If you hate the RIAA click here

[tussey]

RIAA is awarded judgment of $220,000 against a single mother with annual income of $36,000. Way the go corporate america. They are trying to make an example of her. Please help her cause.

http://www.freejammie.com/

[frankieG]

no, she did not reply to inquest so it is her own fault

[jserio]

not sure i follow the story. what happened? and why? 

[yamahonkawazuki]

pirating music. err downloading music. ie not paying for it. ( like many do  )but she got caught, fought it, and lost

[spc]

Inquest??  Care to join us in the States?  On second thought,  care to not??    There are some serious issues with the legal system, but every great civilization has it's faults.   Have you considered  Columbia as your new residence Frankie???  I hear it's quite warm.

[yamahonkawazuki]

Eh hes canadian, he comes here, bitches and stays. ahhh well

[bettingpython]

Q: Do you know the difference between a Canuck and a Damn Canuck?

A: A Canuck is just visiting a Damn Canuck moves in.

Ok on topic. Copyright violations are a revenue loss of millions of dollars per year to artists and studios etc...

Theft is theft in my book that's how I see it, and I think the penalties are excesssive but that copyright infringement warning has been around on VHS tapes as long as I can remember warning that each incident cna be 10,000 dollars in fines. It's intent was to deter large scale piracy by making the cumulative fines so high even a large well funded operation would be broken if busted.

In cases of individual violations I have a hard time swallowing such massive penalties when someone is doing it for personal usage but that is an issue that needs to adressed in our legal system. I think levying a penalty of repayment at full retail value of the stolen music plus an appropriate fine is in order, but determining the level of theft and writng the law to adress violations by an individual is something that needs to be adressed within our legal system.

[spc]

Exactly, what she did was wrong and she should be punished.  However punishing an individual by levying a fine of 7 times their annual income is unacceptable.  I like your idea BP,  make her repay the full retail cost of every album she has a pirated song off of, and then asses an appropriate yet hefty fine.

Anyone else notice the site is down???   

[MrDan]

I think there are a few issues that came up with this case that make it disgusting.  

First, the RIAA lawyers saying that to rip a cd that you buy so that you can listen to it on your mp3 player is STEALING!  Even though we all know that's not true.  

Second, the RIAA had the option (and chose) not to prove that she actually had Kazaa or any other software installed on her machine.  This is part of the grounds for her appeal - they never proved that she actually transmitted any data to anyone else.  There really is a difference between making the files available for download and actually having someone download them.

Third, why did they only go after 22 songs?  What about the other thousand or so (can't remember the #).  My guess would be that it was a ploy to set the threshold low enough that the jury would convict.  It's one thing to say you have to pay $9k/song for 22 songs.  It's another to say you need to pay $9k/song for 1000 songs.  I don't see a jury awarding $9 million against a single mother.

Yes - someone with her computer probably downloaded the songs and made them available.  But I still don't see how the RIAA has proved their case.

On another note - I'm not sure I see the problem with downloading music that I would never buy.  There's no financial impact to the artist or label.  If I want to support the artist, I buy their stuff - usually directly from them if possible.  But there are tons of albums that I listen to but never would have bought - if I didn't have the option of downloading them, I'd listen to them on the radio.  Theft does not always equal victim.

[Kasumi]

I think this is a sensative issue. Yes piracy is wrong but what i think and what really gets up my f%$king nose is drug dealers and people smoking shaZam! on the streets and caught with it on them can get away with a warning because of "personal use" only amounts. So why can't you just get a warning for "personal use" downloaded music. Yes there should be a hefty fine for somoene who is downloading music, films and games to sell on because you are making money by stealing of someone else. However if i just downloaded an album over the internet to listen to and i like it im likely to go buy an album. As MrDan said, i buy albums from artists that are good and worth buying the album for but im not going to go drop £15 on an album ive never heard before.

Plus artists and record shops HMV being one put huge prices on their albums for one good song. Now there is a record shop in my local town called Chalky's that advertise selling albums at the price they are worth and cheaper than HMV who put huge prices on stuff that isnt worth it. Hence i buy all my albums from Chalky's if they don't have the album i want i may well download it because im not getting ripped off. The music and film industry will rip you off for most stuff because they have the name and the brand and label and people will pay it sometimes which they shouldn't. There is no way some new artist's album is worth £20 quid. Its like shelling out £200 quid for nike trainers when the ones from the local shoe shop are just as good. Artists make too much money as it is and new artists who are usually the bloody good ones have cheaper albums because they haven't been heard off. So why should we pay a fortune for established artists albums when new artists albums are cheaper. Record and film companies are greedy unnecessarily they make a fortune as it is. Especially paying £7 plus just for a cinema ticket! Ridiculous!

[bettingpython]

All of the CD's in my truck are copies. Getting ready to do away with that though since I can just plug my Ipod ito the truck stereo.

I also have several  DVD's that I have duplicated and you guessed it all of the originals are sittng in a drawer at home, when we travel especially with my son we take movies along.

Both of those are legal to do and you can not be prosecuted provided you have proof of legal ownership.

The originals are all at home in a box. Everything has been imported into iTunes. BTW the greatest thing apple has ever done Any music I own which has been downloaded has been done through iTunes, and guess what you can listen to sample clips of any song they have available

Sorry Dan but I call  dowloading bootleg music is theft it is wrong and by doing so you are enabling thieves. There is no peer to peer file sharing software on my computer nor will there ever be.

As a proffesional in the computer field I personally find the illicit downloading of anything personally offensive not to mention unethical yeah call me a boy scout or whatever but if you don't like the fact that she got slammed and received legal penalties which have been in place for over 20 years now get the law changed.

In closing iTunes, i believe Amazon and one other online retailer are all in the market selling music if you only want one song buy just one song, or buy the whole album online. Plus iTunes has a pretty decent license manager sytem you just need to remember to back it up regularly.

[VSG]

On another note - I'm not sure I see the problem with downloading music that I would never buy.  There's no financial impact to the artist or label.  If I want to support the artist, I buy their stuff - usually directly from them if possible.  But there are tons of albums that I listen to but never would have bought - if I didn't have the option of downloading them, I'd listen to them on the radio.  Theft does not always equal victim.

Agreed.  Most of the songs I download, I would never buy the album for (or pay for the song).  Another thing is artists are losing very little money.  They make most of their money from touring and merchandise, not album sales.

I don't consider downloading music stealing at all.  By this logic, if you record a song off the radio and give a copy to your friend, you're breaking the law.  If you were making a profit off that, then it's illegal.  Most artists embrace downloading music because it's much easier for them to get heard.  It's only the greedy ones that really complain *cough*lars*cough*.

Bottom line, it's a crappy way for an aging, greedy industry to get as much money as they can before falling completely flat on it's face.

[MrDan]

Look back at the first point I made.  I'm afraid that making legal copies will be the next thing attacked.  The RIAA Sony BMG lawyer said that it is stealing to backup your own music.  While the law is on the consumers side on that, it's still bothersome that the labels/RIAA disagrees.  Here's the quote - "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.  Making a copy of a purchased song is just a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'".

I'm not disputing that downloading pirated music is theft.  I'm just making a very fine distinction.  I personally am not stealing anything from Kanye West by downloading his new album.  He did not have a potential album sale in me that he has lost.  There is no revenue loss to anyone in his production team, studio, label, etc since I never had any intention to buy the album.  If I did not have the option to download it, I still would not buy it.  Yes - you could (and I do) consider it theft, but there was nothing of value that was stolen.  

Here's another aspect of the law that irks me.  If there is a particular artist that I like and have bought all of their albums, supported them at concerts, purchased clothing, etc, it is still illegal for me to download a copy of a cd that I own.  Hand in hand, if I rip songs from a cd that I own, and email the files to my wife, I would be in violation of the law - even though that used to fall under Fair Use.

Moving on, there are many valid uses for P2P file sharing softwares - so don't write them off just yet.  Check out etree.org for example.  They host/share concerts - every artist on there has approved the sharing of their shows.  It's an excellent resource to legally download concerts.  Also, while BitTorrent is probably primarily used for illicit purposes, there are many bands and companies that use it to push their own products out.

I'm not calling you a boy scout for having a problem with these actions.  I'm starting to become conflicted myself as my wife and I start talking about having kids.  I do think that there is more to the issue though - and that changing the law, while ideal, is not likely to happen.  In the meantime, it takes people who disagree with the law and subsequently break it, to present the opportunities to change it.  I do not think this law will be changed through the legislature, it will take the courts unfortunately (just like the abusive drivers fees in VA).

In regards to your iPod.  What size do you have and how full is it?  Don't you see something wrong when it costs $40,000 to fill the top end iPod?  Because if the labels and RIAA have their way, the only way to get music on there would be to buy every song - no more ripping.

[Kasumi]

+1000 on

I'm not disputing that downloading pirated music is theft.  I'm just making a very fine distinction.  I personally am not stealing anything from Kanye West by downloading his new album.  He did not have a potential album sale in me that he has lost.  There is no revenue loss to anyone in his production team, studio, label, etc since I never had any intention to buy the album.  If I did not have the option to download it, I still would not buy it.  Yes - you could (and I do) consider it theft, but there was nothing of value that was stolen. 

Also to point out. What do kids do everyday with their new fangled mobile phones, they share songs, video clips, tv clips all through their phones via bluetooth, you can't stop that and nor have the record companies tried because that works in their favor as its hard to transfer whole albums but a song or two is easy = spreading the record lable and increasing overall sales.

Everything in this f%$king world is hypocritical. Laws are only instated if it suits the person who is pushing for the law and in the end someone makes money out of it. For example here in the UK they fought against a law that said speed cameras had to visible (i.e painted yellow) now why would you fight against a law that displays speed cameras which will force people to slow down. Well its because someone (i.e. government) are making shaZam! loads of money from speed cameras and making them visible (i.e painted and not hidden behind trees) will lose them revenue that goes in their back pockets. Laws and governments are hypocritical, if its detramental to the record label they will sue sue sue, however if the distributing of single songs via their target audience through mobile bluetooth, which can potentially increase their sales they will happily turn a blind eye. f%$king Hypocrits.

[bettingpython]

By this logic, if you record a song off the radio and give a copy to your friend, you're breaking the law.

Radio stations pay fees to license music for public broadcast. It's intended purpose is to be heard the time of broadcast by recording it and redistributing you have in fact broken the law. The same applies to television shows and movies on pay channels. Youi can record them to be viewed at any time by you and your household. The minute you redistribute, sell or publicly exhibit or rebroadcast a transmission you are in violation of a usage license agreement. It is theft period end of story, hell Lars doesn't even like beiing on iTunes for 99 cents a song but that is legal.

Theft is theft plain and simple, no wonder artists are no longer putting out albums where the majority of an album was good material why put the time and effort forth when people are just going to steal it and they don't get paid. You can justify it all you want but it is theft. What are you people retarded they are in business to make money and their music is their intellectual property. I bet 1/2 you tards are probaly running bootleged operating systems or applications.

I am done on this one try to convince the rest of the world it's right to take other people's shaZam!, but it's no different than going out and jacking bikes or cars. Just less volent.

[Kasumi]

And speeding is bad and cussing is bad and wars are bad. You can't change them. This will happened whether is theft or legal. I don't agree with bootlegging and selling music on but if i give an album to my friend with songs that have been downloaded i would be f%$king pissed off if i got fined that much money. I will legally buy any album that i want to support the artist off that i know im going to listen to and that i want the album for. If i want to listen to one song because someone said it was good and i download it. I had no intention of buying it or getting the album the artist has lost nothing from me like MrDan said. However if i liked the song i might buy the album. Record companies and artists give no incentive to buy their music because they make it an absolute fortune because they want to make a tonne of money. The only way to change the illegal downloading of music is for artists to cut their cost of their albums making it much easier for me to go buy their album than spending an hour downloading it.


Plus you can't pull the whole theft is theft card, like speeding is speeding card. Its not true its unreal. Laws and rules have to suit the world as it is today. Theft isn't theft. Hows that pen that you "borrowed" of your work collegue the other day and havn't returned. Oh sorry $9000 thankyou for stealing that pen, thief! See what i mean? Speeding is another one (yes you the person who has undoubtedly speeded on your motorcycle) please explain to me the incentive that the government give people to slow down when they are caught for doing 10 over the limit by a speed camera placed on a road where there has never been an accident just to make money out of you. There isn't Just as paying £20 for an album or £1.50 for a song that your friend told you to listen to. There is no incentive to buy over priced stuff that is going into the back pockets of some chap who you were told to listen to. Also don't mention programs like itunes and napster to  me. They were designed by people to rip you off. You have to pay for membership first then you pay for your songs, and then your songs only last so long before you lose them and the money you spent on them. And if you disagree, why do apple insist on converting perfectly good mp3 files into apple ipod files that can't be distributed.

[bettingpython]

apple ipod songs export just fine as mp3 or even better fully decompress to wma files
there is no membership fee for itunes again maybe you should use the application
Never heard of an expiration either like I said you get a license for music you buy from iTunes it goes in a license manager it is your responsibility to keep up with it and make sure it is backed up
I wish I could hand out $9000 fines to every coworker who borrows a pen from me since everyone seems to like my pens but no one else bothers to order any on the supply order. But since I don't buy or bring my personal office supplies to work I don't have to worry about it.

Now let's deal with speeding. Is it illegal? Yes.
Do I speed? Yes. Can I afford to pay the fines if I get pulled over for speeding? Yes. Can I afford to bail myself out of Jail and pay for the ensuing fines which will arise from my stupidity when I treat public roads like a race track? Yes.

Have I been caught? You betcha. Do I stlll speed? Yep right again the answer is yes. Can I ride without breaking laws? Yes I can and often do especially when riding with my wife since she does not have the long term experience and instincts from years of riding. Well why don't I haul ass then? Because the cost of losing my wife would be too great to me if something happened.

Moral of the story if you can not do the time do not do the crime. I will even go one better I have never been pulled over when I wasn't speeding and was driving a tagged and inspected vehicle. Wow novel idea don't break the law.

[jserio]

so....my computer came in the box with "livewire" software in it. with this progam i can find almost any song, movie etc. i use it for my personal music library on the computer.  do you guys also view this as "stealing" or "copy-right infringement". i'm not making a profit. i'm not hurting anyone.

[Kasumi]

Yep your stealing prepare to be erm fined alot of money and sent to prison and beheaded. No don't worry about it. We all do it, some people appear to have light shining out of their arses' on this subject but you will find 90% of this board download all sorts of stuff.

[jserio]

seriously, every computer i've seen for sale has some sort of program that comes with it for downloading music and such. i don't think i can copy the music i've got since i've only got the "free" version. but hell, i don't need to copy it. like i said, i use it for my computer music library.