RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you.

[Balog]

I find it terribly ironic that people who write code for a living deride IP. Saying "Our current IP/patent laws are a mess" != "IP is a fiction." I can only hope they invest hundreds of hours of their life into coding up a genius product, then have someone copy it and sell it before they have a chance to.

[Seenterman]

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?

Well thanks for pointing out my glaring "copywrite" error, that was pretty bad but somehow you missed the entire paragraph that was directed at you as you seem to be one of the only people on the board who has actually had court experience with copyright infringement. Let me reiterate.
 
Before in your previous post you seemed to agree that damages awarded should be based on actual damages and not just the whims of the plaintiff.
 

The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by  published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Ok so if a small commercial entity uses your image without your permission, you can reap a couple hundreds of dollars, but if a large commercial entity uses your image you can reap into the tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages. So right there you support some form of proportional punishment. Yet if a private person, uploads 24 of your photos to a website where other users can illegally download them, they are causing you millions in damages? How did the RIAA come to that conclusion that she had caused them $80,000 in damages per song.
 

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?

No, but there would actually be damages you can see and have appraised by a mechanic .


Please remember that she was convicted of only 24 copyright violations, the fact that she had 1,700 song on her computer does not bear any weight on the punitive damages as you can't be punished for what you havn't been convicted of. I hope everyone can at least agree upon this.
 
Like I stated before the article doesn't mention any evidence of her uploading any songs to any users. So unless anyone has evidence to the contirary please refrain from claiming she uploaded 1,700 songs 100 times to 1000 different users and she responcible for 170,000 illegal copies of music floating around on the net. For all we know she could have downloaded the 1,700 songs and disabled the ability to upload any songs from her machine, so that no copies could be obtained from her by other users. So basically I would like to know how the courts or the RIAA was able to claim 1.92 million in damages, was their any proof besides the fact that she had the songs on her computer.

I feel like this is very similar to "emotional damages" claims and those passangers suing (Delta?) the airline the operated the plane that crashed into the Hudson River. The passangers weren't directly injured but claimed they were "emotionally injured" much like how the RIAA is claiming they were damaged $80,000 per violation proven. Can't really prove it but you can sure as heck claim to be damaged that much.

Im not debating the stealing / not stealing / copyright infringement isn't really theft its a civil violation not a criminal/  I'm debating the rational of allowing an industry to fine people excessive amounts of money. If as a group we have no problem with a person being fined $80,000 per copyright infringement why don't we advocate that the fine for all speeding tickets $10,000. That would cut down on speeding, one of the major causes of death on our nations highways. As far as I know copyright infringement has never caused anyone's death, so wouldn't it make sence that an actual "crime" that puts peoples lives in danger everyday be fined more than another crime that could never actually cause physical harm to anybody.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No, but there would actually be damages you can see and have appraised by a mechanic .




not always  there is often an award for suffering lost income etc

[Strings]

This is reminding me more & more of the "hacker crackdown"...

[Balog]

This is reminding me more & more of the "hacker crackdown"...

I'm not familiar with that.

[Strings]

Happened in the early 80s. Was a response to the "terrible activities" of some hackers: police had to "do something".

 Managed to bust a load of people, mainly over a stolen "E911" document. When brought to trial, the government claimed extraordinary damages (thousands and thousands) against accused hackers, based on all the production costs of the document in question, as well as unspecified danger because the doc was about the E911 system...

 Turns out, the doc in question (when the jury was finally allowed to view it) was nothing more than administrivia about the system: "who reports problems to whom" kinda stuff. And far more damaging information was readily available to the public, from the phone company directly, for roughly $8 a pop...

 Read Bruce Serling's "The Hacker Crackdown" for the whole story: you'll spend time shaking your head. I remember one of the sidelights of it: I was playing GURPs, and eagerly awaiting their Cyberpunk supplement. Turns out one of the accused worked for Steve Jackson Games: in the raid, the police took all the computers, and later made the (repeated) claim that the stuff they were writing up for Cyberpunk was too dangerous for the public (led to some REALLY wild rumors in the gaming community)...

[Monkeyleg]

Ok so if a small commercial entity uses your image without your permission, you can reap a couple hundreds of dollars, but if a large commercial entity uses your image you can reap into the tens of thousands of dollars worth of damages. So right there you support some form of proportional punishment. Yet if a private person, uploads 24 of your photos to a website where other users can illegally download them, they are causing you millions in damages? How did the RIAA come to that conclusion that she had caused them $80,000 in damages per song.

It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the entity that abuses the copyright, it has to do with the type of usage. In my example I cited an image that was illegally used for a flyer for a nightclub. Industry standards for  locally-distributed print material with a run of under X number of copies would be a couple of hundred dollars. The standard for something like GQ, where the rights would be international print medium (and possibly internet) for one year, would be in the tens of thousands.

Since a number of people have made the "I bought it, so I own it" argument, I'll introduce another potential for endless debate, which is "works made for hire."

A "work made for hire" is one in which the person creating the intellectual property does so under the direction of a person or entity considered to be an employer by virtue of the method of payment and other factors. In such cases, it is the "employer" who owns the rights to the work, and not the creator. Anyone here who has something they've created for their employer patented or copyrighted knows what I'm talking about.

I frequently had clients say that, because they were paying for the creation of the photograph, they owned the rights. Some actually used the phrase "work for hire," or had it in the legalese on the purchase orders.

In the 1980's, a federal court ruled that anyone who has been considered to have made intellectual property that was a work made for hire is due all benefits afforded other employees of the company claiming ownership of the intellectual property. Benefits included paid vacations, sick days, 401K plans, and anything else the company gave its employees.

So, when a client raised the "work for hire" argument, I would explain the court decisions, and then start asking about how much vacation I would get, how many paid sick days, what sort of health insurance they had, etc. That shut them up pretty quickly.

So, before you make the argument that you bought the CD and own the rights, ask yourself if you really want to pay for the health insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits for Metallica.

[Marnoot]

I find it terribly ironic that people who write code for a living deride IP. Saying "Our current IP/patent laws are a mess" != "IP is a fiction." I can only hope they invest hundreds of hours of their life into coding up a genius product, then have someone copy it and sell it before they have a chance to.

+1. I'm impressed at the lengths people go to to rationalize theft.

"I can't afford it, so I have a right to steal it."
"They're asking too much money, so I have a right to steal it."
"Their business model is archaic, so I have a right to steal their product."
"They should just be using their product for advertising, so I have a right to steal it."

To those saying music should just be an advertisement for concerts: Why not sneak into the concert without paying, too? Seriously, how is that any different. You're not stealing a tangible product, therefore it couldn't possibly be wrong.

[Seenterman]

No, but there would actually be damages you can see and have appraised by a mechanic .




not always  there is often an award for suffering lost income etc

True but lost income can be accuratly tracked. As how many days you missed work due to the crash, hospital time, court time, and court fees. Suffering has to be proven to some extent, such as a doctor testifing your actually injured and in pain, you can't just claim to be hurting. You need some evidence.

I'd also like to add that the mechanic is independent from the plantiff.  Seems like the RIAA can just assess their own damages.

[Strings]

>I'd also like to add that the mechanic is independent  from the plantiff.  Seems like the RIAA can just assess their own damages. <

This was another twist that, IIRC, was brought up by the EFF in the hacker trial: that the government, as plaintiff, was also the expert assessing how much the damages were...

[alex_trebek]

I have been trying really hard not to stir the pot up on this one, then I noticed a few things.  I am assuming that, aside from avatars that are obviously personal photographs, many of the pro-RIAA members are violating copyright laws as the RIAA views them.

I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works.  If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement?  What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars?  Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.

To continue further, using RIAA logic, this would place damages at $150,000 per infraction.  See here for explanation, I realize I am being a tad facetious.

Also many here seem to try to cloud the issue with statements along the lines "think of the artists."  The RIAA owns the copyright on music, not the bands.  Once a band signs to a label, they sign over the copyright material for 35 years.  The RIAA tried to use the "work for hire" clause to keep the copyright material from the artists indefinitely. This was ultimately shot down by the courts for the reasons previously mentioned.

Furthermore, the RIAA is a collaboration of label companies, and makes up around 90% of the music market share.  The group has in the past removed CD's from shelves (thereby making the internet the only available source), and purposely inflated the price of a CD.

While these actions may be legal, it does not make them moral.  The original artists generally do not see much, if any, revenue from album sales.  Merchandise and concerts are their main source of income.  Furthermore, as far as I can tell, no artist has received any of the damages the RIAA has recovered from these private suits. The RIAA has attempted to prevent independent bands from emerging, by suing equipment manufacturers.  They even attempted to block the first portable MP3 players. Basically we are applying free market principles, when no free market exists.

The argument that people will buy what they like even if it is available for free downloading holds water as given by empirical evidence in a Harvard/NC study, located here.  Granted this report is old, and therefore the effects of Napster reemergence and iTunes/iPods will naturally be excluded.

If I am in complete misunderstanding of this system, please feel free to correct me.  Also I pointed to individual's avatars, not as a means of embarrassment or as a form or derision.  My objective is for individuals to take a different view of the subject at hand.   

[freakazoid]

It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the entity that abuses the copyright, it has to do with the type of usage. In my example I cited an image that was illegally used for a flyer for a nightclub. Industry standards for  locally-distributed print material with a run of under X number of copies would be a couple of hundred dollars. The standard for something like GQ, where the rights would be international print medium (and possibly internet) for one year, would be in the tens of thousands.

But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.

I'm impressed at the lengths people go to to rationalize theft.

I'm impressed at the lengths people go to rationalize that it is theft.

[Monkeyleg]

But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.

It wasn't the flyer that was used, it was a photograph that was used in a flyer.

[freakazoid]

It wasn't the flyer that was used, it was a photograph that was used in a flyer.

Same thing. Doesn't change my example, just replace flyer with photograph then.

[Marnoot]

But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.

I'm impressed at the lengths people go to rationalize that it is theft.

You didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with sneaking into a concert? There's no material harm, you weren't ever going to pay money to see the concert, so they're not "losing" money, it's standing room only so you didn't take someone else's seat. Do you have any moral qualms with that? If there's no harm in stealing their music, there's equally no harm in sneaking into their concert, right?

[makattak]

But when a company uses your work, like say a flyer, without permission from the person who did it, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who did it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then I copied that book and put my name as the author and sold it.

You mean kind of like when someone takes a piece of music, makes a digital copy and then distributes it to other people, they are basically claiming they are the ones with the rights to distribute it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then copied that book and put his own name on it as the author and sold it.

[Seenterman]

If there's no harm in stealing their music, there's equally no harm in sneaking into their concert, right?

But what if I stand at the fence and listen to the music for free. I'm not stealing the music am I?

Im not saying that its ok to sneak into concerts, I'm just pointing out this isn't best example.

[makattak]

But what if I stand at the fence and listen to the music for free. I'm not stealing the music am I?

Im not saying that its ok to sneak into concerts, I'm just pointing out this isn't best example.

It's ok to stand at the fence and listen. It's also ok to listen to your friends music when he's playing it (or, heck if you borrow it or he gives it to you).

That's a far cry from sneaking into a venue for an experience you didn't pay for . But I'm sure listening from the fence is the same as being in the theatre/stadium.

[Marnoot]

But what if I stand at the fence and listen to the music for free. I'm not stealing the music am I?

Im not saying that its ok to sneak into concerts, I'm just pointing out this isn't best example.

In the case of a concert, the charge is not for overhearing the music from outside the fence, the charge is for listening to it inside the venue. If the artist wanted to charge for overhearing it they could rent out all the space around the venue and charge, they don't.

But how is sneaking into a venue for an experience you didn't pay for any different than sneaking a download to experience a song that wasn't paid for? In either case there is no material "harm," by the logic being thrown around here. So how is it any different?

[freakazoid]

You didn't answer my question. Do you see anything wrong with sneaking into a concert? There's no material harm, you weren't ever going to pay money to see the concert, so they're not "losing" money, it's standing room only so you didn't take someone else's seat. Do you have any moral qualms with that? If there's no harm in stealing their music, there's equally no harm in sneaking into their concert, right?

Well they aren't being harmed from it. But I would rather pay to get in in order to help support them.

You mean kind of like when someone takes a piece of music, makes a digital copy and then distributes it to other people, they are basically claiming they are the ones with the rights to distribute it. It would be like if someone wrote a book, then copied that book and put his own name on it as the author and sold it.

That is not the same at all. In my example they are actually committing fraud in that they are saying that THEY CREATED the book/picture/song, and then making money off of it.

[Marnoot]

But I would rather pay to get in in order to help support them.

So you'd prefer to pay, but you don't see anything morally wrong with sneaking in?

[freakazoid]

No, there is no harm being done.

[Balog]

No, there is no harm being done.

So trespassing is only a crime if the property owner can prove you harmed their property in some way?

[makattak]

Well they aren't being harmed from it. But I would rather pay to get in in order to help support them.

That is not the same at all. In my example they are actually committing fraud in that they are saying that THEY CREATED the book/picture/song, and then making money off of it.

How is it not the same? DISTRIBUTING flyers with someone else's image on it is not claiming they own it anymore than DISTRIBUTING a peice of music is claiming that you own that peice of music.

How are people distributing flyers claiming they own the work if someone distributing music is not claiming they own the work?

[Strings]

Hmmm... seems y'all are so intent on arguing with each-other, you're missing other posts. Namely, alex_trebek's. Let me quote the important part:

Also many here seem to try to cloud the issue with statements along the lines "think of the artists."  The RIAA owns the copyright on music, not the bands.  Once a band signs to a label, they sign over the copyright material for 35 years.  The RIAA tried to use the "work for hire" clause to keep the copyright material from the artists indefinitely. This was ultimately shot down by the courts for the reasons previously mentioned.

Furthermore, the RIAA is a collaboration of label companies, and makes up around 90% of the music market share.  The group has in the past removed CD's from shelves (thereby making the internet the only available source), and purposely inflated the price of a CD.