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

Nicholasp27 · #1 10-04-2007, 07:56 PM

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.

kipin · #2 10-04-2007, 08:01 PM

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.

CrazyEyez · #3 10-04-2007, 08:03 PM

[ 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.

tuq · #4 10-04-2007, 08:02 PM

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.

bobman0330 · #5 10-04-2007, 08:26 PM

[ 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.

tuq · #6 10-04-2007, 08:30 PM

[ 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.

mmbt0ne · #7 10-04-2007, 08:31 PM

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!

Bedreviter · #8 10-04-2007, 08:04 PM

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?

Freakin · #9 10-04-2007, 08:09 PM

[ 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.

daveT · #10 10-04-2007, 08:19 PM

[ 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.