Here we go - Big settlement against sharing music on internet

[bendixG15]

Jury awarded $1.92 million against woman accused of sharing 24 songs over the internet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

[mh2360]

Even if she could pay, would the artists who created work see a penny of it?

I doubt it...

[Supreme2k]

I know that it is excessive, but at the core of the matter, she is wrong.

It's not the same as a newb using Limewire and not knowing that people were getting songs from her shared folder. She willfully distributed.

I've always agreed with the notion that if a website offers mp3s or movies for download, it's not the general layman's obligation to find out if they're "authorized". That doesn't excuse p2p program users who actively seed or allow downloads from their computer. The ones who don't know how to get thier downloads without distributing themselves could probably be considered as paying a "stupid tax".

[MOVIEGEEK]

Supreme2k,
I agree with you that she was distributing copyrighted material but doesn't your opinion contradict your sig?
BTW:the defendant will appeal the ruling and if that doesn't work she can always file chapter 7.

[Supreme2k]

From what I've read from the articles, this was basically a big public scare tactic. They have always left the door open for settlement (how kind-hearted!!!)
=================================
Actually, my opinion completely backs up my sig.
From the case: "In the latest trial, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled that she must pay $1.92 million for willful infringement of the recording industry's copyrights by posting the music on the file-sharing site Kazaa."
They're not getting her for robbery, or even saying it is so. I would be completely against this case, instead of mostly, if they used the "It's like stealing a car!" tactic (though how they valued a few crappy songs to a few Maseratis is beyond me).

[jimdagys]

In China, everywhere you see signs offering "music for download". Street peddlers with computers offer this service for a small fee per download. It is a very popular way to get music. Of course, the street peddlers don't pay anything to get the music (except for their expense of computer, internet connection, etc). It is a good way for these people to earn money in a competitive world. Different countries, different customs. There are also internet bars everywhere where people do nothing but download /watch movies and music. The price (US30cents/hour) includes free tea and a soft chair. These internet bars are open 24/7. Many people use them as cheap "motels" overnight.

[Supreme2k]

Of course, the street peddlers don't pay anything to get the music (except for their expense of computer, internet connection, etc).

Probably not even that, if they are on an unsecured wireless connection.

[jagabo]

In China, everywhere you see signs offering "music for download"....

Of course. China doesn't care about western copyrights. The government is perfectly happy to let the people rip off the west (as long as it doesn't involve anything critical of the Chinese government). It's a great opiate to keep the peoples minds off of other problems. This makes perfect sense if you have a socialist mindset -- all those movies and songs already belong to the people.

Every now and then the west complains and threatens to take away their most-favored-nation status so the Chinese government makes a big show of rounding up all the usual suspects. Once they get MFN renewed it's back to business as usual.

[MOVIEGEEK]

It is a good way for these people to earn money in a competitive world. Different countries, different customs.

In some countries burglary is a good way to earn money.

[G)-(OST]

Of course. China doesn't care about western copyrights. The government is perfectly happy to let the people rip off the west

Soon they will own Hollywood anyway.

[Kayembee]

In China, everywhere you see signs offering "music for download"....

Of course. China doesn't care about western copyrights. The government is perfectly happy to let the people rip off the west (as long as it doesn't involve anything critical of the Chinese government). It's a great opiate to keep the peoples minds off of other problems. This makes perfect sense if you have a socialist mindset -- all those movies and songs already belong to the people.

Yeah, kinda like the way England (accurately) accused American publishers of pirating English books
throughout most of the 19th century - musta been that socialist mindset of ours.

-Kayembee, who considers piracy one of the purest expressions of free enterprise

[deadrats]

Of course. China doesn't care about western copyrights. The government is perfectly happy to let the people rip off the west (as long as it doesn't involve anything critical of the Chinese government). It's a great opiate to keep the peoples minds off of other problems. This makes perfect sense if you have a socialist mindset -- all those movies and songs already belong to the people.

why should china, or any other country, care about copyrights registered in another country? it is ridiculous to expect a citizen of another country to be bound by the laws of this country? should we be expected to be bound by chinese laws?

furthermore i would argue that the songs and movies do belong to the people, as does any work of art once it is displayed. from an artistic point of view all works of art, be they a painting, a movie or a song, are altruistic in nature and in fact the monetization of said work of art relies on the successful achievement of the altruistic endeavor of the artist in question.

so called copyright infringement is in reality an infringement upon the rights of the general public to enjoy the work of art the artist in question offered up for enjoyment. one of the major problems with copyright as it stands right now, aside from the fact that it effectively, for all practical purposes, extends to infinity (i believe it currently stands at life + 75 years) is that there is no way to establish a clear defining boundary as to it's limits.

if you argue that sharing a song with a friend is theft, then what about lending the original cd to a friend so they can hear the latest songs from a particular band? what about inviting said friend over so that you can listen to your cd collection together? what if you and your friend decide to sing the song as you drive down the road?

in england there is something called a "tv tax":

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/index.jsp

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/international/bbc.html

quote: ""Using a television without an appropriate licence is a criminal offence. Every day we catch an average of 1,200 people using a TV without a licence. There is no valid excuse for using a television and not having a TV Licence, but some people still try - sometimes with the most ridiculous stories ever heard. Our detection equipment will track down your TV. The fact that our enquiry officers are now so well equipped with the latest technology means that there is virtually no way to avoid detection."
-- from the official website of the British Television Licensing Authority, May 2003"

in some ways it's similar to multiple listing services and real estate agents in the united states. by law, if one agent is a member of a mls then all agents in a real estate office must pay dues regardless of whether or not they want to be a member or use the mls.

the cable companies here in nj put a lot of mom and pop pubs/bars out of business back when pay-per-view first started gaining traction by requiring that the bars pay a per seat fee for all the patrons that may potentially show up to view a pay-per-view event. in other words what bars used to do was this: say there was a big fight on that was highly anticipated, the bars would order the fight for the $50 or so bucks, some bars would charge admission at the door, some where content with just the revenue from the booze and food they were going to sell that night.

the cable companies had a cow, they considered the bar owners and patrons "thieves", and demanded a per patron viewing fee, the cable companies stance being that they were being deprived of revenue because the patrons were going to see the fight at the bar instead of buying the fight to view in their homes. the companies would send around spies to the various bars to count heads and then hit the bars with bills in the thousands. initially the bars told the cable companies to **** off and the companies not only sued, but managed to get some district attorneys to bring criminal charges. the fight over this took years in the courts, numerous appeals and eventually the cable companies prevailed when the state supreme court sided with them.

the end result was that bars stopped buying pay-per-view events, their customers dwindled and many a bar closed down.

terminix (and i know of this first hand because i used to work for them) uses copyright to silence any employee that tries to blow a whistle on some of the unethical business practices the engage in, scientology uses similar tactics to silence ctritics, i.e. any evidence you gather that show impropriety they claim as copyrighted content and threaten to drag you into an expensive legal battle for copyright infringement.

the only reason copyright is what it is these days is because of the powerful and well connected lobbyists that have bought and paid for favorable legislation, simply because something is legal doesn't make it right.

for years women didn't have the right to vote, blacks didn't have the right to vote, they were legally defined as property, the list of examples are endless in the unethical practices that were codified in law, but that didn't make them just.

the argument that "it's the law and you must obey" is antithetical to what this country is all about.

my personal opinion is that the general public could get behind copyright laws if they were structured in a more balanced way, perhaps the artist could enjoy a short period of exclusive distribution rights, say a period of 5 years and thereafter the work would pass into the public domain.

i think that would strike a nice balance between the 2 extremes of copyright into infinity and no copyright what-so-ever.

[MOVIEGEEK]

deadrats,
Copyrights are available for anyone that wants to protect their work, if you were a professional photographer or musician would you allow others to profit from your work?
As it stands if you buy copyrighted material then you can use it however you like for personal use, if you share or sell it then it's illegal.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

[Supreme2k]

deadrats, once in a (very) great while, you make a good point













This is not one of those rare times

While I don't completely agree with U.S. copyright law as it is today, that does not make copyright a fundamentally bad thing. Not all people (actually, very few) are altruistic in regards to their work. They specifically create to make profit.

Your arguments assume way too much.
-When you allow your friend to listen to/watch your disc at your home, that is personal use. You are also essentially acting as advertising for that product. When you lend the media to your friend, or worse, burn them a copy, you take away the incentive for your friend to purchase.
- The bars were wrong. They were profiting off of a service that was meant for a small audience viewing. Granted, they weren't directly since they didn't collect fees specifically for the event, but they got more customers into their bar due to playing a pay-per-view for free.

Equating all of this to suffrage and slavery is completely insane, not to mention bullshit. Those were intrinsic human rights. No one has any "right" to something created by another private party. Even if I consider my cooking as "art (I do ), That does not mean that I cannot eat my lunch in a public park without fear of "the people" feeling that they own it.

[disturbed1]

I just do not get all of these copyright issues that people have. It's clearly black and white.

Do you own it? --> No --> Did you share/pirate/download/upload/what ever? --> Yes --> You broke the law.

It has no bearing if you agree or disagree with a law. You can debate it, and come up with bullshit excuses and non connecting innuendos all you want. Law is the law.

That woman is a US citizen governed and held accountable under US law. She broke US law. End of story.

If I was doing 90 MPH in a 55 MPH speed limit zone because <$INSERT LAME EXCUSE HERE>, doesn't matter, I broke the law. And yes it is the same. The law of the speed limit is clearly posted and known, copyright law is clearly posted and also known. Worse of all, it doesn't take much common sense to figure this out. Then again, there is nothing so uncommon as common sense. Especially here in the US, where most people believe they are owed something, want everything for free or next to nothing, yet refuse to do anything to help anyone but themselves out

the bars would order the fight for the $50 or so bucks, some bars would charge admission at the door, some where content with just the revenue from the booze and food they were going to sell that night.

numerous appeals and eventually the cable companies prevailed when the state supreme court sided with them.

DUH

Is it really that hard to see how they broke the law?

[videobread]

In a newly published Harvard Business School paper, two economists argue that while file sharing has weakened copyright protection, weak copyright protection benefits society.

http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf

[lordsmurf]

Over-protection always breeds rebellion. Sociology 101.

[hardy]

I think all of this is retarded The government can't pin-point one individual when we all do it. They did the same thing a couple of years ago and nothing happened in court.

[gadgetguy]

I think all of this is retarded The government can't pin-point one individual when we all do it. They did the same thing a couple of years ago and nothing happened in court.

Sure they can, it's called selective enforcement. (Here comes another car analogy). If 20 cars are exceeding the speed limit and they pass a cop, he can't pull them all over, but he can and will pull one of them over and write them a ticket.

[bendixG15]

I think all of this is retarded The government can't pin-point one individual when we all do it. They did the same thing a couple of years ago and nothing happened in court.

The OP reference says that 35,000 people were accussed over a 5 year span....................

The music industry has threatened about 35,000 people with charges of copyright infringement over the past five years, typically offering to settle the cases for $3,000 to $5,000. The recording industry estimates that a few hundred of those cases remain unresolved, with fewer than 10 defendants actively fighting them.

In December, the industry said it dropped its strategy of going after individuals to instead focus on Internet service providers

[hardy]

I think all of this is retarded The government can't pin-point one individual when we all do it. They did the same thing a couple of years ago and nothing happened in court.

Sure they can, it's called selective enforcement. (Here comes another car analogy). If 20 cars are exceeding the speed limit and they pass a cop, he can't pull them all over, but he can and will pull one of them over and write them a ticket.

True, the cop can pull one of them. But, it wont ride in court I have been pulled in that exact situation. I was riding in a group of cars going about 15 over the speed limit. I used my phone camera and started video as soon as I saw the cop turn around, because I was in the back of the group. The judge discharged my case

Not to be mean, but the government usually pin-points the non-intellegent.

[jagabo]

why should china, or any other country, care about copyrights registered in another country?

Because they agreed to when they signed the Berne Convention?

[Chaseskip]

I think the word "copy" is the key to this subject. You can "lend" your CD out to someone else, but when it is "copied", that is what is in dispute here. "Sharing" as they use it for file downloading is really "copying", & that is the royalty that the artists miss out on. It is their job & how they earn a living.

I was for file sharing when you had no choice but to buy the whole CD for one song. I didn't agree that I had to buy a CD with 9 crappy songs with 1 good song just for that one song. By offering single song downloads, I think it's holding artists accountable to make an entire album of good songs instead of crap.

Just my opinion....

[fritzi93]

When Adam was active here, he would have torn most of the above arguments to shreds. Sometimes I thought he missed the main point and got bogged down in minutiae. :P

I'll hazard the observation that this point is apropos:

Over-protection always breeds rebellion. Sociology 101.

To be effective, laws need consent, the widest acceptance possible.

Digital copying/distribution has put us in uncharted territory. One can hardly blame copyright holders for wanting to protect their holdings. It seems they believe their only resort is to instill fear of possible consequences. But it does not contribute to building consensus.

Copyright infringement, even when understood (and it generally isn't), remains malum prohibitum, or wrong simply because unlawful, at least in the minds of far too many people. It presently does not rise to the level, in people's minds, as wrong in and of itself, that is, malum in se. Theft is obviously malum in se, but there is no consensus that copyright infringement is such.

I've said before that the RIAA and MPAA need to make the digital revolution their servant, and not persist in seeing it as their enemy. I confess I don't know how it can be done. But their present efforts are a doomed rearguard action.

[gadgetguy]

True, the cop can pull one of them. But, it wont ride in court I have been pulled in that exact situation. I was riding in a group of cars going about 15 over the speed limit. I used my phone camera and started video as soon as I saw the cop turn around, because I was in the back of the group. The judge discharged my case

Not to be mean, but the government usually pin-points the non-intellegent.

I had the opposite experience when my son went to court. The judge asked, "Are you denying that you were speeding?" My son answered, "No, but I was going the same speed as everyone else." The judge recognized my presence and asked for my input. I told him that it is safest to drive with the flow of traffic. The judge made it very clear the YOU are the flow of traffic, regardless of what anyone else on he road is doing and that if you exceed the speed limit then you are guilty and must pay the fine. I suspect if you had the same judge I did, that he would have added a charge of "distracted driving" for shooting a video while driving.

[Supreme2k]

This is getting way off-topic, but I guess that it is somewhat related.

I have actually fought and won one of those tickets. It may have been due to me being more prepared than the officer.
What gadgetguy's judge said is (mostly) wrong, but enforceable. The law is as such in most U.S. states:

Basic Speed Law

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.

=========================================
I got caught for 75mph, but the latest survey that I brought showed safety at 85mph, plus most of the traffic was going 75 or faster. Also, in my case, he singled me out further, as he had to swerve around people going my speed or faster (which he admitted). Now, if everyone was going 90, then it does become a safety factor and a "I had to get someone." situation.


That lady actually distributed much more than the 24, but they whittled it down for a more reasonable amount for deliberation.

[Dv8ted2]

There are two sides to the equation. I am not saying the artists should not get paid. They worked their tails off and should get paid for their efforts. Copyrights have gotten way out of control though and have strayed from their original intent. Copyrights were never meant to lock something away permanently, and this has occurred. It was meant to pay the artists and they would have the copyrights for a limited time and then the work would go into the public domain. This balance needs to be restored.

The lady was wrong on all fronts. I am not advocating piracy. I think copyrights should be overhauled to account for technology and go back to a limited time element. This allows the creator to continue to create rather than resting on their laurels and collect money for works until the end of time.

The entertainment industry needs to find a way to work with technology rather than fight it. They fought the dual tape deck stereo. They made money. They once thought the VCR was the equivalent of the Boston strangler. They made money. When you outlaw something, only outlaws will own that something. Why not throw everyone in jail and get it over with? Prohibition doesn't work either.

The car analogies do not work. They never have worked. A car is not a computer and people need to quit acting like they are.

[Supreme2k]

The car analogies were mainly focused on inconsistent laws, rather than the cars themselves.

[MOVIEGEEK]

The car analogies were mainly focused on inconsistent laws, rather than the cars themselves.

Traffic laws apply to all drivers, you can drive however you like as long as you don't break any laws.The same applies to copyright laws, you can do whatever you want with purchased copyrighted material as long as you don't distribute it.

[deadrats]

deadrats,
Copyrights are available for anyone that wants to protect their work, if you were a professional photographer or musician would you allow others to profit from your work?

i am not condoning the profiting from someone else's work. i don't believe in making bootleg copies of cd's and/or dvd's and selling them at discount rates. that is very different however from taking a single song that a friend likes and burning it to a cd for him.

As it stands if you buy copyrighted material then you can use it however you like for personal use, if you share or sell it then it's illegal.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

the riaa/mpaa/bsa disagrees with you, i can't remember who it was but one high ranking riaa official once said during a trial words to the effect of: "when we say he only made one copy for himself it's a nice way of saying he only stole one copy".

i have all my music digitally backed up 7 times (to seven different hard drives, including 2 external ones), does that mean i "stole" 6 copies of each song?

as for the selling part, yes i can agree with you that it is wrong, but the sharing part being wrong takes more than a small leap for me to accept as being wrong.