Just more of the same old same old insanity.

Sooner or later these guys are going to have to accept (cos there's no way in hell it's ever changing) that once something goes digital and hits the net it's gone.
No more control and no more deluded day-dreams of huge revenue streams from it.

$80k per song is just laughable.

Money will be the end of us all.

saw this today, should make you question this whole thing :P
http://img40.imageshack..../9172/1245456677307.jpg

Now thats a perspective that's enlightening.

Someone needs to explain to me why loaning out your personal CD collection is not a crime. You are still sharing music. So, I can loan out all my music to 1000 different people and there is nothing can do about it but having one .mp3 in a publicly shared folder or on a P2P program is grounds for a lawsuit?

My favorite is the advertising industry proclaiming it is a crime to skip commercials or even to get up and go to the bathroom while commercials are on. The were quoted as saying "people need to limit their bathroom breaks during commercials" I'm not kidding, look it up.

If you are referring to an actual physical loan, the reasoning is that only one person at a time is actually in possession of the media. It may not make total sense to you, but having something shared electronically means that, presumably, with this sharing, everyone on the planet could ostensibly have a copy of a copyrighted work, with only one copy sold.

Not much incentive for the copyright holder, is it?

Jammie won't get jammed up forever, nor will the award amount stand. It may take another trial, but the amount will come down by a factor of at least 10, if not more. There is a very salient post about this on ZDNet, written by Richard Koman.

But are those 1000 people making a copy of your CD before returning it to you? In reality, most likely ABSOLUTELY!!!! But hey, short of some method of having your music CD's "Phone home" with a serial # (Search for Sony root kit if you think this sounds far fetched) you'll most likely not get caught.

Now compare that to the current RIAA P2P mess, you start taking out ads in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, that you are willing to "loan out" your CD's for the public to copy. And I guarantee you'll have similar lawsuits at your door before the sun comes up.

When will the public learn that the internet is not anonymous, and actually quite the opposite without some level of technical expertise in proxies, anonymizers, etc. Don't put anything on the internet you wouldn't want the whole world seeing, this includes "private" emails. And if you don't fully understand your router/modem, don't expect any computers you have connected to the internet to remain private either.

Sorry for the digression, but it's late.

"Someone needs to explain to me why loaning out your personal CD collection is not a crime."

That specific copy has been paid for and so long as it remains one copy, in the hands of one person, it is completely legitimate. It's the same with rental and "used" music.

"So, I can loan out all my music to 1000 different people"

...so long as it's consecutive rather than concurrent, yes. 1:1 vs. 1:1000.

"The were quoted as saying "people need to limit their bathroom breaks during commercials" I'm not kidding, look it up."

I remember that one. I swear they hired Ballmer for that one. ;)

I have no idea about the details of this case, but did anyone presented as evidence the ISP traffic logs from her computer? Based on price of a song ($1), the fine covers like 80.000 downloaded copies per song. One mp3 song is about 3MB and been 24 songs, do some math and you will come up with some 6000GB total upload traffic from that computer... That just doesn't read good.. Any ISP would went crazy if a customer would made that kind of traffic. Anyone just sharing 24 files on kazzaa could not make that traffic in less then 10 years

People are missing the point of this whole LEGAL exercise. The woman pirated music and was and STILL IS being offered the chance to settle for $3000 to $5000. But she's deliberately racking up the legal expenses for everyone trying to say that it's OK to pirate music and not pay any kind of penalty. The court/jury simply turned her down and they're telling her to pay the fine or settle for $5000.

All excellent points, I would have given up the $200 a song way back when. Remember, a coward lives to fight another day.

PC, you seem to respond to everyone's comments with your own idea of what is right. You also try to make people feel stupid by attempting to explain things like you would to a child. Something is wrong with you or you are just a miserable person who has to go around correcting everything with your nonsensical rhetoric.

You are like a person I know who goes around telling everyone she's a member of MENSA and spouting her resume at every chance just to make herself feel important. In reality, she's not very bright and has no problem solving abilities or creativity. She uses corporate buzzwords to sound intelligent like "managing expectations". I think you are related.

You both seem to think you are more important than you really are, and you know it.

You are the Sarah Palin of BetaNews.

*laughing*

Like I need to defend myself to you, Hollywood. Or should I say, Mr. oh so High and Mighty he doesn't care about any of this because he is so far "above" it all...

I have a right to post my opinions, and explain them with the reasoning behind them. If you feel people are talking down to you like you are a child, perhaps it's simply because that's how *everyone* feels they need to speak to you to get anything through.

Not that it's worth their time, my time, or anyone elses....

As for my Ego and me being full of myself... *laughs* The *one* thing you should know about me by now is how *little* I care what other people think of me...especially anonymous posters on teh intarwebz. So go ahead, consider me a Jerk..or an arsehole....or a bumbling retard who thinks he knows it all... I *really* don't care. :D

Good for you PC, don't take any s*** off anybody.

From anonymous twits on teh intarwebz?

Puh-leez.

Get over yourself.

Hmmm when you was a kid, they teach you to share, when you become a grown up if you share (files on your on computer) You go to jail or pay out thy A$$....

*laughing*

Ok...let me try and explain this to ya:

When you were a child, you were told that it is kind to share THAT WHICH IS YOURS/BELONGS TO YOU with others.

When you are an adult, if you share THAT WHICH IS NOT YOURS/BELONGS TO OTHERS, you are committing a crime at worst, or infringing copyright at best.

The candy belonged to you. The song does not.

Capiche?

As for going to jail...this is a civil case, not criminal. It does not affect her criminal record and she cannot be imprisoned.

The funny thing about it is, it will never stop, i think i am going to download some songs now....lol I have done download music before Napster, etc...was popular, It will never stop....

first, this like any other p2p case i have seen is more a case of corporate greed then anything else, They sell cd's and songs online and in stores BUT then they say that you dont own it, you just payed for the right to listen to it.........(no cd i own ever said that even on its jewl case paperwork)

if somebody allows somebody else to COPY a song that isnt theift, sorry but nothing was TAKEN something was COPIED, the original songs still on the cd or hdd it was originally acquired on be it by "leigal" or "illegal" means.

Hell, I own 90% of the music on my computer, and the stuff I dont own is 99% stuff you CANT BUY HERE(anime sound tracks and such) if a company sells me a disk with music on it, or a file containing music, I feel I OWN IT, same with software, hence why I desided to "hack" windows dispite owning multi leigal licences, ms and other software companies have this problem with not understanding that GEEKS REINSTALL ALOT and limmited actications are A PAIN IN THE ASS, activation itselfs a pain in the ass........

blah, all this IP and copyright law s*** needs to be re-done/thought using modern tech and culture to hell with the riaa/mpaa/exct tools who are stuck in the past.

you know when tape recorders came out the riaa tryed to bann them, vcr's same deal, cd recoders,dvd burners, on and on, even MP3 players where targeted, all because the industry morons refuse to GET WITH THE TIMES.

if i could buy high quility/lossless songs online for a reasonable price I would, but its been very rare for me to beable to find what I want in anything but crap mp3/wma/aac formats/quilty....

i say down with the riaa/mpaa/exct.

I feel I need to repost this for you two:

DRM rights:


Them: "Hey, want to buy a movie?"
You: "Sure, how much?"
Them: "$100,000,000.00."
You: "F*** off."
Them: "Sorry, that was the price to purchase all rights to the movie, including redistribution and royalties. Would you like to buy a subset of those rights instead?"
You: "Sure, like what?"
Them: "How about, the right to public exhibition, and reproduction of media for sale, but no royalties? That'll be just $5,000,000.00."
You: "No thanks, too much."
Them: "How about, the right to public exhibition? Just $500,000.00."
You: "Do I look like I'm made of money?"
Them: "Sorry. How about, the right to private exhibition? Only $5."
You: "Now you're talkin'!"
Them: "So we have a deal?"
You: "Yep." [you hand them a fiver, and they hand you a DVD.]
Them: "Have a nice day."
You: "Hey, wait, this DVD is copy-protected! I want to copy it!"
Them: "Yes, sorry, we didn't sell you the right to do that. If you have more money -- equal to the amount we'll lose on average for each copy-producing customer -- you can buy that right too."
You: "But I paid for this!" [you shake the DVD at them]
Them: "Do you understand that you paid for limited ownership, and that you consented to the limits stated and known to you at the time of sale?"
You: "No, I'm too dumb-stupid to grasp that. I can only handle concrete meanings of the idea of ownership."
Them: "Yeah, we figured. You probably also think HOAs are usurping your god-given right to paint your house pink, eh?"

Point being, copyright wasn't intended to make the artists rich for life but t give them a *temporary* artificial monopoly on the rights to their work as an incentive to allow them to continue to produce. Yes, it has been abused horribly. But the songs you buy are *not* *YOURS*. Without the limited monopoly (which I agree is now *WAY* too long), the artist cannot continue to create their works as they will be busy flipping burgers instead.

If you like the works, support the artist. If you disagree with the terms of copyright, inform the artist you cannot support them as long as *they* support the absurd abuse of copyright.

...and yeah, I know you'll never do that. It's much easier to just get your s*** for free than actually have integrity and responsibility....

Under Fair use, it is a "lessee"'s rights to make a backup copy of all digital media for their own personal use. This helps protect the lessee's investment in the media from accidental loss or destruction (such as scratched on the cd/dvd, warpage from heat etc - that would make the original investment in said cd/dvd worthless.
Myself, the very FIRST thing I do when i buy a cd/dvd is to make a copy. I then put the original away in a safe place and only use that copy, protecting my original investment. If there are copy protections on that original, I either copy them over if possible, or if not, i remove them when I make the copy. Such is my right under fair use.
I do not now, never in the past and not in the forseeable future, intend on ever "sharing" the content of that media - past the possible incidental sharing one may get if they pull up to me at the red light and hear the media playing on my car cd player.

That said, I think both Capitol Records AND Jammie Thomas-Rasset (when did people start to accept the fact that misspelling a name is ok? it's Jamie :) ) have a semi valid argument. The fact that the hag has decided on going through hoops, making a mockery of the channels available in the legal system to redress grievances - just makes me mad and want to punch her in the face lol.

Heh...

Fair use...

It'd be great if they didn't make the exercise of these fair use rights a crime, though, eh? (Think DMCA; bypassing copy-protection)

Maybe CDs ought to come with license agreements, like software.

They do.

See the copyright symbol? That's the agreement.

I admit I don't understand copyright law. With that said, copyright implies ownership, correct? Meaning if I write a song, or a book, or some other copyrightable thing, I own it. It's mine and the average joe cannot claim ownership and profit from it.

But with software, which I do write, my license agreement specifically states that I am not selling the software, but for a fee I am licensing it to whomever is registering for use dictated by the set forth terms (x number of computers, etc). Setting aside the argument that such agreements may or may not be flawed and their enforceability, does the DMCA basically state the same thing? I ask, because I honestly do not know.

AFAIK, the DMCA doesn't state much more than making it illegal to bypass copy-protection and create a safe-harbor for internet service providers.

Copyright law itself is what creates the artificial, temporary monopoly on the works for the creator of said works. As for license agreements, they usually only restate (though usually in somewhat less than honest terms) what you can and cannot do with the software.

Example: Movies come with a "license" telling you you cannot make copies. This is patently false at worst, or a half-truth at best. You can't copy it for others, but you *can* make an archival copy for yourself (providing you're not bypassing copy-protection as made illegal by the imfamous DMCA)...

Truthfully, the copyright symbol is all the syhould *need*, but they do usually try to get away with more than they deserve (hence the over-reaching license agreements and the ridiculous copyright term extensions). Of course, little to no-one ever calls them on it in court, so they get away with it.

and nobody is suspecting that this jury may have been rigged with RIAA cronies? what group of people in the real world would award such a stupid amount of money to a company of theives.. the defense should have been " who is the RIAA giving the money to "? Obviously not the music artists they represent, they are doing this for personal gain and therefore their case should be thrown out.. they are not there for supporting the people in their group, they are doing it to waste time in court rooms and get publicity for their illegal underground tactics.. our money should not be used to fund these phony idiots sayign they are doing it for the artists, when they clearly are not..

"what group of people in the real world would award such a stupid amount of money to a company of theives.."

Playing both sides here, but...

A group of people who was outright lied to by the defendant, run through a three-ring-circus of absolute hysterics and seemed to be begging for it?

One almost thinks her and her lawyer may have cooked up the whole thing just to get the ridiculous damages possible here into the public's mind.

The *tens of thousands* of $300 to $5000 "settlement" letters didn't deter anyone. One person's life and the lives of her children being reduced to smoldering ruins won't either.

At most, all this accomplishes is making even *worse* the already heinous reputation of an organization that the majority of the public already despises. At best, this will *keep* people from buying. I watched the news last night...this isn't even going over well on the "liberal" networks.

Perhaps they won't accept the full judgment. It is still possible for them to lower the damages to a reasonable level...to make their point *and* perhaps recover a little from the horrific PR.

**It should be noted that the RIAA did *not* request this amount and will likely, as with the last trial, strongly advise JTR to settle...for something she might actually be able to afford. The amount was decided upon *solely* by the jury and was likely meant as punitive for that she outright lied and basically carried on like a complete moron. Still, the possible damages in cases such as these are mind-numbingly broken and need to be fixed. Big time.

Follow-up to my "I don't understand what anti-RIAA proponents are waiting for... God?" comment below...

One of the tracks that Ms. Thomas-Rasset pirated was Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'"

It just cost her $80,000.

I wonder if she ever downloaded "Who's Crying Now?" Hmm...

G.C. Hutson
http://www.sadien.com

(For those of you born after Regan, "Who's Crying Now" was one of Journey's other hits, released in 1981)

"Who's Crying Now?"

..anyone watching this, witnessing the perversion of the intent of copyright, and wondering what the hell is wrong with the human race. Copyright was intended to protect an artificial incentive for artists to keep creating their works. It was *never* intended to punish individuals not hampering the artists ability to make a living or keep producing.

Perhaps they *should* have just lynched her. At least her children would be "taken care of" in the foster system and have *some* chance at having any kind of a decent life.

Dude, I hope that last paragraph was in sarcasm. The foster care system is broken. I don't believe her kids would be better off.

Meh...

Broken foster care or psychotically depressed mom....

Yeah, that's a toughy. ;)

Kill or rape... and you're free in under 5 years for good behaviour.
Download some songs... and you're f****d for life.
I'll be amazed if this verdict holds on appeal. I would never pay it. It's excessive and not representative of the crime it barely is.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the evidence was tenuous at best.

You're confusing criminal law with civil law. This was a civil trial, two "equal" parties, arguing over an issue. Criminal law is a defendant versus the state, for crimes against society.

In a civil trial, the winner has to establish a "preponderance of the evidence." Which means, you have to have a better argument than your opponent. Mathematically, you have to be 51% convincing, or better.

In a criminal trial, the state has to establish to a jury "guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt." In other words, 90%-ish or better, that you "did it."

Copyright is one of the few areas of law, that is ENTIRELY weighted on one side of an issue. The copyright holder has ALL of the power (more or less).

This is where people get confused...

If software, music, movies, etc... are on your computer, you're "guilty" until you produce a piece of paper that proves you have the right to have that material in your possession. Period.

All the other side has to do is show that the material was probably on your machine at some point. That's their "51%."

G.C. Hutson
Sadien, Inc.
http://www.sadien.com

You're right, Sadien, to say that I don't fully understand this. The law doesn't work like that where I'm from. But it isn't the guilt that I've a real problem with. I don't dispute that she deserves some sort of punishment. It's the extent of punishment I simply cannot fathom. It is (at least, to me) indefensibly excessive & unjustifiable.
If she had downloaded (and redistributed) tens of thousands of songs, then I could understand such a figure. But $1.92m for two dozen songs? How is that justice?
Still, since in the US you can get sued by a burglar for injuries he sustained while robbing you and lose (and pay him millions), you can get a judgment like Ms. Thomas-Rasset.

You forgot to add how the system deals with those who abuse animals. Slap a puppy and go to jail forever. Kill or rape your neighbor, out in five years. When did animals get more rights than humans? They're not even sentient by the true definition of the word. Sad.

What can be said, is this...

They don't have to collect it. That wasn't the point. They made an example by publicly "executing" her.

They (the RIAA) showed every "tweenie," teen, pirate and casual illegal downloader in the country that they will subpoena every IP address, data record, ISP account and bank statement available to build a federal case against any and all individuals, no matter how "small" and "off-the-radar" they are.

This was the legal equivalent of a town-square public-hanging.

Let's break this down point for point...

A. This wasn't about money for the RIAA. It wasn't about settlements, dollars, statutory damages pursuant 17 USC 504 or recovering anything for the industry. It was about sending a cold, clear message to everyone who thinks that "Pirate Bay Rules!" and that they can download anything they want, because they'll "never get caught."

B. It was the defense's tactics that caused the RIAA to make this issue so public. My group hears the "it really wasn't me at my computer" defense, everyday. That doesn't fly, and the RIAA found a very, very public forum to prove this to the world.

C. The "What is Kazaa? What is Internet? What is keyboard? I love lamp." defense. Garbage.

D. "There will be another trial... She'll keep fighting... bla bla bla..." Why? She's lost twice. She pirated music. The first time, a jury of her peers said she owed $220,000. This time a jury of her peers said that she owed $1.9 Million. The next trial, they'll probably make her wear a "scarlet circle-C."

I don't understand what anti-RIAA proponents are waiting for... God? The Copyright-Fairy? ...To part the clouds and say "It's OK, my children, to steal all the music, movies and software you want... go forth... steal everything... live long and prosper...Go Pirate Bay!...Go Packers!..." Really? I mean... Really?

It's... not... going... to... happen.

Pirate Bay guys - jailed
Kazaa Girl - lost two trials and is now owned by RIAA
ISP's - strong-armed into bending to the RIAA's will

More fun stuff...

This judgment will follow her forever. Recent court rulings (known as "case law") have clearly established that willful copyright infringement is nondischargeable in bankruptcy. Which means, anytime she gets a paycheck, alimony payment or birthday-card from grandma... the RIAA will be there to garnish it. A $1,920,000 judgment will appear on her credit for the rest of her life. Which means... no car loan... no house loan... and probably no job above that of "burger flipper."

Let me be perfectly clear... the RIAA literally, and legally owns Ms. Thomas-Rasset.

As for the statement, "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip." True. But you can publicly crush it.

G.C. Hutson
Sadien, Inc.
http://www.sadien.com

For the record... I am not pro-RIAA, pro-BSA, pro-SIIA, pro-Hollywood nor pro-Big-Software. I believe in (and love) the law. Specifically, copyright law. It's my job. It's my life.

I work, everyday, to help people and companies avoid problems, just like the one Ms. Thomas-Rasset is now facing. The first step is education on what copyright is, and how it works.

Copyright is extremely complex, and very complicated.

Rule 1: If you wait until someone is "knocking on your door" to start worrying about copyright, music files, software licenses, etc... it is too late.

(This comment contains subjective opinion)

My question is, how do they come to these astronomical damage numbers? Did they prove that "millions" of people actually downloaded the music? How can they pull these damages seemingly out of thin air without evidence that proves each instance? I think most people would agree that downloading illegally is wrong and if caught you stand the chance of being penalized, but the penalties just don't add up or make sense.

Also, I just don't see how this is going to have any impact on anything. Millions upon millions download illegally every day, and one case like this is not going to stop that. If they prosecute 500 downloaders a year, every year for the rest of my life, I would still have a one in a million chance of getting caught. I have a better chance of dying from car accident or cancer or all the other things more important to worry about.

I'll answer a few of your questions, point for point:

You asked:
"My question is, how do they come to these astronomical damage numbers? "

Statutory damages. Under the law, a copyright holder can seek up to $150,000 in damages without proving tangible damages, per work infringed.

You asked:
"How can they pull these damages seemingly out of thin air without evidence that proves each instance?"

Same statute. You don't have to prove damages. You only have to be "51%" convincing there was infringement. Depending on the level of "willful behavior" proven, the amount changes. She very willfully distributed music via Kazaa. They very willfully sued her.

You said:
"Also, I just don't see how this is going to have any impact on anything."

Do you see all the people in an uproar over this? Impact.

You said:
"Millions upon millions download illegally every day, and one case like this is not going to stop that."

Millions upon millions of people who download illegally just paused, and had a cold chill go down their spine. Which is exactly what the RIAA was after.

G.C. Hutson
Sadien, Inc.
http://www.sadien.com

The problem // scratch that // One of the *many* problems with this is that *you* and the *RIAA* seem absolutely unbothered by the fact that;

"A $1,920,000 judgment will appear on her credit for the rest of her life. Which means... no car loan... no house loan... and probably no job above that of "burger flipper.""

This woman's life is *ruined*. No, scratch that.....it is absolutely *destroyed*. College for her kids? Nope. Clothing, food for a family of 3? Good luck. So it's not even just *her* life, is it?

For what? To make a point?

They couldn't have made a point with $3600? They *had* to destroy the lives of her and her children?

Glad you love the law, but it's wrong. It's broken. Statutory damages were intended to be used against those profiting from infringement. They were *never* intended to be used to punish casual infringement.

I am all for "do the crime, do the time", but this is *well* beyond the pale. The punishment *should* fit the crime...(not to mention this isn't even a "crime", but a civil action.)

I'll be amused to hear if he's ever strayed over the speed limit, considering how much he 'loves the law'.

Arsehole.

Under no circumstances is that amount of money acceptable as punishment.

"This judgment will follow her forever. Recent court rulings (known as "case law") have clearly established that willful copyright infringement is nondischargeable in bankruptcy. Which means, anytime she gets a paycheck, alimony payment or birthday-card from grandma... the RIAA will be there to garnish it. A $1,920,000 judgment will appear on her credit for the rest of her life. Which means... no car loan... no house loan... and probably no job above that of "burger flipper."

Let me be perfectly clear... the RIAA literally, and legally owns Ms. Thomas-Rasset."

And you're okay with this? Why don't you move to North Korea? Since you're so comfortable with totally destroying someone's life for an extremely minor infringement, I think you'd fit right into the totalitarian, zero human rights, environment that is North Korea. Or, the Taliban might be a good fit for you.

I mean, sense of perspective. Why don't you advocate she gets boiled to death? ... or burned at the stake?

"For the record... I am not pro-RIAA, pro-BSA, pro-SIIA, pro-Hollywood nor pro-Big-Software. I believe in (and love) the law. Specifically, copyright law. It's my job. It's my life.

I work, everyday, to help people and companies avoid problems, just like the one Ms. Thomas-Rasset is now facing. The first step is education on what copyright is, and how it works."

You are most certainly not for "helping" people. You are all about screwing them, and raping them for whatever you can suck out of them. And don't pretend to hide behind your phony "I just want to uphold the law" stance. Really, no one advocates stealing. You couldn't care less about the law. You care about manipulating the law to squeeze $$$ out of people for yourself and you corporate cronies.

This woman clearly violated intellectual property, and should face fines. I'd say no more than $5 a song. But, completely destroying her life, and having the RIAA "own" her - that's North Korea / Taliban territory. That's not upholding the law. That's a barbaric public lynching.

Going forward, I will never, ever, buy anything from any of the members of the RIAA. They are nothing more than a cartel, extorting money from consumers, and screwing artists. Luckily, there are many independant labels, and services that specialize in them (like eMusic). I happily do business with them. They are into providing value, and they are into treating customers with respect, and they are into paying artists fairly.

G.C. Hutson, you are an embarassment to humanity.

I've been given to understand since I made that post, that the RIAA spokesperson has stated since the trial that an offer of settlement has always been available to her and that this remains unchanged.

Also that it was not the RIAA who came up with the awarded damages, but the jury alone.

So...

It boils down to nothing more than a *point* made with the help of an abuse of an outdated/broken law.

Have no doubt I still feel the law needs to be changed. The maximum should be no more than $150 per instance, not $150,000 in a case such as this. No profits were made by the infringing party. This neeeds to be spelled out in law.

This case needs to stop. She needs to settle. She also needs to, with the help of her lawyers, take the absurd damages to a higher court to get the issue resolved.

I haven't been following this case as closely as some others here, however, a few thoughts:

She probably thought ( or was led to believe by her attorney) that no jury of peers would punish a single soccer-mom with kids who is struggling to make ends meet for her family. She probably thought the jury would be sympathetic, which is unfortunately hard to do with a defendant who displays righteous indignation on the witness stand.

Also, as far the $1,900,000 damage award. I think it's very safe to say that the trial judge would (will) reduce that amount unless she is willing to settle. She was probably urged by her lawyers not to settle because doing so would be tantamount to an admission if culpability in some form; however now it's too late because the jury has found for the plaintiff and even if she does settle, the horses have escaped and shutting the barn doors will do nothing to help her.

As a side note, with closing of the last Virgin Megastore here in New York City, we now have no major retail outlet where one can purchase recorded music. This...in the supposed cultural capital of the country. As a person who prefers classical music (NOBODY is sharing the madrigals of Monteverdi online) this whole mess has pretty much ruined any opportunity I may have left to learn about, browse and purchase the recordings of my favorite artists. (Which often cost 30% more than "POP" music due to the smaller market.)

We're not just talking about the artists losing out from illegal file sharing. Record companies produce and market their product at considerable expense; from renting the studios and engineers...to paying for cover artists, designers, distributors, marketing expenses (print ads, tour promotions) etc.

Some people here speak as if they actually have a right to just go online and obtain a commercial product for nothing. I wonder what they'd say if their boss decided not to provide them with a paycheck this week for the professional services they have rendered to their place of employment.

Hey, man.

I just hopped on Amazon and did a search. I know ordering the stuff online isn't "best case", but the stuff seems to be available.

Not being a huge "classical" buff (my tastes tend to vary wildly, but the most "non-mainstream" I go is folk, preferring the Irish variety) I don't know Monteverdi from Tenacious D, I am not sure how extensive their stock is, but the search did get several hits.

You're right, of course. And in fact there is an outstanding classical website,
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp which offers the best selection of classical CD's anywhere on the internet.

Problem is, where do I learn of/hear a new release by my favorite artist before buying ? Sure...many of them (or their labels) have their own websites where I can hear a 30-second sample before buying. But this pales in comparison with being able to go into the record store and listen to selections from the entire CD from the "Store Copy".

Obviously there's no solution to this for me; and it's always been this way because there was never really much of a market for classical music anyway.

BTW - Since you mentioned your interest in Irish music, you may be interested to know that besides my "classical" background, I also play the bagpipes. Yes...it's true.

Also - I finally heard from the powers that be about the contest, and I'm assuming you did as well.

Um... Jeff... at what point did I ever say I was "ok" with any of it?

In fact, I'm very much NOT ok with virtually every aspect of it, on both sides of the table.

--The RIAA is propagating a cold-war between content providers and content users. They have used questionable, heavy-handed tactics to push a private agenda for corporate interests for years. (Being a trade organization, that's actually their job.)

--Ms. Thomas-Rasset violated federal law, and has continued to make one bad decision after another for herself and her family.

--Ms. Thomas-Rasset's counsel originally argued that "hackers" must have "broken into her computer and distributed copyright protected material." In this last trial, she blamed her children. (Wonder why the jury of her peers were so turned off by her. Weird.)

The main point of my original post... as was clearly stated... the law is ENTIRELY weighted on the side of the copyright holder. Period.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the law. It doesn't matter if you hate Sony... It doesn't matter if you "hate da man...." or you hate the judicial system... or anything of the like.

The law states, if you create a Work... you own it. And no one can copy or distribute it, without your permission.

For the record, I do think $1.9 million for 24 songs is extreme.

But I didn't render the judgment... nor did the RIAA... nor did the judge...

That was the jury... of her peers.

Thus, before you go insulting me, you might want to first research what she said to 12 of her neighbors, that they obviously REALLY didn't like.

GC Hutson

Paul,

I've been pulled over twice for speeding, and yes, I still love the law.

Once I paid the fine. The other time I argued the case, and won.

Did you have a point? Or were you just trying to be clever?

GC Hutson

@Straspey:

Bagpipes? Irish? Fie! Those are Scottish, my friend. Not that I mind them terribly, when played well...but there are so incredibly few nowadays who can do so it's not really worth the attempt. You play? Any recording that might be accessible online?? ;)

Almost as bad as trying to find a good Bodhran player... ;)

@ PC_Tool

Yeah, you're right. I play the "Highland Bagpipes". But of course there are many other types of bagpipes, including the Ullian or "Irish Pipes". In fact I worked at an event recently with a group that had a woman who played the Gallacian pipes from Spain. Fabulous instrument.

Also, the Scottish pipes are a virtuoso instrument when handled properly and out in these parts we have a few. I'm not at the highest end of the spectrum, but I did get a chance to play with Eric Idle of "Monty Python" fame a couple of years back.

With regard to your question, bagpiping for me is more of an avocation, so I have no recordings. And even if I did, I certainly wouldn't tell you about them in this forum because none of those CD's have copy protection. ;)

I play with a university band here and do the occasional wedding/party/funeral.
There are pockets of excellent piping around the country and places to hear some wonderful live music, if you're interested.

I am indeed, and bow to your obviously far greater knowledge of the instrument. ;)

I have a BIG issue with the misused term "of her peers". Dictionary.com defines pers as :

1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers.
2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

Were there any single mothers in that jury?
were there any members of that jury with the same social status?

Probably not. By and large, "jury of their peers" has come to mismean anyone within the general vicinity of her community.... in most cases this translates to upper middle class ppl passing judgement on near poverty level ppl. in NO way do they share common ground in anything. so lets see a jury composed of ghetto ppl passing judgement on her :)

"Were there any single mothers in that jury?
were there any members of that jury with the same social status?"

Neither of these things qualifies as "legal status".

This part of our legal system was tapped from the UK legislature where if a "lord" was tried, his jury was made up of "lords" and so forth. As it stands currently in the US all it implies is that your jury won't be made up of criminals and non-citizens. ;)

No surprise here.

Well, that's about it. Hopefully, this will spawn a media circus and perhaps get the issue looked at.
...and perhaps that was part of the plan, giving the jury the benefit of the doubt.

Someone needs to take the absurd damages into legal question, not her liability. But first, that "someone" will need to lose and sue the courts for levying unreasonable damages.

Max damages in a non-profiting infringement should be limited to a maximum of $150 per act of infringement. In her case, it would still amount to less than the "settlement" they offered her.

No defense witnesses? What could they expect? I'm sure a basic explanation of P2P and the internet would have helped muddle things a bit. Since they didn't have the hard drive, I'm sure you could cast some doubt on the evidence the RIAA did have. As others have mentioned, their supposed damages were based on unlikely figures.

Of course, I'm not sure how she can claim to have never heard of Kazaa. If she didn't install it, they needed a very good explanation of how this happened on her connection/computer. She'd probably be better just breaking down in tears and saying she had no idea what she was doing was so wrong.

yup lol you're prob right, crying and saying... i just thought it was ok, and going insane :)

I sure hope they were good songs.. Can she work on weekends at 50K and hour to pay them off?

this world is f*cked, what else can be said really? the outcome is no surprise

$1,920,000 and not a penny to the artists. I wonder what the Eighth Circuit will make of this. (What I make of this: Jammie Thomas-Rasset ain't such a sympathetic witness. Wow.)

the fine doesn't match the crime and the crime has been blown out of proportion, sharing with millions of users? the RIAA probably even thinks they are being generous lol...

i wonder if they looked at her upstream bandwidth along with the timeframe of sharing, surely they could come up with a pretty accurate picture of exactly how many individuals grabbed a copy from her, i'm willing to bet its nowhere near their own figures pulled out of their a** :P

i'm trying to remember how kazaa worked, when you're sharing aren't you sharing every file all at once to another individual? if indeed thats how it works, sharing one on one would slow the amount of sharing down even more... in any event, their math is f*cked up :P i shouldn't have to do it for them :D

In England they use to hang a person who stole bread to feed their children.....

... or ship them to the colonies ;)

Um... yeh. When your own attorney alludes to the fact that the jury hated you... it's bad.

"In England they use to hang a person who stole bread to feed their children....."

Perhaps that would have been better for her and her kids. ;) (Sad but true)

I think the bigger issue here is how the DMA is being applied. There is now question about her downloading. However, the DMA was established to address wholesale corporate pirating. It's focus was not individuals. The crime of illegal downloading more akin to shoplifting. The issue the the disproportionate force used against individuals. It shows again, that still today, the power of business exceeds that of citizens.

You are confusing the DM(C)A and copyright law. While the DMCA was intended to be a modern addendum *to* copyright law, the statutory damages awarded in this case and the laws argued are both the original copyright law established to provide a temporary artificial monopoly on an artists works.

The DMCA is totally unrelated to this case and focuses more on bypassing copy-protection.