What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
82 Comments
- borez, on 12/29/2008, -1/+64
Summary ( correct me if I'm wrong ) : Capitol, Arista, Interscope, Warner Bros, UMG and Sony BMG v. Jammie Thomas
Capitol records 1
Jammie Thomas 0
Awarded
UMG $9,250/song x 9 songs.... $83,250
Capitol $9,250/song x 1 song...... $9,250
Warner $9,250/song x 3 songs...... $27,750
Interscope $9,250/song x 3 songs...... $27,750
Sony BMG $9,250/song x 6songs........$£55,500
Arista $9,250/song x 2 songs...... $18,500
Total $222,000 + court costs = Absolutely ***** ridiculous.
***** THE RIAA AND ***** THE MAJOR MUSIC LABELS. - mark925, on 12/29/2008, -1/+52$222,000 and those artists won't see a penny of it.
- dvsbastard, on 12/29/2008, -3/+38The transcript needs more "***** the RIAA"...
- badqat, on 12/29/2008, -1/+32You actually have to READ it...and it's over 600 pages.
For the general public, it's not a huge thing, unless you enjoy legal minutiae. To anyone who's been threatened by the RIAA, or any attorney who's taking them on...it's huge. - TrellSaracen, on 12/29/2008, -1/+24I think as long as there's an RIAA, it won't be passe.
- scarwars, on 12/29/2008, -1/+23Funny how before record companies we had centuries of great music without anyone ever complaining on who owned the rights and who could listen to it.
And those were the true geniuses of music
(btw where did the spell check go?) - Hedgecore, on 12/29/2008, -2/+23It's a trap. Every time you read the transcript, you owe them $2930.39
- skyfyre, on 12/29/2008, -0/+21Jeez....$9,250.00 per song? I know quite a few people that would be indebted to the record industry for millions of dollars each. I hope the people in the RIAA sleep well on their beds made of thousand-dollar bills.
Blood money... all of it. - Wade, on 12/29/2008, -1/+21You're trying too hard.
- thebloodvayne, on 12/29/2008, -3/+17IT'S OVER 9000!!!
*dollars per song - BillyB, on 12/29/2008, -7/+20Although I don't have time to listen to it, I think it's great that we have this in the public.
- cws1, on 12/29/2008, -2/+14Awww, how nice of them. Thank god they kept it reasonable, I mean, other wise, if they threw the book at her, "the damages would be astronomical; and we have no interest in pursuing cases like that." (page 120). This is the same person who claimed that copying a CD you've bought is a nice way of saying "steals one copy", in the same examination. AND she's the head of litigation and anti piracy at Sony BMG. And some of the jurors admitted they had never used the Internet before. What a farce.
- sheetrock, on 12/29/2008, -1/+12Some good news, though: the judge determined after the verdict that his jury instructions may have included an incorrect directive (that simply "making available" copyrighted material constituted infringement) and declared a mistrial.
The RIAA appealed this decision, which was denied.
Which brings us to some bad news: Retrial is scheduled for March 9, 2009, and I doubt the jury pool will be any better informed about this issue this time around. You'd think it'd be as simple as realizing a kid or a grandkid could get you hauled into federal court and sued for six to seven figures by tinkering around on that magic box you're too proudly "computer illiterate" to turn on. - borez, on 12/29/2008, -2/+12Yep, you don't say. In fact, it doesn't even mention what recordings by what artist where infringed in the first place.
/maybe it does somewhere, but I couldn't find it. - vizeroth, on 12/29/2008, -1/+10Before record companies the rights were usually owned by the people that commissioned the work, and common people had very few chances to listen to the music. Music was copied by hand in written form, and played back by hired musicians, possibly never being performed correctly (even today, as some feel that the tempos and scales may be different than they were at the time).
Of course, the record companies now have to be concerned that established artists can afford to do it all themselves, and produce the same or better quality material without them. - chkdg8, on 12/29/2008, -5/+13Can I still say "***** the RIAA" or is that so 2008?
- borez, on 12/29/2008, -2/+10You pronounce it ( puts on best English acting voice ) VOIR DIRE
/I think. - RadicalEdward, on 12/29/2008, -2/+10Not to mention, it IS 2008
- SouthsideIrish, on 12/29/2008, -0/+7Jury nullification man. The jury is god in the panel room and they can go against what the judge orders and what the plaintiff wants. I have used it a couple of times on juries, not to change the verdict but to change the award. Yes, the RIAA should get something and that is double or treble damages of .89 cents.
- thegrantman, on 12/29/2008, -2/+9I downloaded the transcript and have just been informed that I am being sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement.
One unauthorized copy of transcript: $9,250. - sheetrock, on 12/29/2008, -1/+8@SouthsideIrish:
You're right, I don't. Nothing against jurors -- heck, I was one once -- but our system works against them. Experts are removed as soon as they're identified. Useful information is withheld at trial because of technicalities.
That doesn't even get into the jurors themselves. At the trial I served on, there was a dispute involving the quality of planning, material, and construction of a house, with a myriad of issues from the boiler used for the subfloor heating to structural concerns regarding two load-bearing beams. It wasn't even a question that the end result was unsatisfactory; the plaintiff was presenting one list of solutions for each of the problems, and the defendant was presenting another, cheaper list.
We finally get into the jury room, and one of the jurors seriously proposes that we just split the difference for the award to the plaintiff. You know, just go right down the middle, no thinking or heavy math necessary. (We didn't follow that juror's plan, fortunately... what, they're supposed to buy half a boiler because a hot-water heater isn't sufficient to heat the floor?)
Back to the present. This is a civil trial, so the jury is meeting a 50% standard: whether it is more likely than not that files were transferred. My guess is that the RIAA need only put together some statistics about how long the average MP3 will sit in an upload directory before somebody downloads it, and then the debate will turn to how many downloaded these files, not whether or not they were downloaded at all. They will be able to convince a jury that it is fair -- generous even -- to award statutory damages as if there was only one transfer per file, and then to do the calculation of $750 to $150,000 per infringement to come up with an award of $18,000 to $3,600,000 plus attorney and court fees for the plaintiff.
The last one thought 9,250 times the value of the songs was appropriate. So, as you say, zero faith. - billizm, on 12/29/2008, -1/+8The RIAA tried to sue AllOfMp3.com for about 1.65 trillion dollars. Dr. Evil with his pinky to his mouth corner comes to mind.
- sheetrock, on 12/29/2008, -1/+7That's the first and only place I've read that she was issued a cease-and-desist before the "settlement" letter, and a search using the Google doesn't turn up this information anyplace other than Wikipedia. The word "cease" does not appear in the transcripts. The first contact after Thomas was identified by her ISP, according to one of the witnesses from the RIAA, was a letter inviting her to get in touch with them about reaching a settlement. She responded, but they failed to find a successful resolution.
So I am reluctantly forced to conclude that Wikipedia is full of ***** on this one, barring a link to the contrary. - SouthsideIrish, on 12/29/2008, -1/+7I would have loved to be on this jury. I think Jammie is innocent but I would have found her guilty then bullied the other jurors in awarding the RIAA about $.89 a track, and maybe double the damages.
I would love to see the look on their faces when they got a judgement for 24 bucks. God, that would have pissed them off. - freqk, on 12/29/2008, -1/+7***** THE RIAA
- AlexHarazim, on 12/29/2008, -0/+5***** the RIAA
- EllimistX, on 12/29/2008, -1/+6Only they were suing for statutory damages with a minimum award of $750.
- RadicalEdward, on 12/29/2008, -1/+6plus tax's, service fee's, processing fee's, government charge fee's, bandwidth fee's, fee processing fee's, etc fee's
- chrisduser, on 12/29/2008, -1/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case#Headings_a ... - Collecto, on 12/29/2008, -0/+5***** THE RIAA
- thebloodvayne, on 12/29/2008, -2/+6Forgot your sarcasm tags there, buddy.
/s - grimfandango, on 12/29/2008, -1/+5Was anyone else a bit surprised at the inefficiency of the court? Pages and pages of drivel, mostly. As for the sums of money involved -- utterly ridiculous!
- cyrusuncc, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4@borez
I've read part of it and it mentions a few of them that were dismissed (Moon Baby by Godsmack) - inactive, on 12/29/2008, -1/+4The fact of life is that it is unnatural to get paid for *not* working. In this case people are expecting to get paid for *not* playing music. Great gig if you can get it, but like sweeping floors for $40 an hour, don't expect it to last.
- SouthsideIrish, on 12/29/2008, -3/+6Obviously you have no faith in jurors. If they are told that the RIAA has to prove that a transfer occurred, and none can be proven, by the RIAAs own admission then there is no way a guilty verdict delivered. Innocent, end of story
- sheetrock, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3Besides $0.00, there's no effective price to stop piracy. Some people do it just because they can, or because they spot something on a torrent they wouldn't have noticed otherwise and just want to check it out, or whatever.
The best way to avoid the negative effects of piracy is to make people feel guilty and to provide a service that is piracy-resistant. Your father may want to put some of his videos out there for free on YouTube or other video sharing services as a marketing tool, say the first two or three of an eight-part series, sell the rest through the website, and brand them all with his company name, website, and a "credits" scroll on the end mentioning other services available on the website. If the rest of the videos get out there, they continue to push his brand even if they are pirated. Also, make sure he thanks people for supporting the series in each of the videos. Then, besides the videos, offer a low-cost interactive community on the website where he can tutor via webcam, answer questions, critique students via webcam, sell equipment or hardcopy books, and create an environment where other teachers could be hired on (electric guitar, software mixing and mastering, etc.)
That way, the piracy advertises and pushes the rest of the product. Part of the battle is to get noticed and reputable, and in this way piracy may ironically help your father get off the ground.
Good luck! - AndrewDB, on 12/29/2008, -1/+4I still don't know why the artists don't sue over the money that the recording companies got in this law suit.
- sheetrock, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3@exscind:
You're thinking criminal trial. There isn't a "sentence" in civil trials. I am not a lawyer, so I can't state this with absolute certainty, but I think generally if it's a civil trial (with jury) the jury determines not only liability but, if they find for the plaintiff, the size of the award as well.
Sometimes it's a non-jury trial, where the judge determines everything. For example, MPAA v. 2600.
Also, sometimes the judge can reduce awards he/she feels are excessive after a jury's decision ("remittitur"). - arkaycee, on 12/29/2008, -1/+4Vwahr, dear.
- Johnchristie, on 12/29/2008, -1/+4It's nothing like that, and you are incredibly stupid.
- JuanBSU, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2IXNAY on the APOSTROPHEAY!
- borez, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2It's huge because if you go to court, you're gonna get stiffed by these *****.
- uberduger, on 12/29/2008, -2/+4Wow. Way to black-and-white the whole issue. Seriously, dude, come join us over here in the grey, it's quite nice.
I'm listening to two illegally-gotten albums as copies of both wing their way from Amazon. I have a third download from yesterday that's getting deleted because it's not to my liking. - inactive, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2oh shut up
- JustinHopewell, on 12/29/2008, -1/+3How was Christmas under the bridge?
- celotil, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Why? There is no way that pirating music, retaining a copy for myself without depriving anyone else the right of ownership, is possibly worth the amounts demanded by the RIAA. You'd get a lesser penalty for stealing the CD's, which would deprive anyone else of ownership.
- Yond, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2I am no expert at this sort of thing but if you father is incredibly good at classical guitar, maybe he should do his homework first. Research, look on the internet and see if anyone else is doing something similar with another instrument. A good place to see people doing a similar thing is on youtube. Some of the people on there are good at explaining things, and they have a lot of hits. Once you get hits and become popular, you get attention. You would have to come up with a marketing strategy though. Maybe have one video that explains something, and make sure it is really well done and high quality, then in your profile, put a link to your website, or mention it in the video. Once everything is up, you would have to promote your website in creative ways so you can get people to go there. Maybe you can also bundle up some other high quality music instrument video's there.
If your website becomes immensely popular, you can look into getting advertisers. If your father has a particular brand of guitar that is high quality, see how much that company would like to pay you to advertise their guitars on your website.
Another possibility might be your father making money giving lessons. You could use the website to promote guitar lessons with him, or visa versa.
I'm just trying to spew out ideas that might be useful but I've never done any of this so I don't know what I'm talking about. However you could always do your research or look up people that have been successful at this type of thing, and unlike me, do know what they are talking about..
Maybe you could make a cd with him playing music, if he's really good you might get people like me that would love to buy a cd that you all make. You could put an order form of the cd's, or let us download the tracks for a small fee. We could browse the tracks, and then download them. If there's no DRM in them like with music company mp3's people might buy them. I'd pay 50 cents - 1$ if it is really beautiful, and there is no DRM.
anyways bla bla etc. and so on and so forth - oninbonin, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2I'm so proud of you for getting a real guitar! (24 yrs playing guitar, drums, bass, piano exp.) Play till your fingers bleed!
- billraydrums, on 12/29/2008, -1/+3RIAA ***** THEE
- grimfandango, on 12/29/2008, -2/+4while I might agree with your sentiments, the monies awarded makes this a farce.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is