RIAA tactics are turning on them

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Oscar1613

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Beautiful defense! 70¢ per song is a completely fair settlement. Kind of like the settlement in Sony's rootkit case, just give the customer/plaintiff a clean CD. Never mind the malicious act of planting a rootkit on someone else's machine, just replace the CD and all is good. :roll:

you cant have your cake and eat it too. if sony can get away with simply replacing a cd, then the damages should come down. if they don't want their damages to come down, then they should have to pay way more than $7000 per rootkit cd

Exactly. I want my $10,000 per song damages.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: bignateyk
no shit, but the point is that they are nowhere near the tens of thousands of dollars the RIAA is trying to get.

There is no relationship between actual damages and statutory damages, nor is there supposed to be. Statutory damages are a way for a jury (and thus society) to punish certain behavior and send a message of deterrence to others.

In civil copyright infringement complaints, the plaintiff can seek actual damages + profits, or it can seek STATUTORY damages, but it cannot seek both. In this case, RIAA asked for STATUTORY damages, not actual damages + profits.

The $150,000 maximum per song arises out of a provision in copyright law that allows a jury to dispense a royal smackdown on the defendant if the plaintiff proves (and the defendant fails to disprove) the infringement was intentional and knowing, as opposed to unintentional and unknowing.

In the Thomas case, the jury found the defendant committed intentional and knowing infringement (which could hardly be disputed), thus triggering the 'royal smackdown' provision that allows harsh damages as a punishment for the defendant's bad behavior.

Of course, had this moron agreed to sit down with RIAA and come to a settlement, it would have cost her about 1/100th as much. But noooo, she forced RIAA's hand, went to trial and insulted the jury's intelligence with a preposterous defense, and got her ass handed to her.

Door #1 was available to her, but she rejected that and bet the farm on Door #2.

My thoughts exactly, I still have no idea why she tried to fight them, the evidence against her was overwhelming. She was the only one with access to the computer and the computer was connected directly to modem, which basically incriminates her. Her purchasing a new hard drive after getting caught and using the same username across the net certainly didn't help her case.

Instead of trying to prove her innocence I don't understand why the defense didn't focus on convincing the jury that damages stipulated by DMCA are outrageous and unfounded. They should have just come out and said "my client may be guilty, she's not denying that, but she should not have to pay more than $750/song because...." I'd think it would be pretty easy to prove that damages of up to $150k per song are utterly ridiculous, but proving her innocence... I don't think such a thing could be done, even if she wasn't a poor mother and could afford a top-notch lawyer.

 

[Regs]

Agreed frostedflakes. They likely picked a jury that were all in the working class. "We earned what we got and it aint much". They pick apart her ridiculous defense and only infuriated the jury to give her the maximum penalty.

The jury, if they wanted too, could of rewarded a reasonable amount of tort to the RIAA. They did not have to settle with 150k a song.

 

[tcsenter]

Instead of trying to prove her innocence I don't understand why the defense didn't focus on convincing the jury that damages stipulated by DMCA are outrageous and unfounded. They should have just come out and said "my client may be guilty, she's not denying that, but she should not have to pay more than $750/song because..."

Because that is not a question for the jury to decide as a matter of law. Whether or not the maximum penalties are outrageous has no relevance to her liability. A maximum penalty is very different than a minimum penalty.

Thomas tried to prove her "innocence" by presenting a half-baked defense that she couldn't possibly owe RIAA anything because RIAA was not the "real" copyright holder/owner of the music files in question. IOW, she may be liable to someone for copyright infringement, but because that 'someone' is not RIAA, the jury has no choice but to let her prevail. :roll:

I'd think it would be pretty easy to prove that damages of up to $150k per song are utterly ridiculous, but proving her innocence... I don't think such a thing could be done, even if she wasn't a poor mother and could afford a top-notch lawyer.

You think Thomas is paying for her legal representation? There is not an attorney in the country who would let a single working mother with no assets rack up a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, unless she were the plaintiff and the defendant had deep pockets. Her lawyers (plural) are working pro bono, partially bankrolled by anti-RIAA organizations.

The jury, if they wanted too, could of rewarded a reasonable amount of tort to the RIAA. They did not have to settle with 150k a song.

They didn't impose the maximum, it was $9,250 for each of the 24 music files, which is a lot less than $150K per file.

 

[ades]

when my "friend" downloads anything, "he" waits until the upload ratio reaches 1:1 and then stops uploading. so for each and every song, it only gets uploading in complete to one other person, although it may only be 20% here and 15% to another guy, etc. there is no way in hell that my "friend" is uploading the same song to 2,000 people. that means that the damages caused by him could not be more than that one song being uploading to the equivalant of one other person.

either the RIAA is full of shit, or the people being caught and prosecuted are in fact retarded.

 

[jjones]

The RIAA is so incredibly stupid it defies logic. They could have been so far ahead of the game had they jumped on digital distribution when file sharing first became popular. They could have developed their own file sharing client and distributed music at a reasonable price, even using other people's bandwidth. They could have fostered tons of good will amongst internet users and made tons of cash at the same time.

Unfortunately, they suck balls and haven't the common sense to even consider anything like that. Retard dinosaurs that need to all go bankrupt.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

no shit, but the point is that they are nowhere near the tens of thousands of dollars the RIAA is trying to get.

I'm all for punishing people who steal, but to ruin someones life because they stole a hundred dollars worth of music is ridiculous.

oh the irony considering it is the record labels who are 'stealing' from the artists.

 

[ades]

oh and on the same note as my post above, do you realize how long it would take to upload something to that many people? 2,000 x file size x pitiful upload speed = a really long time. then multiply that times all the songs you're uploading... so i doubt anyone would upload one song that many times, no matter how clueless they are.

 

[Modeps]

Hey OP, your topic subtitle is misleading.

 

[dud]

I can't tell you how much I hope this defense is successful. If so then the RIAA (and MPAA's) arguments become (almost overnight) immaterial. If successful, all future RIAA/MPAA "victories" become hollow ones as the damages (the deterrent to file sharing) become irrelevant to those being accused of the act.

Oh what a wonderful world it would be.

Hey, I can dream. It could happen!

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: jjones
The RIAA is so incredibly stupid it defies logic. They could have been so far ahead of the game had they jumped on digital distribution when file sharing first became popular. They could have developed their own file sharing client and distributed music at a reasonable price, even using other people's bandwidth. They could have fostered tons of good will amongst internet users and made tons of cash at the same time.

lol! Right, because when you can pay to download music, why would you download it for free?

There is absolutely no reason why all the music downloaders who allegedly want to do the right thing could not click four times to purchase a CD from any of the numerous online music retailers instead of blaming RIAA because they can't click four times to purchase a CD from an online music retailer.

Let's compare the substantial differences between the two current 'stupid' models and the 'brilliant' model that allegedly would cause goodwill and music-purchasing to bust out all over the place.

Stupid Model A: Goto music retailer B&M store, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it leaves the store with you.

Stupid Model B: Goto music retailer website, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it arrives in three to four days.

Brilliant Model: Goto music retailer website, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it downloads in 30 minutes.

Yeah, that's some revolutionary sh-t right there. I can see how that would completely change people's attitude toward purchasing music rather than stealing it. The old models only gave you two options: pay for music or pay for music. But the revolutionary new model would give you a whole new option: pay for music.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

no shit, but the point is that they are nowhere near the tens of thousands of dollars the RIAA is trying to get.

I'm all for punishing people who steal, but to ruin someones life because they stole a hundred dollars worth of music is ridiculous.

oh the irony considering it is the record labels who are 'stealing' from the artists.

It's probably the other way around. It's the label and it's engineers that are often responsible for just about the entire production and marketing, and in many cases groups of professional composers develop the musical piece. It's often more accurate to say the 'singer' represents the label's music, not the other way around.

 

[Xavier434]

Good

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Yeah, that's some revolutionary sh-t right there. I can see how that would completely change people's attitude toward purchasing music rather than stealing it. The old models only gave you two options: pay for music or pay for music. But the revolutionary new model would give you a whole new option: pay for music.

How about this for revolutionary model: They take their music and stick it up their arses. We will all survive without it.

 

[irishScott]

I love tor. As far as any torrent tracker is concerned, my IP is located somewhere in Europe. Not foolproof, but definitely decreases the risk.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: jjones
The RIAA is so incredibly stupid it defies logic. They could have been so far ahead of the game had they jumped on digital distribution when file sharing first became popular. They could have developed their own file sharing client and distributed music at a reasonable price, even using other people's bandwidth. They could have fostered tons of good will amongst internet users and made tons of cash at the same time.

lol! Right, because when you can pay to download music, why would you download it for free?

There is absolutely no reason why all the music downloaders who allegedly want to do the right thing could not click four times to purchase a CD from any of the numerous online music retailers instead of blaming RIAA because they can't click four times to purchase a CD from an online music retailer.

Let's compare the substantial differences between the two current 'stupid' models and the 'brilliant' model that allegedly would cause goodwill and music-purchasing to bust out all over the place.

Stupid Model A: Goto music retailer B&M store, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it leaves the store with you.

Stupid Model B: Goto music retailer website, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it arrives in three to four days.

Brilliant Model: Goto music retailer website, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it downloads in 30 minutes.

Yeah, that's some revolutionary sh-t right there. I can see how that would completely change people's attitude toward purchasing music rather than stealing it. The old models only gave you two options: pay for music or pay for music. But the revolutionary new model would give you a whole new option: pay for music.

You're as brain dead as the RIAA. I would explain it to you but it's really not worth my time, and you wouldn't get it anyway, but for the sake of proffering up a modicum of effort even though wasted on you, here's a clue. How popular was that mp3 download site in russia?

But I guess for some people it may be too difficult to think outside the box, or dustcover, or jewelcase. Why deviate from an archaic business model if you can just sue your way to revenues?

 

[Pugnax]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: jjones
The RIAA is so incredibly stupid it defies logic. They could have been so far ahead of the game had they jumped on digital distribution when file sharing first became popular. They could have developed their own file sharing client and distributed music at a reasonable price, even using other people's bandwidth. They could have fostered tons of good will amongst internet users and made tons of cash at the same time.

lol! Right, because when you can pay to download music, why would you download it for free?

There is absolutely no reason why all the music downloaders who allegedly want to do the right thing could not click four times to purchase a CD from any of the numerous online music retailers instead of blaming RIAA because they can't click four times to purchase a CD from an online music retailer.

Let's compare the substantial differences between the two current 'stupid' models and the 'brilliant' model that allegedly would cause goodwill and music-purchasing to bust out all over the place.

Stupid Model A: Goto music retailer B&M store, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it leaves the store with you.

Stupid Model B: Goto music retailer website, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it arrives in three to four days.

Brilliant Model: Goto music retailer website, browse the music selection, listen to FM quality tracks, purchase CD you like, it downloads in 30 minutes.

Yeah, that's some revolutionary sh-t right there. I can see how that would completely change people's attitude toward purchasing music rather than stealing it. The old models only gave you two options: pay for music or pay for music. But the revolutionary new model would give you a whole new option: pay for music.

You're missing an important thing here. Let's say the RIAA/music gods/etc. decided hey lets use P2P/online music sharing software before napster/bt/et al became mainstream. They have the money to pay engineers (they have enough to pay lawyers) to devise a fair, high quality service, to allow people to legally use/play music online (no DRM mess or SoundExchange radio licensing madness), then the problem goes away. Instead of attacking this problem at the source (the music industry's demonstrated inability to capture a paying music market), they go after the consumers through litigation. If they actually developed a system for consumers and artists to live in harmony, this problem would go away. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a concern for them. Instead, apparently suing consumers for uploading music through p2p networks is the path to the solution (or its own self-detriment perhaps..).

 

[Czar]

give me a service where I can download every song I want, every movie I want, every tv show I want
I'll gladly pay over $100 a month for that service

And it doesnt matter if its an unlimited service because there is only a certain amount of time you can spend enjoying it

This is the model people currently enjoy, except they dont pay anything for it, this is the business model that people want and will pay for

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Modeps
Hey OP, your topic subtitle is misleading.

How?

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Modeps
Hey OP, your topic subtitle is misleading.

How?

The defendant is arguing that the damages are more along the lines of 70 cents... not that any court official has determined they are actually 70 cents, as your subtitle implies.

I hate the RIAA as much as everyone else, and I am happy this is happening, but lets not start spreading falsities.

 

[videogames101]

PWNED

finally a loss for the idiots....

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: bignateyk

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

no shit, but the point is that they are nowhere near the tens of thousands of dollars the RIAA is trying to get.

I'm all for punishing people who steal, but to ruin someones life because they stole a hundred dollars worth of music is ridiculous.

So if my house gets robbed for $20 worth of stuff, but I blow $250k on getting the teams from all the CSIs, Law & Order, and a bunch of other forensic investigators to hunt you down, you think I can sue you for $250 020?