Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

Jury just awarded the RIAA $220k for 24 songs that a lady had simply shared on [censored]. They didn't show that she had gotten the songs illegally. In fact, I'm pretty sure she had purchased the 24 tracks. But her simply having [censored] installed and open to sharing those 24 tracks cost her $220k

With the internet and digital delivery, how much do we really need the RIAA now anyway? 16 year old Soulja Boy got famous by putting his tracks online, only getting a record deal after the fact. Radiohead is doing their test of 'pay what you want.' Hopefully the RIAA will be obsolete soon, as they refuse to change their business model and adapt to current times.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

The RIAA is playing with fire with all the lawsuits they are pushing through the courts.

Precedent is being set in cases where they havn't done their research and fail to prove that what they claim actually happened. (Judges have thrown cases out, and demanded the RIAA pay the defendants defense fees)

It will bite them in the ass.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

Hoo boy, this thread could get unwieldy.

The RIAA is dumb; the genie is out of the bottle. I've continued to download songs for free well after Napster and other [censored] sites were shut down, as I'm sure many other non-stupid people have done. However, the RIAA's scare tactics and policies may work with casual internet users much like the UIEGA scared off plenty of casual poker players.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
The RIAA is playing with fire with all the lawsuits they are pushing through the courts.

Precedent is being set in cases where they havn't done their research and fail to prove that what they claim actually happened. (Judges have thrown cases out, and demanded the RIAA pay the defendants defense fees)

It will bite them in the ass.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case referenced in the OP, they did not prove she even had file sharing software installed on her computer, much less prove she was the one sharing the music. And they still won.

At one point in the trial, a witness(lawyer?) for the RIAA proclaimed that if someone rips a cd to their hard drive, they are guilty of stealing. [censored] insanity.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

Im pretty sure there are lots of songs that are worth way way more than 9250$. Wonder how much money Beatles "Yesterday" is worth, or what about Bing Crosbys "White Christmas"?

This woman gave away stuff she didnt have the rights to. Are you against copyrights and patents?

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure there are lots of songs that are worth way way more than 9250$. Wonder how much money Beatles "Yesterday" is worth, or what about Bing Crosbys "White Christmas"?

This woman gave away stuff she didnt have the rights to. Are you against copyrights and patents?

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't prove she did this at all. Are you against due process?

*edit* obviously due process isn't technically the correct term her, but you get the point.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you against copyrights and patents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet Jesus don't answer this question.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

IMO the biggest thing that contributes to illegal downloading/sharing songs, movies, tv shows is their lack of availability in a large easily accessible pay sight.

It makes absolutely no difference to me whether I pay 99 cents for a song or a $1.99 for a tv episode or whether I dowload them for free. If itunes had all the songs I want, all the TV shows I want, and all the movies I want, I'd be glad to pay the nominal fee just for speed and ease of operation.

If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, they should direct their resources toward making everything available online for download at a reasonably low price.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

If you are against copyrights and patents, you are against Jesus.

Abraham Lincoln once said that if you are a digital pirate, I will attack you with the north.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the biggest thing that contributes to illegal downloading/sharing songs, movies, tv shows is their lack of availability in a large easily accessible pay sight.

It makes absolutely no difference to me whether I pay 99 cents for a song or a $1.99 for a tv episode or whether I dowload them for free. If itunes had all the songs I want, all the TV shows I want, and all the movies I want, I'd be glad to pay the nominal fee just for speed and ease of operation.

If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, they should direct their resources toward making everything available online for download at a reasonably low price.

[/ QUOTE ]

As said earlier, the RIAA is unwilling or unable to adapt to the current times. They've had a good thing going for a long time and are trying to hold onto it instead of adapting.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jury just awarded the RIAA $220k for 24 songs that a lady had simply shared on [censored]. They didn't show that she had gotten the songs illegally. In fact, I'm pretty sure she had purchased the 24 tracks.

[/ QUOTE ]Doesn't matter. The copyright law prevents unauthorized *distribution*. That's what she was accused of doing--distributing.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure there are lots of songs that are worth way way more than 9250$. Wonder how much money Beatles "Yesterday" is worth, or what about Bing Crosbys "White Christmas"?

This woman gave away stuff she didnt have the rights to. Are you against copyrights and patents?

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't prove she did this at all. Are you against due process?

*edit* obviously due process isn't technically the correct term her, but you get the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I have this right?

She copied a bunch of songs and gave them away for free, correct?

Is there a link to a court summary to this case? I am interested because I am a weirdo I and I enjoy copyright law.

For my general opinion: See my loc., which, incidentally is why I put it there. I am a member of ASCAP and a published writer.

Many court cases turn out strange for sure. If this is a far-fetched as I am understanding, this case will surely see the higher courts.

EDIT: It would be strange because they had "no proof." I don't believe that she was sophisticated as to erase her HD every week.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

Yeah, and if you kill a hooker, same thing. Jail. WTF?

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hoo boy, this thread could get unwieldy.

The RIAA is dumb; the genie is out of the bottle. I've continued to download songs for free well after Napster and other [censored] sites were shut down, as I'm sure many other non-stupid people have done. However, the RIAA's scare tactics and policies may work with casual internet users much like the UIEGA scared off plenty of casual poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I used to DL but I quit because I felt guilty/because iTunes is decent.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

This case was RE-[censored]-TARDED.

The woman couldn't afford an expert. Her lawyer HAD TO ASK THE RIAA LAWYERS HOW TO USE HIS OWN LASER POINTER. He has no clue how explain any of the evidence and basically said "I don't know, maybe it was those damn teenage hackers outside her window!!"


Eventually someone will come along with the money to present a proper case and this RIAA witchhunt will stop. They are within their rights to protect their IP but the way they are going about it is ridiculous.

Luckily this case was so bad that it won't set any kind of precedent in terms of giving approval to the RIAA's techniques of suing and threatening everything that moves.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it must be a dictatorship when you are not free to give away what isnt yours.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hoo boy, this thread could get unwieldy.

The RIAA is dumb; the genie is out of the bottle. I've continued to download songs for free well after Napster and other [censored] sites were shut down, as I'm sure many other non-stupid people have done. However, the RIAA's scare tactics and policies may work with casual internet users much like the UIEGA scared off plenty of casual poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I used to DL but I quit because I felt guilty/because iTunes is decent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just don't like iTunes. Maybe because I'm annoyed that when I download Quicktime for a PC they force all of that onto me and try to make it the default for all sorts of file types. So I've stuck to things that would get censored here and just use Windows Explorer to sort through my stuff.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, yeah, punishing people for breaking laws, [censored] fascists.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it must be a dictatorship when you are not free to give away what isnt yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that the RIAA did not prove she did anything you are assuming she did? Do you understand what 'innocent until proven guilty' means?

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

Amazon will now let you dl un-DRMed mp3s that work on any and all players. If you buy music online, you should buy from them. It's only 89c per too, so you save a dime each time!

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it must be a dictatorship when you are not free to give away what isnt yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that the RIAA did not prove she did anything you are assuming she did? Do you understand what 'innocent until proven guilty' means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that she shouldn't have to pay the judgement because they didn't prove she did it? I don't get what you're saying here, they DID find her guilty.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

To the standard of proof required for civil cases, it's pretty clear that the RIAA did, in fact, prove that she was liable for copyright violation. Do you understand how the law works in civil cases?

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure there are lots of songs that are worth way way more than 9250$. Wonder how much money Beatles "Yesterday" is worth, or what about Bing Crosbys "White Christmas"?

This woman gave away stuff she didnt have the rights to. Are you against copyrights and patents?

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't prove she did this at all. Are you against due process?

*edit* obviously due process isn't technically the correct term her, but you get the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I responded to OP who said she had done it, and ridiculed how the songs were valued at 9250$ each.

To answer your question; No, I am not against due process. My answer was in response to whether this sentence can be justificed for someone who is guilty of doing what she supposedly have done.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

What greedy bastards people in the music industry are. I mean, they allowed there songs to be sold individually for 99 cents, when a "single" disk used to cost $4. Now they went so far as to allow "subscription services" that you can pay $10 a month for all the music you can handle.

And Radiohead doesn't allow all of their songs on these music services. In fact, it took them a long time to come around to it, and then they took most of their stuff off. So much for waving the banner. I just mention this because they are apparently gods for allowing "naming your own price."

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

this thread is going to be LOL with all the "im not a lawyer but i play one on the innuh-nets"

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
To the standard of proof required for civil cases, it's pretty clear that the RIAA did, in fact, prove that she was liable for copyright violation. Do you understand how the law works in civil cases?

[/ QUOTE ]
People can get convicted of stuff and we are allowed to say the jury was stupid and made the wrong decision, aren't we?

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

What does innocent until proven guilty have to do with anything though?

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
this thread is going to be LOL with all the "im not a lawyer but i play one on the innuh-nets"

[/ QUOTE ]
Either RJ is going to post in this thread with a new account (if he hasn't already), or he is chomping at the bit because he can't post in this thread because he's IP banned. Maybe he'll PM his posts to kipin.

t0ne, interesting. The file type was another issue I had with iTunes. I would come over from the dark side at $1 per MP3, but the reality is I very rarely download music and have been lazy about looking into it.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure there are lots of songs that are worth way way more than 9250$. Wonder how much money Beatles "Yesterday" is worth, or what about Bing Crosbys "White Christmas"?

This woman gave away stuff she didnt have the rights to. Are you against copyrights and patents?

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't prove she did this at all. Are you against due process?

*edit* obviously due process isn't technically the correct term her, but you get the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I responded to OP who said she had done it, and ridiculed how the songs were valued at 9250$ each.

To answer your question; No, I am not against due process. My answer was in response to whether this sentence can be justificed for someone who is guilty of doing what she supposedly have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I agree with you that the sentence for distributing the songs is fair. Someone who is illegally distributing someone else's property has not place to complain if they get caught.

I was arguing for this specific case where the woman was at a clear disadvantage financially and could not prove that she DIDN'T do it.

If she did do it then she can't complain about the punishment. It may seem steep to us, but I'm sure the losses the RIAA have sustained over the last 10 years seems steep to them....

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it must be a dictatorship when you are not free to give away what isnt yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that the RIAA did not prove she did anything you are assuming she did? Do you understand what 'innocent until proven guilty' means?

[/ QUOTE ]

My response was made under the assumption that a fair trial had been held and tht she was found guilty of committing those crimes. I thought this thread was about how the jury made her pay 9250$ for each song, and maybe also the understanding of how violators of the laws regarding copyrights can be sentenced.

Yeah, Im fully aware of the meaning of "innocent until guilty", but as this was not part of why OP reacted against the jury or the RIAA.

Im fairly sure you will have a hard time finding anyone who will say that they dont think that everyone deserve a fair trial. If this woman is innocent then I say the sentence is certainly unfair, but my statements in this case was made under the assumption that she had a fair trial and that the rights to distribute a song can be worth way more than 9250, something that OP seemed to find dumb.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

IANAL, but here is my opinion on the law.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
What does innocent until proven guilty have to do with anything though?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, that was stupid for me to say. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
In fact I should shut up because I know far less about this case than I'm acting like.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was arguing for this specific case where the woman was at a clear disadvantage financially and could not prove that she DIDN'T do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im in favor of justice and equal treatment as much as I am in favor of ice cream and christmas, so of course I think she deserves a free trial. As stated earlier, I thought the problem was the sentence given, not the question of guilt.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

Bed,

I agree. I think that from what I've read, it looks like this person made a poor decision about making a stand. I'd probably be obligated to find the person liable if I was on that jury. However, I think the damages are too large. I think that for downloads, the minimum fine by law is $750/file, and this is well beyond that.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

I hate to be a nit, but the fact that the words guilt, innocence, sentence, etc. are in this thread about a civil lawsuit is kinda tilting me.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

"A computer security firm hired by the industry detected the songs remotely in a shared folder on Thomas' hard drive, a folder Thomas said wasn't hers."
Bloomberg story on this case

As I understand it it seems like they agree that she had the files on her computer, and her computer was in fact used to share them. Her response is that the folder wasnt hers, even though it was on her harddrive.

She should be responsible for whats on her computer, even if she claims that that specific folder did not belong to her.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

Here's an actual article about the verdict.

The closing argument by the defense basically said that the defendant wasn't the person who downloaded the songs--even though it was her IP address and a user name she used on a bunch of other sites. Duh.

Also, this is a civil trial, which means:

1. Defendant was found "liable," not "guilty." She's not going to jail.
2. The burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt," and "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply.

The jury held that RIAA proved the defendant downloaded and distributed the songs on [censored], which is clearly illegal.

Now, to the OP and others: what is the complaint here, other than "music should be free" or some other silliness?

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be a nit, but the fact that the words guilt, innocence, sentence, etc. are in this thread about a civil lawsuit is kinda tilting me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have used all those words in this thread I think. As english is not my 1st language I sometimes have a problem finding the accurate terms, and I suppose there are other terms more appropiate in this case. I am just trying to make myself understood, but I understand that I might use the wrong terms in lack of more appropiate terms.

Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
 

funny i always thought pepper WAS pittm