News First RIAA lawsuit going to trial today

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/10/02/first_riaa_lawsuit_going_to_trial_today/1

Over 26,000 people have been sued by the RIAA. The vast majority have settled but Jammie Thomas is setting a precedent and taking it to a trial.

 

good luck, just out of curiosity how much would he have likely been charged with an out of court settlement

 

"he"? Did you read the article? I echo the sentiment, though.

 

"And if someone's willing to pay a lawyer rather than pay to make it go away, that says a lot."
... amen.
Normally I would question themental health of such a person ... but I guess best of luck to her.

 

Can someone explain how $30,000 per infringement (which I presume is each track) makes any sort of sense - or did someone, somewhere just pick that figure out of a hat?

 

now why didnt that s key work, i really should read my posts before i post

 

Ditto that, it's disgusting how severe the penalties are. I mean, it's basically little more than petty theft (if you stole the CD from a shop, that's what it would be), and while I don't know what the penalty for that is I don't think it's going to be anything more than a slap on the wrist type of thing. I'm going to stop now, 'cos just thinking about it is making my blood boil.

 

Good for her!

Record companies have been ripping us off for years with their ridiculously overpriced CDs and crappy albums with one or two good songs. They've also been usually ripping off the artists as well by underpaying them and shoestringing them into bad contracts.

I say let the market decide how much recorded music is worth. And if at the moment people think it's worth 0 then so be it. Records don't cost anything to make nowadays anyway and artists make their money by going on tour more than selling records. Why should we shell out our hard earned money so some fat, cigar-chomping record exec can buy a new Bentley? If the music is good enough people will pay.

 

Whilst downloading the song may be just petty theft, I think the point is that she was sharing them. Still $30000 seems a lot though...

 

Interestingly, I note Radiohead's new album will be available for digital download where the consumer chooses how much they want to pay. Talk about the market finding its own level. I just hope that the download is available in very high quality (pref lossless) without any DRM. If so, I hope people don't abuse it by paying £0.01 just because they can. If I can get this album in FLAC, I will pay a reasonable amount for it (say £5) and hope Radiohead proves this business model can work. If it shows artists can make money out of decent music by trusting the user to pay and not to make pirate copies just beacuse it is DRM free, it could kick start the revolution.

 

That's what I was thinking. I was hoping that in that type of business model, the way to prevent the pirating of the DRM free music is that you the consumer has spent your own ££ on it so why would YOU want to give it away free?

I figured that would be the most 'logical' way to prevent the files from being shared. Of course, that's in a perfect world and places a massive amount of trust on the consumer. But if it worked.. well, why would any artist need the music industries any more?

 

I like the Radiohead idea alot. Maybe they could implement a system that allows people to add some more money if they really like the album. I know if i hated it I wouldnt wanna pay alot for it. If however I did like it, surely I or anyone else would pay more for it? Obviously to a reasonable degree.

 

I like Harvey Dangers approach. Make an album, release it for free on the net and then make a new version of the same album with better quality and a bonus disc of the original recording, extra songs and new covers.

http://www.harveydanger.com/downloads/

Awesome band too. You can read their reasonings here:

http://www.harveydanger.com/press/why.php

This way everyone downloads it and likes it so they get loads of new fans, then those people want to hear more so they buy the album. If they don't like the music that much then they don't have to buy the album. The band doesn't have to be signed either because they can handle the album distribution etc personally. Meanwhile the true fans get something extra and become encouraged by their act of purchasing NOT to pirate the music.

 

I hope Radiohead sets an example by really doing it themselves without a label. Bands have so much more power than they used to to control their own music. RIAA and labels need to wake up or DIAF.

More power to her, RIAAs uncontrolled bs has gone on long enough.

 

Link doesnt goto forums, Interesting suit tho, hopefully he wins

Nice somone is standing up to these A*******

 

ok just supposing she does win remembering I know nothing about US law does that mean everyone in the us who settled out of court maybe able to legally attempt to sue for their money back or is it just tough on them.

 

i want to know how this ends.....

 

she'll most likely lose. But hopefully they'll only make her pay $.99 per song she shared...

 

I like radioheads idea, and in total support im going to buy it for £5 despite not liking the band themselfs very much.