Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by crazytom, Dec 9, 2005.
One of the problems with rejecting the settlement offer, when you don't have a leg to stand on and you are going to say it's no worse than shoplifting.
Take some advice from the corporations, pay the silly little amounts like that -- because the lawyers fees are going to be much more than that.
Heck you don't even have to admit fault -- pay them off and forget about it.
But no, she wanted to fight it.
Hope she ends up having to pay court costs and legal fees, and all of this gets rejected by the bankruptcy court.
Let somebody else fight these idiots who is in a position to bust these fools ... then file join the class action to get your money back later.
I am sure the music industry spent more then this celebrating this victory.
I gurantee that the musicians that actually RECORDED those songs see nothing from that settlement. I would have less of an issue with this ruling, if each musician was given a good chunk of that $750 per song fine, but I am sure it all goes to the record companies.
I think it would have been the distribution part of the judgement that led to the big fine.
The shoplifting analogy came from the judge. The defense was only the try-before-you-buy argument. (Trouble was that she never deleted the songs she didn't buy, and there were 1,000 more where the 30 came from.)
Hate to say this but i am happy for this one.
I don't care if you are "sampling" go to a borders and listen tothe song or use iTMS and use the sample, don't download it and steal it, especially not distribute it.
Gets what she deserves in this case.
I am with you, just so long as the musician gets some of this money, as it is their work that was stolen. Granted they no longer own it, once the record companies own them via contract .
Oh well, she was nailed for 30 of the songs she put up for distribution to others anyways.
I think it would be only fair if she paid the record companies 110% of the profit that she made by distributing the music.
When is the music industry going to go after community libraries for loaning out CD's....or better yet, suing people who have checked them out?
$22,500 for 30 songs? seems like a bit much to me. i thought they were going after people with over 1,000 songs. but at least they are going after people who actually are "sharing" files, compared to just downloading.
but her defense was terrible.
Perhaps you should read the rest of the posts, and possibly the article
However I agree $22,500 is a bit much for 30 songs
Wait -- when is a fine EVER directly equated to the loss of revenue? Fines are punitiive - that's one of the purposes.
If I park downtown, and I shortchange the meter by 25 cents, do I get a 25 cent parking ticket? No, I get a $35 parking ticket.
Once again the PUBLIC LIBRARY ANALOGY holds no water at all. The library bought the CD (book) & therefor paid royalties. The library has not made any COPIES of the CD / Book. It has not made the CD available to any more than one listener at a time - exactly the same as if you bought a CD and handed it to a friend.
well i read all the posts.
ok, if she was liable for over 1,000 songs, then why is she not being sued for that many? and why not make her delete the songs?
i'm not saying she should be doing what she's doing. and clearly she's not innocent.
Plus, libraries do get special exemptions to cover the edge cases in most countries.
Proving that the 30 shared tracks were infringing was clear cut. The 1300 other tracks she downloaded were a mish-mash of songs she had already bought on CDs and others she didn't pay for. For the songs she didn't buy, it's tough to prove that -- the dog ate them, they mysteriously appeared (after a trip to the store), and so on.
The court did include an enjoinment in the opinion.
The full decision is here (PDF).
As with that post the other day about piracy not being stealing I would have to say that it is not 'shoplifting.' However she was distributing and not just downloading for private use (sampling as she called) not that this is legal either.
In NZ it is still illegal to transfer legally purchased music on a CD to a computer or an MP3 player.
A very costly ending for Cecilia Gonzalez that will have her singing the blues for some time to come. This will have many others who were sued by the RIAA giving serious thought to accepting settlement offers provided they are still available.
She should have used the preview feature of iTunes or use the subscription model that other stores provide.
Or she should have just shelled out the $ to buy the CDs in the first place...
It's still a great deal cheaper than $22,500 or the $3,000 settlement!
Personally, I'm appalled at the support of this RIAA witch hunt victory.
A simple cease and disist order would have accomplished the same thing.
Instead, it's stuck a family with what could be financial ruin. For what? Vibrating air from a crappy mp3 replication?
I wish that I could return all the crappy songs that I've purchased in the past and sue them for pain and suffering from having to listen to them.
Unfortunately the Verizon case eliminated that option. One needs to go through the courts to serve any papers on a Doe, so a suit is the first step.
''Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it.''
I bet John would support filesharing , if he was here. He would be the man to fight for us.
I don't understand...I'm not familiar with the Verizon case. I don't see what would stop the 'industry' from sending a letter (not necessarily serving notice) to someone who's in violation telling them to stop.
Ya know, even 'regular' first offenders get a break from the court (probation and/or community service). The RIAA is just in it for a sensational money grab and free advertising from the media.
btw: the PDF link to the full decision seems to be broken.
it turns out that the RIAA cannot obtain the name and location of someone from the ISP through the use of their IP address without going through the courts, thus no Cease and Desist orders can be carried out. thus the suits.
i believe that is how the situation played itself out.
If I let someone at Sony listen to a song that I wrote using Garageband and they passed it on to another employee to listen too, and then made a copy of it, isn't that breaking the law since I own the recording. Does anybody think that the RIAA does not make copies of recordings that new people write.
I think that since CD sales are down, they have found a way to capitalize and make some of that money back. It really has nothing to do with copy protection, it's all about regaining those lost dollars due to crappy CD sales.
Someone with lots of money needs to stand up to these corporate jerks and fight them. The corporate jerks were the ones who introduced copying medium years ago. You tell me they came out with dual cassette recorder just so I can make a recording using a microphone and make a copy of it. BS, they made it so that I can make a copy of a tape and give it to someone else. Now they say it's illeagal. MAKE A STAND PEOPLE AND FIGHT BACK. It sucks that the lady has to pay a huge amount of money, but at least she has the balls to fight back. If everyone refuses to pay, they will back down. They still have to pay their lawyers. They need money to do that. REFUSE TO PAY!!!
Generally, if you were in the business of making songs you would give some of the Sony people permission to listen to the CD and it would probably be easier for them to pass on to thier top people a copy (faster instead of one CD doing the rounds).
Theoretically I guess they are making a copy of a song they do not lawfully own and you could probably make some kind of complaint, if American try and sue for every last bottom dollar not realising the court procedings will cost you more than you will get.
But if you were trying to get Sony to give you some deal for your music it might be smart not to bite the hand that feeds you.