Judge Moves for Retrial in RIAA/Jammie Thomas Case

Good. That had to have been one of the worst verdicts I've ever seen. Being found guilty and punished for it is one thing, but $222,000? I wonder how much she would have been fined if she were found guilty of shoplifting 3 cds instead of downloading 24 songs?

Good. That had to have been one of the worst verdicts I've ever seen. Being found guilty and punished for it is one thing, but $222,000? I wonder how much she would have been fined if she were found guilty of shoplifting 3 cds instead of downloading 24 songs?

http://www.theidoctor.org

I suppose if she had stole the 3 cd’s as you mentioned then she would have had some jail/public service time and some cost associated with what she took. However, when you consider what she took from online, then try to extrapolate what the associated cost of her giving the music away, it quickly adds up. The previous cost seems high as the 24 songs would have had to been downloaded by ~7500 people to justify it. However, on the flip side, how high does the penalty have to be to finally get the message across to everyone? Most people that download and or share would probably not be deterred if they only faced a penalty of the original cost. The cost to re-coup must also be considered.

Sorry for the double post.
I realize that the companies want to get the message across, but is making a few people pay for damages caused by millions of people really the way to do that?

The issue is complicated because of how common the problem is. For example, I am pretty sure all of my peers and most of my family have done it at one time or another.

Additionally, the parties involved(RIAA, music companies, musicians, consumers, and the government to name a few) can't communally decide on what are valid uses for music and what are fair judgments against invalid uses.
If the RIAA had its dream/wish list come true, for example, music would only ever be heard by the single person who bought it.
The purchaser would have no right to transfer use rights to other people upon surrendering said use rights(from the resale of said music for example).
Furthermore, purchasers would not have the right to transfer music between formats(buy the same music in .mp3, on CD, and any other format) nor have the right to make copies for any reason whatsoever(including currently legal uses like backup copies).

I am glad to hear that the judgment has been rescinded and it has been recommended that congress reexamine the issue. While they are at it they should look at software pirating and related intellectual property laws(both copyright and patent) as the issue is very similar in scope.

As computers and technology continue to move at such a rapid pace there is a need to rapidly adopt laws and conventional wisdom on the issues that develop.

It's easier to define a penalty when their is proof of loss. The Record companies can show a loss on paper but not monetarily. They show the loss on paper by shipping 2x as many CD's to retail and quip that they lost sales even though they know that they were never gonna be able to sell through the product they shipped. It doesn't hurt them because they will sell through the original run sooner or later. If they were smart (which we all know they are not), older albums that everyone has been paid on 10x over should become public domain. Unless of course one album is keeping the company afloat... I can't wait til all musicians realize they are the puppets in all of this and don't need their pimps to make a profit.

What this person did was wrong, but it wasn't $222,000 wrong..

She shared over 1000 songs, but the problem is in the old days people would trade cassette tapes with their friends in return for their cassette tapes. There was nothing wrong with that senario becuase you both purchased something. This same argument has been around for decades especially when blank cassettes and CDs came to market.

There are enough legit buyers out there that will glady purchase from iTunes or other digital download sites just as there are still people out there that record the song straight from the radio....

Instead of trying to make this person an example, how about writing this off as promotional expense!

If anything, she should pay for the cost of the album (CD)

Now that the GOP and their 'elected' leaders are on the way out, it seems that sanity is returning to the country. It has been a crazy 8 years... and look at the damage done.
Some legacy!

My sentiments exactly -- almost.
IMO she (and others who are caught) Should have to go buy the albums containing the songs they were sharing.
Which will eventually bring up another issue -- availability. I download stuff to see what it sounds like and when I like something, I go to try and buy the full album. But more often than not, said album isnt available anywhere.

Clinton signed the DCMA (the law in question) some legacy indeed

Never fear, Hatch is still in the Senate to protect his constituents'
interests. The recording industry of Utah deserves the majority of
his time and efforts. I'm sure RIAA lobbying has nothing to do with it.

Don't forget that people who download music are music lovers. Many, who use P2P to download end up buying the entire CD if they like the material. Before P2P/YouTube I only owned 100 CDs. Today I own 600. You may ask why I don't use Itunes to sample music. Simple, there is no way to get a refund if you decide the buy the CD or return music you don't like.

Wow. Just think about having that debt over your head. It would be like paying for an extra house, with one persons income. The people at the RIAA are heartless.

-tghunt

Are you not concerned that the RIAA is "double dipping". If I distributes 24 songs to 7500 people and I pay a fine for doing so, does the RIAA not sue those 7500 people who downloaded the song because I paid for it? ...or do they send them letters saying pay up $3,000 or be sued?

There are times where one sue an illegal distributor - for example, they sue the duplicators of pirated movies but not the consumers who bought them.

Also, there is another way to "double dip". Suppose a person looses their illegal collection on a computer that gets infected with a virus and thus redownloads the songs again. If they had bought CDs, they would not of done so. So perhaps instead of 7500 people downloading the song, it was only 5000. Alternatively, what if the person downloaded the music to listen to it and then deletes it right away - much like returning a CD right away. This download did not cost a sale... so maybe were down to 2500 actual thefts.

The RIAA needs to decide their tactic. They either need to sue the downloaders for theft of the songs, or the uploaders as illegal distributors. Also, with theft, the burden of proof that an actual theft should be on the RIAA - not the burden of proof be on an individual that they didn't steal something. This is the whole premise of "presumed innocent until PROVEN GUILTY".

If the people behind the RIAA didn't try to price control CDs and Stopped putting crap on the radio, made decent songs, and filled a CD with at least 1/2 decent songs insted of passing off 1 song and 11 other horrible ones off as a $16 CD I would consider Buying CDs more frequently. Right now only a handfull of bands deserve my money.