Government Sides With RIAA in Thomas Case

[griffed88]

[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]By the way, stealing is one of the worst crimes in existence in the USA and if the government had the money they would probably be giving life in prison to every single person who has lost a lawsuit with the RIAA.This is absolutely ludicrous![/citation]

You're joking right?

 

[Guest]

For the frigging retards that don't know shit, she was convicted with "only" 24 songs, but she had over 3 thousand ones and was sharing.

Screw her and her stupidity, she deserves, tried to be smart...should have paid the 4k fine at the beginning, it was around a dollar per song...but she decided to lie, and lie..and lie.

And there are the retarded supporters who couldn't know any better..supporting the poor mamma that got the 1.92 mil fine for just 24 songs. Oh poor her...

She had many chances, she was pretty much illegal (oh wait, was she testing before buying those 3000 songs? Or maybe she owned those 300 cds and that's why she refused to pay...oh wait, what's the retarded excuse for that?

 

[Hanin33]

gotta_hate_brainless_pirates: at least try to sound some wot coherent in your rant... you don't give yourself and your side any credibility coming off like a protester at an abortion rally... stop making it seem like the people had any say in the laws that convicted this person because as you can see, the majority do not share the views of the lawmakers or yourself.

 

[-unknown-]

Why is it so difficult for people to discuss copyright infringement with some respect? It always resorts to name calling and humiliation tactics.

Well, here's my attempt. I understand many feel that copyright infringement is going unnoticed or that people have no regard for the law. Let me assure you that that is not the case.

The reason some people tend to act out so boldly against copyrights is because they disagree with the way the law is applied. Its similar to how people feel about gay marriage or abortion. They don't fight for it because they're just a bunch of rebellious people that want to create a stink, its because they don't agree with how the system is set-up to date, in other words, they want to push for change.

Whether you are for against the current copyright laws, for the sake of community, could you please express yourself without prejudice to those who may disagree, I guarantee it will make for far more engaging conversations.

 

[brendano257]

The ruling is honestly outrageous. A good ruling would be a fine of something like $10,000. It's A😛ayable and B: covers the cost completely. Just think Lets say instead of 24, it was 25 songs (for math's sake) so, $10,000 makes that $400 a song, that would SURELY cover 1:your download and 2:the people you seeded/uploaded to. You can't possible assume that she uploaded to over 399 people. She should be fined, and required to have certain stipulations of what she can have on her computer ie, no torrent/P2P access. Sort of a probation as stated above.

 

[Guest]

Hanin33, the majority of who, the pirates?

Most reasonable people would agree she had it coming, just look at the history.
She had thousands of musics, was sharing...and LIED about how they got there etc, took RIAA and everyone for granted as if they were easy-to-fool retards.

Then they offer a 4k settle, which is cheap considering how much she downloaded and surely uploaded and their time on:

#1 Finding her
#2 Paying people to negotiate with her

She still denied what she did, so what should happen?
Do you think the judge would still order her to pay only 4k after she wastes everyone's time AND with deceptive acts?

She lost.
But it wasn't enough...so she lost again.

Now she wasted everyone's time, somebody gotta pay for that and sure as hell it isn't 4k only (altough not 2 millions either).

I don't think that going AGAINST the law is a nice way of enforcing the opinion or asking for changes in legislation.

That's called voting, not pirating until things change.

Nobody here has the right to "give them a lesson" or do it's own justice, you gotta rely on the old system, and if you're not happy, simply don't buy, BUT DON'T DOWNLOAD EITHER.

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]pirates_still_stink[/nom]Nobody here has the right to "give them a lesson" or do it's own justice, you gotta rely on the old system, and if you're not happy, simply don't buy, BUT DON'T DOWNLOAD EITHER.[/citation]
While I agree that there are more productive approaches to changing the current entertainment industry pricing model, I would advise people not to think that a simple boycott is enough to instill change. The excuse of "piracy" is far too convenient for it not to be used by a corporation having a hard time financially.

I have heard of countless individuals who have made made it a point to not purchase any records of artists who are associated with the RIAA and yet have you ever heard the RIAA make any statement addressing those individuals or their statement? Its easier to blame piracy than to acknowledge low demand, poor execution, or uneconomical pricing for any given product. In the end, piracy will continually be used as an excuse by the industry (specifically copyright holders) wherever it requires an explanation for poor performance.

Am I condoning downloading? No, I just want to advise those who aren't happy with the current industry model to become more engaged in their fight/protest.

I, for one, find it insulting that companies are asking individuals to pay more for digitally distributed content than that which is physically distributed. The whole reason P2P downloading (or even just general downloading) became popular was because it was economical. People could share thousands of songs without paying for much else than their internet connection. Now you have the option to rent movies from your cable company yet its more expensive than going to the B&M equivalent, you can buy games online for PS3/X360 for the same price as the physical copy, download albums for a higher price than their physical equivalent. Where are the cost savings?

 

[-unknown-]

For those in Canada, current copyright law is being looked at. I implore any interested to become involved on this issue. Please see;

http://www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html

and

http://www.speakoutoncopyright.ca/

 

[-unknown-]

Please excuse the prior post, proper links below.

http/www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html
http://www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html

http/www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html
http://www.speakoutoncopyright.ca/

 

[tayb]

The problem with this is that a company is performing police work by way of suing individuals. Pirating files is stealing and I believe we have laws in place already for theft. If the RIAA believes it has evidence of someone downloading files illegally they need to contact the police and a CRIMINAL TRIAL needs to take place. 24 songs would be a misdemeanor in most states so fine the person $500 and give them 30 hours of community service. We need to let the police go after criminals, not the Recording Industry Association of America. We haven't privatized police work.

 

[Hanin33]

pirates_still_stink: if you go by the numbers the RIAA and MPAA quote, then sure, the pirates are the majority of the consumers of 'copyright' material. why did you change the focus of your argument to her actions after she was caught and convicted? do you even know that more than 50% of all defendants claim innocent for all crimes? not saying it's the right thing to do but is hardly out of the norm, so your argument that that justified the over the top final ruling is invalid. even death row inmates are given the chance to appeal further than this... and yet they aren't 'killed' any faster or brutally because they appealed several times...

so what else have you got, troll?

 

[mdillenbeck]

First, when discussing this case we need to keep it within the parameters of the suit. Whether 3000 songs were downloaded or not is irrelevant to the case as they are only attempting to prosecute for 24 songs - and thus the judgment is based on 24 songs.

Second, when discussing how many times she has uploaded the song perhaps we can discuss how many of those recipients of the song have already settled out-of-court with the RIAA (or how many they intend to go after). After all, if this judgment includes the cost of her distributing it to others, then the recipients shouldn't also be liable to cover their loss a second time.

Third, is this judgment cruel and unusual punishment? Is it fair and reasonable? $1.92 million for 24 songs come out to $80,000 US per song. I find that excessive when the RIAA intents to prosecute all recipients.

Fourth, is this judgment to be used to extort the average citizen. ("We just got $1.92 million for 24 songs - so what do you say to a $3000 out of court settlement.") Understand there has been some question on the level of evidence the RIAA has when filing blanket settlements to university students, and some question of whether the RIAA is using its vast legal resources to make it too costly for an individual to defend themselves in court. ("Settle for $3,000 out of court - which will be a lot less than what you'll spend on lawyers and court fees fighting us.")

Finally, is there a conflict of interest with the government and the RIAA? For example, do congressional officials who have had campaign money and incentives/stocks in the music industry have an interest in the RIAA having favorable laws passed at the expense of a individuals who are often branded as "thieves and criminals"? Does the DOJ have an interest in upholding the existing laws to improve their conviction record rates?

=========================================

However, if I am to point a finger of blame at anyone, it is to be pointed at us. We have let corporations gain the same personhood and rights as a human being. We have chosen not to actively participate in the political systems available to us.

George Orwell only had it half right in 1984 - as with land ownership, a key component to controlling information is to create a system of ownership rights. Once one "owns" an idea, phrase, or concept, one can make it a crime to use that idea, phrase, or concept without your permission. Congress said life could not be patented, but then allowed individual genes to be patented - so how do you own a bee's genetic makeup? Patent all its genes.

If you don't agree with the way the laws are going, especially with intellectual property and copyrights? Don't pirate - get active. Start an organization to change the laws or create a business for music artist run the way you think it should be done. Worst case - run for office if you really need to. However, if you just pirate and do nothing else, then realize your silence is the same as abdicating your rights.

 

[kentlowt]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]The problem with this is that a company is performing police work by way of suing individuals. Pirating files is stealing and I believe we have laws in place already for theft. If the RIAA believes it has evidence of someone downloading files illegally they need to contact the police and a CRIMINAL TRIAL needs to take place. 24 songs would be a misdemeanor in most states so fine the person $500 and give them 30 hours of community service. We need to let the police go after criminals, not the Recording Industry Association of America. We haven't privatized police work.[/citation]
So you as a citizen should not be able to report someone breaking into your house and stealing your stuff? While agree the fine is very harsh. The RIAA has every right to turn in law breakers and present their case. It is up to the court to decide their guilt or inocence so if your mad at anyone get mad at the jury because they are the ones that decide guilt not the RIAA or the DOJ they are merely presenters of the facts.

I think she had a horrible lawyer. The lawyer should have settled the case at the beginning and not let his(or her) client be exposed to that kind of punishment unless she was ignoring the advice of council then she would be just plain dumb for doing so.

 

[mikeynavy1976]

I agree with many of the posts...this is an exhorbitant amount for a person to pay, especially in this case. While RIAA is definitely on my black list now, our justice system has been for a while too. Many crimes/breakages of the law result in excessive monetary awards, even when they, themselves, have NOTHING to do with money. A slip in a restaurant or store should result in an apology, and maybe medical bills being paid, if there were any. This "emotional distress" BS needs to stop and stop now. Likewise, with organizations and businesses like RIAA, bleeding heart liberal groups, and lawyer-led groups, hurting everyone with their ridiculous claims. Pharmaceutical companies suck, but I am almost certain, that prices would be a lot lower if many of the lawsuits involved weren't so ridiculous...which passes the price on to us. As for people commenting on Obama fixing this...you're in dreamland. Democrats and Republicans are more in common than you think. They're all politicians (and many lawyers) and care only about themselves, no matter what they say. Congress is ruled by the Democrats, who were "stereotyped" as being for the working class. This is just one example that disproves that. I think the President, Congress, and judges should be the result of a popular vote from now on. Hold them accountable and don't let them get by because of political, corporate, and special interest backing! They should have OUR backing!

 

[gorehound]

I really do think that it is high time that we all band together and not buy any music from any labels/artists who have anything to do with the asshole RIAA.This is a great example to show all of you just where we are going and it is not a good thing at all.
These corporations have ripped us off and ripped off the artists who were stupid enough to sign with them and little by little they want to own us and our goverments.
Well welcome to corporate world !!!!
I REFUSE TO BUY ANY LEGAL NEW MUSIC/VIDEO any longer.If I want a movie or a cd bad enough I will find it used never new again.If enough folks do this instead of complaining about stuff like this post we will hurt these assholes right in the place they don't want to feel pain and that is their fat greedy wallet.

 

[nachowarrior]

what most of you forget is that the US government is in place to serve the citizens of the united states. not the few elite people that run companies. Given the sheer number of file sharers the law should favor the citizens.
On another point, these companies are claiming "losses" that go above and beyond what any company has ever made in profit on the content their lawsuits are covering. Pointing directly to the fact that they are just twisting arms and are flat out greedy. If you forget, for those of you that ARE religious, greed is a sin.

Furthermore if these companies had an acceptable business structure they would not suffer, their lack of innovation and flexibility is their own fault. Economy be damned there ARE several companies that are succeeding because they mold their companies to what the consumer demands. And that is, after all, how democracy and freedom works, not "hey big brother (the government) come bail me out and help me decimate the free will of the PEOPLE THAT MAKE MY PAYCHECK"

I feel sorry if nobody can see things from my point of view. BTW, I was one of the few that BOUGHT Iron Lore's Titan Quest, and expansion. So say what you will, call me a pirate, but the simple fact of the matter is, neither pirating nor ridiculous legislation/lawsuits is the way to solve the problems of either side of the debate. Organizations such as the riaa, and the mpaa need to focus on making their services more attractive. Netflix being a prime example of a company that flourishes in the face of a downtrodden economy.

Now to touch on the sheer extrapolation of such things.
Steal a CD from your local store, that store no longer has said item to sell. Production value is lost, etc etc. 15-22 dollars worth of damage done. Download a song electronically, no production value, nobody has lost any tangible object, so technically the company has not lost anything. NOW, if you can PROVE that the person in question would have paid for said product rather than downloading it, you have a case. But you cannot. 1.92 million dollars is likely in excess of what that company would have EVER made on that particular set of songs no matter if it were on the top 100 for the next 50 years. The sales numbers for top sellers are extrapolated to come right down to retail sales, just like movies. The only people that should be compensated IF ANY are those that created the content to begin with, and for their 10cents/copy, shared even 2000 times only comes out to 200 bucks. Not to mention the fact that these lawsuits only benefit the record company, NOT the artists in any way, shape, or form. Take THAT to the bank. I'll go ahead and continue to pay for concert tickets and support artists where they actually see revenue.

 

[demonhorde665]

this is fucking bull shit , beyound that i am tired of comenting on this appreantly people's rights dont mean shit any more , if i was her i'd right a "Go FUCK YOUR SELF" note to the RIAA , they wouldnt see one red sent from me , pfft , fuckign assholes wanting 1.92 mill over her downloading X number of songs , TOTAL bull shit not like she resold them and made that much off them. this country is dgoing down the shitter thanks to big buisness and no one gives a shit any more

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]gorehound[/nom]I really do think that it is high time that we all band together and not buy any music from any labels/artists who have anything to do with the asshole RIAA.This is a great example to show all of you just where we are going and it is not a good thing at all.These corporations have ripped us off and ripped off the artists who were stupid enough to sign with them and little by little they want to own us and our goverments.Well welcome to corporate world !!!!I REFUSE TO BUY ANY LEGAL NEW MUSIC/VIDEO any longer.If I want a movie or a cd bad enough I will find it used never new again.If enough folks do this instead of complaining about stuff like this post we will hurt these assholes right in the place they don't want to feel pain and that is their fat greedy wallet.[/citation]


what do you eman they want to own the goverment ? they already ARE the goverment if you can name one president in that last 20 years that didnt have ties to some big buisness and i'll shit you out a golden brick

 

[Guest]

This is about the flaw in the justice system, not about the rights and wrongs of software piracy.

The fine is not only grossly injust, it's also likely to create a martyr out of the defendant as well as destroy her life on a personal level.

When faced with a fine you can't possibly pay of during several lifetimes your options are limited, if personal bankruptcy doesn't solve it I wouldn't be surprised to see someone in that situation progress to violent crime.

Putting people in a position where they have nothing to lose is incredibly stupid.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

[citation][nom]kyeana[/nom]And in all your ignorance, do you also think that 1.92 Million Dollars is a fair price for 24 songs?[/citation]

For the record, yes. After making the songs available to millions of people and wasting the court's time with such a ridiculous defense for something that is clearly in violation of the law, it is more than justified.