This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs
(5 days later)
A Minnesota woman, one of the last people to be individually prosecuted in the US for illegal downloading and file-sharing, faces a $220,000 bill after a federal court ruling on Tuesday.A Minnesota woman, one of the last people to be individually prosecuted in the US for illegal downloading and file-sharing, faces a $220,000 bill after a federal court ruling on Tuesday.
The federal appeals court reversed a district court's decision to reduce Jammie Thomas-Rasset's owed damages to $54,000 from $1.5m. Tuesday's ruling (pdf) sets the damages at $220,000 and forbids Thomas-Rasset from making sound recordings available for distribution.The federal appeals court reversed a district court's decision to reduce Jammie Thomas-Rasset's owed damages to $54,000 from $1.5m. Tuesday's ruling (pdf) sets the damages at $220,000 and forbids Thomas-Rasset from making sound recordings available for distribution.
"We are pleased with the appellate court's decision and look forward to putting this case behind us," the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said in a statement. The trade group filed their first complaint against Thomas-Rasset in 2006 on behalf of six record labels and has been embroiled in a legal battle with her ever since."We are pleased with the appellate court's decision and look forward to putting this case behind us," the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said in a statement. The trade group filed their first complaint against Thomas-Rasset in 2006 on behalf of six record labels and has been embroiled in a legal battle with her ever since.
The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA, but took legal action on 24 works for efficiency. They initially offered a $4,500 settlement which Thomas-Rasset did not accept.The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA, but took legal action on 24 works for efficiency. They initially offered a $4,500 settlement which Thomas-Rasset did not accept.
Court papers show Thomas-Rasset testified she had not heard of KaZaA prior to her case and after being found guilty, she filed a motion that any statutory damage awards would be unconstitutional in her case. Her lawyer Kiwi Camara said in an email they would try to take the case to the US supreme court.Court papers show Thomas-Rasset testified she had not heard of KaZaA prior to her case and after being found guilty, she filed a motion that any statutory damage awards would be unconstitutional in her case. Her lawyer Kiwi Camara said in an email they would try to take the case to the US supreme court.
The RIAA sued more than 18,000 people for illegally sharing music in the mid-2000s. Most of those cases were settled out of court or dismissed – Thomas-Rasset's case being one of the few exceptions.The RIAA sued more than 18,000 people for illegally sharing music in the mid-2000s. Most of those cases were settled out of court or dismissed – Thomas-Rasset's case being one of the few exceptions.
The group adjusted its anti-piracy strategy in 2008 and stopped suing individuals. Since then, it has been in talks with Internet Service Providers in an effort to create a new strategy to abet piracy.The group adjusted its anti-piracy strategy in 2008 and stopped suing individuals. Since then, it has been in talks with Internet Service Providers in an effort to create a new strategy to abet piracy.
"The individual lawsuits were unbelievably counterproductive," said Christopher Jon Sprigman, co-author of the Knockoff Economy. "The record companies basically bought themselves a huge amount of bad publicity, a few settlements and no real impact on file-sharing.""The individual lawsuits were unbelievably counterproductive," said Christopher Jon Sprigman, co-author of the Knockoff Economy. "The record companies basically bought themselves a huge amount of bad publicity, a few settlements and no real impact on file-sharing."
Sprigman said the new strategy would involve internet service providers sending gentle reminders to people they think are infringing on behalf of the RIAA. Eventually, the internet service providers could cut people from internet access who did not stop downloadingSprigman said the new strategy would involve internet service providers sending gentle reminders to people they think are infringing on behalf of the RIAA. Eventually, the internet service providers could cut people from internet access who did not stop downloading
"I think that strategy is also fraught with peril," said Sprigman, explaining that it would likely irritate customers who felt like they were being spied on by their cable providers."I think that strategy is also fraught with peril," said Sprigman, explaining that it would likely irritate customers who felt like they were being spied on by their cable providers.
Anti-piracy groups are also adjusting their strategies to focus on file-storing websites like Megaupload, which accounted for an estimated 4% of internet traffic at its peak. Site founder Kim Dotcom faces criminal copyright charges related to the site and is currently in New Zealand, awaiting an extradition hearing.Anti-piracy groups are also adjusting their strategies to focus on file-storing websites like Megaupload, which accounted for an estimated 4% of internet traffic at its peak. Site founder Kim Dotcom faces criminal copyright charges related to the site and is currently in New Zealand, awaiting an extradition hearing.
One of the other individuals to be prosecuted is Joel Tenenbaum, who was left with a huge damages 30 songs he downloaded illegally after his appeal was denied in August.One of the other individuals to be prosecuted is Joel Tenenbaum, who was left with a huge damages 30 songs he downloaded illegally after his appeal was denied in August.
In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum – who graduated from Boston University with a doctorate in statistical physics in May – to pay $675,000 in damages. At one point, Tenenbaum's damage charges were reduced by a judge to $67,500, but the original amount was reinstated in the first circuit courtIn 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum – who graduated from Boston University with a doctorate in statistical physics in May – to pay $675,000 in damages. At one point, Tenenbaum's damage charges were reduced by a judge to $67,500, but the original amount was reinstated in the first circuit court
"They're trying to create an urban legend out of me – the kid who downloaded music," Tenenbaum told the Guardian in May."They're trying to create an urban legend out of me – the kid who downloaded music," Tenenbaum told the Guardian in May.
CommentsComments
32 comments, displaying first32 comments, displaying first
11 September 2012 10:41PM11 September 2012 10:41PM
Adam Buxton tackles this issue in song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLZpxVI7Pa8Adam Buxton tackles this issue in song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLZpxVI7Pa8
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
11 September 2012 11:30PM11 September 2012 11:30PM
Seems fair and proportionate!Seems fair and proportionate!
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 12:26AM12 September 2012 12:26AM
"...in an effort to create a new strategy to abet piracy. "
"Abet" means help & support, actually.. Yes this will help and support piracy as i'm going to now download 24 freakin songs JUST to get back at them! I don't even WANT 24 songs.
But, regardless.. it won't have any effect on them, my little rebellion, because i'm not stealing anything! They don't suffer any loss whatsoever! Just like they didn't suffer any material loss in this case either but their lawyers have cunning mouths and loads of money.
The RIAA are gonna go down in history as a modern day spanish inquisition. We are truly going to wonder why we didn't just run those @$$holes out of town on a rail. In fact i wonder it now.
"...in an effort to create a new strategy to abet piracy. "
"Abet" means help & support, actually.. Yes this will help and support piracy as i'm going to now download 24 freakin songs JUST to get back at them! I don't even WANT 24 songs.
But, regardless.. it won't have any effect on them, my little rebellion, because i'm not stealing anything! They don't suffer any loss whatsoever! Just like they didn't suffer any material loss in this case either but their lawyers have cunning mouths and loads of money.
The RIAA are gonna go down in history as a modern day spanish inquisition. We are truly going to wonder why we didn't just run those @$$holes out of town on a rail. In fact i wonder it now.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 12:40AM12 September 2012 12:40AM
I lent my friend a book to read... should I be executed, or just forced into bankruptcy?I lent my friend a book to read... should I be executed, or just forced into bankruptcy?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 1:01AM12 September 2012 1:01AM
This isn't fair, or right, or proportionate. Piracy isn't a good thing - but this punishment is immoral. The staggering greed of those involved in pushing for it is disgusting.This isn't fair, or right, or proportionate. Piracy isn't a good thing - but this punishment is immoral. The staggering greed of those involved in pushing for it is disgusting.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 4:24AM12 September 2012 4:24AM
Sometimes, you can get a clear idea why people do things like walk into buildings and start killing people at random.Sometimes, you can get a clear idea why people do things like walk into buildings and start killing people at random.
These kinds of actions wreck people's lives, whilst we all know that all record companies have ever done is make huge, obscene profits and screwed over musicians in the process.These kinds of actions wreck people's lives, whilst we all know that all record companies have ever done is make huge, obscene profits and screwed over musicians in the process.
The people responsible for this action need to experience real, awful suffering for this kind of obscenity. Of course they won't, and some rape victim will in the mean time be suing a rapist and thinking herself lucky to be getting a couple of grand. The families of murder victims, likewise.The people responsible for this action need to experience real, awful suffering for this kind of obscenity. Of course they won't, and some rape victim will in the mean time be suing a rapist and thinking herself lucky to be getting a couple of grand. The families of murder victims, likewise.
It's a sick world, and this sort of thing needs to be stamped out.It's a sick world, and this sort of thing needs to be stamped out.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 7:09AM12 September 2012 7:09AM
5 Years and still a crazy penalty. If this amount is allowed to stand - we might as well get a ball and chain on our ankles stamped with our favorite corporate logo. There's no way a corporation should be allowed to severely punish a individual to this extend, no matter what the alleged civil crime - this is a line being crossed into corporate domination - i.e. you becoming a corporate slave. Hats off to Jamie for sticking this out - this is a important battle - a Individuals welfare always overrides the wants of a corporation.5 Years and still a crazy penalty. If this amount is allowed to stand - we might as well get a ball and chain on our ankles stamped with our favorite corporate logo. There's no way a corporation should be allowed to severely punish a individual to this extend, no matter what the alleged civil crime - this is a line being crossed into corporate domination - i.e. you becoming a corporate slave. Hats off to Jamie for sticking this out - this is a important battle - a Individuals welfare always overrides the wants of a corporation.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 7:15AM12 September 2012 7:15AM
This is an excellent example of why it's past time to abolish copyright law.This is an excellent example of why it's past time to abolish copyright law.
Why is it ISP's business to monitor their customers?Why is it ISP's business to monitor their customers?
The only way to stop this is to stop supporting the copyright industry. Pirating a song or a movie doesn't send them a message that what they are doing is bad, it supports the copyright maximalist agenda.The only way to stop this is to stop supporting the copyright industry. Pirating a song or a movie doesn't send them a message that what they are doing is bad, it supports the copyright maximalist agenda.
Piracy is only the excuse; the copyright guys want to kill competition. What we can do is start supporting indie prouctions that are licensed to sharePiracy is only the excuse; the copyright guys want to kill competition. What we can do is start supporting indie prouctions that are licensed to share
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 8:40AM12 September 2012 8:40AM
Sickening thing is that I live in China and over here Wal-Mart sells pirated copies of DVDs for $2.Sickening thing is that I live in China and over here Wal-Mart sells pirated copies of DVDs for $2.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 9:02AM12 September 2012 9:02AM
In a couple of years you'll be able to fit 10,000 albums on a £5 memory stick kids can hand around the playground at lunchtime.In a couple of years you'll be able to fit 10,000 albums on a £5 memory stick kids can hand around the playground at lunchtime.
Still, at least a random selection of music listeners have been bankrupted, well done music industry!Still, at least a random selection of music listeners have been bankrupted, well done music industry!
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 9:10AM12 September 2012 9:10AM
Somewhere in some parallel universe where the system of morals, legal process and justice are totally alien to us, this makes perfect sense. The government in that weird parallel universe allows teenagers to own AK-47s and thinks corporations are people.Somewhere in some parallel universe where the system of morals, legal process and justice are totally alien to us, this makes perfect sense. The government in that weird parallel universe allows teenagers to own AK-47s and thinks corporations are people.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 9:25AM12 September 2012 9:25AM
They have never really learnt from the days of trying to shut down Napster rather than work with it have they? What these lawsuits do is curve the amount of illegal downloading, but only temporarily. Give it 6 months and it will back to normal. Surely the money and resource invested in these quick fixes can be better used elsewhere?They have never really learnt from the days of trying to shut down Napster rather than work with it have they? What these lawsuits do is curve the amount of illegal downloading, but only temporarily. Give it 6 months and it will back to normal. Surely the money and resource invested in these quick fixes can be better used elsewhere?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 9:30AM12 September 2012 9:30AM
There really is something wrong with the world isn't there?There really is something wrong with the world isn't there?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 9:39AM12 September 2012 9:39AM
A classic example of the "corporate/military complex" aka Big Brother.
"You'll do as you're told, becasue we say so. WE make the Rules and we work OUTSIDE of your Electoral system to do it. If you don't like it, tough. There's nothing you can do to usurp us now....."
A classic example of the "corporate/military complex" aka Big Brother.
"You'll do as you're told, becasue we say so. WE make the Rules and we work OUTSIDE of your Electoral system to do it. If you don't like it, tough. There's nothing you can do to usurp us now....."

Well, we'll see about that, won't we?

Well, we'll see about that, won't we?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 10:58AM12 September 2012 10:58AM
It's one thing to copy without permission a copyrighted recording for your private use, another thing entirely to upload a copied recording to filesharing sites. The former is an infringement, but one case does not do much harm. The latter is very harmful to the interests of the songwriters, recording artists, etc., who are trying to make a living off their art. It is piracy, and it is either malicious or callously indifferent to the value of other people's labour. It is right that the pirate should be compelled to compensate the copyright holders, and if it bankrupts them, tough - they should have known better.It's one thing to copy without permission a copyrighted recording for your private use, another thing entirely to upload a copied recording to filesharing sites. The former is an infringement, but one case does not do much harm. The latter is very harmful to the interests of the songwriters, recording artists, etc., who are trying to make a living off their art. It is piracy, and it is either malicious or callously indifferent to the value of other people's labour. It is right that the pirate should be compelled to compensate the copyright holders, and if it bankrupts them, tough - they should have known better.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 11:05AM12 September 2012 11:05AM
I lent my friend a book to read... should I be executed, or just forced into bankruptcy?I lent my friend a book to read... should I be executed, or just forced into bankruptcy?
It's not the same thing. For one thing, you own the book, and you have a right to lend it to friends on that basis. You don't, however, own the right to copy the book. If you were to copy the book and make your copy/copies available to thousands of people, then you would be committing piracy, and you should pay the copyright owner for each and every copy you produce or distribute. If you upload copyright-infringing material to a fileserver so that thousands of people can download it, you should pay for every single downloaded copy. If you don't like it, tough. You knew you had no right to do what you did, and you knew that by doing it, you were harming the ability of the copyright owners to get paid for their labour, yet you made the choice that you made. The consequences that follow are entirely just.It's not the same thing. For one thing, you own the book, and you have a right to lend it to friends on that basis. You don't, however, own the right to copy the book. If you were to copy the book and make your copy/copies available to thousands of people, then you would be committing piracy, and you should pay the copyright owner for each and every copy you produce or distribute. If you upload copyright-infringing material to a fileserver so that thousands of people can download it, you should pay for every single downloaded copy. If you don't like it, tough. You knew you had no right to do what you did, and you knew that by doing it, you were harming the ability of the copyright owners to get paid for their labour, yet you made the choice that you made. The consequences that follow are entirely just.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 11:28AM12 September 2012 11:28AM
...you were harming the ability of the copyright owners to get paid for their labour.....you were harming the ability of the copyright owners to get paid for their labour..
I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?. Maybe a little more if they are really good at what they do. The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?. Maybe a little more if they are really good at what they do. The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 11:29AM12 September 2012 11:29AM
Never a downloader or an uploader be.Never a downloader or an uploader be.
I believe my Nan would have said if she had been alive today.I believe my Nan would have said if she had been alive today.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 11:29AM12 September 2012 11:29AM
oh, my ex gave me a mix-tape once for a birthday present; should I report her to the proper authorities?oh, my ex gave me a mix-tape once for a birthday present; should I report her to the proper authorities?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 11:31AM12 September 2012 11:31AM
I used to sit by the stereogram (1970's) recording the Top 40 on a C90 and pressing pause to cut out the DJ's waffle.....I used to sit by the stereogram (1970's) recording the Top 40 on a C90 and pressing pause to cut out the DJ's waffle.....
Should I be arrested?Should I be arrested?
How is that any different to me downloading a song from a torrent site?How is that any different to me downloading a song from a torrent site?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 12:40PM12 September 2012 12:40PM
I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?.[] The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?.[] The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.
i don't disgree, i have some sympathy with your point of view...i don't disgree, i have some sympathy with your point of view...
one question though: what has it to do with anything?one question though: what has it to do with anything?
unless you're saying that you've set up an arbitrary bunch of rules to live by and that makes your actions okunless you're saying that you've set up an arbitrary bunch of rules to live by and that makes your actions ok
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 2:21PM12 September 2012 2:21PM
I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?.[] The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?.[] The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.
i don't disgree, i have some sympathy with your point of view...i don't disgree, i have some sympathy with your point of view...
one question though: what has it to do with anything?one question though: what has it to do with anything?
unless you're saying that you've set up an arbitrary bunch of rules to live by and that makes your actions okunless you're saying that you've set up an arbitrary bunch of rules to live by and that makes your actions ok

Hmm, set earnings are nothing new. Look up Equity rates, or go to publications for artists that have reccommended daily earnings to base teh cost of artwork off of. Seems perfectly fair to set a basic wage to work such fines off of...

Hmm, set earnings are nothing new. Look up Equity rates, or go to publications for artists that have reccommended daily earnings to base teh cost of artwork off of. Seems perfectly fair to set a basic wage to work such fines off of...
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 3:13PM12 September 2012 3:13PM

I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?. Maybe a little more if they are really good at what they do. The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.

I think they are entitled to approximately the same average weekly wage as anyone else - what is, about 500 quid at the moment?. Maybe a little more if they are really good at what they do. The second island in the Bahamas I don't think we should have to contribute to.
But independent content creation is not a waged activity, it's not comparable in any way. A content creator might get nothing at all, and he/she is compensated for this by the possibility of high rewards if successful. If you want to cap the upside, are you going to also put a floor under the downside? That's how waged activities work.But independent content creation is not a waged activity, it's not comparable in any way. A content creator might get nothing at all, and he/she is compensated for this by the possibility of high rewards if successful. If you want to cap the upside, are you going to also put a floor under the downside? That's how waged activities work.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 3:30PM12 September 2012 3:30PM
Seems perfectly fair to set a basic wage to work such fines off of...Seems perfectly fair to set a basic wage to work such fines off of...
but Mmmrrrggglll wasn't making that point in regards to working out such fines, it was a response to how much the creators should be paid for their work.but Mmmrrrggglll wasn't making that point in regards to working out such fines, it was a response to how much the creators should be paid for their work.
As I say I don't fully disagree, but it seems Mmmrrrggglll is making the point that it depends on how you value something that informs what you should pay.As I say I don't fully disagree, but it seems Mmmrrrggglll is making the point that it depends on how you value something that informs what you should pay.
so if I think something is only worth £50 instead of, say £5000, the price that the seller sets, then I'm within my rights to pay £50 and take the product.so if I think something is only worth £50 instead of, say £5000, the price that the seller sets, then I'm within my rights to pay £50 and take the product.
If you think something is worth £50 and they're charging £5000 then you have the right to not buy it, and if everyone agrees then they go out of business...If you think something is worth £50 and they're charging £5000 then you have the right to not buy it, and if everyone agrees then they go out of business...
you don't have the right to say "you're earning too much already, I'm only paying £50"you don't have the right to say "you're earning too much already, I'm only paying £50"
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 3:48PM12 September 2012 3:48PM
If you want to cap the upside, are you going to also put a floor under the downside? That's how waged activities work.If you want to cap the upside, are you going to also put a floor under the downside? That's how waged activities work.

As a matter of fact yes I would do exactly that.

As a matter of fact yes I would do exactly that.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 4:16PM12 September 2012 4:16PM
As I say I don't fully disagree, but it seems Mmmrrrggglll is making the point that it depends on how you value something that informs what you should pay.As I say I don't fully disagree, but it seems Mmmrrrggglll is making the point that it depends on how you value something that informs what you should pay.
so if I think something is only worth £50 instead of, say £5000, the price that the seller sets, then I'm within my rights to pay £50 and take the product.so if I think something is only worth £50 instead of, say £5000, the price that the seller sets, then I'm within my rights to pay £50 and take the product.
If you think something is worth £50 and they're charging £5000 then you have the right to not buy it, and if everyone agrees then they go out of business...If you think something is worth £50 and they're charging £5000 then you have the right to not buy it, and if everyone agrees then they go out of business...
tbh I don't think anyone should be earning those amounts full stop. A living wage for everyone, nothing more than that.tbh I don't think anyone should be earning those amounts full stop. A living wage for everyone, nothing more than that.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 4:50PM12 September 2012 4:50PM
If you want to cap the upside, are you going to also put a floor under the downside? That's how waged activities work.If you want to cap the upside, are you going to also put a floor under the downside? That's how waged activities work.
As a matter of fact yes I would do exactly that.
As a matter of fact yes I would do exactly that.
The down-side risk is that a creator produces something and hardly anyone wants it; putting a floor under it means the creator gets paid anyway. So a wage for every would-be artist, writer or musician, then, with risk and reward removed from the equation, or at least substantially reduced. Sounds expensive and counter-productive to me -- and even a bit big-brotherish, taken to its logical end.The down-side risk is that a creator produces something and hardly anyone wants it; putting a floor under it means the creator gets paid anyway. So a wage for every would-be artist, writer or musician, then, with risk and reward removed from the equation, or at least substantially reduced. Sounds expensive and counter-productive to me -- and even a bit big-brotherish, taken to its logical end.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 5:39PM12 September 2012 5:39PM
Blah blah blah. She should have settled for $4,500. She knew she did wrong.Blah blah blah. She should have settled for $4,500. She knew she did wrong.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
12 September 2012 11:52PM12 September 2012 11:52PM
The down-side risk is that a creator produces something and hardly anyone wants it; putting a floor under it means the creator gets paid anyway. So a wage for every would-be artist, writer or musician, then, with risk and reward removed from the equation, or at least substantially reduced. Sounds expensive and counter-productive to me -- and even a bit big-brotherish, taken to its logical end.The down-side risk is that a creator produces something and hardly anyone wants it; putting a floor under it means the creator gets paid anyway. So a wage for every would-be artist, writer or musician, then, with risk and reward removed from the equation, or at least substantially reduced. Sounds expensive and counter-productive to me -- and even a bit big-brotherish, taken to its logical end.
I don't think the current situation is much less obtuse tbh.I don't think the current situation is much less obtuse tbh.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
13 September 2012 4:23AM13 September 2012 4:23AM
And you buy themAnd you buy them
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
13 September 2012 7:07AM13 September 2012 7:07AM
There is nothing fair and appropriate about this, because quite simply, it arose out of a badly managed and misunderstood distribution mechanism.There is nothing fair and appropriate about this, because quite simply, it arose out of a badly managed and misunderstood distribution mechanism.
Jump on your moral high-horse if you must - but do cast a glance back in time, assuming your old enough to remember. Recall the good old days of the cassette tape?
Do you also recall taping friends records and taping your records for friends?
How about taping songs off the radio?
If you never did this, you are in the minority.
Jump on your moral high-horse if you must - but do cast a glance back in time, assuming your old enough to remember. Recall the good old days of the cassette tape?
Do you also recall taping friends records and taping your records for friends?
How about taping songs off the radio?
If you never did this, you are in the minority.
The difference now, of course, is that instead of sharing that recording with a handful of people, you can now share with millions - technology made this act simple.The difference now, of course, is that instead of sharing that recording with a handful of people, you can now share with millions - technology made this act simple.
Is it theft? Well, of course it is - but it's theft in the same way as sharing physical copies of recorded material.
If that's the case, probably 60 to 70% of us should be prosecuted, even if it was only a tape recording of a record back in 1984 shared with friends!
Is it theft? Well, of course it is - but it's theft in the same way as sharing physical copies of recorded material.
If that's the case, probably 60 to 70% of us should be prosecuted, even if it was only a tape recording of a record back in 1984 shared with friends!
These individuals are scapegoats. The real criminals are those who profit from illegal distribution of copyright material.These individuals are scapegoats. The real criminals are those who profit from illegal distribution of copyright material.
Technology is finally dawning on the media moguls - it took Apple to show them the obvious, but as a result, Apple now become one of the new players in the digital distribution system.Technology is finally dawning on the media moguls - it took Apple to show them the obvious, but as a result, Apple now become one of the new players in the digital distribution system.
Why copy a song, of dubious quality, when you can buy the original, with known quality, for a small fee?Why copy a song, of dubious quality, when you can buy the original, with known quality, for a small fee?
That's what punters have wanted all along - affordable music when they want it - and it's great business for those who are listening.That's what punters have wanted all along - affordable music when they want it - and it's great business for those who are listening.
Napster simply filled in the yawning gap that was missing - the gap that wasn't filled by record companies.Napster simply filled in the yawning gap that was missing - the gap that wasn't filled by record companies.
There's too much moral high-ground in this argument and far too many soap boxes. We all know what the reality was and is.There's too much moral high-ground in this argument and far too many soap boxes. We all know what the reality was and is.
It is now ridiculously simple to legally purchase music online - and you can support small indy bands, who often sell their music for a small sum from their websites.It is now ridiculously simple to legally purchase music online - and you can support small indy bands, who often sell their music for a small sum from their websites.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
13 September 2012 1:37PM13 September 2012 1:37PM
You'd be in less trouble if you stole hard copies from a shop.You'd be in less trouble if you stole hard copies from a shop.
The music industry is out of touch. I'm not defending piracy, but I don't think the crime is heinous enough to have your life ruined over.The music industry is out of touch. I'm not defending piracy, but I don't think the crime is heinous enough to have your life ruined over.
In my youth, before the hysteria, it was normal to download a couple of tunes and check out a band to see if you really liked the music. The money the industry has had from me in record sales, merch sales and gig tickets outweighs the value of the "stolen" music a million times over.In my youth, before the hysteria, it was normal to download a couple of tunes and check out a band to see if you really liked the music. The money the industry has had from me in record sales, merch sales and gig tickets outweighs the value of the "stolen" music a million times over.
PS - is it still theft if I went back and paid after enrolling a music label into an involuntary "try before you buy" scheme?PS - is it still theft if I went back and paid after enrolling a music label into an involuntary "try before you buy" scheme?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
Comments on this page are now closed.Comments on this page are now closed.
Stormy seas for software pirates Plundering the pirates
14 May 2009 12 Feb 2008
Casual users should beware the many dangers associated with cracked programmes, yet arcane anti-piracy measures are not doing enough to stop them Owen Gibson asks whether a government move to cut off the broadband service of persistent illegal downloaders is likely - or even enforcable
12 Jul 2010
Filesharer Joel Tenenbaum has fine reduced by 90%
3 Aug 20093 Aug 2009
Filesharer ordered to pay $675,000Filesharer ordered to pay $675,000
23 Sep 2009 19 Apr 2011
Mandelson defends plan to disconnect download pirates Illegal filesharing: web blocking in the dock
18 May 2009
Do we want ISPs to penalise our fans?
24 Jul 200824 Jul 2008
Letters to music downloaders are a waste of time Illegal downloaders to get warning letter in government clampdown
Filesharer Joel Tenenbaum has fine reduced by 90% Ringing the changes
12 Jul 2010 24 Jun 2009
Judge says punishment is 'still severe' after reducing filesharer's fine from $675,000 to $67,500 An 'accepted' culture of mobile-related music piracy in India is forcing network operators and the music industry to act
Turn autoplay offTurn autoplay off
Turn autoplay onTurn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay offPlease activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UKEdition: UK
About usAbout us
Today's paperToday's paper
SubscribeSubscribe
Recording Industry Association of America has largely adjusted its anti-piracy strategy to stop suing individual downloadersRecording Industry Association of America has largely adjusted its anti-piracy strategy to stop suing individual downloaders
A Minnesota woman, one of the last people to be individually prosecuted in the US for illegal downloading and file-sharing, faces a $220,000 bill after a federal court ruling on Tuesday.A Minnesota woman, one of the last people to be individually prosecuted in the US for illegal downloading and file-sharing, faces a $220,000 bill after a federal court ruling on Tuesday.
The federal appeals court reversed a district court's decision to reduce Jammie Thomas-Rasset's owed damages to $54,000 from $1.5m. Tuesday's ruling (pdf) sets the damages at $220,000 and forbids Thomas-Rasset from making sound recordings available for distribution.The federal appeals court reversed a district court's decision to reduce Jammie Thomas-Rasset's owed damages to $54,000 from $1.5m. Tuesday's ruling (pdf) sets the damages at $220,000 and forbids Thomas-Rasset from making sound recordings available for distribution.
"We are pleased with the appellate court's decision and look forward to putting this case behind us," the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said in a statement. The trade group filed their first complaint against Thomas-Rasset in 2006 on behalf of six record labels and has been embroiled in a legal battle with her ever since."We are pleased with the appellate court's decision and look forward to putting this case behind us," the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said in a statement. The trade group filed their first complaint against Thomas-Rasset in 2006 on behalf of six record labels and has been embroiled in a legal battle with her ever since.
The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA, but took legal action on 24 works for efficiency. They initially offered a $4,500 settlement which Thomas-Rasset did not accept.The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA, but took legal action on 24 works for efficiency. They initially offered a $4,500 settlement which Thomas-Rasset did not accept.
Court papers show Thomas-Rasset testified she had not heard of KaZaA prior to her case and after being found guilty, she filed a motion that any statutory damage awards would be unconstitutional in her case. Her lawyer Kiwi Camara said in an email they would try to take the case to the US supreme court.Court papers show Thomas-Rasset testified she had not heard of KaZaA prior to her case and after being found guilty, she filed a motion that any statutory damage awards would be unconstitutional in her case. Her lawyer Kiwi Camara said in an email they would try to take the case to the US supreme court.
The RIAA sued more than 18,000 people for illegally sharing music in the mid-2000s. Most of those cases were settled out of court or dismissed – Thomas-Rasset's case being one of the few exceptions.The RIAA sued more than 18,000 people for illegally sharing music in the mid-2000s. Most of those cases were settled out of court or dismissed – Thomas-Rasset's case being one of the few exceptions.
The group adjusted its anti-piracy strategy in 2008 and stopped suing individuals. Since then, it has been in talks with Internet Service Providers in an effort to create a new strategy to abet piracy.The group adjusted its anti-piracy strategy in 2008 and stopped suing individuals. Since then, it has been in talks with Internet Service Providers in an effort to create a new strategy to abet piracy.
"The individual lawsuits were unbelievably counterproductive," said Christopher Jon Sprigman, co-author of the Knockoff Economy. "The record companies basically bought themselves a huge amount of bad publicity, a few settlements and no real impact on file-sharing.""The individual lawsuits were unbelievably counterproductive," said Christopher Jon Sprigman, co-author of the Knockoff Economy. "The record companies basically bought themselves a huge amount of bad publicity, a few settlements and no real impact on file-sharing."
Sprigman said the new strategy would involve internet service providers sending gentle reminders to people they think are infringing on behalf of the RIAA. Eventually, the internet service providers could cut people from internet access who did not stop downloadingSprigman said the new strategy would involve internet service providers sending gentle reminders to people they think are infringing on behalf of the RIAA. Eventually, the internet service providers could cut people from internet access who did not stop downloading
"I think that strategy is also fraught with peril," said Sprigman, explaining that it would likely irritate customers who felt like they were being spied on by their cable providers."I think that strategy is also fraught with peril," said Sprigman, explaining that it would likely irritate customers who felt like they were being spied on by their cable providers.
Anti-piracy groups are also adjusting their strategies to focus on file-storing websites like Megaupload, which accounted for an estimated 4% of internet traffic at its peak. Site founder Kim Dotcom faces criminal copyright charges related to the site and is currently in New Zealand, awaiting an extradition hearing.Anti-piracy groups are also adjusting their strategies to focus on file-storing websites like Megaupload, which accounted for an estimated 4% of internet traffic at its peak. Site founder Kim Dotcom faces criminal copyright charges related to the site and is currently in New Zealand, awaiting an extradition hearing.
One of the other individuals to be prosecuted is Joel Tenenbaum, who was left with a huge damages 30 songs he downloaded illegally after his appeal was denied in August.One of the other individuals to be prosecuted is Joel Tenenbaum, who was left with a huge damages 30 songs he downloaded illegally after his appeal was denied in August.
In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum – who graduated from Boston University with a doctorate in statistical physics in May – to pay $675,000 in damages. At one point, Tenenbaum's damage charges were reduced by a judge to $67,500, but the original amount was reinstated in the first circuit courtIn 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum – who graduated from Boston University with a doctorate in statistical physics in May – to pay $675,000 in damages. At one point, Tenenbaum's damage charges were reduced by a judge to $67,500, but the original amount was reinstated in the first circuit court
"They're trying to create an urban legend out of me – the kid who downloaded music," Tenenbaum told the Guardian in May."They're trying to create an urban legend out of me – the kid who downloaded music," Tenenbaum told the Guardian in May.