What is Digg?54 Comments
- tchynerd, on 12/04/2007, -0/+29The irony of course is if she stole them out of a brick and mortar store the fine would be MUCH less
- WorkingDead, on 12/04/2007, -0/+27I have at least 10,000 songs on my PC. At the rate she is being punished, they could argue that I have done $92,500,000.00 worth of damage. I doubt I could do that much actual damage if I went on a real life, god mode, GTA style rampage.
- SantafromNorth, on 12/04/2007, -3/+19Judge David G. Trager agreed with the RIAA's position. "In general, copyright owners commit copyright misuse when they attempt to extend the scope of their copyrights and use them anticompetitively in violation of antitrust laws," wrote the judge in his opinion. "Collectively bringing infringement suits, however, exhibits none of the hallmarks of anticompetitive copyright pooling, and cannot be classified as such."
This needs to be appealed to the Supreme Court. OF course collectively bring suits is an anti-competitive practice executed to minimise the legal expense of the labels in pursuing such predatory legislation. Why are the courts ignoring the Betamax precedent which actually opened the door to MP3 and P2P technology being developed? - actorboy, on 12/04/2007, -4/+17Mind you, this woman isn't saying she's innocent, she's arguing that she was unfairly caught. I would advise her to settle. If Jammie Thomas settled, she would have only been out a few thousand dollars versus $222 thousand. Lindor is about to gamble her future on the hope that she can get off on a technicality.
- fkr3, on 12/04/2007, -0/+11Very few actually argue that they're innocent... the only ones who were innocent had the cases dropped, all dozen or so of them. It's both funny and sad at the same time, like when a clown dies.
- SavageBlackCat, on 12/04/2007, -4/+15In unrelated news the judge just received a Mercedes Benz AMG from an anonymous donor.
- technoredneck, on 12/04/2007, -2/+9+1 for you, good sir.
- thebellmaster1x, on 12/04/2007, -0/+7Imagine if you got a star for every thousand songs. Nations around the world would be trying to nuke your ass.
- shredswithpiks, on 12/04/2007, -1/+7if this were a legal case, rather than a civil suite, this would be a good argument, wouldn't it? Evidence that was collected illegally is thrown out.
- Andareed, on 12/05/2007, -3/+8The RIAA are suing for distributing music files, so your analogy isn't relevant. A better analogy might we a case where you steal a CD from a store and then make copies and give them away.
- PA42, on 12/05/2007, -1/+61) they are both "legal" cases
2) you mean criminal vs. civil
3) In a criminal suit the evidence collecting body would not be the RIAA, it would be the authorities. If they got a warrant, their would not be illegal evidence. - MikeFallopian, on 12/04/2007, -1/+6I agree with this completely, although it's the fault of the courts not the RIAA that the fines are so absurdly high. It's the RIAA's job to protect their industry, and it's the courts' job to ensure that compensation is within reason.
- MikeFallopian, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5The judge is completely right. It would be illegal if the RIAA companies pooled their copyrights, allowing any record company within the RIAA to freely use them while disallowing smaller labels from doing the same. That would be an anti-trust violation, because it would be using the copyrights as a weapon to give an unfair advantage to some companies.
- andy17null, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4lol you're ***** now
- moocow1452, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3It's like shooting fish in a barrel. So many settle out of fear, guilty or otherwise, that one case that manages to navigate the combined bureaucracy of the RIAA and the DCMA and not force the counter-suer into debt would hardly be a chink in their armor. Sad really.
- DoorFrame, on 12/04/2007, -2/+5Betamax isn't related to this at all.
- jtmeyer, on 12/04/2007, -3/+6stealing music???? WHAT?! who did that?
I thought i was just copying it!!! I didn't know the artist no longer had MUSIC!!!!!! - Jammerdelray, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3Judges are not always right.
- DoorFrame, on 12/04/2007, -2/+5Yes, it's called "statutory damages" and it's exactly how the damages are being assessed.
- Makisupa, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3I agree, but he is right here. Bringing suit together is allowed by the system for the exact reason of economic efficiency. The federal rules of civil procedure specifically grant the record companies this ability.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20
(1) Plaintiffs.
Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. - jtmeyer, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Sr1959 FTL
- bloodjunkiee, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2In most cases of Copyright Infringement, i don't understand how they justify the "hefty" fees places on the offender. I mean is there a special way of determining the exact amount a person is going to be charged for?
- inactive, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2are you drunk? that makes no sense.
- zammit, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2pay for file sharing? that's an oxymoron. btw this is english, not OOP, please use \x20 after your \x2e and \x2c, kthnxbye
- PA42, on 12/05/2007, -1/+3you're getting the criminal charge of "theft" confused with the English word "stealing." The word stealing can be used in many ways, including RobN's way. For example. If I say she stole my heart, I still have my heart. If you steal my idea, I still have my idea. If you steal my music by downloading over a P2P network I still have that.
- fkr3, on 12/04/2007, -3/+5Itunes, amazon, zune marketplace etc. Just because they haven't found a way to give you everything for *free* doesn't mean they haven't found a way to use the internet.
- Makisupa, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2The system encourages this, there is nothing anti-competetive about it. This is some of the most shoddy lawyering I have ever seen.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20
(1) Plaintiffs.
Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. - TommyTSquared, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3that' $222k for Jammie Thomas wont stick. At least not in my opinion with the appeal(s) that are in the process about the amount of the charges specifically.
- inactive, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2You are now fined $220,000 for stealing a candy bar.
- MikeFallopian, on 12/04/2007, -3/+4Way to advance the conversation buddy.
- PA42, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1@JT
You really have trouble reading what I said. I said it is not theft, but let me put it another way. If I own a large track of property and a bunch of squatters set up shop there, should I have to prove that I am being financially harmed to kick them off? No, I shouldn't. I should be able to kick them off. The simple fact is that Thomas Jefferson created the copyright in the US constitution because losing control over your work should be a violation. No self serving study (or even unbias study( suggesting that it is financially beneficial in some sense will make me believe that it is some pirate should be able to freely copy something that some else worked hard on.
People in my position (I'm no fan of the RIAA, I'm a fan of copyrights in general) do not call it theft, but I do call it stealing. Theft has a strict legal definition. Stealing conveys what I believe a copyright infringer has committed: receiving another's property without compensating the property owner.
I understand that people want free music, but don't act as if they deserve it or that you are doing the copyright owner a favor. - shredswithpiks, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1betamax precedent? please explain this further...
- psyjoniz, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3"..and that copyright misuse was not a recognized affirmative defense against allegations of copyright infringement." yet?
- SantafromNorth, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1We do have jobs! We just want to buy all killer and no filler with our hard earned cash, unlike you rubes that will reward an industry for producing crap just like you did to the American auto industry in the 70's with your flaming Pintos. IF the fines were 10 times what they were, they might as well be a billion times what they are, they are not going to get paid. The record companies will go out of business due to all their legal fees before that collect 100% of any of these monetary damages.
- jtmeyer, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2@ PA42
it's not theft. the copyright owner still has the ability to sell it to me. i can still buy the album if i want to after hearing it and deciding i like it (and lots of p2p people actually do, honestly. especially with vinyl.)
you know as well as i do that the reason people like you and the RIAA insist on using words like "theft" against us is because they want to convince people that copyright infringement is wrong and has a victim, despite the fact that objective studies (not done by the RIAA or pals of the RIAA) show the opposite. (here's your citation, cuz i know you want it: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/ ... ) - PA42, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1let me clarify that Jefferson mandated that the US have copyright law in the constitution. Copyright law existed before this.
- SantafromNorth, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, the judge is not applying the Betamax case nor the legal precedents for Audio Cassette taping properly. Both of those technologies had the ability of impacting copyright holders negatively but ultimately when the arguments were held up to market reserach, they held no water as the impact was ultimately not negative to the copyright holder. Similar studies of those who file share show that they buy a higher percentage of copyrighted material through LEGAL retail channels than people who do not file share. In marketing terms, that's called exposure to the product.
So if a person wants to "try before they buy", how is this stealing? In that case, clothing stores should not allow you to either try on or buy (with the option to return) any clothing before you buy them as you have made the product "used" by a strict legal definition much like the RIAA applies to their file sharing arguments. But we all know that such measures in the clothing industry would kill it just as the RIAA seems to repeatedly speed the demise of the music industry. - Loonacy, on 12/05/2007, -2/+3But if someone "steals your heart" that's just an expression. Even so, you no longer have a heart to give to someone else (in a manner of speaking). If someone steals your idea, you are no longer able to claim to be the originator of that idea, which means you've lost something. If someone copies music the copyright holder has lost nothing.
- PA42, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2@loonacy
when you pirate music the copyright owner loses there ability to sell it to you and the overall value of there IP goes down ... so they very much do lose something.
@jtmeyer
No, I'm not getting it confused at all. My point is that any time someone brings up the word "stealing" in an IP conversation, the pirates jump on "it's not theft," as if stealing = theft. In reality, the person using the term stealing isn't alleging a legal definition they are just using the word stealing to represent that something was taken without payment at the detriment of another. If you feel this is colloquial, then that is fine, but I don't see those same people who jmp on the word "stealing" jumping on the awful crimes they accuse the RIAA of in colloquial terms.
You know as well as I do, that the reason pirates get angry at the word stealing is because they want to convince people that copyright infringement is not wrong and has no victim ... this is not the case. - inactive, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3Well stated!!!!
- Ouze, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1"Betamax precedent" - i do not think this means what you think it means
- inactive, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Butt Sex.
- bloodjunkiee, on 12/06/2007, -0/+0I see... Thats gotta really kill if we're talking thousands of movies... eek
- TopDerek, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3I can see how the actions of the RIAA and music industry constitute anticompetitive violations of antitrust laws. Not one of them are taking serious actions to find a successful and profitable solution to the p2p problem, they are using litigation as the dam which holds the pirates at bay. They are cooperating anti competitively to not find a solution the the overlying issue. Or something...................
- MikeFallopian, on 12/04/2007, -1/+0Well played.
- jtmeyer, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1you're getting colloquial misuse confused with actual definitions.
- RobN, on 12/04/2007, -4/+3"OF course collectively bring suits is an anti-competitive practice..."
How so? Anti-competitive, in this context, would mean that if you are in the music business but are not part of the cartel that's bringing the lawsuits, then you somehow are at a competitive disadvantage. The only disadvantage that is possible in this situation would be the increased costs of suing people who are stealing your music yourself, instead of joining the RIAA in their suit. That doesn't prevent you from competing with the record labels by getting your music in music stores, or on the radio, which is what the monopoly/cartel laws are built to protect against.
The argument is lame. The judge threw it out, because it was lame. Most of the other arguments are lame, too. You're stealing music, you know you're stealing music, you're just angry that people are trying to stop you from stealing music. Grow up. - denniscross09, on 12/05/2007, -1/+0Finally the legal system is figuring out that they need to stop copyright on computer systems to provide a more secure web experience for the future
- capiCrimm, on 12/04/2007, -6/+4which is also why I support police taserings and the stripping of civil rights. By not resisting you make it worse, but at least you didn't get tazed.
- bloodjunkiee, on 12/04/2007, -4/+1We all think it but this is a Public Thread....
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