[Mikes]

If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.

I call it an injustice caused by lobbyism and unjust laws. How about that.

Even if you compare the cost:
Woman who downloaded 24 songs for private use: 5000/24 = 203.33 $ per song.
Woman who downloaded 24 songs for private use after appeal = 1.9 Million/24 = 79166.00 $ per song. End result: Life ruined forever.
Company who intentionally sold pirated songs as part of their business practice for decades: 45Million/300000 $ = 150 $ per song. End result: Can continue business as usual.

See... there is no way you can regard that law as just because well... it is not. There no way around that ugly fact.

[Scotty]

Pirating being illegal is an unjust law?

I'll wait for you to rephrase that.

[Vertigo 7]

What? Who said they're getting away with it?

Oh they very much got away with it.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/
http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music

They ended up paying 45 Million (instead of the 6 Billion they would have owed by their own standards set for copyright infringement.)
That's for over 300.000 songs... in Canada alone. And mind you... they not only downloaded/copied them... they actual sold them and made a profit .

The best part (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/11/0615258/Record-Labels-To-Pay-For-Copyright-Infringement):

"Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., EMI Music Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. have agreed to pay songwriters and music publishers $47.5 million in damages for copyright infringement and overdue royalties to settle a class action lawsuit. 'The 2008 class action alleges that the record companies "exploited" music owners by reproducing and selling in excess of 300,000 song titles without securing licenses from the copyright owners and/or without paying the associated royalty payments. The record companies knowingly did so and kept a so-called "pending list" of unlicensed reproductions, setting aside $50 million for the issue, if it ever arose, court filings suggest.'"

See... they actually set aside the money "in case the issue ever arose" and not only profitted from selling the pirated songs the whole time but also collected interest on the money they set aside "just in case"... and they ended up paying even less than they set aside in advance, all the while fully knowing that they were engaging in illegal behavior as part of their "regular business practice". It took a class action suit to make them pay anything. The amount they had to pay is insignificant. It doesn't hurt them. It's even less than they already set aside. They'll prolly call it an unexpected net 5 Million profit.

Finally, from the second article (http://www.musicandmischief.com/radio/radio-on-air/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists%E2%80%99-music):

The major issues that led to this dispute are not resolved though. After paying off a small part of their debt the labels can continue to ‘pirate’ artists’ music as usual, using their work and placing the outstanding payments on a pending list for decades. A real solution would require the licensing system to change, and that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.

So yeah... I guess that picture in the second article applies to you as well.


But yes of course... the woman who downloads 24 songs for private use - i.e. not even for profit - needs to have her life permanently ruined... because... ?

l2read. she was sued for distribution, not for private use. don't assume everything the great and powerful luis dias says to be the unvarnished truth. Also, if you're going to quote me, quote me

What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.

if i picked apart everything you say, i could try to skew everything as OMG HES SO ****ED UP. but i don't do that.

[Mikes]

l2read. she was sued for distribution, not for private use. don't assume everything the great and powerful luis dias says to be the unvarnished truth. Also, if you're going to quote me, quote me

Doesn't invalidate the argument when you compare it to a company actually profiting from pirated songs for decades as part of their business practice. It's still a huge difference.
Especially when you consider that the company could continue business as usual, while the woman's life is effectively ruined.

What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.[

Read the other articles I linked? The matter is long settled. They got a slap on the wrist and had to pay even less than they put aside already anyways. Yay profits.

Pirating being illegal is an unjust law?

I'll wait for you to rephrase that.

Oh pirating being illegal is just fine. Authors and Artists very much deserve to get paid in my opinion. That's not the point however. And I never said that it was unjust that it was "illegal" either.
The punishment associated with it is completely out of whack with what is considered "just punishment" for other crimes. That's what is unjust.

[Vertigo 7]

l2read. she was sued for distribution, not for private use. don't assume everything the great and powerful luis dias says to be the unvarnished truth. Also, if you're going to quote me, quote me

Doesn't invalidate the argument when you compare it to a company actually profiting from pirated songs for decades as part of their business practice. It's still a huge difference.

What? Who said they're getting away with it? did you actually read the article? At the time of the writing, they were still in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and if all is true with that, sure, **** em up. I think you've completely misunderstood my position here. I'm not defending anyone that commits a crime. If you bother to read the previous posts, im sure you'll see that.[

Read the other articles? The matter is long settled. They got a slap on the wrist and had to pay even less than they put aside already anyways. Yay profits.

Pirating being illegal is an unjust law?

I'll wait for you to rephrase that.

Oh pirating is very much illegal in my opinion. That's not the point however.
The punishment associated with it is completely out of whack with what is considered "just punishment" for other crimes.

im pretty sure you missed a key phrase in that article. THEY SETTLED OUT OF COURT. that woman was assessed with damages by a jury after refusing to settle, and again l2read, the record comanies found over 1000 songs on her computer and offered to settle the matter before going to court. So she refused to settle and they could only prove that 24 songs were illegally distributed. That's what she got slammed for. so whatever the settlement offer was, assuming the high end of 5000 that has been reported, devided by 1000 = 5. So by your logic, she *could* have dealt with this issue far more cheeply per song than the record companies did.

Again, if you l2read, i said they deserved to be ****ed up. I bet you anything that if they refused to settle in court, a jury would have assessed the billions worth of damages against them. Unlike that woman, they took the smart option and paid the piper. Am i saying that what they did was cool? no, absolutely not. It doesn't matter if you're a small town no body or a big named business, you do stupid ****, you just may end up paying for it.

[Luis Dias]

oh no, i get it. you feel like its proportionately out of whack. If we do the math here... say she was offered to settle for 5000, that would have ended up less than $5 per song that the record company discovered on her PC

You fail at justice here man. They were only able to prove that 24 songs were copied / distributed / WHATEVER.

I have tons of music files in my pc too. Doesn't mean ****.

...maybe a little steep but she was cought with her hand in the cookie jar so to speak and in all good sense, prolly should have just paid it and been done with it. instead, she took it to court, they obliged her... could only prove 24 songs were distributed, jury assesed damages of 220,000.

The jury agreed with the quantity involved here? Now that's a novelty here. Where did you gather this intel?

I don't know if that requires a unamious jury verdict or not, either way, other folks out there thought she should have to pay. she then appealed this and another jury assessed damages of nearly 2 million. Again, other people out there thought this was fair and she needed to pay even more money.

I find it hard to believe that "people", ordinary people will find 2 million dollar fine an acceptable punishment for 24 songs.

If you're trying to get me to say its too much money, id give up now because i wont say that.

Of course you won't. And that's amazing. Just amazing.

This case was fought and she lossed twice more than 2 years ago and no matter what i say can change that.

And here I was thinking that you could change her fine. Boy was I dreaming.

If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.

I'll call it a calamity. A disaster. Inhuman. Hell incarnated. Abusive as in multiple gangrape.

This person's life is absolutely finished if this surreal decision isn't tossed to the garbage.

[Luis Dias]

She refused to settle because the settlement was completely ridiculous, forsure.

Perhaps they even attempted to make her pay for a thousand songs, although they could only find evidence for 24 of them being pirated.

I mean, I know I'm being trolled, but man I had never seen anything like this. It's scary. If more people think like you do, wow it's a ****ing nightmare.

[Mikes]

im pretty sure you missed a key phrase in that article. THEY SETTLED OUT OF COURT. that woman was assessed with damages by a jury after refusing to settle, and again l2read, the record comanies found over 1000 songs on her computer and offered to settle the matter before going to court. So she refused to settle and they could only prove that 24 songs were illegally distributed. That's what she got slammed for. so whatever the settlement offer was, assuming the high end of 5000 that has been reported, devided by 1000 = 5. So by your logic, she *could* have dealt with this issue far more cheeply per song than the record companies did.

Again, if you l2read, i said they deserved to be ****ed up. I bet you anything that if they refused to settle in court, a jury would have assessed the billions worth of damages against them. Unlike that woman, they took the smart option and paid the piper. Am i saying that what they did was cool? no, absolutely not. It doesn't matter if you're a small town no body or a big named business, you do stupid ****, you just may end up paying for it.

You're missing the point...  I'm still waiting how you want to justify a law that includes such ridiculously inflated fines.
How is that justice? It's outright ridiculous compared to any out of court settlement and it is ridiculous compared to punishment for other crimes.


The second point you are missing is that there is no way that a large powerful company is ever going to be subject to this law. No matter what they do and no matter how often they appeal.
The only one ever to be subject to that law are unlucky private citizens with either bad luck or bad legal counsel.

How is that justice?

P.S. And yes the woman may have had 1000 songs on her PC but they could only provide proof for 24. Proof is still required before you court... you know.   Now do you really think the 300.000 songs in the other case were/are the only songs on pending lists? LOL. Again... you missed the point. This is current "best practice" in the industry and if anything the outcome of the case actually encourages it - while an ordinary citizen gets first threathened with outrageous fines and then gets her life destroyed on appeal for the same - or arguably even a lesser -  crime.

[Vertigo 7]

oh no, i get it. you feel like its proportionately out of whack. If we do the math here... say she was offered to settle for 5000, that would have ended up less than $5 per song that the record company discovered on her PC

You fail at justice here man. They were only able to prove that 24 songs were copied / distributed / WHATEVER.

I have tons of music files in my pc too. Doesn't mean ****.

...maybe a little steep but she was cought with her hand in the cookie jar so to speak and in all good sense, prolly should have just paid it and been done with it. instead, she took it to court, they obliged her... could only prove 24 songs were distributed, jury assesed damages of 220,000.

The jury agreed with the quantity involved here? Now that's a novelty here. Where did you gather this intel?

I don't know if that requires a unamious jury verdict or not, either way, other folks out there thought she should have to pay. she then appealed this and another jury assessed damages of nearly 2 million. Again, other people out there thought this was fair and she needed to pay even more money.

I find it hard to believe that "people", ordinary people will find 2 million dollar fine an acceptable punishment for 24 songs.

If you're trying to get me to say its too much money, id give up now because i wont say that.

Of course you won't. And that's amazing. Just amazing.

This case was fought and she lossed twice more than 2 years ago and no matter what i say can change that.

And here I was thinking that you could change her fine. Boy was I dreaming.

If it makes you feel better, call the excess monies a moron tax.

I'll call it a calamity. A disaster. Inhuman. Hell incarnated. Abusive as in multiple gangrape.

This person's life is absolutely finished if this surreal decision isn't tossed to the garbage.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/

how many times do i have to repeat myself? You must get off on making people say the same thing over and over again. i have no sympathy for her, and the beauty of it is... i don't have to. If you do, thats your problem. go start a charity for her if it really bothers you that much.

[Luis Dias]

Now I find myself wishing that one of the kids of that jury, or even better, most sons of the juri find themselves in the exact same situation so they can be in the other end of the barrel.

Creepy mother****ers.

[Mikes]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/

From your article:

The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry.

In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant’s computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas’ share folder.

Thomas, 30, maintained that she was not the Kazaa user "Tereastarr," whose  files were detected by RIAA’s investigators. Her attorney speculated to jurors that she could have been the victim of a spoof, cracker, zombie, drone and other attacks.

The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 — the evening in question — did not become evidence in the case.

You know what's really scary? According to that article it only takes a hacker to access/use your network and you can face the same fate that this woman did.
Doesn't matter if that's the case in her case or not... what really does matter is that it's possible. You don't really have to "do" anything for ending up in court.
They did not even require her harddrive to convict her for f**** sake. I.e. They did not even have to proove that the folder they accessed ever was on a harddrive that ever was in a computer that she ever used.

Wow... I mean seriously.

Wonderful new world

[Luis Dias]

Yeah brave new world. Come on Big Brother, the Vertigo's of this world will all bow to your awesomeness.

[Vertigo 7]

im pretty sure you missed a key phrase in that article. THEY SETTLED OUT OF COURT. that woman was assessed with damages by a jury after refusing to settle, and again l2read, the record comanies found over 1000 songs on her computer and offered to settle the matter before going to court. So she refused to settle and they could only prove that 24 songs were illegally distributed. That's what she got slammed for. so whatever the settlement offer was, assuming the high end of 5000 that has been reported, devided by 1000 = 5. So by your logic, she *could* have dealt with this issue far more cheeply per song than the record companies did.

Again, if you l2read, i said they deserved to be ****ed up. I bet you anything that if they refused to settle in court, a jury would have assessed the billions worth of damages against them. Unlike that woman, they took the smart option and paid the piper. Am i saying that what they did was cool? no, absolutely not. It doesn't matter if you're a small town no body or a big named business, you do stupid ****, you just may end up paying for it.

You're missing the point...  I'm still waiting how you want to justify a law that includes such ridiculously inflated fines.
How is that justice? It's outright ridiculous compared to any out of court settlement and it is ridiculous compared to punishment for other crimes.


The second point you are missing is that there is no way that a large powerful company is ever going to be subject to this law. No matter what they do and no matter how often they appeal.
The only one ever to be subject to that law are unlucky private citizens with either bad luck or bad legal counsel.

How is that justice?

P.S. And yes the woman may have had 1000 songs on her PC but they could only provide proof for 24. Proof is still required before you court... you know.   Now do you really think the 300.000 songs in the other case were/are the only songs on pending lists? LOL. Again... you missed the point. This is current "best practice" in the industry and if anything the outcome of the case actually encourages it - while an ordinary citizen gets first threathened with outrageous fines and then gets her life destroyed on appeal for the same - or arguably even a lesser -  crime.

dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it. If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. There could just as easily been way more things pirated by that woman than the 1000 songs that were discovered or the 24 that were proved to be distributed as the 300,000 songs on the "pending list". Thats just what she got caught for as well as the record company. Both entities in this example are equally as ****ed up in the head.

[Luis Dias]

Ok, I'll just stop reading this thread. It's worse than mindraping and it is making me dizzy really.

[Mikes]

dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.

It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".

[Vertigo 7]

dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.

It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".

If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.

[Mikes]

If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.

You got that wrong... it would be economically retarded NOT to do it as even if they get caught it is more profitable than paying the artists in advance.

Would be nice if they ever had to face any serious repercussions... that actually would restore some faith in our legal system... but keep dreaming. lol. Hell would rather freeze over several times;)

From another article evaluating the case (before it was resolved):http://www.azoz.com/newsarchive/2009/12/CRIApiracy.html

If this case were being tried in the United States, I would assume that the labels would win. Not because they're innocent, just because of the way our court system works.

In the past, the RIAA's favorite defense against a Dept. of Justice inquiry was "No, you can't look at our records. We are in a foreign country. You have no jurisdiction." (United States v. Time Warner, Inc., Sony, PolyGram, EMI Music, Bertelsmann, and MCA)

If they do get caught at something, it ends up being settled out of court for a minimal fee without admitting guilt. It's how they resolved charges of restraining competition, price fixing and payola.

So the government has been letting the labels get away with everything, never receiving more than a slap on the wrist, never admitting they did anything wrong. Now that the DOJ is run by ex-RIAA lawyers, it would seem that regardless of the outcome of the trial, the labels would never be held to account.

[BloodEagle]

dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.

It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".

If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.

Hey, "l2read."

#1. They're making money off of it, so it isn't "economically retarded," as you so colorfully put it.

#2. The courts know that they're doing it, and they still get away with it by virtue of being filthy rich.

[....] If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. [....]

Most people would be unable to survive a debt of 220,000 USD, no matter how it was set-up.  It is more than likely that she would have never recovered from it, even if she had settled.

It is very much a Kobayashi Maru situation, to be sued by a major corporation/conglomerate.

dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it. If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. There could just as easily been way more things pirated by that woman than the 1000 songs that were discovered or the 24 that were proved to be distributed as the 300,000 songs on the "pending list". Thats just what she got caught for as well as the record company. Both entities in this example are equally as ****ed up in the head.

So people should be punished more harshly because they "probbably" did something that no one can prove?

I'm sorry, but that goes against the very grain of what a legal system is supposed to stand for.  And if you truly believe in that mantra, you are as morally bankrupt as those that corrupt the system.

[Scotty]

Yay, disagreeing with a legal system is being morally bankrupt now.

This thread is full of awesome stuff like that.

[Vertigo 7]

dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it.

It's part of their business plan. They even set aside accruals for being caught (and needed 5 Million less than they set aside). It's profitable for them to continue pirating songs no matter if they are caught or not and no one keeps them from doing it. That is very much the definition of "getting away with it".

If they are indeed setting themselves up to be sued, then thats economically retarded. Especially if a label is putting something out there on the market with out the artists permission. It wouldn't take a whole lot of investigation to catch them and eventually, if they keep it up, they'll get a C&D order from the court or they'll continue to be sued and settle and spend more money in the long run to deal with it than they would make. It's like a rich guy doing 200 down the interstate in a corvette and when he gets pulled over, tosses a stack of 100's at the cop and speeds of. All that does is make them douche bags.

Hey, "l2read."

#1. They're making money off of it, so it isn't "economically retarded," as you so colorfully put it.

#2. The courts know that they're doing it, and they still get away with it by virtue of being filthy rich.

Do you seriously think they can continue to operate their business if they're getting sued every other week?

[....] If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. [....]

Most people would be unable to survive a debt of 220,000 USD, no matter how it was set-up.  It is more than likely that she would have never recovered from it, even if she had settled.

It is very much a Kobayashi Maru situation, to be sued by a major corporation/conglomerate.

220k is less than most houses cost these days. and that was the first trial results. the settlement was in the 3-5k range that was reported.

dude, how can you sit here and say they aren't subject to the same law when they were being sued for the same violation? If anything, that goes to show the record companies aren't above the law. Just because they chose to settle and can continue to operate their business doesn't mean they got away with it. If that woman settled, she would have been able to continue on with her life and probbably would have stayed out of the head lines. I don't see this great injustice you're claiming here. There could just as easily been way more things pirated by that woman than the 1000 songs that were discovered or the 24 that were proved to be distributed as the 300,000 songs on the "pending list". Thats just what she got caught for as well as the record company. Both entities in this example are equally as ****ed up in the head.

So people should be punished more harshly because they "probbably" did something that no one can prove?

I'm sorry, but that goes against the very grain of what a legal system is supposed to stand for.  And if you truly believe in that mantra, you are as morally bankrupt as those that corrupt the system.

[/quote]

Where did i ever say that? that was a reponse to the silly statement that the record companies may have had more than the 300,000 songs on the pending list. My point to that was that was what they were cought for, same as the songs that woman got caught for. I never meant to imply she got sued or fined for what may have been, if thats what you interpreted from that... stop reading into things that arent there. She got sued for what was, same as the record company.

*edit
it seems to me that you and mikes are mad at the record company for having enough money to settle the issue and move on with life. Please, correct me if im wrong, but thats the way the two of you are coming across. Otherwise, you're completely missing the fact that they got busted and sued just like all the other folks that have been caught.