Damages of $1.9 million could backfire on music industry

[Barefootsies]

Interesting read.

LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - The recording industry secured a resounding victory last week when a Minneapolis jury awarded the four major labels $1.92 million in damages after unanimously finding that a 32-year-old mother had willfully infringed on their copyrights by downloading and sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.

But a question arose after the verdict about whether the sheer size of the damages could lead to a backlash against an industry that is already portrayed in some quarters as overreaching. Sony BMG attorney Wade Leak, who testified at the trial, said he was "shocked" by the damages award.

No one expects that the labels will collect the entire amount from Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old Brainerd, Minn., mother of four who testified during the retrial that her ex-boyfriend or sons, then 8 and 10, were most likely responsible for downloading and distributing the songs. Thomas-Rasset lost her previous trial in 2007 and was ordered to pay $222,000, only to achieve a now-pyrrhic victory when the court tossed the verdict because of a faulty jury instruction.

Even for law-abiding citizens who believe that labels have every right to protect their copyrights, a verdict of almost $2 million could be hard to swallow. Indeed, the Recording Industry Assn. of America said it was willing to reach a settlement with Thomas-Rasset, as it had been all along.

The Copyright Act provides for awards of statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, in the case of willful infringement. A number of copyright scholars on the "copyleft," led by Harvard Law School's Charles Nesson, have argued that such damages awards for personal use of file-sharing networks are excessive. Though no court has yet adopted that theory, the Thomas-Rasset verdict provides a very human face to the argument, which she will likely pursue on appeal if the case isn't settled.

While the recording industry claims strong support in Congress, with powerful champions including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and his Senate counterpart Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Minneapolis verdict could well lead to a legislative move to reduce the damages awards available against individual infringers like Thomas-Rasset.

Thomas-Rasset's attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was "very surprised" by the size of the verdict and signaled a willingness to talk about a possible settlement with the labels. But Camara also listed a number of potential issues to appeal should the parties be unable to resolve the case, including a challenge to the labels' ownership of the copyrights at issue based on the argument that they were improperly classified as "works made for hire" in contravention of the Copyright Act of 1976.

(Ben Sheffner is a copyright attorney who blogs at http://www,copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com. Previously, while employed at 20th Century Fox, he worked on an amicus curiae brief in this case for the Motion Picture Assn. of America.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/music...55K07E20090621

[gideongallery]

Thomas-Rasset's attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was "very surprised" by the size of the verdict and signaled a willingness to talk about a possible settlement with the labels. But Camara also listed a number of potential issues to appeal should the parties be unable to resolve the case, including a challenge to the labels' ownership of the copyrights at issue based on the argument that they were improperly classified as "works made for hire" in contravention of the Copyright Act of 1976.

for years the record companies have been basically fronting the money for an album to the artist and taking back all that money from the 10% of the royalties that artist gets.

Not exactly the employee/employer relationship that assigns the copyright to the employer.
By default the copyright should be retained by the artist.

If that arguement wins, the record companies will lose their catalog rights, and the artist will get them back.

I hate to say it but i think this lawsuit would be the best thing that could happen for the artist.

of course how many artist would publically say i support sueing my fans after seeing what kind of backlash happens when you do that (see metalica)

[kmanrox]

i wonder if the CP i d/l all day is copyrighted... hrmmm

[sortie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

of course how many artist would publically say i support sueing my fans after seeing what kind of backlash happens when you do that (see metalica)

How many stores worry about backlash when they arrest their cutomers for shoplifting?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

for years the record companies have been basically fronting the money for an album to the artist and taking back all that money from the 10% of the royalties that artist gets.

Not exactly the employee/employer relationship that assigns the copyright to the employer.
By default the copyright should be retained by the artist.

If that arguement wins, the record companies will lose their catalog rights, and the artist will get them back.

Considering how hard it is even today for someone to get big without the money and expertise a label can give an artist, I'm not so sure that is a good thing for the artists. Not 99.99% of them. Having your copyrights as an artist doesn't mean squat if your songs are never heard.

By the way the smart artists get a writing credit so they do get copyright and larger royalties.

I'm all for companies and artist having copyright protection, BUT copyright was never rmeant to last for 95 years or 70 years after someon dies. The old way of 56 years max was more than enough time to make money from something. Eventually there will be no such thing call "public domain" except for stuff made before 1923. If someone or some company made a song/movie/tv show in 1952 and still hasn't made any money, too bad. It should be public domain. Some has yet to epxlain to me why someon's great grandkids should be getting paid for what their ancestor did. They need to have REAL jobs.

[seeandsee]

fuckers want her soul

[MRock]

The tide is slowly turning. I like the message it sends.

I have a few horses in this race. I am selling music I recorded 20 years ago with my "big hair" 80's band. I will make more money from it this year, than I did back then. As an artist, I think I should have eternal copyright protection ... just sayin.

[Supz]

The amount is kind of ridiculous. The songs are 99 cents on itunes.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Considering how hard it is even today for someone to get big without the money and expertise a label can give an artist, I'm not so sure that is a good thing for the artists. Not 99.99% of them. Having your copyrights as an artist doesn't mean squat if your songs are never heard.

By the way the smart artists get a writing credit so they do get copyright and larger royalties..

Exactly right.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by sortie

How many stores worry about backlash when they arrest their cutomers for shoplifting?

most artist don't support the RIAA sue the fans policy
in fact in canada and Europe there are actual trade organizations setup to specifically go against the policy.

http://torrentfreak.com/moby-the-ria...banded-090620/
moby just declared that riaa should be disbanded

radio heads agreed to testify against the riaa for a student accused of copyright infringement for their songs.

the fact is when the record company is taking such a lion share of the royalties, forcing you to pay all of the production cost (including 20+ hour cost for $7/hour grunt work) authorizing file sharing for personal use is the best way to self promote your music.

[fusionx]

Originally Posted by supzdotcom

The amount is kind of ridiculous. The songs are 99 cents on itunes.

It's not just that she downloaded the music - she had a ton of music available for download by others.. that's what she was sued over - unauthorized 'distribution'.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by supzdotcom

The amount is kind of ridiculous. The songs are 99 cents on itunes.

Multiply that by the number of downloads of each song she supplied to others as
a seeder on the torrent.

She had 1700 songs on it and only got sued for 24 songs because contrary to
the belief that the record company is trying to crucify her, she got off light.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

most artist don't support the RIAA sue the fans policy
in fact in canada and Europe there are actual trade organizations setup to specifically go against the policy.

http://torrentfreak.com/moby-the-ria...banded-090620/
moby just declared that riaa should be disbanded

radio heads agreed to testify against the riaa for a student accused of copyright infringement for their songs.

the fact is when the record company is taking such a lion share of the royalties, forcing you to pay all of the production cost (including 20+ hour cost for $7/hour grunt work) authorizing file sharing for personal use is the best way to self promote your music.

Ok, I will ask you again to stop replying to me.

You are just spouting dumb shit.

[kane]

I have a feeling eventually one of two things is going to happen with the music industry.

They will either eventually get strict enough laws on the books that allow the RIAA to shut things down at the ISP and hosting level and they will come down hard on anyone who uses torrent applications (IE if you if use a torrent you may have to prove to your ISP you are using it for a legal reason) and they will really put a clamp on this.

OR

They will kind of give up. Enough rulings will be made in favor of the pirates that the RIAA will give up and the music industry will drastically change its business model.

I have no idea which way it will go, but I do know this much. If you thought artists got screwed by record labels now, just wait until the labels decide the new business model will be giving away the records and taking pieces of the artists other streams of revenue.

The main reason you don't see a lot of artists coming out against illegal downloading is because it can still benefit them. They know they will make very little money in actual record royalties, but they can make a lot of money touring, selling merchandise, licensing their music to games, movies, TV and commercials and getting performance royalties from the radio. When the labels decide they can no longer sell albums like they want, they will start demanding a piece of those other things. Of course the bands/artists can choose not to sign with them and go it alone, but if you want to be a big, popular worldwide act you need the push that a major label can give you.

I have seen people say they don't buy albums because the bands don't get enough of a royalty from the sale of the album. Don't be shocked when you see those same bands now having to turn over portions of their touring income and publishing and other revenue to the record companies. When they give away those records the artists will be making significantly less in the end.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by supzdotcom

The amount is kind of ridiculous. The songs are 99 cents on itunes.

She should have fucking paid the 99 cents then.

BTW : if you shoplift a 99 cent item and get caught do you think the judge will
fine you 99 cents?

[sortie]

Originally Posted by kane

I have a feeling eventually one of two things is going to happen with the music industry.

They will either eventually get strict enough laws on the books that allow the RIAA to shut things down at the ISP and hosting level and they will come down hard on anyone who uses torrent applications (IE if you if use a torrent you may have to prove to your ISP you are using it for a legal reason) and they will really put a clamp on this.

OR

They will kind of give up. Enough rulings will be made in favor of the pirates that the RIAA will give up and the music industry will drastically change its business model.

I have no idea which way it will go, but I do know this much. If you thought artists got screwed by record labels now, just wait until the labels decide the new business model will be giving away the records and taking pieces of the artists other streams of revenue.

The main reason you don't see a lot of artists coming out against illegal downloading is because it can still benefit them. They know they will make very little money in actual record royalties, but they can make a lot of money touring, selling merchandise, licensing their music to games, movies, TV and commercials and getting performance royalties from the radio. When the labels decide they can no longer sell albums like they want, they will start demanding a piece of those other things. Of course the bands/artists can choose not to sign with them and go it alone, but if you want to be a big, popular worldwide act you need the push that a major label can give you.

I have seen people say they don't buy albums because the bands don't get enough of a royalty from the sale of the album. Don't be shocked when you see those same bands now having to turn over portions of their touring income and publishing and other revenue to the record companies. When they give away those records the artists will be making significantly less in the end.

What will happen if the music industry doesn't get it under control is there will just
not be enough money in it for the artist to go into the studio and the result
will be that your music choices will dwindle down to "Chocolate Rain".

[Robbie]

What would the backlash be at? The recording industry is already dead. What do they have to lose? When the top albums have trouble selling a couple hundred thousand copies...I'd say that they are already dead.

The top album sales these days wouldn't have even cracked the top 40 in the 70's or 80's. So their isn't anything left to lose. Hell, their aren't even any record stores left, and I don't think this ruling is gonna stop very many people from buying the latest single on ITunes.

[kane]

Originally Posted by sortie

What will happen if the music industry doesn't get it under control is there will just
not be enough money in it for the artist to go into the studio and the result
will be that your music choices will dwindle down to "Chocolate Rain".

I have often said that one of the services that a record label provides is filtering of the garbage. I used to write for a music magazine back in the early 90's and I would get anywhere from 20-40 new CDs every week from various record labels and bands who wanted me to review their album or write about the band. 99% of these were from acts you have never heard of and for good reason - they sucked. The internet allows for any act not good enough to get a record deal to promote themselves, but again there is a reason they haven't gotten bigger. Sure, there are many acts that are good and for whatever reason have never gotten bigger, but these are the best of the mob, the rest of the mob are terrible.

The average music listener has finite time. If they have enough music that they are entertained for a short period of time they listen in the car each day they are happy. There are also a small number of people who collect as much music as they can get their hands on. However, are these people going to then go out and support every act that they download when they come to town? Hardly. They may go see a few each month, but most they will download their album, listen to it a few times and then forget all about it or pull it out every few months and give it a listen, but they aren't going to be going out and buying concert tickets and seeing live shows 4-5 nights a week.

I'm not for one second saying that record labels have the best taste or that they speak for everyone, but they get inundated with albums every day of hopeful artists. If we get to the point where they just give it all away they have nothing to lose and no reason to reject any of these people. They will just sign them to a ridiculous contract and put their album up for download. If somehow it catches on and the band starts selling tickets and playing before bigger crowds the label will then start to support them and cash in all these revenue streams. We the fans will suddenly find ourselves swarmed with hundred of albums each week to choose from. They will shift the burden of sifting through the sludge onto the fans. But the fans will have gotten what they wanted. They now get it for free.

[mynameisjim]

There is no backlash to be had. What are people going to do? The RIAA is a lobbying group, they don't give a shit what people think about them. The RIAA is the muscle, they are suppose to look bad so the artists can act like they are all about the fans and not dirty their hands with this sort of thing.

The media companies are in this for the long haul now and they want the laws to change in their favor. Honestly, it doesn't matter what people think or they feel toward towards the RIAA. If they can't download their favorite music for free, they will start buying it again. People buy into artists, not the lobbying group or the record labels behind them.

The masses never win in the end. Look throughout history, the minority always ends up controlling the majority. The internet will be no different. Big companies will get back all they've lost and then some in the very near future. Not saying that's a good thing, but it's just the way the world works.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by fusionx

It's not just that she downloaded the music - she had a ton of music available for download by others.. that's what she was sued over - unauthorized 'distribution'.

if that were true then she would have got off,
the only distribution that they could prove was to someone who was authorized to download the content
they could not prove any other downloads because kazza didn't keep those kinds of records

she was convicted for downloading period, the fined her based on the assumption that other people "must" have downloaded from her folder.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

There is no backlash to be had. What are people going to do? The RIAA is a lobbying group, they don't give a shit what people think about them. The RIAA is the muscle, they are suppose to look bad so the artists can act like they are all about the fans and not dirty their hands with this sort of thing.

The media companies are in this for the long haul now and they want the laws to change in their favor. Honestly, it doesn't matter what people think or they feel toward towards the RIAA. If they can't download their favorite music for free, they will start buying it again. People buy into artists, not the lobbying group or the record labels behind them.

The masses never win in the end. Look throughout history, the minority always ends up controlling the majority. The internet will be no different. Big companies will get back all they've lost and then some in the very near future. Not saying that's a good thing, but it's just the way the world works.

printing press
vcr
diamond rio (mp3 ripping)
cd burner
cable tv

the courts seem to ultimately rule in favor of the masses

you have to understand that if the she gets the right to declare bankruptcy on the debt
then all that is necessary for this to turn into a world class nightmare of publicity for the RIAA would be for one of her kids to "confess" that they downloaded the songs.

The story would change from she deserved it to the big bad RIAA dragging a mother thru the courts, trying to take her house for something she never actually did.

If you think the demands for making "file sharing for personal use" being a legally defined fair use are strong now imagine how bad it will get when that happens.

How easy would it be to just fake that event, once the kids can legally declare bankruptcy on the debt.

[mozadek]

Stories like this makes me happy that the music industry is collapsing.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Robbie

What would the backlash be at? The recording industry is already dead. What do they have to lose? When the top albums have trouble selling a couple hundred thousand copies...I'd say that they are already dead.

The top album sales these days wouldn't have even cracked the top 40 in the 70's or 80's. So their isn't anything left to lose. Hell, their aren't even any record stores left, and I don't think this ruling is gonna stop very many people from buying the latest single on ITunes.

Total music sales are actually going up. But the profits are still dropping. This is from CNET: "For 2008, total music sales rose 10 percent to 1.51 billion units sold, up from 1.36 billion units the year before." the problem is about half of that is singles that sell for 99cents so the profit margin is dropping. CD sales continue to slip and the profit margin on those is huge. Record labels are still putting a ton of money behind artists, but now the payoff for that investment is the sale of a 99cent single or a $2 ringtone not a $15 CD.

You are spot on about the big acts. The top selling albums just aren't as big. Sometimes you have years where there just isn't any of those huge records that sell 6-10 million copies, but I remember days back in the early 90's when a hot band would release an album and sell 800K+ in the first week. You just don't hear of that anymore and I'm sure it is because they sell 300-400K, but also sell a bunch of copies of their hit single and they get a ton of illegal downloads.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Total music sales are actually going up. But the profits are still dropping. This is from CNET: "For 2008, total music sales rose 10 percent to 1.51 billion units sold, up from 1.36 billion units the year before." the problem is about half of that is singles that sell for 99cents so the profit margin is dropping. CD sales continue to slip and the profit margin on those is huge. Record labels are still putting a ton of money behind artists, but now the payoff for that investment is the sale of a 99cent single or a $2 ringtone not a $15 CD.

You are spot on about the big acts. The top selling albums just aren't as big. Sometimes you have years where there just isn't any of those huge records that sell 6-10 million copies, but I remember days back in the early 90's when a hot band would release an album and sell 800K+ in the first week. You just don't hear of that anymore and I'm sure it is because they sell 300-400K, but also sell a bunch of copies of their hit single and they get a ton of illegal downloads.

so instead of consumers being forced to buy an album when they really only wanted 3 songs they now buy the 3 songs.

What funny is you seem to see this as a justification to make more draconion copyright laws rather then i don't know produce a better quality album that has significantly higher percentage of good songs.

leveraging the distribution channels (bit torrent etc) to test market the songs so that you have less dogs and more successes (for example).

[ztik]

Originally Posted by sortie

What will happen if the music industry doesn't get it under control is there will just
not be enough money in it for the artist to go into the studio and the result
will be that your music choices will dwindle down to "Chocolate Rain".

I doubt that. It will simply become more independant. Less commercial.

Companies/Someone will come up with an easier distrubition method(ie itunes) that allows you to release your own records and own albums. I could see this 1 company with a few trailer companies leading the industry.

You could do your own promotions. And you will see results because of quality/advertising/word of mouth/ect.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so instead of consumers being forced to buy an album when they really only wanted 3 songs they now buy the 3 songs.

What funny is you seem to see this as a justification to make more draconion copyright laws rather then i don't know produce a better quality album that has significantly higher percentage of good songs.

leveraging the distribution channels (bit torrent etc) to test market the songs so that you have less dogs and more successes (for example).

Actually no, I am just stating that the industry has changed. The music industry did a lot of this to themselves. For years (maybe even decades) they have put out artists who have 1-3 good songs and they rushed a CD so you could buy it. You had not other choice. if you wanted those songs you had to purchase the full CD and the record industry made a lot of money off of it. Now that has changed. Now if you want to buy just a couple of songs you can. I actually think that is good because artists that put out good full albums will sell them and those that just release a single or only have a couple of good songs will only sell that.

I do however think that the record labels should be allowed to defend themselves against illegal downloaders. If they feel suing everyone who ever illegally downloaded a song is the way to go about defending themselves then so be it. If it ends up biting them in the ass in the end then they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Call me crazy but I guess I just don't see it as too much to ask to pay for the music you own.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

There is no backlash to be had. What are people going to do? The RIAA is a lobbying group, they don't give a shit what people think about them. The RIAA is the muscle, they are suppose to look bad so the artists can act like they are all about the fans and not dirty their hands with this sort of thing.

The media companies are in this for the long haul now and they want the laws to change in their favor. Honestly, it doesn't matter what people think or they feel toward towards the RIAA. If they can't download their favorite music for free, they will start buying it again. People buy into artists, not the lobbying group or the record labels behind them.

The masses never win in the end. Look throughout history, the minority always ends up controlling the majority. The internet will be no different. Big companies will get back all they've lost and then some in the very near future. Not saying that's a good thing, but it's just the way the world works.

RIAA is not a lobbying group - nowadays it is mainly a copyright enforcement company but it also tracks sales to award artists with Gold and Platinum records.

[collegeboobies]

screw the music corporations

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Considering how hard it is even today for someone to get big without the money and expertise a label can give an artist, I'm not so sure that is a good thing for the artists. Not 99.99% of them. Having your copyrights as an artist doesn't mean squat if your songs are never heard.

By the way the smart artists get a writing credit so they do get copyright and larger royalties.

I'm all for companies and artist having copyright protection, BUT copyright was never rmeant to last for 95 years or 70 years after someon dies. The old way of 56 years max was more than enough time to make money from something. Eventually there will be no such thing call "public domain" except for stuff made before 1923. If someone or some company made a song/movie/tv show in 1952 and still hasn't made any money, too bad. It should be public domain. Some has yet to epxlain to me why someon's great grandkids should be getting paid for what their ancestor did. They need to have REAL jobs.

Before the invention of the internet, I would have agreed with you. But now. It takes a LOT less to make it big. You can even write and Print a book and sell it yourself.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Actually no, I am just stating that the industry has changed. The music industry did a lot of this to themselves. For years (maybe even decades) they have put out artists who have 1-3 good songs and they rushed a CD so you could buy it. You had not other choice. if you wanted those songs you had to purchase the full CD and the record industry made a lot of money off of it. Now that has changed. Now if you want to buy just a couple of songs you can. I actually think that is good because artists that put out good full albums will sell them and those that just release a single or only have a couple of good songs will only sell that.

I do however think that the record labels should be allowed to defend themselves against illegal downloaders. If they feel suing everyone who ever illegally downloaded a song is the way to go about defending themselves then so be it. If it ends up biting them in the ass in the end then they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Call me crazy but I guess I just don't see it as too much to ask to pay for the music you own.

well that part of the problem, i don't think this case is legitimate on the bases that she did buy those 24 songs.

According to the evidence those songs appeared on cd she did buy, the version she had on her computer were ones that happened to be ripped by a pirate group but that does change the point she paid for those songs already. She could have just as easily ripped them from her bought cds.

The point is i have been a system administrator for a large university so i am fully aware that there are two types of backup, the sms (system managment server) creates ghost images of the base pc (all the os and software installed) and a second server that stores the backups of the private data of the individual pc.

Arguing that reaquiring a differently sourced version of the copyright material is automatically a copyright violation would make those servers illegal too. there is to much established doctrine under the law that contridicts that statement.

Which is again the main reason i believe this has more to do with them knocking down bogus precedents rather than just go for the easier winning arguements (bankruptcy, backup/recovery, bad instruction that ignores fair use etc).

if anything the outrage at this absurd judgements when these easier to win arguements are finally made will be used to fuel the extension of fair use to cover "filesharing for personal use" something which i personally think would go to far. But is getting ever more likely with each passing bad judgement

[sweetcuties]

This is great news... now, maybe these freeloading pricks (music or adult) will get the fucking hint and pay for content that people produce.

GOOD FUCKING NEWS

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

well that part of the problem, i don't think this case is legitimate on the bases that she did buy those 24 songs.

According to the evidence those songs appeared on cd she did buy, the version she had on her computer were ones that happened to be ripped by a pirate group but that does change the point she paid for those songs already. She could have just as easily ripped them from her bought cds.

The point is i have been a system administrator for a large university so i am fully aware that there are two types of backup, the sms (system managment server) creates ghost images of the base pc (all the os and software installed) and a second server that stores the backups of the private data of the individual pc.

Arguing that reaquiring a differently sourced version of the copyright material is automatically a copyright violation would make those servers illegal too. there is to much established doctrine under the law that contridicts that statement.

Which is again the main reason i believe this has more to do with them knocking down bogus precedents rather than just go for the easier winning arguements (bankruptcy, backup/recovery, bad instruction that ignores fair use etc).

if anything the outrage at this absurd judgements when these easier to win arguements are finally made will be used to fuel the extension of fair use to cover "filesharing for personal use" something which i personally think would go to far. But is getting ever more likely with each passing bad judgement

I will agree with you that the judgment in this case it crazy. That is just way too much money to award them in this case. I have no idea if they have a way of knowing how many times those songs were shared, but if not I don't think you can just assume it was 80,000+ times each (I picked that number because you could buy those songs for $1 each and the RIAA was awarded 80K per song so maybe the jury assumed she shared each on 80K times, but I don't really know for sure what they were thinking.)

I have heard that she downloaded these songs and I have also heard that she bought them on CD seperatly. I don't know which is true.

Here is my personal opinion on how it should work.

1. If you download a song you have not paid for in some way that is wrong and illegal.

2. If you take a song you own (either through paid download or purchased CD) and you share it via p2p or torrent that is wrong and should be illegal. I don't buy the argument that people are only sharing a tiny bit of the file so it isn't illegal because they aren't sharing the full file. I also don't buy that uploading it to a torrent is "backing up via the cloud." To me it is encouraging pirating because there are going to be many people out there who are now downloading your stuff when they haven't paid for it. There are tons of ways to back stuff up without uploading it a torrent or p2p program.

3. The most obvious is if you download something you haven't paid for then you share it. To me this should be the most harshly penalized because you are taking something you don't own and distributing it to others.

For me that is it. I don't think asking people to purchase the music they want to own and then not share it with tens of thousands (if not millions) of other people via p2p and torrents is too much to ask.

[Snake Doctor]

Now that gideon is posting in this thread, I predict it will go on for many pages.

I'm not really posting this, I'm just timeshifting my sig onto the first page.

I will be back later when this thread is available for rental.

[CrkMStanz]

Its all been said...

people who don't produce content that can be digitized - will always be in favor of unrestricted free access

people who do produce content that can be digitized - will want some ability to make some money from their work

people who work get screwed, people who steal win

so i'm not going to post here









oh, wait....

[gmr324]

Trying to control the masses through scare tactics..interesting twist to the story

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

I will agree with you that the judgment in this case it crazy. That is just way too much money to award them in this case. I have no idea if they have a way of knowing how many times those songs were shared, but if not I don't think you can just assume it was 80,000+ times each (I picked that number because you could buy those songs for $1 each and the RIAA was awarded 80K per song so maybe the jury assumed she shared each on 80K times, but I don't really know for sure what they were thinking.)

I have heard that she downloaded these songs and I have also heard that she bought them on CD seperatly. I don't know which is true.

both are true, she downloaded the pirate group ripped version from kazza and she bought a cd that happened to have the song.

Basically she got convicted because she choose to simple click a link and start a download rather then hunt thru her cd collection (very close to a 1000) to find the song
and then rip it using the software.

That btw is what i find most offensive about this ruling, she actually did buy the songs, no one lost a penny of royalties from her so called infringement.

Here is my personal opinion on how it should work.

1. If you download a song you have not paid for in some way that is wrong and illegal.

i agree with this whole hardly, as long as you understand that i don't have to buy the cd to pay for the song, i can pay for the song thru a piracy tax as canadians like myself do every time we buy blank cd.

2. If you take a song you own (either through paid download or purchased CD) and you share it via p2p or torrent that is wrong and should be illegal. I don't buy the argument that people are only sharing a tiny bit of the file so it isn't illegal because they aren't sharing the full file. I also don't buy that uploading it to a torrent is "backing up via the cloud." To me it is encouraging pirating because there are going to be many people out there who are now downloading your stuff when they haven't paid for it. There are tons of ways to back stuff up without uploading it a torrent or p2p program.

you show me one that provides the same level of redundancy at the same cost (free) and i will use that one instead.

Until you do arguing their are other back up alternatives is a sherman anti trust violating abuse of the copyright monopoly, because you are simply trying to use your copyright monopoly to force dominance in another market (backup).

3. The most obvious is if you download something you haven't paid for then you share it. To me this should be the most harshly penalized because you are taking something you don't own and distributing it to others.

well the penalty for download is good enough here, because quite simply punishing them for the "sharing" again acts as a sherman anti trust violating abuse of the copyright monopoly (see backup arguement above).

but that being said with statutory damages as high as they currently are, it more than enough anyway.

For me that is it. I don't think asking people to purchase the music they want to own and then not share it with tens of thousands (if not millions) of other people via p2p and torrents is too much to ask.

again downloading without paying absolute go after that person hard
sharing (especially in a way that in and of it self is not a copyright violation) simple takes away people rights.

golden rule of the law should always be
your rights end where mine begin.

taking your content without paying for it violates that golden rule because it prevents you from making money on your content.

taking away my right to use torrents as the most cost effective back solution after i have bought your content, takes way my fair use right to choose the most effective backup solution.

[Robbie]

Gideon...could you please explain to all of us what a "piracy tax" is?

Are you trying to tell me that the Canadian govt. is now taking money on stolen stuff too?

And by the way...since you love to back stuff up on the internet instead of at your own home.

Why don't you quit being a cheapskate and just get a server. You can get a virtual server for 9 bucks a month and back up all of your precious t.v. shows without causing piracy and content theft.

But I know you won't. You'll have some other excuse. That's what makes your threads so funny to me.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

takes way my fair use right to choose the most effective backup solution.

Seriously? You consider a freakin' torrent site to be the "most effective backup solution"?

Wow. I need to get with my hosting company and explain to them that they are doing backups all wrong. All they need to do is just get an account at a torrent site and start uploading.

Thanks Gideon!

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you show me one that provides the same level of redundancy at the same cost (free) and i will use that one instead.

Until you do arguing their are other back up alternatives is a sherman anti trust violating abuse of the copyright monopoly, because you are simply trying to use your copyright monopoly to force dominance in another market (backup).

Step 1. Go to www.google.com
Step 2. type in search term "free online storage"
Step 3. Choose your provider

Micosoft will give you a free 25 gig and all you need is a free MSN Live account.

well the penalty for download is good enough here, because quite simply punishing them for the "sharing" again acts as a sherman anti trust violating abuse of the copyright monopoly (see backup arguement above).

but that being said with statutory damages as high as they currently are, it more than enough anyway.

again downloading without paying absolute go after that person hard
sharing (especially in a way that in and of it self is not a copyright violation) simple takes away people rights.

golden rule of the law should always be
your rights end where mine begin.

taking your content without paying for it violates that golden rule because it prevents you from making money on your content.

taking away my right to use torrents as the most cost effective back solution after i have bought your content, takes way my fair use right to choose the most effective backup solution.

I see "backing up" to torrents and p2p networks as sharing. You are backing up your material, but by doing so you are making it available for other people to download. This means people who haven't paid for it now have access to it. By doing that you are aiding them in illegally downloading that content.

[Robbie]

kane you just don't understand how things work like gideon does. He is sooooo smart.

You see, people weren't even able to make "backups" of anything until torrent sites came along.

We all have to allow people to steal our stuff in order to keep gideon fat, happy, and dumb. It's the only way.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Robbie

kane you just don't understand how things work like gideon does. He is sooooo smart.

You see, people weren't even able to make "backups" of anything until torrent sites came along.

We all have to allow people to steal our stuff in order to keep gideon fat, happy, and dumb. It's the only way.

LOL. It seems like there is a whole group of people out there now who feel like they should have access to anything they want, whenever they want it and they will use ever technicality of the law to prove they are in the right.

[Juilan]

overreaching = eventual backlash.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

...

i agree with this whole hardly, as long as you understand that i don't have to buy the cd to pay for the song, i can pay for the song thru a piracy tax as canadians like myself do every time we buy blank cd.

...

wow - As a Canadian I can only say - you are much stupider than I initially thought

The piracy tax is a collection mechanism to feed money into the CANADIAN music industry to offset the losses suffered by CANADIAN artists at the hands of THEIVES who post CANADIAN music on the torrents and elsewhere.

use your explanation to the members of U2 the next time you download their tunes. dork.

IT IS NOT HOW GIDEON IS ALLOWED TO PAY FOR HIS TUNES
(you might want to read that again)

you make me ashamed to be a fellow Canadian

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Gideon...could you please explain to all of us what a "piracy tax" is?

Are you trying to tell me that the Canadian govt. is now taking money on stolen stuff too?

canadian government put a tax on every cd purchased, that money goes into a pool that is claimable by copyright holders

this tax was requested by CRIA and granted by the government
the canadian supreme court ruled that since all three conditions of a contract were met by that transaction (offer acceptance and consideration) we aren't violating copyright laws by downloading from peer to peer.

Many other countries have a similar tax, including sweden,
if uploading can be declared legal their would be no liablity for copyright infringement for content covered by the tax.

And by the way...since you love to back stuff up on the internet instead of at your own home.

Why don't you quit being a cheapskate and just get a server. You can get a virtual server for 9 bucks a month and back up all of your precious t.v. shows without causing piracy and content theft.

But I know you won't. You'll have some other excuse. That's what makes your threads so funny to me.

1. seed density is like 20k which means that there are 20,000 point or redundancy, a single host has only 1 point of redundancy. Which means to get the same level or redundancy i would need to spend 180,000/ month.

2. if free not 9/month.

if you think that free = 9/month
i have 20,000 pennies i would like to sell you for $8/each
that a great deal because that less then free.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Seriously? You consider a freakin' torrent site to be the "most effective backup solution"?

Wow. I need to get with my hosting company and explain to them that they are doing backups all wrong. All they need to do is just get an account at a torrent site and start uploading.

Thanks Gideon!

I really hope you are doing another kids riding around in vans rant because i don't think you are this stupid

every major corporation in the world uses sms server and ghost of the base os. They don't backup all the repetitive os information to their tape servers. they make a ghost image and backup the confidential private information to the backup servers.

None of those companies waste money buying tons of servers to backup the redundant base that doesn't need any confidentiality.

Torrent fall into that catagory of backup, backup that needs redundancy and availablity but no confidentiality.

BTW if torrents were recognized as this type of backup
You could create a self cleaning network that would automagically kill any virus

A clean base pc with no connection to the outside world could be used as a primary seed
all the other pcs would simply do a hash check on every dll on the os and if they found a difference they could re download the correct dll from the local swarm cleaning the machine.

That type of technological advancement is being prevented by the refusal to accept torrents as a non confidential backup.

BTW why the fuck do you think that tv shows that are broadcast thru the air need confidentiality.

Originally Posted by Robbie

kane you just don't understand how things work like gideon does. He is sooooo smart.

You see, people weren't even able to make "backups" of anything until torrent sites came along.

We all have to allow people to steal our stuff in order to keep gideon fat, happy, and dumb. It's the only way.

you could timeshift content before the vcr, you just had to spend $10k on VTR.

you could backup before torrents, you just had to spend 180,000/ month to get the same level of redundancy. granted you would not use it for anything that you need to keep confidential but for everything else why would you waste the resources.


BTW some older dr who episodes backup up to the local archive at the BBC would have been irrevocably lost had it not been for the private collections of viewers and torrents (BBC got them back from torrents). So the arguement that old style backups are superior to torrents as a backup is proven to be 100% false.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

wow - As a Canadian I can only say - you are much stupider than I initially thought

The piracy tax is a collection mechanism to feed money into the CANADIAN music industry to offset the losses suffered by CANADIAN artists at the hands of THEIVES who post CANADIAN music on the torrents and elsewhere.

use your explanation to the members of U2 the next time you download their tunes. dork.

IT IS NOT HOW GIDEON IS ALLOWED TO PAY FOR HIS TUNES
(you might want to read that again)

you make me ashamed to be a fellow Canadian

1. the CRIA represents the rights of all music industry in canada
2. The only requirement to claim the share of the tax is legal representation in canada

record companies that have a canadian division are allowed to claim the tax for music based on the sales to canada.

The only way you could not claim a share is if your sales didn't count in canada. So you choose not to sell to canada, or your one of those independent artist who don't sell thru recognized retail distribution channels (sell your own cds at your live events).

A good portion of the currently unclaimed funds is for artist from other countries who are not aware of their rights to claim that surplus.

[Robbie]

Hey gideon...



You are a total apologist for thieves. And your excuses don't change anything. I'll give you credit though...you stay with your talking points. Maybe it helps you sleep at night. I don't know and I don't care. You're strictly entertainment. Pure insanity and comedic gold.

[Robbie]

"timeshift" BWAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

That's a double talk b.s. meaning for "copying something"

Just like your "System Administrator" job was probably a "Sanitation Engineer" job or...Janitor

I can't take it. I'm actually laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes. I'm gonna go out and have a nice dinner. Be back later to see gideons latest excuse.

[gideongallery]

for those of you who want to see the full surplus of money that has not been paid out

there is more than 53 million dollars still unpaid.

http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm

oh and those you that point to the publish position that piracy tax doesn't cover downloads because it only applys to cd and therefore doesn't cover those acts. Yes i know it there but it currently just that the proposed postition of the cpcc
the courts have not accepted that
and are not likely to do that as long as independent artist and people using recordable media pay the tax for non piracy actions (backing up data, recording your own songs for sale at your live events). As long as that over payment exists, the arguement that they are not being fully compensated is total bullshit.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

1. the CRIA represents the rights of all music industry in canada
2. The only requirement to claim the share of the tax is legal representation in canada

record companies that have a canadian division are allowed to claim the tax for music based on the sales to canada.

The only way you could not claim a share is if your sales didn't count in canada. So you choose not to sell to canada, or your one of those independent artist who don't sell thru recognized retail distribution channels (sell your own cds at your live events).

A good portion of the currently unclaimed funds is for artist from other countries who are not aware of their rights to claim that surplus.

nice try - still a dork answer

you of course avoid the only salient point in my statement...

The tax was NOT put in place to be your personal surrogate payment method - that also legitimizes stealing music because you "pay for it thru a blank CD tax" - and the act in no way covers pictures and video (very common on torrents in case you didn't notice).

the tax DOES NOT LEGITIMIZE YOUR THEFT OF MUSIC and you ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE SONG THRU THE TAX

dork


ya know - i used to think that you used to have 'some' intelligent rebuttal - but lately - you have totally lost it.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Hey gideon...



You are a total apologist for thieves. And your excuses don't change anything. I'll give you credit though...you stay with your talking points. Maybe it helps you sleep at night. I don't know and I don't care. You're strictly entertainment. Pure insanity and comedic gold.

Originally Posted by Robbie

"timeshift" BWAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

That's a double talk b.s. meaning for "copying something"

Just like your "System Administrator" job was probably a "Sanitation Engineer" job or...Janitor

I can't take it. I'm actually laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes. I'm gonna go out and have a nice dinner. Be back later to see gideons latest excuse.

still haven't answered my question

why do you believe that tv shows broadcast thru the air need have confidential backups.