Long Suffering Music Companies Finally Get Their Dues (1 Viewer)

[spuded]

aww isn't it delightful to see all those struggling huge multinationals finally taking someone to the cleaners over downloading songs! Downloading is killing music kids so be warned Seriously though she got fined $9,250 dollars per song, fucking mental, lucky she isn't into grind then i suppose.


Music companies win download case

Thomas was found guilty on 24 counts of illegally downloading copyrighted music files [AP


A federal jury in the United States has found a woman guilty of sharing copyrighted music online and ordered her to pay $222,000 in damages, in a key victory for the recording industry.

The jury on Thursday ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, of Minnesota, to pay six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they addressed in the case.





"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," said Richard Gabriel, a lawyer for the music companies.

Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a file-sharing account enabling her to illegally download copyrighted music.








The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc.

Copyright violated

The record companies had alleged Thomas had shared 1,702 songs online, in violation of their copyrights.

The case against Thomas went to court after she rejected an offer from the recording companies to pay a few thousand dollars in fines.

In the first law suit of its kind to go to trial, the companies accused Thomas of downloading music files without permission and offering them online through Kazaa, a file-sharing account.

Record companies have filed about 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has affected sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings.

Other defendants have settled cases by paying the companies a few thousand dollars.

Downloads rise

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which co-ordinates lawsuits against those who illegally download copyrighted music, says the number of households using file-sharing programs to download music has risen in recent years.

In April 2003, the number of file-sharing program users stood at 6.9 million monthly, before the lawsuits began, rising to 7.8 million in March 2007.

During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr".

Their witnesses, including officials from an internet provider and a security company, testified that the internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.

Tough message

Toder said in his closing statement that the companies had failed to prove that "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

Thomas says she was wrongfully targeted by SafeNet, a contractor employed by the recording industry to patrol the internet for copyrighted material.

Gabriel said Thomas' defence had used "misdirection, red herrings [and] smoke and mirrors," and told jurors that a verdict against Thomas would send a message to others who downloaded copyrighted files illegally.

"I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said.

Before the verdict, Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial.

Illegal downloads have "become business as usual, nobody really thinks about it," Sherman said.

"This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights."

 

[nooleen]

a warning not to share music that's likely to be on a big label. share your DIY stuff but keep more mainstream shit out of your soulseek folder.
jammie, eh? not so much...

 

[spuded]

a warning not to share music that's likely to be on a big label. share your DIY stuff but keep more mainstream shit out of your soulseek folder.

ohh i'm telling Sony BMG

 

[nooleen]

look, whatever, i know it's not meant to be 'cool', but i reckon the major labels are totally vindicated in their attitude, i hate the way people reckon they're somehow entitled to own music for free.

 

[ravishinrikrude]

six figures for 24 songs is ridiculous. if she can't pay that she'll do 10 years easy. what a pile of shite

 

[Corm]

Hahah, that's what she gets for listening to shite music.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

look, whatever, i know it's not meant to be 'cool', but i reckon the major labels are totally vindicated in their attitude, i hate the way people reckon they're somehow entitled to own music for free.

24 songs is the equivalent of 2 CDs.

That's putting someone in debt for life for the equivalent of shoplifting 2 CD's from HMV. That's completely disproportionate even if you accept that what she did was wrong (which I don't). It seems odd to me that someone who live in Eircore would have a problem with the idea that sharing is a good thing.

Also bear in mind the record companies are pushing a line that even ripping a CD you own is theft. These people are cunts and need to be put out of business badly.

The record industry actually loose money on all of these frivolous suits - it's just a complete wast of time and sooner or later people are going to come to the conclusion that the current model is no irreperably fucked and that criminalising teenagers will not push back the tide.

 

[Vinnie]

24 songs is the equivalent of 2 CDs.

That's completely disproportionate even if you accept that what she did was wrong (which I don't).

Can you explain why it's not wrong?

 

[Stephen]

Can you explain why it's not wrong?

Many are genuinely disgusted by the large numbers of people burning or illegally downloading albums. "It's immoral," says Republic of Loose frontman Mik Tierney. "It ruptures the connection between the artist and the money."

 

[Vinnie]

Many are genuinely disgusted by the large numbers of people burning or illegally downloading albums. "It's immoral," says Republic of Loose frontman Mik Tierney. "It ruptures the connection between the artist and the money."

Can you explain why it's not wrong?

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Can you explain why it's not wrong?

Because sharing is good.

And because I don't see copyright as any companies birthright - it is a bargain between society and the copyright owner. Society as a whole allow a monopoly on a work of art for a limited period of time as an incentive for artists to produce more works of art.

The terms bargain means that the work stays out of the public domain for a period of time however the upside for society is the production of more works of art.

Technology has changed the manner of duplication of these works to such an extent that the existing bargain is no longer appropriate.

Whether you agree with me on this (from having this debate here before I dont think many see the debate in these terms) the simple fact is the genie is never going to go back in the bottle and the record industry can either suck it up and come up with a system that is workable (licencing/micropayments whatever) they will all be gone within 10 years.

 

[Stephen]

What he said and:
How much to the artists get again from every record they sell?
How much do the record company get?
The record companies are just trying to hang on a business which has little to do with the artist or the music, and now hopefully will no longer exist.

 

[Vinnie]

The only thing I can glean from that is that you dont want to have to pay for music based on a rather nebulous theory of copyright.

Sharing is good. Share your money with me? No? Why not?

Because sharing is good.

And because I don't see copyright as any companies birthright - it is a bargain between society and the copyright owner. Society as a whole allow a monopoly on a work of art for a limited period of time as an incentive for artists to produce more works of art.

The terms bargain means that the work stays out of the public domain for a period of time however the upside for society is the production of more works of art.

Technology has changed the manner of duplication of these works to such an extent that the existing bargain is no longer appropriate.

Whether you agree with me on this (from having this debate here before I dont think many see the debate in these terms) the simple fact is the genie is never going to go back in the bottle and the record industry can either suck it up and come up with a system that is workable (licencing/micropayments whatever) they will all be gone within 10 years.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

The only thing I can glean from that is that you dont want to have to pay for music based on a rather nebulous theory of copyright.

Sharing is good. Share your money with me? No? Why not?

If I could make a perfect copy of a pound note that worked as good as the original for free the way I can with an MP3 than I would have no problem sharing with you.

 

[Vinnie]

If I could make a perfect copy of a pound note that worked as good as the original for free the way I can with an MP3 than I would have no problem sharing with you.

As long as you're not the one losing out you'll share everything with anyone. Canonisation awaits you Mormon.

 

[Squiggle]

If I could make a perfect copy of a pound note that worked as good as the original for free the way I can with an MP3 than I would have no problem sharing with you.

That would also be stealing... and would devalue the currency in the same way that sharing music devalues music.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

That would also be stealing... and would devalue the currency in the same way that sharing music devalues music.

How is music devalued by being heard?

 

[Squiggle]

How is music devalued by being heard?

It's not about the music being heard. We hear music every advertising break on television don't we, and in shops, and on the radio. Does that add to our enjoyment of a song?

One acquaintance of mine uses Kazaa regularly. He's got hard-drives full of mp3's. He couldn't tell you the name of most of the artists/albums/songs.

At the end of the day, if you make it impossible for musicians to make any money out of making music many of them will stop doing it.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

The only thing I can glean from that is that you dont want to have to pay for music based on a rather nebulous theory of copyright.

Theres nothing nebulous about what I'm saying - that is exactly what copyright is. You may think this is nebulous because I'm describing what it is rather than the mechanics of how it operates.

Record compaines like to promote a number of misconceptions 2 in particular.

The first and biggest is that artists loose money because of filesharing. This is not true. Aside from the fact that record companies are in the business of expliting artists as much as consumers most filesharing does not represent lost business for anyone. Essentially it is people who would not have bought the CD anyway who are downloading it.

The second an more insidious is that copyright as it exists is a fundamental right a company has. This is just not the case. Copyright is a very new invention.

 

[Shorty]

sharing music devalues music.

If you read this in an artistic interpretation of the word music rather than what you're possibly using it as a short hand for mp3s, it seems rather startling.

I take it you mean the first "music" as mp3 and the second "music" in the artistic sense (?). Try swithching it around.

Could someone explain how it is wrong in moral rather than economic terms? I still feel that this is going to devolve into a "stealing is wrong" discussion.