RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement

RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cyberdude611 -> RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/5/2007 2:33:03 PM)
The recording industry in my opinion are more ruthless and greedy than oil tycoons. The Recording Industry Association of America claimed Jammie Thomas, a single mother in Minnesota, illegally shared up to 1,700 music files on the popular peer-to-peer file sharing network, Kazaa. Thomas however claimed the account in question was not her's... The suit contended that Thomas violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by distributing songs for free that belonged to the record labels. A jury decided that she must pay the record labels $222,000. "We welcome the jury's decision," the RIAA said in an e-mailed statement following the decision. "The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner. "When the evidence is clear, we will continue to bring legal actions against those individuals who have broken the law," the statement continued. "This program is important to securing a level playing field for legal online music services and helping ensure that record companies are able to invest in new bands of tomorrow." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3691170&page=1

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/5/2007 10:59:33 PM)
Sickening. This is the same industry that was found guilty in a class action suit for violating antitrust laws in fixing the prices on CDs (on which they make something like a 1500% profit).

mefisto69 -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 4:31:51 AM)
Yup. The recording industry is in a tailspin. They can no longer make the mega bucks from CD sales, so they lash out visciously like cornered rats. IMO - their shysters were slick and the jurors were duped. I hope someone can help this woman appeal the decision.

camille65 -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 4:35:52 AM)
Well it was illegal. However I think instead of going after the kids (she was young when this suit first began) they should have gone after the servers that offered the 'free' downloads.If it were me, I would declare bankruptcy.

pahunkboy -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 5:22:33 AM)
IMO the industry is on its way out. people will always file share. 1. fresh new talent is not known. 2. people remember guenras of music-so 3. folks over 30, bought lps as kids- but now have house payments.... 4. many expect it for free online 5- unless i see stunning new talent- no way would i buy a CD. 6. i do subscribe to pay radio- simply so i dont hear about the contests and commercials.TV has become so idiotic; it is bothersome to even fast forward thru!! [SIRIUS 22/SIRIOUS 8,7, 33]

Termyn8or -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 6:12:14 AM)
I eagerly await their papers. You will see a defense that WORKS. For users of P2P, remove files from your shared directory often. Do not share the popular new stuff, only share the stuff that was very hard to get. That helps the P2P alot more by offering more diversity. When you download a file and it says 150 people are sharing it, you don't need to, but when only one person has a song and it takes weeks to get it, that is worth sharing. A few years ago they had sort of a reverse class action, like an amnesty, forget it. I have a three phase defense that should not only win, but prevent future lawsuits by these sharks. Fuck them, they never worked a day in their lives. They make more fucking money than the writers and artists who created the material. I had a nice talk with one of my lawyers, the one who's name ends in "stein", and if you don't like me mentioning that go fuck yourself. We were talking about what my idea of a defense would be and he was quite impressed. See he is also a download demon. Many people have told me I should've became a lawyer. Their prosecution persuant to the DMCA is based on the premise that the music itself is what is valuable, not the media, like the disk, LP or tape. That is where I get them by the balls. I will be happy to pay them and make them "whole" as the law states, after they replace all the media I have purchased. That means I go to court with hundreds upon hundreds of LPs, CDs, cassettes, eight tracks, and VHS and beta tapes. They do not have the equipment to replace my media today. So my contention is, when they make me whole under the law, I will make them whole under the law. Also, much of my stuff is old and was in public domain. Whatever happened to public domain ? It was public but not any more apparently, someone seems to own it. Where did they get it ? I am part of the public, where is my check ? The RIAA is pretty much at the end of the tracks on their gravy train, and as another poster put it, they are lashing out like a cornered rat. Eventually all the lobbying in the world is not going to work for them. The MPAA is the same. None of them are worth shit even. I have respect for the writers and performers who have taken the time to develop the skill to create a hit song. But the rest of them are just hangers on. Kind of reminds me of a song "Don't call us, we'll call you". I forget who did it or I would play it right now. T

pahunkboy -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 6:17:20 AM)
LMAO at atty name. aint that the truth!!!

Termyn8or -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 9:09:17 AM)
Sorry if that's all you got out of it Hunky. If I purchase a CD, I have the right to play that CD anytime and anywhere I choose for the rest of my life. Then it follows that if the CD is damaged they must replace it for a minimal duplication cost. If you lose you Windows CD, they will send you one, or you can download it, but the key code is what you paid for. I wish I just knew someone who got fucked with by the RIAA. Me and my steinish lawyer (I guess you can't say Jewish) would make future lawsuits very unattractive for them. Don't think I am kidding here. Damn, now I gotta call him, what am I going to call him ? When he answers I am going to say "Hiya Steinish". LOL He'll probably say "Oh, you must be the Polack". But I do need to call him. The German is supposed to fix his Japanese car for taking care of a little bit of business for him. Suffice it to say that there was a broom and a rug involved. But on the OT, if they ever got me I would be bound to do my best, because when it comes to old music I got EVERYTHING. Name an old song, I bet I have it. My music is about 13 gigs now, and there is another gig of it waiting to be named properly and put into the directory. I don't even want to mention the videos and movies. That reminds me, I need to get another harddrive. This old 80 gig is almost full. T

Griswold -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 12:23:52 PM)
She stole a product that the rights to were owned by others. It's immaterial whether it was a song, a house that someone built or a Winnebego. The effort to produce it (and get it in consumers hands) was produced at someone else's expense, and to take it without compensation is illegal. Period. Every one of you that thinks this is so horrible, would be justifiably outraged if whatever you do to earn a living, once you did one of those things for the very first time in your existence, could be copied and handed out freely with no compensation to you and that no matter how many times you changed professions, each time you made your very first product, someone was standing right next to you with a Xerox machine and started handing copies of your hard work and efforts out to anyone with an interest...with nothing coming back to you. I'm stunned at the comments I just read above. Yeah, it was a single girl, against the big bad coprorate behemoth, who can easily afford to suffer the losses. But why should they? This chic is a moron. I read the entire case against her as well as her argument in defense. She was stoooopit!!!! She was offered to pay a single amount of about $1,700.00 if I recall and told never to do it again. She lied in her depositions in 48 separate occasions, provably. She walked into court with a giant fucking "kick me" sign...and she's the victim? Sorry folks...I don't buy it.

pahunkboy -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 12:27:37 PM)
If a fucken corporation could fucken copyright/patent a sunset they would and we would be so screwed!

camille65 -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 12:34:59 PM)
pahunk, no one sits and creates the sunset. I said before she was wrong, but I do think that the penalty is way over the top. She is being used to make an example of, that this can happen if you steal music. You can't steal a sunset, but you can steal someones painting of a sunset.

SeanPony -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 1:28:30 PM)
God damnit! Reading all this makes download even more and drink beer!! Happy weekend everybody.

Ponyboy7 -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 1:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold Every one of you that thinks this is so horrible, would be justifiably outraged if whatever you do to earn a living, once you did one of those things for the very first time in your existence, could be copied and handed out freely with no compensation to you and that no matter how many times you changed professions, each time you made your very first product, someone was standing right next to you with a Xerox machine and started handing copies of your hard work and efforts out to anyone with an interest...with nothing coming back to you. As someone who works in biomedical engineering, I know that I would outraged if someone infringed upon my patents. I work quite hard and put significant effort into my work. If the results of my labor were freely distributed I would never make any money and would have no incentive to continue working in this field. Now I'm not saying the law is completely correct; I think it does have some major flaws and should be revised, but intellectual property rights are important in a capitalist society. If people could not make any money from their labors, there would be far less incentive to put the time and effort required into developing new ideas into workable products that could benefit people in general.

kdsub -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 1:59:10 PM)
Some of the sites you pay money for unlimited downloads up front. It seems to me at this type of site the onus should be on the site to supply legal music…. or they should be obliged to pay the royalty. Unless the sites are in countries where there are no copyright laws why doesn’t the recording industry go after them. It seems to me one victory over a site or server would send a stronger message to other music illegal sites than destroying a single life. Butch

cyberdude611 -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 2:03:27 PM)
I dont think people mind paying an artist for music. The problem is when you pay for a $15 CD...the artist gets maybe 2 bucks. The CD itself cost maybe $3 to make. The rest of the price for that one CD is profit for the label. And they justify it by having one popular song on a disc and then throwing a bunch of crap on with it. It's the same antri-trust tactics that Microsoft got in major trouble for. It's the bundling that is illegal. What if you went into a store to buy a DVD and the clerk informs you that you can't buy just the single DVD that you want for $14.99. Instead you have to pay for a package that includes several other DVDs of junk and pay $49 to get the one DVD you want. You'd be pretty pissed off I think. It's the same thing for music. If you want to go out and buy a song you really like. Many times there is no single available. You have to buy the whole album for $15 bucks for that 1 song. The label just made a big profit off you. It's a rip-off. And that's why some people feel provoked to steal it. Many record labels have started to figure out they can't fight the technology. So now you can buy most of the music out there in single downloadable MP3s that cost usually like .99 cents and you can download it and burn it. But there are still a few labels out there that are fighting the technology and want to maintain that rip-off and the monopoly by forcing their customers to go to the store and buying the overpriced albums. The MPAA made the exact same arguements in the 1970s when the VCR was first put on the market. They sued JVC, the first company to manufacture them, claiming they were providing the tools for people to steal movies. The courts ultimately ruled that you can't sue a manufacturer because the consumer might use it for an illegal purpose. That's why RIAA can't go after the computer industry for creating the MP3 technology. They need to go after each individual user. And there are millions of them and most of these servers are located in countries that have no respect for US copyright laws. So the RIAA has a battle on their hands they cannot win. So the few people they are able to get they try to make an example of and they employ scare tactics. I read one case where investigators for RIAA's attornies chased a girl home from school threatening her that they were going to take her home and her family will be living on the street. I mean these people are like the Gestapo.

Termyn8or -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 2:22:59 PM)
cyber, that was Sony, not JVC. T

Griswold -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 3:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy If a fucken corporation could fucken copyright/patent a sunset they would and we would be so screwed! But they can't. (And that is a completely imbecilic example to make an entirely inept point).

youngsubgeoff -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 3:50:42 PM)
This, as a musician, is something I absolutely dispise. It doesnt matter to me how people get our tunes, as long as they get em. Besides, theres no real money in record sales, at least not for the artist. Most bands get rich from touring and merchandise, not a platinum album. I blame Lars Ulrich (FUCK YOU, METALLICA!) hes the one that brought this to the governments attention, And so, due to theyre greed, unkowns like me cannot share our music as easily as we once could. so, again, fuck you lars, james, kirk, jason, and rob! You are nothing but a bunch of sellouts that cant make a decent album for shit!

pahunkboy -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 4:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy If a fucken corporation could fucken copyright/patent a sunset they would and we would be so screwed! each year corporate interests get more power and laws THEY write. the government isnt by the people for the people. it is by the corporation for the corporation. But they can't. case in point- the new bankrupsy bill. case 2.lead in childrens toys. (And that is a completely imbecilic example to make an entirely inept point).

Griswold -> RE: RIAA forcing single mother to pay $222,000 settlement (10/6/2007 7:35:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy If a fucken corporation could fucken copyright/patent a sunset they would and we would be so screwed! (E)ach year corporate interests get more power (by virtue of the) laws (that) THEY write. (T)he government isnt by the people for the people. (I)t is by the corporation for the corporation. But they can't. (Can't what?) (C)ase in point- the new bankrupsy (bankruptcy) bill. (C)ase 2.lead in childrens toys. ("case 2.lead"?) Huh???? Bud, you're a sweet guy...truly...I've responded favorably to your posts for years....but seriously...read a book once in a while. (No, really).

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125