Computer Science Canada The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
| Author: | Martin [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
In case you've been living in a cave and didn't know, the RIAA recently sued a single mother and won $220,000. Here is a list of the 24 songs that she downloaded, I encourage you to never buy an album from any of these people again. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/trial-of-the-ce.html |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
What is the point is sueing a singal mother for that much? Whould it not be instant bankroupcy and they get nothing? P.S. This seems like it should be in off topic..... |
|
| Author: | Skynet [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Dan @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:28 am wrote: What is the point is sueing a singal mother for that much? Whould it not be instant bankroupcy and they get nothing?
It sets precedent. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Dan @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:28 am wrote: P.S. This seems like it should be in off topic.....
It seems like alot of things tend to go into Offtopic, but I'd say this is at least a little computer related. I don't think buying music from those artists is the problem though, it's buying music released by a member of the RIAA. Which I've found through http://www.riaaradar.com/ is quite a bit, particularly for the "well known" artists. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Dan @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:28 am wrote: What is the point is sueing a singal mother for that much?
In case you haven't noticed, RIAA is suing _everybody_ including 12 year old girls and 82 year old grandmothers. If there's any hint of a defence ("I have a wireless router" seems to work well), they just drop the suite and move on to the next target. In this particular case though, she was using her personal email for the P2P alias. (P2P network with possibly personal identifiers? That seems so flawed..) Some good news: The Pirate Bay is developing a new tracker that, among other things, will offer better protection against anti-piracy outfits from RIAA and co. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
I like the idea of voting with one's wallet. Boycott any artist whose music is involved in a successful lawsuit. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Well it's not the artists themselves that are the problem. It's the shady recording labels that represent them. So.. don't buy RIAA made CDs, but support your favourite artists through concerts or tshirts or whatever. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
I understand this. My thought is to have said artists pressure the recording labels. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
It's not directly them, of course, but they are part of that system and (apparently) doing nothing. I really hope that one of those bands comes forward and says, "No, this isn't what we stand for." and pays the legal fees off. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Martin @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:31 pm wrote: I really hope that one of those bands comes forward and says, "No, this isn't what we stand for." and pays the legal fees off. That sounds like a job for Trent Reznor! |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Tony @ 7th October 2007, 1:43 pm wrote: Dan @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:28 am wrote: What is the point is sueing a singal mother for that much?
In case you haven't noticed, RIAA is suing _everybody_ including 12 year old girls and 82 year old grandmothers. If there's any hint of a defence ("I have a wireless router" seems to work well), they just drop the suite and move on to the next target. Yes but you think they whould be smart enought to see that sueing some one for that much is just going to cost them moeny in the end. If she declearis bankroupcy that means the RIAA has to pay for it's own legeal bills, so they aucataly lost moeny.... Even if the high ups in the RIAA don't see/get that you think the laywer whould be smart enought to see how bad an idea that was....tho i guss they might just take the money and shut up... |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
I doubt RIAA is loosing any money on the average. Besides, what they could do now is drop the fine down to a fraction - lets say "just" $20,000 and strongly encourage her to take it. That would cover their lawyer costs, but more importantly prevent any appeal that could strike down their shiny Skynet wrote: precedent And I second Martin's view there. I'd like to see some artists stop screwing over their own fans. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
I think that the settlement is more complicated than just "Give us $220,000." I believe that she has to give a specified percentage of her income to the MAFIAA for the next 30 years or something along those lines. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
200K seems to be the going rate for any music related lawsuite, even outside of RIAA. *sigh* Scotland's PRS (which I assume is their equivalent of RIAA) has filed a 200,000 damages claim, which is not being dismissed, yet. Quote: The PRS claimed that Kwik-Fit mechanics routinely use personal radios while working at service centres across the UK and that music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers. It is maintained that amounts to the "playing" or "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright. So between radio stations broadcasting the music, person A getting it on his radio, and person B also hearing it. It's the company that gets the lawsuite. Ehh.. disregarding the absurd "law" itself, this is clearly a case of simply suing the one with most money. Which I suppose is better than RIAA who claims same damages from single moms, as others claim from $1billion corporations. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
I realy whould like to know how the RIAA proves damages that high. Even if she had her p2p client on constaly could she realy have cost them that much? 24 tracks is about 1 cd (or 2 crapy ones). So if we say a cd is about $20 for 1 good cd or 2 bad ones she whould have had to upload all 24 tracks to 11,000 peoleop. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Well that's the problem. The way the case was set up, she didn't even have to upload any of the tracks, just make them publicly available. And the cash value was derived from set cases for a general "copyright infringement" range. Each of the 24 tracks was perceived to be a separate instance of a copyright infringement, so it's really 24 separate suites (with identical evidence), each running a fine of $9166. Under this rules, I get the same fine for making a single song available for download, as I would for republishing the complete text of a well selling book under my name, and selling it. Each is a case of copyright infringement. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Dan @ Sun 07 Oct, 23:04 wrote: I realy whould like to know how the RIAA proves damages that high. Even if she had her p2p client on constaly could she realy have cost them that much?
24 tracks is about 1 cd (or 2 crapy ones). So if we say a cd is about $20 for 1 good cd or 2 bad ones she whould have had to upload all 24 tracks to 11,000 peoleop. Not that I agree with the settlement at all, but keep in mind that the idea behind any fine is to be a deterrent, as well as cover any legal costs. And she did lie in court, so certainly there are issues with that as well. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Law suits are not fines tho, they are ment to recover damages. At least it is this way in canada. Also legal fees have to be recovered in a 2nd/diffrent ruleing in most cases and they are rarely included in the main judgement. So i realy don't get how the RIAA and corts in the US can make this like a masive parking ticket...... |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Dan @ Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm wrote: Law suits are not fines tho, they are ment to recover damages.
Ah, that is if you are recovering damages, but http://simonteakettle.com/damages.htm wrote: Statutory damages allow a copyright holder to collect specified damages as set out in the Copyright Act, as opposed to actual damages resulting from the infringing activities. A copyright owner may request at any time before a final judgement in a court case, in lieu of damages and profits, statutory damages of $500-$20,000, in respect of each infringed work or other subject-matter. Statutory damanges are pre-established damages for cases where calculating a correct sum is deemed difficult. The $9160 is just about in the middle of that range. It has been suggested that the jury just opted out for a figure in the middle. It's just that the 24 tracks were treated as 24 separate infringed works. So really, the fine could have been anywhere between $12,000 and $480,000. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
Martin @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:31 pm wrote: I really hope that one of those bands comes forward and says, "No, this isn't what we stand for." and pays the legal fees off.
Nine Inch Nails Quote: 08 October 2007: Big News Hello everyone. I've waited a LONG time to be able to make the following announcement: as of right now Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate. Look for some announcements in the near future regarding 2008. Exciting times, indeed. Score. |
|
| Author: | BenLi [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
isn't there a legal term that says the punishment cannot outweigh the offense? 24 tracks, thats like 24 bucks on intunes... |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
BenLi @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:06 pm wrote: isn't there a legal term that says the punishment cannot outweigh the offense? 24 tracks, thats like 24 bucks on intunes...
It isn't about having stolen 24 tracks to listen to; it's about distributing those tracks to other people. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:The most expensive 24 tracks ever |
No one ever gets charged for downloading. It's the uploading part that lands you in trouble. |
|