able to dl legit songs 1x1, I finally had an option to satisfy all my needs for downloading. I've spent $60 approximately on both sites combined in single tracks, and that's in about two weeks.

That being said, I still firmly believe having all those CD's is worthless, and ultimately a waste of worldly resources. If every "single" were not made, I want to know how many billions of tons of plastic (and ultimately OIL) was wasted on CD's people got but only wanted it for one song. I want to be able to do whatever I want with these songs, and now I can. I can transfer them to ANY MP3 player, back them up on my external HD, have them on my computer, and if I really wanted I could make a CD for my car (since it doesn't have a tape player and FM radio broadcasters suc*.

That being all said, if the RIAA wasn't so money hungry and greedy, I would have started downloading these a long time ago and would have spent MUCH more than $60. I do wish, however, that they had >256k audio for the mp3's, BUT that doesn't deter me from the price. The price is right, the DRM is not there (so I don't accidentally format too many times and forget to "degreg" my computer, or burn 1 too many CD's, or GOD forbid lose my password).

I just wish they had more songs so I could download more, but unfortunately artists can't put their music on these sites b/c the RIAA and their affiliates are too stubborn and (like I said before) greedy to allow them to do so... even if it's a win-win situation for them in the long run, and I can get songs without having to deal with CD's/ripping songs/doing anything but syncing my devices, walking/running, and enjoying!

And I don't think many said it's a vicimless crime, but the RIAA were just being plain stupid when it comes to "rights" and "infringements".

Oh and if you did some research, you'll find that CD sales fell off the map WELL before P2P came about, but the RIAA is just using the P2P excuse to get money out of the few they deem suitable to sue.

I have to agree with you. the last music I purchased was wow... lets see... maybe sometime around 2001... As far as music goes download wise... about the same... I have not even considered anythign that is out there as music anymore... Why are CD sales down? Humm...

More likely lack of quality product, and music makers LEAVING them and going on their own... IE the huge success of the radioheads endeavor. THIS is what the industry fear more then any other thing out there. Cutting them out of the action entirely between consumers and actual song writers and performers.

IDK I just have zero desire for anything they have to offer. But I object to being called a pirate for making MP3s to use of a mp3 player from my CD collection. That in the end was the contention that got the guilty verdict. Not Copyright distribution. But taking CD she owned and ripping the MP3 from them to use as she wished...

The next case upcoming is going to be radio digital recordings... IE recording radio to DAT tapes, or Cassette tape, or CD, or MP3 digitally. This was a huge loss for the industry back in the 70s and 80s. But now they have the people by the short and curlies, they will try it again...

Prince still got paid, idiot.
The paper paid to publish it.

Think of the other reasons why CD sales have fallen off:
Digital downloads.

And that instantly killed your argument.

There's always been pirating: tape to tape, CD to tape, CD to CD
It's never going to stop.

Whose ripping off who? Albums used to cost something like 3 bucks to make and on average the user pay'd about 10 bucks to buy one. CD's have always cost about a single buck to make and they've be charging 15 bucks a cd since they came into circulation. They are the crooks. Ripping the public off for prophet. And yes, everyone has taped a friends cassette or cd. No stink was made about that. Remember all those blank cassette's you could buy at your local electronic store in the 1980's and 90's. You think that was for taping family audio sessions? And as someone over 40 years old now, and i know theres allot of you out there- we think todays music blows to the max. Another reason sales are off.

It is the law. But one reason CD sales have fallen off is that when the RIAA started to sue people for sharing songs, I, and others like me, refused to buy any more music. (Even though I've never used a peer-to-peer music sharing program.) Instead, I bought a new computer with the money I didn't spend on RIAA products.
Greed caused the RIAA to shoot themselves in the foot...and now they complain it's everyone else's fault.
When people used to copy cassettes, sales of songs soared, despite the piracy, or, as some might reason, because of the increased exposure.
If you look back, I suspect you'd see the biggest downturn in sales was when the RIAA started suing their own customers.

What it costs to make a CD and what they pay the artist have no bearing on whether or not stealing the music is right or wrong.

If you feel the cost is too high, then don't buy the album - but that doesn't give you the right to steal the music on it.

I think that car prices are way to high, does that mean I can walk onto a dealers lot and take a car because the price is unfair?

Stealing is a CRIME - and as they have always said - "If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime". No matter how much you want to call foul on the recording industry - people paying as much as they have for the music has set the price. If no one bought the CDs - they'd drop the price or come up with better music.

Personally - I find the used stores to be a much better place to go. I can get the album for a fraction of the cost and it's usually in as good a condition as if it were new.

I think a bigger reason that the industry didn't go after people at home making copies of tapes was that it wasn't traceable. Now when you're online - everywhere you go leaves a footprint and without too much brain sweat, you can track a user back to the source. So now they have not only the individual, but they can also tell exactly what you took and when.

First of all, people are switching to LEGAL downloads like Itunes among others. Second, piracy has been rampent for at least 7 years now and cd sales are still dropping. Third, there just isn't all that great of music on cd's anymore. I personally don't buy cd's and I haven't since the late 90's does that mean i steal it no, it means im not buying it though.

I bet millions of others are the same way. So their solution is to take 222k from one perso to make up for it?

What about the real pirates, the ones hwo mass produce cd's and run the pirate websites, those are the people who should be paying this kind of money.

This womens life is now ruined. Shame on the Riaa, millions of peole file share, why should she be given a 50 foot pole stuck up her rear end when others do far far worse and don't even get punished.

I think the biggest reason for declining sales is a lack of anything worth buying. Most of the stuff all sounds the same anymore with only one or two songs that maybe are worth listening to. Music is not what it used to be.

Except cd to cd, tape to tape, cd to tape doesn't get sent out in the hundreds.

Honestly, the people that do download would probably never buy the cd in the first place, so it is unfair to state that pirating is ruining the industry.

Is it causing some problems, yes. But the music industry is satuarated with so much crap, (American Idol, Making the band, Myspace etcetc.)

Also some bands are getting lazy and release the same songs with different words (I am looking at you Linkin Park - Meteroa)

I do believe the money though the RIAA is requesting is a bit extreme. As there doesn't appear to be any correlation, that downloading is in fact causing this much in lost sales. If anything is causing lack of sales, is lack of originality, and one or 2 good songs.

I buy cds still, though (call me old-fashioned I like to select what way it should be ripped and at what quality) Then again I buy mainly indie music where they only sell maybe 3,000 cds.

Stealing is a crime, tried in criminal court.

Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense (in the cases wee are discussion here), and therefore tried in civil court.

Other than that, you're spot on.

IIRC, I remember hearing a few years back that while the music industry was whining about a downturn in sales, their sales were actually less decreased than other _tangible_ markets... just because people aren't buying doesn't mean they are stealing.

Because new album sales in the compact cassette
format have fallen to zero the music industry is
bankrupt.

"call me old-fashioned I like to select what way it should be ripped and at what quality"

Couldn't agree more, Sir.

OK Paul, take your head out of your butt for just one second and think about this... You've got an entire generation of kids that have never paid for music... they've Kazaa'd it, Napster'd it... or whatever. You've got our older generation that hasn't bought the new music either, because guess what - that's life. We grow up, our tastes get pickier and Bryan Adams can only make so many CD's in his life. Music for sale is on the way down... regardless of format...

Digital downloads? You got that right... to bad it's a tiny percentage that are paid for.

I don't care really, I live in Canada and we can copy whatever we want onto whatever we want. We pay a small fee on each blank disc that is a 'copyright fee' and lets us legally put downloaded content of any kind on it. Somehow, this money is supposed to get back to the artists. How? I don't know, but we all pay a few cents each so some old stupid lady doesn't have to pay $220,000.

It's YOUR law, follow it.

What? I don't really think you know what you are taking about. The states have similar CD's (a scam of a hidden cost) you can buy but, that does give you the right to download anything you have not paid for and put the CD. I assume you are taking about putting music you have not bought personally on the CDs well I am sorry but in Canada I pretty sure that is illegal too. You must own any music you put on the CD. Canada may be have socialized medicine but not socialized music Show me the law you are taking about.

you are a turd, go out and meet a girl you loser

Read this http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtm in its entirety. The only thing illegal is copying a CD and giving the copy to someone. Giving them the original and them copying it is legal. Copying it yourself is legal. Recent copyright case law had the judge compare internet file sharing to 'having photocopiers in libraries'. For now, as long as you are putting the audio onto a copyright-fee paid media, you have paid for the right to do so.

RIAA planted case perhaps because it seems like the defence wasn't even trying.

Appeal a couple times to higher courts to set the precedent and then count the $$$$$$$$$$.

DCMA should be repealed and RIAA should be dismantelled. Good thing I am not into Music or Movies so I don't care but I have seen them OVER DUE IT.

Probably not much into that spelling thing either.

Thank You !!!!!

That goes for many of the complainers here....they can b**** and moan about the stupidest, most idiotic and mundane things...but can't spell for anything.

Maybe they should be taking spelling lessons instead of stealing music off of the internet. Yes, I'm am kidding.

Iffin yal'z wantis to be tekin searsiouly....LEARN TO SPELL.

This case’s appeal is going to put a busted ostrich egg in the face of both the judge AND the RIAA. The instructions were clearly outside of the scope of the law, and on top of that, the RIAA never actually proved that DAMAGES occurred. Also, why has no one argued that the DOWNLOADER is responsible for infringement rather than the person “making available?” In the real world, if you make a copy of a CD for someone else, you’re infringing, but if someone makes a copy of a copyrighted item that you, the library, or a rental chain like Blockbuster lends or rents to them, THEY have committed the infringement. There is no feasible way to defeat this analogy. The actual copyright violation occurs not because of the (potentially accidental) availability of the file, but rather because the downloader, copier, or ripper willingly and intentionally chose to make a duplication of the file that would not fall under a fair use exemption.

The jury has essentially made you liable for infringement if your friend borrows a CD from you and decides to rip it without your knowledge or consent before returning it.

I would expect Blockbuster to file an amicus brief for the appeal, because if this ruling is allowed to stand, Blockbuster is “making available” a TON of copyrighted media, and they commit copyright infringement with every rental that chooses to duplicate the rented item. They made it available, after all.

The utter stupidity of the instructions is easily found when the implications of those instructions are applied to all situations that would fall under the wording of those instructions, and that’s why this is going to be one hell of an EASY appeal.

"the RIAA never actually proved that DAMAGES occurred"
Don't need to.
"chose to make a duplication of the file that would not fall under a fair use exemption." In reality, no such thing anymore!
"going to be one hell of an EASY appeal." I bet she is hoping that!

It does seem likely that the case will be overturned on appeal. However, the PR value of the guilty verdict may be all the RIAA needs to continue their alienation of the music buying public. My response will be to go and buy the new Radiohead album.

The instructions were clearly outside of the scope of the law, and on top of that, the RIAA never actually proved that DAMAGES occurred. Also, why has no one argued that the DOWNLOADER is responsible for infringement rather than the person “making available?” In the real world, if you make a copy of a CD for someone else, you’re infringing, but if some

It sucks, to be sure, but there is some logic behind it, whether you agree with it or not. The instructions to the jury regarding "making available=copyright infringement" was successfully used in the Napster case. Napster and Kazaa, being roughly the same, it was likely determined the same rules should apply.

Keep in mind the judge had originally intended to instruct the jury to only find the defendant liable if an actual upload had been proven to occur, but was swayed during discussions by the plaintiff's attorneys.

As for damages, in copyright law, it states the plaintiff can ask for damages or a statutory penalty depending on how hard it might be to come up with an actual number.

As I stated below, it is my opinion that statutory should only be applied to those making a profit form the infringing use, and plaintiffs going after a single file-sharer should have to submit damages and be prepared to support the numbers they bring.

Usenet ftw!

Only a matter of time before RIAA/MPAA finds a way to go after Usenet profitably.

She should file Bankruptcy now and walk away from it all. She's not too bright that she only swaped her HD out, she should have done searches on several levels to find and remove anything resembling Kazza.

I'm sure Zucker of NBC is happy.

I'm sure they all are. Hopefully it backfires on them.

Preferably by making it obvious the whole copyright system is in dire need of overhaul instead of simply spawning more piracy. It's pretty evident now that piracy isn't going to do anything but make their case stronger.

Without a major overhaul (repeal of extension, community copyright, or any number of things) we're basically screwed.

For once we find unity. ;P

Disappointed? yep. Surprised? Nope. This is what I expected.. What happens next? No one knows... It may be a wakeup call to the public as to what lengths this law needs reformed for consumer rights.

Not the statement the RIAA is hoping for with this ruling. Will this change anything yet? I doubt it... I kinda hope that some of my EFF donations will go to help pay her ridiculas damages ruling.

IDK I got nothing better to do with my life. I think I would tell them to go to hell and take the jail time and live of their dime for a change.

I'm just so sick of these people anymore... And there is no going back in time... or is there? Vinyl anyone?

Vinyl is vastly superior, asthetically and sonically imo, but going back there isn't going to solve this problem. No kids, avoid having anything to do with most of the record company stooge acts, and you're off their radar. Most indie artists would love to just get an airing of their stuff, but we're all still drowning in a sea of major label swill because they have the payola money to promote, endlessly play and convince cloth eared imbeciles to think they like it. Just don't buy or download their crap!

such as the contention that all ripping of music from CD, even for personal use, constitutes theft
Here's the irony.....

These are the companies that produce the music.
These are the companies that produce the CD's.
These are the companies that produce the technology to listen to the music on CD's
These are the companies that produce the technology to copy the music.
These are the companies that produce the media to copy the music.
These are the companies that produce the technology to listen to the copied music on the copyable media.

These are the companies that don't want you to copy and listen to the music on the technology that they created.

They want you to buy the music and all the technology to create backups, but they want it to be illegal to do so.

Wow!

They want you to buy the CD and a disc man, then buy each track on a legit downloading service for play on your PC.
The whole idea that you cant rip a cd onto your pc without it being considered illegal is crap! Not to mention the "theoretical" impact on MP3 device, and hardware industries.
I applaud her for standing up to RIAA, but she screwed everyone after her wishing to settle quickly with the "standard" amount of about 3k. Now the RIAA could easily say, we want 10k+ to settle.

Wow, and I thought the OJ case was the worst case I ever heard. Few hundred dollars maybe, but this should go to the supremes on cruel and unusual punishment. This does NOT fit the crime. Did they "prove" how many people downloaded it? Maybe noone did.

Besides that, a jury can think someone is guilty but not belive the law is "just" and let someone off, I wonder if they were told about that?

I knew our system had problems, but this is far beyond any reasonable person's senses. Only the RIAA would applaud this case.

Did they "prove" how many people downloaded it?

Nope. Judge ruled that the jury should consider having the files available to share acts of copyright infringement. (It should be noted he had originally pushed for the "act of uploading a specific file", but was swayed by the plaintiff's lawyers).

Besides that, a jury can think someone is guilty but not belive the law is "just" and let someone off, I wonder if they were told about that?

No idea. Towards the end, many were hoping for just such an outcome. It's one of the reasons I was so surprised they went with "willful" infringement. They could have gone with "non-willful" and given a $200 per act at the very least.

I knew our system had problems, but this is far beyond any reasonable person's senses. Only the RIAA would applaud this case.

Copyright has been perverted from it's original intent with extension after extension. It was originally a limited term. Needless to say, it is in dire need of being fixed.

yep.. totally agree. everything i read on ars made it look like she did it, but i honestly believe that the RIAA should have also been made to show how much damage her act might have caused and been compensated for that much.

Unfortunately, by law, they can choose to go with statutory damages in cases where proving an exact amount of damages would prove to be...well, damn near impossible.

it sucks when used in such a way, but as intended (in cases where large duplicating houses have sold millions of "fake" merchandise), it's actually a decent idea. There should be a better distinction, considering the wide array of ways in which copyright can be infringed.

Their snoops downloaded it at least once, so based on how our copyright laws are currently written, that was enough. We can thank our (R) lawmakers for that one. I was surprised that the jury sided against her in such a large $$ way, since this was not a crime against society, but over zealous big biz! Out of curiosity, just how much is the artist going to get from this settlement? an additional $.20 per song, for a total payout of $4.80!!!

Jury was probably bribed by the RIAA or something. How bright can you be if you can't even get out of Jury Duty :) just joking I did my fare share..

25 years in a forest labor camp for downloading copyrighted MP3s and other forms of terror (This was a real bill in oregon in 2003)

http://www.mindfully.org...fe-OR-SB742-27feb03.htm
http://www.infowars.com/..._tyranny_in_america.htm

Also, check out this film on Google video to learn about GOVERNMENT SPONSORED TERROR
http://video.google.com/...ocid=786048453686176230

The most damning evidence is the username. They proved she used it all over the place. I doubt this case would have been prosecuted if she had just used a random name. Food for thought.

I personally think the biggest factor in the verdict were the judges "instructions" to the jury regarding what constitutes infringement.

Hopefully, if they appeal (and I really don't see that she has many other options at this point), they will focus on that and try to get it overturned.

Yea, her lack of uniqueness for her user name was bad!

Let's get the terminology right, she was not found "guilty" of anything, as this was not a criminal case. She was found liable for copyright infringement.

Pfft.

Yeah, take her out and shoot her for daring to take profit away from a corporation... [rolleyes]

What the hell are you on about? How is this related in any way shape or form to the comment you replied to or *anything* I have said in this thread?

It's cute and all that you've apparently decided to become a zridling/pitdingo wanna-be, but at least try to stay relevant.

The *only* thing I have done in this thread (other than laugh at you) is state facts. I'm sorry if you have a problem with this, but this is a public forum and such things are going to happen.

Get used to it.

Whatever turns your crank, sparky...

Lord knows you can't post anything useful here, so why don't you just email the rest of your pointless little rants to pctool@getstuffed.org so the rest of us can have a grown-up discussion.

Guilt is merely a term associated with being found to have accomplished a misdeed. Since this is not a court of law, one need not apply legal constraints to our vernacular.

What a disgrace. This poor woman must pay a quarter of a million dollars for this bs. Yet theres people out there committing all kinds of friggen crime and paying far less. Add this to the many corrupt groups that surround our country.

++ Truth.

He's talking about those like you.

Wow.

I've got another fan. How cute.

Sorry, but I'm not your type. I don't date out of my species. I prefer women who are human.

Aww... he even follows me around like a lost puppy.

There should be a law against being that cute.

There is one persons life ruined, unless of course she was one of those rich women who is bored and wants to download music for fun.

Since you can just get whatever you want wh
y didnt they just make her pay 1 million per son, you know since there just randomel throwing out numbers.

This is one of those instances the punishment did not fit the crime, she was being made an example of, she won't possibly be able to pay that.

This is one of those instances the punishment did not fit the crime, she was being made an example of, she won't possibly be able to pay that.

Agreed.

Since you can just get whatever you want why didn't they just make her pay 1 million per son, you know since there just randomly throwing out numbers.

Before we go off half-c***ed here, let's actually get some facts on those numbers.

They are not random. Copyright infringement awards based on "statutory damages". These are laid out in law. The minimum for "non-willful" infringement is $200. The max is $30,000. For "willful" infringement the max is $150,000.

These numbers are written into copyright law.

Guess who wrote these laws? Here's a hint; it occurs in backrooms of conservative administrations....

roflmao...

Yes, of course. Conservatism is the root of all evil.

*still laughing*

...and they call *me* a tool.

Let's leave the political jackass comments to another thread, shall we?

Yes, yes you are. [rolleyes]

"Let's leave the political jackass comments to another thread, shall we?"

If you do that than you won't have anything to say..

Do you have anything else, or can we go back to discussing the story and those "fact" things?

You do realize that the DMCA and other perversions of copyright are pretty much bipartisan corruption right? Look at who makes up most of the both houses from California.. Democrats. From what i recall the two most ardent supporters of the DMCA and the failed PIRATE act where Lehey(D) and Hatch(R).

Somebody didn't get decaf this evening.

Ah, remember the good old days when you could carry a CD or tape (tape? what's that?) around and play at your friend's house? The term "share" has taken on somewhat new meaning.

Some of us used to tote or 45s and LPs around. You were considered elite if you have a tape recorder to copy those onto with.

omg - if we keep this up, someone will chime in with a punchcard story to make us all feel embarrassed. :)

24 songs - $222,000. That's just pathedic. Greedy ****ing country.

Keep in mind, the absolute minimum fine for "willful" infringement is $15,000.

I would love to know how the jurors decided it was willful, but...

(Note: I rechecked, I think the min for "willful" is actually 750. There are multiple figures floating around. Go figure)

I would not be surprised if every one of those jurors were in the RIAA's pocket.

That's a little extreme.

Anyone not prejudiced *against* the RIAA would have come to the same verdict (though perhaps not the amount or the "willful" bit). She offered little evidence refuting their claims, and the plaintiff's had plenty to lead to such a ruling.

I understand people's dislike of the RIAA. For the most part I share it. For too many, though, it seems to be causing an emotional knee-jerk instead of rational thought...

I do believe I also read on MSNBC that the defense didn't call, or called little any witnesses to support their case. Makes you wonder if she has other motives in mind to make a political statement or even challenge the copyright laws altogether.

With a jury award that high, the woman will have no choice but to appeal. This isn't the end of this case.

That depends.

The notion that copyright infringement occurs upon sharing the file was originally asserted (and subsequently affirmed) in the Napster case. It has now been re-affirmed here.

That's two precedents, in case you lost count (joking). It's not looking good for anyone hoping against hope that this case might weaken the behemoth that is the RIAA.

Note: I know that precedents are reserved for higher courts, but it's still looking pretty grim.

"With all the exploits you see every day on the Internet, her attorney put forth, some malicious user could have planted that folder there."

Honestly that was kind of a weak statement, considering the other evidence. This is unfortunate though, as the RIAA will be celebrating this and this will undoubtedly strengthen their resolve. If she is truly guilty, then she deserves it, although $9,250 per song is really excessive.

although $9,250 per song is really excessive.

That Sir, gets my vote for Understatement of the Year.

Yep really weak statement, wonder what on earth they were thinking.
There was no doubt in my mind if she was going to cop it. The case was very clear and simple.
But yeah that is really excessive but I guess they are trying to make an example and get a message across. Whole bunch of everyday people copping whopping fines might wake a few people up.

some public form this is everyone and i mean everyone on here acts like there 8 years old or something, they say sub-intelligent things on her but when somone disagrees with them everyone just starts bashing them like elementary kids in the playground at recess. tis and chalk up the bad writing of news stories on this website

The 1200+ john/jane Doe lawsuits a year is enough of a wake up call?

You have to love the concept of "flaming". I agree, too many times in too many articles people go off on a tangent and act like juveniles. Don't complain too much though, or just maybe the powers that be will have another excuse to limit our 1st Amendment rights.

Thats the sort of question you need to ask yourself.
I dont dabble with p2p stuff other than the occasional download. And I fully accept responcibility for my actions. Do you?

Welcome To The Internet!
No one here likes you.

We're going to offend, insult, abuse, and belittle the living hell out of you. And when you rail against us with "**** YOU YOU GEEK WIMP SKATER GOTH LOSER PUNK f** b****!1!!", we smile to ourselves. We laugh at you because you don't get it. Then we turn up the heat, hoping to draw more entertainment from your irrational fuming.

We will judge you, and we will find you unworthy. It is a trial by fire, and we won't even think about turning down the flames until you finally understand.

Some of you are smart enough to realize that, when you go online, it's like entering a foreign country ... and you know better than to ignorantly **** with the locals. You take the time to listen and think before speaking. You learn, and by learning are gladly welcomed.

For some of you, it takes a while, then one day it all dawns on you - you get it, and are welcomed into the fold.

Some of you give up, and we breathe a sigh of relief - we didn't want you here anyway. And some of you just never get it. The offensively clueless have a special place in our hearts - as objects of ridicule. We don't like you, but we do love you.

You will get mad. You will tell us to go to hell, and call us "nerds" and "geeks". Don't bother ... we already know exactly what we are. And, much like the way hardcore rap has co-opted the word "n*****", turning an insult around on itself to become a semiserious badge of honor, so have we done.

"How dare you! I used to beat the crap out of punks like you in high school/college!" You may have owned the playing field because you were an athlete. You may have owned the student council because you were more popular. You may have owned the hallways and sidewalks because you were big and intimidating. Well, welcome to our world.

Things like athleticism, popularity, and physical prowess mean nothing here. We place no value on them ... or what car you drive, the size of your bank account, what you do for a living or where you went to school.

Allow us to introduce you to the concept of a "meritocracy" - the closest thing to a form of self-government we have. In The United Meritocratic nation-states of the Internet, those who can do, rule. Those who wish to rule, learn. Everyone else watches from the stands.

You may posses everything in the off-line world. We don't care. You come to the Internet penniless, lacking the only thing of real value here: knowledge.

"Who cares? The Internet isn't real anyway!" This attitude is universally unacceptable. The Internet is real. Real people live behind those handles and screen names. Real machines allow it to exist. It's real enough to change government policy, real enough to feed the world's hungry, and even, for some of us, real enough to earn us a paycheck. Using your own definition, how "real" is your job? Your stock portfolio? Your political party? What is the meaning of "real", anyway?

Do I sound arrogant? Sure ... to you. Because you probably don't get it yet.

If you insist on staying, then, at the very least, follow these advices:

No one, ESPECIALLY YOU, will make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Use your brain before ever putting fingers to keys.
Do you want a picture of you getting anally raped by Bill Clinton while you're performing oral sex on a cow saved to hundreds of thousands of people's hard drives? No? Then don't put your ****ing picture on the Internet. We can, will, and probably already HAVE altered it in awful ways. Expect it to show up on an equally offensive website.
Realize that you are never, EVER going to get that, or any other, offensive web page taken down. Those of us who run those sites LIVE to piss off people like you. Those of us who don't run those sites sometimes visit them just to read the hatemail from fools like you.
Oh, you say you're going to a lawyer? Be prepared for us to giggle with girlish delight, and for your lawyer to laugh in your face after he explains current copyright and parody law.
The Web is not the Internet. Stop referring to it that way.
We have already received the e-mail you are about to forward to us. Shut up.
Don't reply to spam. You are not going to be "unsubscribed".
Don't ever use the term "cyberspace" (only William Gibson gets to say that, and even he hasn't really used it for two or three books now). Likewise, you prove yourself a marketing-hype victim if you ever use the term "surfing".
With one or two notable exceptions, chat rooms will not get you laid.
It's a hoax, not a virus warning.
The internet is made up of thousands of computers, all connected but owned by different people. Learn how to use *your* computer before attempting to connect it to someone else's.
The first person who offers to help you is really just trying to **** with you for entertainment. So is the second. And the third. And me.
Never insult someone who's been active in any group longer than you have. You may as well paint a damn target on your back.
Never get comfortable and arrogant behind your supposed mask of anonymity. Don't be surprised when your name, address, and home phone number get thrown back in your smug face. Hell, some of us will snail-mail you a printed satellite photograph of your house to drive the point home. Realize that you are powerless if this happens ... it's all public information, and information is our stock and trade.
No one thinks you are as cool as you think you are.
You aren't going to win any argument that you start.
If you're on AOL, don't worry about anything I've said here. You're already a ****ing laughing stock, and there's no hope for you.
If you can't take a joke, immediately sell your computer to someone who can. RIGHT NOW.
Pissed off? It's the TRUTH, not these words, that hurts your feelings. Don't ever even pretend like I've gone & hurt them.

We don't like you. We don't want you here. We never will. Save us all the trouble and go away.

*EDIT I didnt author that btw :P"

I apologize if my sense of humor offends you. Get over it.

That was awesome. I'm saving that.

Yeah it is :) I think its quite old too

But what's it got to do with this bloody topic?

I'm not complaining btw, I think these "red flag" items are great. After it's up for a few days it starts to look like a WW2 cage fight.

the guy he replied to whined about being offended.

Maybe if he had a better command of a simple thing like punctuation, people might have more sympathy.