i disagree. the riaa has a duty to pursue claims on behalf of its members so long as this copyright law exists. if i was an artist covered by the riaa, i'd think they are doing a lousy job, considering how piracy has become the norm.
what do you even mean by "for attorneys to make money"? attorneys didn't invent this law, the legislature did.
we don't deserve to get paid for doing work?
sure attorneys need to eat too, but I don't think a lot of people understand that the system is not there to settle disputes or right wrongs, it's an industry. People who think that going to court for the principle are fooling themselves unless they have an industry behind them. This woman was foolish (or perhaps recieved foolish counsel) in going to trial. Her attorney benefits even if she loses, so bad advice does not really hurt him, he will get paid before she ever pays the RIAA, you know this. So $5k would have been the option to take, and the bullies have the upper hand. Pay the thugs their money or get bled out.
I think what Birdman is saying is that it's a bit ridiculous that such a scenario, which is about giving every ounce of protection available to large, multi-million dollar corporations, would take place in a court of law, which ideally would be used for the practice of meting justice, as opposed to over-punishing the relatively poor to the delight of the grossly-rich.
as my least favourite law prof. used to say: "the law is how it is."
also, how does the this woman's lawyer get paid when she inevitably files for bankruptcy?
Unless this is some pro bono work (which I doubt, but I have no idea), you can BET that the accounts payable department at the firm is on a first name basis with that woman, and wants to know when they can recieve payment. They don't want her to go bankrupt before they collect their billable hours....would you? You really think the attorney is doing this work out of the kindness of his/her heart?
I think what Birdman is saying is that it's a bit ridiculous that such a scenario, which is about giving every ounce of protection available to large, multi-million dollar corporations, would take place in a court of law, which ideally would be used for the practice of meting justice, as opposed to over-punishing the relatively poor to the delight of the grossly-rich.
there are much better examples of the powerful abusing the meek by taking advantage of the legal system (or the expense of it)....but generally it is where they screw you and know you don't have the means to bring a lawsuit. for example - your insurance company denies an obvious claim, what do you do? you can try to find an attorney who might be interested in your case on a contingent basis...but if its for a small amount, chances are you just got f*cked.
lawyers are expensive. i agree that abuse happens when the strong & powerful are plaintiffs, but it's much less frequent because its a money-losing proposition. they spend hundreds of dollars an hour on attys to get what? a judgment that they can't enforce such as in this case.
as my least favourite law prof. used to say: "the law is how it is."
also, how does the this woman's lawyer get paid when she inevitably files for bankruptcy?
Unless this is some pro bono work (which I doubt, but I have no idea), you can BET that the accounts payable department at the firm is on a first name basis with that woman, and wants to know when they can recieve payment. They don't want her to go bankrupt before they collect their billable hours....would you? You really think the attorney is doing this work out of the kindness of his/her heart?
i don;t know enough about the facts and background of the case to make any statement either way as to whether her lawyer was working pro bono or not, but that is irrelevant.
if she did hire an attorney she may have paid him or her a retainer but typically failed litigants will declare bankruptcy before they lawyer will get paid off. being on a first name basis with someone is no guarantee of repayment.
as my least favourite law prof. used to say: "the law is how it is."
also, how does the this woman's lawyer get paid when she inevitably files for bankruptcy?
Unless this is some pro bono work (which I doubt, but I have no idea), you can BET that the accounts payable department at the firm is on a first name basis with that woman, and wants to know when they can recieve payment. They don't want her to go bankrupt before they collect their billable hours....would you? You really think the attorney is doing this work out of the kindness of his/her heart?
there is absolutely zero chance that this woman was paying hourly, most likely the case was pro bono. a lawyer would take this case for the publicity.
there is a very small percentage of society (as individuals) that can afford to pay a lawyer on an hourly basis in a case this big. not to mention that experts cost tens of thousands of dollars. maybe she paid for costs.
The RIAA's members need to ask the organization (which is pretty much 110% dedicated to it's own preservation and, IMO, not to it's membership's best interest)why it is spending so much time, money and resources on herding cats as opposed to figuring out a better way for artists and companies to get paid from/for their product. Technology has essentially rendered their old models useless, and all the lawsuits in the world won't make them work again.
as my least favourite law prof. used to say: "the law is how it is."
also, how does the this woman's lawyer get paid when she inevitably files for bankruptcy?
Unless this is some pro bono work (which I doubt, but I have no idea), you can BET that the accounts payable department at the firm is on a first name basis with that woman, and wants to know when they can recieve payment. They don't want her to go bankrupt before they collect their billable hours....would you? You really think the attorney is doing this work out of the kindness of his/her heart?
i don;t know enough about the facts and background of the case to make any statement either way as to whether her lawyer was working pro bono or not, but that is irrelevant.
if she did hire an attorney she may have paid him or her a retainer but typically failed litigants will declare bankruptcy before they lawyer will get paid off. being on a first name basis with someone is no guarantee of repayment.
NOTHING guarantees payment for anyone, not even a judgement! My point is that there is no more ruthless accounts payable people than those calling on behalf of an attorney.
The RIAA's members need to ask the organization (which is pretty much 110% dedicated to it's own preservation and, IMO, not to it's membership's best interest)why it is spending so much time, money and resources on herding cats as opposed to figuring out a better way for artists and companies to get paid from/for their product. Technology has essentially rendered their old models useless, and all the lawsuits in the world won't make them work again.
why are you making me go to bat for these assholes?
a regulatory body of this nature must ensure its own viability and effectiveness if it is to protect its members' interests. secondly, why must it be one solution or the other? a multi-pronged strategy may be the most effective means of countering piracy and encouraging respect for property rights.
The RIAA's members need to ask the organization (which is pretty much 110% dedicated to it's own preservation and, IMO, not to it's membership's best interest)why it is spending so much time, money and resources on herding cats as opposed to figuring out a better way for artists and companies to get paid from/for their product. Technology has essentially rendered their old models useless, and all the lawsuits in the world won't make them work again.
why are you making me go to bat for these assholes?
a regulatory body of this nature must ensure its own viability and effectiveness if it is to protect its members' interests. secondly, why must it be one solution or the other? a multi-pronged strategy may be the most effective means of countering piracy and encouraging respect for property rights.
I am not making you do anything!
I am just stating my opinion, which is that their strategies (fear, intimidation, litigation, legislation) don't seem to be having the intended effect, which is why I imagine that there is plenty of discourse going on in the industry and the RIAA. No lobbying special interest has complete industry agreement no matter what they present as the brave face and in their press releases. Protecting their members' interests is surely not simply litigating civil cases against rural moms in MN and standing strong on already over-reaching and unfair copyright law. Surely their members' dues could be used in some sort of INNOVATIVE manner that might more effectively address the members' problems. You don't think the membership discusses this stuff?
Just as an FYI to those unfamiliar with this case, let me share some facts from the case (some are disputed, but this is what the jury believed):
- the defendant had about 1700 songs in her shared folder on kazaa - she had all the music on an external harddrive but claimed that the drive broke and that she no longer had it (the riaa had the evidence in captured screen shots) - she never owned up to downloading the music but blamed it on either her kids, her ex boyfriend, or random internet pirates - her lawyer tried to argue that she couldn't have done it because she had cds with some of the songs she was accused of downloading on them - THEY OFFERED TO SETTLE FOR $5,000
Terrible looks all around. And here are some more juicy details. KVH is right. The woman was represented for the second trial on a pro bono basis by a Filipino-American lawyer named Kiwi Camara. Apparently, Kiwi graduated Harvard Law at the age of 19 - making him the youngest graduate of that hallowed institution. Dude has no particular copyright experience and his legal strategy was really a campaign against the "unconstitutionality" of statutory penalties under the copyright laws. Here's what he said in another one of his copyright cases:
"Armed with the threat of $150,000 in statutory damages per illegal download (a $1.5M judgment in a small, 10-song case, where the actual damages are about $10, the price of 10 songs on iTunes), the recording industry has obtained more than $100M in settlements from individuals like Brittany. We are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these -- 150,000:1 -- are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign."
As an aside, young Kiwi was previously known for referring to African Americans as "nigs" in one of his lawschool outlines that was posted on the Harvard Law webite.
The RIAA's members need to ask the organization (which is pretty much 110% dedicated to it's own preservation and, IMO, not to it's membership's best interest)why it is spending so much time, money and resources on herding cats as opposed to figuring out a better way for artists and companies to get paid from/for their product. Technology has essentially rendered their old models useless, and all the lawsuits in the world won't make them work again.
why are you making me go to bat for these assholes?
a regulatory body of this nature must ensure its own viability and effectiveness if it is to protect its members' interests. secondly, why must it be one solution or the other? a multi-pronged strategy may be the most effective means of countering piracy and encouraging respect for property rights.
I am not making you do anything!
I am just stating my opinion, which is that their strategies (fear, intimidation, litigation, legislation) don't seem to be having the intended effect, which is why I imagine that there is plenty of discourse going on in the industry and the RIAA. No lobbying special interest has complete industry agreement no matter what they present as the brave face and in their press releases. Protecting their members' interests is surely not simply litigating civil cases against rural moms in MN and standing strong on already over-reaching and unfair copyright law. Surely their members' dues could be used in some sort of INNOVATIVE manner that might more effectively address the members' problems. You don't think the membership discusses this stuff?
that would render most of the RIAA board of directors, executive level staff, bloated agency pencil pushers and paper shufflers useless, and they would be laid off making the agency much more streamlined and effective. why the hell would the RIAA want to do that?
The RIAA's members need to ask the organization (which is pretty much 110% dedicated to it's own preservation and, IMO, not to it's membership's best interest)why it is spending so much time, money and resources on herding cats as opposed to figuring out a better way for artists and companies to get paid from/for their product. Technology has essentially rendered their old models useless, and all the lawsuits in the world won't make them work again.
I think young Kiwi has a point, even if he is Filipino with a funny name.
The constitution allows copyright laws for the purpose of the advancement of the arts.
Since the RIAA has no interest in art they should have no standing in any of these cases. [That's sarcasm, my son.]
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
Congress should rethink copyright laws with the sole intent of advancing art.
Record companies need to get websites where they market their entire catalog. Plenty of people will pay for access to good music. BMG and Sony have catalogs that are over a 100 years old with much of it unavailable. More than music, people want product. The advantage that records have maintained is that they are a great product.
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
I think you are missing Mr. Wolf's point. Ease of copying is not the measure of legality or illegality. The way we use coprighted material has changed because of technology. When the information was tied to a physical media, the presence of the physical object was a powerful signifier of ownership. When the information is instead stored in the intangible world of computer memory or the internet the concept of ownership becomes abstract. Perhaps copyright laws actually can be adapted to the new way of using and storing information, but it seems that to the average consumer of music there is a big difference between downloading a song and buying a CD that is an obvious knockoff. Plenty of people who wouldn't buy the CD will still download the song.
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
it amazes me that every time this argument comes up, the music lovers of the strut never side with the artists/creators.
on one side you have people who deserve to not have their art stolen....and on the other you have lazy ingrates who think that because art is accessible, it therefore should be free.
i realize the system is extremely flawed as is...but why is every thread about the riaa so one-sided in favor of the consumer/illegal downloader?
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
it amazes me that every time this argument comes up, the music lovers of the strut never side with the artists/creators.
on one side you have people who deserve to not have their art stolen....and on the other you have lazy ingrates who think that because art is accessible, it therefore should be free.
i realize the system is extremely flawed as is...but why is every thread about the riaa so one-sided in favor of the consumer/illegal downloader?
I'll hazard a guess -- because it always seems like the RIAA is protecting artists/creators who've already made countless millions releasing insipid music.
It's like the Lars vs. Napster thing: it's hard to side with a cocky multi-millionaire when he's complaining that he's not getting wealthier at a fast enough rate.
In both cases the public is being asked to side with mega-rich, mega-priviledged people against Average Joes and Janes.
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
it amazes me that every time this argument comes up, the music lovers of the strut never side with the artists/creators.
on one side you have people who deserve to not have their art stolen....and on the other you have lazy ingrates who think that because art is accessible, it therefore should be free.
i realize the system is extremely flawed as is...but why is every thread about the riaa so one-sided in favor of the consumer/illegal downloader?
Most people seem to think that blind justice should side with those of lesser economic wealth.
i get that rich corporations and celebrities are not necessarily the most sympathetic litigants but does anyone really believe that only the property rights of the "underprivileged" should be protected?
i get that rich corporations and celebrities are not necessarily the most sympathetic litigants but does anyone really believe that only the property rights of the "underprivileged" should be protected?
no, but as a news story this really is about perception and sympathy as much as it is about legality, which is why discussions on messageboards tend to go in this direction.
When the public sees that someone has been hit with a million-plus fine for something most of them have engaged in, their reaction is going to be similar to seeing someone getting 10 years for sneaking into a movie, jaywalking, or smoking a doobie.
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Some people have already helped clarify.
Let me expand on what they said. When making a book or recording was difficult and expensive anyone who bothered to make a copy was almost certainly doing so for profit.
Because of computers, anything that is uploaded, a news story, a picture or a song, can be easily copied. These copies have no market value.
Above you see a copy of a $20.00 bill. Feel free to copy it in your reply. No one will be mad at you.
If you choose to print it out for your own enjoyment, you will be doing no harm.
If people were copying mp3s and attempting to sell them they would be as foolish as someone trying to print out that $20 bill and passing it at the store.
Not to come down on you or anything, but I was talking about the constitutionality of copyright laws. Currency is covered by other laws.
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
it amazes me that every time this argument comes up, the music lovers of the strut never side with the artists/creators.
on one side you have people who deserve to not have their art stolen....and on the other you have lazy ingrates who think that because art is accessible, it therefore should be free.
i realize the system is extremely flawed as is...but why is every thread about the riaa so one-sided in favor of the consumer/illegal downloader?
Maybe if the punishment fit the crime. If I go to the store and steal 10 dollars worth of food, the national association of grocers can't hit me up for a few hundred grand in reparations. The RIAA are bullies, scaring people into paying "settlements" by showing them judgements like this.
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Some people have already helped clarify.
Let me expand on what they said. When making a book or recording was difficult and expensive anyone who bothered to make a copy was almost certainly doing so for profit.
Because of computers, anything that is uploaded, a news story, a picture or a song, can be easily copied. These copies have no market value.
Above you see a copy of a $20.00 bill. Feel free to copy it in your reply. No one will be mad at you.
If you choose to print it out for your own enjoyment, you will be doing no harm.
If people were copying mp3s and attempting to sell them they would be as foolish as someone trying to print out that $20 bill and passing it at the store.
Not to come down on you or anything, but I was talking about the constitutionality of copyright laws. Currency is covered by other laws.
Here's what I'm gonna do...
I'm gonna print off your $20.00 bill, illegally download a movie and then send the $20.00 copy to the movie company to pay for my viewing of the film.
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers. Making copies is what computers do. It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
it amazes me that every time this argument comes up, the music lovers of the strut never side with the artists/creators.
on one side you have people who deserve to not have their art stolen....and on the other you have lazy ingrates who think that because art is accessible, it therefore should be free.
i realize the system is extremely flawed as is...but why is every thread about the riaa so one-sided in favor of the consumer/illegal downloader?
Maybe if the punishment fit the crime. If I go to the store and steal 10 dollars worth of food, the national association of grocers can't hit me up for a few hundred grand in reparations. The RIAA are bullies, scaring people into paying "settlements" by showing them judgements like this.
also, the RIAA does very little for artists...yes they do a lot for labels, the corporations that own the labels and the lawyers, but very little for the artists. You should see the crap the RIAA sends to our non-profit radio station, trying to "collect" for songs we have played...also they send "lists" of artists they are "trying" to pay but "cant seem to find"...its complete bullshit, listing people I see at the grocery store on the regular, but they "cant seem to find". I bet the attorney fees and other associated fees that are associated with these lawsuits isnt coming out of any RIAA legal fund, they will come out of artists royalties as "administrative fees" or other some crap...labels and the RIAA dont pay for anything, it all comes out of the artist's money for what I understand. Siding with the RIAA is not siding with the artist.
Comments
sure attorneys need to eat too, but I don't think a lot of people understand that the system is not there to settle disputes or right wrongs, it's an industry. People who think that going to court for the principle are fooling themselves unless they have an industry behind them. This woman was foolish (or perhaps recieved foolish counsel) in going to trial. Her attorney benefits even if she loses, so bad advice does not really hurt him, he will get paid before she ever pays the RIAA, you know this. So $5k would have been the option to take, and the bullies have the upper hand. Pay the thugs their money or get bled out.
also, how does the this woman's lawyer get paid when she inevitably files for bankruptcy?
Unless this is some pro bono work (which I doubt, but I have no idea), you can BET that the accounts payable department at the firm is on a first name basis with that woman, and wants to know when they can recieve payment. They don't want her to go bankrupt before they collect their billable hours....would you? You really think the attorney is doing this work out of the kindness of his/her heart?
there are much better examples of the powerful abusing the meek by taking advantage of the legal system (or the expense of it)....but generally it is where they screw you and know you don't have the means to bring a lawsuit. for example - your insurance company denies an obvious claim, what do you do? you can try to find an attorney who might be interested in your case on a contingent basis...but if its for a small amount, chances are you just got f*cked.
lawyers are expensive. i agree that abuse happens when the strong & powerful are plaintiffs, but it's much less frequent because its a money-losing proposition. they spend hundreds of dollars an hour on attys to get what? a judgment that they can't enforce such as in this case.
i don;t know enough about the facts and background of the case to make any statement either way as to whether her lawyer was working pro bono or not, but that is irrelevant.
if she did hire an attorney she may have paid him or her a retainer but typically failed litigants will declare bankruptcy before they lawyer will get paid off. being on a first name basis with someone is no guarantee of repayment.
there is absolutely zero chance that this woman was paying hourly, most likely the case was pro bono. a lawyer would take this case for the publicity.
there is a very small percentage of society (as individuals) that can afford to pay a lawyer on an hourly basis in a case this big. not to mention that experts cost tens of thousands of dollars. maybe she paid for costs.
NOTHING guarantees payment for anyone, not even a judgement! My point is that there is no more ruthless accounts payable people than those calling on behalf of an attorney.
why are you making me go to bat for these assholes?
a regulatory body of this nature must ensure its own viability and effectiveness if it is to protect its members' interests. secondly, why must it be one solution or the other? a multi-pronged strategy may be the most effective means of countering piracy and encouraging respect for property rights.
I am not making you do anything!
I am just stating my opinion, which is that their strategies (fear, intimidation, litigation, legislation) don't seem to be having the intended effect, which is why I imagine that there is plenty of discourse going on in the industry and the RIAA. No lobbying special interest has complete industry agreement no matter what they present as the brave face and in their press releases. Protecting their members' interests is surely not simply litigating civil cases against rural moms in MN and standing strong on already over-reaching and unfair copyright law. Surely their members' dues could be used in some sort of INNOVATIVE manner that might more effectively address the members' problems. You don't think the membership discusses this stuff?
Terrible looks all around. And here are some more juicy details. KVH is right. The woman was represented for the second trial on a pro bono basis by a Filipino-American lawyer named Kiwi Camara. Apparently, Kiwi graduated Harvard Law at the age of 19 - making him the youngest graduate of that hallowed institution. Dude has no particular copyright experience and his legal strategy was really a campaign against the "unconstitutionality" of statutory penalties under the copyright laws. Here's what he said in another one of his copyright cases:
"Armed with the threat of $150,000 in statutory damages per illegal download (a $1.5M judgment in a small, 10-song case, where the actual damages are about $10, the price of 10 songs on iTunes), the recording industry has obtained more than $100M in settlements from individuals like Brittany. We are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these -- 150,000:1 -- are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign."
As an aside, young Kiwi was previously known for referring to African Americans as "nigs" in one of his lawschool outlines that was posted on the Harvard Law webite.
Would you let this guy represent you?
More here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/kiwi_camara_jammie_thomas.php
that would render most of the RIAA board of directors, executive level staff, bloated agency pencil pushers and paper shufflers useless, and they would be laid off making the agency much more streamlined and effective.
why the hell would the RIAA want to do that?
I think the RIAA covers the recording industry, not artist.
As for your first post. Noted.
The constitution allows copyright laws for the purpose of the advancement of the arts.
Since the RIAA has no interest in art they should have no standing in any of these cases. [That's sarcasm, my son.]
But seriously, in the 18th, 19th century, when making a copy of anything was difficult and expensive it made sense to make copying a crime.
Today all Americans have access to computers.
Making copies is what computers do.
It is pointless to outlaw copy making.
Congress should rethink copyright laws with the sole intent of advancing art.
Record companies need to get websites where they market their entire catalog.
Plenty of people will pay for access to good music.
BMG and Sony have catalogs that are over a 100 years old with much of it unavailable.
More than music, people want product.
The advantage that records have maintained is that they are a great product.
If something is hard to do it should be a crime but if it's easy it shouldn't.
Got it.
I'm gonna go use my computer to copy some $20 dollar bills.
I think you are missing Mr. Wolf's point. Ease of copying is not the measure of legality or illegality.
The way we use coprighted material has changed because of technology. When the information was tied to a physical media, the presence of the physical object was a powerful signifier of ownership. When the information is instead stored in the intangible world of computer memory or the internet the concept of ownership becomes abstract.
Perhaps copyright laws actually can be adapted to the new way of using and storing information, but it seems that to the average consumer of music there is a big difference between downloading a song and buying a CD that is an obvious knockoff. Plenty of people who wouldn't buy the CD will still download the song.
it amazes me that every time this argument comes up, the music lovers of the strut never side with the artists/creators.
on one side you have people who deserve to not have their art stolen....and on the other you have lazy ingrates who think that because art is accessible, it therefore should be free.
i realize the system is extremely flawed as is...but why is every thread about the riaa so one-sided in favor of the consumer/illegal downloader?
I'll hazard a guess -- because it always seems like the RIAA is protecting artists/creators who've already made countless millions releasing insipid music.
It's like the Lars vs. Napster thing: it's hard to side with a cocky multi-millionaire when he's complaining that he's not getting wealthier at a fast enough rate.
In both cases the public is being asked to side with mega-rich, mega-priviledged people against Average Joes and Janes.
Most people seem to think that blind justice should side with those of lesser economic wealth.
Why is an artist who created his art and gained wealth "mega-priviledged" instead of "mega-successful"??
no, but as a news story this really is about perception and sympathy as much as it is about legality, which is why discussions on messageboards tend to go in this direction.
When the public sees that someone has been hit with a million-plus fine for something most of them have engaged in, their reaction is going to be similar to seeing someone getting 10 years for sneaking into a movie, jaywalking, or smoking a doobie.
In Lars' case, would "mega-pampered" go over better?
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Some people have already helped clarify.
Let me expand on what they said.
When making a book or recording was difficult and expensive anyone who bothered to make a copy was almost certainly doing so for profit.
Because of computers, anything that is uploaded, a news story, a picture or a song, can be easily copied. These copies have no market value.
Above you see a copy of a $20.00 bill.
Feel free to copy it in your reply.
No one will be mad at you.
If you choose to print it out for your own enjoyment, you will be doing no harm.
If people were copying mp3s and attempting to sell them they would be as foolish as someone trying to print out that $20 bill and passing it at the store.
Not to come down on you or anything, but I was talking about the constitutionality of copyright laws. Currency is covered by other laws.
Maybe if the punishment fit the crime. If I go to the store and steal 10 dollars worth of food, the national association of grocers can't hit me up for a few hundred grand in reparations. The RIAA are bullies, scaring people into paying "settlements" by showing them judgements like this.
Here's what I'm gonna do...
I'm gonna print off your $20.00 bill, illegally download a movie and then send the $20.00 copy to the movie company to pay for my viewing of the film.
also, the RIAA does very little for artists...yes they do a lot for labels, the corporations that own the labels and the lawyers, but very little for the artists. You should see the crap the RIAA sends to our non-profit radio station, trying to "collect" for songs we have played...also they send "lists" of artists they are "trying" to pay but "cant seem to find"...its complete bullshit, listing people I see at the grocery store on the regular, but they "cant seem to find".
I bet the attorney fees and other associated fees that are associated with these lawsuits isnt coming out of any RIAA legal fund, they will come out of artists royalties as "administrative fees" or other some crap...labels and the RIAA dont pay for anything, it all comes out of the artist's money for what I understand. Siding with the RIAA is not siding with the artist.