| Author |
Topic: Woman fined $1.9 MILLION for downloading 24 Songs Illegally |
Doug Beaumier
From:
Northampton, MA
|
|
|
 |
Mark Eaton
From:
Sonoma County in The Great State Of Northern California
|
Posted 18 Jun 2009 10:30 pm |
|
I'm certainly not defending her actions in downloading songs illegally, but that is pretty much the most absurd thing I have heard in 2009!
_________________
Mark |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 2:19 am
|
|
Whats odd about this is that the laws are written stating it is illegal to share or giveaway music, she we the recipient, not the provider. Initially.
What happened to the ones actually providing the download , they are the ones who were giving it away !
Greater detail shows that while downloading other peers were uploading at the same time, that was the problem, not the downloading,the sharing thing.
So what happens on the Steel Guitar Forum when we post songs and people listen and download them ? It's the same thing. What happens when someone asks for a track to XXX and someone sends it to them, it's the same thing. What happens when we all have a website full of songs that members can get for free ? same thing. It's not about the artist, it's about the song, copyright, publishing etc...
earth to checking account, please be sure you can cover $80,000 per song !
Also greater detail shows that the settled fine will be approx $3000 total after all is said and done, the RIAA is willing to settle for that as they know there is no way on earth they are going to collect $80K per song.
here's the whole story, it is really odd
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars |
|
|
|
Joey Ace
From:
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 5:04 am
|
|
Can I listen to songs on YouTube now, without being sued for millions ?
I'd have to arrange to pay it of at $5 / month. |
|
|
|
Mitch Drumm
From:
Frostbite Falls, hard by Veronica Lake
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 6:12 am
|
|
If I understand correctly, she was not convicted of downloading anything.
She was convicted of distributing 24 songs to which she did not have copyright through a peer to peer network (Kazaa).
An RIAA-related outfit (Media Sentry) connected to her computer through the Kazaa network and downloaded the 24 files from a collection of about 1700 she had made available through Kazaa.
The defendant was the only defense witness. She never contested the apparent facts of the case--that it was her IP address, her modem, her Kazaa installation, her PC, her folder of files to be shared, her user name, etc.
Her best defense was the old standby "some other dude did it"--eg, her children, her boyfriend, etc.
The standard of proof is preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury didn't buy it, even though "some other dude" conceivably could have done it.
Additionally, she admitted to lying about having a new hard drive installed a few weeks AFTER she was busted. That new hard drive of course contained no pro-RIAA evidence. She originally claimed the replacement occured before the bust and that the lack of Kazaaa on it proved her innocence. Best Buy receipts showed she was not truthful about the timing.
The damages of course are another matter. She owes over 100k in attorney fees from her first trial and the RIAA will likely collect little to nothing. Not that that was their intent. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 8:08 am
|
|
Totally ridiculous (if it's true). America is the most litigious society in the world. Makes me wanna puke.
All this will turn around when someone gets convicted with one of these audacious verdicts, and then they go and commit suicide. Then the family of the guilty (deceased) party will sue the RIAA for 150 million (saying the incident caused or contributed to the death) and they'll win.
What goes around comes around.  |
|
|
|
Richard Sinkler
From:
aka: Rusty Strings -- Missoula, Montana
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 11:21 am
|
|
This relates a little bit to a post I made in the thread about having a Band-in-a-Box category where we could share tracks. I'm doing a CD that is just for fun (not for money). I contacted the Harry Fox agency (a place to buy rights to record, distribute and YES, give away music). The guy I spoke with said it is definately illegal even to give away copyrighted material. You have a right to record music only for your own use, like recording a vinyl record to tape or CD for the car. After all, you already paid for the record. But, you can not give a copy to a friend. There is a different license you need to buy if you want to post a song or video, even just a snippet, on your website, (or some other site) to allow up to a certain number of downloads. The guys who are posting lessons on YouTube need to be careful. If they use a copyrighted song as part of the lesson, they need to buy the rights to use it or face litgation if caught. The licenses you obtain allow a certain number of copies of your Cd (or tape, whatever)for you to distribute. Then when you reach that limit, you have to buy another license. The same with downloads. And, you need to keep records and pay the royalties each time you sell, give away, or allow a download of a song. Now this may just be sales talk on the agency's part, but I tend to doubt it. Most of the illegal downloads and free copies of songs go un-noticed because they can't police everything. Major sites like YouTube are a target. Videos that people recorded off a TV and posted are also illegal, unless you have permission from the owner of the video, and you do have to state who the owner is (BMI, ASCAP, Joe Cool, etc..., the song writer also - the same info you see on a CD under the title of the song), (usually the TV station, who most likey will tell you to take a flying leap), and that it is posted with their permission. I imagine it's also true of videos you take of a concert with your own video camera. Although you own the video, You probably need the permission of the artist or their management to post it on the web or sell or give away DVD's of it.
Now if the person who posted the songs for download had obtained the license, there would be no issue. But she can not give the songs away, that would be illegal. I didn't read the article, so I don't don't why the guy who posted the material is going scott free. I agree that he is the person who should have been tried. I guess there must be something in the law that says a person should know better than to download illegal songs, and they could be prosecuted. I really don't know, but there must be something, or the case would have never seen the inside of a courtroom.
My advice is to just be careful and realize that with the internet and the ease of obtaining songs, there is bound to be a crackdown (and it is happening).
Tony Prior stated:
| Quote: |
| What happened to the ones actually providing the download , they are the ones who were giving it away ! |
Don't know why. Maybe he had the rights, but then she wouldn't ILLEGALLY downloading. He can choose to charge for the downloads, or give them away. It would be the provider that had to settle the royalties and such. I see this getting overturned on appeal.
My advice to Tony's other question about forum members giving away music to another member, do it in a non-public way (still illegal) or spend the $15 to buy the rights.
EDIT: I just read the article that Tony posted. It made reference to HER sharing the files. Was she giving away songs that she downloaded legally? This would explain the fact that the original poster of the material was not charged. Maybe they had the rights and she was distributing the material illegally to friends or maybe even posting them for sale. This theory was never mentioned in the articles. |
|
|
|
Guy Cundell
From:
More idle ramblings from South Australia
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 1:03 pm
|
|
The RIAA are very pleased with this decision and hope that it will stem the tide and reverse their fortunes but I doubt it. The decision may frighten a few folks off but their problem is huge and I doubt that this will influence a whole generation of kids who feel no need to pay for music. The old model has been well and truly broken by advances in technology. This decision would not give me the confidence to go out and open a new Record shop.
The RIAA missed the prime time for developing a new model by thinking they could kill off file sharing when Napster came along rather than adopting it as a new revenue model. I see that Itunes store and Amazon are doing quite well with online sales @ 99c but the culture of file sharing seems ingrained with new generations. I think it is also worth observing that in these days of technical innovation music does not seem to play the same central role in youth culture as it did years ago thus amplifying the RIAA dilemma.
Another aspect of this issue is to whether file sharing can actually enhance record sales. Downloading music using P2P can occur in bulk and the music may be seen by the consumer as a fairly disposable product of little value. However, any interest generated by illegal files can spark interest in a particular performer and lead to sales. I know that is true for me and I have seen it occur on this forum.
In these days of huge back catalogs, vast amounts of new music and home studios capable of producing quality recordings, getting your music noticed at all would seem to be the first problem. I question whether Youtube music videos that break copyright actually damage sales. I suggest it is the opposite. I think that they actually generate interest but it is interesting to see some record companies busily "protecting their interests" by having clips removed.
If the music is available conveniently and at a cheap enough price every one can benefit but I guess that the RIAA just wants the old days of $30 cds to return. They hope that this decision is going to do the trick. I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 2:24 pm
|
|
Yes it was sharing, and actually many people that do use the peer to peer networks probably are not even aware of whats going.
You sign on to the server, find the songs you want, click on them and begin the download . so far so good, but in this process, others who may be on line at the exact same time asking for the same song are getting it from you ! While it's downloading to your PC it is also being uploaded to another persons PC so now you are file sharing. Guilty as charged.
I don't think Kazaa is even active anymore, the big share network is now Azureus Vuze. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 2:48 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| The guy I spoke with said it is definately illegal even to give away copyrighted material. |
Exactly. The real crime is unauthorized distribution, not financial gains. Hopefully, we'll soon see a way to pay royalites directly to the writer, and then we can do away with that "hairy fox", and the publishers. 
Maybe then, with the big-wigs out of the picture, and the writers reaping roughly double what they're seeing now, we could re-negotiate the copyright period back to something more reasonable, like 30-40 years. |
|
|
|
Mitch Drumm
From:
Frostbite Falls, hard by Veronica Lake
|
Posted 19 Jun 2009 8:40 pm
|
|
Richard:
I don't think where this defendant got the 24 files was pertinent to the case and any source was only referred to in passing.
She may have ripped them from her own legal CDs. She may have gotten them from a friend. She may have downloaded them legally. She may have downloaded them illegally.
The issue was what she then did with the files, regardless of where she got them.
She chose to put them in a folder on her PC and install the Kazaa application. According to the comments on the case, a default Kazaa installation would permit any other Kazaa user to access the defendant's PC and download the files.
Her crime was sharing--making copyrighted files available to others. The agent (Media Sentry) of the plaintiff (RIAA) used Kazaa to download the files from the defendant. The plaintiff convinced the jury that the files in fact came from the defendant's PC. |
|
|
|
Richard Sinkler
From:
aka: Rusty Strings -- Missoula, Montana
|
Posted 20 Jun 2009 7:30 am
|
|
From the article that Doug B. Posted:
| Quote: |
A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs.
|
I emphasized a section in red that tells me she was convicted for the actual illegal downloading of the music off the internet, not ripping her own CD's, or anything else. I have never heard of Kazaa and don't know any particulars. No matter what, she got caught. People just have to realize that music is not always free to take off the net.
It's also not right to upload songs or videos that you do not have permission from someone to do so. But what is that old saying, "it's only against the law if you get caught". I'm just saying, "be careful". |
|
|
|
John Macy
From:
Rockport TX/Denver CO
|
Posted 24 Jul 2009 8:59 pm
|
|
double post 
_________________
John Macy
Rockport, TX
Engineer/Producer/Steel Guitar
Last edited by John Macy on 24 Jul 2009 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
John Macy
From:
Rockport TX/Denver CO
|
Posted 24 Jul 2009 9:04 pm
|
|
"then we can do away with that "hairy fox"
Actually the Harry Fox agency is a company that collects the songwriters royalties for writers and publishers. It consolidates and handles all the paperwork and collections for a fee (about 15%), and does all the work that many writers do not have the time to do...it is completely voluntary and the writers and publishers that work with them find them very helpful...any songwriter can have his own publishing company and collect the royalties directly, but is sure is easier and quicker to log onto a central clearing house, fill out the license form and pay the royalty instantly that trying to track down and independent and wiat for them to get back to you...
As for doing away with the publishers, that again is something that many writers find very useful and would gladly give up a piece of their copyright for getting the songs placed and administered...if you do not want to work with one, you don't have to....
_________________
John Macy
Rockport, TX
Engineer/Producer/Steel Guitar |
|
|
|
Ron Whitfield
From:
Kaaawa, Hawaii, USA
|
Posted 26 Jul 2009 3:44 pm
|
|
And to think that virtually all the songs that she or most anyone would be able to download legally or not from these sites, are typical of the total rubbish that fills the racks, has ruined quaility radio listening, and what has been passed off as good for the last few decades.
You can find most of today's quality music for free. My quality and variety filled collection is bountiful, not downloaded, hasn't cost me a cent, and I havn't even bought a CD in well over a year.
Screw the man! |
|
|
|
Larry Bressington
From:
Nebraska
|
Posted 26 Jul 2009 7:24 pm
|
|
50 cents a week settlement! 
_________________
A.K.A Chappy. |
|
|
|
And it was a jury verdict. Looks like the recording industry is getting serious about illegal downloads. I wonder if they'll actually get any money from her? ---> 
