Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

Yet the recording industry would claim that that is just as illegal as copying to an iPod, which they now apparently are claiming is not fair use.

No there is a slight difference here. Copying from a CD and copying from the internet are two totally different things as far as the law is concerned. For one thing the labels already get paid everytime you buy blank CD's. They do not get paid anything when you buy a iPod. The person the original poster posted about was most likely found in violation of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997. It's not about "$220,000 for 24 songs" - it's about breaking a law where the maximum fine is $250,000 PER offense, so she got of easy. This law came about because of the "LaMacchia Loophole". It focuses mostly with MP3's and music file-sharing on the Internet, which is what she did.

On a side note, I love your sig

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

No there is a slight difference here. Copying from a CD and copying from the internet are two totally different things as far as the law is concerned.

I'm not talking about "copying from the internet," I'm talking about ripping a CD that is personally owned and then moving those files to an iPod.  The RIAA would now have you believe that such activity isn't covered by fair use, though they've stated otherwise previously. 

For one thing the labels already get paid everytime you buy blank CD's. They do not get paid anything when you buy a iPod.

In my opinion they should not receive money from the sale of either....though they're making a killing in other countries (just look at Canada).

volk wrote:

She got caught and has to pay a completely rediculous sum of money.

Let's examine this a little closer shall we? Her offense was for 24 songs. The maximum fine is $250,000 PER offense. 24 X 250,000 = $6,000,000. That means that she could have been charged 6 Million dollars and it would have been completely within the letter of the law. She only paid 220,000. Can you say Wal-Mart bargain? Maybe they should go for the full amount the next time someone wants to violate this law, then you'll consider paying less than 1/24th a bargain. It's simple math

bratboy wrote:

I'm talking about ripping a CD that is personally owned and then moving those files to an iPod.

That is covered. You already paid the labels a tax for this from the CD.

In my opinion they should not receive money from the sale of either

I agree with you 100%, but the government did not write the copyright law, the industry and their lobbyist did. Over the years lobbyists have paid off Congress to change the original copyright law, thereby defeating the Constitutional purpose of the law. Lobbying should be illegal, plain and simple, but people never complain about it until it's too late.

bratboy wrote:

I'm guessing many here feel that it is not.

Yeah well, they are probably the ones using these services. They'll learn soon enough that the law applies to everyone equally (well at least in theory ). The Internet is like the wild, wild west and it's time that there were laws. The problem is that in order for them to be truly enforceable they need to be international laws, which probably won't be coming soon.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I'm guessing many here feel that it is not.

Yeah well, they are probably the ones using these services. They'll learn soon enough that the law applies to everyone equally (well at least in theory ). The Internet is like the wild, wild west and it's time that there were laws. The problem is that in order for them to be truly enforceable they need to be international laws, which probably won't be coming soon.

I have never used Napster (the original nor the current rental model) or Kazaa or any other service for downloading music or even for any legitimate files.

One of my complaints about the entertainment industry is their claims that their businesses are ENTITLED to growth as their piracy accusations imply (such as Sony's anti-piracy lawyer claiming that Sony would have doubled CD sales if it weren't for piracy). Certainly some losses are due to on-line piracy, but their growth curves completely ignore the fact that along with other forms of entertainment they have to compete for people's attention. That the computer games market alone almost matches the music industry in size indicates that quite a number of people have other things to do rather than listening to CDs.

So what if you do buy the music. Do you have the right to Freely share it? Is it  ileagal to get it for free but not to share what youvr bought.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

volk wrote:

She got caught and has to pay a completely rediculous sum of money.

Let's examine this a little closer shall we? Her offense was for 24 songs. The maximum fine is $250,000 PER offense. 24 X 250,000 = $6,000,000. That means that she could have been charged 6 Million dollars and it would have been completely within the letter of the law. She only paid 220,000. Can you say Wal-Mart bargain? Maybe they should go for the full amount the next time someone wants to violate this law, then you'll consider paying less than 1/24th a bargain. It's simple math

The purpose of such a high maximum fine is to break up pirating organizations, as opposed to individuals pirating for personal use.  The penalty clearly does not fit the crime in this case.  This debt will hang over this woman perhaps for the rest of her life, or at least a good deal of it.  The only way around it is if she puts all her savings in off-shore accounts and becomes self-employed.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

The purpose of such a high maximum fine is to break up pirating organizations, as opposed to individuals pirating for personal use.

I'm not sure where you got this misconception from. First of all these were NOT for her personal use. She was sued for music pirating by illegally sharing! All the jurors in the case that heard all of the evidence agreed that she WILLFULLY violated the copyright of 24 music files. You also need to keep in mind that while she was sued for 24 songs, it was found that she willfully offered 1,702 songs online through her Kazaa file-sharing account under the username of tereastarr. Her Internet provider confirmed that she did this. She also willfully hid incriminating evidence. She was sent an instant message on 2/2005 warning her that she was violating copyright law, that should have been her first clue. She then suddenly replaced her hard drive with the songs on it. Why would she do this if she was so 'innocent' as some claim? Let this remind those that downloading illegal files is digital shoplifting pure and simple and that it is against the law for a reason. They are not as anonymous as they may think they are and participating in it can lead to serious legal consequences. Let's hope that others learn from her mistake.

First off, since filesharing apps default-configure themselves to share, it's extremely unlikely that she even realized she was sharing.  Secondly, the fact that she offered 1,702 songs to others does not prove that she ever uploaded even a single song.  The fact that she hid her hard drive, etc.., is irrelevant, since I'm assuming she's guilty.

The bottom line is there is absolutely no way she caused $220,000 in damages except, perhaps, by the RIAA's fabricated fictistics.  I hope Kazaa covers the woman's loss, effectively neutralizing their example case.  The RIAA is a bunch of smurfs.

Last edited by Mr. T (2007-10-13 10:46 pm)

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

it's extremely unlikely that she even realized she was sharing.

Maybe to you, but the jury in the case disagreed.

That tends to happen in cases with technical or scientific evidence.  My Chem instructor is a forensic chemist, and he knows first-hand how incredibly difficult it is to explain technical stuff to juries.

the fact that she offered 1,702 songs to others does not prove that she ever uploaded even a single song.

Not according to her ISP and a private security firm that investigated the matter

How do you know that?

The RIAA is a bunch of smurfs.

They probably are, but this isn't about them, it's about her breaking the law. She thought she could hide behind her keyboard and rip people off. She was wrong.

Do you think that she caused $220,000 in damages?

Mr. T wrote:

That tends to happen in cases with technical or scientific evidence.

It also tends to happen when a jury has no 'reasonable doubt' that the person is guilty

How do you know that?

Research.

Do you think that she caused $220,000 in damages?

Without being part of the jury it's hard to put a number on it but I think that you can't blame the record companies for decisions that she willingly made on her own. Blame the record companies for other things, but not this. It was HER decision to set up the file sharing account. It was HER decision to use kazaa. It was HER decision to pirate the files and break the law. It was HER decision to refuse to make a deal with the attorneys before the case was brought to court. Clearly she is responsible for her own actions and the jury agreed. She was 30 years old so she was of the generation that was brought up on the Internet. To a lot of people just like her the Internet is one big smorgasbord, where you can get everything for free. Click here for this free file. Click there for another free file. Who cares if it's illegal, it's so simple, quick and effortless to do, plus hey, everyone 'doing it' right? The problem with that reasoning is that some of those 'free' files aren't supposed to be free. According to the Constitution of this great country the most important reason for copyright law is to advance the useful arts and sciences for the public good. Copyright law was designed to motivate creativity, and offer you a way to protect those creations. If someone wants to rip off your creations that's a big no-no, and that's what this woman was trying to do. I think it's time that the Internet deserves a little respect, and those who decide to abuse what the Internet has to offer should be made an example of. Other wise it's just chaos and the Internet becomes one big lottery where your number for getting ripped off by someone may be coming up next. Perhaps you won't write a song, but maybe you'll have a website one day and learn what it's like when people rip off your hard work. Or maybe you'll have a business where people can buy files that you've written, only to find out that they do a chargeback on the credit card after they download your files, so now you've been ripped off too. There's lots of ways to get ripped off on the internet, and you don't have to be a song writer to learn that. This woman was pirating music that didn't belong to her, she thought she wouldn't get caught, but they found her and she got caught and was made an example of, and I don't see anything wrong with that. She did, after all, WILLINGLY break the law.

rufio wrote:

There's no way that it is purely and simply the equivalent of digital shoplifting. Our culture is not at that point.

It has nothing to do with culture. Stealing is stealing. Second of all if what you said had any truth to it then her attorney would have been able to throw the case out of court. It doesn't look like that happened. Let's learn why;

Shoplifting (shŏp'lĭft' ting) noun: the act of stealing goods, the illegal act of taking goods without paying for them.

The 'electronic' part I'm guessing you can handle on your own

Mr.T wrote:

Expound.

Google

I only ask because I'm kinda getting the impression that you're a digital copyright lawyer working for some type of music/software company.

LOL

Not even close

Although I do know a lot about digital copyrights, but that's only because I've studied with Jessica Litman who participated as an observer in the actual drafting of the Copyright law. Check out her book at the library called "Digital Copyright". You'll learn a lot of things that you can legally do that the record companies try to brainwash you into thinking you can't.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

It also tends to happen when a jury has no 'reasonable doubt' that the person is guilty

Civil suit...