Yeah, like any album made in the last 10 years is worth that much. Give me a break.
The amount that the RIAA gets in statutory damages in filesharing lawsuits is already completely bananas, but they still aren't happy. The problem? Compilation CDs. A rascally pirate could rip 10 tracks from 10 CDs, say they came from a compilation and then only be culpable for one album. That's not right! The RIAA would then be cheated out of money they could use to polish the rubies on the ends of their walking sticks!
So what are they doing? Pushing the PRO-IP Act through Congress that'll increase the statutory damages for compilation albums to a whopping $1.5 million. Yes, if you get busted sharing a soundtrack or compilation album with multiple artists on it, the RIAA wants to count each track as its own album. You know, just for the heck of it.
With statutory damages already so out of the league of the rational and the justifiable, increasing the damages this much might actually happen. I mean, if they could justify $150,000 an album before, is it really such a leap to make that $1.5 million?
The moral of the story? Be careful and don't get busted. That and the RIAA makes Mr. Burns look more like Mr. Rogers
[Gizmodo via Ars Technica]
17 comments:
If I pay for my music, they can't bust me, right? What's the hubbub, bub?
I think the problem comes from the parent of a 13 year old who shares a song, and the RIAA brings this kind of suit against this family.wqa
The RIAA doesn't care that the parent might not have a clue that the kid put a song in a shared file, all they want is their money. Yes, if you're a pirate downloading and sharing tons of files should be punished. But the RIAA doesn't care who they go after. And typically goes after single moms, grandmothers, and people who genuinely don't have a clue.
So yes, I do think there's a hubbub if a family is brought to financial ruin because U2 didn't get their 13 cent cut off a .99 cent song. Punishment doesn't fit the crime plain and simple. A guy caught smoking weed isn't treated the same as a guy selling kilos of cocaine. So why should the laws be any different for this?
I don't think they'd be able to collect $150,000 or $1.5M from a single mom, grandmother, or the clueless. Sue, perhaps; collect, no. I think this news just stirs up blog controversy for publicity. Folks are stealing digital property regularly, and this just tries to put the scare into 'em. And if they do catch a big rich offender, they can collect.
Understandble that they can sue and maybe not collect, but is that any better. Either way is still a way into financial ruin.
Also, don't forget the RIAA is still saying this:
Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
Note that is says usually raises no concern. Seems like they left that in so that they can go after someone if they have no evidence against them.
So we've seen the sensational stories of the RIAA suing the little guys. Have we any evidence that this has lead them to, as you say, financial ruin? Do these cases really make it to court, or are these anomalies picked up by the media, and then fall apart before anything becomes of them?
It's not sensational stories or scare tactics, just hit the link below to see how they're destroying families financially. This single mom is hit with a ruling for $222,000 for 24 songs, that's over $9,000 a song. I don't know about you, but that sounds like financial ruin to me. So you say "hey, there's no way that kind of ruling will stand right?" Wrong!
The Department of Justice said that the ruling against Jammie Thomas was "not unconstitutionally excessive" during her appeal. Considering that it cost labels about 70 cents a song, she filed to have the damages ruled unconstitutional . So what kind of payment plan do you think they're going to put her on? My home doesn't cost $222,000, and I know how much I pay for mortgage.
The only thing falling apart in court is people's lives.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-verdict-is-in.html
Just google Jammie Thomas if you want to know more.
Damn link is to long.
just add this to the link above or google Jammie Thomas.
-is-in.html
Well, I googled her, clicked the first link, wiki, and she doesn't seem like an innocent helpless grandmother to me. Try again?
The RIAA and the AMPTP (or The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers who are in dispute with the writers i.e. The very famous Writers Strike that has halted the production of many series and movies) are two different tentacles of the same Cthulu like beast that is facing dramatic change that "The Man" is trying like Hell to somehow slow down the inevitable and find a way to continue to capitalize on emerging markets which quite frankly, will continue to evolve quicker than old model corporations can keep up with.
Eventually they will have to become realistic about the fact that the genie's out of the bottle and they can't strong arm with any effectiveness because things are only going to keep changing faster and faster. Entirely new business models that are fair and respect the ability of the worlds brightest to continually evolve in ways to level the playing field for the common man.
The RIAA and AMPTP are fools if they don't concede that they won't ever again be able to control formats, employees, consumers, and revolutionaries.. They just don't understand.
Do they even realize that HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray won't matter soon? I am not going to sit here and tell you the next evolutionary step in format and distribution. But I'd "put it all" that it will come from someone who isn't in the industry, or is an industry defector.
This was a log post, so I'll give you a more concise version.
GAME-OVER SPACE CADET
"Well, I googled her, clicked the first link, wiki, and she doesn't seem like an innocent helpless grandmother to me. Try again?"
Single mom there Mike. Single mom.
But if you'd like a grandmother suit, hear ya go.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070704-riaa-sued-for-using-illegal-investigatory-practices.html
The damn link is to long again. Put this at the end of your past.
al-investigatory-practices.html
A single mom, sure. But she wasn't stealing bread to feed her kids. If I was the single parent, I'd have obeyed the cease and desist order. If I was the parent, I'd have agreed to the lower payment instead of going to court. The RIAA didn't just find her guilty, a jury of her peers in Duluth, Minnesota did. And one of them told the media he thought she was lying.
And it wasn't just 24 tracks. It was over 1000, but they just focused on those 24. If she went into a Tower records and stole 100 CD's and then ripped them and let others download 'em from her, would you still demonize the RIAA for wanting justice?
The RIAA didn't go out looking for a single parent to sue. They stumbled upon a woman who put downloading music ahead of her child. A woman who reportedly switched hard drives to hide the evidence.
You see the RIAA as a monster suing a single mother.
I see a thief who's a single mother.
Wikipedia failed to mention that the cease and desist order came with a out of court settlement of $7,500, which compared to $222,000 sounds great but not to someone making $36,000 a year. And the only reason the RIAA focused on those 24 songs is because they couldn't prove that she didn't own the rest of the songs. The 24 songs are the only ones that 'SafeNet' picked up on Kazza that was shared. The RIAA would have certainly focused on all 1,700 + songs if they could've proved otherwise, but ONLY went after the ones they could prove some wrong doing. They were not being nice.
The juror who called her a lier was referring to why she had her HDD swapped out. She claimed that she had it done by Best Buy because of "Major Virus problems". It certainly looks suspicious, but I have no idea weather it's true or not, I can only speculate. Should she receive some punishment, yes, especially after the 24 songs were proved to be shared. But $222,000 is excessive (considering the value of all 24 songs is proven to be less than $17.00) and clearly can't be collected on, which will force her to file for bankruptcy. Is that the justice that the RIAA is entitled too? She would have received a lesser fine if she had been caught shoplifting at Tower Records and had to go to court for that. I've seen fines for excessive speeding (which is far more dangerous, and can cost lives) not have fines that totaled over $2,000. Don't tell me that this punishment fits the crime.
I don't see the RIAA suing a single mom, I see the RIAA not caring who they sue; as long as they receive their pound on flesh. See below:
Patti Santangelo, a New York mother of five children, two of whom have now become RIAA targets
Rae-Jay Schwartz, another mother, bound to a wheelchair by multiple sclerosis, the terrible central nervous system disease
Marie Lindor, a 57-year-old home health aid whose knowledge of computers and computer systems is zero
Tanya Andersen, a disabled mother living off a disability pension
We're the RIAA! submit to our extortion offer first or we'll destroy you financially for good.
I just want to add that the plausibility of a computer having all kinds of virus's on a computer with Kazaa installed and running without an intelligent person managing what gets downloaded and installed IS in fact VERY LIKELY to have all kinds of virus's.
Whoever thought that was a lie has no clue of the amount of shit that gets on a persons computer running straight Kazaa and having no user intervention to weed out suspicious files.
We'll agree to disagree. She could've ended it much earlier than she did if she had her kid in mind instead of her freedom to steal.
I think P2P thieves should be prosecuted. When they open cases, they only know that stuff has been stolen. They don't know the income of the person who did it. Just like if you drive my car through a red light and I get the ticket in the mail, I as the owner of the car am responsible for what happens to that car. These RIAA cases don't result in gigantic fines unless they go to a jury, as in this case. So blame the jury who set the fine.
You called allofmp3.com one of your favorite web sites. I think they're the worst of the digital property crooks. They stole tracks and then sold 'em. I think the RIAA should aggressively prosecute music thieves. We're just too far apart to sway each other's opinion.
"We're just too far apart to sway each other's opinion."
Agreed...
Post a Comment