Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

[Adv1sor]

The Lineup

[BasharOfTheAges]

So where are the people getting in trouble for uploading it? Isn't that worse?

x2

get rid of the people uploading all the shet and then the downloaders wont even be able to download it in the first place.

The charges were for uploading. They could not prove downloading (they could imply it in the second case because the meta-data in the mp3 files had ripping crew tags on them.

im still confused as to why they fined someone who only downloaded 30 songs, in comparison to the other people who literally download thousands every day?

They had evidence of over 700 songs and they chose to selectively use 30 so that the jury (if they had found him willful and had been forced to award the maximum penalty of $150,000 each) wouldn't be giving them a $105,000,000 verdict - something like that would get congress's attention and potentially cross the aisle in terms of being the most fucked up penalty in US history.

Which programs are these people using to upload and download?

Kazaa mostly. These trials stem back about 10 years when there weren't legal alternatives like amazon and the apple music store.

As to Godix's comparison's to theft - it's far worse. The average fine for wrongful death in the US is only half of the judgment awarded in the Rasset case. Meaning being charged for killing someone in civil court (think OJ's second trial) will result in the same fine as sharing a CD worth of music.

[BasharOfTheAges]

As to Godix's comparison's to theft - it's far worse. The average fine for wrongful death in the US is only half of the judgment awarded in the Rasset case. Meaning being charged for killing someone in civil court (think OJ's second trial) will result in the same fine as sharing a CD worth of music.

To clarify - the American civil court system is establishing through precedent that the value of a CD's worth of music on a file sharing program is equivalent to that of a human life.

[outlawed]

Let's take it out a few levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

This concept favors companies more than us now =p

[guardiansoulblade]

I don't get it, there are THOUSANDS of people who upload and download illegal music, and THEY'RE not getting sued, I DO think it's a bad PR move to sue, but still, how come they only catch a few of them? Thank God I stick to iTunes or I actually go buy a CD, which is rare, but I do buy them, mainly if it's music from an anime.

[Willen]

The fines are for uploading, that's why they are ridiculous for the small amount of songs described in the case. Everytime someone pulled a copy of a song off her computer via the internet she infringed. If you read copyright notices yeah, you are breaking the law when you make a copy that's not for a legit backup (this doesn't take the DCMA into account because then every copy is illegal), but making a copy by itself isn't necessarily illegal. If you distribute this copy, THEN you are breaking the law. For example, you are allowed to make a copy of a CD for backup reasons (say, to use in your car where the original may get damaged). But giving this copy to a friend is breaking the law. Most likely though, the RIAA won't go after you for that since the actual amount of damages is small ($10 - $15); their court costs would guarantee a substantial net monetary loss even considering the statutory damages you would have to pay.

The use of the term 'downloading' is to scare people, although if you download a file you are making a digital copy. But there can be no downloading without someone uploading first. And P2P file sharing applications make all downloaders uploaders too. But it's to the point where there is so much infringement going on, people should try to get sued for it. With enough cases headed to the courts, it may be possible to clog up the system, dragging it down. Essentially making copyright unenforceable. That guy should have made them try him for every song he shared and rang up a huge penalty that would make even the fat cats in D.C. go, 'Wow". It's not like he's gonna be able to pay $675K anyways. Might as well go for broke (literally).

BTW, who decides the value of the 'copies'? What if I decide that the 'music' being up/downloaded isn't worth the electricity used to transmit them? (I wouldn't take a Soulja Boy song even if you paid me.) Have there really been damages inflicted? Are those artists starving? Have they been forced to declare bankruptcy because this guy put their music on the internet? Something is out of whack here...

[Yamimori]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y215/t ... _costs.jpg

I think that this explains a lot ^

Really? $80,000?

She probably doesnt even make that much in a year.

The way I see it, Im not going to pay over $2,000 to fill up an mp3 or ipod, and Im definately not paying $80,000 per song.
I just dont have the money so theyll not get it if they were to fine me.
I wouldnt even try to come up with it.

Really, its ridiculous. Just a way to make more money for the falling economy.

[Bauzi]

What I dislike about such cases (and that nobody mentioned yet):
I never hear about people who download and sell (!) illegal copies (ites that let you pay for download obviously illegal copies). Not exactly like UseNet, because UseNet is for everything (and that means that it can also distribute legal stuff), but there are sites that are clearly dedicated to music, films, animes, mangas etc.

[Qyot27]

What I dislike about such cases (and that nobody mentioned yet):
I never hear about people who download and sell (!) illegal copies (ites that let you pay for download obviously illegal copies). Not exactly like UseNet, because UseNet is for everything (and that means that it can also distribute legal stuff), but there are sites that are clearly dedicated to music, films, animes, mangas etc.

More than likely that because sites selling bootlegs aren't within the realm of jurisdiction, and the home country generally doesn't care. When was it ever reported that the Chinese government cracked down on bootleggers anyway? The most domestic companies could do is petition the ISPs to block access to such sites, but that crosses the line into Internet censorship, and could come back to severely bite the ISPs in the ass.

[Vivaldi]

What I dislike about such cases (and that nobody mentioned yet):
I never hear about people who download and sell (!) illegal copies (ites that let you pay for download obviously illegal copies). Not exactly like UseNet, because UseNet is for everything (and that means that it can also distribute legal stuff), but there are sites that are clearly dedicated to music, films, animes, mangas etc.

The companies aren't cracking down for moral justice, they're doing it for money. By comparison they're losing vastly higher amounts of money to P2P than from people selling hard copies. Whether or not the bootlegger's intent was more malicious is irrelevant to them.