RIAA wins first-ever file-sharing case to go to trial, awarded $222,000

RIAA wins first-ever file-sharing case to go to trial, awarded $222,000

source: www.engadget.com...

the jury fournd Jammie Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, liable for willful copyright infringement and awarded the RIAA plaintiffs $222,000 -- that's $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was alleged to have made available on Kazaa, for those of you keeping track at home, and probably something like, oh, say, $222,000 more than she should have had to pay, since the RIAA plaintiffs weren't required to show that Thomas had a file-sharing program installed on her machine or that she was even the person using the Kazaa account in question.

i guess ill kick off the comments, so this thread doesn't fall into obscurity.

personally, I think the people with the most to lose are just like this - mothers, grandmothers, children, for the most part, the innocent user - aware it's illegal, but not smart enough to really understand the law.

Anyone that even has a mild grasp on the technology, or the law could put up enough resistance to push the RIAA away, and onto someone more naive.

Originally posted by scientist
i guess ill kick off the comments, so this thread doesn't fall into obscurity.

personally, I think the people with the most to lose are just like this - mothers, grandmothers, children, for the most part, the innocent user - aware it's illegal, but not smart enough to really understand the law.

Anyone that even has a mild grasp on the technology, or the law could put up enough resistance to push the RIAA away, and onto someone more naive.

Let me help along with this debacle. Everyone looses with regard to the RIAA and MPA. I would hope that people would wake up and realize that they are doing Big Bro's dirty work, but we wont. All of the things that the RIAA have been able to get away with is amazing, in most instances down right illegal. What has the gubermint done, nothing. Why, well I theorize they are letting the RIAA pave the way for the future. Whereas that fine line between gubbermint and the industrial-corporate complex become very blurred. ie. the government cant just mosey into your computer and look around with out a warrant, but the RIAA can and has.
It is not about the sharing of music, it is about the sharing of information. If they can lock this down thing down, whereas every bit of digital information is DRM'd and tracked, then free speech is truly a dead issue. Meanwhile, the face of 'illegal music sharing' has been plastered over it to hide the real agenda.

The entertainment business is THE most crooked in the world. The entertainment business holds rules of business and conduct that would be outright illegal in any other business. The entertainment business is the most powerful in terms of manipulation of the masses. Yet the entertainment business is not looked up for what it really is, a true weapon of mass destruction.

Trust me, I have been in it for over 20 years and have watched how it has been used to manipulate this country, and the world.

I knew 20 years ago we were screwed...

Wow, what a misleading article! This serial criminal was "sharing" ~1,700 songs on Kazaa, they only fined her for 24 of them. Make these assholes pay, say I. If "sharing" were allowed to continue laissez faire, before too much longer there would be very little music, very little art. Believe what you want, but most people aren't making music and art for primarily noncommercial motives.

fact is, they did not find her guilty, or even charge her for the 17k files, only 24.

reply to post by scientist


Yeah, that's because Universal-Vivendi was the only company bringing the suit. They only had rights to 24 of the songs. In retrospect, the law went easy on her, one day, maybe just maybe she can get out of this debt, but if she had been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law she would have been irreversibly bankrupted.

www.bloomberg.com...

Originally posted by uberarcanist
If "sharing" were allowed to continue laissez faire, before too much longer there would be very little music, very little art. Believe what you want, but most people aren't making music and art for primarily noncommercial motives.

I have to disagree, at least partly. You seem to mainly be considering the mainstream. There are MANY artists that would love nothing more than to get their stuff out. Not saying that most wouldn't love to get paid for it, because after all, you gotta make a living, but I know that "sharing" isn't going to kill the music. It would likely, however, weed out those who ARE only in it for the money.

Anyhow, by sharing music, 9.9 times out f 10 you're just ripping off the ones who are ripping off the artists themselves. I am actually glad to see that some major label artists are going independent. They are the ones that realize who RIAA is really fighting for... themselves, not the artist. RIAA just wants to be sure that when technology changes that they still get a piece, they are scared that nowadays artists can make it on their own. Courtney Love, though not the most flattering female in the world, actually does a good job explaining the whole idea in this article... archive.salon.com....

All that being said, I have no need to illegally download music, because there is TONS of great music out there for FREE. And if I really like an artist, then I will gladly buy their CD or songs online.

reply to post by evilod


Furthermore, all of the "old masters", the people you study in art class were professionals who worked for a commission. If people had been able to easily plagiarize them back in the day, I'm sure we would'nt've been privileged with their works.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by uberarcanist]

reply to post by evilod


The musicians' union would take issue with that belief.

www.wga.org...

reply to post by uberarcanist


True, many of the great artists long ago were compensated nicely for their work. But generally they were private commissions by the Church, at least as far as painting/sculpture goes. (I took a Music History class in college, though I'm not too familiar with the subject, so I wouldn't be able to comment much on it with any degree of accuracy.) But, anyway, there were many famous artists who weren't realized until after they died... many of which died poor. Sad, they should have been paid for their work, but the point is that they still produced it because they genuinely felt passionate about what they did.

Anyhow, aside from record sales, concerts and merchandise are a great way for independent and smaller label artists to make money. I mean there's the whole performance aspect of being a musician. I'm not really arguing that I feel it's right that people download someone's work for free when that is not what the artist intended. I just feel that if there is the means by which it can be done, people WILL continue to do it, so you may as well take advantage of the free flow and distribution of your work and use the technology to your benefit. For example, if thousands of people are listening to your music for free, there are that many more potential people who want to pay to see you live. Run with it.

Another point I would like to make is whether you believe it is wrong or right to download, the punishment should fit the crime. What else can you steal that has a $24 value in which your punishment is that you are fined $222,000? That is insanely ridiculous. Yes, it's wrong to steal $24 worth of material, but a fine such as that is cruel punishment. It can ruin an individual's life. They weren't trying to claim it as their own work and make profit off of it (btw, that is what copyrite laws were originally intended to protect an artist from, illegal download is simply like stealing merchandise, two very different ideas, which should have different punishments).

[edit on 2007/10/4 by evilod]

Did you guys know the **AA's are only breaking even with these lawsuits? Funny as hell. It's not acting as a deterrent so I think they need to concede defeat.

There is a way for them to still make their money but since it requires them giving up a portion of control over their serfs, oh I mean Artists and Consumers they won't go for it(they'll have to be forced).

It is a combination of Digital Fingerprinting and Contextual Advertising. Every time their computers detect that a video gets uploaded they add it to the list and divvy up advertising revenue from sites that they have deals with like Youtube. This can work with Bittorrent as well by flooding the internet with highspeed seeds of shows that don't have the advertising removed and have it localized. IE, in Australia you'd see Australian commercials and so on. They can even do it even more micro then that and do advertising localization by county or even city! I don't see how to contextualize bittorrent downloads though like you can with streaming video.

YT is apparently going to be testing such a system to remove copyrighted materials but that is not the way to go! There is sooo much money to be made on the net that these control freaks just have to take a chance because, as an business model, the RIAA is dying.

My point is that they should embrace new technology not fight it. They've been fighting it since the Cassette came out.

llegal download is simply like stealing merchandise

No it isn't. It's more like taking a video camera to a concert and then giving the copy to all your (few thousand) friends. Are those friends who are getting the bootleg video stealing? No they aren't. They are infringing.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by sardion2000
No it isn't. It's more like taking a video camera to a concert and then giving the copy to all your (few thousand) friends. Are those friends who are getting the bootleg video stealing? No they aren't. They are infringing.

Okay, I follow you, and you're right, it's not exactly like stealing merchandise. But do you believe this person, alone, caused Universal to lose $222,000 worth of business? Do you feel this person deserves to lose their next 10 or so years of salary to Universal Records?

Like I said, I'm not saying it is right to download music that wasn't intended to be downloaded for free. I just feel that the fines and punishments being served to those that are sharing are criminal. It doesn't fit the crime.

It's merely disingenuous to suggest that artists are not making any money off of records. While, strictly speaking, this may be true, this observation fails to recognize the effect that a record deal has on promoting the artist(s). Would anyone ever know most artists even existed without the promotion of a label?

What is the real risk nowadays with downloading files. When torrent sites are used and one acquires movies and books and music, what is the real risk? Is one at risk by possessing or by sharing? Both?

Heres the deal,

I work deep in the record industry. Universal is screwing up and trying to exert their dillusional power over the record industry. the idiots over at universal are actually trying to tell Steve Jobs and Apple what they should be doing in the industry. imagine this. the president of Universal threatening the guy running apple computers. well, steve jobs gave universal the finger not once but twice stating hell no I will not up the price of downloaded songs. screw you universal.

Universal hates the internet, cause they can't understand how to market on the internet sucessfully. If you go to the universal building down in NY city you'll notice that the shmarmy smucks running the place are trying way too hard to look "cool."
It's sickening to anybody who is a genuine human being to even sit in the lobbey of the damned building, aiting for some shmo to excort you to the right floor to meet some douche bag executive who has his thumb up is ass anyways.

The RIAA is just pissed off because their time is OVER> get over it RIAA. nobody gives a (human solid excrement) about the RIAA anymore. Seriously the service they provide is completely replaced by soundscan. And I don't even like soundscan. the guys in business Affairs give me better intel than soundscan. do you know that to recieve the soundscan on a weekly basis for a year it literally costs $60K. I AM NOT KIDDING! The whole music industry is a sham and I work in the indutry and talk to all of the supposed bigwigs. I have Platinum and Gold records on every wall in the firm I work at all with the RIAA seal on it. even the people who got those plaques say that they are irrelivent and mean nothing. infact you too could get a plaque made up for you by the RIAA if you wanted it cost a few grand but anybody can get one. It"s a sham people.

THe RIAA is on it's way out and they are just pissed that the gravy train is going away. Well, you should be pissed at the idiots who run the record industry like Charlie Walk (Pres of Warner Bros) and Doug Morris (petty lawsuite king) They made millions of dollars and are too stupid to even know how to invest their money properly. They need to have the monopoly on the artform we call music to keep their over exuberant lifestyles going, even though they themselves don't dex]serve the lifestyles and niether do they know how to manage them. so we have to pay for their greed and largely incompetance.

Screw the RIAA! The RIAA is on it's way out and good riddens. now if Universal could just get the hell out of the music industry that would be great. Telling apple who controls 75% of all downloaded music media what to do. get real you dillusional jerks at Universal.

RIAA pissed because they are obsolete. ask the people at the bottom over at the RIAA if they like being public assholes to further fund their bosses retarded lifestlye. I bet, in fact I actually know, they don't enjoy it at all and would love to have gone into another industry all together because the executives in the recording industry screwed up so bad.

OK Rant over

[edit on 5-10-2007 by BASSPLYR]

Would anyone ever know most artists even existed without the promotion of a label?

That was then. This is now. Now we have something called Web 2.0 which is completely transforming the landscape.

www.youtube.com...

Check this video out. A complete unknown has rocketed into the Youtube spotlight and has managed to score a Million hits in a Month(those are Mainstream numbers on YT btw), which is very impressive for an unsigned, unpromoted artist. I guess her feature on the front page was her first promotion I guess.

You'll be seeing more and more of this and as artists get more comfortable with the medium they'll start to think they can make more money without a promoter or better yet, join/start small artist run and owned cooperatives. It works in Retail and in Mining, why not entertainment? Bigger is not always better.

Here is another example of how word of mouth has turned a webisode series into a gamerz cultural phenomenon.

www.purepwnage.com...

Word of mouth has been proven to be more effective than advertising as most people have a jaded view towards ads nowadays. I saw ads for M.I.A. a few years ago and it didn't interest me at all. It wasn't until I started surfing youtube and running across a few of her clips that made me into a fan. I've bought both her albums now and am planning on going to her next concert in my hometown.

Point is, they are still thinking like it's 1999. The web is slowly crushing all other mediums and will become THE universal medium in the near future. They better get used to it. I'm talking about both the artists and the big megalo-conglomerates that control western culture. They(the corporates) lost control and they want it back. It's as simple as that. The Artists have a golden opportunity to seize back control from the suits.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by sardion2000]

Actually lawyers are telling artists nowadays that they are idiots if they even want to try and get signed to a major label. It's again a rip off. Artists get more advertising and exposure without the help of the major labels from myspace alone. The majors really don't do anything at all except steal money away from the artists and pidgeon holeing them at the same time.

Artists are thriving only because of the internet, they don't need the majors for promotion nor advertising anymore and that is why the major labels are so pissed off. their marketing strategy doesn't even fit the current zietgiest, and they've lost the distribution game. In fact signing with a major is a great way to ruin your relationship with your fans.

Major labels are in the dark. They are hiring the guys who worked at the indy labels becuase pound for pound indy labels make more money, and have better sway with the public that are buying the albums.

thanks to the internet music is becoming a niche market, which doesn't work at all with the scheeming over at the major labels. Lables want a scorched aerth marketing policy where the pussycat dolls products are sold at toystores and at perfume counters. THey aren't developing any talent they are developing a "single" for quick bucks, then you have britney spears sad life, wanna bet she won't have a box set down the road in a few years. wanna bet that no band from the 2000's will have a box set in 20 years like the beatles, led zepplin and other greats. it's the majors fault, bad marketing, hoping the population is a stupid and the dillusional executives think they are, and living the high life on a sham.

I urge everybody who is interested in the record industry to sign up to BOb Lefset's emails at lefsets.com they are free, and you get like 4 a day, with rebuttals from the executives and presidents of the labels.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by BASSPLYR]

reply to post by sardion2000


Unsigned? Nope, I debunked that in about 30 seconds. You ought to do some more research.

www.bmi.com...

reply to post by BASSPLYR


I challenge you to name one unsigned artist that's making good money on the road.

reply to post by uberarcanist


Seems like you missed the entire point of sardion's lengthy post. :shk:

Why don't you re-read it instead. There are things there you could learn about.