Recording Industry vs The People
I am going to COPY and SHARE Ray Beckerman's comment on the Jury Verdict in Virgin v. Thomas
Ray hosts the blog Recording Industry vs The People:
A verdict of $222,000.00, for infringement of 24 song files worth a total of $23.76?
In a case where there was zero evidence of the defendant having transferred any of those files?.
It is one of the most irrational things I have ever seen in my life in the law.
If the Judge doesn't set aside the verdict sua sponte, I expect there to be motion practice to set aside the verdict, based on its obvious unconstitutionality and numerous other reasons, and if that fails I expect there to be a successful appeal.
It is an outrage, and I hope it is a wakeup call to the world that we all need to start supporting the defendants in these cases, and the attorneys who are sacrificing so much to represent them. And the support cannot be with words, it must be with check books. And it cannot be next year, it must be now.
All the business people who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy, and freedom of expression which is the internet, need to get behind the RIAA's victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly.
The RIAA ghouls smelled blood in Duluth, and I guess they were right.
But it isn't over.
-R.B.
THANK YOU RAY!! (We should to do what he says.)
I wish all recording artists would just sell their music directly via their websites or myspace. Rent a recording studio, cut the CD. Sell them on your site. WE WILL FIND YOU - don't worry. WE ARE ALL CONNECTED NOW (for the time being anyway). Do you really need these monkey men who call themselves the RIAA to get you noticed?
When I go to hypem.com (I am a 50 year old music addict who works overtime trying to feed her kids good tunes), I get directed to hundreds of songs that I can "sample".
And, if they can't accommodate you at the moment because of the millions of other music addicts like myself visiting there daily, you will get THE most lol message ever!!!!!
Hypem directs you to the music bloggers who are "sampling" the song. If I like the artist, all of these blogs direct me to itunes/amazon/or wherever, to buy their music. I can't afford to pay 15 dollars for the entire album and won't if I only like a song or 2. At least I can (most of the time) buy the song for a buck at itunes.... and BLESS ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED (it's been 3 minutes since my last download)....if I can't get the tune there, being the addict that I am, I must resort to other means!!! So There!! I've done what all the big boys do - confessed my sins. I won't ever do it again. My computer spoke!! I should be safe from the RIAA goons right?
Since we live in "Clear Channel Airspace" and all they let the radio stations play is RAP CRAP, I don't allow the kids to listen to the radio, but OF course they do - no way around that. They agree that most of the music sucks. (I'm pretty sure it's a conspiracy.) They would not know this if I didn't provide them with music that I have "shared" with other music addicts. It's one of the hardest jobs and takes up a lot of my time -- what's a mother to do??! It's worth my time. I'll do anything for my children!!!
I think the fact that Brittney is the best that this country can give us as a music goddess, says it all about the RIAA!! I heard some of the networks interrupted regular broadcasting the other day to let us know the fate of her spawns.
Can't these artists let us buy music directly from their own site? Can't they record a CD without signing over their life to a recording industry guy in a suit? They can't possibly be getting the cut they SHOULD BE getting from CD sales.
Here's the low down from blog.wired:
DULUTH, Minnesota -- Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation's first file-sharing case to go before a jury.
Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to $222,000 in penalties.
They could have dinged her for up to $3.6 million in damages, or awarded as little as $18,000. She was found liable for infringing songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, Aerosmith and others.
"This is what can happen if you don't settle," RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse. "I think we have sent a message we are willing to go to trial."
Still, it's unlikely the RIAA's courtroom victory will translate into a financial windfall or stop piracy, which the industry claims costs it billions in lost sales. Despite the thousands of lawsuits -- the majority of them settling while others have been dismissed or are pending -- the RIAA's litigation war on internet piracy has neither dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the hearts of music swappers.
The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry.
In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas' share folder.
Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry.
Here is ABC's coverage of this story -- LOTS AND LOTS of lawyers talking out of both sides of their mouths -- I can't follow those conversations -- maybe you guys can.
crossposted at
BigBrassBlog
Ray hosts the blog Recording Industry vs The People:
A verdict of $222,000.00, for infringement of 24 song files worth a total of $23.76?
In a case where there was zero evidence of the defendant having transferred any of those files?.
It is one of the most irrational things I have ever seen in my life in the law.
If the Judge doesn't set aside the verdict sua sponte, I expect there to be motion practice to set aside the verdict, based on its obvious unconstitutionality and numerous other reasons, and if that fails I expect there to be a successful appeal.
It is an outrage, and I hope it is a wakeup call to the world that we all need to start supporting the defendants in these cases, and the attorneys who are sacrificing so much to represent them. And the support cannot be with words, it must be with check books. And it cannot be next year, it must be now.
All the business people who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy, and freedom of expression which is the internet, need to get behind the RIAA's victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly.
The RIAA ghouls smelled blood in Duluth, and I guess they were right.
But it isn't over.
-R.B.
THANK YOU RAY!! (We should to do what he says.)
I wish all recording artists would just sell their music directly via their websites or myspace. Rent a recording studio, cut the CD. Sell them on your site. WE WILL FIND YOU - don't worry. WE ARE ALL CONNECTED NOW (for the time being anyway). Do you really need these monkey men who call themselves the RIAA to get you noticed?
When I go to hypem.com (I am a 50 year old music addict who works overtime trying to feed her kids good tunes), I get directed to hundreds of songs that I can "sample".
And, if they can't accommodate you at the moment because of the millions of other music addicts like myself visiting there daily, you will get THE most lol message ever!!!!!
Hypem directs you to the music bloggers who are "sampling" the song. If I like the artist, all of these blogs direct me to itunes/amazon/or wherever, to buy their music. I can't afford to pay 15 dollars for the entire album and won't if I only like a song or 2. At least I can (most of the time) buy the song for a buck at itunes.... and BLESS ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED (it's been 3 minutes since my last download)....if I can't get the tune there, being the addict that I am, I must resort to other means!!! So There!! I've done what all the big boys do - confessed my sins. I won't ever do it again. My computer spoke!! I should be safe from the RIAA goons right?
Since we live in "Clear Channel Airspace" and all they let the radio stations play is RAP CRAP, I don't allow the kids to listen to the radio, but OF course they do - no way around that. They agree that most of the music sucks. (I'm pretty sure it's a conspiracy.) They would not know this if I didn't provide them with music that I have "shared" with other music addicts. It's one of the hardest jobs and takes up a lot of my time -- what's a mother to do??! It's worth my time. I'll do anything for my children!!!
I think the fact that Brittney is the best that this country can give us as a music goddess, says it all about the RIAA!! I heard some of the networks interrupted regular broadcasting the other day to let us know the fate of her spawns.
Can't these artists let us buy music directly from their own site? Can't they record a CD without signing over their life to a recording industry guy in a suit? They can't possibly be getting the cut they SHOULD BE getting from CD sales.
Here's the low down from blog.wired:
DULUTH, Minnesota -- Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation's first file-sharing case to go before a jury.
Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to $222,000 in penalties.
They could have dinged her for up to $3.6 million in damages, or awarded as little as $18,000. She was found liable for infringing songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, Aerosmith and others.
"This is what can happen if you don't settle," RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse. "I think we have sent a message we are willing to go to trial."
Still, it's unlikely the RIAA's courtroom victory will translate into a financial windfall or stop piracy, which the industry claims costs it billions in lost sales. Despite the thousands of lawsuits -- the majority of them settling while others have been dismissed or are pending -- the RIAA's litigation war on internet piracy has neither dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the hearts of music swappers.
The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry.
In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas' share folder.
Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry.
Here is ABC's coverage of this story -- LOTS AND LOTS of lawyers talking out of both sides of their mouths -- I can't follow those conversations -- maybe you guys can.
crossposted at
BigBrassBlog
Posted by JerseyCynic | 9:24 AM |
<< Home