Woman Loses Appeal Against RIAA

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

December 12, 2005, 10:45 AM

In a move that could set a precedent for other peer-to-peer file traders resisting settlement with the music industry, a federal appeals court late Friday refused to overturn a $22,500 judgment against a Chicago woman who was caught downloading music illegally.

The court said that Ceclia Gonzalez's activities were not permitted under copyright law and compared her actions to shoplifting. She argued that she downloaded the songs to decide which she would buy later, and claimed she owned over 250 compact discs.

However, Gonzalez apparently never deleted the songs she didn't buy, and the court pointed out she could have been sued for over 1,000 songs found on her computer rather than the 30 the RIAA accused her of downloading.

The music industry had proposed to settle for $3,500, but Gonzalez refused. A federal judge later ordered her to pay $750 for each song downloaded, which Gonzalez appealed.

The victory in appeals court is one of the first in the country for the music industry, which has begun to aggressively pursue Internet piracy in the courts.

Gonzalez could attempt to take her case to the Supreme Court; however, based on the high court's past actions, its unlikely that they would hear the case or rule in her favor if they did.

"A copy downloaded, played, and retained on one's hard drive for future use is a direct substitute for a purchased copy," the appeals court judges wrote in their decision Friday.

Add a Comment (158 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By redleader

edited Dec 18, 2005 - 6:30 PM

How much do the lawyers earn with all this ?
After all , who is forcing this actions in court ? The music companies or who saw the gold mine in going to the federal courts ?

Score: 0

By minus_seven_fold

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 1:10 AM

Is'nt a strange world were the record companies have Street Teams that give out demos of albums before the come out to boost there cd sales, then turn around and sue you and you friends for that were given to them!

I mean thats why the loved the internet at frist, because it was a great tool to get your music out there, and now they want to shut it down, all the while bringing down there own image.

Score: 0

By minus_seven_fold

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 12:52 AM

We are looking at this all wrong. they are impending on our basic freedoms that are granted to us by many laws. The fact that they have the money to win any lawsuit is what makes them seem unstopable. What we need to do is get this out there in the public light and voice our views and start a riot so to say. Go on strike against the music industry. If we ALL do it, they would have no other choice but to give in to our demands as long as we stick together and not fall apart. IT would take a while but it CAN happen. Look at At@t and ticketmaster, people made enough noice and complained enough about them having a monopoly that the government steeped in a did something about it. WE JUST NEED TO STICK TOGETHER!

Score: 0

By buwayahman

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 11:27 PM

I honestly don't understand the logic of music piracy. I mean I bought a CD, I ripped an MP3 version, and I decided to share it. What's the difference between this and say lending the CD to a friend? I bought the CD. Is there some disclaimer somewhere that I agreed wherein I can't share this CD?

What also puzzles me is why can't some smart lawyer defend the consumer? Kazaa, Napster, e-Donkey are all losing their court battles!

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 6:50 PM

RIAA bought themselves laws they want. Smart lawyer is not enough if the law actually says all that nonsense that RIAA paid lawmakers to put there.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 6:42 PM

Ripping it and sharing it is no different than say, burning a copy of a cd and giving it to a friend. Where as if you let a friend borrow the cd you'll most likely be getting it back.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 1:38 PM

I awlays here people talking about various things being the downfall of western civilization, our music, movies, video games. In my opinion it won't be any of those things. It will be the bottom feeding scum like the lawyers that work for the RIAA that will do anything for a quick buck.

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 2:11 PM

Not just the lawyers crashoverride like here in Canada the music companies STEAL consumers money whenever they buy recordable media here they get a cut in the form of a hidden tax that goes to them and it's not just Canada there are a few other countries that do this to but not sure if it's hidden like it is here.

Doesn't matter what you buy the recordable media for data backup they get a cut you have a digital camera and want to make a photo cds they get a cut you own a camcorder and want to make dvds they get a cut so how can people feel sorry for the music companies when they steal aswell i know i don't if i pick up some cds for data back up i don't feel guilty for downloading a couple songs seeing as how i paid for them.

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:40 PM

She would be stupid not to appeal only she needs to change tactics and claim that $22,500 is far to much for $30 worth of merchandise(thats how much it would cost at itunes) and to prove the point bring in many case files of people who have been convicted of shoplifting the same amount from stores and the small fine they get.

Score: 0

By joesnow

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:27 PM

now, if everyone would just >>stop buying<< CD's and just go download all of your songs, they'd take a fat hit. ;-p

you save money, a few random people take one for the team (as if they aren't already right?), and they are forced to change Something.

just my thought.

Score: 0

By Jose

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 10:55 AM

Can they actually make her pay that amount? I mean even if she has it. What can they possibly do to make her pay, come out and break her legs?

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 11:19 AM

She can always go to jail or they can reposes her car or whatever assets she has...plenty of legal ways to get the money...and they will get their money one way or another. :)

Score: 0

By LunaNL

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 10:38 AM

Maybe the woman was hired by the RIAA to play this "stupid downloader" role? Now she is sued and plees guilty to scare off all you US downloaders and the RIAA pays $22.500 to itsself ..

Score: 0

By tremens

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 10:14 AM

Women and 5 Kids lose their home so Britney Spears can buy a new life boat for her yacht.

This strengthens the fight for change, it does nothing else.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 9:50 AM

I don't understand why RIAA stop people from download music. Just let them download and then sue the hell out of them. For a price tag of $750 per song, they don't need any one buying their CD. Penalty for 1 song equal the cost of 10 cd. Sue 10 people who d/l 10 songs equal the profit of 10000 cd.

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 11:21 AM

I guess you forgot to add lawyer/court fees into the mix...RIAA is not making much money at all in this deal....it's more meant to scare off future thieves.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:20 PM

So you don't think marketing cost money? You don't think retail store need to make money?

RIAA is make up of lawyers, they get a salary plus bonus. Like any corporate lawyers.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:49 PM

uhhhh....what does that have to do with my post?? Ofcourse marketing costs money...and ofcourse retail stores need to make money...ofcourse RIAA HAS lawyers, ofcourse they get a salary...

what is your point??????

Score: 0

By yizuman

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 9:12 AM

I wonder how much RIAA paid the Judge to render this judgement against her?

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 8:15 AM

First they glue you, then they sue you.

Corporations are treated like human persons before the law, but do not care about human worths at all.

Freedom's just a mockery. On every dollar bill they say "in god we trust", but the bill is all they really care about.

This is the glorious USA, built on the blood of human beings from the beginning. And even their foundation was about nothing but money - tax money. Go ahead and try a similar thing nowadays in the USA.

"Freedom" and "Democracy" is just the non existing rationalization with which they have brainwashed the whole world for ages.

Did you know that IBM not only supplied the NAZIs their early punching card systems for use in their concentration camps, but also maintained them? So they must have known about what was going in the concentration camps, but: where money is the highest worth, not even millions of corpses are bothering anybody.

So - why is anybody astonished about such laws and judicial practics...

Score: 0

By daddieo

edited Dec 14, 2005 - 3:11 AM

tipsyboy i think you need to slow down on your drinkin or smokin or whatever drug it is your takin. IBM wasnt even started until the 1950's you fool. so how could they be helping the nazis with their concentration camps when WWII ended in the 40's.
you kids should really pay more attention in school,its no wonder that America is becoming the dumbest country on the planet.
and the recording companies dont care if you burn 1 or 2 copies,its when you sit at home and burn 20 or 30 or as with that other fool 1000.
Try to think of it this way,,You loan your car to a friend.they get to where they need to be, see a friend there who needs to borrow YOUR car to get to the next town.1st friend lets their friend go ahead.2nd friend gets to thier town,sees a friend who could sure use a ride to the next town,farther away from you,2nd friend lets 3rd friend take car and on and on it goes, and before you know it your car has been Stolen buy your friend. Thats how they see it and rightly so.
but tipsyboy,i will give you this much.your right about the gov.only caring about the almighty dollar. we are just numbers the them and the corporations of the world.

Score: 0

By Chip1035

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 10:23 AM

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Score: 0

By coe younger

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 4:27 AM

Long Live Piracy !!!

N.A.P.O.

Score: 0

By dizzy_davidh

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 4:41 AM

She stole the equivalent of 3 albums not 500 albums (which is roughly what you could buy with the fine - UK prices)!

I wholely agree with others in this thread that the crime in no way deserves that sort of punishment.

She would have got a lesser sentence if she had stolen some CDs from a retail store!

Score: 0

By athome

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 9:44 AM

It seems as if a lot of people have the same opinion as you and she does, but look where it got here.

"If you cannot do the time, then don't do the crime." Claiming ignorance and acting upon it will only get you in trouble. The woman should have taken the original $3500 offer, but she thought(what a lot of you think) that she would get the sympathy vote or the "I don't like what they(RIAA) are doing either" vote.

In the end, she had over 1000 songs on her computer(then) and it is a small price to pay considering the alternatives. It is not like we haven't heard that they are coming after us.

I don't like what they are doing either, but I am not going to go up against them when the law is on their side, and rightfully so. They are changing their ways of doing business, but I guess people will still buck that system too. But think of it this way, they(others that think like you) won't be standing next to you when you are in court facing the judge for punishment. They will be hiding!

We are all going to be paying in the end.

IMO

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 4:39 AM

Stupid woman. She should've taken the deal. [shrugs]

Score: 0

By athome

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 9:44 AM

Exactly! What the H***** was she thinking?

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 3:00 AM

Eeek, looks like they could have charged $150,000 for each 'work'.

http://www.copyright.gov...aq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p

Score: 0

By THEGAME

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 1:53 AM

Typical corporate greed interesting how this is treated like she stole the whole entire music industry, otherwise this punishment doesn’t fit the crime and lets be real people do ya think the the music industry really cares what you download, NO! There just looking for anyway to get money and that’s just the harsh cold facts. When was the last time when you bought a CD and every song on it was good or is it more they want you to spend $10.00 to $20.00 for one (if lucky 2) song per CD that are decent. Question, how did they know it was her downloading the songs, How do they know how many songs she had on her PC isn’t there something called invasion of privacy? The federal judge is a whack job and typically corrupted, ordered her to pay $750 for each song, Does that mean each CD is worth something like $7500.00...lol. Just remember it’s always about money.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 11:33 AM

"there just looking for anyway to get money and that’s just the harsh cold facts"

A company trying to make money...wow is that some new radical way of thinking?? Another strange thing this company decided to do was to protect its copyrighted materia which it uses to make it's money. Wow what a strange world we live in...

"When was the last time when you bought a CD and every song on it was good or is it more they want you to spend $10.00 to $20.00 for one (if lucky 2) song per CD that are decent."

Everybody has their own opinion about every CD...and if you don't want to spend 10-20/cd you always have the option of purchasing songs seperately on itunes or the like.

"How do they know how many songs she had on her PC isn’t there something called invasion of privacy?"

She lost all her privacy rights when she got sued. An officer can search your car based on probably cause (smell something strange), same thing. If you kill someone you don't get to hide the gun in your desk drawer and tell the detectives they can't look in there because it will be invasion of privacy. (not comparing murder to music theft...but the same concept applies).

"The federal judge is a whack job and typically corrupted, ordered her to pay $750 for each song, Does that mean each CD is worth something like $7500.00"

If you steal a $200 stereo from best buy and get cought...do you expect your fine to be exactly $200? I hope not...punishments like these are not only meant to cover lawyer and court fees...but also to scare other people from doing the same thing. They're basically making an example out of her.

Score: 0

By minus_seven_fold

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 1:01 AM

First, that company already has more money than it can count so in that concept there doing it because they can. Secondly,it is a strange world that we live in when the same record companies that are giving out pre-release cds to boost upcoming album, then turn around and sue u for giving those songs to your friends!

Score: 0

By athome

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 10:06 AM

I think that the punishment does fit the crime to an extent. For example, you rip a CD and place it on the internet. Now, 10 people take it from you and in turn they give to 10 other people respectively - and so on. Now that price of 14.99 has just lost that company thousands. So, the punishment does fit the crime in that the loss of revenue is great - same for the movie industry.

It shouldn't matter that there are songs on the CD that you dislike. That would be the same as deleting scenes from a movie because you don't like them and isn't that a form of censorship. The artists believe that the CD was compiled in a fashion that they are comfortable with and are now selling it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

I think that the Internet provides a great outlet for the music industry to cater to the downloading of music from legitimate sites.

I agree that business practices need to change for the RIAA, and they are doing so, but I think that some of the pointless arguments that the general public are making is ignorance at its best and it makes us all look stupid.

And you are right, it is all about money, from you getting up in the morning, going to work, and getting your paycheck on Friday - only to complain that it isn't big enough for you to do the things you want. It is all about money and that is whay we are made of. It is not the RIAA's fault or the individual bands for that matter.

There is not privacy when it comes to your PC or personal life for that matter. If you were caught looking at kiddie porn, they are going to be coming after your PC with a warrant. It is not invasion of privacy. It is stupidity on the part of the woman for not getting them off of her PC.

Why bash the judge for the illegal acts of the woman. He is only enforcing the laws of the land. He cut her a break too. I only see the woman here as the real whack job! She is like the criminal that goes to rob the bank(with a uniform that has her name and address on it) and is dumbfounded on how she was caught. I laugh at that.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 4:43 AM

I agree, the punishment should fit the crime. Stick her in a dark room with Ashley Simpson playing for a few hours. That should more then cover it.

Score: 0

By minus_seven_fold

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:54 AM

First, where do they get of ordering her to pay 750.00 per song!!!!! MY GOD. Have we all gone nuts. I dont care if its illegal but make the punisment fit the crime. This is getting out of hand and people need to treat this like they are with wal-mart now. We all have to do our part to bring this machine down, not just talk about it.They one this one now there gonna think there invincible and your going to see a snowball effect happen. The RIAA is not going to stop any time soon, WE have to Stop them.

Score: 0

By bounty1990

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:03 AM

Well I see the the point that it illegal but as long as their is internet there will be some version of file sharing. For example all the P2P apps started closing then torrents became popular.

Score: 0

By p0ndscum

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 9:49 PM

The article doesn't state, but if her claim that she has bought over 250 CDs is true, then the RIAA has shot themselves in the foot and sucessfully sued one of their best customers!!! To think she supported them finacially and then they screw her like this. What a slap in the face. Way to go, idiots! I predict she'll never buy another CD again, ever! Come to think of it, maybe I'll never buy a CD either (I don't want to support their legal department and maybe they won't afford lawsuit anymore! Buhahahaha!)

Score: 0

By athome

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 11:01 AM

They haven't shot themselves in the foot at all. You don't know how she really got them or when. They could be all outdated "oldies" that she got back in the 90s and she has been downloading since and never bought a CD since John Denver.

It doesn't make her case any stronger. She and the lawyer are using that as an excuse. She wouldn't have them if she had been buying CDs all along.

Score: 0

By scratchpentagon

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 10:25 PM

why not buy non-RIAA CDs?

there's a whole world of music out there that doesn't screw over artists and consumers, and it tends to be less expensive and higher quality. you just need to look a little harder.

Score: 0

By Kompressor

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 9:01 PM

If you don't like what the RIAA is doing, then simply don't buy their products.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:45 AM

We don't.

Score: 0

By loveremains

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:58 PM

Soon very soon, you won't be able to sing songs out load without getting sued! Maybe this is coming from the same people who tell me I can't wish you all a Merry Christmas!

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 8:26 PM

As a memeber of the buddhist seperatist wiccan monk rabbi cross-dressing-nun movement, please Cease and Decist from using the word Christmas, instead use phrases such as "Happy Fun Nice Nice Day", or perhaps "Happy Joy Filled Personally Tailored Deity Day". Thank you!

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 11:35 AM

Have a happy ChismaHaunaKuwanza.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:50 AM

Celebrating Christmas is fine as long as you don't actually believe all that Christ nonsense.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 4:26 PM

Says who?

Careful. You're walking on thin ice.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 4:36 PM

> Says who?

Author of every message is specified above the text in this forum.

> Careful. You're walking on thin ice.

Don't think so. Days of the Inquisition are long over.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 11:16 PM

ROFL.

That was awesome.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 8:55 PM

Have a Merry Christmas Joeshmoe7.

EDIT: not that I think Christmas is on topic, but I know a lot of people who aren't christians or aren't even religious that celebrate christmas as Christmas, so I don't think that's an excuse. People have a right to believe in what they want. Me? I think Christmas is c***, but thats me. Everyone else has their own beliefs, and no one else can force me to believe in christmas.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 9:55 PM

Christmas is all about santa claus--"Ol' St. Nick"? I don't recall a "St. Nick" in the Bible. Also it has been shown that it is practically impossible for Jesus to have been born in winter--either around Aprill or in September. Not getting into a philisophical debate over it, just pointing out that as a Christian I don't believe in some of the Christmas traditions but I still celebrate it.

Oh, and Merry Buddamas Joeshmoe7!!!

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 5:06 AM

Father Cristmas as we know him was invented by Coca Cola.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 10:08 AM

No it wasn't
Coke just did what every big name $$$ company does and capitizes on it.

That said, I don't believe in Christmas and I never will.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:36 AM

totally off original topic :-/

Christmas is the 'time of Christ'
Im sure if you look up 'mas' you will find the root of the word

Santa Claus / St. Nick may well be based on Northern European shamainism

The wandering healer would come with gifts
The 'house' was a large hole in the ground
The 'door' was also the chimney - access down a single ladder

The red and white coat is probably the mushroom Fly Algaric - which gives one a 'flying' sensation (and is poisionous!)

The Shamain would follow the raindeer who were very good and finding and eating the mushroom - the active ingredience is not destroyed by digestion - so the Shamain would collect the 'yellow snow' (pee!)... you get the idea

That's why roudolf the raindeer flys :-)

Score: 0

By loveremains

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:45 PM

The tax wouldn't work as I hear the music industry in Canada is still trying to get users fined for downloading! They want it all as some artist suck and there maybe a few that deserve a buck!

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:42 PM

you know Im getting tired of all the talk

what about some solutions - some ideas

what if everyone on the planet paid a tax or had to have a licence or something - all the money put into one big pot - then any artist is paid from that pot

we want it

the artist wants to be paid, they dont work for free

a shop selling CDs can still get money - if you want a CD you only pay for the actual CD part - since you have already paid for the actual music part

P2P is seen by the big companys (music, film, software etc) as a problem.

What's the solution?

Well the big companys think it is to protect their 'product' so that it cant be copied. But any form of protection will be broken. Not to mention the pain protection systems cause customers (Sony).

Here is a possible solution...

What if I could buy a licence from a company which allowed me to copy (from any source) any item from that company.

This licence would allow me to go into the local shop, take a CD of the shelf, put it in my PC, copy it and then leave the shop. All completely legally.

With this system the world would save on plastics (for the CDs, DVD, packaging), petrol (for the distribution) and so on.

Why isnt the shop supplying 'copys', I could go to a shop with a CD-RW/DVD-RW (or other portable reuseable storage). They could then just 'stock' digital 'copys' on a server. They would be able to stock millions of disks.

How much should the licence cost?

Concider this - a Sky satelite subcription costs £20-£40 a month, or £250-£500 a year. I can video all the tv, films and record all the music.

And the companys would save a bundle on distribution costs and advertising.

Score: 0

By wat0114

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 10:11 PM

"What if I could buy a licence from a company which allowed me to copy (from any source) any item from that company.

This licence would allow me to go into the local shop, take a CD of the shelf, put it in my PC, copy it and then leave the shop. All completely legally."

The only problem I see with that is even though you may be honest, there are those who might take that legally copied-to-disk music, then make it available for free (illegally) via P2P. Thus, the vicious circle starts. Other than that, it's a pretty cool solution. Somehow there has to be an outright ban on P2P file sharing.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 10:12 AM

You can't ban P2P. It isn't legal to ban free trading.

P2P has it's legal uses (Linux is a popular example - Bittorrent mainly)

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 8:40 PM

"P2P is seen by the big companys (music, film, software etc) as a problem."
I recon it should bee seen as a promotion type thing.

For me, if I download something that I like, I get interested and start buying related stuff without thinking if I'd like it.

Score: 0

By loveremains

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:41 PM

If you don't have the money to buy the cd and likely won't ever buy the cd then how can you lose money? The riaa, would do better to drop the price of a cd to a few bucks as it only cost pennies to make a cd after you got the original! I don't buy cd or dvd as I listen to the radio and I watch movies if I want to on tv. As most music sucks and one song on a cd that is over played by radio doesn't make a cd! In Canada we have a tax on cds that is paid to the music industry, even if you use those cds to backup your work files! So, they are already saying we are guilty! Boycott might be the only way to get good music and cheaper cds but remember the radio is free to a point! :)

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:43 PM

"If you don't have the money to buy the cd and likely won't ever buy the cd then how can you lose money?"

It doesn't matter. It's illegal to download without paying for it.

Score: 0

By Alexq

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 11:05 PM

It meters to us to show RIAA claims for what they really are: lies.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 11:18 PM

It's entirely possible the RIAA is lying (personally, I think that's part of their company policy), but that still doesn't change the fact that downloading copyrighted material without paying for it is illegal.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:43 AM

correction

copyright =/= (does not equal) money

its not illegal to download copyright material WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT

its illegal to download copyright material without permission

as a matter of fact almost everything you download has some copyright - even this text - which I hereby give you permission to download and read - but if you copy it, it must be included with the original text :-)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 11:42 AM

Are you trying to be an idiot, or does it just come naturally?

For all intents and purposes, when discussing Music and RIAA, permission = paying for it.

Hence, it is illegal to download copyrighted music without paying for it.

Okay? Go condescend somewhere else.

Score: 0

By Alexq

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 1:04 PM

There is a lot of copyrighted music on web sites and on p2p networks for which copyright holders give permission to download without paying for it.

So what he said is exactly right and you are the one being an idiot.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Dec 13, 2005 - 2:05 PM

Goddammit.

Are we talking about music given away by copyright owners? NO?

Are we talking about free indie labels? NO?

Thus the original parent comment and your reply are pointless *in reference to this article*.

Got it?

What he said may be right, but it is completely and totally irrellevant to the current article we are (or should be) discussing.

He's trying to nit-pick a point everyone here is taking for granted. Yes, copyrighted works can be given away by the holder. We all know that. It's simply *not* what we are talking about here.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 5:10 PM

"Are we talking about music given away by copyright owners?"..."Yes, copyrighted works can be given away by the holder. We all know that. It's simply *not* what we are talking about here."

I think you actually don't understand what it is about. When copyright holder allows making free copies of his material he does not "give it away". Many of them are actually making money. They simply chose a different business model, not based on "enforce charge per copy" RIAA principle.

It is that business model that RIAA is trying to defend as the only possible one, and terms like "downloading copyrighted material without paying" is an example of RIAA substituting correct term with a lie.

This tactic is purposely used by RIAA, and many people are buying into bulls***. So it is important to use correct terms, i.e. copyright violation not stealing, copying without permission not without paying, etc.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:28 AM

The amount of damages awarded is based on RIAA's lies about losing money due to people making free copies. That's what the original poster said. And contrary to your reply, it does matter even if making free copies is illegal anyway.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 7:29 PM

Wow. This lady's irresponsible AND retarded. How the heck did she think that defense would hold up?

She got what she deserved. The courts acted justly. The judge should have fined her for contempt for wasting the court's time.

Score: 0

By wat0114

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:22 PM

Something that no one seems to talk about is the "quality" of a typical MP3, about 128 kbps. This is no where near the much higher digital resolution of the same song off its store bought cd. No one can convince me that the compression technology of a MP3 yields audio quality that is indistiguishable from that of the cd audio. It clearly isn't, and that is fact. Just listen to a dozen or so 128 kbps MP3's at a moderate volume, turn the music off and take note of the immediate feeling you get. Probably relief, right? Indeed, the low-level digital distortion caused by most MP3's may not be readily apparent but it does eat away at you over time, causing real physical and psychological pain on the human spirit. MP3's are, at best, good for background music only.

No, I'm not saying it's okay to download them illegaly, because it isn't. I'm simply stating an observation that most don't realize how crappy MP3's really are.

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:50 PM

Just listen to a dozen or so 128 kbps MP3's at a moderate volume, turn the music off and take note of the immediate feeling you get. Probably relief, right? Indeed, the low-level digital distortion caused by most MP3's may not be readily apparent but it does eat away at you over time, causing real physical and psychological pain on the human spirit.
----------------------------------

wow ur wierd..i never noticed any of that stuff LOL

Score: 0

By wat0114

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 8:02 PM

Well buddy, that's probably because you've already suffered damage to your inner ear and don't even know it. I wish you the best.

Score: 0

By ArabianNight

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 10:14 PM

My mp3s are 256 kbps

Score: 0

By wat0114

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 10:41 PM

Not bad! You've got the right idea.

Score: 0

By scratchpentagon

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 6:57 PM

many of you seem to be missing a major point, probably because the RIAA's "it's theft it's theft it's theft!" mantra has been repeated so often.

it's *not* theft, and it's *not* a crime. it's copyright violation, a tort. nobody stole anything, they just copied something they had no permission to copy. you can't be "guilty", only "liable", and you can't go to jail, you can only be fined.

Score: 0

By loveremains

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 7:33 PM

Yeah if I had my cds stolen they would replace them at cost and if the price was $15 when I bought them but now only $5 that is the price I would get! Seeing how they are doing this I do what a normal Canadian would do listen to the radio as it's free! I don't buy cds, don't have a cd player, don't have a dvd player and likely never will but I still have to pay a tax to the Music industry in Canada so does that make me a thief or them? In Canada if you are going to charge me to get a cd then I could see alot of Canadian getting their money back! BTW the artist is not losing money as he gets a deal to make the cd and then the music industry pays him a few cents a cd! Now I might just add going to a concert to that just to make a point and how much money does a person need? BTW if I'm not going to buy it anyway, how does the riaa lose money as I wouldn't have bought it anyway!

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:32 PM

not strictly speaking true

You forgot the 'loss of earnings' which can be taken as 'damages'

An artist can take a 'personal injuries' case against you

Score: 0

By scratchpentagon

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 10:22 PM

yes, but that's still not a criminal charge. you're just liable for monetary damages.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 12:48 AM

incorrect

'personal injuries' is equal to common assault

'tho not at the same level as ABH (actaul bodily harm) or GBH (greivious bodily harm)

if an 'injurie' is proven then the cost of the 'damagaes' (+ court costs) can be taken

Score: 0

By SmashedReality

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 6:17 PM

Think this whole thing is pretty insane. Some poor woman did what a million trillion other people do, but she was unfortunate and has become "the example." Her situation is now a scare tactic for us. Yes, she downloaded music. She should have to pay for it. A bit over $1,700, if I did my math right; paying actual cd price for roughly 14 songs each. Maybe some $300 penalty fee. She'd still be in debt, still have over $2,000 to pay, learned her lesson AND there'd be some fairness involved. Why couldn't they do that?

Oh, right. Gotta have an example. Scare tactics. Send us "a message." We're not human beings, we're cattle. Cattle that must be trained the right and proper way to make certain people rich...

Score: 0

By googun

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 6:06 PM

I have been following the comments on this story today with growing alarm. Most of us live in affluent countries in which staying alive simply does not involve stealing. I may not have much, but I am not so desperate to hear a song to resort to committing a crime to get it.

That people justify theft on grounds of fareness and on it hurting nobody is at best flawed logic, and demonstrates the presence of a moral vacuum.

If you believe in the justice of theft then you are also excusing the guy who steals from you.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 8:32 AM

theft = The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession, or constructive possession, of another person.

music download is NOT theft by any case, since the artists and record companies still retain the full possession of the recorded material.

it is, as mentionned earlier, UNAUTHORIZED COPY which has nothing to do with theft.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 3:26 PM

Ultimately, we are fleas arguing over the dog. Our opinions mean nothing to the people that are making (or enforcing) these decision of which we debate. If you want to really "try" to make a difference, write your congressman/woman. I doubt it will produce any meaningful results, but you'll feel like you really tried. :)

Score: 0

By TC17

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 3:50 PM

Or stop buying cd's period and hit the RIAA in their pocket. Although they are making probably more money off these ridiculous lawsuits than they are their cd's.

It would take everyone doing it though for that to happen, and there probably are too many RIAA fanboys for that to happen.

I honestly don't see how the RIAA/MPAA can live with themselves for what they are doing to peoples lives. RIAA/MPAA=Satan.

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 6:49 PM

Actually, with legal costs and everything, they lose a lot and gain very little.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 7:27 PM

Yup. This case is the perfect example.

Anyone think $22,500 is enough to cover the RIAA's investigative and court costs?

Didn't think so. I'm not saying I'm on the RIAA's side. It's just a very valid point. They're not making money off these suits.

Score: 0

By UTAKER

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 2:45 PM

computer data was never meant to be such a physical thing as it has been posed over this year to being with

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 2:53 PM

Agree with you. However what would you have lawmakers do? What about copying someone's bank account? About "copying" a list of the passwords you type over the Internet? Credit card number used online? We have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we can steal (sorry, I meant "copy") books, credit cards, account numbers, music, etc. without any accountability.

Score: 0

By rijp

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 3:43 PM

the problem with that is, we are talking about "artist conception" work, and its an intangible. Books, credit cards, account numbers, passwords are traceable, an artists work isn't, because its created by an invidual.

A cc, password, book, and such are infriginging on one's privacy, and you can steal their identity or their money, so its really NOT the same thing.

Copyright for books, if you plagarize a dictionary, or other literary work, can easily be twarted, UNTIL it becomes electronic. Computers make anything that's digital easily copied.

If cloning people becomes digital, that too will become an epidemic. Electronic medium is extremely difficult, if not impossible to trace. I can duplicate a CD, and no one can tell me its NOT the original work. Period. there is NO way to tell absolutely. Your CC, serial number, password, account are unique to *you*, ONLY and its your PRIVATE info.

Music and literature, once placed in the hands of public, and distributed become public domain. they just can't be copied, unless you get permission.

Yes, its ALL stealing, its just impossible to prove you stole it, there is no "stamp" on a copy, and if there were, it can easily be erased or modified. A physical item, is easy to copyright, it can't be duplicated. If you photocopy an encyclopedia, you can identify it because paper is different, ink, printing press, and each book has a unique serial attached. Even if you make one up, it can be traced as a phony.

Digital medium is way to easy for people to manipulate, that's why its so prevalent to steal. phising for a list of passwords is illegal, because of HOW you obtain it, and if its used to illegally gain further info, then you are in deep stuff.

Music and electronic books aren't utimately hurting anyone, execpt the artist, copyright company and publisher/record company that produces them. Its a tad more serious to take or steal money from a bank or individual than to simply make a copy of a song, that's how people justify it.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 2:48 PM

LOL uhm...what????

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 2:39 PM

Someone did make an interesting point...if you dont like a cd (because of people ripping the cd is why, I understand) you cannot return it unless its defective but still get the same cd again...so no preview before you buy...plus 30 seconds is not the best way to preview a song and the radio plays the song that is going to get everyone to buy BUT may sound NOTHING like the rest of the CD (this has happened to me a few times and is very annoying) but besides that the lady was wrong and is being fined for her mistake but still I think 22,500 is still a bit excessive for the crime... especially since its going to hurt her financially and she wont have ANY money to buy cds anymore and will have to go back to stealing again!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 3:50 PM

OK, the fine amount is irrelevant. Its the ONLY way to get peoples attention. The idea of punishment, is not to continually fine you, its to PREVENT future reccurence.

Lets say you are grounded for 1 week, for staying out too late. You do your sentence, and you do it again.. If your parents never increase the punishment, what's to stop you? But now you get punished a month, you can't use the phone, you lose the use of the car, you can take your girlfriend out, and you can't have any fiends over.. ok, NOW your parents have your attention.

The next time, you won't be so daring to try it again.

Same with this, 22,500 may seem excessive, but Everyone will know how serious they are taking it, plus you have to consider legal fees and ALL the other parties that want their money for taking this to court and sending the po-po after you. Its not just a simple matter of slapping your wrist, its to make SURE you realize that its very serious, and the next time it could be a lot more. 22500 she will be paying this for a while (assuming she is just an avg citizen) and with each restitution check it will serve as a constant reminder.

Score: 0

By Niro

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 2:52 PM

"plus 30 seconds is not the best way to preview a song and the radio plays the song that is going to get everyone to buy BUT may sound NOTHING like the rest of the CD (this has happened to me a few times and is very annoying)"

I don't get to play an entire video game before buying it to see if I like it...what if I only like the first 10 minutes of the game? What if the demo is good but the game sucks?? I don't get to see a movie before I pay to watch it in the movie theater...and I don't get to live in a house for a few months before I buy it...etc, etc...

If you like the artist...$15 isn't that bad! If you only like some songs...guess what, you only have to buy a few songs from itunes, you don't need the entire CD! This still does not justify stealing whatsoever.

"but besides that the lady was wrong and is being fined for her mistake but still I think 22,500 is still a bit excessive for the crime... especially since its going to hurt her financially and she wont have ANY money to buy cds anymore and will have to go back to stealing again!"

I seriously doubt she'll do anymore stealing after this... trust me, if you get cought and you had to pay $22k...you'll be real scared of doing the same crime again. If she gets cought again...guess what, it'll be twice as bad as it is now for her. She knew it was illegal, she did the crime...she's going to have to pay.

Score: 0

By ragejed

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 5:25 PM

You do preview a movie, its called TV

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 7:05 PM

I guess you need to find yourself a solid reading comprehension course to fix your inability to understand what you read.

Reread both posts...and then see if you can repeat your statement.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 3:54 PM

Not to quibble over semantics, but you can get your money back on a movie, and its legal. As long as you leave before half the movie is over, you can get a FULL refund.. so in essence you CAN preview a movie..

That's precisely why I don't buy games anymore, becuase the demo is hardly as good as the real game, and its not nearly enough content to make an informed decision. I download games, I have purchased games as a result, not everytime, but I would say 1 in 5 games I play and keep I buy.. if I feel they will keep my attention for a few hours. otherwise, I try them, find they suck, and promptly delete them and thank goodness I didn't have to pay for the priveledge.

And you are right, she won't be downloading any more songs after this.. That's the point. anyone else out there, may also think twice before downloading songs.

To that I say, it won't stop me.. but that will free up some more bandwidth for me to download... :)

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 3:04 PM

I like your thinking Niro! Dead on! +

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 1:37 PM

I'd like to know just how stupid the woman's lawyer was.

"So you had more than 1,000 illegal tunes found on your system. You don't want to settle for $3500. Ok, let's fight this."

Oh, ok, it wasn't the lawyer who was stupid.

Nevermind...

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 3:57 PM

Actually the $22,500 WAS the settled on price.. it was originally hundreds of thousands...

Its not the amount they are after, its not compensatory damage, its punitive. A few thousand dollars is piddly.. They want to woman to hurt for her actions in her pocketbook, and make an example of her and thousands more that will try it.

Score: 0

By skua

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 1:10 PM

OK... so she was wrong. Now... justify the penalty for her 'crime.'

A new CD averages, let's say, $15.00 and has about 10 songs on it. So each song is worth about $1.50. Now I'm sure she was downloading MP3's... which can compress to about 1/10 of their original size by throwing away quality. So... the song in MP3 format is now worth about 15 cents...

Now people seem to be willing to pay 99 cents per song in MP3 format... so we'll run with that as the market value...

How does the court justify a penalty of 750 times the market value of the item? How can the RIAA show 'damages' caused by this woman for downloading the song? They lost a buck on that song... and want $750.00!?!?!?!

Are they able to show that she SHARED each song with at least 750 people? If so... then the argument starts to come together. Then her crime isn't in the 'downloading'... it's in the sharing.
This is a meaning full point that seems to get glossed over. I guess the fact that she was using a 'peer2peer' network means she's guilty of sharing.

My momma always taught me that is was impolite not to share... hehehehhhaa.

Score: 0

By spiked

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 1:53 PM

I do not support RIAA but as a general principle, punishment for a criminal act is intended to deter people from committing the act in the first place. Therefore, the penalty is not directly based on the monetary loss (as it would be if this were a breach of contract or other tort law case).

For example, let's say you rob a convenience store. You might get $200. If we value a person's time based on the Federal Minimum Wage of $5.15/hour, then you could cover $200 in a week. Yet you could get a jail/probation sentence of several years. In essence, this court is saying that $22,500 will deter this woman (and others like her) from committing the crime again, whereas $1,000 or less would not.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 1:50 PM

"A new CD averages, let's say, $15.00 and has about 10 songs on it. So each song is worth about $1.50. Now I'm sure she was downloading MP3's... which can compress to about 1/10 of their original size by throwing away quality. So... the song in MP3 format is now worth about 15 cents..."

All this is completely meaningless.

"How does the court justify a penalty of 750 times the market value of the item? How can the RIAA show 'damages' caused by this woman for downloading the song? They lost a buck on that song... and want $750.00!?!?!?!"

You're paying for stolen music, court fees, lawyer fees, and for breaking the law.

If the penalty for stealing was simply to pay for what was stolen...I know I'd do a hell of alot of stealing, and only pay for things when I get cought....same with everybody else. According to your logic...I stole a $200 stereo and I get cought...I should only pay the $200 that it cost?? lol

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 3:51 AM

"You're paying for stolen music, court fees, lawyer fees, and for breaking the law"

does that mean, sinc