The RIAA Armageddon has begun

ACTA draft finally released to the public. This part is interesting:

Imminent infringement

Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Thanks for that link, Adam, that was super interesting and useful.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html

Jesus. o_0

People these days do not remember the immense range of music available back in the 50's through the mid 80's.

11 people liked this comment

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the Minnesota woman who has been fighting the recording industry over 24 songs she illegally downloaded and shared online four years ago, has lost another round in court.

A jury in Minneapolis decided today that she was liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages to Capitol Records, or $62,500 for each song she illegally shared in April 2006.

The Recording Industry Association of America--the trade group that represents the four major music labels--applauded the verdict.

"We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct," the RIAA said in a statement. "Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions."

evil

Sorry, but I have to out more of that comment up because it's a classic.

Sick of prefabricated formula kid bands? Tired of an endless succession of so-called artists whose only talent is to jump around a stage and shout bad poetry? Stop ripping off the music industry. People these days do not remember the immense range of music available back in the 50's through the mid 80's.

The reason why it was so huge - particularly in the mid to late 60's - is because the record companies made enough money that they were free to seek out talent and nurture that talent. No longer, folks...

uh

That is some severe rose-colored "back in my day" nonsense right there

jump around a stage and shout bad poetry

wow, this ruling.

i'm not even going to look for a jim morrison jpg

i'm not an IP lawyer, but i assume the mixtapes that some sites put online (e.g., DIS Magazine, RA Review) are technically illegal to download?

i think i know the answer here, regrettably. that's why i stay away from even these items.

xp
Sadly BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING none of Jim Morrison's work is available anywhere.

that's why i stay away from even these items.

!

xxp for ethical reasons? Or because you fear that you will go to jail?

Fuck, for that money she could probably find all the original artists and personally pay them to re-record every song in a professional studio.

that would be pretty funny and amazing actually

The most expensive cd ever burnt.

Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Aerosmith "Cryin’"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Green Day "Basket Case"

poll "Which of these songs is most worth $62,500?"

As much as I hate to ever agree with commenters on sites like this, one of them has a point - she would have gotten off much, much easier if she'd just shoplifted physical copies of all of these.

Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"

^ lol

there's a visa/priceless joke in here somewhere but it would suck

what the hell do you even do with your life if you have a million dollar judgment hanging over you? i take it your checks are probably garnished, but how much? what's the process for this? jump of a bridge?

that's why i stay away from even these items.

Has anyone ever been targeted for just downloading? As far as I know they've only gone after the UPloaders

yeah, i think sharing is what's targeted. but the riaa hasn't admitted that just downloading is legal.

xxp for ethical reasons? Or because you fear that you will go to jail?

bit of both (not jail, but substantial fines).

sharing is easy to track, i'm not sure how the riaa would be able to track downloaders unless they set up a sting.

ever feel like you're being kind of a dick? ever wonder if you're kind of a dick all the time? ever feel like an riaa lawyer?

relax, bro, you're good.

i'm glad i'm not an riaa lawyer, but they have to be a pretty happy group tonight.

After doing much research, I chuckle when I see the phrase "illegal downloads" now.

Probably the most relevant comment there is

I can find almost everyone of those songs to listen to on youtube...

i feel badly for this woman, but the picture they posted of her on the linked article makes her seem so smarmy.

How did they find her? Did they track her intellectual property address?

Guys I feel guilty about all the mp3s I've downloaded, I mean, I've been STEALING someone else's work.

I really should find out who invented the mp3 codec so i can paypal him some $$.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebv0t9MreQo&feature=related

insanity.... meanwhile in Oakland a police office who shot and killed an unarmed, restrained INNOCENT man who was laying on his stomach was given 2 years for involuntary manslaughter and will probably walk after 6 months. glad our country has our priorities straight.

She really does deserve to live in poverty forever. History's greatest monster, Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Why don't they just indenture her to the RIAA.

she can just declare bankruptcy. but then again she's an idiot.

wait maybe i'm wrong. i am not a lawyer.

Jammie Tuomas-Raggett

http://i51.tinypic.com/2v7vsxg.jpg

Manhattan Federal Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for $75 Trillion in Damages 'Absurd' in Lime Wire Copyright Case

Victor Li
The American Lawyer
March 15, 2011

Does $75 trillion even exist? The thirteen record companies that are suing file-sharing company Lime Wire for copyright infringement certainly thought so. When they won a summary judgment ruling last May they demanded damages that could reach this mind-boggling amount, which is more than five times the national debt.

Manhattan federal district court judge Kimba Wood, however, saw things differently. She labeled the record companies' damages request "absurd" and contrary to copyright laws in a 14-page opinion.

The record companies, which had demanded damages ranging from $400 billion to $75 trillion, had argued that Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act provided for damages for each instance of infringement where two or more parties were liable. For a popular site like Lime Wire, which had thousands of users and millions of downloads, Wood held that the damage award would be staggering under this interpretation. "If plaintiffs were able to pursue a statutory damage theory predicated on the number of direct infringers per work, defendants' damages could reach into the trillions," she wrote. "As defendants note, plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is 'more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877.'"

While Wood conceded that the question of statutory interpretation was "an especially close question," she concluded that damages should be limited to one damage award per work.

"We were pleased that the judge followed both the law and the logic in reaching the conclusion that she did," said Lime Wire's attorney, Joseph Baio of Willkie Farr & Gallagher. "As the judge said in her opinion, when the copyright law was initiated, legislatures couldn't possibly conceive of what the world would become with the internet. As such, you couldn't use legislative history. Instead, the overarching issue is reasonableness in order to avoid absurd and possibly unconstitutional outcome." Baio, who is scheduled to represent Lime Wire when the damages trial begins on May 2, joked that the money that the record companies sought from his client would be better spent on paying for health care or wiping out the national debt.

Glenn Pomerantz of Munger, Tolles & Olson, who represented 13 record company plaintiffs, did not return requests for comment.

Oh joy:

The four largest record labels are unhappy with the way the courts have interpreted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in recent years and may need to ask Congress for changes, according to Jennifer Pariser, the attorney who oversees litigation for the Recording Industry Association of America.

The DMCA is just not providing the kind of protection against online piracy that Congress intended, Pariser said at a conference here on Thursday.

"I think Congress got it right, but I think the courts are getting it wrong," Pariser said during a panel discussion at the NY Entertainment & Technology Law Conference. "I think the courts are interpreting Congress' statute in a manner that is entirely too restrictive of content owners' rights and too open to (Internet) service providers.

"We might need to go to Congress at some point for a fix," Pariser added. "Not because the statute was badly drafted but because the interpretation has been so hamstrung by court decisions."

LOL @ the continuing demise of the RIAA. For every person you sue there are thousands more stealing your shit that you will never catch and there is nothing you can do to put the genie back in the bottle.

You can't argue with FREE

Poor babies.

But when you steal music, you condemn the children of the RIAA to go to community colleges.

As long as they take an economics class I don't care where they go.