# 28-year-old grad student owes $675,000 for downloading songs



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Was this how the Copyright Act was supposed to be applied? Congress ought to revisit this, because I don't think the Act was designed to go after individuals like it has been.

Story here.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Of course, she could have just not illegally downloaded music and avoided the whole situation. The article doesn't say how many songs she downloaded. At that kind of fine, it better have been hundreds, if not thousands.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I think you mean "he". Regardless, that's not the point. I'm not condoning illegal downloading, piracy, etc.; rather, I'm just posing a question of whether or not the Copyright Act was really intended to be used as it presently is being used.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> I think you mean "he". Regardless, that's not the point. I'm not condoning illegal downloading, piracy, etc.; rather, I'm just posing a question of whether or not the Copyright Act was really intended to be used as it presently is being used.


I have no idea how I read that article and determined it was a "she". 

I guess I agree with that, but there has to be something protecting the copyright holders' rights. And the penalty has to exceed the lawful cost of the work if legally acquired. Otherwise there's not much deterrant to acquiring it illegally and just paying for it later if you're caught.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I don't disagree with you. One thing I wasn't able to determine from that article--did it say how many songs he downloaded? If one is going to illegally download thousands or tens of thousands of songs, then such a huge fine might be more understandable, but let's say he downloaded a hundred or maybe even a few hundred. Is $675,000 excessive? Appropriate? I'm not saying it is or it isn't; I'm just throwing that question out there for discussion.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> I don't disagree with you. One thing I wasn't able to determine from that article--did it say how many songs he downloaded? If one is going to illegally download thousands or tens of thousands of songs, then such a huge fine might be more understandable, but let's say he downloaded a hundred or maybe even a few hundred. Is $675,000 excessive? Appropriate? I'm not saying it is or it isn't; I'm just throwing that question out there for discussion.


Yeah, that was my question in my first post. Knowing the number of songs would go a long way in determining the appropriateness of the fine.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

10,000+ songs isn't too far fetched as for being possible. With discography torrents easily available, you can build a big collection fairly easily.

...Not that I'd know anything about that.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Stealing copyrighted material meets the law of _intended_ consequences.

Sorry, dude, but if you're (not your) a grad student, you should have known better.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

If the person was downloading songs he was probably sharing them too.

That is who they really go after the ones that are sharing the songs with others IMO.

As for how the Copyright Act was supposed to be applied, if the only tool you have is a large sledgehammer then you will use it to drive tacks too, even if that isn't what it is designed for.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I be interest to know what part of the $675,000 when to the copyright holders?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It probably seems harsh to go after "a student" but... if he violated the law, then why not?

What if a student robs your house or a bank... do you not arrest that individual if you catch them? What if they are part of a larger group that robs lots of houses or banks... you might go after the bigger fish, but still you should punish the small fish you catch too.

This isn't the same as busting a drug user vs a drug pusher OR a client vs a prostitute... in this case you're punishing a single thief vs the whole band of thieves. Each individual thief in such a case is just as culpable, so it's hard to defend them for doing something they knew wasn't right.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Slightly off topic, but from the article:



> "We're pls'ed the crt agreed that the finding of liability was correct and that the d crt erred in finding the verdict unconst," wrote Jonathan Lamy, senior vice president of communications for RIAA, on Twitter.


That's hard to read. Using Twitter as a communications medium is a terrible idea, if it means formulationg words and sentences in that manner.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I am curious about a couple things:
How the songs were enumerated and verified? Any duplicates in that count?
How much per song was determined.

That said, I do understand that building a huge library can be a quick process--with a fast enough connections. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## kikkenit2 (Oct 26, 2006)

He downloaded 31 songs and they could have fined him $2 million!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

31 songs and he was penalized in the amount of $675,000? I'm one of the most strident law & order, take-responsibility-for-your-actions kind of person, but I'm sorry; that amount is ridiculous and way overboard.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> 31 songs and he was penalized in the amount of $675,000? I'm one of the most strident law & order, take-responsibility-for-your-actions kind of person, but I'm sorry; that amount is ridiculous and way overboard.


The lesson here is that it would be much better to steal 31 CDs and, if caught, be fined much less for shoplifting.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

txtommy said:


> The lesson here is that it would be much better to steal 31 CDs and, if caught, be fined much less for shoplifting.


That is what I was thinking. It would be less costly to shoplift them from Wal Mart. So what do they do when the obvious plays out and he cannot pay the fine? Throw him in prison? Let him pay $5 a month? Rob the country of a Physics major at a time when they are in short supply by forcing him to drop out of college? For 31 songs? Sorry, but the countries legal system has gone the way of Studebaker. FAIL.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Going back to the original trial info, he shared songs for 3 years after receiving a cease and desist letter and even after the suit was filed! Talk about ignoring the asphalt hitting you in the face as you fall down...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

hilmar2k said:


> And the penalty has to exceed the lawful cost of the work if legally acquired. Otherwise there's not much deterrant to acquiring it illegally and just paying for it later if you're caught.


So, set the statute for a fixed fine of five times the retail value of the item(s), maybe ten times. In this case the fine might be a few hundred dollars, maybe a thousand.

But by all means, take the profit out of it for the lawyers. The law firm fee should bet set by statute also; something like an additional 50% of the fined amount.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

At one point, Jammie Thomas had a $1.9 million judgement on 24 songs. It's one reason I try to get wifi networks secure if I run into them, they can get you in a lot of trouble.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> That is what I was thinking. It would be less costly to shoplift them from Wal Mart. So what do they do when the obvious plays out and he cannot pay the fine? Throw him in prison? Let him pay $5 a month? Rob the country of a Physics major at a time when they are in short supply by forcing him to drop out of college? For 31 songs? Sorry, but the countries legal system has gone the way of Studebaker. FAIL.


If he had just stolen the CDs the fines wouldn't have been so high. It was also sharing them, for nearly 10 years, and as many as 800 of them, that really gets him.

It's roughly the same thing as duplicating them and selling them as pirated copies.

(And he's a pretty stupid physics major if he didn't stop when they first warned him. He's a REALLY stupid one for continuing after the filed the lawsuit. His absence is not depriving anyone.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

yosoyellobo said:


> I be interest to know what part of the $675,000 when to the copyright holders?


My guess would be the $5,000 with the $670,000 going to the extortion ring known as the RIAA.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

txtommy said:


> The lesson here is that it would be much better to steal 31 CDs and, if caught, be fined much less for shoplifting.


Problem is, shoplifting is criminal. You go to jail. The time varies by state.

This case is civil (OK, Un-civil) with only fines at risk.

If I were the US Attorney General, I'd be going after RIAA under RICO for extortion and blackmail.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> If he had just stolen the CDs the fines wouldn't have been so high. It was also sharing them, for nearly 10 years, and as many as 800 of them, that really gets him.


Did not see that in the article. That drastically changes the scales of justice. Thought this was just another RIAA gorilla squad story.

Still think this country would be better if they banned lawyers, and required the laws to be written (and AVAILABLE) in basic english.
Even with the internet, its is difficult to impossible to actually find a lot of the laws you are expected to live by.


----------



## kikkenit2 (Oct 26, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Going back to the original trial info, he shared songs for 3 years after receiving a cease and desist letter and even after the suit was filed! Talk about ignoring the asphalt hitting you in the face as you fall down... Cheers, Tom


Your info is probably correct, but a quick google of his name and wikipedia had 31 and even listed every song. He probably was sharing thousands just like thousands of other people are. He was just way too stupid trying to fight the music industry. They have an ironclad though rediculous law. It was meant for bootleg cd media in stores and parking lots etc.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Davenlr said:


> That is what I was thinking. It would be less costly to shoplift them from Wal Mart. So what do they do when the obvious plays out and he cannot pay the fine? Throw him in prison? Let him pay $5 a month? Rob the country of a Physics major at a time when they are in short supply by forcing him to drop out of college? For 31 songs? Sorry, but the countries legal system has gone the way of Studebaker. FAIL.





SayWhat? said:


> This case is civil (OK, Un-civil) with only fines at risk.


There is much more at risk than just "fines." Here's what will most likely occur...

The judgment of $675,000 is issued against him. This soon shows up on his credit reports, which totally kills him for 7 years minimum. Filing bankruptcy won't help, either, because (A) Such a judgment debt won't be discharged by the bankruptcy court because the debt will have been incurred as a result of illegal activities, and one can't use bankruptcy to escape a debt incurred via illegal acts, and (B) Said bankruptcy will remain on his credit report for 7 or 10 years (depending on what type of bankruptcy he files).

During the 7 years that this judgment remains on his credit report, the collection agency law firm representing the plaintiff can obtain a wage garnishment order against his employer and against his bank. In the former, a certain percentage of his wages can be garnisheed (percentage dependent on his state law). A garnishment against his bank accounts would put a hold on all his funds in the account as of the date the order is presented to the bank, with the held funds being turned over to the plaintiff's attorney.

At the end of this 7 years, before the statute of limitations runs out, the debt can be renewed twice more, each time for another 7 years. The net result is that this debt can remain on his credit report for up to 21 years, with garnishments occurring until it is satisfied.

He's basically screwed.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Lord Vader said:


> There is much more at risk than just "fines." Here's what can very likely occur...
> 
> ***********
> 
> He's basically screwed.


No doubt, but he won't be facing jail time like he would with a shoplifting charge.

Screwed he is unless the Appeals Court reduces the fine to sensible levels. I believe that's happened in the past in these extortion cases.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

kikkenit2 said:


> Your info is probably correct, but a quick google of his name and wikipedia had 31 and even listed every song. He probably was sharing thousands just like thousands of other people are. He was just way too stupid trying to fight the music industry. They have an ironclad though rediculous law. It was meant for bootleg cd media in stores and parking lots etc.


I found this at ars technica: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars

Even they list it as $22,500 per song, but farther in the article they get to what I think is the real meat and the incredibly stupid things Tennebaum did.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> No doubt, but he won't be facing jail time like he would with a shoplifting charge.
> 
> Screwed he is unless the Appeals Court reduces the fine to sensible levels. I believe that's happened in the past in these extortion cases.


This was the appeals court that reinstated the full amount of the fines.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Nick said:


> Stealing copyrighted material meets the law of _intended_ consequences.
> 
> Sorry, dude, but if you're (not your) a grad student, you should have known better.


+1


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> No doubt, but he won't be facing jail time like he would with a shoplifting charge.


Shoplifting usually only results in jail time if the dollar amount is above a certain level. It's dependent on individual state law, of course, but usually shoplifting is a misdemeanor that results in fines and probation. Of course, this shows up on his criminal record, which will easily be found if a potential employer ever does a background check.

Either way, he's facing some serious trouble.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Craigslist put a lot of pimps out of business.
Some fought viciously for their survival.

There are a number of parallels.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

The original complaint was for seven songs in mp3 format.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cyberone/files/2008/11/j-01-2.pdf

The RIAA sent his parents a letter requesting $5,250.
They were sent a check for $500, along with a letter explaining that he was a student of limited means.

The check was returned to them.

From there, the whole trainwreck of a so-called "legal" matter has been careening out of control.

The young man refused to roll over. He instead pushed back.
Now, the RIAA wants to make a poster child out of him.

They are clueless as to how many kids these days have no idea what the DMA is, nor do they care.
The RIAA seeks these huge sums in order to get as much money as they can to fund their next ridiculous attack. :nono2:

Here's the whole timeline of this case. It reads like some kind of bizarre script for an episode of "The Twilight Zone".

http://joelfightsback.com/#/about-the-case/timeline/


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...tart-peeking-into-files-you-store-cloud.shtml


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...no-expectation-of-privacy-in-online-tasks.ars


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Looks like a crusade...David vs Goliath.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

More like Goliath ate America.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Reading through the timeline, I LOL'd at when the kid didn't play nice and the Plaintiffs had to ask for an extension so they could cancel their victory party. :lol:


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

Some of us older folks have paid for our favorite songs three or four times already: vinyl records,cassette tape,CD and last but not least my IPOD.

I can't condone stealing copyrighted material but the way the RIAA enforces this is just wrong.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Matt9876 said:


> Some of us older folks have paid for our favorite songs three or four times already: vinyl records,cassette tape,CD and last but not least my IPOD.
> .


Which brings up a question...I have about 250 vinyl albums. Obviously, they require digging out the turntable, dusting off the needle, and cleaning the album. Is it illegal to download that album sitting in front of you on the turntable from the internet to listen to it without going through the hassle of setting up the turntable and cleaning the disc?

How about downloading the album off the internet for cassettes in your possession? Legally, you paid for the music...


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Legally, no. Format-shifting in that method is illegal because you'd be downloading an undegraded copy of what you already own.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> Legally, no. Format-shifting in that method is illegal because you'd be downloading an undegraded copy of what you already own.


But but but... audiophiles say vinyl sounds better, so wouldn't the mp3 be the degraded copy?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> But but but... audiophiles say vinyl sounds better, so wouldn't the mp3 be the degraded copy?


Actually, the mp3's found on the net, usually 128k or 256k, with joint stereo, are definitely the inferior version. Now, I could see downloading raw CD or FLAC copies as undegraded, but not mp3.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> Legally, no. Format-shifting in that method is illegal because you'd be downloading an undegraded copy of what you already own.


And this is specifically written in the DMCA? Im not a lawyer, so havent bothered to hire one to decipher it. What if the download from the net was encoded from a vinyl album using a $1000 turntable and sounded better than my $200 one?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> Which brings up a question...I have about 250 vinyl albums. Obviously, they require digging out the turntable, dusting off the needle, and cleaning the album. Is it illegal to download that album sitting in front of you on the turntable from the internet to listen to it without going through the hassle of setting up the turntable and cleaning the disc?
> 
> How about downloading the album off the internet for cassettes in your possession? Legally, you paid for the music...


Just don't share them with others. And if you get the letter from the RIAA, listen to what they say. And if they file a lawsuit...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Just don't share them with others. And if you get the letter from the RIAA, listen to what they say. And if they file a lawsuit...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Therein lies the problem. I have received TWO notices of copyright infringement from COMCAST. On both occasions, I replied to them (Comcast) that I was downloading the album to replace one that I owned. In both cases, I never received any reply from Comcast either telling me I could not do that, or that I could do that. And the second time I requested from Comcast, their policy on monitoring user activities, and again, received no response.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> Therein lies the problem. I have received TWO notices of copyright infringement from COMCAST. On both occasions, I replied to them (Comcast) that I was downloading the album to replace one that I owned. In both cases, I never received any reply from Comcast either telling me I could not do that, or that I could do that. And the second time I requested from Comcast, their policy on monitoring user activities, and again, received no response.


Yeah, never can really call Comcrapstic a friendly company to work with.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I just wish they weren't the only real Internet providers in the area. Sure, I can get UVerse or DSL or some other podunk ISP, but can they match my 35megs down and 10 megs up that I'm getting from Comcrap?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I just wish they weren't the only real Internet providers in the area. Sure, I can get UVerse or DSL or some other podunk ISP, but can they match my 35megs down and 10 megs up that I'm getting from Comcrap?


I live in the largest metro area in the state, and its Comcast or 768k/128k Uverse DSL here.
Its disgusting really.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Davenlr said:


> I live in the largest metro area in the state, and its Comcast or 768k/128k Uverse DSL here.
> Its disgusting really.


Wow! That's painfully slow.

Say what you want about Comcrap, but they've been very reliable here. My Internet is rarely down, and it's fast. Plus, when I recently moved to an apartment one level up and called to have them switch service, I was considered a new customer. Consequently, I was eligible to receive their promotional pricing of $39.99/month for 12 months for high speed Internet service. Lastly, because they were an hour late in their appt to switch my service on moving day last month, they gave me a $20 bill credit. Not bad.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Yea. Im paying $29.96 for 20/3 service here. My only complaint is they seem to spend an extra ordinary amount of time worrying about what I download, or so it seems. Just logging onto a torrent client is sure to generate a warning email from them, regardless of what is being downloaded.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I know there are people who claim ignorance of the law...

But I guarantee you any of these people who have been sued over music downloading... IF they produced something that someone else was taking without paying for... they would be mad (and rightfully so) too...

We inherently know such things are right or wrong without being told because we know we wouldn't like it done to us.

It can be argued the RIAA and others may pursue more vigorously than they should... but a guy like this knew he was wrong in the first place, and the first time he got caught he should have stopped what he was doing immediately and then fought that battle. Instead if sounds like he kept right on trucking and compounded the issue.

It's like... if you got arrested for driving without a license... and while awaiting your court date... you kept driving without a license... even if you didn't "know" better the first time, you have no excuse for everything after that.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

[showing age]I used to record music off the air for years, as did many others[/showing age] The RIAA is right up there with ASCAP and BMI. They go after businesses for having radios playing during business hours.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RasputinAXP said:


> Legally, no. Format-shifting in that method is illegal because you'd be downloading an undegraded copy of what you already own.


Could you possibly (and please) provide a basis (cites of sites!) for that statement?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

machavez00 said:


> [showing age]I used to record music off the air for years, as did many others[/showing age] The RIAA is right up there with ASCAP and BMI. They go after businesses for having radios playing during business hours.


Recording off the radio and playing for yourself only was rules appropriate use years ago. What you can't do is give or sell those tapes to others or have a listening party with a concert-like crowd without permission.

They also do NOT go after businesses for having radios playing during business hours. Radio stations are fine because the rights issues are already taken care of.

Who they go after are people who play their own CDs/tapes/etc during business hours for customers. This is you essentially having a mini-concert to attract employees without permission to do so, since radio stations and other approved situations get permission to do so.

The same is true for TV... You can have a TV that shows live TV... but you can't bring your DVD player or VCR in and play pre-recorded stuff for your customers without permission.

It really makes sense when you think about it... because you are doing that to attract customers without paying for the right to do so.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Recording off the radio and playing for yourself only was rules appropriate use years ago. What you can't do is give or sell those tapes to others or have a listening party with a concert-like crowd without permission.
> 
> They also do NOT go after businesses for having radios playing during business hours. Radio stations are fine because the rights issues are already taken care of.
> 
> ...


Alas, they used to (and sometimes might still) go after businesses who use radio as their in house music. Many a business went to DIRECTV or Dish to get music licensed for that use.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

A whole sub-industry developed to create canned faux-music after the vultures started going after companies for playing radio stations over their telephone music-on-hold systems.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

They're basically making an example out of this grad student, particularly since he ignored the initial warnings. . . He may have only downloaded 31 songs, but multiplying that by the number of copies transferred to friends and then their friends and then their friends . . . the fine could easily approach less than a $1 a copy.

I can remember customers handing me a stack of Lotus 1-2-3 diskettes that they had 'borrowed' from a friend and asking me or my employees to load it on 20 or 30 workstations. I had to write a letter to my customers asking that they not ask us to do that. . . since they wouldn't ask us to go to the drug store and steal a pair of sunglasses!


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Alas, they used to (and sometimes might still) go after businesses who use radio as their in house music. Many a business went to DIRECTV or Dish to get music licensed for that use.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


SiriusXM for business or good ole Muzak as well.
I love this
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2008/08/license_to_kill_the_music_asca.php


> *By Steve Jansen*
> License to Kill the Music
> On a recent weekday afternoon, I'm standing inside the Trunk Space with co-owner Stephanie Carrico. It's about 110 degrees outside and a still-sweltering 95 inside the modest, non-air conditioned Grand Avenue venue. A homeless guy soaked in sweat and grease walks inside and asks if he can use the bathroom. Carrico, who sports an artist made tee, sans bra, tells him, "Sorry, but our toilet is out of order," which is indeed the truth. The man and his full bladder leave. Then I start poring over documents sent to the Trunk Space by Broadcast Music, Incorporated (BMI).
> 
> The publishing company wants the indie venue to cough up $735 annually for a music license, despite the fact that all music played and performed at the space is original, copyright-free material. Wiping the moisture from her brow, Carrico points to a sentence in one of the BMI letters. It reads, "The choice is now entirely up to you." Carrico says that there's no way the Trunk Space -- a four-year old vanity business that specializes in avant-garde music and operates at a negative cash flow -- can afford such a fee. Carrico also tells me that BMI has called every day for the past six months. One message stated that Trunk Space needed to immediately call back BMI "or else." Carrico says, "They never said what 'or else' meant."


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Davenlr said:


> Therein lies the problem. I have received TWO notices of copyright infringement from COMCAST.


I got one from them a while back too.
Then I found this.
http://www.peerblock.com/


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Could you possibly (and please) provide a basis (cites of sites!) for that statement?


The simple statement is this: The RIAA says it's a violation of the DMCA no matter what. The DMCA still has force of...whatever the hell it is, so no, you cannot download copies from other people for free and still be 'legal.'

The shortest form of this answer (and seriously, if you can't search for "DMCA" on the Internet, you shouldn't be getting involved in this conversation...go read about it on Wikipedia) is that if you're downloading an MP3 that someone else has made FOR THEMSELVES then you (or they, depending on the interpretation of 'making available'; q.v. Jammie Thomas) are breaking the law.

A person ripping a CD they own is legal; it's format shifting. It's been upheld (and also had written exemption from the DMCA until 2010) and is not at issue. It's a Fair Use of what you've purchased, despite what the RIAA has tried to tell people.

You, however, do not own the CD. You own the vinyl or cassette copy. You are more than entitled to go ahead and legally put that on your computer in any way you see fit. Connect the output of the device to the audio in on your soundcard and 'rip' away.

Download away, but be aware that it's the risk that you're taking. "I own this on vinyl" isn't a defense for having a pristine FLAC copy from remastered CDs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RasputinAXP said:


> Download away, but be aware that it's the risk that you're taking. "I own this on vinyl" isn't a defense for having a pristine FLAC copy from remastered CDs.


Exactly.

I own some books that are now available as eBooks... but just because I own those printed books doesn't entitle me to a free download of that same eBook.

The two are entirely different things. You are entitled to what you actually purchase, and have some implied entitlements to use that purchased item for your own enjoyment however you see fit... but you aren't entitled to get it in a different edition or format from someone else.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I have never understood how a juror could award such outrages sum in cases such as this one. If I have been a juror on this case it is most likely that I would have voted against the student, but unless I knew that the copyright holder would get a substantial amount of the award I would have voted no on the amount.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RasputinAXP said:


> The simple statement is this: The RIAA says it's a violation of the DMCA no matter what. The DMCA still has force of...whatever the hell it is, so no, you cannot download copies from other people for free and still be 'legal.'
> 
> The shortest form of this answer (and seriously, if you can't search for "DMCA" on the Internet, you shouldn't be getting involved in this conversation...go read about it on Wikipedia) is that if you're downloading an MP3 that someone else has made FOR THEMSELVES then you (or they, depending on the interpretation of 'making available'; q.v. Jammie Thomas) are breaking the law.


I didn't ask you what the RIAA says; that's a given. I asked you for cites by responsible parties for that viewpoint.

And, pal, boy, Wikipedia is not the definitive source for much of anything. If you can't defend your statement, don't just huff out "Google it".....


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Pal, boy? No need to get derisive. The DMCA is a law. Wikipedia's very well referenced with respect to what it is and what its effects are. It's ridiculous to say that they're not a definitive source; what it is is a collection of sources.

The EFF says that format shifting for personal use is fair use based on Betamax and Rio. I doubt very highly the RIAA thinks it's even worth it to try and apply the DMCA to ripping audio from your CDs anymore.

If you didn't create it yourself from your own material, it's not Fair Use. That's not up for debate. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it any less true. Again: Google it. Otherwise we're just rehashing the same old argument.

Stewart said it the best: I own a deadtree copy of The Godfather. It doesn't legally entitle me to the eBook copy as well. It doesn't mean I wouldn't download it, but I certainly wouldn't think I was doing something legal.

Moral's another question entirely.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RasputinAXP said:


> Pal, boy? No need to get derisive. The DMCA is a law. Wikipedia's very well referenced with respect to what it is and what its effects are. It's ridiculous to say that they're not a definitive source; what it is is a collection of sources.


Wikipedia is a lot of good things, but not *a* much less *the* definitive word. Any individual entry can be right on, or mostly BS or FUD, or some combination of good and bad.



> The EFF says that format shifting for personal use is fair use based on Betamax and Rio. I doubt very highly the RIAA thinks it's even worth it to try and apply the DMCA to ripping audio from your CDs anymore.


Agree with you here.



> If you didn't create it yourself from your own material, it's not Fair Use. That's not up for debate. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it any less true. Again: Google it. Otherwise we're just rehashing the same old argument.


I don't care about "the" answer, esp. as there isn't one now. I am interested in the process, the various legal interpretations and what the parties are doing to further their p.o.v.'s.
Telling another guy to go google something that you are unable or unwilling to support is just not on. You provided a great link that has some excellent info that supports part of your hypothesis, but not all. 


> Stewart said it the best: I own a deadtree copy of The Godfather. It doesn't legally entitle me to the eBook copy as well. It doesn't mean I wouldn't download it, but I certainly wouldn't think I was doing something legal.


I'd be surprised if that view isn't correct, but it hasn't been definitively settled. It's a good example outside the normal "vinyl vs. mp3" arguments.


> Moral's another question entirely.


No argument there, either.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

"Copyright law embodies a bargain: Congress gave copyright holders a set of six exclusive rights for a limited time period, and gave to the public all remaining rights in creative works. The goals of the bargain are to give copyright holders an economic incentive to create *works that ultimately benefit society as a whole, *and by doing so, to promote the progress of science and learning in society."

From the link Rasputin posted earlier.

Kinda interesting to wonder how, say, rap 'music' and killer movies benefit society as a whole. The bolded section is my emphasis, natch.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> "Copyright law embodies a bargain: Congress gave copyright holders a set of six exclusive rights for a limited time period, and gave to the public all remaining rights in creative works. The goals of the bargain are to give copyright holders an economic incentive to create *works that ultimately benefit society as a whole, *and by doing so, to promote the progress of science and learning in society."
> 
> From the link Rasputin posted earlier.
> 
> Kinda interesting to wonder how, say, rap 'music' and killer movies benefit society as a whole. The bolded section is my emphasis, natch.


Of course, Congress keeps revising the copyright law to extend the "limited" time period (e.g., Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998).


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

bobnielsen said:


> Of course, Congress keeps revising the copyright law to extend the "limited" time period (e.g., Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998).


Yeah, that is so precious! I looked at that some months ago, and IIRC, most movies get over 80 years protection from us rapacious users.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Kinda interesting to wonder how, say, rap 'music' and killer movies benefit society as a whole. The bolded section is my emphasis, natch.


You could single out any specific type of "art" or "music" and make that statement, though.

I like classical music, but even I wouldn't argue it benefits society as a whole. It's just good music that I like to listen to...

What does a drama based on a real-life story that I already read about in the paper do to benefit society as a whole? How has Star Wars improved society as a whole? What does Winnie the Pooh do to benefit society? And so forth...

It's a dangerous game to say something has no value just because you don't see the value.

I personally don't like most rap music, as an example, but I see no reason not to afford it the same place as any other kind of music.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

That fine is just plain NUTS! :nono:

This whole DRM thing is misplaced. I'm not sure how it should be controlled and enforced but fining a person who downloads 30ish songs over half a million dollars ain't it.

Mike


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mike Bertelson said:


> That fine is just plain NUTS! :nono:
> 
> This whole DRM thing is misplaced. I'm not sure how it should be controlled and enforced but fining a person who downloads 30ish songs over half a million dollars ain't it.


This person was doing more than just stealing songs for himself... he was also sharing them with others... so in essence, he was a drug user AND a drug pusher... and he continued "pushing" while fighting the case... so it was inevitable that the fine would grow as he continued to violate the law knowingly.

I don't know if I agree with the dollar amount exactly... but I do understand how it got there.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

µß, one of my frustrations is the horrendous reporting. Calling this $675K for downloading 31 songs is so disingenuous as to be nearly lying. This wasn't about 31 songs.

This was about 800 songs, 10 years of serving content, even after cease and desist, even after a lawsuit was filed. Yet they call this 31 songs downloaded. Sigh.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> µß, one of my frustrations is the horrendous reporting. Calling this $675K for downloading 31 songs is so disingenuous as to be nearly lying. This wasn't about 31 songs.
> 
> This was about 800 songs, 10 years of serving content, even after cease and desist, even after a lawsuit was filed. Yet they call this 31 songs downloaded. Sigh.
> 
> ...


You make a good point but all the court is supposed to consider is what's in the complaint thus the judge ruled at $22,500/song. Not to mention that the award could have been as high as $4.5 million based on the 30 titles.

Does that mean if they pushed the complaint to include 800 songs the award would be somewhere near $17.4 million?

Further, does this mean that anyone who shared 10 songs could have to pay $1.5 million-ish?

It is almost like fining the meth addict for each rock he's smoked. His dealer made a tidy profit but the toothless addict with 42¢ in the couch cushions gets the fine.

Ok this guy had hundreds of titles in a P2P system...likely more than came out at trial...but the way it was prosecuted and number of titles the award is based allows the gambit of prosecuting anyone from the 17 year old who shared six songs with his friends to the senior class at a major university sharing thousands amongst themselves and getting millions is awards.

Now nobody believes the recording weenies will actually see all or even any of that money but it potentially allows them a foot hold a kin to suing Tandy Corp in an attempt to prevent the release of Thor CD recorder. If the RIAA had their way we'd all have copy protection to prevent ripping/copying CDs.

I realize this guy isn't squeaky clean when it comes to P2P file sharing but I'm weary of the implications of this award...definitely an interesting discussion. 

Mike


----------

