woman fined 200,000$ for 24 songs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Read-Only said:
(And incidentally, just what square mile of land in the whole world WASN'T taken from it's previous owners????)
Click to expand...

North America wasn't inhabited before the Native Americans were here so they owned the land, so to say, before anyone else did. Same holds true with Africa where many tribes have been where they are for tens of thousands of years never taking anything but inheriting the land from their ancestors.
 
river-wind said:
Thank you to those who have spoken clearly about the difference between theft and copyright violation. And also those who mentioned the disproportionality of this judgment.


To re-iterate and add a few points:
  • She did not *steal* anything (though if she had stolen the CDs these 24 song came from, she would have been hit with fines 100X less than the $220k she now faces.)

Copying intellectual property is stealing (or as we lawyers like to as, "an infringement upon one's copyright to distribution") unless it is permitted by fair use provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act and provisions of the Bearne Convention. Also, the US Supreme Court ruled that fair use includes the recording of radio and TV broadcast stations for personal use.

  • Copyright infringement is not a criminal act, though it is illegal. Tort/civil law and criminal law are different beasts, and abide by different rules. For instance, the RIAA did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman violated copyright, just that it was likely that she did. The bar for evidence is much lower in these civil suits.

Copyright infringement is a criminal act. There are both civil and criminal aspects to Copyright law, and the fine in this case was criminal.

  • The fine *could* have been between $750 and $30,000 *per song*. Those numbers were designed with major pirates in mind - those who are duplicating CD's and selling them on street corners for a PROFIT. The laws were not written with P2P file sharing systems in mind, where a single person could be driven to bankruptcy for copyright violation of 24 songs.

That's how most pirated copies are obtained -- through illegal file sharing/distribution networks.

  • The closest analogy is one that I've used since the Napster case, and which a federal court judge used earlier this year: placing a book and a xerox machine next to each other out on your curb. You are not copying anything, but are "making available" the tools needed to copy.

In my personal opinion, the analogy is fairly sound. However, I would say that is more than just one copy machine. It's one copy machine for everybody who may be online at any given time. Simply making one copy enables everybody else on the WWW to use their own copy machine.

  • The Judge in this case initially wanted to tell the jurors that actual downloading must have taken place for infringement to have occurred. This was changed at the last minute to "Making Available= infringement" under pressure form the plaintiff's attorneys and without adequate fight from the defendant's lawyer. This is the foundation of their appeal, and I seriously hope that they win. There is a new suit based on this same argument where a business is being sued for a similar amount because they allowed music to be played on business property loud enough for lots of people to hear. Yes, you read that right. Playing a loud radio is now considered copyright infringement.

Public broadcast of radio to business patrons has been copyright infringement since the early 80s. Goes against the copyright holder's right of public performance, and would include the radio station & DJ that organized the songs to broadcast.

  • This "Making Available is the same as infringement of the right of distribution" argument is a worrisome one to me, and it has had a split favor in the courts over the past year. Two judges decided that Making Available was sufficient grounds for infringement fines, one other said the opposite. How easy do you have to make the duplication of a copyrighted work before you are considered a party to the act?

I agree. It is very difficult to draw a line in the sand on this one. If it is legal for me to record "Summer of 69" from the airwaves on my tape deck, what's really the difference in using an internet broadcast stream? Broadcasting aside, placing mp3s on personal web pages poses various problems involving individual creativity, compilation rights, etc. End the end, though, the steamlined process of Internet accessibility is the most problematic to the recording industry. 1 sale could equal 100,000 copies. The US Supreme Court needs to grant cert. on one of these cases.

  • The RIAA's assertions (repeated in this case in sworn testimony) that copying of any kind is theft is simply WRONG. Any act of copying is protected if it falls under Fair Use, a gray area of copyright law where educational, personal, parody and non-commercial use of copyrighted works without permission are admissible. And important! Since the copyright term *used* to be 14 years, but is now the life of the artist plus 140 years (IIRC), new artists have a very hard time commenting on other works and on society as a whole while remaining within the bounds of copyright.
    Both copyright (the protection of a creative work for the benefit of the creator) and the expiration of copyright (the release of the work into the public domain for the good of the society) are critical for this whole system to work properly.

Only one comment. US Copyright is life of artist + 75 years, and has been that way since around the turn of the 19th Century. You can also renew the copyright under the 1976 Act. Patent (another form of intellectual property) is of much shorter term: 17 years if recollection serves me.

  • The Supreme Court has already ruled that statutory damages in civil cases cannot be outside of 10x the actual damages incurred. Since the song singles can be had for $.99US on iTunes, the actual damages incurred could be argued at anywhere from $24 to some multiple of that number, based on assumed number of copies made by others. In either case, the chances are this $220k judgment will not hold up on appeal, given this <10x requirement.

Mmm. I think the fine was criminal.

  • Copyright law in the US today is royally screwed up, and needs to be fixed. From term length to the DCMA, it is too heavily balanced towards the copyright holders at the expense of everyone else. Thankfully Sonny Bono didn't get his way, or else no work would *ever* enter the public domain. We'd be paying the family of the creator of the wheel a royalty every time we built a car. We'd be paying Shakespeare's estate when we printed a copy of Macbeth. Even worse, we'd have to pay a license fee to who ever invented sliced bread anytime we made a sandwich! Limitations on copyright are not just smart - they are a requirement for a successful economy.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Works of art, music, literature, etc., should be given very lengthy protection. It encourages the proliferation an imagination of the human mind and subsequently society. Classic songs, or classic literature or paintings/photos, etc., are extremely valuable assets to society and are generally distributed at a very low cost (19.99 for a CD or $8.99 for a soft copy of a book vs. $399.00 per month for a life saving medicine), and to write them off only after a handful of years would dissolve legal policy in encouraging people, and thus society's, intellectual and social growth.

Learned Hand
 
I suggest you check out www.jamendo.com

Any way, I think the oposite, art belongs to the people. Only by sharing with his creation artist is contributing to the growth of the society. Locking an artwork in a chest is of no use.

p.s. Can you please quote the US law which says that copyright infrindgement is stealing?
 
Baron Max said:
She wouldn't have been fined if she'd obeyed the copyright laws. I'd say that the fine makes her responsible for her actions, don't you think?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

What laws? She didn't steal anything, rather she copied, copying isn't stealing, this ruling is based completely off hypotheticals "well you know I could've sold and made $200,000 if she hadn't been sharing" wtf? She should've only had to pay $40, the price of the 2 CDs, the rest is just pure hypothetical nonsense, go sue the other 10,000 people then and get your money, innumerable studies have shown that downloading has no correlation to sales....

For instance Kanye West sold MORE albums this time (920,000) than he did with his last album...do you think no one was downloading this time in the year 2007 than with his last album? Kanye West sold more albums than he ever has. Jay-Z also sold more albums then he ever did (and he's had albums out since 1994)....were more people downloading in 1994 than in 2006? Exactly.
 
She didn't steal anything, but by sharing thousand songs (1700) online, the
website owner gets the benefit from the visitation, isnt (s)he? Otherwise
why youtube is exist? Also there must be some market lost for the artist.
How will you compete in the market when your creation could be obtained for
free :confused:

And why people download for very cheap price or even free (if they use flat
rate internet) whereas they could have bought for cheap price as well. Aint
$ 19 per each is very cheap compared to if you have to create yourself?

To be fair and makes everybody happy, I would prefer that we are still able
to download for free but not a complete version, says a demo version. Then
those who wants to share somebody else's work online must share the "royalty"
with the creators.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
if that is true you are also not allowed to quote posts. Emails, whatever you write on the internet is copyright protected.
Click to expand...


something is copyright protected when it has a sales value. Do you want to
pay to read my posts? :bugeye: Even if I give for free you won't bother to read :p

Things that has a sales value comes from extra effort & time spent, and
sometimes those are very hard one (hard effort, long time)
 
Avatar said:
I suggest you check out www.jamendo.com

Any way, I think the oposite, art belongs to the people. Only by sharing with his creation artist is contributing to the growth of the society. Locking an artwork in a chest is of no use.

p.s. Can you please quote the US law which says that copyright infrindgement is stealing?
Click to expand...


art is not freely belongs to people like free public goods (air, water,..),
because to produce them it takes time and effort. Even fresh air isnt
completely free. One pays to prevent pollution or to pollute.
 
Avatar said:
But it can!
Click to expand...

After some reasonable time, I will agree. Means, art should be protected so
long it has a considerable sales value, unless the creators themselves are
willing to give it away. I dont really understand copyright law, but let says
after 5-10 years, arts creation could be given away (not only the demo
version but also complete version). The time period of protection should
allow the creators to get what they deserve.
 
Learned Hand said:
It is theft of an electronic media protected by intellectual property rights.
Click to expand...
No, it is not theft, unless you are using some strange definition of "theft" that's different from the definition that everyone else uses. There are plenty of laws against theft, and no one is ever charged with theft for illegal copying. It's simply a copyright violation, which is

1. Not the same as theft, for reasons that have already been gone over many time.
2. A civil offense rather than a criminal offense. Unlike theft, which is a criminal offense.
 
inzomnia said:
something is copyright protected when it has a sales value.
Click to expand...
Well, no. As has been said before, every creative work (a song, paragraph, painting, etc.) is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's written/recorded/painted/whatever regardless of whether or not it has "value".
 
cosmictraveler said:
North America wasn't inhabited before the Native Americans were here so they owned the land, so to say, before anyone else did. Same holds true with Africa where many tribes have been where they are for tens of thousands of years never taking anything but inheriting the land from their ancestors.
Click to expand...

You'll have a great deal of difficulty getting anyone to accept your claim about Africa without some supporting evidence. Because there's every likelyhood that there were tribal wars over territory many, many times in the past.:bugeye:
 
Avatar said:
I suggest you check out www.jamendo.com

Any way, I think the oposite, art belongs to the people. Only by sharing with his creation artist is contributing to the growth of the society. Locking an artwork in a chest is of no use.

p.s. Can you please quote the US law which says that copyright infrindgement is stealing?
Click to expand...

Most of the great artwork does. Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven, etc., are all public domain. Visual art, as there is only one original, is extremely valuable, which is why lithographs are made. An original sonnet penned by Shakespeare himself is so rare that it is indescribably valuable. Nevertheless, you can get a copy for free as public domain.

As for the starving artist thing -- sure, many post their work on the internet for free hoping for a big break. That's their (the copyright holder's) prerogative. But if you want good music, and to continue to have good music, paying a small little price for a download or two, or $20 for a great album, will hardly leave society in the dredges.

As for your PS:

Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. 17 USC 201. Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 [17 USC § §106-122] or of the author as provided in section 106A(a) [17 USC 106A(a)], or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602 [17 USC 602], is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. 17 USC 501(a). Subject to sections 107 through 122 [17 USC § §107 through 122], the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1)
to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2)
to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3)
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5)
in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6)
in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. 17 USC 106.


Or, to paraphrase, copyright is an "intellectual property right." Since the owner has the exclusive right to reproduce this intellectual property, anyone else who does so without consent steals from the exclusive owner of the right of duplication.

Learned Hand
 
Nasor said:
No, it is not theft, unless you are using some strange definition of "theft" that's different from the definition that everyone else uses. There are plenty of laws against theft, and no one is ever charged with theft for illegal copying. It's simply a copyright violation, which is

1. Not the same as theft, for reasons that have already been gone over many time.
2. A civil offense rather than a criminal offense. Unlike theft, which is a criminal offense.
Click to expand...

It is theft. Criminal codes of various states and the Model Penal Code define theft as taking an object belonging to someone else. The US, through the Commerce and Supremacy Clause, enacted the Copyright Act to deal with thefts of intellectual property. In other words, theft of the mind and talent of the artist or designer. The Copyright Act also provides for criminal prosecution, not just civil infringement cases.

Ever heard the phrase, "you stole my idea!!!!?????"
 
Last edited:
Learned Hand said:
It is theft. Criminal codes of various states and the Model Penal Code define theft as taking an object belonging to someone else. The US, through the Commerce and Supremacy Clause, enacted the Copyright Act to deal with thefts of intellectual property. In other words, theft of the mind and talent of the artist or designer. The Copyright Act also provides for criminal prosecution, not just civil infringement cases.

Ever heard the phrase, "you stole my idea!!!!?????"
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, ...everyone knows and understands that. But, see, most everyone here does it, so they're all just seeking to find excuses to do it.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Oh, sure, ...everyone knows and understands that. But, see, most everyone here does it, so they're all just seeking to find excuses to do it.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Very true. Just like in the 'looting during a blackout' thread, they are actually admitting they are nothing more than low-life crooks and COWARDS, too.

They aren't brave enough to go rob a bank (which would be fine by THEIR standards because banks have plenty of money they've made by ripping off the public) but do their stealing in the dark and through the Internet.

They are just punk, crooked cowards who would steal anything if given a chance to get away with it. The world would be FAR better off without any of them - they are the REAL leeches of the world!!
 
Baron Max said:
Oh, sure, ...everyone knows and understands that. But, see, most everyone here does it, so they're all just seeking to find excuses to do it.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Well, it just goes against my programming to preach to the choir on how to get around a law . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top