RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you.

[MicroBalrog]

she uploaded 1700 tunes

I fail to see your point.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If she had stolen 1700 of anything else she'd be in jail.

[MechAg94]

she uploaded 1700 tunes

Exactly.  The original post mentioned they picked out 24 or so songs to simplify things.  If you call each song a "single" and it costs $5 or $10 and each song was downloaded and average of say 100 times, you can get to some pretty high damage estimates. 


So far, has anyone been prosectued or sued for possessing backup copies of their CD's and songs?  I haven't heard of it.  All I have heard of is people who were uploading songs for distribution or downloading a bunch.

[Racehorse]

Then what was your argument?  Because that's what I got out of it.


So can we agree that intellectual property isn't the same as real property which the purchaser actually owns?

My argument wasn't that intellectual property is the same as tangible property. It obviously isn't. My argument was that theft of intellectual property is the same as theft of tangible property. Just because it's bits and bytes or information doesn't mean it's ok to steal it.

No matter how you try to rationalize it, if you're taking it without permission you are causing at least some harm to the owner and you're stealing.

[BryanP]

Copying it is fine; giving those copies away not so much.

Not according to the RIAA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/RIAA_Claims_Ripping_a_CD_to_Your_iPod_is_Not_Fair_Use/

[Seenterman]

she uploaded 1700 tunes

A federal jury ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded record companies $1.92 million.

Wrong. She downloaded 1700, onto her machine, but the RIAA only tried to prove 24 violations not 1700 violations. There is no proof mentioned any where in the article that she even uploaded one song to another user. Download and upload are two different things. So 1.92 million is for essentially 24 songs, not 1,700.

If our judicial system based punishment on the incomes of criminals, only rich people would be executed. Why do I get the sense that some here would like that arrangement?

I don't know how you arrived to that conclusion but I don't think I infered that at all in my post. First off is this a criminal trial? She broke the law but this is more of a civil suit than an actual criminal trial, if this is a criminal trial, why isnt she looking at jail time and instead a monetary punishment. Second off as alot of people pointed out before copywrite infringment is not the same as theft. Very similar, but not the same, intangible objects and IP where not though of when theft laws first came about, and thats why we have copywrite laws because theres a difference. If they were the exact same, we would not need copywrite law and copywrite violations would be punished by jail time.

Second off I was trying to illistrate the outrageousness of a 1.92 million dollar settlement.

In one case the photographer was awarded $500,000 in statutory damages, while the compensatory damages were $12,800. That's 39x the determined value of the use of the photos.

Well the cost of a cd is what 20 dollars? Lets just say its 25 because its the new Metallica cd or whatever. Well this woman was charges $80,000 per song thats 3,200 x the cost of that cd for one violation. So can we just imagine damages now? In your last post you seemed to agree with varying amounts of cash settlements based on what the unlicensed user does with the illegally acquired IP. Hell why couldn't they just sue her for 1 billion dollars if proportionality doesn't matter?

[Monkeyleg]

I'm talking to a brick wall.

First off, it's not "copywrite," it's "copyright," as in a right of ownership. I took the photo, I own the rights to it. I wrote the song, I own the rights.

Copyright infringement is the same as theft, no matter what "some" people here have said. Further, the amount of the settlement has nothing to do with her income. If she were in a civil suit because of a traffic accident, would the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff be dependent upon her income?

The value of the photos is not the value of the medium, which is the film or paper, either of which costs a couple of dollars. How many times do I have to repeat that? The value of a photo or a CD is the image or the song recorded on that medium. If we used the medium to establish the value of something, then the Mona Lisa would only be worth a few dollars for canvas and paint.

[Balog]

BryanP: hence why I said the RIAA douches are their own worst enemy.

[Marnoot]

Not according to the RIAA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/RIAA_Claims_Ripping_a_CD_to_Your_iPod_is_Not_Fair_Use/

They backpedaled on that a few days later:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/riaa-chief-says-ripping-okay-sony-bmg-lawyer-misspoke-during/

[Nick1911]

I'm talking to a brick wall.

First off, it's not "copywrite," it's "copyright," as in a right of ownership. I took the photo, I own the rights to it. I wrote the song, I own the rights.

Copyright infringement is the same as theft, no matter what "some" people here have said.

Call me stupid - I'm still not following.

Theft is a crime against society.  Theft is persecuted by society in criminal court, for which you may be jailed for.

Copyright infringement is a violation of civil contract, where suit is brought by a private entity (the owner), not by a DA as you would find in criminal cases.

Sure, it's "theft" in the sense of lost revenues to the owner - but legally theft?  I'm not seeing it.

OJ was not guilty of criminal charges.
OJ was guilty of civil charges.

Theft is a criminal charge.
Copyright infringement is a civil charge.

I'm really trying to to be obtuse, and I make my livelihood via intellectual property as well (computer code), but I do not understand the rational behind your argument. 

What am I missing?

[LadySmith]

I tend to think of intellectual property in the same way as books (and I love books).
I buy a book. The book itself (media) is mine. The story (intellectual property) belongs to the author.
Since the book (the media, that tangible thing I hold in my hand) is mine, I can mark it, bend it, rip it up, burn it, use it for target practice or whatever.
Because the story (the intellectual property) is not mine, I can't run off copies and share it or change the author's name to my own and sell it.
When it comes to loans, I can loan a buddy my book. And I'd better get it back in the same condition.
If my buddy decided to run copies, plagarize, etc., then s/he's in the wrong, not me.
If I needed a backup copy, I'd just buy another book.

[freakazoid]

No matter how you try to rationalize it, if you're taking it without permission you are causing at least some harm to the owner and you're stealing.

How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?

You're receiving the benefits of their labor without permission and without compensating them for it.  You're denying them their right to control who has and uses their work.

[freakazoid]

But how is that harming them?

[Marnoot]

But how is that harming them?

What if I took your car for a joy ride with a duplicate key while you're asleep tonight, did no damage, and replaced the gas I used? Maybe I do this regularly. Neglecting the miles-used for argument's sake, no harm no foul right? I put it back. I just used something of yours without permission. Nothing wrong with that if no physical harm was caused to your property, right? (This example neglects to represent the lost income experienced by the IP owner from lost sales from people copying instead of buying).

[freakazoid]

If you ignore the wear and tear from using it and assuming that I will never use it since I am sleeping. Then really no. There is no harm. Why should I care? It isn't causing me any harm.

Although a better example might be if you made a copy my car and used it. Because then I can use my car at the same time as you are using the copy.

[Marnoot]

If you ignore the wear and tear from using it and assuming that I will never use it since I am sleeping. Then really no. There is no harm. Why should I care? It isn't causing me any harm.

Although a better example might be if you made a copy my car and used it. Because then I can use my car at the same time as you are using the copy.

I added a note to my example because it really neglects another core part of the "harm" experienced. Part is that you're using something of mine without permission. The other part and where the harm really comes in is that if someone copies IP of mine, who would have bought it if they were unable to copy it, I've lost some very real money. That is harm.

[Racehorse]

How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?

Because you're not paying them $X for the privilege?

[BryanP]

They backpedaled on that a few days later:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/riaa-chief-says-ripping-okay-sony-bmg-lawyer-misspoke-during/

Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting.  If they could get away with it they would.

[Marnoot]

Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting.  If they could get away with it they would.

Oh, no doubt.

[Balog]

Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting.  If they could get away with it they would.

And your point is? I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that the RIAA isn't a steaming pile of idiocy.

[Monkeyleg]

How am I harming them by downloading a song, or even an entire cd?

The band makes its income by selling the music on the CD's, not selling the plastic discs themselves. When you download a song or an entire CD, you're harming them by not paying for something you by law should be paying them for. Let's assume that everyone decides to download songs rather than buy the CD's. The band would make no money from CD sales, and would likely dissolve. I'm certain that you realize this, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

So, let's just dispense with all of the hypotheticals and pretense. As President of the United States, I issue the executive order that all music shall be available for download from the internet for free, without restriction, and without the possibility of prosecution for those engaged in the practice of uploading or downloading music.

Of course, I'm not the president in the "real" world, but this is the internet, so anything goes, right?

[Marnoot]

Let's assume that everyone decides to download songs rather than buy the CD's. The band would make no money from CD sales, and would likely dissolve.

But songs are just ads for concerts and t-shirts!  :rolleyes:




The artists should be able to decide how they make their money. If they want to make their money off of selling their music, rather than living on the road doing concerts, that's their right. Downloading their music w/o paying while saying it's OK because they make their real money from concerts is 1) stealing, and 2) trying to tell someone else how to make their living.

If an artist chooses to distribute their music for free as ads for concerts and merchandise, that's their choice. But if they choose not to embrace that model, you have no right to violate their rights by using their IP w/o compensation.

[Marvin Dao]

Only because they realized the !@#$storm they were starting.  If they could get away with it they would.

They can't get away with it since format shifting from CD to a computer based format was ruled to be fair use in Recording Industry ass'n of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.. There's lots of things you can complain about with the RIAA, but they have long recognized that ripping a CD to your computer and placing those music file on your MP3 player is covered under fair use.

Also, Atlantic Recording Corporation v. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell went very differently than how it was portrayed in the WaPo article you linked. The lawsuit wasn't about Mr. Howell ripping his CDs to his computer. Rather, it was about how he had committed copyright infringement by making those files available on Kazaa.

[Strings]

I wonder if part if the problem in this discussion isn't the fact that we're talking about the RIAA, who have (many times) shot themselves in the foot...

Although it wasn't in any news, I had a friend run into a problem with them. He owned a coffee shop, and had installed a 100 disk changer for music during business hours. An RIAA personage walked in on day, asked a couple questions, then informed my friend that he needed to be paying a royalty for the use of the music.

 Bear in mind, my friend had purchased all those disks, and was receiving no money from playing them: he just liked having music while working. There really was no IP theft, but the threat of legal action was there (and he had heard of others being bought into court on this)...

 Maybe, if it was the artists themselves raising Cain over the issue, people wouldn't be so ambivalent about it...