INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => Media Center 12 (Development Ended) => Topic started by: Matt on October 04, 2007, 07:05:10 pm
-
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifsCDEIi8iEoclf0JZVBIQfuZeQA
-
I'm not a fan of stealing music or the people that do it.
But why is the fine for a DUI cheaper than the fine for sharing a song?
-
She Should Have Paid the Fine
But why is the fine for a DUI cheaper than the fine for sharing a song?
It depends on how many DUI's You Have, The Judge And What State Your In.
I Think It Was Yesterday That They Fired A Highway Patrol Officer For DUI.
Like What Message Does This Send To Others?
As I Said A Few Years Ago, One Of My X-GirlFriends (Charlot Barr) Was Killed By Guy That Had 6 DUI's, And Her Father Was A Upper Darby, Pennsylvania Police Officer.
So I Have No Sympathy For Anyone Who Is Driving Intoxicated No Matter Who They Are.
Just Found It:
Highway Patrol Fires Sergeant After DWI Arrest
http://wral.com/news/local/story/1890148/ (http://wral.com/news/local/story/1890148/)
-
I just got the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine today. It had a great (and timely) cover:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2007/10/08/toc_20071001
-
I just finished reading Alan Greenspan's excellent new book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.
One of the central themes of the book is that our past, present, and future prosperity is intimatley linked to the rule of law and more specifically property rights. At the end of the book he makes some predictions about what the US economy will look like in 2030. He predicts that the trend away from manufacturing towards ideas based products and services will continue. And that future growth in our standard of living will be dependent on the courts clarifying and enforcing property ownership laws related to intellectual property.
This rings true to me. We might therefore expect the trend of prosecution and conviction to accelerate.
-
While I disagree with almost every aspect of the RIAA's approach to generating sales, under current (draconian) copyright law, the RIAA is legally entitled to pursue this course. It's worth pointing out that the RIAA has NEVER gone after anyone for possessing or exploiting (listening to) music they didn't pay for. Every person victimized by this approach was offering a music collection (usually greater than 5,000 titles) for free download to any takers without restriction. This is the "sharing" that Matt's talking about--why on earth would anyone do this?
I have read posts on this forum fretting about whether ripped music is still legal if the original CD becomes too scratched to play anymore. WAKE UP!!! If you do not offer free music on a wholesale basis the RIAA isn't going to bother with you--they have much bigger fish to fry.
Okay, not this year but maybe next year, right? Relax. No matter how many single mothers on welfare get hit with quarter-million dollar judgments, the RIAA isn't going to get more than ten grand out of anyone--hardly enough to cover their attorney's deli bill. They want the headlines, which they're getting, and which they lamely suppose will translate into a healthier marketplace.
This is delusional, of course, but as the rights holders they're entitled to their fantasy. So until the day that they stop fussing over (gasp!) shoplifting of media that often glamorizes murder, suicide, gang rape, drug use, etc etc etc--for God's sake don't share!
-
I just got the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine today. It had a great (and timely) cover:
I heard this morning he went back on his Word Again, after his lame attempted to withdraw his guilty plea.
Matt's Subject Was on the morning news Localy
http://www.wral.com/business/story/1892627/ (http://www.wral.com/business/story/1892627/)
http://www.wral.com/news/technology/story/1891761/ (http://www.wral.com/news/technology/story/1891761/)
-
While I don't agree with their tactics, she was basically breaking the law, took her chances in court and lost. Boo hoo. There have been a lot of suits that were thrown out because they were prosecuting the wrong people.
She obviously was not the wrong person. With a simple appeal she should be able to knock the fine down. The idiots here were the RIAA. If they had tried to get $20K she would have been forced to pay it. $222K - she'll never have to pay it.
-
Surprised you're all on the RIAA's side with this.
I think it's pretty ridicules and pathetic and the amount is obscene.
As with most things these days - Murder/Rape/GBH/ABH/etc seems to be out of fashion and so all these 'modern crimes' just make them look irrelivant.
She shared some songs yes - is $200,000 a realistic, appropriate punishment for this - not by miles.
It makes little difference if she shared 1000 or 100,000,000 songs.
Whatever p2p she logged into said "do you want to share your 'my music' folder" - she said yes and it shared all her songs. Its not like she went in and specifically chose how many to share.
Does a fine of this size reflect her crime (clicking 'yes' most likely when asked a question) - not in the slightest.
$20k would have been a huge, make a statement and scare people about clicking yes type amount. This amount is just obscene and makes you have no sympathy. As for the Jury, whichever idiots agreed with this type of thing and found it reasonable and fair are just idiots IMO.
-
The fine is because she dared to fight against this racket. It only takes one case to go against the RI*** and then the next case becomes just a little harder to prosecute.
Vaguely recall there are other similar cases pending, where the defendant has fought back..would be interesting to see how they turn out.
-
The fine is because she dared to fight against this racket.
Basically bully boy tactics - we'll scare you all so much that no one dares challenge us, whether we are right or wrong you'll just do as we say OR ELSE...!
-
Just noticed there's been an update to this case, nearly a month old.
RIAA loses $222K verdict against Jammy Thomas (http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4040)
-
My only question is how much of that $222,000 are the artists going to see.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that it will be ZERO and I'll even give you long odds.
Heck with that kind of precedence set why sell CDs in the store at all when you can
get nearly 10 grand per song on a copyright infringement basis.
How is this any different than recording songs from satellite radio/TV or any other form
of digital media which as far as I know is not illegal.
-
My only question is how much of that $222,000 are the artists going to see.
If the verdict was dismissed can we assume there is no $222k to be paid out ?
Heck with that kind of precedence set why sell CDs in the store at all when you can get nearly 10 grand per song on a copyright infringement basis.
That figure is set to rise by much more thanks to a new law (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN03325:@@@L&summ2=m&) No: 110-403 or PRO-IP ACT signed by Bush on 10/13/2008.
Amongst others it doubles statutory damages and directs the President to appoint an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator or IP Czar and creates new classes of felony, criminal copyright infringement, adds civil forfeiture provisions that incorporate by reference parts of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
-
The problem with piracy is that it's often the easiest, cheapest and most convenient way to go.
When so many people do it, there have to be something fundementally wrong. Here's what I think.
1. The media use have exploded the last decade. Many people have huge collections of music, series, videos, games etc. The consumption is alot more than it was, and the prices is still the same as they were 15 years ago. Most people just can't handle that cost.
2. Another issue it the avalability of the media. People use Internett for almost anything today. Why are there not good choises to download music, series and games online? I would not want to go down to the store to get an album, when I can download it in 10 minutes. Sure there is a few alternatives here, like steam, amazon and iTunes. But when it comes to good offers they are often bound to spesific contries and regions. Take US for example. iTuns have a rather easy to use and good online service for series and movies, but it's only offered in US!! People from Europe have to get a proxy to use the service, and have to buy Credits from e-bay! How stopid is that. I think there is many other exaples too. With the internett used by everyone, there should not be such boundaries!
3. Give the users the option to get the quality they want! With music I do not think it would be that hard to have a huge library with flac files (or what ever) and convert them on download if people rather want 128kbs MP3. The internet connctions for most people should not be an issue, and not the hard drive space either. If the price drops more it will soon be free!
4. DRM. This should be a dead subject; only to be used for free services such as Nokias "unlimited" download music service they offer with they're new models (though it's not really unlimited).
Enything you buy, you want to be able to transfer and play how many times you want, when you want and where you want. Restrictions like this is hopeless. Most in the media busines have realized this, but there are those who cling og to the hope. Do something with number 1, 2 and 3 and you would not have to use such things as DMR. I would not even think of buying music with water marks.
So my answer is no. I think it's rediculous give people a huge fine just to prove their point and making an example. The user should pay for the actual cost of the music she or he's downloaded, and possibly more if the usere have intentionally distributed it to alot of people.
-
nice writeup MrHaugen :)
why don't the companies do something like Mp3 sparks it was awesome, your choise of bitrate and format, nice prices and EASY to use with a very nice interface.
why not lower the price to like 3$ for a "online" CD..many more customers equal bigger sales..
but it seems like a CD MUST cost like 12 to 15 EUR or something
regarding the fees John Doe and other has to pay..it's amazing..seems to be the worst crime in the world..
i tried to watch some movie on so called "legal site" here in sweden...to complicated and only MS internet explorer ?
-
Here is a link to a recent excellent audio documentary titled "Who Owns Idea?" on copyright issues.
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/podcast.html (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/podcast.html)