What is Digg?151 Comments
- gamebittk, on 07/29/2008, -3/+69Eight songs? From 2004? The RIAA must really bored.
- mwrl, on 07/29/2008, -1/+50Where was the RIAA back in the 80's and 90's when everyone was making mix tapes? How is that different?
- exeprime, on 07/29/2008, -9/+44***** the RIAA!
- jakethemighty, on 07/29/2008, -2/+368 songs? Sweet Jesus. I hope they don't find my hard drive.
- jeremyduffy, on 07/29/2008, -2/+33"estimated its costs the industry $3.50 per download"
*****. Why anyone would buy into the crap the RIAA slings is beyond me, but here's a fact: many people who download... here it comes...wouldn't have bought the CD anyway! So the cost to the industry for downloading in most cases is $0. Simple math. - connieLingus, on 07/29/2008, -1/+31"Denise Barker is accused of file sharing eight songs on the Kazaa network in 2004."
this is obviously a very dangerous individual. her nefarious scheme was discovered by a crack team of highly-paid CS majors at RIAA headquarters, affectionately called the "hall of justice"...
< hilarity ensues > - IphtashuFitz, on 07/29/2008, -2/+31Props to Ray Beckerman, the attorney in this case and who has been railing against the RIAA for so long. Just about every time the RIAA has had to actually go to trial they've backed out. I can't wait to see how this plays out. Since the supreme court has already ruled that damages in excess of 10x the amount stolen are unconstitutional it sounds like pretty much a slam dunk that copyright infringement of a $3.50 song is worth only $35 and not the many thousands that the RIAA has routinely been extorting from people.
- kevman459, on 07/29/2008, -1/+26I hope this woman is loaded or has good lawyers, I want to see how this plays out. Up to $150,000 for sharing one song?
Let's assume for fun that downloading one song is akin to one lost album sale. In order to warrant a $150,000 fine, she would have to share that song with 10,714 people, at 14 bucks an album.
Of course if the fine was just the price of one album, it wouldn't really deter piracy, but i digress. - TheInfamousOne, on 07/29/2008, -1/+23What worries me most is Bush and co "urging" the judge to stand by the previous ammounts, that should be considered tampering with the judicial system in my mind. While I'm aware he has no "legal" grounds to do anything to the judge the fact that he wrote a letter, smacks of a payoff.
- picto, on 07/29/2008, -0/+21So I was doing a little math...
The article says there have been around 20,000 lawsuits filed, most of them settled out of court for a few thousand bucks (let's say the average is $3,500). So this means that RIAA has collected about $70 million in settlement money from consumers.
Now, call me crazy, but if you're fast approaching the $100 million mark for collecting damages for copyright infringement, then I think you, as an organization, need to seriously take a step back to evaluate your business model. It seems to me that the industry is simply sluggish to adapt to quickly changing consumer trends. An organization's business model should be open to alteration to meet these changing trends.
We've come a long way in the digital realms to give consumers different purchasing options. But the fact remains that CDs are dead. There's plenty of online options, but there's a problem with universality; everyone wants to have some sort of proprietary format in order to maximize revenue. And what happens because of this? The consumers end up getting hurt. Plain and simple, if the recording industry wants to protect their products from unauthorized redistribution, fine, but do so in a manner that DOES NOT negatively impact consumers. Come up with a system that is universally compatible and does not hinder someone's fair use. - inactive, on 07/28/2008, -4/+22Your caught so it is hard to deny, next best thing is to challenge the law and the award amount if you lose, covering all the bases there.
- Nosferotu, on 07/29/2008, -0/+18Honestly, how is the RIAA demanding $150,000 for a single song any different than that d-bag lawyer who tried to sue the dry cleaner for $10,000,000 for a lost pair of pants?
And that knob got disbarred, but the RIAA gets to keep on their crusade. I am really hoping this guy can put a stop to them. - kevman459, on 07/29/2008, -1/+18It's widespread, and they can catch you.
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -9/+26***** THE RIAA
- MikeSobe, on 07/29/2008, -0/+15Did you learn that from Prison Break?
- Rolcol, on 07/29/2008, -3/+16That's not funny anymore.
- rhbama13, on 07/29/2008, -1/+12Well RIAA does this for the artists. they are the ones who will benefit from these lawsuits..... right?
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -3/+14 Bow to your new Corporate overlords.
- paulsabo, on 07/29/2008, -2/+13She could just go to Panama... no extradition laws there.
- inactive, on 07/29/2008, -1/+12Props to Denise. It takes a hard bitch from the Bronx to tell the RIAA to go ***** themselves.
- eviltandem, on 07/29/2008, -0/+10Yeah, but I don't think the legal system allows them to collect damages for things they can imagine you might have done.
If so I want to sue them for looking at naked pictures of me. They might exist, and they might be looking at them. Therefore they should have to pay me. - rdhazrd, on 07/29/2008, -0/+10How is the bandwidth there?
- Mysk, on 07/29/2008, -1/+10They tried to stop that too, actually. I vaguely remember them trying to say that it was illegal to copy songs onto a tape and give them away, which I suppose it was, and they also tried to do something about the tapes themselves if I remember right...
It's been quite a long time, but I'm sure if you done some research you would find some info about it. Probably. It didn't make the historical splash that their modern ass-hattery is making.
edit: come to think of it, they may have been saying that it was illegal to simply make a copy of the song, which didn't take too well with people at the time and didn't last long at all. - Nightfall, on 07/29/2008, -2/+11This is something that people who have been sued should have been doing for a while now. The awards that the RIAA are asking for are outlandish. I am a published writer and photographer and I have caught people using my material in their publications and online before. I can't charge them $10,000 for use of my material. I can however charge a premium. If my work goes for $25 a photo for instance, I can charge $100 if a publication uses my material without my permission.
At most, people should be forced to pay 5x-9x the cost of the song. Caught sharing 9 songs? It should be .99 x 9 songs x 5. Not $750-$150,000 per song. - inactive, on 07/29/2008, -0/+8Shouldn't the RIAA have to PROVE how many different people she uploaded the songs too? Not just say "Well she may have uploaded it to over 10,000 people".
- JackSchittt, on 07/29/2008, -0/+8I wonder how much of that $70 mil has gone back to the artists they supposedly represent. I'm willing to bet that the number hovers somewhere around $0.
The RIAA is now a legalized mafia, and nothing more. Seriously. It's the exact same thing. It's a protection racket. And if you cross their paths, they "whack" you in the form of a crippling lawsuit that you're forced to settle if you don't want to face permanent financial ruin.
And they know that most people can't afford to fight back even if they're in the right. Read up on most of the cases where people fought back and got the RIAA to back down. They still ended up paying tens of thosuands in legal fees -- an amount that most people can't afford, which means that striking back isn't an option. So they have no choice but to settle.
The RIAA knows this, which is why they do it. Do you honestly think the RIAA would be suing their customers and forcing these extortion-level settlements if most people had the financial ability to fight back?
The RIAA isn't in the business of "protecting artists" or "defending copyright" anymore. There's no real money to be made in that. That's only a front for the real business, which is extortion. They stopped caring about defending the artists a long, long time ago. - jgzman, on 07/29/2008, -1/+9That's the point.
Besides, remember the old legal standard, saying "let the punishment fit the crime?" And the Constitution, forbidding excessive fines? - SOS84, on 07/29/2008, -0/+8Going after consumers is their business model.
- JackSchittt, on 07/29/2008, -0/+8actually, suing customers is now part of their financial business plan. It's a large portion of their annual income. Without it, they'd probably have long since gone under.
- stretch611, on 07/29/2008, -0/+8$7.92 x 9 (max allowed penalty) = $71.28.
- Enfenestrate, on 07/29/2008, -1/+9Yeah, but if she gets her way the ruling would be huge. It would basically make it not worth the RIAA's time to bother with lawsuits if they can't get more than $50 a song or so, unless they could nail someone for sharing thousands and thousands of songs.
- aspec, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7It's like prosecuting a serial killer. Even if they confess that killing 40 people, if you only have 5 bodies, you can only prosecute what you can prove. And in most cases, they do a piss poor job of that.
- Icetype, on 07/29/2008, -1/+8At the very worst she should owe 8x $.99 (itunes) = $7.92
- munkyxtc, on 07/29/2008, -1/+8I agree; the 150k per track is excessive. I think they are using itunes pricing structure to argue the true "cost" of an individual song. I think they have a valid point since I can get a song for $.99 why would the same track when being shared via Kazaa [snicker] or another other protocol cost the infringer 150,000x that amount?
Obviously I'm not taking into acct the money apple makes on the markup but you get the idea. Of course the RIAA can't let this case be won as I'm sure many people who are scared of potentially big penalties for sharing would take the risk when the new penalty would only be a few hundred. - wibambau, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7404 Vaseline not found.
- eviltandem, on 07/29/2008, -2/+8Technically converting that CD to an mp3 was a lossy process. So mp3's should all be legit. Add something to a p2p app that randomly changes 1-bit somewhere, and you have quality loss.
I somehow doubt that means they would be ok with it. This is just rationalizing. It's just one in a long line of excuses they have made up to try to validate what they want to do for purely financial reasons. - SOS84, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6Well, if she can find an honest judge (good luck), this case, like most that have been brought against the RIAA will be a slam dunk. Too bad there is a shortage of honest judges right now. It is sad when the rights of Americans have been preempted by the rights (greed) or corporations that are not even citizens.
- f4nt0m4s, on 07/29/2008, -1/+7The damage fees are so high for digital media because it is so easy to copy the media and so many people can/are doing it. I'm not saying that it is right or fair or legal - it is not, it is downright extortion - but if the fee for downloading a song was a few dollars then the RIAA would never strike fear into the many people that use the Internet.
But therein lies the problem; the RIAA shouldn't be striking fear into the heart of its loyal customers. How ***** up of a business model is that? Their antiquated ideas will catch up to them, someone will eventually win on legal grounds and prove that damages of 150,000 per song is unfair and unjust. In fact, I feel that we are reaching a turning point where enough people are weighing in their legal and Constitutional rights, eventually we will reach a breaking point where the RIAA suing customers is no longer profitable for them.
At that point, I assume the RIAA will try to make deals with the government that requires ISPs to disconnect users pirating music indefinitely.
But hey, if I stole a CD from Best Buy with 10 songs on it I wouldn't get charged 10 x 150,000.
So why would I online? Extortion at its finest. - BobSutan, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6So she's challenging the law in court? Hope they get to explain jury nullification to those deciding the trial, otherwise she's gonna get shafted.
- Cherubim, on 07/29/2008, -2/+8The RIAA is run by a bunch of old stinking farts that will not adapt to the digital environment. I hope they all die of cancer and rot in hell.
- connieLingus, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6damn that's complicated...just make sure that if you hear an artist you like, buy some ***** from them.
- shredswithpiks, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6Keep in mind that piracy is not stealing, even though the RIAA/MPAA commercials say it is. When it gets to court, piracy is a whole different game and the damages awarded rules may not work the same...
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5That was a d-bag JUDGE, not a d-bag lawyer who sued over his precious pair of pants...
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5The challenge actually make sense if you consider it, and that's exactly how the whole US legal system works. One purpose of the Supreme Court is to hear challenges to existing laws, and change those laws if it deems appropriate. The current copyright law allows for $750 to $150,000 per song, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that fines in excess of 10x the amount stolen or infringed upon is unconstitutional. So there needs to be a resolution to these two disparate legal decisions. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court then the Court is likely to rely on their existing decision regarding 10x fines and reject the fines outlined in the copyright law. The copyright law & the fines it imposes were drafted long before the internet, P2P, file sharing, etc. They were targeted towards big companies who willfully make copies of books, movies, etc. and resell them for big profits. The fines weren't meant to target individuals. The law needs to be rewritten for modern times, and this is one way it's been done in the USA since the country was founded.
- UnleashX, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5OMG someone calling out the RIAA for what they really are .. extorting thugs?!?! ABOUT TIME!
- morepowerr, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5"The judge in the Thomas case is considering ordering a new trial. He's concerned that he erred when he instructed jurors in October that the "making available" argument amounted to unauthorized distribution."
That right there amounts to you can not share,trade,lend or rent a CD,DVD,Game,Movie or any other form of media including books and cave drawings. To anyone with out the written consent of every one that had any thing to do with the making of it.
For god sake Just pass the damn law saying. No one can be charged more then $3.50 for each movie and game and no more then .99 cents per song that is downloaded. And get all this BS over with.
Max limit $3.50 and .99 problem salved. - Testiculese, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5right?
- Swordman554, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6What's this? A a person with SANE sense of copyright payment?! Not in MY America!
- Nosferotu, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5Surprise, the Bush administration is on big business' payroll!
Did I just blow your mind? - morepowerr, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5CD are almost not even a viable medium to store music and movies on. It like forcing people to keep 8-tack in there car. Because the sound was only released on 8-track.
The real problem is the copyright. No one needs something copyrighted for 200 years after they die. We should just have the copyright law re-written. So that no one group can hold a copyright on any media. Books,Games,Movies,TV show & Music for more then 10 years max. -
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is