 |
 | |
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Re: Am i reading this right? No, like most of the press, Karl is just confusing what the student was doing. Suing someone for downloading music is virtually impossible (unless you were listening in to their Internet connection). More than likely, the student was *sharing* 7 songs.
Still, $1 million in penalties for sharing 7 songs seems extreme. If I got to set the penalties, I'd set them at 10 times the fair market value of the work. In this case, it would be 10 * $0.99 (iTunes price), or $9.9 per work, or $69.30 for this student's transgression.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
| | |
| | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Am i reading this right? Sorry, I was on a plane after getting married out West and missed your submission... | |
|
| | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | Re: Am i reading this right? Married? Congrats  | |
|
| | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
edit:
November 19th, @05:38PM
| NEWS FLASH: KARL COMMITTED CONGRATULATIONS KARL! Best to you and the spouse.
Amazing that most of DSLR missed this most pertinent of "News Guy" news?
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Re: Am i reading this right? Congratulations! | |
|
| | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | I'll just blame it on the TSA.
(congrats) | |
|
| | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Re: Am i reading this right? Linked at »Karl's Hitched! which is arguably a more suitable place to heap praise and good tidings on Karl's shoulders.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | | | |
| soccerguy
join:2004-06-28
Seattle, WA | The article in the New York Times also stated that Tenebaum has shared his music through Kazaa. He was not just downloading, rather, he let others download from his machine. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | honestly for personal piracy the fine limit per song/movie should be average market value of a digital download because that is all that is being lost.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Am i reading this right? And for at least that reason (among others), no one will ever likely be prosecuted for downloading for personal use. | |
|
SSX4life
Premium
join:2004-02-13
| Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! 7 songs != 1 Million dollars in losses no matter how you cut it.
Fine lets go with the argument that downloading songs is EXACTLY like stealing them out of a store. You don't see a million dollar fine for a petty 5 finger grab.
Even if you consider the fact that every single download is a lost sale it doesn't equate to 1 million dollars. Not to mention that even the RIAA has stated that a download does not equal a lost sale.
Sorry to burst your bubbles on this one but common sense must prevail in this country, for too long we have had our heads stuck up our corporate asses thanks to lobbiest in congress etc.
I really REALLY REALLY hope that this is the start of something better.
--
»www.google.com is your best friend... please use it before asking your question. | |
|
| 
DownTheShore
Save The US Auto Industry
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:
| Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! Boy, this report brings a smile to my face. About time some high-powered people put up some opposition to this. It doesn't matter what your position is on P2P sharing - the point is that the RIAA should not be allowed to act in the manner it has, and to impose/request these outrageous penalties.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals | |
|
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
edit:
November 19th, @09:00AM
| Statutory copyright infringement damages don't have anything to do with compensatory damages. Different animals. | |
|
| |
SSX4life
Premium
join:2004-02-13
| Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! True.... but considering both are means to the same end you would think it would end up in civil courts not federal.
--
»www.google.com is your best friend... please use it before asking your question. | |
|
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! Copyright violation is a federal offense though. So federal court is the proper jurisdiction.
But, I agree that the statutes are being abused by the copyright holders. | |
|
| | | | wispalord
join:2007-09-20
House Springs, MO | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! i could see feds involvement if he was profiting from the copyrighted works, but not just SHARING. i dont see how its different from recoring it off the radio and making copys for friends, i did that alot when i was younger. | |
|
| | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! In your example, your copies weren't virtually perfect and you supplied only to a limited number of people.
In the cases being pursued by the RIAA, virtually perfect copies are being distributed to potentially millions of people. | |
|
| | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! said by Goober  :In your example, your copies weren't virtually perfect and you supplied only to a limited number of people. In the cases being pursued by the RIAA, virtually perfect copies are being distributed to potentially millions of people. How can you permit it depending on quality of the material and quantity of people receiving it? It's either right, or it's wrong. Pick a side.
cw | |
|
| | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
edit:
November 19th, @11:34PM
| Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! I don't have to choose a side and neither does the RIAA. They can choose who they want to pursue based on whatever internal criteria they have. There's no obligation that they pursue everyone. | |
|
| | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! Can they prove that any transfer actually occurred to anyone but themselves? It just seems to me that they are making a lot of assumptions about what could have possibly happened...
cw | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
edit:
November 20th, @08:59AM
| Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! You make a good point.
It'll be during discovery where they'll try to get some detailed evidence. But, they have at least something that they feel was good enough to get them into court. I suppose the judge could toss the case it if he feels that the RIAA is bringing a frivolous lawsuit forward. But, I doubt that happens.
I will say, though, that I strongly doubt that this is the kind of fight the RIAA was looking for when it filed the original lawsuit. I would imagine the RIAA is scrambling to figure out how to bail out of this. Losing this lawsuit probably doesn't fit very well into the RIAA's business plan for the future. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! said by Goober :I would imagine the RIAA is scrambling to figure out how to bail out of this. Losing this lawsuit probably doesn't fit very well into the RIAA's business plan for the future. They'll probably either settle (terms too good for Joel to pass up under non disclosure) or find some reason to drop this lawsuit, then Charles R. Nesson will have to find another client. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
gfhjtdut
@suddenlink.net | Nothing is ever black or white. Right and wrong are subjective and have varying degrees. Real world problems are tricky like that. | |
|
| | |
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! Oh, I agree. This one is going to be fun to watch. The RIAA has got to be squirming big time on this development. | |
|
| | |
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm saying the $1M is statutory, not compensatory. | |
|
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
| Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! said by Goober : I'm saying the $1M is statutory, not compensatory. So if $1 Million for sharing 7 songs is cruel and unusual punishment (any reasonable person would think it is) the statute must be unconstitutional? | |
|
| | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! That really applies in criminal laws.
This is civil. | |
|
| | | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Bout time! SICK EM BOYS! There is nothing civil about the RIAA racketeers! | |
|
| | |
| | |
See 10 replies to this post |
|
Pentaxian
Premium
join:2008-01-23
West Milford, NJ
| Plain and simple Selling artwork or music, etc should all be considered illegal. If you choose to give the artist money for his or her works, it should be in the form of a donation. Then it is up to the artist to claim the proceeds- completely cut out the middle-man (AKA: the suing RIAA) - And if the artist choses to use a middle-man to reach more people, the artist should be responsible for paying the RIAA up front, plain and simple.
How freaking stupid are these artists. To they think that normal day folks think the RIAA is somehow NOT the artists? One in the same and they're all scumbags. | |
|
|
See 17 replies to this post |
|
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Death to the racketeers It's time the RIAA racketeering, bribery and extortion is put to an end. Certainly they have a right to protect their intellectual property, but not by violating countless State and Federal laws. | |
|
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD
 ·ViaTalk
edit:
November 19th, @10:08AM
| Sounds like a good blueprint from the RIAA I'm gonna go ahead and sue the RIAA for $1 million for overcharging me on CD sales for the last 10 years. Sure it was less than a 100 CDs, but had I invested those few bucks in 1999 prior to the internet stock boom, sold in 2000, shorted after 9/11, reinvested prior to the housing boom, shorted again a year ago, and then reinvested right now, I'd probably would have had $1 million....and another $3 million on the horizon. Make that lawsuit $4 million. We can settle out of court for $2.5 million since the possibility exists I could have made a few errant trades. | |
|
| 
itsbry
join:2001-02-22
Fernandina Beach, FL | Re: Sounds like a good blueprint from the RIAA Right on.
We're gonna need to take out a loan to pay the retainer... | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| The thing I have always felt was illegal was the fact the minions of the RIAA act as judge, Jury, and executioner. The only difference between the RIAA and East African Pirates is their methods.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
|  I agree with kyler13 on this issue, but consumers have been screwed for 25 years not 10 years. I spoke to a representative from Philips in 1979 at a HI-FI Show in Atlanta. Philips displayed a prototype Compact Disc Player. I asked specifically how much a Compact Disc would cost, the representative stated it was the objective of the record labels to set a maximum MSRP of $12.98 for premium priced CD's.
When the CD was introduced in 1983, it seems that there was such a demand for them, that even though the record labels had set a maximum price of $12.98 for premium Compact Discs like Telarc products, the record stores marked them up to from $16.95 to $18.95. What you might not be aware of, is that around 1984 the recording artists sued the record labels for insufficient compensation for their work. The artists prevailed and the music industry raised the list price of Compact Discs to $16.95. Music is one of the few products where the consumer was screwed by the music industry distribution network and paid more than list price for their products. | |
|
| | kirbyj2
join:2008-02-21
Fort Dodge, IA
| Re: Sounds like a good blueprint from the RIAA Don't forget inflation. Using two separate inflation calculators (see links below), $12.98 in 1979 is $17.81 in 1983. So retailers were well within the original MSRP.
The same $12.98 in 1979 would be $37.07 in 2007 dollars according to the first site, and $36.62 in 2007 dollars according to the second site. The second site doesn't adjust to 2008 so I went with 2007.
The $16.95 MSRP in 1984 is $33.83 and $33.42 for sites 1 and 2 respectively.
I'm only guessing at the actual 2007 cost of a CD being $15-$25; I haven't bought a CD since 1995. So it looks like a relative bargain.
Of course this is assuming your MSRP figures are accurate. I'm not disputing them by the way; for all I know you could have been the one to set them! This doesn't take into consideration the decreased cost of pressing a CD either, which has to be extremely cheap today compared to 1979. Nor does it factor in that I think music is way overpriced to begin with. Especially the shit record companies try to pass off as music these days.
Oh, almost forgot the inflation calculators:
1) »data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
2) »www.westegg.com/inflation/
I don't know how accurate either of these are, just found them on Google. | |
|
| | | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
|  Re: Sounds like a good blueprint from the RIAA
| |
|
|
| Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | Re: Unjustifiable But....
If this is vetted in court, then the RIAA will have to lay off all so many lawyers, lol, god someone think of the children
and not one artist will see a dime of that rich college kids money. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
edit:
November 19th, @04:58PM
| Re: Unjustifiable said by Pv8man :If this is vetted in court, then the RIAA will have to lay off all so many lawyers, lol, god someone think of the children and not one artist will see a dime of that rich college kids money. Not one artist has seen one penny from the RIAA lawsuits and any lawyer willing to be such a racketeering scumbag probably belongs in prison! It's a pretty good bet that such lawyers cheat on both their taxes and their spouse. | |
|
| Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| said by IT Guy :I just bought a couple of MP3 albums from amazon.com last night. Hypothetically speaking, what happens if RIAA suddenly accuses me of stealing that music? Will Amazon come to my defense 5, 10 or 20 years down the road? Will they have a record of my purchases for that long? Somehow I doubt this. Be sure and keep the receipt. | |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| It's about a private entity enforcing criminal code. Crimes are supposed to by handled by the elected official, usually a DA, in the jurisdiction and not by private citizens. The complaint here is about law enforcement being handled by a private entity. This is not constitutional and will end up at the supreme court. The record industry needs to act like every other private citizen.
does the word vigilante come to mind? | |
|
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Re: It's about a private entity enforcing criminal code. While I certainly abhor the tactic, your DA does not prosecute civil actions. This is a civil action.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: It's about a private entity enforcing criminal code. A tactic worthy only of those who should prosecuted under the RICO statutes! What the RIAA is doing is so close to the definition of extortion that it shouldn't be considered a civil action. | |
|
sunny8294
Shqipe
join:2001-03-15
Localhost ;) | Die RIAA Die! RIAA can die a most horrible death and I won't feel bad a bit!
--
.:: Sunny ::. | |
|
| Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | Re: Die RIAA Die! Careful, they can hear you, they probably hired Media Defender to implant key loggers in your windows update...
But it's OK because they are "DEFENDING" artists.
LOL | |
|
| | sunny8294
Shqipe
join:2001-03-15
Localhost ;) | Re: Die RIAA Die! lol
oh god, i'm so scared!
shhh..
--
.:: Sunny ::. | |
|
koma3504
Advocate
Premium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX
| I wonder I wonder if what this these private organizations{MPAA/RIAA} are doing Against the public.
Could fall under the Terrorism act.
After all there are terrorizing the public.
With false claims that dead people people that do not even have computers and ruining there lives with there tactics.
Not to mention there insane Charges for such.
--
† Koma †
If YOu Don't Think It's Possable!! It's Acually A Reality!!The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay!!
Ya Don't Know The signal Till Ya Ride It!!
Voice Break's There's Trouble!!!! | |
|
|
|
|
Harvard Law Professor Sues RIAA
·
·
Unjustifiable