News RIAA court case comes to an end

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/10/05/riaa_court_case_comes_to_an_end/1

The recording industry has received another notch in its belt in the fight against file sharers - the jury has awarded damages to the record companies.

 

Ouch, bet that was hard to swallow for her

 

What did all the other people that got letters from the RIAA do?

 

Forum link in article does not point to this thread.

I fail to see how the 24 songs are worth $9,250 each
I dont personally touch P2P, so wll be business as usuall, ie, ripping my own cds to play on my digital player, I refuse to have to pay for a copy of my own cd's so that I may play them on a device I see fit.

I am digging the way that Radiohead have released there latest album, im not a huge fan of them, but I made my purchase for the ammount I see fit, and to make a point, hopefully if enough people do it, with any hope it will start a new trend of how to sell the music online. Well heres hoping at least.

 

They haven't touched Usenet yet, so it's business as usual for me

- Sam

 

Yep, why bother with P2P when you can use various proxies and SSL connections to a Usenet server and get *almost* whatever you want, DRM free, if one were so inclinded...

Makes you wonder why the RIAA (or the MPAA for that matter) haven't touched the usenet side of things. Perhaps because it's something they know they can never win against.

But as for making a copy of a cd being illegal?? If you share, distribute that copy away then sure -- but if it's for your own personal use, how has that made any loss for the industry? You've bought the music already, you should be free to use it in any way you want so long as it doesn't leave your "possession" as it were.

This whole thing just goes to show what a bunch of greeder f**kers the RIAA are.

 

what worries me most is the following part:

BURN IN HELL RIAA

 

At least the British Phonograph Society have said they aren't going to go after people who rip music to their own hard drives / MP3 Players. But having said that, I don't use p2p at all, so I have avoided the more blatant copyright issues.

 

I'd like to know how much of that money the artists actually receive, because it's all about the artists remember[/sarcasm]

 

Rofl, none of it I bet. It'll all go back into the RIAA to fund future allegations.

 

Yep, that bit worried me too... I buy CDs, not MP3s for obvious quality reasons.

 

Fuel on the flames of the fight between 'fair use' and 'if you don't buy the same song fifteen different ways, you're a pirate'.

 

Guilty of theft sure, but I mean come on she wasn't using them to make a profit. That fine is cruel and unusual when applied to a normal person like that.

 

if it was legal I would burn down the RIAA legal offices and coporate headquarters, but only the top levels where the execs are. ( please note the Daily Mail is on the top of the list for places to burn down if legal)

 

The whole philosophy in RIAA/MPAA is idiotic and ridicule. People are just refusing to pay the extra price that nobody should pay. This means (for example), the author of an album earns, lets say, 2 euros per album. The recording label then adds about other 8 euros for their "work" (90% done by machines anyway), and finally, the store adds other 15 euros to the final product. There you go, instead of 2 euros, you're paying 25 for a music album in this case. Well, I refuse to pay to the label just for making the copies, and I refuse even more to pay to the owner of the shop, who is doing NOTHING more than place the disks on shelves.

If RIAA/MPAA had just a tiny bit of intelligence among their staff, they would realize that online is the way to go: just sell your albums in digital format for, what, 6 euros? I'm prepared to pay that, I would be paying the artist and the label for their "work" (they're doing pretty little, but hey I understand that they have to earn something for commerce to exist). People just want to pay for what they get REASONABLY, and that's just not happening in the current business model.

Were I president, I would completely ban RIAA/MPAA and treat them as the criminals they really are, destroying people's lives with ridiculous fines, that nobody except a rich person would be able to pay anyway, as a punishment for their own erroneous business model. Wake up dammit, eliminate intermediaries and take your business model to the year 2007, where things are online and reasonably priced!!!

Thought of the day: you know how the shows you see on TV are really a copyrighted products, right? Well, then STOP recording in your VCR those episodes of LOST, Grey's Anatomy, Family Guy, etc when you're out, you're actually infringing copyright laws, cos the show is not your property, right? Yeah, whatever... I lmao in the face of RIAA/MPAA.

 

shes not being forced to pay for just the worth of the songs. shes being fined for copyright infringement.

well this sucks, i was hoping someone would stick it to the RIAA

 

I call foul on those amended jury instructions, thats grounds for appeal right there.

damn trial-rigging RIAA

 

"act of making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright owner's exclusive copyright." this is the part that scares me

but yes if you read in the article the 24 songs could have been a suit for over $3 million. because they have to assume that they lost revinue because of the people that DLed it. if they are so awsome at tracking people should only be held accountable for the songs they transfered. meaning if 3 people DLed a song off her then she needs to pay for teh lsot revinue for those DLs. but they seem to think that they are going to sell 133,333 coppies of each song that she shared (bassed on the 3.2 million)

 

sorry that was 3.6 million in damages

 

no doubt. She would have been off scott free if it was the first jury instruction. All they really proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that she ripped CD's to her computer, and i'm sorry but **** you RIAA that isn't stealing. If I can make a copy of my software for backup purposes on my harddrive, that's not stealing, I don't know why her lawyer didn't bring up that point since there's precedence for that and how could they prove thats not what she was doing.

To me it sounds like she was a prolific buyer of CD's...I doubt she'll continue to be though.


On a completely seperate note:
The RIAA better wisen up to the fact that CD's are a dying format. There's DVD's, HD-DVD's, BluRay disks that can hold orders of magnitude more songs/space than CD's, I don't know why manufacturers don't put in combo players in cars/audio systems...of course that will never happen while money grubbing assholes like the record industry have the artists by the balls