What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
150 Comments
- charlie6969, on 07/05/2009, -1/+117Jammie Thomas $1.92 million fine for illegally downloading 24 songs.
A one million dollar settlement against KCP&L for a client whose husband was electrocuted on a construction site.
A 1.9 million dollar settlement for wrongful death of mother riding a motorcycle who was struck by Concrete Truck.
Now, were the songs THAT valuable?
Or is a person's life not valuable?
RIAA=Pathetic. - inactive, on 07/05/2009, -4/+117***** THE RIAA
- Tarkaan, on 07/05/2009, -1/+49This is completely ***** absurd. We need to write our congresspeople and have them pressure the judiciary to require the RIAA to prove *actual damages* - the backbone of civil law in the US. The purpose of a civil court in terms of monetary damages is to make sure people are made whole. That is, prior to the tortuous act the plaintiff had X. The tort was committed. It is the court's job to ensure that the plaintiff has proved that they have been damaged and assign a fair value to those damages.
You drive a Benz worth $50,000. I'm high on meth and drunk while getting a blow job from the daughter of the governor of a state that starts with A, and I crash my 1986 Tempo into your Benz. The insurance company writes "TOTAL LOSS" across your Benz. How much does my insurance company owe you? $50,000. If you can prove that you suffered an additional loss, for example, the loss of your vehicle caused you to lose business, you are entitled to additional damages - a rental car, equivalent to the one I caused you to lose. But basically, I owe you $50,000 + a rental car.
The RIAA needs to prove how much they are actually damaged by someone making a song available. Here's how that's done:
24 songs on iTunes cost... for the purposes of argument, $25. Let's say they were downloaded illegally in the first place. I owe the RIAA $25. Now, in any other universe, in any other case, in the United States, in certain cases, I can sue for treble damages, that's $75.
This needs to go to the Supreme Court, our Constitutional Court, and the RIAA needs to be fined, sanctioned, hell, DISBANDED for this blatant and repeated abuse of the justice system.
BANKRUPTING SOMEONE FOR MUSIC PIRACY IS NOT A PUNISHMENT THAT FITS THE CRIME. ***** THE RIAA.
RIAA: If you can prove how many times each file was actually served, then you can sue for THAT. You're pulling numbers out of your ass, the RIAA is an illegal, unconstitutional organization that is engaging in government sanctioned extortion. They must be stopped. - Soleanthia, on 07/05/2009, -0/+48FTA: RIAA says "what’s increasingly clear, now more than ever, is that she is the one responsible for needlessly prolonging this case"
I call *****, since the RIAA themselves appealed the decision that threw out their original settlement. Seriously, these guys just need to shut up and die (figuratively or literally, whichever you prefer) already. - jp33miller, on 07/05/2009, -2/+46The RIAA has nothing to do with the artists.
- prisoner24601, on 07/05/2009, -1/+42Where can I send a donation to her legal fund? This woman is my hero for fighting these RIAA thugs.
- rolf, on 07/05/2009, -0/+36Eigth Amendment to the Constitution of the USA:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Even if this is a civil case (?), it's the government that is imposing and enforcing the fine - even if it goes to another party. I don't think sharing a handful of songs, as a private person, with no intention to profit personally, should put you in the poor house for life. It's on the same level as speeding 20mph over the limit on the highway. - Nekura20x6, on 07/05/2009, -0/+33Be sure to ask the RIAA how much of the money is going back to the artists. (Hint: Nothing. They keep it all for themselves.)
This has nothing to do with protecting the artists or making sure they get what they are due. It's about padding the pockets of the greedy industry execs and lobbyists. - greevar, on 07/05/2009, -3/+35One thing the RIAA continually fails to prove is that they have actually been harmed by this one person sharing a couple dozen files on the web amongst hordes of much greater offenders. Settlement or damages, it doesn't matter when a 32 year old mother of 4 doesn't have money to give to the most profitable industry in the USA.
- ProfessorRiffs, on 07/05/2009, -0/+20Just don't buy songs from artists that are in bed with the RIAA. There are plenty who aren't.
- borez, on 07/05/2009, -1/+21RIAA: Because children, grannies and housewives are a threat to future of the music industry.
H'mm, you're doing it wrong. - inactive, on 07/05/2009, -0/+16this is why I do not buy music.
- jwkpiano1, on 07/05/2009, -2/+18Based on what you've posted here in the last couple days, I think you may be clinically retarded and/or just a troll.
- kahoona1, on 07/05/2009, -0/+14http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4873370/RIP__A_Rem ...
Strongly suggest watching that, they even have a section on Jamie Thomas. - DaviDTC, on 07/05/2009, -2/+16Either the new dupe detector is complete crap still or you just didn't bother to look at it.
http://digg.com/tech_news/Jammie_Thomas_lawyer_say ... - opticwind, on 07/05/2009, -0/+11Because the artists don't own their music. They sold it to the RIAA.
The artist originally had complete control, but sold power to the RIAA in exchange for publicity, production value, marketing, etc.. - Joker99352, on 07/05/2009, -1/+11I realize how "stealing music" (that is, obtaining it without paying for it, that sort of thing) would be considered a crime. But honestly, 1.92 million dollars for 24 songs is RIDICULOUS. They act as if they're doing justice somehow but where does the money go? Not to the artists, that's for sure.
And the artists themselves don't want anything to do with a corporation that preys on people who download their music by illegal means because they don't want to pay the ridiculously high prices. All the RIAA is is a bunch of greedy bastards who fool the public by claiming to be doing good. - lecturethis, on 07/05/2009, -2/+12In protest I'm never going to buy a song ever again!!!!
- inactive, on 07/05/2009, -7/+16The RIAA isn't even Constitutional.
- inactive, on 07/05/2009, -3/+12who wants to bet your mom dropped you on your head into a bucket of paint solvent when you were a baby?
- yocouchdigga, on 07/05/2009, -2/+10Hahaha, oh governments... you've done so well with emerging technologies impact on society, I think you do a brilliant job when it effects our biology!
Why the ***** are we (the people) letting all this madness ensue, is it really just apathy and laziness or do we subconsciously want the mad-hatter crossed with a controlling sociopath governing the way we live? Are we all ***** retarded?
I'm scared for the future and that makes me mad as hell. - uberduger, on 07/05/2009, -0/+8I wish you were a lawyer so you could champion the civil suit on that one. This is clearly unconstitutional, but nobody seems to be bringing that up.
- trevor98, on 07/05/2009, -0/+8Generally no. What do you want to sue them for- following the law as described by the judge?
- raskali, on 07/05/2009, -0/+7The only thing these people understand is money. Stop buying music from any company involved with the RIAA: Time Warner, Sony, EMI, UMG, BMG. Once they realize the RIAA is killing more sales than piracy, they will be flushed down the toilet where they belong.
- rockytop9808, on 07/05/2009, -0/+7I wasn't aware that the Constitution went right out the window in some court cases.
- ozydingo, on 07/05/2009, -2/+9http://www.riaaradar.com/
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
[files]:
[pdf]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pdf
[MS Publisher]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pub
^^ the above are formatted for Avery 5160 labels, but I in no way suggest you to do anything specific with those stickers. For educational purposes only, view what others have done here http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/ - trevor98, on 07/05/2009, -0/+7If you don't like the RIAA, don't support them by buying their crap. Convince your friends to boycott them too. Buying that catchy song just isn't worth having them around. If you must have it, find a way of getting it without them getting a dime (analog loophole, downloads, borrow a friend's CD, etc). Make the record industry feel the pain for their RIAA affiliation.
- xino, on 07/05/2009, -0/+7As the wise digg user (skye16) said:
"I'm pretty sure most pirates would admit that, actually. It *is* about getting free ***** (free for us, not necessarily for the people who created it, though). I don't know that anybody ever said it wasn't.
We may strenuously object to being called thieves (as that results in deprivation of property AND profit, not just deprivation of maximum potential profit), and we may be angered by the current state of copyright law, and we are positively apoplectic concerning the "trillions lost to piracy numbers" (I guarantee you that I would only have purchased maybe 0.5% of the stuff I ever downloaded for free. Given an unlimited bank account, I still would only likely purchase maybe 25% of the stuff I ever downloaded, as the other 75% was worth 0$, but wouldn't be worth any amount of money over that 0$. I'm sorry that this skews your obscenely large numbers, but since we're working on telling the truth here, let's tell the truth.)
More truth? The moment copyright term got effective unlimited extensions, you lost any ***** sympathy I have for you. Intellectual Property is NOT an inherent right. We, the people of the US, attempted to subsidize the creation of said intellectual property works by granting a short term monopoly for you to distribute your works and make as much profit as possible. That you continuously paid for legislators to constantly lengthen that term does not mean I'm going to accept it. I may not be playing by the rules, but in my opinion, neither were you in the first place, so that's pretty much how it's going to be between us. I'll happily never pay you a dime, and you'll attempt to ruin my life if you ever catch me. I'm very much so okay with that.
If you want me to have some compassion, go back to 28 years (max), and I'll come back in and be a law abiding citizen. Until then, you won't receive any pity at all from me. Since, in my opinion, your actions are antisocial, I have no problem being antisocial in return." - DaDrake, on 07/05/2009, -0/+7They willfully signed a contract. For all legal purposes... it is their property.
You thought the record industry just gave millions to these artists, then proceed to spend millions to advertise their songs out of good will? - ozydingo, on 07/05/2009, -0/+7http://www.riaaradar.com/
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
[files]:
[pdf]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pdf
[MS Publisher]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pub
^^ the above are formatted for Avery 5160 labels, but I in no way suggest you to do anything specific with those stickers. For educational purposes only, view what others have done here http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/ - r0g3r, on 07/05/2009, -2/+8What legal basis does the RIAA have to sue on the behalf of artists like Marx who object to their litigation? Anyone who knows please feel free to enlighten me.
- uberduger, on 07/05/2009, -0/+6*this is why I do not buy music owned by any member of the RIAA.
(There, fixed it for you. You can thank me later.) - MadLeper, on 07/05/2009, -0/+6Marx may obect to the litigation but he still cashes his royalty check every week, just like all the other RIAA members.
- brickbat, on 07/05/2009, -0/+6Actually, for the Benz, you won't usually get replacement value. you will get market value so even if the guy just bought it, he is losing several thousand at no fault of his own. As for the rental, that's often limited to a few days.
***** insurance companies are just as bad as the RIAA. - Shazbuckle, on 07/05/2009, -0/+6Dugg for thumbnail
- opticwind, on 07/05/2009, -0/+6If the artists didn't want anything to do with the RIAA, they shouldn't have signed a contract.
Secondly, the record company for a song does actually do stuff. The artists are often just singing music written by the company, and if not, would not be getting nearly the same attention without the production values and marketing a record company is capable of. - DaDrake, on 07/05/2009, -0/+5Well obviously, piracy has caused monetary losses for the record industry. After all, when people can get free *****... they tend not to pay for it. Has the monetary damages been exacerbated? You betcha. When ***** is free, people tend to take more then they need. But of course... nobody can measure these things with much accuracy. But it wouldn't surprise me if the damages were actually in the billions per year.
So why these amounts? Because the courts are trying to scare people into being model citizens. Courts do this all the time... they simply don't have the time (or money) to prosecute every individual. - portnoy, on 07/05/2009, -2/+7A few years ago my brothers car was broken into. A window was smashed and his cd wallet was stolen. 100 cd's, that's four times as many disks as Jammie had tracks. How long before "making available" includes leaving music unattended in your car?
- Xplorer, on 07/05/2009, -0/+5First one...
- Travelsonic, on 07/05/2009, -1/+6Presby,
you suck at guessing games. - blacklilyninja, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4People are dumb
-the industry creates its own formula garbage to mass produce, sell and protect.
-the artists involved are just tools to force the formula down our throats via advertising or shows like idol, disband, and ..got talent.
-the only major bands close to true non-industry based formula were Hawkwind and The Grateful Dead. Everyone else relied on the RIAA run industry to make, carry and deliver every aspect of the art created including production. In most cases actually interfering in the writing process by catering to the bottom line.
-the only way to stop the cycle is to have the artists no longer use this industry model to market themselves and have the audience stop buying the riaa created/distributed *****. - allisonaxe, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4as a pirate, I will admit that the draw of "free stuff" is a large part of it, but I also care about paying a fair price to the creators of the content that I find enjoyable enough to consume.. when you buy a cd, or off itunes (or paying the MPAA/RIAA/whoever in a court settlement) the artists aren't making a whole lot of money for their work, if anything. in my opinion, "nothing" is a fair price to pay a bunch of lawyers, executives, and businessmen for music.
copyright law is broken and needs a huge change. as it is, its way to easy to circumvent the law (even accidentally!) and the laws are confusing, out-of-date, and generally unfair to the artists and their fans. - BRENTON8907, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4What I don't get is that I were to shoplift 24 albums I wouldn't be fined for this much, so why would downloading 24 songs be worth this much?
- bdbr, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4The RIAA is a cartel of labels. RIAA lawyers represent those labels. Those labels own the rights to that music. This case isn't RIAA v Thomas, its Capital Records v Thomas.
- falafelkiosken, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4downloading music for private use should be decriminalized, it may still be technically illegal but without any punishment. It's simply too hard to prove, to widespread and the status-quo where MAFIAA is (sometimes) successfully suing people for ridiculous sums of money is unjust and has no purpose other than scaring file-sharers into submission
- Tarkaan, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4Your attempt to educate me about "punitive damages" is like a three year old talking down to his grandfather, so allow me to retort.
Punitive damages in civil court are intended for situations where the tortuous act was both willful and malicious. In State Farm v. Campbell, Kennedy is still the controlling verdict in this case. In that verdict, Kennedy writes:
The Due Process Clause prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeaser. E.g., Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 433.
In that same ruling, Kennedy states that the court must consider that the tortuous act be:
...physical rather than economic
...evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others
...involved repeated actions
...and the harm resulted from intentional malice, trickery, or deceit...
...[Citing] Gore, 517 U.S., at 576—577.
FURTHERMORE, Kennedy states, "It should be presumed that a plaintiff has been made whole by compensatory damages, so punitive damages should be awarded only if the defendant’s culpability is so reprehensible to warrant the imposition of further sanctions to achieve punishment or deterrence."
In addition to your COMPLETE failure to argue constitutional law, Kennedy writes, "To justify punishment based upon recidivism, courts must ensure the conduct in question replicates the prior transgressions." This means, and I'll try to keep it simple for you, that if the punitive damages are based on the likelihood that the tortuous act is to be repeated, they *must* be based on prior bad-acts by the defendant that would lead a reasonable court to believe that the defendant will, in fact, repeat the action!
And in Section b, PP 2 of that SAME OPINION, he writes, "...in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process. See, e.g., Gore, supra, at 581. Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State’s deterrence and retribution goals"..." SINGLE DIGITS. Not 1.92 million dollars.
So even if this case satisfied the test for punitive damages PAST treble damages, it would still FAIL the single-digit test brought by SCOTUS in 2003.
Go back to law school, newbie. Illiterate *****. - tao52nyc, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4No. It's no longer enough that the record labels associated with the RIAA "feel the pain". They have to die completely. Both fans AND artists have to stand up together and say..."No more!". The only way the music industry will evolve in the digital era is for dinosaurs like the big labels to get out of the way. As far as I'm concerned, it's total, all out War.
- acknotSW, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4The ***** isn't in the fines. These fines fit with legal precedent when corporations sue each other over this kind of thing. The motive is almost always to profit from or to try and damage a competitor.
The ***** is that corporate laws are being used against private citizens. She was acting the way a typical human has acted for hundreds of thousands of years; she was sharing information with other members of her species. - acknotSW, on 07/05/2009, -0/+4Njank is right and fines of this magnitude are common in the corporate world. The problem is these laws were written to punish companies, not a private citizen giving away copies for free.
This case isn’t about trying to stop file sharing or copyright infringement, it’s about delaying the inevitable. These companies are sunk and they know it. They used to be the gatekeepers. An artist couldn’t become rich and famous without recording a great sounding song, mass producing a record/tape/CD, marketing it to millions of people, and distributing it to people who wanted to buy it. There have been huge drops on the costs of equipment needed to create professional sounding recordings. The internet has also completely destroyed the need to mass produce a physical medium and deliver it. The gates have been blown off their ***** hinges and the gatekeepers can’t prevent anyone who wants to from making and distributing an album to the world. They can’t even keep the talent locked in any more either as their grip on marketing erodes. - Tarkaan, on 07/05/2009, -1/+5It's not constitutional. Read my response above. Punitive damages are limited to single-digit multipliers. 4:1 is the generally accepted ratio.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is