Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award

[Newsjock]

Source: Wired

A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”

A federal jury in June found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in what at the time was the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. The Minnesota federal jury dinged her $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs. She asked the judge to set aside or reduce that $80,000 per song in damages.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis agreed on Friday, and said the RIAA may have a retrial if it does not accept his ruling.

“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”

The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer in the nation’s second and only other file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. Among other things, the administration said the large July award would “deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe they will go unnoticed.”

Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/

[sakabatou]

1. The MPAA are such fuckers...

[apnu]

56. Well i this case it is the RIAA, but who can tell the difference? (nt)

[DJ13]

2. So $54,000 for 24 songs isnt shocking to that judge?

[Warpy]

4. How much would it have cost her to download those tunes legally?

That's the amount of damages they should have gotten.

[Jkid]

6. 54 Dollars.

[boppers]

7. Download count + downloaded share count?

If a download a 2 dollar song, and potentially share it with 2 people, is that six dollars?

If a download a 2 dollar song, and potentially share it with 20,000 people, but two download it, is that six dollars?

If a download a 2 dollar song, and potentially share it with 20,000 people, and 20,000 download it, how much is that?

[mainer]

23. precisely. File sharing is potentially millions of bucks in losses.

I think this penalty was more about sending a message than actual losses, but it still needs to be big enough to make everyone pause before committing robbery by file sharing.

[boppers]

26. Well, I wouldn't call unlicensed use "robbery".

Nobody is deprived of their own use when something is copied from them... It's not like actual assets are changing hands from one person to another.

What's being lost is hypothetical *potential* revenue, based on the assumption that if sharing didn't exist, people would have purchased their own licensed copies, at full retail value.... which is the same reasons that the media industries wanted to shut down video rental stores, cassette tape recorders, video tape recorders, used music stores, used book stores, etc.

Taking it a step further:
"it still needs to be big enough to make everyone pause before committing robbery by book sharing"... since people aren't paying for a retail copy of a book, should libraries be shut down?

[mainer]

28. it depends on whether you think creative work has any value

and obviously, you don't. Since you're happy to have people steal the works of artists, and face no penalty.

[boppers]

30. I've recorded professionally, actually, you could find it on iTunes, and in most music stores.

We had the iTunes pulled because somebody who was no longer licensed to distribute it was selling it illegally.

I do think creative work has value, but the greatest theft I've seen is from "labels" and "publishers" who claim that they are owed a great deal of money (by consumers) for a given work, but then turn around and give almost nothing to the actual artists (who the labels/publishers tend to over bill for publishing, marketing, accounting, etc.).

Here's a simple thought experiment:
Do you honestly think the award, either the $1.92 million, or the $54,000, was *ever* going to be seen by any of the actual artists of the 24 songs?

I can tell you with almost complete certainty that the artists in question weren't ever going to see a penny of the award.

Not a single cent. The industry doesn't work that way.

That's why I support direct artist work... use the media sharing networks to generate interest and fanbase, up sell to non-copyable artistic works, and cut the record labels out *entirely*. Example: put out some tracks and tour in support. Then sell direct signed copies, hand-made copies, limited releases, collector item tour gear, etc.

[mainer]

31. "non-copyable artistic works"?

Pirates are too quick. They get around any and all copy protections within days, and those works will be offered to countless takers on file-sharing sites.

It's wonderful to say, "give it away free! You'll build your fan base!" But what good is a fan base if they don't pay you for your work? You'll be famous ... and broke.

[Kurska]

33. "Pirates are too quick" and you won't sue a entire populace of downloaders into oblivion either.

You need to develop alternative marketplaces that can compete with piracy on its own level, being easier, faster and better quality while still not destroying your wallet or just supporting it with ad revenue.

[mainer]

34. You can't compete with a product version that's free

How does a musician compete with a piracy site that offers his songs for free? Offer it at a cheaper price -- less than zero? Offer to PAY the customer to get the song?

I don't understand how you can develop an alternative marketplace when the current "marketplace" gives away the product at no cost. Will musicians now have to start singing songs about the goodness of Tide Detergent, just so they can get some revenue from Tide?

[Kurska]

35. Yes, you can it has been done.

Pandora internet radio is a ad supported product that uses genre and tags to create unique radio stations that plays the music you like. Spotify charges a monthly fee and lets you stream music. I actually get most of my music through Zune Marketplace because I can pay one flat fee per month, download all the music I like, have it all be in a central location that is easy to search and very fast to download from and If I my computer dies, I can redownload all my music at the touch of one button.

On all these services the music is higher quality, easier to find, no risk of viruses, but all of them are still relatively new and defiantly aren't the only solution to the problem of paying people for their music.

I can't tell you what will work in the digital age if I could I'd be a very rich man right now, but I can tell you what isn't going to work. No one is going to be able to sue the marketplace into a worse system just because we've been using that system for year. My generation has grown up not shackled by the record labels free with the ability to experiment in musical tastes and have been exposed to a post record label world.

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-isnt-killing-music-radioheads-guitarist-says-100124/

"According to O’Brien the music industry is using analogue business models in a digital age. “You’ve got to license out more music, more Spotifys, more websites selling more music. You’ve got to make it slightly cheaper as well to get music in order to compete with the peer-to-peers.”"

Good reading, by the by.

[mainer]

36. and the artist gets paid, how? A percentage of Pandora's take?

Once again, the artist would be relying on a third party distributor (Pandora) to get paid. It's like the recording industry, all over again.

I don't care how the recording industry executives get paid. I care about how the artist gets paid. And once you download that wonderful recording off Pandora, you could upload it to pirate sites, and suddenly the recording is free to the whole world.

[Kurska]

37. Generally? Pandora is like radio money, Zune and spotify's models are more complicated.

Like I said, no solution is perfect, but like I already said, you're not going to be able to sue piracy out of existence, it is like the war on drugs, but twice as futile because you're not even dealing with solid product, but bits of data.

Actually DRM usually prevents people casually doing it, but again DRM can be broken.

[boppers]

38. Non-copyable artistic work is original work, with provenance

8-track version of an album (each one hand decorated by the band), touring instruments complete with road scars, one-off DAT recordings of studio jam sessions...

"Pirates" have reproduced the Mona Lisa in countless picture books, posters, and the like, but the original still has value as an original work, because it's *not* a copy. Where your premise is broken is assuming that copies of work have any value to start with. If it can be copied, it can be pirated... and it's not original work, it's a freaking copy. If it's a CD, it's not an original recording, it's a copy. The original work is in the studio, not Wal-Mart.

[mainer]

39. How many non-copyable works can a band sell to make money?

The vast majority of consumers aren't going to buy the 8-track version. They'll download the pirated free version. Which leaves the band selling, what? About 100 copies of the 8-track version to true collectors. That will net them about, oh, $10,000 to split among themselves.

My question still stands. How, exactly, does a band make money if they don't get paid for their recordings? Even if they bypass the bad old studios and sell their recordings directly online, those recordings are going to get pirated.

Not every band can fill a performance venue, so touring is out of the question for all but the biggest name performers.

Which means that up and coming musicians, no matter how talented, are going to be starving. And when you're forced to have a day job, it's pretty hard to go on the road to tour.

End result: the only bands who'll make a living are those with corporations behind them who'll foot the bill for lavishly produced stage productions.

[boppers]

40. Last online band auction I saw netted $3,000 in 3 hours... better than many small-mid size gigs.

$10,000 for 100 collectors editions is bad? Most of the working musicians I know would be thrilled to make $10K off of a single afternoon of recording and decorating. (Jack Valenti, is that you?)

"Not every band can fill a performance venue, so touring is out of the question for all but the biggest name performers. "

Wow. I don't even know how to address that appropriately, at first blush. I've performed for 3 people, I've performed for 3,000. I've toured out of my car, a van, and out of a tour bus. If a performer isn't willing to, oh, perform, and take their road lumps, well, that's like a painter complaining that it's too expensive to buy paint and canvas, because not everybody gets gallery shows and national acclaim instantly.

"My question still stands. How, exactly, does a band make money if they don't get paid for their recordings?"

Performances, merchandise, original art.

"Which means that up and coming musicians, no matter how talented, are going to be starving."

Welcome to art. It's not guaranteed income. Some folks make it, some don't.

"End result: the only bands who'll make a living are those with corporations behind them who'll foot the bill for lavishly produced stage productions."

Nope. The true artists keep doing it, for the art, and make a living via their patrons. Some make enough to get a bed to lie in, some sleep in their vans, some make enough to buy/finance lavish stage productions. Some have 2nd/3rd jobs, some don't.

Here's a good, honest, book to read about music life (by somebody who's earned their stripes as an artist):
http://www.amazon.com/Get-Van-Road-Black-Flag/dp/1880985241

Wikipedia article on the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_in_the_Van

[mainer]

41. "True artists" are therefore condemned to struggle all their lives

I think this is a tragic point of view. True artists, with true talents, should be rewarded for it. To say that Buddy Holly or Bob Dylan should accept poverty, because that's what all true artists are supposed to do, is just sad.

Artists want a roof over their heads, college tuition for their kids, and a retirement fund as much as everyone else. But you're saying it's okay for all of them to sleep in their vans and play to audiences of 30, none of whom may want to buy a tee shirt. (And what's the profit on a tee-shirt, anyway? About five bucks a pop at the most?) And merchandise? What, you mean a keychain or a baseball cap with the band's name on it? Wow, big profits, man. That'll pay for an order of McDonald's french fries, small size.

I'm not saying there should be guaranteed income for everyone. I'm saying that those who deserve big music sales should profit from those sales -- and not see their art get given away for free to anyone with a computer.

[mainer]

49. "An afternoon of recording"

so you can compose and arrange enough music for a whole album in a "single afternoon". And $10K is just compensation for what probably took a whole year. Right.

[sendero]

46. It doesn't matter..

... the way the music industry works today, you have about a 0.00000001% chance of making any money in their system.

If you actually think you are an artist that people will pay to hear you'd better get a clue soon because you'll get nowhere that way.

[mainer]

48. And in the system you advocate, how will ANYONE make a living?

Since you seem to think that all artists should accept poverty?

(And yes, I'm an artist. And I've made a fortune at it. But the next generation won't be able to.)

[sendero]

63. Plenty of people do..

... probably more than do the record co route.

[Threedifferentones]

42. The library comparison is very apt

Libraries pay for a few copies of a book, and then unlimited numbers of people get to use them. Isn't that stealing?

Mainer, I do not know how you were convinced of the myth that file sharing is taking bread off of artists' tables. Fact is, most "unknown" song writers I am acquainted with love the potential for free exposure on the internet. They also all take it for granted that they could become pretty successful, that is, develop a solid fan base in one or more cities/regions, and never get a whiff of a profitable record contract. Do you work for a record company or something?

The vast majority of unknown artists are happy to have their music spread for free. Even if they can get record contracts, they typically make nothing off the sales. This is why the only "artists" who bitch about file sharing are rich and famous already. Mostly, though, it is the recording industry that bitches, because they got spoiled by having total control over our access to non-live music. Selling a disc and some plastic worth less than $.50 for $19.99, and then often paying the artists who made the music little or nothing, was only a legitimate business model when we had no options. These fools failed to adapt, and so what revenue remains in the recording industry will go to companies that adapted like Apple and Napster.

[mainer]

44. no, it's not apt at all

Libraries only lend out one copy at a time -- and don't allow endless photocopying. The book has a limited physical lifespan.

A pirated tune or e-book can be uploaded for ENDLESS downloading by ENDLESS numbers of freeloaders. This is a loss with NO LIMITS. In other words, it takes only ONE FILE to completely destroy any future sales of the content.

I'm stunned that you cannot see the difference between a library -- with limited numbers of borrowers -- and a pirated digital copy,

[Threedifferentones]

61. Just like we are stunne d you think wasting billions of dollars on lobbying and lawyers

to force us to buy a $.25 CD for $19.99 is a good idea that helps artists. 99.9% of musicians do not pay bills selling their original music, they make money playing shows and, hopefully, working in studios on some "commercial" projects, ie songs for advertisements, movies, television, etc.

What you call pirated music most small-time artists call free publicity. I live in Nashville and know plenty of young musicians who wait tables days and play nights, and none of them give a flying fuck about pirated music. In fact, they'd love it if their stuff were all over file sharing sites; after all, almost all of them are giving away good chunks of their music for free on myspace and elsewhere anyway, just hoping people will listen.

Moreover, did you miss the whole deal last year where millions of people paid several dollars to download Radioheads latest directly from the band? Even though they could have easily downloaded it for free, they did it anyway because they love Radiohead. Personally, I would never give Radiohead a cent for their music, but the point is that lots of people will pay money for good content, even if they don't have to, WHEN THEY KNOW THE MONEY IS GOING TO THE CREATORS.

The library comparison is plenty apt: If I am the author of a book I know is in every library in America, say Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, could I not reasonably claim that since everyone in America can read my book for free, libraries are costing me millions of sales?

No, because most of the people who got your book from the library would not have paid for it. They are at the library because they are interested in reading for free. Moreover, libraries do not allow copying of their books in the same way the internet does not allow filing sharing of copyrighted material: it's against the rules, but nobody can stop you.

[apnu]

57. Nothing is being stolen from the artists.

Artists do not make a profit (unless they are very large such as Metallica -- who can afford lawyers to renegotiate their contracts to include CD sales and related revenues). Typically, the "artists" (I use in quotes because I don't consider Brittney Spears and her ilk to be an artist of any kind) get paid an advance to produce an album, or if an album already exists the album "bought" by the record company, and the artist is on their own to provide recording, engineering, mixing and other related production costs, out of that advance. The record label then takes that album, makes CDs and promotes the album on the radio. CD sales go right back to the record company and the artist (typically) gets nothing. Artists normally do go on tour to promote the album and they get a cut of the ticket sales (but that is a very small cut, Tickemaster actually makes more money than the typical artist) and they get 100% profit from merchandise sales at the shows. If you buy the album there, they do get paid for that because they are allowed to buy the CDs from the record label and resell them.

So when people are sharing songs for free, normally, the only ones who get ripped off are the record labels and their lawyers. The artists are not in that loop (normally).

[mainer]

59. This artist would beg to differ.

And so would any number of musicians and writers whose copyrighted intellectual property is downloaded free from pirate sites. And stop whining about the big bad recording companies. I'm not defending them. I'm defending the rights of people who work a year or more to produce an album or a novel, and whose incomes rely on the sales of those creations.

Pirated downloads illegal for a reason. It's theft.

[apnu]

64. And this is why I frequently noted "typical" recording artist.

Because I know there are exceptions, this is why I frequently said "typical" and "normal." I'm not defending music downloads, nor am I promoting it. Just revealing the "poor artist" red herring that's trotted out by the RIAA all the time. Its bunk. For the record, the way the law is structured and the DMCA it is illegal to download copyrighted music w/out paying for it. But my point is who is getting ripped off? The artist or the mega recording label? And, given the way the mainstream music industry currently operates, its the label who gets ripped off more than the artist. Independents, on the other hand, may get ripped off, but they only constitute a small portion of all music artists working in the music industry in America.

For example: there are artists (both music and visual) who are doing just fine having broken free of the MPAA and RIAA and gone it alone. They have tried various levels of digital media distribution to various levels of success. To name a few bands: Einsturzende Neubauten, Nine Inch Nails, and The Smashing Pumpkins. Joss Wedon did amazing work and reached amazing heights of popularity with Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long blog. All on a shoe-string budget during the writers strike. Imagine what he could have done if he had a major studio behind him (Firefly anyone? Oh wait... that's another conversation)

Point is, digital media has a place and its desired. It is in the best interests of the MPAA and the RIAA to get on board with this -- then everybody is happy. But since they refuse to evolve (and stick us in the ear on CD prices and quality while controlling radio stations to control the ebb and flow of musical creativity) They are going to stay right where they are now while loosing their control of the media. This isn't to say that they must allow people to copy tracks on a CD and put them out there for all to have, rather the best course of action is to come up with a system where there is little to no motivation to put the stuff out there illegally. It behooves them to figure that out because, obviously, in the absence of the RIAA's innovation, someone else will step in and innovate and thus we have this situation.

I'm not defending piracy either, and I understand the toil of the artist (I'm related to a novelist, a musician, two painters and I've known two radio personalities personally) so I know their side of the story just as well.

[totodeinhere]

136. I will shed no tears for the recording industry no matter how much they lose.

If fact, I hope they lose millions. That's what they deserve. They going around suing twelve year olds for downloading a song, yet they give the artists the shaft. By the time the record companies take their share, only crumbs are left for the artists.

[Butch350]

11. The key word here is, "Legally"

[marshall]

29. Isn't it distributing it to others that they prosecute?

I thought it wasn't that she (or somebody else on her computer) downloaded songs--I thought it was putting it online for anybody and everybody to take that was the issue.

[jimshoes]

3. $54.00 might have been a more

sensible judgment.

[Jkid]

5. I agree, restrict the damages to the actual damage it caoused.

If it was that way, the defendant would merely be ordered to pay for the total actual cost of songs plus interest. Which would be around $54-$60.

[Hosnon]

50. I disagree. The payment of interest isn't much of a deterrent. Without some sort of punitive

damages, there is no disincentive to not do this. That said, $54,000 is a bit high. It should hurt but not that much.

[Meldread]

8. Why laws against file sharing are ridiculous.

There was no contract signed to not distribute the music BEFORE it was purchased. In the case where such distribution occurs against the contract, the violator of the contract is at fault.

When I was growing up we used to record songs from the radio all the time on cassette tapes. We had walkmen back then instead of MP3 players, but we exchanged and made copies of cassette tapes all the time. I suppose this is against the law, but no one was ever arrested for it.

What about situations when people loan out CD's to friends? Is that against the law too, since they're listening to music they didn't pay for? What if that friend decides to rip the songs from the CD to put on his MP3 player for personal use? Is that against the law?

Let's go further, if I loan a CD to a friend who then rips them from the CD and distributes them, who is at fault? My friend for the distribution, or myself for loaning out the CD (assuming I had no idea what he was going to do with it)?

If loaning out the CD or cassette tapes to a friend isn't against the law, then how is file sharing against the law? Certainly, it's a matter of scale, but does that mean I can't loan my CD out to more than three different friends? Are there legal time limits to how long they can hold the CD before returning it to me? Is it illegal for them to rip the songs from the CD for personal use?

If the answer to the last several questions are no, then what if I ripped the song's from the CD into MP3 format, and then sent those songs to two of my friends? Would that be any different than sending them the CD? If not, then how is this any different than massive file sharing? Is it scale, and if so, what is the legal limit to whom I can exchange with?

As should be clear, there is a huge amount of ambiguity in the law that does not make sense. Not to mention that only a handful of individuals are ever targeted, to be made examples of, which makes the laws that do exist unfair in their application.

[ManiacJoe]

9. Answers to your questions.

When I was growing up we used to record songs from the radio all the time on cassette tapes. We had walkmen back then instead of MP3 players, but we exchanged and made copies of cassette tapes all the time. I suppose this is against the law, but no one was ever arrested for it.
Correct, against the law, but no one was ever arrested for it.

What about situations when people loan out CD's to friends? Is that against the law too, since they're listening to music they didn't pay for? What if that friend decides to rip the songs from the CD to put on his MP3 player for personal use? Is that against the law?
Loaning a CD is legal because only one person can listen at a time to the one copy. Same with loaning a book. If your friend copies the CD by either making a CD or MP3s, your friend is breaking the law since he didn't not have is own official copy to start with.

Let's go further, if I loan a CD to a friend who then rips them from the CD and distributes them, who is at fault? My friend for the distribution, or myself for loaning out the CD (assuming I had no idea what he was going to do with it)?
Your friend is at fault for making the illegal copies.

If loaning out the CD or cassette tapes to a friend isn't against the law, then how is file sharing against the law? Certainly, it's a matter of scale, but does that mean I can't loan my CD out to more than three different friends? Are there legal time limits to how long they can hold the CD before returning it to me? Is it illegal for them to rip the songs from the CD for personal use?
The file sharing is illegal because you are giving away copies of the files that do not belong to you. It would be like buying a book, making copies, and giving away the copies to your friends. Loaning the book is fine; making copies is not.

If the answer to the last several questions are no, then what if I ripped the song's from the CD into MP3 format, and then sent those songs to two of my friends? Would that be any different than sending them the CD? If not, then how is this any different than massive file sharing? Is it scale, and if so, what is the legal limit to whom I can exchange with?
You are allowed to make copies of the songs for your own use. You may not give those copies to anyone else. Technically, after making the MP3s from the CD, if you were to loan out the CD, you would need to delete the MP3s to stay legal, since if you do not have the official original version you are not allowed to have the copies. There is no scale.

As should be clear, there is a huge amount of ambiguity in the law that does not make sense. Not to mention that only a handful of individuals are ever targeted, to be made examples of, which makes the laws that do exist unfair in their application.
Actually, there is very little ambiguity. You are only allowed to have copies of the songs (in any format) if you have an officially purchased version to start with.

[d_r]

18. songs

if I own an old 8-track tape that has a song on it, and I download the song, is that against the law? The license is for the song, right, not the media?

[JoeyT]

10. It's funny you mention recording on cassette.

I grew up in the same generation.
I also remember the music industry pushing like hell to ban the sale of blank cassettes because it was going to reduce them to poverty.

Edited: ManiacJoe beat me to it. :)

[regnaD kciN]

12. Wrong on almost every count...

There was no contract signed to not distribute the music BEFORE it was purchased. In the case where such distribution occurs against the contract, the violator of the contract is at fault.

Sorry, but copyright law applies to everyone. Your argument is a little bit like saying that no one should be prosecuted for bank robbery unless they'd signed a contract with the bank promising not to rob them.

When I was growing up we used to record songs from the radio all the time on cassette tapes. We had walkmen back then instead of MP3 players, but we exchanged and made copies of cassette tapes all the time. I suppose this is against the law, but no one was ever arrested for it.

You're right -- it was against the law (although the law has been made stricter since then). The difference was that, without net traffic and its paper trail, it was harder to track the copying. But, if you'd gone into a police station and visibly exchanged copied tapes with a friend, you would have had the same result.

What about situations when people loan out CD's to friends? Is that against the law too, since they're listening to music they didn't pay for? What if that friend decides to rip the songs from the CD to put on his MP3 player for personal use? Is that against the law?

No on the first part, as you won't have possession or use of the copyrighted material while your friend is borrowing it. If your friend rips the CD, then he's indeed in violation of copyright laws the second he gives the original CD back to you. Similarly, if you loan out a CD that you yourself have ripped, and have sitting on your computer, you are in violation of copyright law once the CD leaves your possession, unless you delete all its ripped tracks from your computer.

If loaning out the CD or cassette tapes to a friend isn't against the law, then how is file sharing against the law?

See my comments above. As soon as it changes from a "loan" situation (the lender loses possession and use of the material while the borrower has it) to a "copy" situation (both parties have possession and use of the material at the same time), it's a crime.

Think of it this way: it's legal for a bank to lend $200,000 of its money to a borrower for a mortgage loan. It is not legal for the bank to approve the mortgage, then, instead of giving him or her the money out of the bank's (figurative) vault, counterfeit $200,000 and give that to the borrower while holding onto the money yourself.

Certainly, it's a matter of scale, but does that mean I can't loan my CD out to more than three different friends?

Not at the same time! Remember, you only have that one CD. Loaning it to three friends sequentially is O.K., because only one of you has the CD in their possession at any given time.

Are there legal time limits to how long they can hold the CD before returning it to me? Is it illegal for them to rip the songs from the CD for personal use?

No and yes, in that order.

If the answer to the last several questions are no, then what if I ripped the song's from the CD into MP3 format, and then sent those songs to two of my friends? Would that be any different than sending them the CD? If not, then how is this any different than massive file sharing? Is it scale, and if so, what is the legal limit to whom I can exchange with?

Obviously, the answer to the last several questions was not no. It is the scale, in the sense that only one person can have possession of the media at any given time. Once you create a copy of that media, so that more than one person has possession of it, you are in violation of copyright law. Period.

I'm not saying I agree with copyright law as it now stands. In my mind, time-limited copying for the purposes of evaluation or review should be allowed (among other things). But the law and my wishes are two entirely different matters, and it does no one any good to pretend the law isn't what it is and deal with it that way.

[Meldread]

16. Thanks to both you and ManiacJoe.

I guess they're going to have to come and arrest me and so many of my friends from grade school. Back in the 80's and early 90's we used to record songs from the radio onto cassette tapes, make copies if the quality was good, then exchange them. :P

I guess, combined, we probably owe the music industry $734,982,379,898,897,982,987,923,879,283,798,237,987.87 dollars. At least if you use their math when calculating damages.

In all seriousness, I really loathe how the industry fights new technological developments. As someone else noted, they claimed cassette tapes would put them out of business. I remember there being a controversy when VHS tapes first began to circulate. Now we have things like DVR and nobody seems to be out of business, in fact since that time, there are more TV channels with cable and satellite than ever before.

We all know that millions of people are downloading pirated music, and that it isn't going to go away anytime soon. The music industry is still there, and they're being forced to adapt to the new technology which is a good thing. I love how these major corporations love completely deregulated free markets, but view it as a one way street. Free and deregulated for them, but for everyone else - well... they'd happily make laws forcing us to buy their products.

Oh well. I don't normally listen to any music produced by the corporate industry anyway. There are so many aspiring artists that are niche and appeal to me much more. I'm more than happy to send money their way, because I know it goes directly to them. (Plug for Jay Brannan with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7CDT820D7c">Half-Boyfriend and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mgTMrlPyJA">Housewife.) Not everyone's cup of tea, and a bit off topic, but I like to give plugs where I can. :P

[regnaD kciN]

17. Same here, but...

a) I was about fifteen years ahead of you,

b) I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations has run out on suing either of us,

c) besides, I doubt any of those old cassettes are playable anymore.

;-)

[mainer]

24. so how do you send money to artists you love if you're stealing from them?

I mean, file sharing is theft. Do you write them a check after you swipe their music for free?

[Meldread]

51. Who said I stole anything?

As I said, I don't normally listen to corporate made music. There are a few exceptions, most are rare, one of them is Lady Gaga. I purchase her music because I want to support her talents, and the only reason I got turned onto her in the first place were her music videos which I could watch for free online. Most of the artists I listen to are independent without any big music deals. Most also happen to be gay, or at the very least LGBT friendly (I try and use my funds to support my community). I learn about them online, and those that don't give their music away for free at the very least have a good selection of music to sample from... (I gave an example in Jay Brannan.) I then purchase music from them because I want to SUPPORT their talent. I view it more as a donation, really, to be honest. I love what they do, and as a result I am happy to pay for it. I also know that the money by-and-large goes directly to them, and not some middleman who basically exists to prey upon their talent and make money off of it... I would compare the recording industry to parasites.

[mr clean]

27. Jay Brannan is cool!

Nice tunes :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[BuddhaGirl]

25. not only that, but my local library has all kinds of CD's

that are loaned out. Of course people are going to copy them!

[Arkana]

13. The RIAA is the worst fucking thing to happen to this country since smallpox.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. Hell, alledgedly our FAX MACHINE is file sharing

We got a cease and desist letter by way of our ISP because somebody on our corporate network was allegedly using bit torrent to share music.

The only problem was there were no end-users behind the IP address, indeed the only internet connected device to which one could connect is a fax machine.

Piracy isn't good - but these tactics are ridiculous.

[davidpdx]

15. Glad to hear the amount was reduced, but that's still a huge sum

to be hanging over your head. I don't know what she had to pay in fees for attorneys, but I'm sure $54,000 is not the total sum it ends up costing her.

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Let's not overlook another important part of the story:

"The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer "

Our government is apparently on record as supporting a corporate policy.
No separation between Big Business and Government.

[fascisthunter]

20. ding, ding, ding

government for and by the people seems non-existent these days. But then again to some brainwashed, corporations are people too.

[David__77]

21. The days of having to pay for music or movies are gone.

There is simply no way to make it impossible to get these things for free. Human ingenuity wins out. The only thing that will prevent the financial collapse of music and Hollywood is the technologically inept or "ethically diligent" people.

[mainer]

22. so -- hollywood and musicians should just work for free?

I don't see that as a viable means of support for creative workers.

[Kurska]

32. No, more accurately the days of spending a dollar a ong or 20 bucks a dvd are over

Alternative ways of making a buck are what is needed, not draconian laws that are destined to fail. Services like hulu that are free but adsupported or all you can eat music services like zune marketplace are what is needed.

You can make a product that competes with free, because everyone knows file sharing means slow downloads, possible viruses, bad file quality and other assorted problems. Give me a supported download that is going to let me download HD quality movies using all of my 10 megabit connection and I will pay the movie industry 20 dollars a month or for 5 bucks a pop, but don't expect to me subsidies your broke ass financial structure out of the goodness of my heart, because I've got enough money problems and spending 20 for your cd that takes 2 cents to print isn't a option when I HAVE options.

[Threedifferentones]

43. Its really simple Mainer

Our model is: we pay a little for entertainment, creators and technicians get almost all of it. Distributors are almost all online operations that run for cheap, such as itunes or Rhapsody. It seems likely the duties of a band's manager will soon universally include running and promoting a website which allows for samples and purchases directly from artists.

The old model you are embracing is: we pay a lot more for entertainment, only creators and technicians get nothing more, and a bunch of spoiled assholes get mucho dinero. No thanks.

[mainer]

45. I am an artist, too. I earn my money through sales

Sales of my creative content. Not sales of trinkets or tee shirts. I am not a trinket salesman; I earn my living through what I myself create.

You condemn distributors. Fine. But you are also condemning the creators themselves, and robbing them of any ability to earn their livings by condoning piracy, which uploads the creator's efforts FREE, allowing consumers to steal those products FREE. How does the creator make any living off those who are taking his work without paying? How, in your world, does the creator make any money whatsoever?

Please tell me how you reimburse the creator for his work of art? How does piracy help the artist?

You talk about the NEW MODEL and condemn my OLD MODEL. In my old model, people get paid for their labor. In your new model, nobody pays for anything.

[NYC Liberal]

53. "How does the creator make any living off those who are taking his work without paying?"

I could just as easily ask, "How does the creator make any living off those who go into Best Buy and choose not to buy his album?" It's the same thing. You are not guaranteed a profit on what you offer for sale. The fact that someone downloaded your album free from the internet does not mean that that person would have paid for it had it not been available on Limewire or elsewhere.

There are several reasons why someone might download a song or an album online: (1) They already bought the CD and don't have it with them at the moment but want to listen to it, (2) They paid to download the album but it was infested with DRM that prevented them from easily playing it, or moving it to another device etc., or (3) They are 'trying before they buy'.

"piracy, which uploads the creator's efforts FREE, allowing consumers to steal those products FREE"

Copyright infringement is not stealing. Theft deprives someone of their property such that they are no longer in possession of it. This is not the case here. Say you have a CD -- a single physical entity -- that you are selling for $12. If I make a copy of your CD to take it home and listen to it, I have not deprived you of that physical CD. You are still in possession of it, and you can still sell it for $12 and make the money you planned on making. But you are still not guaranteed to make a profit. People may simply choose not to purchase your CD.

"You talk about the NEW MODEL and condemn my OLD MODEL. In my old model, people get paid for their labor. In your new model, nobody pays for anything."

In the old model, a CD which costs pennies to manufacture is sold for anywhere from $10 to $19. Of course, you also have to take into account a more limited supply and the physical distribution. But nonetheless, that model is dying. People don't want to pay that huge markup for an album that has maybe one or two decent songs that they like and 10-12 others that they'll never listen to. The new model allows people to pay less because there is unlimited supply and comparatively negligible distribution costs. That's just how it is. The content producers and distributors need to adjust to the market, not the other way around (if they want to sell anything, of course -- but they are free to charge what they want using whatever model they like).

[mainer]

54. Again: how does the creator make any income from his creation?

If everyone is taking it for free, from an online sharing site?

Suppose the creator offers his music for 99 cents on his own website. No manufacturer, no recording company involved. But consumers are offered that same music for free on a pirate site. The consumer is going to go for the free version.

The creator is paid -- how, exactly?

Is this not theft of a created song? Intellectual property is property -- whether you want to accept it or not. And don't tell me "they wouldn't have bought it anyway."

Clearly, people want the music. And since it's offered for free, they take it.

[NYC Liberal]

60. And again, you still have no proof that someone who downloaded your album,

would have purchased it. As I said in my first post, people download music to "try before they buy," to have a digital copy of the music they already bought on disc, etc. To suggest that every person who downloads a song or album illegally would have paid for it is ridiculous.

The creator is paid by sales. Do you also assert that someone who walks by your album in Best Buy or another store and doesn't buy it has "deprived" you of revenue? Is that "theft" as well?

"Suppose the creator offers his music for 99 cents on his own website. No manufacturer, no recording company involved. But consumers are offered that same music for free on a pirate site. The consumer is going to go for the free version."

This is not necessarily true. By purchasing music, you: know what you're getting (many files on P2P networks are horribly mislabeled) and you get better quality (it's possible to find good quality files on P2P networks, but it takes a lot longer to sift through all the crap). And there are studies showing that people do legally download music when it's available to them (well you can find the industry-funded studies that claim "billions" in "lost" sales, or independent studies which tend to say otherwise).

The problem is that the industry was far too slow on the uptake. I mean, did you ever thing that perhaps part of the reason that people went and downloaded music from Napster or Limewire at the beginning of the decade was simply better service? Legal downloading of music wasn't really available, at least nowhere near the extent it is today, and yet those services offered instant availability of songs and albums as well as the ability to download a few songs from an album without buying the rest of the filler crap. They became entrenched because the industry refused to see where things were headed and stuck its head in the sand trying its hardest to prop up CD sales.

Look, you are always going to have piracy. If the industry was smart, it would simply factor that into its business plan and create a better, more compelling product. But instead, it has resorted to suing people for millions of dollars for downloading a few of their songs illegally. Well that may get you some cash, but is that really a sustainable model? How long can rely on suing people as a revenue stream?

[mainer]

62. You can't answer my question, can you?

How can any artist make a living, if his product is free for the taking?

"Come up with a better business plan" is your answer.

So ... artists creating art, and selling it, is no longer a viable business plan. You want artists to sell tee-shirts instead?

The consumers who buy my art know exactly what they're getting, because they've been buying my work for going on twenty years now. I already know I have a market, and I've made a damn good living at it. But newer artists who don't have my sales will find they'll never have the chance to build their own audience, because they're struggling just to pay the bills.

[NYC Liberal]

86. No, the business plan of old is not viable.

Expecting people to pay $10 to $20 for a CD that cost pennies to make doesn't work anymore when the internet allows for unlimited supply and negligible distribution costs. That was the old system. Instead of "getting it" and seeing ten years ago where the future of music distribution was going (many other people did), the industry instead dug in its heels tried desperately to prop up a dying business model. Rather than embracing the internet, the industry fought it tooth and nail and allowed illegal distribution to flourish there. So the pirates got the foothold.

People will pay for music, as has been shown and proven many times over. It's too bad that when the industry finally and grudgingly accepted the internet as a legitimate distribution avenue, the first thing they gave us was music locked down with DRM crap that only hurt legitimately paying customers. Pirates never had to worry about DRM, only those who paid. So is it any surprise that given a choice between paying and getting music in a proprietary and locked down format that limited where and how it was able to be played, people chose to pirate? Pirating wasn't just cheaper, it gave you a better product! It was only very recently that they have reluctantly eased up on that.

New artists have always had to work to build an audience. Pirating hasn't changed that and never will.

[pengillian101]

145. mainer

The consumers who buy my art know exactly what they're getting, because they've been buying my work for going on twenty years now. I already know I have a market, and I've made a damn good living at it :hi:

[Orrex]

92. That's a red herring

And again, you still have no proof that someone who downloaded your album, would have purchased it.

The copyright holder is under no obligation to obtain that proof. The theft occurs when an unauthorized copy is made of the copyrighted material.

Whether or not the downloader later opts to purchase the album is irrelevant, because the choice to buy/not-buy the album isn't a crime.

Do you also assert that someone who walks by your album in Best Buy or another store and doesn't buy it has "deprived" you of revenue? Is that "theft" as well?

Again, the choice to buy/not-buy the album isn't a crime; specifically, that choice doesn't violate copyright, so your example is irrelevant.


All the rest of that stuff about "a more compelling product" and an industry "slow on the uptake" is simply a rationalization.

[NYC Liberal]

98. I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm explaining it.

The industry can continue to ignore reality like it has for the past ten years or so, or it can adjust -- but even then I think it may be too late.

"The copyright holder is under no obligation to obtain that proof. The theft occurs when an unauthorized copy is made of the copyrighted material.

I was disproving the claim that copyright infringement is theft, or that it somehow deprives the copyright holder of revenue. It is not theft nor does it cause a "loss" in revenue since, as I said, there's no proof that the person who downloaded the album illegally would have purchased it had it not been available for free on a P2P network.

Theft deprives someone of property such that they no longer have it. The loss of the property itself is fundamental to a "theft." That does not make it right or ethical. But let's be honest about what it is, and it is not theft or stealing.

"All the rest of that stuff about "a more compelling product" and an industry "slow on the uptake" is simply a rationalization.

As I said before, it is an explanation of what is happening, not a rationalization. The music industry can continue to ignore reality and adapt to a changing market, but digging in your heels and doing everything you can to try to prevent it (and suing grandmas who don't even own a computer and dead people for millions of dollars) isn't going to work.

[Orrex]

100. Well, your explanations are identical to the rationalizations used to justify the tjheft

So even if you tell yourself that you're not rationalizing it, my response is fitting because it applies equally to those who are attempting to rationalize it.

[NYC Liberal]

111. It isn't a theft, as has been explained over and over.

Copyright infringement is a distinct crime in and of itself, and it is wrong. Period.

Why not call a murder a "rape" or grand larceny "possession of a controlled substance"? Because each is a crime on its own, without calling it something else.

[Orrex]

116. It is copyright infringement AND it is theft.

Copyright infringement is a distinct crime in and of itself, and it is wrong. Period.

On this point we have no disagreement, so you can stop repeating it.

Why not call a murder a "rape" or grand larceny "possession of a controlled substance"? Because each is a crime on its own, without calling it something else.

That's a red herring, of course, because you're pretending that the commission of one crime precludes the commission of others, which is obviously nonsense.

If someone breaks into a factory and steal an envelope of petty cash, the criminal isn't only guilty of breaking and entering. A single course of action can qualify as multiple crimes simultaneously.

[NYC Liberal]

122. You're wrong, again:

That's a red herring, of course, because you're pretending that the commission of one crime precludes the commission of others, which is obviously nonsense.

If someone breaks into a factory and steal an envelope of petty cash, the criminal isn't only guilty of breaking and entering. A single course of action can qualify as multiple crimes simultaneously.

Of course you can violate multiple laws in the same criminal scheme. Except that the proper analogy to what you are doing is to say that "breaking and entering" is "robbery." So you can commit both crimes in the course of your criminal scheme, but they are not the same crime.

[Orrex]

123. I have no doubt that you see it that way.

[NYC Liberal]

125. So does the law.

"Intellectual property" is not the creation itself but the set of rights you have to control that creation, so it cannot be "stolen."

Just as the government cannot "steal" your right to freedom of speech, only infringe upon it.

[Orrex]

130. Citation, please

Because here's one that contradicts yours:

Intellectual property, sometimes referred to by its initials, IP, refers to creations of the human mind that are protected by one or both of state or federal law in a fashion similar to real property (land) or personal property (an automobile).

from Virginia Business Law Update

That is, according to this definition, "intellectual property" clearly refers to the created work itself. That doesn't mean that IP might not also a set of rights, but this excerpt refutes your claim that it "is not the creation itself."

I will be interested to read your citation.

[MilesColtrane]

129. I'm afraid the points you've made will never be accepted by some.

The mindset of most people is that there is nothing wrong with taking something "free" off of the internet, be it music, software, movies, whatever.

People believe that musicians should be grateful for illegal file sharing for the exposure it gives them?

Well, you can die from exposure.

[mainer]

47. I confess: I am a supporter of musicians

I host house concerts for several bands a year. At the most, I'm able to bring in about 50 - 100 audience members per concert. I offer the bands a dinner, and they get the entire take of the ticket sales, plus they get the chance to sell their CD's. I provide free snacks for the audience. I take nothing from the concerts, and sometimes, I even throw money into the pot, when they have a poor turnout because I feel sorry for them. Each concert probably puts me out about $50 - 100, and I do it only because I believe in supporting artists.

These musicians are barely making it. Some of them are incredibly gifted composers as well as musicians, and among the most respected in their genre of music in the country. They are all struggling. They wander like gypsies from concert venue to concert venue, playing to, at the most, a few hundred people if they're lucky. They crash at friends' houses. Their income depends on attracting audiences -- and selling CD's.

In this day and age, even with a ticket price of only $12 for admission, it's hard to attract people to come out on a cold night to watch a house concert.

And you people here, who are so enthusiastic about the "great advance" of music piracy, are condemning these musicians to eternal poverty for their art. They need the income from their CD sales. Once their music is uploaded for endless free downloading, why would anyone come out to listen to their music live? Why would anyone spend $12 for a CD?

You say, "hey, it's great if you're popular enough to be ripped off!" If I were to come into your house and steal something of yours, would you be happy that your house was popular enough for thieves to break in?

Pirated downloads are theft. Theft from artists who are already struggling. And to defend it is immoral.

[Throd]

58. I don't like paying for shit so I demonize the industry to excuse my theft.

[Orrex]

94. Well, then that's okay.

As long as you've decided that the bastards deserve it, then fuck 'em!


:evilgrin:

[New Dawn]

52. Fuck the RIAA and all of their minions.

[yankee2]

55. Favoritism toward Corporations vs the Condemnation of individuals

I can't resist noting that this court started out fining Jammie Thomas-Rasset 20 years of her salary for a relatively minor crime. When is the last time a CORPORATION, which cannot be subject to any other punishment, was fined the equivalent of 20 years of ITS income? For a company like AEG or Exxon, both of which committed MUCH more harmful acts, including contributing to the worst recession/depression in American history, and one of the worst ecological disasters in history, the equivalent fine should have been about $1 Trillion EACH!

But the fine has been reduced? Well, to be fair, instead of being helped out financially (in the case of AEG), or allowed to leave their damage unrepaired (Exxon), in order to be equitable, these CORPORATIONS should have been FINED at least $50 Billion each! Instead, they got a slap on the wrist, and $Millions or $Billions worth of government aid, while Ms. Thomas-Rasset got a life-destroying fine.

The HUMAN BEING is receiving MUCH harsher treatment than the corporations ever do. To be equitable, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's fine should have been closer to $20, or perhaps the government should PAY HER $50,000! To be consistent, that is.

This is a perfect example of what to expect in an America even more dominated by corporate interests than it is already.

This is a perfect example of why "Citizens United," that recent obscenity of a Supreme Court Ruling, cannot be permitted to stand.

[onenote]

65. how many people who say unauthorized downloading isn't theft applauded the lawsuits brought

against the McCain campaign for their unauthorized use of music, such as the incorporation of Running on Empty into a campaign video without authorization from Jackson Browne. I remember a lot of people referring to McCain "stealing" Browne's music. I happen to agree -- I'm glad Browne sued to protect his property. But some of the posts here seem to think that Browne didn't incur any loss since he still has his song.

[Grateful for Hope]

66. kick

[Hissyspit]

67. Judge Slashes 'Monstrous' Fine in Music Piracy Case

Source: AFP

Judge slashes ‘monstrous’ fine in music piracy case

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, January 25th, 2010 -- 5:16 pm

WASHINGTON — Condemning a two-million-dollar fine meted out to a Minnesota woman for illegally downloading music over the Internet as "monstrous and shocking," a judge has slashed the penalty to 54,000 dollars. US District Court Michael Davis said the fine imposed by a jury on Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother of four from the town of Brainerd, veered into the "realm of gross injustice."

In a high-profile music piracy case, Thomas-Rasset was found liable in June of violating music copyrights for using the Kazaa peer-to-peer file-sharing network to download 24 songs. A jury ordered her to pay 1.92 million dollars -- or 80,000 dollars per song -- to six record companies: Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros. Records and UMG Recordings.

Davis slashed the fine to 54,000 dollars, or 2,250 dollars per recording, and complained in his ruling on Friday, a copy of which was obtained by AFP on Monday, that he was constrained from reducing it even further.

"This reduced award is significant and harsh," Davis said, but it is "no longer monstrous and shocking." "The need for deterrence cannot justify a two million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music," Davis said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100125/tc_afp/entertainmentmusiccrimecopyrightinternetriaa

[DJ13]

68. We pay judges too much if $54,000 is "no longer monstrous and shocking."

[Bolo Boffin]

70. He says he was "constrained" from reducing it further.

Sounds like an mandatory minimum law got in the way.

[Orrex]

69. Excellent

I support reasonable copyright enforcement, but the jury award was excessive to the point of obscenity.


Good for Judge Davis for displaying some good sense, and good for Ms. Thomas-Rasset. $54,000 isn't chump change, but it's not the death sentence that a $1.92M fine would have been.

[barbtries]

71. if i was hit with a $54,000 fine

it might as well be 54 million. i could never pay it off and still survive.

[BrklynLiberal]

73. I could never pay it....To me $54,000 would still be monstrous.

[Orrex]

76. I'm not saying that it's a sweetheart of a deal, but it's arguably more reasonable

based on the number of offenses.

But a fine of that magnitude would still be cripplingly burdensome to better than 95% of the populace, I agree.

[slay]

72. K&R - Finally a judge with some sense

i still can't believe someone is fined 54,000 dollars just for sharing music.. sigh.. we should never allow them to FORCE us to buy music - we'll buy the music we like so that the artist will make more duh! if some people choose to share it - so what.

i like that the judge wanted to reduce it further though. wtf is wrong with that jury?!?! :wtf:

[OnlinePoker]

74. Except that they aren't buying it

My brother spent 3 years putting together two albums on his off time, doing all of his own instrumentation and vocals and all of his own mixing. He's sold just over 100 of the sets. But go on the torrent sites and you can find both albums in their entirety. This is theft and he is the victim.

[Orrex]

78. A friend of mine used to do Praise music and had cut his own CDs

At one small-venue performance, he was selling the discs. A kid bought one, and--right in front of my friend--turned to his buddy and said "I'll burn you a copy."

I've never heard an excuse for music piracy that's anything more than a de facto admission of theft.

[PHIMG]

79. Well lets shut down the libraries too!

Just think about all that THEFT!!!

[Orrex]

80. That must be a funny joke, since it has nothing to do with the point.

Obviously, you're drawing attention to the fact that library book-borrowing is nothing at all like music piracy.

I applaud you for making the point so succinctly and with such snark. Bravo!

[PHIMG]

81. If you read a book and dont pay the author, why is that not theft?

How is this different then downloading a song, listening to it, and not paying the artist?

What's the difference here?

Ban libraries! Billions of dollars are being lost.

[Orrex]

91. Because the copyright holder authorized the production of the library's copy of the book

And the library thereafter loaned the book to a succession of individuals who read it thereafter, each in turn.

How is this different then downloading a song, listening to it, and not paying the artist?

It's different because you have created an unauthorized copy of a legally protected work. Unless the library is printing pirate copies of the book, then there's no equivalency.


Hey, if you want to steal, then go ahead and steal. Just don't make up bullshit rationalizations to justify it.

[mainer]

104. Libraries buy tons of books -- and only lend it out one at a time.

Digital copying takes one copy -- and gives it to the whole world simultaneously, forever.

In other countries, libraries do keep track of book loans and pay the author each time the book's loaned out.

[WeekendWarrior]

142. Libraries Pay for the Books they Loan

They buy hundreds, sometimes thousands of copies of a writer's book from the publisher. The writer gets paid royalties for those sales. Not quite the same thing. Sorry.

[slay]

83. You are wrong.

You can check out CD's from the library and copy them - at least you can where I live. What - you want big brother watching over us 24/7 to make sure we don't copy your precious CD? Grow up.

[Orrex]

88. Do you honestly think that the test of legality is whether or not you get caught?

And you're telling me to grow up?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

If you're copying your library's CDs, then you're committing theft. And if your library authorizes your theft, then the library is complicit in the theft.


What exactly do you think "copyright" means, anyway?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slay]

82. Um.. sorry, but you are NOT going to convince me that sharing music is theft

guess maybe your bro got into the music biz for the wrong reasons if he was looking to make money. or maybe he just needs more fans who like his music well enough to pay for it. joss whedon didn't seem to have a problem when he released Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog on Hulu for free last summer. it went on to make tons of $$$ because people liked it and wanted to see more. and you know what - it worked. Dr. Horrible 2 is set to film hopefully this spring.

I don't see many writers/musicians bitching about torrents - cause they know people who d/l torrents then spread by word of mouth how good, or not good, something is. remember how that went for Metallica years ago - their fans turned on them, and rightfully so. usually you can either be an artist, or out for money. but most often only the lucky get both. do you know how many people put out albums a year? my best friend has put out 4 albums and never made back the money he put into them. he did it because he loves it - not money.

[Orrex]

89. Bully for your friend. If he allows the work to be copied and distributed, then there's no problem

For that matter, even if a million writers/musicians allow their work to be distributed, then that's irrelevant to the copyright holders who don't grant such permission.

All your bluster about "word of mouth" and that bullshit about "for the love of it" are simply rationalizations for theft.


Unless you can articulate how the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material is not a crime, of course...

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mainer]

105. You don't know anything about what writers are saying

Writers are bitching BIG TIME about torrents. And the fact you say you "don't see many writers" bitching just goes to show you are disconnected from the world of creators.

You might want to see what Harlan Ellison wrote about pirated e-books: (his caps)

INDIVIDUALS SEEM TO THINK THAT THEY CAN ALLOW THE DISSEMINATION OF WRITERS’ WORK ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, AND WITHOUT PAYMENT, UNDER THE BANNER OF “FAIR USE” OR THE IDIOT SLOGAN “INFORMATION MUST BE FREE.” A WRITER’S WORK IS NOT INFORMATION: IT IS OUR CREATIVE PROPERTY, OUR LIVELIHOOD AND OUR FAMILIES’ ANNUITY. WHY SHOULD ANY ARTIST, OF ANY KIND, CONTINUE CREATING NEW WORK, EKING OUT AN EXISTENCE IN PURSUIT OF A CAREER, FOLLOWING THE MUSE, WHEN LITTLE INTERNET THIEVES, RODENTS WITHOUT ETHIC OR UNDERSTANDING, STEAL AND STEAL AND STEAL, CONVENIENCING THEMSELVES AND “SCREW THE AUTHOR”? WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT IS THE DEATH OF THE PROFESSIONAL WRITER!

THIS IS NOT ONLY MY FIGHT, I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHOSE WORK IS BEING PIRATED. HUNDREDS OF WRITERS’ STORIES, ENTIRE BOOKS, THE WORK OF A LIFETIME, EVERYONE FROM ISAAC ASIMOV TO ROGER ZELAZNY: THEIR WORK HAS BEEN THROWN ONTO THE WEB BY THESE SMARTASS VANDALS WHO FIND IT AN IMPOSITION TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE GOODS. (BUT GAWD FORBID YOU TRY TO APPROPRIATE SOMETHING OF THEIRS…LISTEN TO ’EM SQUEAL!) THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE WILL AFFECT EVERY WRITER, EDITOR, PHOTOGRAPHER, ARTIST, MUSICIAN, POET, SCULPTOR, ACTOR, BOOK DESIGNER, PUBLISHER AND READER. WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT IS THE ANARCHY OF IGNORANT THIEVES RIPPING OFF THOSE WHO LABOR FOR AN HONEST PAYDAY, BECAUSE THEY CONVENIENTLY HONOR THE LIE THAT EVERYTHING SHOULD BE THEIRS FOR THE TAKING.

LOOK, THIS IS YOUR FIGHT, TOO. IF THAT DEMENTED, SELF-SERVING MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD “INFORMATION” PREVAILS, AND EVERY ZERO-ETHIC TOT WHO WANTS EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING, WHO EXISTS IN A TIME WHERE E-COMMERCE HUSTLERS HAVE CONVINCED HIM/HER THAT THEY’RE ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING PREVAILS, AND THEY ARE PERMITTED TO BELIEVE INFORMATION MUST BE FREE, WITH NO DIFFERENTIATION MADE BETWEEN RAW DATA AND THE CREATIVE PROPERTIES THAT PROVIDE ALL ARTISTS OF ANY KIND WITH AN ANNUITY, TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE CREATING NEW WORK, THEN WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT IS THE EGREGIOUS INEVITABILITY OF NO ONE BUT AMATEURS GETTING THEIR WORK EXPOSED, WHILE THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE BULK OF ALL PROFESSIONAL-LEVEL ART FIND THEY CANNOT MAKE A DECENT LIVING.

DO NOT, FOR AN INSTANT, BUY INTO THE CULTURAL MYTHOLOGY THAT ALL ARTISTS ARE RICH. A FEW ARE, BUT MOST HAVE A HARD ROW TO HOE JUST SUBSISTING, HOLDING DOWN SECOND JOBS. MOST CREATORS PRACTICE THEIR ART BECAUSE THEY LOVE IT. IF IT WERE ONLY FOR THE BUCKS, THEY’D FARE BETTER AS DENTISTS, PLUMBERS, OR STEAM FITTERS. I’M FIGHTING FOR MYSELF, OF COURSE, BUT I’M ALSO DOING THIS FOR AVRAM DAVIDSON, WHO DIED BROKE; FOR ROGER ZELAZNY, WHO HAD TO WORK LIKE A DOG TILL THE DAY HE PITCHED OVER; AND FOR GERALD KERSH, WHOSE WORK WAS REPRINTED AND PIRATED IN SIXTY-FIVE COUNTRIES, WHILE HE HAD TO BORROW MONEY FROM FRIENDS TO FIGHT OFF THE CANCER. THIS IS YOUR FIGHT, TOO, GANG… AND NOW WE NEED YOUR HELP!

[Orrex]

118. Excellent post

:thumbsup:

[slay]

131. Sheesh. I've seen what Harlan and Ursula LeGuin have said and I don't buy it

just like I don't buy their stuff - I download it. :) If you consider yourself an artist, you should do your work for the art, not the money. But whatever. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Let Harlan and LeGuin join us slaving away for minimum wage before they cry their sob stories to me. Look, I'm saying IF YOU LIKE IT BUY IT - SUPPORT THE ARTIST, but do not allow big brother and the corporations to monitor all of our activites to make sure we aren't sharing a book or a movie or a song or whatever, who then want to take us to court and impose INSANE fines. I think that's the point everyone is missing. I'm done argueing this with people in this post though. We obviously have different opinions and i'm fine to just leave it at that.

[mainer]

132. the average writer probably makes way less than you do

You whine about working for the minimum wage. Have you looked lately at the statistics of what an author makes? They make less than the janitor sweeping the floors at the publishing house.

And you say it's okay to download their stuff from free. Why don't you just go pickpocket the janitor while you're at it?

[slay]

133. Look. If I take money from a janitor, he no longer has it. If I copy something, the original still

exists. You're loyalty to capitalism is both interesting and sickening. Nobody will ever MAKE me pay for something digital. If I like it, I'll buy it, if I don't, I won't. I buy plenty of stuff by the people I like. Sometimes I d/l stuff, like it, and buy multiple copies to give as gifts. There are two sides to every argument - and I just don't buy yours as you likely don't buy mine. Think I'll go download some Harlan Ellison right now cause well, I can, and he's a prick. :)

[mainer]

134. "I'll break the law because I can." Yeah, that's a great attitude.

How are you any different from Bernie Madoff? Only you're screwing poor artists instead of rich investors.

Your attitude is what's sickening.

[Orrex]

135. It's funny how nominal progressives deplore the free market

Except as it pertains to stolen intellectual property. Then it's anything goes--intellectual property and copyright be damned!

[WeekendWarrior]

139. Your Ignorance Astounds Me

It's obvious that you have not one creative bone in your body and have no desire to do anything but steal and consume. You rationalize your theft so that your mommy will still love her little baby, but you are -- as you have admitted right here -- a unrepentant thief. You know nothing at all what it means to struggle as a writer or a musician, most of whom don't even MAKE the minimum wage you're fortunate enough to make.

You don't, as you say, have a different OPINION. You're merely a thug who justifies his thievery with pitiful excuses.

[Orrex]

77. If some people choose to share it, that's called theft

It's pretty simple, really.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC Liberal]

87. Theft inherently deprives someone of property

such that they no longer possess it.

If I download one of your songs from a P2P network, please tell me what I have taken from you that you no longer have in possession.

[Orrex]

90. You have obtained something that you had no right to obtain.

If I am the copyright holder, then whether or not I still "possess" it is irrelevant. I have exclusive right to copy and distribute the material; therefore, the unauthorized distribution is theft.

[NYC Liberal]

99. Wrong, it is copyright infringement, not theft.

Possession is very relevant to a theft because you can still sell the item you had to begin with. If I take a CD from a store without paying for it, I have stolen it because you cannot sell that CD anymore. If I made a copy and left the original in the store, you still have the original to sell.

Copyright infringement is against the law and it is wrong, but it isn't theft.

[Orrex]

101. Theft of intellectual property is theft

The copyright holder has sole authority over duplication of the intellectual property in question. Duplication of intellectual property without the authorization of the copyright holder is theft of that property.

[NYC Liberal]

107. And again, it is a crime and wrong, but it is not theft. Period.

You have not been deprived of your property. For me to steal property from you would mean that you no longer have it in your possession, such that you are no longer able to sell it. But you can sell it.

The issue I am addressing is not whether it's wrong, but whether it is an act of theft and it plainly is not. Words have meaning and you can't go around misusing them because it would make your argument seem stronger.

[Orrex]

110. The intellectual property is the property of the copyright holder

If you have an unauthorized copy, you have a stolen copy.

It doesn't matter whether revenue has been lost, just as it doesn't matter whether the item can still be sold; the unauthorized distribution of the copyrighted material is theft of intellectual property.

The issue I am addressing is not whether it's wrong, but whether it is an act of theft and it plainly is not.

Well, you're simply mistaken. It is plainly theft of intellectual property, and of course it's wrong.

[NYC Liberal]

113. Really? I "have a stolen copy"?

One cannot steal something when the person from whom it was "taken" still has possession of it. It may be an unauthorized copy, but it is not stolen because nobody has been deprived of property.

Unauthorized distribution is in itself a crime. I don't call rapes "murders" because rape is a crime on its own without calling it something else. Same thing applies to copyright infringement.

"Well, you're simply mistaken. It is plainly theft of intellectual property, and of course it's wrong."

Who has been deprived of property? Please tell me.

[Orrex]

114. The only possibility here is that you're being deliberately obtuse

One cannot steal something when the person from whom it was "taken" still has possession of it. It may be an unauthorized copy, but it is not stolen because nobody has been deprived of property.

If you have an unauthorized copy, then the copyright holder does not have possession of it. It is the property of the copyright holder, and you have deprived the copyright holder of that property. Therefore, by your own definition, it's theft.

Who has been deprived of property? Please tell me.

I've told you several times, including once already in this post.

Unauthorized copies of the work are the property of the copyright holder. If you possess an unauthorized copy, then you hold the property of the copyright holder; therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that property. Again, this is theft by your own definition.


You seem to think that "intellectual property" refers to the work itself and not to copies of that work. You are mistaken.

[NYC Liberal]

120. Someone is being obtuse here, but it isn't me.

Look, I get that you want people to understand that copyright infringement is wrong -- because it certainly is. It's also illegal. But that does not mean that we have to be dishonest about what it is and what is going on. "Copyright infringement" may not sound as severe as "stealing" and it's easier to hate a thief than it is to hate someone who has infringed a copyright, but it simply isn't, rationalization and verbal gymnastics notwithstanding.

Unauthorized copies of the work are the property of the copyright holder. If you possess an unauthorized copy, then you hold the property of the copyright holder; therefore you have deprived the copyright holder of that property. Again, this is theft by your own definition.

Wrong. Only your right to control the reproduction of your intellectual property has been infringed on. And, for the 100th time, this is not theft. Please stop trying to conflate these two things. There really is no reason to because copyright infringement is wrong in and of itself without calling it something else.

Your entire post is mistaken because of your erroneous assumption that "intellectual property" refers to the work itself. It does not. Intellectual property is the right of control you have over your creation, not the creation itself. Got it? Therefore one cannot "steal" intellectual property, only infringe upon it.

[mainer]

102. That's why it's called "intellectual property". Because it is property

And the artist may have worked a year or more to create it.

I can't believe people here support something that's illegal.

[NYC Liberal]

108. It is not an issue of supporting it. I do not, maybe others here do.

As I have said and will keep saying, words have meaning. I am not disputing whether "intellectual property" is "property," I am making a factual statement that copyright infringement is not theft, because your property has not been taken from your possession.

[onenote]

106. so do you think a bunch of people here should apologize to mccain

for saying he "stole" from Heart, Jackson Browne, and others when he used their intellectual property without authorization?

[NYC Liberal]

109. I don't care if they apologize. It's not stealing.

"Using intellectual property without authorization" is not a theft. Why do we have to misuse words? Why isn't it enough to call it what it is, copyright infringement? Copyright infringement is wrong and illegal in and of itself, it doesn't have to be theft to be either.

[Orrex]

112. Why is it important to you to pretend that it isn't theft?

You obliquely acknowledge intellectual property is property, yet you claim that theft of that property is not theft.

If I hold the copyright to a given work, I hold exclusive authority to copy that work. If you make an unauthorized copy of that work, then that copy belongs to me. If you retain that copy without securing my permission to copy it, you have stolen that copy.

That's theft.

[NYC Liberal]

115. So we should just pretend things are what they aren't and say nothing?

It's not an issue of importance to me. This is a discussion board, an article was posted about the subject and I am discussing the fact that copyright infringement is copyright infringement -- not "theft."

"If I hold the copyright to a given work, I hold exclusive authority to copy that work. If you make an unauthorized copy of that work, then that copy belongs to me. If you retain that copy without securing my permission to copy it, you have stolen that copy.

That's theft."

You can rationalize calling it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. Calling copyright infringement "murder" doesn't mean it is either. As I said, words have meaning, crimes have legal meanings. It seems to me that "copyright infringement" apparently doesn't have the punch that "stealing" does, and so people substitute the latter for the former to embellish what is going on.

[Orrex]

117. Ah, yes. The old "this argument doesn't matter to me anyway" argument

I've seen that trick hundreds of times over the past few decades, and it never fails to delight.


What's truly baffling is your apparent need to identify the act as a single crime. If someone steals your car, double-parks with it, and then uses it to smash your house, are you going to tell the judge that the criminal should only be charged with double-parking?

It seems to me that "copyright infringement" apparently doesn't have the punch that "stealing" does, and so people substitute the latter for the former to embellish what is going on.

It's not an embellishment to call a thing what it is. The production of unauthorized copies is copyright infringement. It is also theft.

[onenote]

119. so what do you call identity "theft"?

Since you clearly believe that its not theft to engage in the unauthorized use of someone's personal information since they still have that information?

[mainer]

121. Excellent point.

Anyone whose identity has been stolen would squeal loudly and call it a crime.

[NYC Liberal]

124. Identity theft is fraud. nt

[onenote]

127. you may want to contact congress and the FTC

Since they clearly have labelled the act of unauthorized use of a person's identity as "theft":
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/itada/itadact.htm

[mainer]

128. and copyright infringement is illegal

Identity theft and theft of intellectual property are both defined as wrong under the law. Are you telling us we can pick and choose which laws we're going to follow?

[WeekendWarrior]

140. My Intellectual Property

As hard as it may be for you to grasp the concept, every copy made of my intellectual property belongs to me unless I SOLD it to you or gave it to you for free. EVERY SINGLE COPY. It is not yours to take. It is not yours to give to others.

It's obvious to me that you are simply looking for justification for theft. Nothing you say, no twisting of logic, will change the fact that what I create belongs to me and no one else.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CLANG]

75. $54,000 FOR STEALING $24

Would a person have to pay that much for shoplifting $24 worth at the convenience store?

[mainer]

103. You should read the case. She's not just a thief, she's a liar.

She repeatedly lied to the court and to her own defense expert. She removed her hard drive, replaced it with a new one, and then swore that that drive was the one in question. She was caught on the stand lying.

This woman isn't a victim; she's a sociopath who decided she wanted to screw the system, and expected to get away with it.

[totodeinhere]

137. Even if all that is true, $54,000 is too much for just telling a lie.

Politicians lie all the time and get away with it.

[WeekendWarrior]

141. No, they'd go to jail.

Jammie Thomas was sued, not charged criminally. I'm sure she'd rather pay the money than spend a few years behind bars.

[Strelnikov_]

85. I think racism played a factor in the amount of the award

Jammie Thomas (born 1977), now Jammie Thomas-Rasset, is a Native American mother of four from Brainerd, Minnesota, and works as a natural resources coordinator for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians.

Wonder what the amount would have been if she was a hot, blond haired, blue-eyed coed.

[TexasObserver]

93. Not surprised. It was a ridiculous verdict.

No thanks to the administration, either, which has been embarrassing on this issue.

[LanternWaste]

126. Good. I think the original judgment amount bordered on the absurd.

Good. I think the original judgment amount bordered on the absurd.



The recording industry should realize that sooner or later, file sharing will force a completely new marketing and sales model.

Regardless of one's moral stance on file sharing, the industry will eventually hemorrhage from loss of revenue and either adapt or simply follow the pattern of the horse and buggy industry. The digital cat is out of the bag, and sniping at individuals who are part of a whole segment engaging in file sharing will simply not reverse that anymore.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. Guess she should have settled for the 5 k they initially offered to settle for.

[Realityhack]

143. That i s just like you...

don't go bringing facts into this.
Can't you see people are busy randing over how they should be able to steal things if they think the price is too high?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. You've got me pegged.

:beer:

[True_Blue]

146. Have these file sharing cases even put a dent in illegal downloads?

I don't see how randomly suing someone out of tens of millions of people doing the exact same thing does any good. I don't think it's right, but as long as there is P2P software available it's going to continue.