RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you.

[Balog]

Let's put it this way. A photographers sells their rpints for a living. If you download a scan of their print, then print it off yourself your argument is that you haven't taken anything or hurt that person? Do you honestly believe that? If I design and patent a clever new widget design, and you copy it and make your own without paying me, have you taken anything from me? You'd say no, I'd say yes.

I swear, the mental gyrations people go through to justify their bad behaviour never ceases to amaze me.

[FTA84]

Actually, in reguard to my post above.

I thought this was the whole reason the RIAA only goes after those sharing music.

It is pretty difficult to know if someone did or didn't ever have some CD. (Like having a copy of a CD that was purchased but the CD later got destroyed/scratched/lost).  These also seem to not fall into copyright infringement -- but possession of stolen property.

On the other hand, the RIAA goes on Kazaa or what-have-you and downloads your music -- a solid case for distributing copyrighted material.

[Marnoot]

I thought making archival copies, of anything (be it xerox books or photos), is ok as long as you:

a) Own the originals
b) Do not disseminate the archives

Fair use, yes. I would agree that falls under fair use. But when asked if making an "archival copy" is legal, the RIAA refuses to say so and makes ramblings indicating they don't think it is. But as long as they're not suing, I'll give them a pass on it.

Movies and such is whole 'nother issue (of course not talking about RIAA here, rather MPAA). Thanks to the DMCA, it's explicitly illegal to make personal archival copies of DVDs, Blu-rays, etc, because you have to "crack" the disc encryption to do so.

[Marvin Dao]

Fair use, yes. I would agree that falls under fair use. But when asked if making an "archival copy" is legal, the RIAA refuses to say so and makes ramblings indicating they don't think it is. But as long as they're not suing, I'll give them a pass on it.

Movies and such is whole 'nother issue (of course not talking about RIAA here, rather MPAA). Thanks to the DMCA, it's explicitly illegal to make personal archival copies of DVDs, Blu-rays, etc, because you have to "crack" the disc encryption to do so.

Bingo.

As copyright law stands right now, it is explicitly legal to make archival copies of computer software.

It is a legal murky area to make archival copies of music. It should be protected under the Fair Use exception, but there hasn't been any case law on the issue yet. However, it is explicitly legal to "format shift" (CD>MP3) and "space shift" (Computer>Digital Audio Player) music ever since the RIAA lost RIAA vs Diamond.

As far as movies go, they would be under the same category as music, but the DMCA complicates things.

[Balog]

Yeah. DMCA is a steaming pile of stupidity. I have to admit, the RIAA and MPAA make it really distasteful to be on their side.

[Marnoot]

Yeah. DMCA is a steaming pile of stupidity. I have to admit, the RIAA and MPAA make it really distasteful to be on their side.

I'm on their side with respect to illegal sharing of music. I'm not on their side with respect to the size of their fines. And I'm most definitely not on the side of the MPAA for anything else:

She asked Bart Williams, one of the MPAA's attorneys, whether a consumer possesses the right to copy a DVD he or she purchased for personal use.
"Not for the purposes under the DMCA," Williams said. "One copy is a violation of the DMCA."

[Balog]

Marnoot: exactly. They are correct in "don't DL it if you don't pay for it" but so so wrong on everything else, as well as just general aholes.

[Monkeyleg]

Copyright laws are nothing but imaginary legal protectionism constructs that create artificial revenue streams for certain industries by using the threat of real, live rights violations (threat of legal consequences including theft/fines) to extort money out of citizens in the name of 'protection' from legal consequences. They pay, not the price the market has set (which is approximately zero), but an artificial, arbitrary price decided on by the extortionists, only out of their own interest of avoiding persecution.

As I've said many times, for most of my adult life I was an advertising photographer. Some images I created were of specific products, and of use only to the manufacturer or retailers of the product. Other images were more illustrative and could be used for all sorts of applications.

When quoting a job, my sales rep always addressed copyright, and priced accordingly. If an illustrative image was going to be used for local newspaper, I could resell the image somewhere else and make additional revenue, so the newspaper usage charge was next to nil. If the usage was national or international, the image's value would be diminished, as it would have been seen often.

The images, by law, are mine, and I am free to sell their use to whomever I wish. If someone uses the image without my permission, the value of the image is diminished by the extent to which the image was distributed.

Where I've discovered copyright violations, I've been able to secure damages based upon the amount of circulation. It was almost always a small amount, as nobody would take a unique image and use it illegally for a national ad; too great a chance of being caught.

There was nothing artificial about the revenue generated from negotiating copyright usage. If every image were priced as though it would be used in every venue, most clients couldn't afford it. So, I and other photographers in effect reduce the price of the image accordingly, but make it up by reselling it later.

One photo I did cost the original client $10,000, but I made $30,000 reselling the use of it for another client in South America.

The penalty charged the defendant in the OP's post seems excessive, but I don't know the extent of the distribution.

[DustinD]

My opinion on this issue: She should face a heavy fine, but 1.92 million is ridiculous.

Uh, no.  RIAA wants you to abide by copyright law and not go around distributing stuff you have no right to give away.

Brad

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa: "The RIAA's criticized methods of identifying individual users has led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother,[17] an elderly computer novice,[18] and even those without any computer at all.[19]

The RIAA has also brought lawsuits against children, some as young as 12.[20]"

My comment: Also note that they have a policy of contuing lawsuits against those that they know are innocent if they think they can get money out of them.

From Wikipediaon the RIAA: Stance on home recording
See also: Audio Home Recording Act and Private copying levy
The RIAA has given different positions both for and against copying CDs, either to portable players or making backup copies of music CDs.

In a 2005 argument before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., counsel for the RIAA stated that "it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."[8]

However, in 2006 the RIAA claimed that copying the contents of CDs or backing them up does not constitute fair use when the copyright owner does not authorize it.[9]

[roo_ster]

Some folks only download what they have already bought physical copies of (CDs, DVDs, etc.).  

I would suggest this is because:
1. Bandwidth is relatively abundant
2. Their CPU(s) and other HW might not be recent or robust, making conversion or transfer onerous
3. Automated download tools make the downloading easier

Now, morally, I am OK with that^^, but it is likely in violation of some law, some where.

Truly, the record & DVD companies are going to have to come up with a new business model, as technology has made their current model obsolete, no matter how many lawyers they hire.

[FTA84]

... they have a policy of contuing lawsuits against those that they know are innocent if they think they can get money out of them.

You will buy their crappy music one way or another.

[Marvin Dao]

In a 2005 argument before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., counsel for the RIAA stated that "it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."[8]

However, in 2006 the RIAA claimed that copying the contents of CDs or backing them up does not constitute fair use when the copyright owner does not authorize it.[9]

Those arguments are legally consistent with each other, if not intellectually consistent.

For the former, RIAA vs Diamond ruled that it was legal to "format shift" (CD to Computer format) and "space shift" (Computer to iPod) music.

For the latter, the Fair Use exception for recording does not specifically include the right to make an archival copy and there has been no case law on the subject. It would likely be ruled allowable under the Fair Use exception if it ever went to court. But for now, the RIAA (as the copyright holder) is allowed to assert whatever it wants on he issue.

[AZRedhawk44]

All I know is you can't packetsniff the sneakernet.

Back when CD's just came out and cassette tapes were the "standard," it wasn't a big deal to make a mix tape or trade around dupes.  No one got sued for jillions of dollars for it.

Black and grey market bootleggers got caught, sure...

But sneakernet is safe if you have trustworthy friends.

[Cromlech]

I understand the concept of scaring the crap out of illegal file sharers that the RIAA is using.
But it won't work.
When it comes to pretty much anything most people believe that "It won't happen to me!", and this is no different.

People will continue to stick up the finger at the record companies, and just one or two in tens of millions will get occasionally get caught and suffer.

[Balog]

The issue with ginormous fines for one person is that it's holding them solely liable for a whole bunch of other people's bad behaviour. Like snagging one rioter out of a crowd and wanting them to pay for all the damage caused by a riot. Viscerally satisfying, but not necessarily all that practical.

[MicroBalrog]

I must page 2swap to this thread.

[Jamisjockey]

All I know is you can't packetsniff the sneakernet.

Back when CD's just came out and cassette tapes were the "standard," it wasn't a big deal to make a mix tape or trade around dupes.  No one got sued for jillions of dollars for it.
Black and grey market bootleggers got caught, sure...

But sneakernet is safe if you have trustworthy friends.

Back in the day, you give your girlfriend a mixed tape, she's not going to make 200,000+ copies and spread them around.

The issue with ginormous fines for one person is that it's holding them solely liable for a whole bunch of other people's bad behaviour. Like snagging one rioter out of a crowd and wanting them to pay for all the damage caused by a riot. Viscerally satisfying, but not necessarily all that practical.

No, this is like finding the inciter of the riot and punishing him. 
Exponential growth.  If I share a song with 10 people, and they share it with 10 people who share it with 10 people.....My ten songs just became 1,000.

[Balog]

No, this is like finding the inciter of the riot and punishing him. 
Exponential growth.  If I share a song with 10 people, and they share it with 10 people who share it with 10 people.....My ten songs just became 1,000.

Yeah, but are you responsible for all those people's actions? Or somehow more responsible than everyone else along the way? Your example is inaccurate, as the original seeder is not inciting anything.

[Seenterman]

No, this is like finding the inciter of the riot and punishing him.  
Exponential growth.  If I share a song with 10 people, and they share it with 10 people who share it with 10 people.....My ten songs just became 1,000.

Would the said inciter of the riot be made to pay for everything damaged in the riot, or would the people who actually threw the rocks to be made as well.

No you should be charged with distributing those original 10 songs. Then the other 10 people should be charged for distributing the song 10 times. You shouldn't be held responsible for other peoples actions.

How did the RIAA determine the $800,000 figure per song? On itunes a song goes for 99 cents a pop for pretty much everything, I think its like 1.29 for a  brand new song on their new pay scale (good thing is some song went down in price too). Are you really telling me this woman managed to upload each of the 24 songs 8,080 times to different users. So that would add up to 193,920 downloads of the 24 songs from her machine alone to equate to the 1.92 million fine. I dont think the actual numbers would compare anywhere near that number.

Ok fine. Wheres the proof? Do they have any proof on how many times this woman actually trasfered the file to other users? What if she just dl'd them for her own use and disabled the file sharing (not hard) whould she still be up for 1.92 million? And if their is no proof she actually shared these files with other users how the hell is this allowed to proceed. Is just the possesion of stolen intellectual property cause enough to fine individuals over a million dollars? Does the 8th Amendment protect against excessive fines from a private company, or only from the government; even if the government is the one enforcing the fines?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

don't do the crime if you can't do the time..... and please please if caught spare us the whine

[zahc]

The person who has produced the (music/software etc) has a right to dictate the usage of that property.

I disagree, strongly. They don't have a right to dictate anything I do, unless I consentingly enter into a contract with them. Where did they get such a right? From the legal system of course, but it certainly isn't a moral right.

A photographers sells their prints for a living

First of all, a signed print is a signed print. A downloaded inkjet is not an original print, and is approximately worthless on any art market. I'm a photographer myself. I don't really do digital, but if someone buys one of my prints, scans it, and people download it and print out inkjets, well, then whatever. I wish they would buy one of my hand-prints, but if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. Of course, there are people that print off digital files on inkjet printers and try to sell them as signed prints. Of course, not much distinguishes the product from a pirated version. If they were selling digital files, then there's NOTHING that distinguishes it from a pirate, and they would not be able to get $200 for a digital file when an identical one would be available as a copy...kind of like people who charge for downloading mp3s...this sounds like a bad business model to me, not a reason to go crying to the government to enforce your revenue stream.

If you download a scan of their print, then print it off yourself your argument is that you haven't taken anything or hurt that person?

Hurt their revenue, maybe? Tell you what, the digital revolution has and will continue to hurt the revenues of lots of people and old business models. That's progress. The proper response is to adapt, not to buy politicians and attempt to protect your old revenue streams.

As for the theoretical photographer in question, I don't see how I have stolen from them, no. I have hurt them only in their mind, their entitlement mentality that they want me to give them money. Hey, they are allowed to want me to give them money, I want lots of people to give me money, that doesn't make their not giving me money 'harming' me or immoral.

Back to the poor photographer. What if I didn't print off a downloaded scan AND yet didn't buy a print from the photographer anyway? Would I then be harming them by not buying a print from them? What obligation do I have to buy a print from them? They'd better do something to make their prints desirable and unique, or they are not going to sell many. What if I had never heard about said photographer? What if I just looked at the image on a screen? At a gallery? On someone else's wall? Should I be forced to pay money every time I view a photograph?

If there was a legal system in place that said that anyone could make an image, and then "viewright" it, and charge whatever they want of anyone anywhere viewing it, dictate how they could hang it on their private walls, and it was sporadically enforced through FUD by levying massive fines on those caught viewing without paying protection money, it would be no less crazy to me than copyright.

If I was a recording artist I would sell physical media and merchandise. I don't have the moral balls to pretend that I 1. can and 2. am morally justified in using real force to extort money from a worthless product. Many bands now sell vinyl records, then give away mp3 downloads. XKCD doesn't charge to view the comic, but makes money selling merchandise.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I disagree, strongly. They don't have a right to dictate anything I do, unless I consentingly enter into a contract with them.


do you or have you ever produced something of value?  for which you were paid?

and did the lady when she bought the cds she uploaded not have on those cds a coppyright warning/notice?

[Seenterman]

don't do the crime if you can't do the time..... and please please if caught spare us the whine

You really think 24 songs are worth this woman's house, car, and wage garnishments for the rest of her life? If anyone agree's with this and they have kids that use a computer; you better warn then not to download any music or that new Jonas Brother album may end up costing you your home.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You really think 24 songs are worth this woman's house, car, and wage garnishments for the rest of her life? If anyone agree's with this and they have kids that use a computer; you better warn then not to download any music or that new Jonas Brother album may end up costing you your home.

she uploaded 1700 songs   i know around the student union its all a game but after graduation folks go out in the world and make a living  support their families and such.. and its not just the "rich artists"  lots of folks work in that food chain and most of em aren't rich.  the lil kiddies are stealing from all of them and its not cute when they are old enough to demand to be treated like adults

[Balog]

1m all media is sold with an explict EULA stating you won't reproduce and share it. So it's a violation of the contract.

2. You are arguing that the right to priavte property applies only to physical property. So programmers who write code have produced nothing, and have no right to dictate how that code is used, or to demand payment for it's use. The "entitled" person is the one who produced something of value and wants to be compensated for its use, NOT the one who demands it for free because it doesn't remove the property from the author's possesion?

That's so assinine and silly.... It's like ObamaLogic.