digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at arstechnica.com

Kazaa downloads cost one man $750 per song in RIAA suit

arstechnica.com — The RIAA won a pair of victories last week as a judge finally awarded the labels a default judgment in a case where the defendant never showed up in court. In another case, the RIAA convinced a judge to award $23,250 in damages after the defendant admitted to downloading and sharing music over KaZaA.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tylerromes, on 03/18/2008, -66/+8wow. that is retarded. i stopped paying AND downloading music when i found nuTsie.

    here...educate yourselves. don't lose your life for downloading the Paris Hilton CD..

    http://www.nutsie.com/playlist/iTunes%20Top%20100/ ...
    • RainDrizzleFog, on 03/18/2008, -2/+42Or just don't download the Paris Hilton CD
    • mddawso, on 03/18/2008, -1/+35Yah, Raindrizzle is right, that's the type of magic you gotta buy.
    • isntreal, on 03/18/2008, -5/+5I'm not sure why you're getting dugg down. Obviously the Paris Hilton comment was a joke - but nutsie is great. Thanks for the tip.
      • tylerromes, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1your welcome, glad you are nutsie-fied as well.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -1/+18The Paris Hilton CD, if the Lawyers don't get you... the brain aneurysm will.
      • astrotrain, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Its like Vogon bad poetry, while listening to this CD, your small intestine attempts to strangle you from within.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4nuTsie, I see what they did there...
      A scramble of iTunes, lol...
      • tylerromes, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1pretty clever, huh?

        ...and i would never actually consider paying a dime for anything related to Paris Hilton. well, almost anything...
  • sathias, on 03/18/2008, -1/+17I really hope "default judgements" where the defendant doesn't turn up to court can't be used as precedents...
    • DaDrake, on 03/18/2008, -2/+7The guy would have been subpoena multiple times over a year. For criminal cases, they will arrest the defendant but for civil case, they will rule without him. This is the way it should be (cause people have a tendency to flee, move to another country, etc). I seriously doubt you want arrest made on civil issues.
      • dustyshadow, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2No, he would not have been subpoenaed. You have 30 days to respond to a complaint. If you don't respond, the court can enter a default judgment against you. It is that easy. They can be overturned but it is kind of rare.
      • whatisnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1@ Sathias: the default basically means the other guy wins because he's the only one that cared to defend himself. He can't later argue that he didn't do it, that the judgment was BS. He CAN possibly argue that the judgment should be vacated (lack of jurisdiction, etc). And trial level stuff rarely has precedential value unless it's a real first impression type thing where the courts can't find any authority anywhere about the case. In most cases, however, there's significant appellate level cases that control, and THOSE are what the trial level decisions are based on.

        @DaDrake: No. The guy would not have been subpoenaed multiple times over a year. In many states, a default judgment is granted with the following steps. (1) Summons and Complaint is filed with clerk. No notice needed, it's totally a matter of the Plaintiff paying a filing fee and the court case begins. (2) the Plaintiff has the S&C served upon the Defendant. A guy will go up to you and say "hey, are you bob bobbo?" you say yes "well here you go. If the guy tries being a dick, saying he's not Bob, when he's driving Bob's car into Bob's garage and his wife is yelling out "Bob, who is that man" service is still good even if he denies being Bob and walks away. (3) At the bottom of the Summons will be some language saying "you've got 20 days to answer if served by hand, 30 if served a different way. (4) the P may, depending on his state, have to give additional notice, often just by mailing a copy of the summons to the address the guy was served at. (5) After 20/30 days, if D didn't send an answer, which can be anything as simple as a letter saying "I didn't do it", the Plaintiff sends the judgment to the clerk saying the D didn't appear in this matter. (6) The clerk collects their additional fee (less than $50) and enters the judgment.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/18/2008, -1/+9If and when getting a notice to go to court. Leave wireless access WEP open and plead ignorance.
      Sorry if they want to pull this *****, let them prove it was YOU downloading.
      • fkr3, on 03/18/2008, -3/+9Yeah I think Jammie tried that in her case, with spectacular results. Turns out digg may not be the best place to get free legal advice after all!!
        • capiCrimm, on 03/18/2008, -1/+8no no, this defense does work. The only qualifier is that you have to be a 80 grandmother downloading gansta rap.
          • po43292, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2In 50 years you will see 80 year old grandmothers listening to gangsta rap as "oldies".
        • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Jammie was a special case. She would have been found guilty even in a criminal trial. It was ridiculous for her laywers to suggest she go to trial. The evidence against her was overwhelming.
          • fkr3, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3If the defence worked then she obviously wouldn't have been found guilty....
          • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I am not saying the open Wifi defense works, but you can't prove that it doesn't based on this case. In this case, the Kazaa account used was the same account that Jammie used for several other internet sites. And the songs that were shared were not the typical mainstream music. And she owned all of the music that was shared.

            So, though I personally don't think it would ever work, it is possible that someone could convince a judge/jury that it was not them due to WiFi, even though Jammie could not. Jammie's only defense would have been that someone was purposely trying to frame her by using her WiFi, AND figuring out her username. It was ridiculous, and her lawyers should be disbarred. They took advnatage of her by advising her to go forward in a case that she had no chance to win. And of course, they kept their fee.
      • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6They don't have to PROVE. It is not a criminal case. they just have to give enough evidence to show that it was MORE THAN LIKELY you doing the downloading. There is no "Reasonable doubt" criteria to be met. Just preponderance of evidence.

        And the open WiFi defense has never worked.
      • locojones, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Prove that it was you downloading? You mean like, finding the actual songs downloaded or shared on your computer, AND matching your unique username on the sharing service to the records of the name that downloaded and shared those songs? And how, again, would an open wi-fi be a defense to that? Right, please shut up until you actually graduate from an accredited law school.
  • BaoUnit, on 03/18/2008, -13/+210***** THE RIAA
  • CYR1X, on 03/18/2008, -5/+207lol KaZaA
    • pablis2010, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1lulz, I know its all about emule -sarcasm-
    • rigorious, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1kazaa lite was pretty nice.. a couple of years ago ;)
  • markbrown, on 03/18/2008, -6/+127Moral of the story: ***** the RIAA.

    Keep file sharing.
  • mddawso, on 03/18/2008, -3/+63Don't they know that people in Junior High can't afford that?
    • picpak, on 03/18/2008, -4/+44Dude, it's Kazaa, he's probably in college now
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9You'd think he would know to get a better network than freaking Kazaa by then at least.
      • dokbeast7, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4so he has even less money
    • Duntpuff, on 03/18/2008, -1/+0Do they care?
      ***** THE RIAA
    • jeriqo, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2If you can't afford, then don't play.
  • D3koy, on 03/18/2008, -10/+3Wait, so now the RIAA wins if you don't show up? I guess that's fair...but still, in my mind I see them not telling people they are being sued and then wining every case...(which I am pretty sure they can't do)
    • AjaxDiggz, on 03/18/2008, -0/+12Not just the RIAA, any plaintiff. That's the meaning of "default judgment".
    • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Yeah sorry but the RIAA didnt win just by being the RIAA. This is called a default judgment when you are an idiot and dont even respond to summons.
  • NeoNightmareX, on 03/18/2008, -2/+145As he should, who even uses Kazaa anymore?
    • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -11/+3lol dugg
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -0/+20Kazaa was reverse engineered by some of the Anti-P2P companies, now they can scan large sections of the network and spam computers as they record you downloading/uploading their clients intellectual property.

      They have tools like that for bittorrent and gnutella now too, but most of the providers/trackers blacklist known Anti-P2P addresses, and suspicious computers.

      Bittorrent and Gnutella also blacklist computers sending bad data, thats why you haven't seen half screwed up videos and music since the Kazaa days.
      • steeeeve, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5To have bittorrent accept corrupt data, you have to create a hash twin of the real data, which would require sci-fi story levels of computer power.
        Kazaa has (had?) only partial hashing, that's why it could be fed corrupt data.
  • tatjr13, on 03/18/2008, -4/+160People still use KaZaA???
  • SoxFanNH, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4They just keep going...
  • RockeN5, on 03/18/2008, -22/+13***** the RIAA.
    • feliks2, on 03/18/2008, -2/+8dugg down, really? I thought people couldn't say this phrase enough.
      *****
    • str1fe, on 03/18/2008, -1/+9He typed in lower-case. This is one of the few cases where capital letters are not only acceptable, but required.

      ***** THE RIAA.
  • Dan11023, on 03/18/2008, -36/+4Limewire FTW
    • ru7hl3ss, on 03/18/2008, -0/+21No...
    • Dorepoll, on 03/18/2008, -2/+21Limewire is the next Kazaa. Get out while you can.
    • Alphabet, on 03/18/2008, -1/+13limewire is full of ads and spyware. Anyone that uses that ***** needs to be shot.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5Limewire sucks ass.
      Do yourself a favor, Get a free or OSS BitTorrent client.
    • Alucard66, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2sarcasm tags FTW?
    • almightyzam, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Yeah, unfortunately i'm too addicted to limewire, and too good with it to switch to bittorrent. It takes me like 5 min to download any album i want, cause i know how to use it...
      I think this article will be a slap in the face for me, i need to start using bittorrent
      • Railz, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Download Azureus if you're worried about simplicity.
    • jcm267, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1IRC
  • DaDrake, on 03/18/2008, -24/+12Sorry, but you can not take the moral highground in downloading/distributing another's person protected work. You may not like the RIAA, but most courts are going to defend them because it is the law. Instead of breaking the law, either change it or don't complain when you get caught.

    Seriously... someone just explain to me how distributing someone's work, without there permission and against their wishes, is ethical/moral?
    • HonestAbe, on 03/18/2008, -6/+5There are lots of legitimate and legal reasons to download works protected by copyright, believe it or not.
      • foldor, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6Such as.....
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -4/+3Education, Edutainment.
        • mCanada, on 03/18/2008, -1/+9Free speech, fair use, distributing government censored artwork, breaking corporate imposed draconian style DRM to works which you own, and on and on... Legal depends on your geographic location. Legitimate is universal. ***** the RIAA is forever.
          • fkr3, on 03/18/2008, -5/+3None of your examples have any relevance to pirating music/videos for your entertainment.
        • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -5/+5Sorry but you cant apply free speech to granted monopoly via patents. You are distributing and acquiring material that the creator of that material has legal rights to set permissions of. If you are going to say we should share and acquire copyrighted material then you are basically saying you do not want to live in a competitive economy. Patents are granted monopolies on certain technologies and discoveries (which include works of art such as music). Granted monopolies and permissions stimulate competition and thus a better and healthy economy. Sharing files that the artist says are not okay to share is illegal, its not free speech. However, I do not agree with huge fines per song and such. On the other side, the RIAA chases down big time offenders; the people who basically set up dedicated file sharing servers.
        • HonestAbe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
      • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6This also applies to the BS argument of "education." Since when is it that anyone needed the britney spears CD for education? Get the fvck over yourself and stop twisting arguments to fit your point. Another common argument people commonly use is the legal right to own back-up copies and such for storage and protection purposes. I understand backing up your data on a secure HD somewhere, but sharing your whole 1 terabyte music library on P2P isnt quite storage.
        • Rogpog777, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2Well, technically, you could get away with it (especially if you have a diverse selection of music) by saying it was research on different music genres. That's what I-er.....my FRIEND intends to say if it is illegal in Florida. Ha......
      • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3I do not advocate what RIAA is doing at all. I just think people need to be realistic. Don't share terabytes of data that you do not have the ARTIST'S permission to share and you will be fine. Not all artists are open about letting their hard work be distributed for free everywhere. It's just their view on it, so respect it.
        • HonestAbe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1That's funny. All the artists I listen to are fine with it.
    • mooseontheloose, on 03/18/2008, -7/+19Only if you explain to us how such a copious amount of sand entered your vagina
      • 42Vindictive, on 03/18/2008, -8/+3Congratulations, a free internet is you.
    • fuse13, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4the damages seem excessive is all. lets say they caught every person who shared a song and charged them $750 for that song... thats a lot more money than they ever "lost", even if we make the (wriong) assumption that every person would have bought the song if there was no illegal channel.
      • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -3/+2the "excessive damage" is only applied to idiots. they aren't catching the small time offenders. they are going after the guys who share gigabytes of music and movies; terabytes even. if these people are that stupid, they deserve to be fined heavily. i have nothing against downloading a song or two to sample it and get the CD later or buy it because i have genuine support for the artist or director of a movie, but people need to be realistic about how much they share and download.
        • fuse13, on 03/18/2008, -0/+0im not sure the "per unit" damages should be tied to the number of items. it is already being multiplied by the number of items. the argument i often hear is that these big sharers lead to further sharing and there is a downstream multiply effect as the shared items get shared on... but im not sure an individual should be charged for the damages related to people who commit an offence downstream either. he shared x individual songs and thats with y being reasonable damage for each song thats x*y. if you want to base it on downloads he provided to others thats a hell of a lot more difficult to work out but again, more reasonable than the downstream argument, which is essentially punishing one for the crimes of many.
      • Rogpog777, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4That is very true. $750 is too steep a price. I mean, there are a lot of maniacs out there who have, like, 1000+ DLed songs on their computer, so that would be 3 quarters of a MILLION dollars, money that most people who DL music COMBINED couldn't pay.
        • feliks2, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Maniacs? I have 3000+ songs on my computer, and that really isn't enough. I consider myself quite sane.
          ***** the RIAA
      • HonestAbe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1In other countries you have to prove damages. We should implement that here.
    • mdokic, on 03/18/2008, -6/+3Copying others work is in our genes... we'd still be monkeys if we wouldn't do so. Not letting others copy your work is such an anti-human behavior that it shouldn't be tolerated. If I like the work of an artist, I pay for it. And how can I know if I like it or not without trying it?
      • mattb5, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Good point, but that use of the term copy would imply learning how to play the song yourself, not a direct bit for bit digital "copy" of the song.
      • bdbr, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3You can probably try it on free.napster.com or live.fm. Or your library. Sure, its not as simple as downloading, but that doesn't give you the right to take something the owner doesn't allow. If it means a lost sale for an RIAA label...so much the better.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Its all about greed... Maybe if they were more fair and didn't screw with people via DRM and other annoyances so often not many people would want illegal file sharing. Lets face it, the artists are making enough damn money as it is...
    • puter, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1I cannot speak for other people but my big issue comes in with the amount the RIAA charges for a song. They are charging a massive markup, the result is that people have found ways of avoiding the recording industry. I know that I and many others would start paying for music if it was priced reasonably. The RIAA has lost a class action suit for their price fixing at least once, but *gasp* the prices have not changed.

      What the recording industry needs to learn is that their livelihood is linked directly to their customers. You treat your customers poorly (rip them off, sue them, etc) and they will find a way not to deal with you, in this case the way not to deal with them involves getting it for free, in a more convenient manner, at relatively low risk (if you consider the number of filesharers vs. the number of lawsuits).

      There is a lesson here for the industry to learn; either they will learn it or they will go the way of SCO.
    • Blue_Eon, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Hey, I agree that stealing someone's work and material and distributing it is wrong, but I don't feel sorry for the RIAA because for decades THEY have been robbing the artists blind and now they are suing people FOR the artists, but the artists never get any money from it? Please, I feel for the artists who get small percentages of the revenue made from selling their music and who have to go on tour and sell merchandise to make any money at all. I don't feel for the corporation who says they have the artists' best interests in mind, but time and time again, seem to only be self-serving.

      Truth is, the RIAA have been basically stealing other peoples' work for decades what with the small amount of money the artists receive for album sales. Yeah, I know the labels are around for marketing purposes and whatnot, but please, they do extort the artists and sometimes, it's better to go it alone, as in the cases of NIN and Radiohead.
  • Subriot, on 03/18/2008, -5/+42I hope everyone who works at the RIAA will ***** burn in a pit of fire, they're ***** useless assholes. (Pardon my French)
    • wellyuk, on 03/18/2008, -1/+14Où est le français? Je n'ai pas lu tout français.
      • czeman, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2Glissant sur le plancher de rire.

        Anybody who knows French will know I cheated and used Google. :(
        • MSstar, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2LOL definitively... it's more like Rolling = rouler
      • fridenstrom, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Dans ton cul
    • deltaandroid, on 03/18/2008, -6/+1Don't hate the RIAA workers, they are doing their job.

      hate the game.
      • dorkino, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5Looks like we've uncovered an RIAA employee
      • Kardall, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1*****
      • sampanc, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Kind of like how con-artists are just doing THEIR job so we should only hate the art of "Con-Artistry"? No, ***** THE RIAA!
  • HonestAbe, on 03/18/2008, -15/+9***** the RIAA.
  • hellbent88, on 03/18/2008, -10/+3take one down, two more take its place. Torrents we are strong
  • lhbaker, on 03/18/2008, -3/+27I remember when you could get a whole cassette tape for $7.50. Gas was free back then, too.
    • Aensland, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6Gas can still be free depending on the crowd you're hanging out with.
      • lhbaker, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7Careful. I caught my best friend on fire that way.
    • witerider, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3a dime bag was a dime then too according to willie nelson
  • Alix7, on 03/18/2008, -7/+44AAIR EHT KCUF

    ^ Even people from the alternate dimension are ***** pissed off
  • sdubois92, on 03/18/2008, -10/+4People still use Kazaa?
  • bugsy, on 03/18/2008, -9/+2your vegas is showing
  • Kyora, on 03/18/2008, -3/+28What the hell. I used Kazaa like 6 years ago or something. It still exists?
  • aastark, on 03/18/2008, -3/+23This is just idiotic! Where the hell did they get the idea that each song cost $750??? The right idea would be to charge him .99 per song downloaded.
    • chrispeters, on 03/18/2008, -1/+9But then where is the punishment? It also wouldn't go along with the RIAA's ridiculous damages claims.
    • Dantetheinferno, on 03/18/2008, -3/+10You charge more than the value of a song if you are found stealing it or doing something illegal with it. Otherwise people will just attempt to steal because the chance of getting away with it makes up for the cost you have to pay legally.
    • shark72, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7It was a default judgement, as explained in the summary. This means that he got the MINIMUM statutory damages as set by law, which was $750 per work (the maximum, FWIW, is $30K).

      The concept of statutory damages exists in US law because it's often difficult to put an exact number to the actual damages. In this case, it probably wouldn't be possible to determine how many times the song was downloaded from his share directory.
      • shotgunefx, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Yes and no.

        I don't doubt the RIAA has statistics on how often particular works are shared with all the monitoring they are doing. They must.

        So if it were really fair, then they could calculate a fair estimate of how much damage was done using the time period, the popularity of the song on file sharing networks and the users bandwidth, and figure out the punitive aspect from that.

        I imagine whatever is popular is going to be downloaded an order of magnitude more than someone sharing Captain & Tenille.

        I will say this, regardless of how you feel about filing sharing, saying he didn't know better and it's their fault for not being clearer is retarded. The type of argument that makes all these stupid disclaimers on everything in life. The reason you have to watch ***** warnings every time you want to watch a legitimate product.
    • theskyisblue, on 03/18/2008, -5/+6it's illegal to steal songs that do not have legal permission FROM THE ARTIST to be shared and stolen. therefore, there is a criminal fine for it. it's not like when you steal a car you can just give it back and be let go. you pay fines and jail time for the crime you committed.
      • dualscreenman, on 03/18/2008, -3/+9Except that you aren't physically taking the song you download, and thus not stealing. If you download the song, does it magically disappear off of someone else's CD? Flawed analogy is flawed.
      • skeptic42, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13But when you steal a car, the fines you pay don't end up in the pocket of the owner.
      • GRX3000, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

        Unless you are profiting off someone else's work, there is NO thievery going on, period. Nor is it against the copyright laws to distribute someone else's work unless you're profiting. If it were so, I guarantee you every household in America and abroad would be breaking the law. Or do you remember the VHS days, when people recorded their favorite shows on VHS? TiVO and any other Digital-Recorder would have to be illegal if it was indeed illegal to distribute without profit.
    • steeeeve, on 03/18/2008, -0/+0I think, this is a weakness in the justice system. I think, amages should cover exactly the damage suffered and everything else should be a fine going to the state and determined by a criminal court.
  • Blue_Eon, on 03/18/2008, -3/+51Ah yes, let's punish him more for "stealing" something that is infinitely reproducible at negligible costs than we would for him actually going into a store and stealing CDs. I'm well aware of punitive damages and whatnot, but it's still BS. Not to mention that the money will not go to the artists and never does. $750 for bits of data is ludicrous.
    • fkr3, on 03/18/2008, -7/+2If $750 for bits of data is ludicrous perhaps you should play with your calculator and create your own?
      • Blue_Eon, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2How about actual money lost instead of punitive damages, which often times are exponentially inflated for "make believe" circumstances like, "We might have or could have" situations. Any way you put it, it's extortion and shows how the RIAA uses its sway to get what it wants.
        • fkr3, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2It's a large sum because it's supposed to act as a deterrent. If you're given the choice between buying a song for $0.89 or pirating it and if you're caught having to pay $0.89 then where is the deterrent? The same concept is generally applied to all crime. Should someone who robs you only have to pay you the retail value of what they stole? Should someone who rapes you only have to give you a good night out to counter the bad night they gave you? No.

          It's the argument that it's "only bits of data" and therefore has no value that irritates me. If your objective is to look at 1's and 0's go play with your calculators. It might fundamentally be only "bits of data" but there is no point breaking it down to it's base property because the actual product is a movie, a song, a piece of software or whatever else, and it's the product of a company's time and money no less than a physical product is.
          • Inquisition, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1You are all looking at it the wrong way. The RIAA isn't prosecuting someone that downloaded a song, but someone that (here's that ever popular phrase) "made the songs available" to be downloaded. I guess in the RIAA world, each song was downloaded 750 times in theory.
        • GRX3000, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Blue Eon, if they were to actually judge on the real damage lost there would be no fines. Quit putting your brain on forward dude!
    • dualscreenman, on 03/18/2008, -2/+8Hell, they don't even need to reproduce anything since nothing was taken from them in the first place.
    • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -9/+4He stole potential profits fromthe company. Not by taking it himself.

      Try going into a store and stelaing that CD, and then distributing it to millions of other people. You will get more than a petty theft charge.

      Honestly...this is 2008. It is unfathomable that idiots like you still exist that bitch about people getting sued for DOWNLOADING. Not one single RIAA piracy case has invovled downloading. Zero.
      • Blue_Eon, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Honestly, the fees, fines, and punishment WOULD be less if he had stolen CDs, made copies, and sold them for a price. The people in other countries seem to be getting away with it just fine, while grandmas, children, and single moms are getting the brunt of the damages.
      • GRX3000, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Wrong... there was no profit made, and there was no profit lost.
    • Campog, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2He should have offered to return the bits of data to the artist. Because we all know that the artist are who the RIAA cares about.
    • locojones, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5He's not being punished for stealing, he's being punished for infringing the copyrights of another. By encroaching on the exclusive rights granted to the RIAA, namely the rights to make and distribute copies, the law presumes a certain amount of damages to be set by the court.
  • samuelwhyte, on 03/18/2008, -9/+3Pwned
  • dyreschlock, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8i don't really know what's more surprising.. the amount that dude had to pay or the fact he's still using kazaa
    • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4I don't use Kazaa, but I do use an olde fashioned P2P (Shareaza) and I guarantee you that if we are looking for just one song, and a song from more than 10 years ago, I will have it on my hard drive before you do if you use bit torrent. Most people don't want to get whole albums
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/18/2008, -2/+32That's funny Kazaa saved me a lot of money.
  • toxicityj, on 03/18/2008, -3/+12$750? did he really do $750 in damage per song to the record company and the artist? He "should" have to pay what the song is actually worth. Unless the extra $749.40 is a fee for still using Kazaa. Then he got what he deserved.
    • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -8/+4Then he should ave to pay for what the song is worth time the number of people that he GAVE the song to...since that is what he was being sued for, and NOT downloading. And then there are the penalties.

      Even if this was for downloading, your argument is VERY weak. The notion thta the penalty for stealing should be to pay for the item is absurd. there would be ZERO incentive to be honestly. Want a new digital camera? Put it in your pocket. If you get caught, pay for it. If you don't, whoo hoo! Free camera!
      • loyx, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2YOUR argument is void because you are comparing digital, copiable data with a physical object. If I stole a rare record from some record store you know damn well the RECORD STORE is going to be mad. However, some bought that rare album and copied it and gave it to many people, that's different. In the RIAA's case basically, the punishment does NOT fit the crime.
      • Lazydriver, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Agreed. Content that is produced for pennies should not be saught for millions unless the fans DESIRE to support their favorite bands by attending concerts and such.

        Like it used to be. The record companies are slow and stupid juggernauts and they do not adapt to a changing market, but instead ruin their names and waste a ton of money oversuing people over songs they themselves DID NOT EVEN CREATE.

        Let the artists distribute their own damn work, and if a person wants to listen to a song free, that's fine and dandy, but I want to guarantee my money goes to the artist before I buy the song, if *I* deem the artist deserves payment.

        It's the same concept as having a singing hobo.
      • scoutmasterEd, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Yep he should have to pay! Ya think it's possible the fine was so large so it would be deter others?
  • dougbarrett, on 03/18/2008, -9/+7This seriously isn't right. The RIAA has some leverage if the user downloads and installs the software, but I know for a fact that KaZaa is preloaded on HP desktop computers. Some customers might pay for the premium KaZaa package and think that they are downloading software legally, only to be screwed over by the RIAA/MPAA/whomever else wants to sue the innocent.
    It's almost as if the RIAA wants KaZaa and other file sharing software to be loaded on computers to make it even easier for them to find people to sue.
    • mattb5, on 03/18/2008, -0/+10WTF are you talking about? Kazaa installed on computers from the factory?!
    • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2And..whern here is a case where the person sued can show that his computer came pre-installed with Kazaa (and that it automatically put every song he had into the shared folder), then you can complain. But this guy ADMITTED to doing it.
    • goofygarber, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4When the ***** did Kazaa ever come pre loaded on a HP computer? That sounds like snopes bait for sure...
    • steeeeve, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2On those HP desktop computers that you buy on ebay with Windows installed for testing purposes perhaps.
    • scoutmasterEd, on 03/18/2008, -0/+0HP doesn't pre-load Kazaa on anything! Why would they!
  • smotpoker1, on 03/18/2008, -8/+5***** the riaa. do a triple summersault through the air, and disappear up your own *****
  • duncanbell, on 03/18/2008, -7/+3RIAA = frontpage
  • Deveak, on 03/18/2008, -4/+14This disgusts me, the guy probably ignored the letter thinking it was either the wrong person or it was just another scare tactic. 750 a song? thats 100 times the actual damage (.75), I am pretty sure that exceeds the maximum you can sue for. Why doesn't anyone sue them for extortion? they threaten to sue you if you don't pay them, thats extortion, threatening a person with something for money, god i hate the RIAA! My only solace is that they can;t stop me from pirating, now i just want to download more.
    • sancho, on 03/18/2008, -1/+7Try 1000 times. Math for the win.
    • shark72, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7What do you mean about it exceeding the maximum you can sue for? $750 is the MINIMUM statutory damages per US copyright law. The maximum is $30K. The judge actually did the record companies a disservice by only awarding the minimum damages as set by law... they were probably asking for a lot more.
    • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2OK...here we go...another idiot thinking that he is being sued for DOWNLOADING ths song, and thereore it is only 75 cents, or 99 cents, or whatever.

      Also...look up the definition of extortion. and fast.
  • nextTopModel, on 03/18/2008, -6/+1redicilous! how can the people who work for teh riaa and people who make this happen look into the eyes of their childrens?
    This is soooooo wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • manmademark, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2although Kazaa is really really old, isn't it possible this lawsuit is from over 5 years ago? :shrug: Who cares about who uses kazaa and who doesn't, the point is someone is being fined excessively for something that most all of us do on a regular basis. You should feel a little relieved this isn't you.
  • Roninsama, on 03/18/2008, -8/+8***** THE MAFIAA
    keep the INTERNET FREE!
    • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -5/+3The internet is free. That doesn't mean that everything on it is free.

      So...do you also think that Buy.com, Amazon.com, etc. shouldn't be allowed to charge for their goods and services because it is on in the internet?
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Free as in freedom.
        Freedom of Information FTW.
  • colincornaby, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5"He also said that any infringement that did take place was due to the negligence on the part of the RIAA." Honestly, this has to be the world's worst defense. So he admits he did it, but he places the blame on the record companies for making him do it? Yeah, that's kind of stupid. I'm sure the RIAA made you install Kazaa and made you share files. Sucks to be the guy in the first case though who didn't show up to court, but that again is one of those things where you should have known better.
    • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1It is no worse a defense than someone stealing someone's bandwidth and blmaing the person for not securing their WiFi.
    • mattb5, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Yeah, that part did sound kind of stupid. Like Kazaa was a program provided by the RIAA or something.
  • dudefaceguyman, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3While the $23,250 was ridiculous. The guy was just simply asking for it by using Kazaa.

    I mean seriously, who the ***** still uses Kazaa and doesn't expect something like this happening?
  • penguinofspades, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1say whatever you want about the legality of the issue, and you can debate the moral and ethical issues into the ground, but in the end, the RIAA ***** up big, like, way big by not capitalizing on the new, confounding interweb, so ***** em for their ignorance. who among them could have predicted that a series of tubes could have cost them so much anyway?
  • rdubrawski, on 03/18/2008, -5/+10If you read the article ( I know, that is too much to ask sometimes, but this one is short, so go ahead and give it a try) you would see that the cited precedent was that making the songs available for download was infringing.
    Arguing that downloading the songs legally would cost $.99 each is irrelevant. He was fined for distributing the songs to others. Since it is not knowable how many downloads each song received, it is not necessarily out of line to assume that each averaged 750 downloads ( a fairly low number actually ).
    Even if he purchased the songs initially, the right to distribute the works is not granted to someone who buys the song, so yes, this was illegal activity, and yes there are consequences for engaging in illegal activity.
    If you truly don't like the RIAA and what they stand for, then boycott RIAA labels. Vote with your dollars, refuse to buy or listen to music published by member labels.
    If you want the moral high ground, you must act morally. Support your local indy music scene. They need your support. The number of live music venues has been decreasing rapidly. Finding a club/bar that books live music, and live original acts is hard because WE, the paying public have shown that we prefer to listen to a DJ spin remixes of music published by major label artists.
    • steeeeve, on 03/18/2008, -1/+0For the network as a whole: total upload=total download.
      With that math, 750 complete uploads are not a fairly low number but an improbably high one for a nonreleaser.
      • rdubrawski, on 03/18/2008, -0/+0You assume that one needs to provide the entire song in order to be infringing. You can be considered infringing by making even part of the song available, so if you employ a distributed model, such as bittorrent, and limewire ( I don't recall how kazaa worked, but I think it was similar ), then if person X had served up a portion of a song to 750 different users, then they would have infringed 750 times for that work.
        You are correct in your statement of the network as a whole being a zero sum situation, but without data on the average file size and amount of time spent sharing the song, your assumption that he would need a leased line is not valid. ( $23250/$.99 = 23484 cases of infringement, 23484 * 4MB per song * 8bits/byte = 7515145 Mbits ( again assumes that the entire song needed to be served which is not true) / 384kbps ( reasonable upload speed of DSL/Cable link) = 1957070 seconds /3600 seconds/hr = 544 hours of service / 24 hrs per day = 22.6 days ) so if we assume that an act of infringement required that he serve the entire song then if that song were made available for less than a month, the requisite 23484 instances of infringement at $.99 per would be reachable. I would say that (unless I made a math error and feel free to check my work) this is not at all an improbably high rate. I have observed in the past computers that ran kazaa and it was rare that there was not a download in process.
        The point is that in the absence of any data to base the real number of downloads upon, the courts chose to assign a value ( however arbitrarily ) to the act.
        My point was not that the exact price tag was itself correct ( it could be too low or too high, we cannot tell), but that the action being fined was in fact illegal, and that engaging in illegal actions bears a penalty.
        There is no moral argument that justifies stealing in this case. This is not some later day robin hood keeping the music free from the censors. We may not like how the RIAA and the record labels conduct business, and personally I don't, but my choice is to support local and independent musicians, and in the cases where I do want music from some other artists, I either buy the CD and rip it, or I buy a DRM free version of the song at as high quality as I can.
  • DawsonJones, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5Instead of wasting time taking down the poor man, take down the entire company providing us free music.
  • jrdbrn, on 03/18/2008, -0/+37$749 for the RIAA...
    $1 for the artist...
    • mattb5, on 03/18/2008, -0/+14Wrong! $750 for RIAA. Artist does not pass go and does not collect $1.
      • exabytes16, on 03/18/2008, -1/+0Does that suggest the artist is going to jail?
        • CraigReed, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Maybe not a real jail but what their getting out of the deal isn't a whole lot different.
      • GRX3000, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Wrong! The Artist does not pass go, instead owes the RIAA $750 for "protecting his interests!!!" XD
  • mdman, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3well, if you dont show you dont have a chance to win... pretty stupid..
  • bingobongony, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4I don't get it...he ADMITTED it? If he was going to do that, why didn't he just take the initial settlement offer that would have been much less than $750 per song?
  • MastDane, on 03/18/2008, -5/+9What I find unbelievable is the fact that child rapists in our country manage not to go to jail, but when a man tries to download 31 songs he gets fined 23,000 dollars. Absolutely absurd. Shows where our countries priorities are.
    • eir574, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2If anything, it demonstrates the difference between civil and criminal legal matters. Since this was a civil matter, it has nothing to do with the country's priorities in prosecuting crime.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Agreed, I don't care how it ends up happening, but something has got to change.
    • whatisnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Was that a straw man argument I saw running down the street with it's arms in the air? I'm seriously asking. I'd like to make a catalogue of sightings in the wild. This is ridiculous because something else sometimes under some other circumstances (and not as often as I'm indicating with my post) has a different result! Therefore things are messed up!
  • ShoGunX900, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6Kazaa FTL basically...
    • Jareth86, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1Faster than light?
    • str1fe, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3I can definitely say that Kazaa is not faster than light.
  • merbot, on 03/18/2008, -0/+20He must be the luckiest guy in the world. He actually got a song from kazaa and not a virus.
  • LoganVH, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Keven Federline?
  • Vector713, on 03/18/2008, -1/+8***** this *****! "incalculable damages" my ass!

    ***** the RIAA.
    • biff198, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1some of these people should start caluculating the damages. When they remove the price for a CD, cases, and other costs like that, they should have to pay that.

      And if they don't have the cash on them, they can write a check for the required $.12...
  • ren1999, on 03/18/2008, -1/+20The RIAA must fall under criminal investigation for failing to pay a portion of the collected fines to artists under their protection.
    http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2003/0 ...

    The RIAA has filed lawsuit to reduce artists royalties to 9%.
    http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/12/06/riaa ...

    The RIAA collects penalties from any artist, even those artists who have not signed with an RIAA music label.
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/033522 ...

    It is clear that the RIAA is a menace to the artists, the music, industry, and the fans. It is time to disband the RIAA in court.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Wow, that is very informative.

      For those who support the RIAA blindly because they 'support' enforcement of laws, This is exactly why the RIAA needs to be shutdown.
    • bwdd, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2We're doing public issues in US government at school, and some girl gave a pro-RIAA speech.

      I could barely contain my anger.
  • MacDevyn, on 03/18/2008, -8/+6RIAA= REAL INTRIGUING ANAL ATTACKERS
  • brdhse1, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Its the UPLOADS, dammit! He was sued for UPLOADING, not downloading. I wish these articles could get it right. If anyone could get this straight I thought it would be ars...
    • exomni, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1Apparently you're new to the internet. "UPLOADING" to somewhere necessitates that the node on the other end be "DOWNLOADING" what you're "UPLOADING", whether it's just an automated server, or, in Kazaa's case, individual users.
      • brdhse1, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3No, you don't get it. Yes, an uploader needs a counterpart (the downloader), but NOBODY has been sued for DOWNLOADING. It's the uploaders who get sued for sharing their music.
        • Lazydriver, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Every file-sharing P2P system requires someone to upload what they've downloaded from a main seeder.
          • brdhse1, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2You are wrong. Bit torrents, yes. But we are talking about a P2P system like kazaa or limewire, and those do not require a downloader to upload anything.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.