Woman fined $222,000 for file-sharing songs

[Seve]

Hello:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/46167-riaa-wins-file-sharing-suit-woman-fined-222000

Yikes .... :eek:

Seve

[PhillyFloyd]

"Earlier, the judge in the case, Michael J. Davis of Federal District Court, ruled that for jurors to find her liable, the record labels did not have to prove that songs on Ms. Thomas's computer had actually been transmitted to others online. Rather, the act of making them available could be viewed as infringement."

That is the part that is most disturbing. This will most likely be overturned if it ever makes it way to higher courts, I don't doubt it will be appealed all the way up the chain to the Supreme Court so as to set a precedent.

Legally I can't see how simply making the files available entails copyright infringement, rather, those who download them from her should be held liable if anything. Funny thing is the music industry still refuses to address the cause of the problem -- $20 for a CD of 8 songs that costs on average 5 cents to produce.

[schwim]

Hey there Floyd,

I no longer follow this, so things might have changed, but the reason downloading them wasn't punishable was because if you owned a copy of the song, you were allowed to download a copy. Regardless of whether you owned it or not, you were not allowed to share it with anyone else.

More power to all of them. If you don't mind, I'll allow everyone who continues to buy new cd's to be the ones to fund the lawsuits perpetrated against themselves. :)

thanks,
json

[schwim]

I'm not defending anyone's actions, but leaving your cd in your private residence, and making it available by search on the internet could easily be viewed as two different levels of neglect.

You said that you doubt it will be overturned because the cost of the appeal. Don't you think she'll become the person that all the supporters rally behind? All of the entities that are just looking to fund a push to shut down the RIAA?

I don't know if these entities even exist, but if they do, this is the case that they want to use.

thanks,
json

[Cue]

Just some random person they set out to make an example of, that's all it is. 24 songs? You must be joking. And all crap too. "AFI, Aerosmith, Green Day, Journey, and Guns n' Roses."

[leadgolem]

According to the Chicago Tribune, Thomas shared files by such artists as AFI, Aerosmith, Green Day, Journey, and Guns n' Roses. Thankfully, now these struggling entertainers will be able to feed their families.LOL Whoever wrote that has got to have a sense of humor.:)

[clearer]

I seriously doubt that this decision will get overturned since in order for that to happen the case has to be appealed. That takes money and lot's of it.

On it's face the ruling seems crazy... I could leave the CD on my desk... does that mean I am leaving it "available" for being pirated or does it just mean I went to get a refill on my coffee. Don't count on this decision overturned if that's the arguement that you will use. The arguement is decieving since in many cases... (e.g. for firearms, drugs, failing to fence off a construction site or swimming pool) is tantamount to making something "available" and a danger to others. In other words, if you purposefully leave that gun laying on the desk and someone takes it and uses it to commit a crime you can and most likely will be liable both criminally and civilly.
Leaving a dangerous item freely available -- i.e. something that can hurt another person -- is not at all the same as leaving copyrighted material freely available. It doesn't hurt anyone that someone copies a CD, and the age all claim that it will hurt revenues is just a pile of bull. At least, the people organizations like the RIAA goes after are people with no or little money who wouldn't be buying the CDs anyway (at least that's the case in Denmark with the Antipiratgruppen -- who use "screendumps" to prove their case).

[Hlingler]

Wow, Leigh, that's an expensive collection you've got there - best not leave it "laying around" for anyone to pick up....

V

[billb]

Thomas' case is particularly interesting, as she was convicted of having copyrighted material in her Kazaa shared folder, but not necessarily sharing them herself.

She was convicted of having copyrighted files in a Kazaa shared folder? What is the next step? Start convicting people for having an insecure network and accidentally sharing all their copyrighted files? Would they need to prove the intent to share the files?

Like someone who doesn't know anything about security and has their computer connected directly to their cable modem with Windows file sharing enabled, for example. Or some other less obvious security vulnerability. Or some unknown software that was doing the sharing for them ...

If this becomes commonplace you're going to be needing "Internet Insurance" just to have a computer connected to the net, considering all the massive legal liabilities involved. :eek: Better get Geico for your modem.

I'm kidding, but I bet they already have something like this, right?

[Dan]

Hmmm.

Take that thought a step further. If such becomes the case, even with the terms of the EULA, doesn't that open the door to a massive class action against the most prevalent maker of the operating system which has been acknowledged as unsecure by the federal government? (per http://www.us-cert.gov/ ) Or the EU?

If anyone at Microsoft had a single collective wit among them, this should scare the h*ll out of their risk management people.


Dan

[clearer]

Thomas' case is particularly interesting, as she was convicted of having copyrighted material in her Kazaa shared folder, but not necessarily sharing them herself.

She was convicted of having copyrighted files in a Kazaa shared folder? What is the next step? Start convicting people for having an insecure network and accidentally sharing all their copyrighted files? Would they need to prove the intent to share the files?

Like someone who doesn't know anything about security and has their computer connected directly to their cable modem with Windows file sharing enabled, for example. Or some other less obvious security vulnerability. Or some unknown software that was doing the sharing for them ...

If this becomes commonplace you're going to be needing "Internet Insurance" just to have a computer connected to the net, considering all the massive legal liabilities involved. :eek: Better get Geico for your modem.

I'm kidding, but I bet they already have something like this, right?

No reason to kid around -- If I made these statements, I would be very seriouse about it. I don't think you are that far away from a possible development. I hope that someone with a brain and the power to stop it, sees the problems with the case and does something to change things.

[Seve]

Hello:
The fine seems overly excessive and ridiculous from my humble point of view.
Although, I make no claim to understand the actual law involved.

From another angle, I could see the individual having to pay, if that individual actually sold or otherwise profited [royalties etc.] from the distribution of the songs.
That would make sense.

Seve

[clearer]

Seve, sense is not something these people (RIAA) have in stock. If they did, they wouldn't have started the lawsuit in the first place.

[Hlingler]

If this becomes commonplace you're going to be needing "Internet Insurance" just to have a computer connected to the net, considering all the massive legal liabilities involved. :eek: Better get Geico for your modem.Since this issue is obviously all about $money$, and "right", "wrong", and "justice" have not even been mentioned, I can imagine the insurance industry (and polititians) slobbering over this one. If there's money to be made selling it, someone will be out hawking it. If there's lots of money to be made selling it, laws will be passed to regulate - and tax - it. Just my 2¢.

Regards,
V

[Seve]

Hello:
I can't see how/why the insurance Industry would offer insurance to protect someone against activity that has been deemed illegal ?
But, who knows ?

Seve

[schwim]

Seve,

I'm probably the last to know why, but I think only because of the ambiguity. It's like malpractice insurance. They are insuring against you losing a case you were supposed to win.

thanks,
json

[Hlingler]

Breaking the posted speed limit, not wearing seat belts, and failure to obey other traffic control laws is illegal - but it is also now a law here that all drivers must carry automobile insurance. Same reasoning applies.

Regards,
V

[Seve]

Breaking the posted speed limit, not wearing seat belts, and failure to obey other traffic control laws is illegal - but it is also now a law here that all drivers must carry automobile insurance. Same reasoning applies.

Regards,
V
Hello:
I agree, however, the Auto Insurance that you must carry, does not cover your fines in case of a ticket for speeding, seat belts etc..

Seve

[billb]

Hello:
I agree, however, the Auto Insurance that you must carry, does not cover your fines in case of a ticket for speeding, seat belts etc..

That would be nice ... :D

Ah -- I knew it! This isn't exactly what I was thinking of, but similar:

http://www.insurecast.com/html/internet_liability_insurance.asp

[Dan]

Hlinger has a valid point.

Root cause? Greed.

But on who's part? Clearly, laced throughout the situation, burns the desire to get something for nothing. Which isn't restricted to one side or the other. A small theft, is theft nonetheless.

Propagating catalyst? Big Money.

Catalytic carrier? Lawyers!

I believe I've said this before, but ...

What's black, brindle brown and looks very good on a lawyer?

...

...

...

... (Google it.)


Dan


P. S. And Clearer had a gem here. Seve, sense is not something these people (RIAA) have in stock. If they did, they wouldn't have started the lawsuit in the first place. They, among other similar players, have patently ignored age old wise advice. "Be very, very careful what you ask for ... you may get it." (Pun fully intended.)


D.

[billb]

A Google search for "cyberspace liability insurance" will turn up quite a few links. They appear to be aimed at providing liability insurance for businesses with an online presence, and not something for poor old grandma who didn't realize she was going to get sued by the RIAA for not knowing what she was doing. [sigh]

[psyklops]

Interesting...

firstly, do people still use kazaa?? the cilents were riddled with spyware, the k-lite hacks of the original clients are also riddled with malware/spyware (probably cleaned up now) and there was some publicity about it and the RIAA targetting that specific network (i.e. the FastTrack network). Also, the FastTrack networks are riddled with countless junk files no doubt propagated by RIAA (and their friends) flooding that network with their own fake ultrapeers/supernodes or whatever...

Secondly, people like Sharman networks (who own Kazaa) are an identifiable entity that the RIAA can target, they then make public and scare the citizens about piracy.

Thirdly, the de-centralised P2P networks are difficult to police. Nodes come up and down and files being shared are distributed among them. Sometimes the nodes don't know where the originator is from, they just pass the packets back along their original route. They usually don't hold all the information just snippets and point clients to other nodes. Some of the ultrapeers/supernodes are in places like russia and the like which the RIAA would have no power.

Fourthly there's an active database of 'block lists' which are known to block IP addresses from people like the RIAA.

Lastly, there is a concerted effort for anonymous, secure and private P2P networks, and the more the RIAA clamp-down the more popular this becomes...

Unfortunately, it's a losing battle for the RIAA and their friends...

IMHO Apple with the iTunes store have the right idea.

[Wayne]

The woman has decided to appeal. But I don't think it's gonna work!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/10/riaa_p2p_loser_appeals/

Wayne

[schwim]

If the Register is to be believed(they never fabricate, do they?), then it looks like she's in for a world of hurt.

If you can't do the time... and all that good stuff...

thanks,
json

[kona0197]

Well I'll admit I've downloaded a few songs here and there. Overall I buy or borrow - from a friend - the stuff I listen too anymore these days. I do however wish that the RIAA wasn't around. They steal so much profit from the artist. 16 dollar CD and the artist sees maybe 2 dollars of that.

The RIAA can't stop file sharing. It's to wide spread. All they can do is make themselves look stupid by tring to sue everyone they can. I don't think a 12 year old (for example) can afford to pay out anything for downloading songs - after all a 12 year old thinks it's OK since they saw others doing it.

The RIAA should embrace file sharing and take an itunes type approach.

[leadgolem]

I'd like to know where kona is getting his cd's too. Most retail between $20-30 here, and I'm in the USA.

[kona0197]

I work at Walmart. Most new releases - every Tuesday - are between $13.99 and $19.99. Also there is ebay.

[bob]

I'm fairly sure the decision won't be over-turned, however the amount may be reduced on appeal. Let's face it, there were 12 men & women who rendered that decision and nailed her big-time. The music industry must have had a very convincing attorney to have the jurors buy into that kind of value per tune. I was expecting any decision involving value to end up being between $1 and $20 per, which is much more realistic. Obviously, the jurors took seriously that their decision would help stop this file sharing if they awarded the big bucks.