It is a decent question though. What if she had just saved music videos from YouTube or wherever and stripped out the music? It's still piracy, but without that resharing angle. Although, then they could conceivably go after anybody who makes a music video and... robblerobblerobble.
They are suing because she uploaded material to other people.
Kazaa/LimeWire/whatever uploaded material to other people. Like many millions of people who use p2p software without having a clue what "upload" means, I'm sure she had no idea she was sharing the music at the time.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
It is a decent question though. What if she had just saved music videos from YouTube or wherever and stripped out the music? It's still piracy, but without that resharing angle. Although, then they could conceivably go after anybody who makes a music video and... robblerobblerobble.
They are suing because she uploaded material to other people.
Kazaa/LimeWire/whatever uploaded material to other people. Like many millions of people who use p2p software without having a clue what "upload" means, I'm sure she had no idea she was sharing the music at the time.
It's kind of sad too because they tend to get the soccer moms who downloaded five songs and left Limewire running 24/7 because they didn't know how to turn off the seeding or limit the bandwidth so they're easily caught. People who seed for what.cd and waffles.fm are probably the people they should be going after.
It is a decent question though. What if she had just saved music videos from YouTube or wherever and stripped out the music? It's still piracy, but without that resharing angle. Although, then they could conceivably go after anybody who makes a music video and... robblerobblerobble.
They are suing because she uploaded material to other people.
Kazaa/LimeWire/whatever uploaded material to other people. Like many millions of people who use p2p software without having a clue what "upload" means, I'm sure she had no idea she was sharing the music at the time.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Funnily, apparently they were only able to establish that she shared 11, which would be an effectively doubling the fine (on a per song basis I mean). And it is worth noting that in the original trial, they charged her with 1,700 songs. Which they then reduced to 24. Which they couldn't even prove half of.
But it still doesn't change that uploading a music video to YouTube is essentially the same thing, uploading copyrighted material for the world in general.
I don't see the RIAA going after nonsense [VIDURL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6-LD2ZDH60"]like this[/VIDURL], which is completely trivial to prove that it's been shared and has been downloaded by... lessee... half a million people and counting.
It is a decent question though. What if she had just saved music videos from YouTube or wherever and stripped out the music? It's still piracy, but without that resharing angle. Although, then they could conceivably go after anybody who makes a music video and... robblerobblerobble.
They are suing because she uploaded material to other people.
Kazaa/LimeWire/whatever uploaded material to other people. Like many millions of people who use p2p software without having a clue what "upload" means, I'm sure she had no idea she was sharing the music at the time.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Not my point. In civil cases, intent is often a significant factor in determining damages.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
$1,900,000 is closer to what you'd get to pay in damages for murdering 30 children in Sweden. I'll just go ahead and equate this to the RIAA thinking that downloading one song is the same as murdering 1.25 children.
Every time you download a song, God executes a Swedish child in your name?
$1,900,000 is closer to what you'd get to pay in damages for murdering 30 children in Sweden. I'll just go ahead and equate this to the RIAA thinking that downloading one song is the same as murdering 1.25 children.
Every time you download a song, God executes a Swedish child in your name?
And breaks another's arm/leg. It's one point twenty-five, dude.
You guys are looking at this way too negatively when it could be a great thing. This could be the solution to our economic problems that we have been looking for.
Just find a couple dudes with a few hundred MP3s and fine them a couple billion/trillion dollars each. Bam! Deficit gone.
You guys are looking at this way too negatively when it could be a great thing. This could be the solution to our economic problems that we have been looking for.
Just find a couple dudes with a few hundred MP3s and fine them a couple billion/trillion dollars each. Bam! Deficit gone.
That...is the smartest idea I have ever heard, in the history of ever!
I guess the logic is not that she should pay $80k for just one song, but for the thousands of times she gave that song to others. It's not the same as stealing a CD; it's the same as stealing a truckload of CDs and giving them to strangers on the street.
I think there was another case about a year ago like this, wherein the court threw it out because, essentially, downloading songs from others is in no way different (philosophically) from having a friend lend a CD to you to burn.
It's the "seeders" here that the RIAA is trying to bushwack with ridiculous fines, not the "leechers."
Somehow I doubt this decision will stand up through an appeal.
It's more like you bought a CD, cloned it, and then handed it out. You didn't "steal" 1,000 songs, you "stole" one. And you didn't force anyone to "take" it, so they're just as guilty as you are.
I like that idea. I think drug-dealers use the same defense. You didn't make anyone take it, you only provided the illegal service.
Not that I agree with the RIAA on fining $80K for 24 songs. Even with her idiotic "I didn't do it" defense and attempts at getting rid of evidence, it's still way to high for me to even consider a fair deal.
Also, I'm not so sure that her being black made the fine go from "Ah, fuck, I was caught" to "HAH! You bitches are never gonna see that money!"
Judgement on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I guess the logic is not that she should pay $80k for just one song, but for the thousands of times she gave that song to others. It's not the same as stealing a CD; it's the same as stealing a truckload of CDs and giving them to strangers on the street.
I think there was another case about a year ago like this, wherein the court threw it out because, essentially, downloading songs from others is in no way different (philosophically) from having a friend lend a CD to you to burn.
It's the "seeders" here that the RIAA is trying to bushwack with ridiculous fines, not the "leechers."
Somehow I doubt this decision will stand up through an appeal.
It's more like you bought a CD, cloned it, and then handed it out. You didn't "steal" 1,000 songs, you "stole" one. And you didn't force anyone to "take" it, so they're just as guilty as you are.
I like that idea. I think drug-dealers use the same defense. You didn't make anyone take it, you only provided the illegal service.
Not that I agree with the RIAA on fining $80K for 24 songs. Even with her idiotic "I didn't do it" defense and attempts at getting rid of evidence, it's still way to high for me to even consider a fair deal.
Also, I'm not so sure that her being black made the fine go from "Ah, fuck, I was caught" to "HAH! You bitches are never gonna see that money!"
You guys are looking at this way too negatively when it could be a great thing. This could be the solution to our economic problems that we have been looking for.
Just find a couple dudes with a few hundred MP3s and fine them a couple billion/trillion dollars each. Bam! Deficit gone.
That...is the smartest idea I have ever heard, in the history of ever!
It is a decent question though. What if she had just saved music videos from YouTube or wherever and stripped out the music? It's still piracy, but without that resharing angle. Although, then they could conceivably go after anybody who makes a music video and... robblerobblerobble.
They are suing because she uploaded material to other people.
Kazaa/LimeWire/whatever uploaded material to other people. Like many millions of people who use p2p software without having a clue what "upload" means, I'm sure she had no idea she was sharing the music at the time.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Not my point. In civil cases, intent is often a significant factor in determining damages.
I'm pretty sure that there are disclaimers of this fact that pop up when you are downloading the software.
And I'm pretty sure that in a civil suit you CAN be held accountable for negligence (before you say that maybe she didn't read them)
I still think that the RIAA is wrong in their behavior, but cutesy defensees AREN'T what this lady needs.
Although I dislike it when people download songs illegally, that fine is just ridiculous. She didn't steal a house, she didn't steal a car, it's 25 dollars of songs. That isn't justice, that's scare tactics.
SLyM on
My friend is working on a roguelike game you can play if you want to. (It has free demo)
Although I dislike it when people download songs illegally, that fine is just ridiculous. She didn't steal a house, she didn't steal a car, it's 25 dollars of songs. That isn't justice, that's scare tactics.
"Ahhh, but who knows how many people got to those $25 worth of songs before the RIAA stepped in?! We can't prove how many did, so we're going to be fucking punitive and assume it was up to 50,000 people per song, plus a $30,000 deterrent fee on top of that!"
In reality, people who torrent are only uploading bits and pieces of any given file to several people. In the end, you might upload the entirety of the file maybe 10 times, and whenever I've left a large torrent downloading and seeding (for legal indie games, mind you) over a weekend or even a week, I typically find that I've only uploaded the file bits in their entirety to different random folks 2.0054 times or something.
This situation shows that the RIAA is not taking risk into account for their current business model, and so the small fish they catch are going to make up for allllll of those other people torrenting, regardless of however many people actually got the file from them (which is to say not many).
The most horrible thing about this is that during the entire span of time that the RIAA has been dishing out fines, they have been to regular, clueless people who do it because everybody they know does it and it is considered morally acceptable.
People that do it prolifically all have some means of protection to make them invisible to MediaSentry or whatever other ip nabbing software they have going now, and as such would never be caught (unless they are dumb and don't use said protections).
Not that it has all that much to do with it, but this reminds me a lot of when my dad served as jury foreman on a malpractice suit. The surgeon left five sponges in a woman's abdomen, which naturally got infected later on. When she kept coming back to the hospital for the pain, they tried to admit her to a psych facility for drug abusers. The woman sued for medical expenses, wages lost, and legal fees, and while the jury eventually found her in the right, it was for a paltry sum only a fraction of the original amount.
My dad said several jurors told him, "getting sick is a part of life and people don't need that much money to get by."
Yay, juries.
It's not that juries are inherently a bad idea, it's that the selection and screening process in place ensures that terrible people will be dominate the jury.
"On December 21, 2006, the RIAA filed a lawsuit against Russian owned and operated website AllOfMP3.com in the amount of $1.65 trillion ($1,650,000,000,000). This number was derived from multiplying 11 million songs with statutory damages of $150,000 per song. The Moscow court ruled in favor of AllOfMP3.com."
Does this money go to the artists, or does it go to the RIAA (had they won)?
One rather important part of RIAA's existence is to take all the blame for doing stupid shit - so that the record companies themselves (a LOT of them are the same people) don't get all that shit smeared on them instead.
Not that it has all that much to do with it, but this reminds me a lot of when my dad served as jury foreman on a malpractice suit. The surgeon left five sponges in a woman's abdomen, which naturally got infected later on. When she kept coming back to the hospital for the pain, they tried to admit her to a psych facility for drug abusers. The woman sued for medical expenses, wages lost, and legal fees, and while the jury eventually found her in the right, it was for a paltry sum only a fraction of the original amount.
My dad said several jurors told him, "getting sick is a part of life and people don't need that much money to get by."
Yay, juries.
It's not that juries are inherently a bad idea, it's that the selection and screening process in place ensures that terrible people will be dominate the jury.
You don't have to be a terrible person to be boggled by a malpractice case, or on any case that revolves around very technical things. It sounds like piracy isn't an exception to this.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
Kazaa/LimeWire/whatever uploaded material to other people. Like many millions of people who use p2p software without having a clue what "upload" means, I'm sure she had no idea she was sharing the music at the time.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Funnily, apparently they were only able to establish that she shared 11, which would be an effectively doubling the fine (on a per song basis I mean). And it is worth noting that in the original trial, they charged her with 1,700 songs. Which they then reduced to 24. Which they couldn't even prove half of.
But it still doesn't change that uploading a music video to YouTube is essentially the same thing, uploading copyrighted material for the world in general.
I don't see the RIAA going after nonsense [VIDURL="
Not my point. In civil cases, intent is often a significant factor in determining damages.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
And breaks another's arm/leg. It's one point twenty-five, dude.
Then I clicked back to the Yahoo page and saw the pic and thought "Oh, she's brown. Context sheds light on verdict."
Just find a couple dudes with a few hundred MP3s and fine them a couple billion/trillion dollars each. Bam! Deficit gone.
That...is the smartest idea I have ever heard, in the history of ever!
I like that idea. I think drug-dealers use the same defense. You didn't make anyone take it, you only provided the illegal service.
Not that I agree with the RIAA on fining $80K for 24 songs. Even with her idiotic "I didn't do it" defense and attempts at getting rid of evidence, it's still way to high for me to even consider a fair deal.
Also, I'm not so sure that her being black made the fine go from "Ah, fuck, I was caught" to "HAH! You bitches are never gonna see that money!"
Really not sure what's going on with this post.
Get this man a medal!
I'm pretty sure that there are disclaimers of this fact that pop up when you are downloading the software.
And I'm pretty sure that in a civil suit you CAN be held accountable for negligence (before you say that maybe she didn't read them)
I still think that the RIAA is wrong in their behavior, but cutesy defensees AREN'T what this lady needs.
"Ahhh, but who knows how many people got to those $25 worth of songs before the RIAA stepped in?! We can't prove how many did, so we're going to be fucking punitive and assume it was up to 50,000 people per song, plus a $30,000 deterrent fee on top of that!"
In reality, people who torrent are only uploading bits and pieces of any given file to several people. In the end, you might upload the entirety of the file maybe 10 times, and whenever I've left a large torrent downloading and seeding (for legal indie games, mind you) over a weekend or even a week, I typically find that I've only uploaded the file bits in their entirety to different random folks 2.0054 times or something.
This situation shows that the RIAA is not taking risk into account for their current business model, and so the small fish they catch are going to make up for allllll of those other people torrenting, regardless of however many people actually got the file from them (which is to say not many).
People that do it prolifically all have some means of protection to make them invisible to MediaSentry or whatever other ip nabbing software they have going now, and as such would never be caught (unless they are dumb and don't use said protections).
Hell, even the lower figure they originally asked for is pretty bad.
Actually that's exactly why you don't use Limewire.
Aside from it being the computer equivalent of leaving your ass positioned at a truckstop glory hole while you browse bootleg CDs.
On another note, have there been any charges even brought against end-users using torrent protocols?
The TPB case is one step removed from that.
Yeah, but regardless of what they were charged with that whole spectrail was about them running TPB.
It's not that juries are inherently a bad idea, it's that the selection and screening process in place ensures that terrible people will be dominate the jury.
"On December 21, 2006, the RIAA filed a lawsuit against Russian owned and operated website AllOfMP3.com in the amount of $1.65 trillion ($1,650,000,000,000). This number was derived from multiplying 11 million songs with statutory damages of $150,000 per song. The Moscow court ruled in favor of AllOfMP3.com."
Does this money go to the artists, or does it go to the RIAA (had they won)?
Also, how many employees does RIAA have?
You don't have to be a terrible person to be boggled by a malpractice case, or on any case that revolves around very technical things. It sounds like piracy isn't an exception to this.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget