What is Digg?84 Comments
- BobOki, on 11/28/2007, -1/+85This is big news.
First, the article is saying the songs only cost $.70. Even at 10x the price, that would be $7 a song, a much more believable amount of money. The RIAA would never want to agree to this, as it would make the cost of suing someone cost more than the actual settlement. They would have to concentrate their efforts only on very large p2p shares, of 30k songs or more, and even then the totals would be much less then they are now.
I do not download illegal music (go itunes!) but this is pretty important to me, and the possibility of me getting blamed for downloading music just becuase I decided to download the latest WoW patch.
Its also worth noting the RIAA cannot prove that anyone but themselves have downloaded the song, which should also mean they have broken the law, having downloaded music without paying for it. - ieataquacrayons, on 11/28/2007, -0/+76Wait so if you download illegally and the RIAA hunt you down, go to court, end up paying $0.70/song. Do you get to keep the songs? If so looks like itunes is going to have some competition....
- supafuzz, on 11/28/2007, -4/+59***** the RIAA
- Godlike, on 11/28/2007, -2/+46Think whatever you want about the issue, I've only got one thing to say to anyone who thinks that I will ever buy music again: iPaid 25$ an album for WAY too long and any record exec or 'recording artist' that thinks I ever will again is a ***** sucker. Adapt or die.
- greenlight2001, on 11/28/2007, -3/+23It needs to be said.
- FortyCaliber, on 11/28/2007, -0/+19Yahoo Music: $8.95
Tunebite 4: $19.95
Converting licensed music to unlicensed music via my X-Fi DAC/ADC at 4x speed: Priceless
For those confused... Tunebite converts my licensed 'play at my computer only' music from Yahoo using the perfectly legal Digital-Analog-Digital Conversion method. Because the DMCA applies only to digital streams and not analog streams. - Yetisquatch, on 11/28/2007, -0/+19i have to agree. im looking at my cd collection in the corner and estimate that all that music purchased over the last 20 years has cost me well over $20,000. some may ask "so do you think youre entitled to download music for free just because you think youve paid the music industry enough?" my answer, yes. i understand that there is more involved than just paying the artist when buying a cd but i also understand that any cd that you buy today that cost more than $5 is ***** robbery in itself. give me the option to buy digital music at a respectable price and i will do so.
- Murphy52589, on 11/28/2007, -0/+17That's kickass, i hope it goes well for her.
- amphoterous, on 11/28/2007, -0/+17Is it really still a matter of *IF* the RIAA is going down in flames? Or is it *WHEN*?
- JustinPM, on 11/28/2007, -0/+12The question is why is the first time this question has come up? They were getting away with exorbitant amounts of money for what they themselves said they have no clue what it cost them. Friggin' goofy if you ask me.
- luigi1015, on 11/28/2007, -0/+12From the article: "One potential problem with that argument is that the labels are unable to show any evidence that the songs have been downloaded by anyone other than SafeNet, the company retained by the RIAA to investigate illicit downloading."
- arbulus, on 11/28/2007, -5/+17dollar signs come before the number
- Ouze, on 11/28/2007, -18/+28I think that illegal downloaders should pay! PAY! They have committed copyright infringement and should pay the going rate. Pony up 70 cents a song, you stealing bastards.That'll learn em.
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -2/+10They still have to prove that the person was actually the one at the pc downloading the illegal material, regardless of screen-names, ip's, mac addresses. Thats a tricky thing to do.
- Ouze, on 11/28/2007, -2/+10*cough* been hearing that since like 1997. Some of you guys are obviously still buying CD's.
- chris9902, on 11/28/2007, -0/+8she'd only have to pay $266 in total... HAHAHAHA!
I bet the lawyer's lunch cost more than that. - inspecality, on 11/28/2007, -1/+9DOLLAR signs, genius.
- nastajus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+8It does accurately represent large public opinion.
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -2/+9Agreed, but what do you mean by the last bit? That the RIAA can't prove anybody downloaded songs?
- EntangledPhysx, on 11/28/2007, -1/+8But not enough.
- kufu91, on 11/28/2007, -1/+8more like 7$
- arbulus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+7"the RIAA needs to get busy buying themselves some hack politicians to write some incredibly stupid laws to make this ***** fly"
It's already happened.
Didn't you hear about the bill that cleared the senate and is up for debate in the house that will revoke all federal aid to students in a college where the admins don't turn over the students when the RIAA sends their extortion letters? - VitriolAndAngst, on 11/28/2007, -0/+7Give them damages for the song, and double for pain and suffering -- just like we average citizens seem to get in court these days when some Big company gives us lead poisoning or something. So, you share a song, that'll be $1.40.
Oh, and they have to pay everyone back any excess fees from this, and release everyone from prison unless we see a lot more CEOs go to jail for real crime.
By the way, I'd like about $240 for the thousands of CDs, DVDs and other blank media that I never put copyrighted work on that you collect a tax on. Oh -- wait, if you already collect a tax for expected damages --- that means we've already actually PAID for the privilege of storing music on CDs. So pay everyone back the entirety of the money you've gained in court, $1000 per day of each prison term, and lawyers fees for defending this garbage.
Or, you can end the tax on recorded media, and collect $.70 for the actual damage you prove, and $.70 (max) for anxiety or something.
>> You know, grin and bear it like everyone else has to. At least count your lucky stars that you can exist of the talents of others. - kindrobot, on 11/28/2007, -1/+7The concept that the word ***** or it's use is indicative of non-"grown-up" behavior is in itself a bit juvenile and unsophisticated. "Just sayin'."
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -0/+6Hahaha, this is great, the only people who are actually getting in trouble in this RIAA mess are the RIAA itself.
- latrosicarius, on 11/28/2007, -1/+7lol funny. three cockshelfs minused you. i counter
- Godlike, on 11/28/2007, -2/+8Welcome to the internet. Strippers on your left, RIAA exec beatings on your right. Drink up, you'll need it.
- zmjone2992, on 11/28/2007, -0/+6as do i
- masturbator, on 11/28/2007, -1/+6Here's an adult discussion for you: ***** the RIAA!
- Urusai, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5Here's a good example of how "tort reform" was all about protecting big corporations from civil suits, while not doing a damn thing to protect the average person. Try suing a corporation with such specious damages and see how quickly your ass gets the boot.
- latrosicarius, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5only if Lindor wins and a president is set for excessive fines being unconstitutional under the 8th amendment.
VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The RIAA has no justification for charging $9,000.00 per song PERIOD. Especially when they can't even prove that Lindor even shared the songs with anyone else. I wonder why this didn't come up sooner. What, are we guilty until proven innocent now?
"Yeah, 12,857.1 people downloaded this song from this person, we want $9K in damages!!!" And since 100% of it is for personal use, no less, how can they honestly pull this crap out of their ass? Nobody is making a profit on their copyrighted material. Nobody is "damaging" them. - inactive, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5To bad the quality of your music also goes away.
- LeeSoong, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Listening to most of the RIAA Artists is ''Cruel and Unusual Punishment.''
If they have lower sales, it's because most of the so called 'music' they are selling sucks.
iTunes and regular CDs earn lots of money - proof positive that good music does sell... - inactive, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4I personally find nothing wrong ethically or legally with downloading music you have heard on the radio. Fact is, singles are advertisements. The labels have paid for it that way, it's being distributed that way, and the open airwaves are public, which means that as soon as you distribute music via a public medium, consuming that material is free. Who is going to sue you for ripping out an ad from a magazine cause you liked it? Or for taking a photo of a billboard ad you saw on the side of the freeway? They don't because they can't. It's a freakin ad. They interrupted your time and space with their advertisement and you are free to consume the ad as much as you want; you just can't redistribute it or claim it as your own. And that's what music singles are, ads to get you to buy the album, buy concert tickets, buy memorabilia, use the song in a TV show, commercial or event and pay royalties, etc. They get indignant on their own market for downloading material they distributed over public airwaves without paying 99 cents? Absurd.
- eliezerlp, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4FREE: FairUse4WM
- GliTCH82, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3Basically, one of the arguments that the RIAA makes when seeking damages is that thousands of people could have downloaded the shared song from the file sharer, but when it comes down to it, they can't prove that anyone other than themselves downloaded the song from the person who was sharing it.
- nastajus, on 11/28/2007, -2/+5I write them in the same order I read them. English is weird.
- davidlow, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2$7 is NOT a fair price. It only seems fair in comparison to the extortionate pricing of recent history.
- AdrewMc3, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Why did this take so long?
The LAW: well important parts anyway, about money
(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
(c) Statutory Damages. —
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was:.....basically working in the industry, or under the guide of their job
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
So you can get the actual damage and anywhere from $750 to $150,000 so at 9K a song its about 16 or 17 songs but there are 38 songs in this suit so you can't get that much. Wait so the minimum for statutory is $750 thats ridiculous.
Since we are talking about law lets do this:
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. - logandurand, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Sorry, but there would be some quality loss, unless your target format was lossless.
- GliTCH82, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2*precedent
- TekTrixter, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2You do have the option to buy digital music online. iTunes, Buy.com, mp3.com, and many more.
- Ziggygallaway, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I checked and just about every post here, in essence, says "***** the RIAA."
- GliTCH82, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Don't send them any money, dumbass.
- GliTCH82, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2No, it doesn't. Genius.
- rupertmorris, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Why's everyone harshing on Ouze? He makes valid points.
PS the irony of suing your fans/customers as a valid business model... Oh, RIAA, will you ever learn (in time)? - Fafnir43, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Speaking as a non-US citizen not familiar with the intricacies of US law who honestly wants to know: how is asking for excessive damages unconstitutional? Don't get me wrong, the RIAA need to die and their lawsuits amount to legal vigilanteism at best and extortion at worst, but how are they actually infringing the Constitution?
- Matri, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2Except the RIAA isn't paying the radio stations to play the songs, they make the radio stations pay THEM.
- iamr00t, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1FTA, this is the first case that's actually went to trial.
- breezytrees, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1this is exactly what happens when you turn the general populous into criminals
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is