What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
27 Comments
- heavyal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Sounds like point no. 14 is going to create a win for the music industry here. If making available == distribution then regardless of who holds the copyrights the jury is going to view this as Jammie distributing content without permission, thus illegally. This will set a precedent that will make it easy from this point onward for these companies to continue it's lawsuits of the little guy. Seems a shame to me that things are going this direction. These big companies are alienating the very people who pay their bills. A case of biting the hand that feeds you, no doubt about it. I wish they would just adapt to the new technology rather than trying to put a stranglehold on it, but then I guess that's big business for you. Indeed, a crappy day for file sharers.
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Too late, 222,000$ to the RIAA. ***** them.
- orelses, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Time to boycott all RIAA supported music online and off-line.
- jcounterman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Can I digg the first half of your comment and bury the second?
I'm just asking. - PurpZeY, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This is all said with 2 years of law school completed and one in progress including Cyber Law which specifically addressed p2p and copyright issues.
Heavyal: I agree whole heartedly with your point that the industry should adjust to new technology. However, although this does set a precedent for other courts it is not by any means a binding precedent. In addition, I believe that "the industry" going after small-time little guy really sucks. That being said, making copyrighted information available for distribution to millions of other people -- even under the fair use exception (assuming someone bought it) -- is still infringement. It sucks that the RIAA et al choose to pursue this but it is their right.
AndrewDBarker: This is one jury instructions of MANY. Note that it was number 14. I assure you that one of the instructions said, or could easily have said "was in possession of unauthorized copyrighted material" that's just not what this article was about....Sorry dude. - chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The jury should've remembered all the blank tapes they made or cds they burned for friends. Was it worth thousands a song?
- jcounterman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The judge may have made a bad decision to include the "making available" thing infringement, and the laws are ***** up to award that much money for such few songs, but the jury was hardly stupid. It was obvious that she shared music, and they followed the instructions of the law.
Its time to change the law. - uncertain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's a shame that all too often the jury seems to forget that no matter what "instructions" the judge gives, it's solely the jury's province to adjudge innocence or guilt. All they have to say is "guilty" or "not guilty," no explanations necessary. Just make a decision in good conscience and go with it.
- eOgas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6dumbest. jury. ever....
- Humptydank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Interesting example of where a "social" news model breaks down a bit against an an edited site. This made it to the home page after the verdict was already posted to the home page and extensively discussed in a separate article.
- Cerebron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2exactly. that is the point of being tried by a jury of peers, they can discard the judges instructions if they feel the need.
- FatHed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Nice, judge lets copyright law be expanded by this simple act.
- SuperGhost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You want to help make a change? RadioHead is releasing their latest album "In Rainbows" on their website and YOU get to decide what you pay for the download. Yes it is the complete CD too. They aren't releasing through a record label so support them by paying what you want for their new cd: http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/index3.html
Show the RIAA that THIS is a step in the right direction. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well she was gonna loose no matter what. She had Kazaa on her computer. Her alias was on Kazaa. It's not much of a leap for jurors to see that she most likely did have those files shared on Kazaa which makes her guilty of infringement. The penalty is insane tho. There was too much evidence there which would have made an honest thinking person hard pressed to think there was a good chance she didn't share the files. Let's see a more nebulous case for before a jury. We won't ever see one tho. I doubt the RIAA lawyers are that stupid.
- PurpZeY, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1XBunnyRacer: In short, yes. Distributing, sharing or transferring any portion of the unauthorized media that was large enough to make it identifiable such that it might infringe or injure the copyright holder is sufficient. If you had a legit copy and you made a 15 second sample to distribute to friends that might fall under fair use...but 99% is certainly enough, and I would have to think anything that made it identifiable such that the copyright was violated is enough.
- akkibaba, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3God bless the Staes.
- Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dear god, I apologize for offending the gods of semantics. I'm baffled at our legal system. Hosting is bad, taking is ok. It's like a crack dealer is totally wrong, a crack user is totally cool. What?!
- Cymrubeats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not trying to piss on your parade, but Radiohead are literally days away from signing a record deal (with parlophone again, i assume). I'm not sure of the exact reasoning behind it, but it's a fact nonetheless.
- Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think they'd probably look at it the same way they looked at Ice Ice Baby. Vanilla Ice didn't have the same exact riff of Under Pressure, but it was 99% accurate.
- XBunnyRacer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3If "an actual file transfer must take place," I wonder how much of the file needs to be shared. If I only share 99% of the file, can I be held accountable?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1She is NOT sued for DOWNLOADING! Enough with being that stupid.
- Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually he just agreed with the common law precedent, he didn't expand anything.
- Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29250 per song, that is insane. Compare it to paying for them on iTunes, I'm pretty sure the punishment is VASTLY disproportionate to the crime. No matter what anti-p2p lawyers/people (see what I did there?) might think, it is unjust to absolutely ruin someone's life, and make no mistake, that's what they've done to her. I don't care how many songs she's downloaded, no amount of music is worth a life. She might as well kill herself just to spite them.
- Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1There are laws about fair use. I believe iTunes is operating within them.
- Prayog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I was wondering what the Hell would happen if the RIAA and the Media Defenders join hands!! Gosh!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Accpording to your profile, you live in the United States. Here in the United Staes, we put the dollar sign BEFORE the number.
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -10/+3I actually am in favor of this.. that way it protects the people who have mp3s on their hard drives who don't share them.
If the RIAA tries to sue those people, those people can say digg's favorite mantra: ***** THE RIAA!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is