arstechnica.com — Judge David G. Trager ruled that when the case goes to trial, "plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs."
Dec 22, 2006 View in Crawl 4
jrghoullDec 23, 2006
they would have to prove within a reasonable doubt that it was in fact the song that was downloaded..doesnt have to be 100%
pyrexiaDec 23, 2006
So, basically, defendants will now be innocent until actually proven guilty? What a novel concept!
nofxjunkeeDec 23, 2006
They don't care if it hurts artists. They believe that it is a violation of their copyright and if they can get any cash out of it they will sure as hell try.
ronin2040Dec 23, 2006
Im not arguing that the RIAA should be able to outlaw P2P entirely, or even have any say in what technology is legal and what isnt. But I think requiring them to actually RECORD a transgression is a bit much, given that they would have to break the law to do that (sniffing a network that's not theirs).You could argue that they could simply download the file themselves, thus proving their case, but things like PeerGuardian make it awfully difficult.I think you run the risk of swinging the balance way too far towards the consumer, leaving the content-owners impotent. There needs to be a balance between the two...
williamdyerDec 24, 2006
@RoninThe recording industry has no inherent right to stay in business. Candle-makers, whalers, fletchers, etc. are all out of business. The recording industry is about 100 years old. It may be technologically obsolete because the only way to protect it is to be too intrusive and litigious. Keeping it in business may be as ridiculous as keeping buggy-whip makers in business by requiring that we all travel by horse-drawn carriage.
williamdyerDec 24, 2006
Remember when people used to "steal" long distance phone service. I'm old enough that the default DOSA passwords for some widely used PBXs was useful knowledge for a poor college student in my day. Today, that sounds as quaint as being a horse thief. Reason is, of course, everybody with Skype is getting phone service for free. And if you pay for it, it is too cheap to steal. I haven't hacked a phone system in over 15 years.Make music too cheap to steal. Say $0.05 per cut. Problem solved.
cowdefenderDec 24, 2006
I'm likely 7-10 hours to late to join in on this fun, but I'll talk to the wall if need be.It frustrates me greatly that music is cheapest the first two days of release (as cheap as $8 per CD), then climbs to about $13 and there hangs for the rest of time (until I buy it used from amazon).DVDs start around $20. They crawl down over time ($12ish), and for whatever reason sometimes plummet to $5.50 at Wal-Mart.Why does music get more expensive over time? The first week is when the most sales are.I think Ronin did a pretty great analysis on much of what was said, except for a large oversight.Ronin seems to believe if there was no money in the creation of content that there would be no content.This falls flat for a great many reasons.1) my friends and I create content because it's a release. We write, draw, compose, etc. We want to make more, and we don't do it for money. There are people far more passionate about content creation than we.2) look at the open source community. They create content, often for free.3) even the RIAA losing ALL policing rights to the content wouldn't not lose them (or the artists) their money. There are bands that are independent that release all of their content for free, and people wind up buying their disc anyway. I can't remember the name of that British band that released their three albums for free on their site, and made it big (fame and money), but they exist. One of my favorite bands (Roger Clyne & the Peacemakers) is independent, and he says he is fine with people getting his music for free. In an interview he said he wants people to listen to him. He wants people to come to his shows (where he'll make some money from the door). He wants them to enjoy themselves, and if they want they can buy a CD, share it with friends and bring them next time.3b) RCPM's first independent release sold a sixth as many copies as their first major release (as the Refreshments), and they made more than double the money. I've heard the same for Peter Gabriel when listening to TWiM.My solution: making unlawful downloading a ticketable offense. $2-3 per track on top of a minimum fine of $15 (and the removal of any infringing material from your HDs). This could be policed like crazy, people get stung and factor it when pirating, RIAA doesn't look like quite as bad of a group. Slaps not mollywhomps.I despise the RIAA and look forward to the day that bands produce out of their own homes, or local bars that have talented 'sound guys.' Bands distribute by way of mySpace and iTunes. Bands get promotion from sites akin to digg and mySpace. Promotion is really all labels do well, and I hope there will be defections. A new breed that flee the majors and start boutiques that topple the monoliths.Goodnight wall.
gwinerreniwgDec 24, 2006
@reed - Most insightful comment I've read yet! Said another way, when the local or federal prosecutor starts bringing charges, the whole argument changes.
shrewdapeDec 25, 2006
The harm or damages resultant from filesharing and music downloading has long been a question, and an important one, in this debate. Would anyone have a moral problem with music downloads if artists actually benefited from the phenomenon? Harvard Business School and UNC Chapel Hill released a study that shows much of the RIAA's fears are vain ones.<a class="user" href="http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf">http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf</a> The whole notion behind copyright holds that producers (or more likely their publishers or financiers) need an incentive in order to foster and encourage creative output. But don't musicians still create even when it's just for fun? Why are there starving artists? Aren't they supposed to be mercenary?