AfterDawn: News

First U.S. file sharing trial kicks off

After more than 26,000 Internet users have been targeted by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for alleged copyright infringement, a case has finally ended in a proper trial. Capital vs. Thomas will challenge the recording industry's evidence against file sharers as well as fines levied by music companies for sharing copyrighted music online. Jammie Thomas refused to settle with the RIAA, saying she was wrongfully targeted by SafeNet.

SafeNet is contracted by the record companies to monitor file sharing activity and find sharers of copyrighted material. "I did not download or upload any music, period," Thomas, 30, said outside the federal courthouse in Duluth. A 12-member jury was empaneled on Tuesday. Her lawyer said that she will end up paying over $60,000 in attorney's fees because she refused to be bullied by the trade group.



"No one can prove which computer actually did this," defense attorney Brian Toder said in his opening statement. He argued that in this day and age, malicious individuals can easily hijack computers and use the Internet connections to distribute copyrighted material. However, the record companies claim that there is clear evidence that Thomas shared over 1,700 songs with potentially millions of file sharers.

"Piracy is a tremendous problem affecting the music industry," said the first witness, Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation and anti-piracy for Sony BMG Music Entertainment. "It has caused billions of dollars in harm in the past four or five years." Much of the first day discussion addressed fair use. Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, questioned Pariser about consumers making just one copy of a music track they own for themselves.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," Parsier said, adding that making a copy of one purchased song is, "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy." Most music stored on MP3 players doesn't come from legal downloads, but other sources including ripping tracks from personal CD collections and indeed, software like iTunes possesses the ability to do so.

Thomas is not being sued for all 1,072 songs she allegedly shared, but instead, 25 songs by Virgin Records, Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Brothers Records and UMG Recordings Inc. If the jury finds "willful" copyright infringement, Thomas could face fines up to $150,000 per song.

Sources:
Yahoo (AFP)
Ars Technica

Written by: James Delahunty @ 3 Oct 2007 5:11

• Previous article

• The Pirate Bay is starting a new torrent tracker

• Next article

• Microsoft unveils new Zune players

• 50 comments

• nobrainer

  omg does this look like more ATRAC, XCP RootKit, ARccOS, CLEFIA, SecuROM, BD+ and any other sony drm schemes are coming to town to take away more of our freedom to use our media we have purchased the way we want to?
  
  Quote:"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song,"cheers sony, thanks for clarifying your position, on your customers rights with media they own!
  

  Track What Companies Have Edited Wiki http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ (very heavy load atm)

  3.10.2007 05:49 #1

• ahjukhir

  $150,000 PER song ?!?!! wtf thats is outrageous, make em pay the 99cents per track that you can get off of itunes or other music download sites. thats just plain bullshit. the riaa is just a bunch of theiving assholes that only care about money and screwing their customers, no wonder no ones buying cds any more.

  3.10.2007 06:15 #2

• c1c

  I beleive its not RIAA fault, they are the middle man who work for thee large money hungry corporations, trying to make an example out of someone so they can install 'fear tactics' for the rest of the people.
  
  AND also, how do you know that the person getting sued and the RIAA don't work for the same people? That would be a great idea for them, sue someone for money that works for you already. Then a story like this makes national news, and gets good publicity, there is the scare tactic.

  3.10.2007 07:02 #3

• tefarko

  treating the customers like &#!+, forcing crappy DRM, hiring crooks like SafeNet and MediaDefender... no wonder they are losing the battle...

  3.10.2007 07:03 #4

• nobrainer

  Originally posted by c1c: I beleive its not RIAA fault, they are the middle man who work for thee large money hungry corporations, trying to make an example out of someone so they can install 'fear tactics' for the rest of the people.
  
  AND also, how do you know that the person getting sued and the RIAA don't work for the same people? That would be a great idea for them, sue someone for money that works for you already. Then a story like this makes national news, and gets good publicity, there is the scare tactic.these companies are the riaa and the mpaa and the pro drm lobby and the ones making the drm. sony are so far up anti consumer avenue they are now happy to state that you are a criminal if you purchase only one copy and move it around your devices, you don't even need to pirate ip you only need move it to your iPod!
  
  RIAA Are:
  
  Sony BMG Music Entertainment, EMI, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group.
  
  
  

  Track What Companies Have Edited Wiki http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ (very heavy load atm)

  3.10.2007 07:28 #5

• ShoeBark

  1,700 songs * $150,000 per song = $255,000,000

  3.10.2007 07:59 #6

• ShoeBark

  1,700 songs * $150,000 per song = $255,000,000

  3.10.2007 07:59 #7

• ShoeBark

  1,700 songs * $150,000 per song = $255,000,000

  3.10.2007 07:59 #8

• chaos_zzz

  media suxs , just lower the prices and that's the real solution not charging everyone you ran in to. a cd costs like 20 bugs every cd has like 12 songs so if i spend 250$ i got like 13 cd wich mieans like 156 songs wich will take 600mb aprox.
  You have spended 150$ and l you got is a pile od cd's you can't use now go boy a zune ipod whatever for 250$ and fill it up with stuff fromo p2p sharing that's what people cuz it''s cheap when drm music is cheap then everyone will be happy and i mean really cheap :)

  3.10.2007 07:59 #9

• jordanNOV

  Sorry folks, the problem lies with the consumer. Americans, bitch & moan and thats it. A couple of years ago we fought a war, u know freedom, no taxation without representation leading to of the people by the people. So we think we got it going on, we relax. those founding fathers die and the Machiavellian principal really takes hold. Our systems of Education & Government, is not for or of the people, it is for and of the rich. We just take it. Ignorance is bliss, when the masses are ignorant and docile. When was the last issue (of civil disobedience) that a large portion of this Nation participated in (Vietnam & civil-rights) National protests, boycotts against (gov., corporations profiting from them.
  Damage or weaken the economy and you will break this thought process.
  Blacks are sitting back as most gains never materialized or are being chipped away (look at that ass-hole clarence thomas - supreme court justice, the biggest hammer working to dismantle those gains). Lets not forget Black communities vote the least (not that a vote really means any thing). Since Vietnam 3 wars/military action again not for us but the rich (and from a tactical stand point in Nam we did have indigenous people fighting, thats not happening in Iraq)
  I haven't gone to a movie since 1985, nor have i purchased a cd in 8 years. Screw these corps. STOP purchasing, cds, dvds,concert tickets and movie tickets - Let these B_stards know enough is enough. write, call bug the whores in congress & senate to rescind, modify these laws. Some times it is REALLY Criminal to steal (like the asses selling this crap on corners - for me those are the only ones that should be prodecuted/sued)

  3.10.2007 11:31 #10

• spydah

  Honestly the list of companies that are pro DRM and any other form of customer product lock out and deterring software hardware or whatever you want to name to scare or rape the customers pockets are just as bad. They all have to much power and as long as their are congressmen willingly ready to take a under the table payment to pass these laws to allow this we will continue to get screwed.

  3.10.2007 11:54 #11

• Hrdrk20

  Some times it is REALLY Criminal to steal (like the asses selling this crap on corners - for me those are the only ones that should be prodecuted/sued)I don't have a problem with thoes people, especially in America. I live in the USA and it's sad how this country is deteriorating. Politicians don't live like most of the country so they don't see neighboorhoods turn into "Little Mexico" with trash,grafiti,blaring Mariachi music,Hispanic-specific isolated stores and the general "anti-assimilation" philosophy. Rents are contstantly going up with each new lease, new taxes are always proposed and food and product saftey regulations are being lowered. So if the little guy can get a break now and then, I'm all for it. Downloaded movies,music and software, not returning overpaid change from immigrant cashier's mistakes are ways to get even when the opportunity arrises.

  3.10.2007 12:40 #12

• c1c

  Our president already signed a treaty in 2005 making the U.S. no longer. We will be the North American Union combining Canada and Mexico with the Amero as currency. We will all have NationalID cards in them with a radio chip in it along with a new Constitution. It's already in the works.

  3.10.2007 16:29 #13

• FrmDstryr

  wtf happed to sharing is caring lol

  3.10.2007 17:00 #14

• BRAL

  There is an underlying story here not quoted in this article. One of the things the defense brought up was the possibility that someone connected to this person's network through a wireless router. One of the RIAA's expert witnesses Doug Jacobsen (director of the Iowa State University Computer Engineering Department http://www.iac.iastate.edu/Faculty/d-jacobson.html ) stated that the internal IP address of any computer that could have connected through a wireless router would have been detected. The very function of a wireless router is NAT. Therefore, any computer connected through a wireless router would only display the external IP address issued by the ISP, and definitely NOT the internal IP address. It seems that Mr. Jacobsen lied in court. It appears that the RIAA is so desperate to win this first case that they are requiring their expert testimony to commit obvious perjury. What baffles me is how Mr Jacobsen assumed that a much publicized case like this one wouldn't expose his apparent perjury. That's amazing.

  3.10.2007 19:01 #15

• ookami

  Companies should be afraid of consumers. Consumers shouldn't be afraid of companies.

  4.10.2007 11:57 #16

• WrecKer1

  once you buy some thing no one has the right to tell you what to do with it! after all were not borrowing or renting it..
  if there so afraid then dont sell it...
  or we should be saying were going to sue you for passing around the money we gave you....
  

  WrecKer

  4.10.2007 12:07 #17

• nobrainer

  Originally posted by WrecKer1: once you buy some thing no one has the right to tell you what to do with it! after all were not borrowing or renting it..
  if there so afraid then dont sell it...
  or we should be saying were going to sue you for passing around the money we gave you....apparently sony think they do, and with the xcp rootkit you know that's the case. The problem is they are happy to be hypocritical to make a profit from selling recording equipment and blank media but as soon as they have your cash tell you your is strictly for one device they you have to purchase it again for another.
  
  This can be easily seen with the psn release of ps3 game warhawk where it could only be used on one account, not one machine, or ip address, making your house mates and family pirates and blocked from using it on their accounts!
  
  http://threespeech.com/blog/?p=575
  
  Originally posted by link: In order to protect our investment in this ground-breaking game and maintain our ability to offer a 24-hour free online gameplay experience, SCE will be utilizing an alternative Digital Rights Management (DRM) policy for the downloadable version of Warhawk. The downloadable version of Warhawk, which will be available from the PLAYSTATION Store on Thursday 30th August, will be directly tied to the registered PLAYSTATION Network (PSN) account that purchased the game. Only that registered PSN account will be authenticated for gameplay. You will still be able to download the game to up to five PS3 systems. However, if a user downloads Warhawk onto a different machine, he / she will only be able to play via the original PSN user account on that machine and could not play on a different machine for 24 hours. This does not affect the Blu-ray Disc version of the game which will be available at retail later in September.this is a money making capitalist company, what do you expect. BTW sony supply loads of drm, so if the drm lobbyists continue to convince ppl to use this worthless software they make the monies on all sides!

  4.10.2007 12:49 #18

• RNR1995

  Since when is copying your own music piracy?
  Is this bitch off her rocker?

  4.10.2007 13:18 #19

• DVDdoug

  Quote:When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song... making a copy of one purchased song is, a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy. This is a good thing... Taking such an extreme position makes the RIAA look like the "bad guys" to the jury.
  
  I assume Thomas' lawyer knows about the Audio Home Recording Act and the Betamax Case.
  
  It's also funny that they are starting-out by trying to explain that file sharing is wrong, instead of trying to prove that any file sharing was done. It will be more intersting when they get to the evidence, if any...

  4.10.2007 14:53 #20

• egm47

  Quote:Thursday October 4, 6:28 PM EDT
  
  DULUTH, Minn. (AP) — The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $220,000 in damages against her.
  
  The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs in all.
  
  Thomas and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined comment as they left the courthouse.
  
  In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.
  
  Record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars.
  
  During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.
  
  Toder said in his closing that the companies never proved "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."
  
  "We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this."
  
  Richard Gabriel, the companies' lead attorney, called that defense "misdirection, red herrings, smoke and mirrors."
  
  He told jurors a verdict against Thomas would send a message to other illegal downloaders.
  
  "I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said.
  
  Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was willful but awarded damages in a middle range.
  
  Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial.
  
  Illegal downloads have "become business as usual, nobody really thinks about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits. "This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights."
  
  Thomas's her testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place — and later than she said in a deposition before trial.
  
  The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party, though Thomas used her new one to show the jury how fast it copies songs from CDs. That was an effort to counter an industry witness's assertion that the songs on the old drive got there too fast to have come from CDs she owned — and therefore must have been downloaded illegally.
  
  Record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February 2005, warning her that she was violating copyright law. Her hard drive was replaced the following month, not in 2004, as she said in the deposition.
  
  The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc.

  4.10.2007 15:01 #21

• icanucan

  The argument of many on this subject seems to be this,"...You buy a cd, you own it. You own the music on it and can dispose of it as you wish".
  
  Ok everyone lets just sit back for one minute and think what that actually would mean if it was true.
  
  Mr A records a song. Mr A releases a cd. The cd is bought by Mr B. Mr B now owns the cd and all the music on it and can do what ever he likes with it.
  
  Mr B copies the cd and puts his name on it. Makes no reference to Mr A. Is this fair?
  
  Mr B copies the cd. Sells it on the street, to his local cd shop they sell it on give him a cut.
  Mr A sees no money. Is this fair?
  
  If I buy a car I own that particular vehicle. Not the design. I can't copy that car and give it to others.
  
  I have heard many arguments over file sharing and none seem to get over two basic facts.
  Mr A wrote a song. He owns it.
  You buy a cd you own that, not the song.
  
  Much is spoken in the "file-sharing community" of the protection of personal freedom. What of a persons expectation that they should receive the fruits of their labour?
  
  Finally lets be honest. This is not about personal freedoms being eroded by big business. Its about the oldest desire in the hearts of men. To get something for nothing. I would have more respect for the advocates of file-sharing if they just admitted this.
  Please just once....? Eh pretty please

  4.10.2007 15:55 #22

• ChiefBrdy

  Here we are, 2007. Little has changed in 2000 years. We're still killing each other, in one war after another. Selfish barbarians is what we are. Politically correct sheep. Allowing government, business and our fellow man beat us down. The worst of all is the insatiable desire for wealth and power.
  
  Greed is the driving force of humanity. Until that stops, we will never change as a species. Ever.
  
  Everything in between is merely temporary minutia

  4.10.2007 16:19 #23

• SWINGTIP

  Originally posted by icanucan: The argument of many on this subject seems to be this,"...You buy a cd, you own it. You own the music on it and can dispose of it as you wish".
  
  Ok everyone lets just sit back for one minute and think what that actually would mean if it was true.
  
  Mr A records a song. Mr A releases a cd. The cd is bought by Mr B. Mr B now owns the cd and all the music on it and can do what ever he likes with it.
  
  Mr B copies the cd and puts his name on it. Makes no reference to Mr A. Is this fair?
  
  Mr B copies the cd. Sells it on the street, to his local cd shop they sell it on give him a cut.
  Mr A sees no money. Is this fair?
  
  If I buy a car I own that particular vehicle. Not the design. I can't copy that car and give it to others.
  
  I have heard many arguments over file sharing and none seem to get over two basic facts.
  Mr A wrote a song. He owns it.
  You buy a cd you own that, not the song.
  
  Much is spoken in the "file-sharing community" of the protection of personal freedom. What of a persons expectation that they should receive the fruits of their labour?
  
  Finally lets be honest. This is not about personal freedoms being eroded by big business. Its about the oldest desire in the hearts of men. To get something for nothing. I would have more respect for the advocates of file-sharing if they just admitted this.
  Please just once....? Eh pretty pleaseyour right on the money bro all you own is the cd not the song on it...but saying that its bullshit cuss you should be abal to do what ever you whany with the cd =ie give it for free to friends.
  
  nuff siad.

  4.10.2007 17:19 #24

• cass_71

  There used to be three large music stores in my local mega mall. One still survives by selling DVD's and a VERY few CD's. They may very well sell crack cocaine and pot under the counter, for all I know.
  Crosby, Still, Nash and (sometines) Young made their millions with LP's. If you are an "up and coming" band, get out there and tour your asses off 'cause you won't be selling CD's like they did "albums" in the "good old analogue days"!
  If I could download digitized cars, you wouldn't believe what would be sitting in my driveway by tommorow!

  4.10.2007 17:39 #25

• DADEO1

  When we were all young children,didn't our parents teach us to share.

  4.10.2007 19:11 #26

• greghig

  This is a bit off subject but youll see where im heading.. How many times have you gone to wallmart or any other department store, bought something, PAID FOR IT, walked out the door and tripped the "You stole something" bong at the door. The person comes over and says she needs to see in my bag. I told him NO. In his mind, I was stealing something, but in reality, I didnt feel I needed to show hem anything. Everything in the bag was now mine, I showed her the recipt and started out the door. Next thing I know I was pounced on by security. I told them unless they had a search warrent, they could not search my property. I pulled away and told them if they touched me I was going to press assault charges on them. They called the police and I showed the policeman the bag and there was nothing stolen in my posession. Of coarse the cashier didnt deactivate the sensor, but is that my fault?
  
  The question... If I paid for it with reciept in hand, It it really mine? Does ANYBODY have the right to "search me" because their computer system accused me of being a thief? That is kinda the same problem here. Just because I buy the music, does this mean I own it?
  
  Did I just buy a cd or dvd, or did I just purchase a "license", and the music and cd is still the property of the record company.
  
  hmmmm... Thoughts?

  4.10.2007 20:47 #27

• sopcannon

  Originally posted by greghig: This is a bit off subject but youll see where im heading.. How many times have you gone to wallmart or any other department store, bought something, PAID FOR IT, walked out the door and tripped the "You stole something" bong at the door. The person comes over and says she needs to see in my bag. I told him NO. In his mind, I was stealing something, but in reality, I didnt feel I needed to show hem anything. Everything in the bag was now mine, I showed her the recipt and started out the door. Next thing I know I was pounced on by security. I told them unless they had a search warrent, they could not search my property. I pulled away and told them if they touched me I was going to press assault charges on them. They called the police and I showed the policeman the bag and there was nothing stolen in my posession. Of coarse the cashier didnt deactivate the sensor, but is that my fault?
  
  The question... If I paid for it with reciept in hand, It it really mine? Does ANYBODY have the right to "search me" because their computer system accused me of being a thief? That is kinda the same problem here. Just because I buy the music, does this mean I own it?
  
  Did I just buy a cd or dvd, or did I just purchase a "license", and the music and cd is still the property of the record company.
  
  hmmmm... Thoughts?i hate those damn things at hmv they never disarm them. I would like to think that they dont have the right to search your property with out a warrant.
  
  My wife got banned from a supermarket for 6 months due too a security guard seeing her pick up one of the kids toys and putting it in the dyper bag, the security guard said that she stole something and overuled the store-manager.
  
  Besides how do u know the files that were on the hard drive where mp3 music files and not viruses which can be transmitted to other computers quicker than any mp3 i have seen!

  4.10.2007 22:21 #28

• icanucan

  No you do not buy a license to the music on a cd when you purchase it.
  A license allows you to disseminate the music contained. Has no one here ever read the bit on cds dvds books the end of films etc, that tells you your are not allowed to transmit the material contained shown electronically, digitally etc to the public?
  
  Basically the object is yours up to a point,what is contained can only be used for private use and that is curtailed to protect the artists, publishers record company...
  
  Those advocating unhindered file sharing don't want to pay for what they consume.
  
  Now thats bullshit

  4.10.2007 22:37 #29

• corvis13

  If Mr B, put his name on Mr A's song and claimed he wrote it yes that is definately a copyright infringement, I haven't seen that in the file sharing community but you never know, however Mr B isn't going to get any royalties out of it cause if it was shared it was recorded and not by Mr B...now what about SONY, and all the other companies that put out recording software and market them as "copy music movies etc?? They kidding me??? They know full well what their product is being used for, and its ludicrous to think I might need 100's of DVD's to backup production at work, even on a good day using MS Office I couldn't generate enough GB's to fill all the media they offer. And High Def Blue ray? Its made specifically for burning movies and HD tv, do they think the ave joe has a production company in their basement?? Maybe they ought to find themselves on the defense end of a lawsuit too. They target people to burn movies and music what they think is going to happen? How long would smith and wesson last if they marketed their products to "kill your neighbors accurately and neatly?"

  5.10.2007 00:46 #30

• Mez

  BRAL, you hit it on the head! The reason why this is going to court is that it is winnable. The advocates of the RIAA will perjure them selves to win a case. The jury might just see the witch hunt for what it is. I would guess most household wireless networks are not secure. They want to say that is a crime. It was probably set up for them by a Geek Squad. How would they know it was not secure? If the bad guys lose, that will set them back in their move to subjigate the world.
  
  Quote:
  "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy." Most music stored on MP3 players doesn't come from legal downloads, but other sources including ripping tracks from personal CD collections and indeed, software like iTunes possesses the ability to do so.
  
  They are going to lose! That Parsier is a real @ss hole! She has already done away with fair use without a change in the law. If only one person in the jury has a lick of sense they do not have much of a chance of winning. What a shame! This is too good to be true!

  5.10.2007 02:44 #31

• Mez

  greghig,
  
  You purchased something that was copy writed. Fair use in the copy write law allows you to copy that material for your own use. It is illegle to sell it or give the copy away.

  5.10.2007 02:59 #32

• procode

  The RIAA couldn't care less about what 'The Law' states ..
  
  Since 99.99% of their targets 'give in', the RIAA are never forced to consult it .. !!
  
  To them, 'The Law' (in any country), is what they say it is ..
  
  Procode ..

  5.10.2007 04:26 #33

• PhntomG

  OK, in a nutshell. I have about 300 old LP's. I have transfered them (through recording) to MP3's and put them on CD's for MY use only. One reason is because getting needles for my record player is becoming impos. Another is so that I can listen to the tracks in my bedroom (while going to sleep). I do NOT allow the CD's to be borrowed, copied, etc.
  
  This is not as easy with CD's (other than the RECORDING through the CD Player's Line-Out), which usually ends up in a degraged copy. The MP3 converters say that the CD is copy-writed and will not copy, not even for my PERSONAL use.
  
  I am NOT sharing my private music so why can't I put in on a media that I can listen to where I want? That was the point of buying the CD. I say this, knowing that I could take the CD BACK and FORTH from the front room to the bedroom which leads to accidents (dropping etc.) so the copy would ONLY be played in the bedroom, and the One if the front room would NOT be played at the same time.
  
  Guess I am now WRONG for wanting to do this.
  Lance

  5.10.2007 05:53 #34

• user81

  Lets think
  Of the 26,000 internet users that have been targeted. You could win this. Set up a fighting fund. If 26,000 know they are targeted and donate $10.00 each, and that raises 260,000. I don’t have anything to do with it and I would donate through pay pal $20.00 to put these corporate bullies in their place.

  5.10.2007 07:32 #35

• Lloyd7

  Originally posted by icanucan: The argument of many on this subject seems to be this,"...You buy a cd, you own it. You own the music on it and can dispose of it as you wish".
  
  Ok everyone lets just sit back for one minute and think what that actually would mean if it was true.
  
  Mr A records a song. Mr A releases a cd. The cd is bought by Mr B. Mr B now owns the cd and all the music on it and can do what ever he likes with it.
  
  Mr B copies the cd and puts his name on it. Makes no reference to Mr A. Is this fair?
  
  Mr B copies the cd. Sells it on the street, to his local cd shop they sell it on give him a cut.
  Mr A sees no money. Is this fair?
  
  If I buy a car I own that particular vehicle. Not the design. I can't copy that car and give it to others.
  
  I have heard many arguments over file sharing and none seem to get over two basic facts.
  Mr A wrote a song. He owns it.
  You buy a cd you own that, not the song.
  
  Much is spoken in the "file-sharing community" of the protection of personal freedom. What of a persons expectation that they should receive the fruits of their labour?
  
  Finally lets be honest. This is not about personal freedoms being eroded by big business. Its about the oldest desire in the hearts of men. To get something for nothing. I would have more respect for the advocates of file-sharing if they just admitted this.
  Please just once....? Eh pretty pleaseOf course, legally you are correct. But let me ask you this:
  
  If you've been *bleep* in the ass for years in order to get your food, when the day comes that you can get that *bleep* food for free, are you going to insist that he continue his assault? Or will you just take the free food?
  
  I'm not saying it's legal or even the right thing to do, but perhaps the illustration will help you to see why we are where we are. Or course, that bully will use the legal system to club you over the head so that he may continue his assault. But if the opportunity arises for the *bleep* to get back at the *bleep*, chances are that, right or wrong, he's gonna do it.
  
  "What goes around, comes around" or if you prefer, "you reap what you sow."
  
  Never fails.
  
  -Lloyd7

  5.10.2007 09:29 #36

• Mez

  PhntomG, you have not broken the law. In fact even down loading music is breaking the law but a prescident has been made to allow persons to record TV and radio. They do not try to get you on that. What they will go after is when you give them of sell them to someone else.
  
  Actually, ripping CDs is way easier and relyable than capturing vinyl. I don't listen to original CDs either. All my originals are archived. MP3s do not wear out or get broken. Why would you play anything else?

  5.10.2007 09:49 #37

• Mez

  Lloyd7, you are saying what many of us feel. However, your choice of wording might get you kicked off the forum. I would edit want you said if I were you! You are a newbie, which provides some protection from breaking the by-laws but I have seen other newbees kicked off for less.

  5.10.2007 09:54 #38

• dpilarz

  There was a time when slavery was legal and women could not vote. Those abominations have changed due to public pressure. Copyright laws do not represent ethical or moral absolutes. They are contrived to protect business interests. Those interests are sometimes valid in a society but sometimes they may not be entirely ethical, natural or right. Public pressure or technological change may be needed to highlight the overall wrongness of a law protecting business interests. As many people have already pointed out, consumers and artists have frequently been and are fooled and cheated by the recording "industry". The lack of clear mechanisms for protection from such acts of corporate vandalism are often simply being compensated for by peoples' downloading or otherwise sharing of recorded music/video.
  
  The recording industry is as wrong in attempting to sue people for sharing music as restaurants would be in suing people for making and sharing a meal they first tried in a restaurant. People pay to eat in a restaurant for the ambience, quality of food, competitive price and even because they don't have to wash the dishes. Restaurant prices reflect the value added to a meal. If the recording industry wants to fairly earn money they should offer something enticing and non-reproducable. Selling CDs and DVDs is a bit too simple a way to expect to make a fortune. It's too easily replicated. The industry could more ethically make money by promoting lots of great live concerts (real music making!), and the industry should depend on a fine cinema experience for profits.Cds/DVDs should sell at low mass distribution prices to reflect the neglible value of a recorded medium compared to the public spectacle of great cinema. Thus much less downloading and sharing would occur.
  
  Corporations are the first to claim the need for so called "free-market economies" alla Milton Freidman. Pity they don't want to let a proper free market decide what it really wants to pay for their products!

  5.10.2007 11:43 #39

• duke8888

  GAME OVER MAN!
  
  http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138115/article.html#
  
  Here is the link to a court judgement for sharing music files open the flood gates and you all better watch yourself they are coming for us..

  5.10.2007 14:40 #40

• Mez

  dpilarz, Patents also had a 100 year span but companies lobbied to get it cut to 20 then 17 years. This is all the get for sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to develope a patent such as most drugs. That is why we have to pay $10 a pill. Copy writes are only ideas. Very little effort was made compared to a patent. Why do copy writes still last 100 years? The main benefactor would be the public and we don't have high paid lobiests contributing to the politicians. Instead the bad guys have the high paid lobbiests.

  6.10.2007 03:37 #41

• duke8888

  Originally posted by Mez: dpilarz, Patents also had a 100 year span but companies lobbied to get it cut to 20 then 17 years. This is all the get for sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to develope a patent such as most drugs. That is why we have to pay $10 a pill. Copy writes are only ideas. Very little effort was made compared to a patent. Why do copy writes still last 100 years? The main benefactor would be the public and we don't have high paid lobiests contributing to the politicians. Instead the bad guys have the high paid lobbiests.It has always been that way he who has the most bucks win. Look at the oil company and medical firms who pay lobbiests.... Its all about the money.

  6.10.2007 04:33 #42

• c1c

  Originally posted by user81: Lets think
  Of the 26,000 internet users that have been targeted. You could win this. Set up a fighting fund. If 26,000 know they are targeted and donate $10.00 each, and that raises 260,000. I don’t have anything to do with it and I would donate through pay pal $20.00 to put these corporate bullies in their place.You missed a point here. you would put 20$ through paypal? and put the corporate bullies in place? well in doing so you actually are aiding the corporate bullies!!!!! you just gave 5% of your donation to a HUGE corporation called PAYPAL! just ironic.
  

  
  
  hp dvd 840, vaio pcg-frv27,Epson r260 Printer, Wacom Graphire 4x5, Verbatim 4X Printable DVD-R

  7.10.2007 21:07 #43

• sopcannon

  anyone watch MTV`s cribs ? and they say the artists arent getting as much!
  
  wish i could afford what most of those artists have!
  

  ticket for movies $20
  cost internet per month $30
  cost of movies on the internet $0
  cost of fine if ever caught $dont want to know

  7.10.2007 21:34 #44

• Mez

  C1c, I think you need to be a bit selective corporations you are going to boycott unless you are willing to live in a tent and not buy anything. Paypal provide a service and I am not aware that they are doing anything anti social. However, we would be better off biding our time until the media maffia trys to alter the law to screw the public more. They will want ISPs to monitor copy write infingement. Tell them this is insane! Why should the world be forced to make one company rich. Then mobilize and flood the congress with hate mail. Accuse them of being on the take, ect. Pose the question why are patents 17 years and copywrites 100 years. Demand an answer. Demand that copy writes only last 10 years. That would solve the problem of internet copy write infringement cheaply. Say you are tired of seeing laws being passed that force other companies to enforce a stupid law that makes one company rich. If congress gets enough of these they will realize the media maffia has touched a nerve with their voter base. For all their bribe money the MM will lose its political clout. They might even back off. A 10 year copy write law would do them in.
  
  sopcannon, I think the point is the artists make a tiny part of the 'pie'. The Media Maffia pockets most of the money, claiming to be the protectors of the artists. That is why some of the well established artists are giving away their music for volintary dontations. They are probably making as much that way as with the MM.

  8.10.2007 03:17 #45

• c1c

  @Mez
  yeah I get the point buit I just thought it was ironic. This is the first case of many more to follow. It got a lot of media attention and that's all they wanted. Now they scared off a lot of people with this trial.
  
  Oh and by the way, we can't do anything about it. You can write all the letters in the world but lobbyists and people with more money will always win.
  
  We are slaves in this world. They want us to watch our plasma tvs and play our 360's, anything that will keep us unfocused from learning the truth. When the ISP's start ratting its customers out, then the party will be over. Then you will see some anonymous underground ISP's popping up.
  
  I wish there was a leader/group for us people in this digital age. I would donate money to this group and have THEM lobby congress for our digital rights.
  

  
  
  hp dvd 840, vaio pcg-frv27,Epson r260 Printer, Wacom Graphire 4x5, Verbatim 4X Printable DVD-R

  8.10.2007 07:34 #46

• borhan9

  Good luck to the people taking on the riaa cause their really crap.

  9.10.2007 19:41 #47

• Mez

  c1c, one person writing their congressman is just spitting in the wind but if you have hundreds of people writing in that is a 'horse of a different color. I have seen my scum-bum congressman make an about face. He broke party lines to keep his job. He just survived a very close election. He is real sensitive to write ins. The standard formula is for every letter or email there are 10 to 20 that feel the same but are too lazy to write. They are even more sensitive about appearing on the take. I am sure we will see a bill go onto the floor that will force internet providers to police the internet for copywrite infringements. The US will have to pay huge bucks to make it work. That is the right time to strike. Anyone with any brains at all will realize anyone for that bill must be on the take. It will probably cost the US 10 times what the Media Maffia will gain in profits.
  
  You hear all these CEO blow holes spouting lets wage all out war on the pirates. What they are really saying is lets get the public to spend billions of dollars so I can make a few extra million dollars. That way my industry can still make as much money while we create crap as we did when our industry was creating great stuff. Whe music was not big business artists could jam with who ever they wanted. Everyone learned from one another. For a long time the recording industry wants a recording rights for all live performances. This means two artists working for two different record Cos can't play together because of greed. I say it is greed not pirates that ruin the industry.
  
  They claim morality is on their side because of an out dated law. I am sure they would be for a tax on breathing air as long as they got a piece of it!

  10.10.2007 03:16 #48

• caminito

  Originally posted by icanucan: The argument of many on this subject seems to be this,"...You buy a cd, you own it. You own the music on it and can dispose of it as you wish".
  
  Ok everyone lets just sit back for one minute and think what that actually would mean if it was true.
  
  Mr A records a song. Mr A releases a cd. The cd is bought by Mr B. Mr B now owns the cd and all the music on it and can do what ever he likes with it.
  
  Mr B copies the cd and puts his name on it. Makes no reference to Mr A. Is this fair?
  
  Mr B copies the cd. Sells it on the street, to his local cd shop they sell it on give him a cut.
  Mr A sees no money. Is this fair?
  
  If I buy a car I own that particular vehicle. Not the design. I can't copy that car and give it to others.
  
  I have heard many arguments over file sharing and none seem to get over two basic facts.
  Mr A wrote a song. He owns it.
  You buy a cd you own that, not the song.
  
  Much is spoken in the "file-sharing community" of the protection of personal freedom. What of a persons expectation that they should receive the fruits of their labour?
  
  Finally lets be honest. This is not about personal freedoms being eroded by big business. Its about the oldest desire in the hearts of men. To get something for nothing. I would have more respect for the advocates of file-sharing if they just admitted this.
  Please just once....? Eh pretty pleasenot everyone is lucky like u, man! people who buy original cds are rich people. however, not everyone is fortunate to be rich like them who can afford the money to buy. when you are poor and the only thing that can help u is music, i dont think it is wrong for them to share or download music. besides, life is more than just money. what counts in life are your kindness, deeds u have done, etc...... the world is shitty because of one's selffishness. therefore, if u can buy it, then buy it. if not, then download it or get it from a friend. besides, which is more important? helping a friend or suing a friend?

  20.10.2007 16:13 #49

• caminito

  Originally posted by DADEO1: When we were all young children,didn't our parents teach us to share.does this mean that you will share your wife with me? hahahahha

  20.10.2007 16:14 #50