Mom fined $22,500 for music downloads

[Jimbowe]

To go off topic: about photographers (Jimbowe). This issue is even murkier, in my mind. A studio engineer records a bands album; captures all the sound through his mic's onto his tape machines and mixes through his speakers, but this engineer DOES NOT OWN the recording, but he only was PAID for his SERVICE of doing such. Now on the other hand, you have a photographer who captures light and now he has been PAID for his SERVICE, OWNS those images of light, and will SELL you those images if you want it. There's a huge dichotomy between business models here and I don't think you can reasonably compare the two.

I had a run-in with a wedding photographer some time back. I wanted a small (not original) digital copy of an image (for personal use). He got all huffy and steamy spouting that the images were his and violation of copyright would meet the wrath of the courts..... Hmmm. It was MY image he owns? I don't recall giving him the rights to MY image?!?!?! He did nothing more than capture my image with the press of a button. Fortunately, I know that my image won't fetch top dollar on the market, so I did the next best thing : I didn't buy anything from him.

In my situation, I shoot for artists and tend to allow them generous rights to reproduce as they need to. I think the photographer needs to consider who is asking for the image and what the use is. I see too many wannabe photogs who lose a lot of work because of attutude.

I think the music industry has created that same situation of ticking off its customer base and it's reflected in low sales of CD's. Now I fear they will try and trash the iTunes store with a push for higher prices.

 

[crazytom]

In my situation, I shoot for artists and tend to allow them generous rights to reproduce as they need to. I think the photographer needs to consider who is asking for the image and what the use is. I see too many wannabe photogs who lose a lot of work because of attutude.

I think the music industry has created that same situation of ticking off its customer base and it's reflected in low sales of CD's. Now I fear they will try and trash the iTunes store with a push for higher prices.

I'm happy to hear that there's photographers like you around....I was getting pretty discouraged.

The music industry is ticking people off. I'm no exception. Even iTunes ticks me off:

Today I needed a particular song to put in a personal video that I'm working on. I thought about downloading illegally, but I got some iTunes credits I need to burn. I downloaded the song and tried to import into Final Cut Pro. No go. I couldn't use it. That usage should fall under Fair Use: it's a song I purchased and I'm putting it with video for my own personal use. I can't do it, though. WTF? If I burn it to CD, then re-import it, it will work, but I've effectively broken the DRM and am now a CRIMINAL for using something I PURCHASED for my own PERSONAL USE!

So, I guess that it'll be my personal mission to avoid any RIAA related entities and DRM'd titles from Sony, EMI, Capitol, iTunes, etc. I can only hope that others will feel the same and 'vote' with their wallet.

 

[Seasought]

Yay, score one for the music industry. This will go on to stop others from doing the same in the future. Oh wait...no it won't.

 

[iMeowbot]

If I burn it to CD, then re-import it, it will work, but I've effectively broken the DRM and am now a CRIMINAL for using something I PURCHASED for my own PERSONAL USE!

Nope. You didn't break the DRM because you exported the song using exactly the method Apple intentionally provided. Since your video isn't for public performance, you're squeaky clean on the copyright issue.

 

[crazytom]

Nope. You didn't break the DRM because you exported the song using exactly the method Apple intentionally provided. Since your video isn't for public performance, you're squeaky clean on the copyright issue.

You're half right. I am allowed to burn it to a CD, but once I re-import that CD, I have 2 copies....one that is legal, and one that is not. I'd be free and clear in front of any reasonable judge, but that wouldn't stop the lawyers from saying that I still have an illegal copy that didn't fall under the FairPlay usage. (scroll down to restrictions).

 

[iMeowbot]

You're half right. I am allowed to burn it to a CD, but once I re-import that CD, I have 2 copies....one that is legal, and one that is not. I'd be free and clear in front of any reasonable judge, but that wouldn't stop the lawyers from saying that I still have an illegal copy that didn't fall under the FairPlay usage. (scroll down to restrictions).

It's not an illegal copy if it's for your personal use, that comes from a different law. It also doesn't run afoul of DMCA because to do that, because it doesn't circumvent the "effective technological measures". If using the CD export and reimport feature of iTunes was a DMCA violation, Apple would be the ones with the biggest problem, because they're the ones providing the "device or service" permitting that type of personal copy.

 

[crazytom]

It's not an illegal copy if it's for your personal use, that comes from a different law. It also doesn't run afoul of DMCA because to do that, because it doesn't circumvent the "effective technological measures". If using the CD export and reimport feature of iTunes was a DMCA violation, Apple would be the ones with the biggest problem, because they're the ones providing the "device or service" permitting that type of personal copy.

Yes, you are correct..the copy itself is legal. BUT, I may still be a criminal because I had to circumvent the protection scheme to obtain that particular legal copy for my intended legal usage. ("Circumventing the Fairplay protection scheme in this fashion may be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and therefore illegal and subject to criminal penalties in the United States.")

All in all, it's a pretty frightening turn of events when you have to have a lawyer explain what your music listening/usage rights are!!! I should just be able to enjoy it, and not be worried about getting sued over it.

 

[2jaded2care]

I can understand why it would not be allowed to import a copyrighted (DRM protected) song into FCP. It is a "Pro" app. Pros should (technically) not be doing this sort of thing. Their output is assumed to be for distribution/profit.

OTOH, I could see an argument for being able to do this sort of thing using iMovie, arguably not a "pro" app. However, I would not be surprised if you can't do it there either, between legal agreements and the fact that there's no reason pros can't use iMovie if it suits their needs for a particular project.

(I can hear the lawyers now: "But if Apple didn't intend for my defendant to use DRM-protected music in this project, why would they allow it to be so easily imported into the application? Isn't this really their fault and liability for encouraging this use?")

This is why there is a market for royalty-free music. We don't necessarily like the music, but most of us use it because we have to.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

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.

yes pay up! it's the american way! u r spineless.

 

[blueflame]

so heres my question

now does she get to keep those songs? are they hers?
andreas
edit:spelling

 

[crazytom]

now does she get to keep those sogs? are they hers?
andreas

Hmmm. Good question. I guess they would be hers as long as she pays the $750 each!

I found this: Link. That goes into more details about how many she owned (on CD) vs. how many she didn't.

 

[andiwm2003]

she made her music available on file sharing networks. that is the real damage she has done.

the fact that she is a mom of five has nothing to do with this case. it's just a attempt to make her look likeable.

so she got off quite easy with the $3500 the record industry offered. that she has to pay $22500 now is her own or her lawyers stupid fault.

i guess if she had only 30 "illegal" songs on her HD without ever having participated in file sharing the case would have been dismissed.
that is because if you have 30 songs on your HD without having the CD's it's still hard for the record industry to proof these songs are illegal. you could have lost the CD's.

participating in filesharing on the other hand is easy to proof. so they fined her with whatever they had.

i don't like the record industry at all but i also don't feel sorry for her.

my 2 cents.

 

[crazytom]

she made her music available on file sharing networks. that is the real damage she has done.

<snip>

That's exactly what the record company wants you to believe: that sharing music does them some sort of damage. Then, there's this:

A study of file-sharing's effects on music sales says online music trading appears to have had little part in the recent slide in CD sales.

As a capitalist American, I can completely understand the stance that the industry has taken. As a emotional human being, their stance makes no sense and they're just biting the hands that feed them. (Heck, not only biting, but in some cases chewing them completely off!! Dirty cannibals )

 

[andiwm2003]

That's exactly what the record company wants you to believe: that sharing music does them some sort of damage. Then, there's this:

A study of file-sharing's effects on music sales says online music trading appears to have had little part in the recent slide in CD sales.

As a capitalist American, I can completely understand the stance that the industry has taken. As a emotional human being, their stance makes no sense and they're just biting the hands that feed them. (Heck, not only biting, but in some cases chewing them completely off!! Dirty cannibals )

i don't believe that study at all. i don't really know where their mistake is but common sense and intuition (and a number of friends ) tell me that music that can easily be stolen will be bought less. maybe their analysis does not pick up small numbers of "not bought" CD's. other studies clearly show a negative effect of file sharing.

and then it is a matter of principle. you just don't let people steal from you even if the damage is small.

as i said, the record industry is a bunch of greedy and stupid managers. but getting caught in filesharing makes you look dumb. not taking the plea offer makes you look even dumber.

 

[maestro55]

''Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it.''
John Lennon

I bet John would support filesharing , if he was here. He would be the man to fight for us.

Yoko agreed, and is allowing the music out on the WWW.

http://www.rhapsody.com/

 

[rickvanr]

Did she know that her music was being shared back over the internet though?

I mean most applications automatically share what you download don't they? I'm not saying she should plead ignorance, because she should know better, but I'd feel pretty bad that she didn't at least get a warning first if this was the case.

 

[eva01]

Did she know that her music was being shared back over the internet though?

I mean most applications automatically share what you download don't they? I'm not saying she should plead ignorance, because should know better, but I'd feel pretty bad that she didn't at least get a warning first if this was the case.

well thats part of it, you can't get a warning from the RIAA due to a case in which you can't get the information from the ISP for a persons address in name without going through the courts, so the first step is litigation. Henceforth no warning...

 

[Engagebot]

oh well. back to allofmp3.com for me...

-legal
-about $1 per album, $.10 a song
-any format i want (aac, mp3...)
-any bitrate i want (128, 192, ... lossless)
-no DRM of any kind

 

[andiwm2003]

oh well. back to allofmp3.com for me...

-legal
-about $1 per album, $.10 a song
-any format i want (aac, mp3...)
-any bitrate i want (128, 192, ... lossless)
-no DRM of any kind

the fact that you pay for it doesn't make it legal. is there any court ruling that proves it legal in the US?

 

[solvs]

oh well. back to allofmp3.com for me...

-legal

Do you really think the artists see any of that money? You might as well be using P2P.

 

[caveman_uk]

In NZ it is still illegal to transfer legally purchased music on a CD to a computer or an MP3 player.

NZ is not alone as it is also illegal in the UK. The record companies don't seem that bothered though.

 

[crazytom]

well thats part of it, you can't get a warning from the RIAA due to a case in which you can't get the information from the ISP for a persons address in name without going through the courts, so the first step is litigation. Henceforth no warning...

*chuckle* I don't think the RIAA ever sent a warning to anybody. They basically extorted the money out of people.....Successfully!

Article:

...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime.

I think I'd have a much greater respect for them if they did just issue people a warning.

 

[Linkjeniero]

the fact that you pay for it doesn't make it legal. is there any court ruling that proves it legal in the US?

Since when you are guilty until proven otherwise? You should be asking, are there any court rulings that proves it illegal in the US. And the answer would be no (to my knowledge, and I researched when I learned about its existence, so I could use it).

Do you really think the artists see any of that money? You might as well be using P2P.

Yeah, unless you want to cover your ass from the RIAA raping.

Some facts about russian law:
In Russia, internet downloads are considered broadcasts, so the royalties are collected by the same government's institution that manages the radio broadcasts. Also, in Russia, artists or labels don't have a saying on the broadcast of their work (not the price, nor when or where it's broadcasted). The government has a standard fee that has to be paid for each broadcast of a copyrighted work; so everyone can broadcast (or set up for download) anything they want, without asking the owner, as long as they pay the fee to the government. The government collects this fees, and pays its part to each owner of a broadcasted copyrighted work.
Now, as you can imagine, labels aren't too keen of this, but there isn't anything they can do about it because it's perfectly legal, and russians (smart as they are ) don't feel like losing this wonderful law. So the labels chose not to collect their fees so they can say they don't see any of that money you pay, but the fact is that they give it up willingly.

And how does this work with other countries law? For whay I read, at least in the US they can't do anything about it either, because according to US law you are just importing the music; just as if you were to travel to Moscow and buy a record for 2 bucks, instead of the 20+ they'd charge in the US. Because of all this, what the RIAA chose to do is cover the issue, and try to keep russian sites from getting too much exposure (and I think they succeeded, since almost nobody that's not a geek knows about those sites).

DISCLAIMER: I don't pretend to be an expert, and probably I got a thing or two wrong; still, I think I got the general idea right.

 

[solvs]

Yeah, unless you want to cover your ass from the RIAA raping.

Still, my point stands. The artists don't see a dime. Just because there's a legal loophole, doesn't make it right.

 

[Linkjeniero]

Still, my point stands. The artists don't see a dime. Just because there's a legal loophole, doesn't make it right.

Hey, we do pay; it's not our fault the labels chose to give away their russian money