Lady is fined $2 million for downloading 24 songs
- Thread starter phongone
- Start date
Not really. The fact that she didn't make any money to me makes a difference.
If I was an recording artist. The last thing I would ever want is having a corporation sue one of my fans or a possible future fan in my name.
But then, most artist don't own their music in the first place...
Maybe suing Kazaa or anyone that was possibly making ad money or whatever off users is a better idea.
The fact remains the way we look, use, consume, etc etc etc media in the world has changed. Suing people for 2 million bucks or 100 million makes no difference. The only ones to benefit are law firms in the end.
Well, and actually she didn't only upload 24 songs but a thousand something but the case only focused on those 24. I think if people are going to comment on this that they need to understand that downloading and uploading are vastly different in nature and penalties and also that there aren't any really good physical good comparisons.
See, the industry is looking into new ways to make money...
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86460/aussie-record-labels-demand-5-pmember-gym-tax/
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86460/aussie-record-labels-demand-5-pmember-gym-tax/
LOL, Punahou grads in the news.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
f*cking backwards ass shit. I'm sure no one would object to smaller increases over a period of time but instead yeah let's just demand 10000% more in fees.
More awesomeness.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/ascap-wants-be-paid-
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.
here's my problems with this whole piracy issue. is the RIAA and other similar groups around the world really doing this for the 'artists' or the major labels? They use the 'poor artists' arguement, and the piracy is stealing argument, but how much is going back to the artists and if you where to look at the track record of these major labels they have ripped off a whole lot more $$$ from artists, distributors, small labels etc than anyone downloading.
I think they would save themselves alot of hassle/time/money/public damage if they made it clear they will pursue ANYONE who pirates/copyright infringes for PROFIT. They would get most ppls support if they went after sites that make money by posting up mp3 rips etc. Going after end consumers is silly, in the end they are attacking their fanbase, cus why else would ppl download either for profit or pleasure.
Plus many artist are shooting themsleves in the foot, because d/loading to me is an extesnion of radio/mixtapes/video clip shows etc. it promotes the artists. At the same time this could be a great boost for undergournd/indy acts cus if the majors make their music off limitis to free d/loads etc (unless they control it and market it) then there will be a great deal more interest and room for underground acts and labesl to make noise/moves with free downloads...IMO...
I think the record companys are f*cking their own artsts again on this one....
Personally a d/load means a listen, and a listen means a potential fan who will purchase my next shit or check out my next show...
yes, the judgement in the present case is excessive, but your comparison with "advances" made by air france voluntarily to victims' families is completely inapt and misleading.
Similar threads
