BleepingComputer.com: Jury awards RIAA $1.9m (for 24 songs!) in retrial

Yeah but there's not enough people in that boat to seriously harm the media industry. That's one reason why Sims3 is available to download for free but they're still making good money off people buying it.

"According to EA, this represents the most successful PC game launch the company has ever had".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sims_3#Softwa...opy_restriction

And you know what else? Look at the way EA Games dealt with this situation. You notice that, instead of declaring war on the people downloading the game for free, they decided to "Sweeten the Pot" for those that bought it legally. They added some bells and whistles to the released copies, like a new town, and ways to trade game-related things online. Much different strategy then doing what the RIAA did and suing everyone that downloaded music. Win them over, not alienate them.

The thing that has me confused here is that someone said that it is not downloading the music that is illegal, it is making it available for someone else to download it that is. I always thought that downloading it without paying for it was illegal.

Also, someone else said that if she files for bankruptcy then the fine will get reduced but that is not really accuarate. Punitive fines cannot be dismissed or even modified by bankruptcy.

Update, I just did a search on the legality of downloading music and most things I am finding (other than just peoples opinion) say that it is illegal to download it without paying for it. It seems that the RIAA is no longer suing people for it however. Here is a link to what the RIAA is stating on the subject...

http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

Here are a couple of paragraphs from that article...

Q: What is the RIAA's official stance on digital music piracy?

Plain and simple: piracy is bad news. While the term is commonly used, "piracy" doesn't even begin to describe what is taking place. When you go online and download songs without permission, you are stealing. The illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local convenience store - and the impact on those who create music and bring it to fans is equally devastating. For every artist you can name at the top of the Billboard music charts, there is a long line of songwriters, sound engineers, and label employees who help create those hits. They all feel the pain of music theft.

Q: Is it still illegal to download music on P2P sites like LimeWire, BitTorrent and Ares?

Absolutely. We will continue to monitor these and others and send notices to ISPs upon detection of illegal file-sharing activity. Additionally, we will continue to hold file-trafficking services responsible. That is and always has been our number one preference. We are not out of the anti-piracy business and will continue to focus and invest time and resources in going after the illegal services that facilitate and encourage theft.

This post has been edited by Stang777: 05 July 2009 - 05:34 PM

Here is what the RIAA had to say about the case in point here....

NEW: RIAA Comment on Verdict in Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset
RIAA REACTION:
"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do. We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day one, we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so."

-- Cara Duckworth

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND FACTS ON THE CASE TO KEEP IN MIND

-Ms. Thomas-Rasset has now been found liable for copyright infringement twice by two separate juries of her own peers.

-She was caught downloading AND distributing more than 1700 songs via an illicit peer-to-peer network. That's the equivalent of standing on a street corner with approximately 150 CDs and giving away free copies to anyone who asks.


-The record companies brought legal action only on a representative sample of the songs (24) in an effort to be fair and reasonable.

-At the time of the infringement, there were more than 2.3 million users on the peer-to-peer network who had access to Ms. Thomas-Rasset's 1,700 audio files.

-Despite numerous offers, Ms. Thomas-Rasset had repeatedly refused to settle and insisted on going to court twice.

http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_mont...04-FD0F15EF0F63

This post has been edited by Stang777: 05 July 2009 - 05:26 PM

And we all know how impartial the RIAA is in this matter.

+2,000,000 grains of salt

The question I have (and maybe I misunderstand it) is where does fair use end and copyright violation begin. Ahem...... all of my music (15 GB and going) has been gotten via fair use or I went out and bought the CD's (certain CD resellers like FYE or local shops will run sales on used stuff all the time buy 2 get 2 free or such). Fair use as I understand it is that if say I have a CD and my friend wants a copy I can make a personal copy for him where he goes with it from there is not my issue, As such if he has music that I want he can make me a copy of it and where he gets it from is no concern of mine. As long its it stays "personal" we have not violated the copyright. Whats the difference if i connect to his or another persons PC via P2P software it is still a person to person transaction. The other party is not making a profit off of the artist and neither am I.

Copyright law varies in different countries however my understand is that, in general, making a copy of a CD for a friend does not fall under "fair use" and is a copyright infringement.

It is my understanding that the only time it is legal to make a copy of a cd is if it is for your own use, so that you can have a backup of the original disk you purchased, unless you have permission from the person who holds the copyright.

This post has been edited by Stang777: 05 July 2009 - 10:22 PM

-quote 'BlackSpyder'-
"fair use ...... say I have a CD and my friend wants a copy I can make a personal copy for him" -/quote-

No, as Budapest said that is not fair use, that is copyright infringement.

Now if it is being played on the radio, and your friend records it from there, he is fine. I do believe the courts have ruled that you can record music off the radio for personal use - in the same way you can record a television show or movie on television for personal use.

Makes sense, right?

This post has been edited by ddeerrff: 05 July 2009 - 10:21 PM

I agree ddeerrff. From what I have been reading in "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. Fair use is intended for one person to make a copy of anything they purchase and they must retain that copy. They are not allowed to share it. However, this has obviously never stopped humans before (never will either, remember SneakerNet?).

As far as recording songs off the radio, I believe it is now illegal to do such a thing, considering radio stations (over the air not the Internet) do not have to pay as much in royalty feeds compared to them streaming it on the Internet.

Originally it was legal to make a copy of a music CD and share it with a friend, this is what the creator of Napster tried to streamline.

RIAA- was a civil trial;howerver, the discreation of DA crininal charges can be filed. 24 songs did not motivated the DA to file criimnal charges prior to the civil trial. What about 1000 songs.

The Fair Use Act - Legally permitted one CD copied and Legally granted by the Recording Co who produced the product. (not the Artists/Bands)

Fair - a legal duty of a standard of care owed to another(s) as defined by Federal Statute. Every citizen owes to one another a duty of care.

Use - A legal duty of a standard of care owed to another relating to how something which is legal protected by Federal Statute is Used or is not Used and whether the duty owed was Used fairly or Unfairly according to Federal Statute.

All things being equal when you make two or more CDs who's legal duty of standard of care (which you legally owe) are you actually violatating? The Recording Co.? Who owns the audio recordings? Make two or more copies of CD and you are ripping off the Recording Studios.

WARNING: Conspiracy-Two or more people who knowingly and intentionally committ or attempt to committ a felony. Attempting to committ is enough to convict. There is no backing out once any attempt is made. No back door. Knowingly & Intentionally to commit a felony 25yrs to life. Attempting to commit a felony 25yrs to life. Conspircy=two counts of felony 50yrs and two life sentences max

A singer/band might recieve a 5 cent royalty from the Record Co. for every CD sold. Normally, Artists,Bands earn most of there income touring because the Recording Studios do not want that headache. The CD's purchased at concerts are made available by the Recording Cos.
I hope this has cleared up some of the confusion? Email if not clear.

Read the 14th Admenment to US Constituion.

Criminal Acts Constituing felonious acts:
Theft: One who knowingly obtained or exercised control over anything of value of another without
authroization. Grand theft and theft are two criimnal offenses depending on the value of what was stolen.

RIAA does not want to see any one going to prision and I know RIAA has asked the DA not pursue criminal charges. All RIAA has sought is civil legal restitution for damages.

I do not mean to be the bad guy. However, some of the things that I have read is very alarming.

We have all seen the FBI warnings about making DVD copies. There is no Fair Use protection. Where does it state that you can make a DVD copy for individual use? Fair Use only applies audio Recordings within the music industry. Would you rather spent two or more years in prision and then one day appear in court to argue your Fair Use rights with an unknown verdict?

Every citizen is protected under copyright and patent laws.

Now whether you decide to steal anothers persons work has nothing to do with me. Just be careful. Please. I would be glad to clear up any confusion.

Ummm... what does the fourteenth amendment have to do with Copyright?
I question the legality of FBI warnings. USC §109© says that the owner of a copy of a Copyrighted work may display the work however they see fit, except when in violation of §109(B)1(a). The FBI warning just says you're not allowed to exhibit the movie at all, ever, under any circumstances.

Copyright laws, in my opinion, weren't worded too well. They cover a gray area. That's why these cases are better tried in civil rather than criminal courts. Besides, we're already too busy rounding up millions of drug users and throwing them into the hoosegow. Can we really afford to be rounding up millions more and putting them away for making a copy of a Miley Cyrus album??? These laws were hastily put together and passed to appease the lobbyists in the entertainment business, that's all.

Like I said before: The government does NOT work for the people. They work ONLY for the lobbyists.

Can I vote that Miley Cyrus albums are, in and of themselves, a crime? Let alone reproducing them?

Absolutely!