$150.000 per uploaded music file i.e. economic death of a working family

[Smith_3]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3796834&mesg_id=3796834

I would have understood $100 or in some weird parallel universe even $500 per file. But $150.000 for a music file? And the Bush administration is let off the hook. I'm sorry but this is not what I voted for. It is corporatism at its very filthiest. Next, people will get their hands hacked off for stealing an apple. Thanks Obama and Biden.

[depakid]

1. As a point of comparison- look at the paltry stautory damages in consumer law cases

Things like say, the Fair Credit Reporting Avr, the Fair Credit Billing Act or the Fair Debt Collections Act.

$1,000 bucks (unless you can make a case for another state law violation, such as deceptive trade practices).

Shows you where Congress' priorities are. And, apparently in this instance, the people who Obama has hired. Same.As.Bush.

[ChuckTodd]

2. soooooo, what about downloading?

I don't know anyone that uploads the music.

[Syrinx]

3. what comes down must go up

[Statistical]

18. Technically there is NOTHING they can do about DOWNLOADING

Long time ago Congress was smart enough to realize that casual copying will occur.

Technically making a tape from a song when it plays on the radio is copyright violation.

congress decided in 1992 to clearly separate the 2 actions
1) for copying they put a 3% tax/levy on every recordable media and the music & movie industry collects from this pool. Every blank tape, VHS, DVD, CD, etc for last 16 years has had a tax on it. Also every device capable of recording had a similar tax (every Walkman, tape deck, VCR, etc).

2) for DISTRIBUTION they made it that content owners could seek damages.

Now this is nothing new. It has existed for almost 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#United_States

So when you DOWNLOAD a song you can't be touched.
When you UPLOAD a song you are involved in criminal distribution.

Now the media often gets it wrong (what else is new) and they state someone got sued $1.5 million for downloading songs when technically it was for uploading.

Be careful though. Some software automatically uploads as you download to allow greater throughput. torrents are once example. It is impossible to download a torrent without uploading.

[indepat]

9. Some government of, by, and for the people: our corrupt, venal, and self-serving

Congress has assured corporate interests and welfare come before the interests of we the people. :P

[melm00se]

27. those $1000

penalties have been around since I was in the collections business back in the '80s.

[acmavm]

4. We were had. That's all there is to it. Last November we got scammed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Some of us knew we were about to get scammed.

x(

[acmavm]

34. I got banned for months because I said some 'naughty' things to someone

who told me Obama was the only one who could save us. Don't have to tell me what happened. I groveled to come back.

[Buzz Clik]

5. So, we should make getting caught at stealing more affordable?

Jesus Christ! It's not as if this hasn't been around for years. Anyone stupid enough to continue to steal music is asking for huge trouble.

[rucky]

6. How about life in prison, then?

I mean ya gotta be pretty dense to download music after what Metallica said.

[Buzz Clik]

7. We're talking about the size of fines, not prison time.

The OP said that $500 seeemed reasonable, and $500 fines are still possible. I'm sure that some 12-year-old who downloads a single CD is not going to be charged $150,000 per song. But when jerkoffs are out there with terabites of songs, I find it hard to feel sorry for them no matter what the fine may be.

[Smith_3]

8. Link inside:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9791383-7.html
Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the RIAA concentrated on.

[Buzz Clik]

10. She had 1700 illegal songs, but was fined for only 24.

Yeah, $9250 is a lot per song, but when averaged over the 1700 illegal songs she was sharing, it comes down to $126.

In the end, she would have paid far less to buy the songs in the first place and to not illegally share them.

This is not new. Most people who get caught and fined have been warned directly by RIAA that pain is on its way if they don't quit.

Is it okay for me to steal cars because I hate the business practices of GM and Chrysler?

[depakid]

12. Oh boy the car theft analogy again

:eyes:

[Buzz Clik]

15. Yeah, how silly. Stealing 1700 songs (worth about $2500 as CDs) can't be considered a felony.

Hey, it's only music, right? And cars are, well, cars.

Sorry, but my relative morality was flushed down the toilet when I grew up.

[onenote]

43. not only that:: it was a jury verdict and they had the option of awarding as little as $750

but they chose not to. SHould we ban juries? Are juries inherently more sympthetic to record companies than to individuals?

In fact, given that the jury was instructed that the range of statutory damages for the type of infringement engaged in by the defendant was $750 to $30K and they picked a number below $10K suggests that they were relatively sympthetic to the defendant, setting damages in the lower half of the legal range. I have no doubt that they also were influenced by the fact that the defendant was accused of uploading 1700 songs and even if the plaintiffs limited themselves to proving illegal uploading with respect to 24 songs, it was almost certain that the defendant had illegally uploaded more than that. So, the total award probably represents a valuation of the damages at far less than $9200.

[thecrow]

26. Enlighten us? What did Metallica say? nt

[PVnRT]

14. How about making a punishment fit the crime?

[Buzz Clik]

16. What would you suggest?

[Smith_3]

17. I'll tell you what I would suggest:

A maximum of $100 per song with a capping of $1000 per individual case.

[Buzz Clik]

21. $1000? What would happen to you if you tried walking out of a music store with 10 CDs?

How about 100 CDs? 1000?

The punishment continues to escalate as the crime escalates.

[Smith_3]

29. I know one thing for sure:

If my teenage son walked out of a music store with 10 CDs and was caught, there would be legal consequences. Those however would not amount to him losing his entire college fund and the family losing the house on top of that. Back in my days the consequences would be something that can be worked off during an eight week summer holiday.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Right. I agree. But what if he had been caught previously doing the same thing?

What if he had been caught trying to steal a stack of CDs every time he went into the store? If he had been given legal notice that he was being watched and that he would be fined $10,000 per CD if he did it again, and he did it again?

The RIAA's idea of fair use is complete bullshit, but I have no complaint about prosecuting someone for stealing 1700 songs.

[spoony]

39. CDs are physical objects that were made

and if stolen aren't there anymore to be bought. This isn't the same.

[Buzz Clik]

66. So, your feeling is that this is some sort of intellectual property?

The laws are clear on that, too. You cannot steal other people's ideas. Period.

How can anyone justify theft?

[Raineyb]

51. Well if that's what the corporation would pay why not the individual?

I could give two shits about the RIAA I hope they get robbed blind and that no one gets punished for it. But to fine an individual 150,000 dollars a song when the corporation would only get fined 1000 for shady business practices is beyond not fair.

Regards

[Ignis]

73. False analogy.

Data copying is not the same as physical theft.

Data Copying:
I start with 0 CDs, my friend starts with 1.
My friend burns me a copy of his CD.
I end with 1 CD, my friend ends with 1.

Physical Theft:
I start with 0 CDs, the music store starts with 1.
I pick up the CD and walk out the door.
I end with 1 CD, the music store ends with 0.

---

Please don't infer from this post that I support piracy.

[JerseygirlCT]

48. I'm with you

People seem to think that they're being ripped off when they're being penalized for theft.

Theft is ok?

[Buzz Clik]

67. Agreed. I'm a bit nonplussed by this whole discussion.

[nc4bo]

11. Results are not much different than what the sleaze bag banks,hedge funds and CEOs

are getting away with. They got greedy, made "mistakes" and "we" have to pay for it.

The RIAA refused to modernize its business model. Instead of embracing new technology, producing quality products and trying to appeal to customers they insisted on remaining with their old status quo and now "we" will be paying for and be punished by THEIR mistakes.

If the RIAA could have found a way to take advantage of Napster technology and philosophy, I think they would have been extremely successful.

It's a consumers' world (or it used to be). Appeal to the consumer and your company will profit. Refuse and your business will fail. Of course in a fair world, bad business practices would never be rewarded....

[ddeclue]

25. I'm sorry but iTunes is a very affordable way to obtain music.

most songs are 99 cents and most albums are $9.99 or less so I really don't see where this OP has much validity. This seems very reasonable to me and very flexible too. You don't have to buy an entire album - just the tunes you like - it's like the old days of vinyl where you could buy the album on 33-1/3 or a song (well two) on a 45.

The artists and studios do have a right to make a living.

I don't think that the copyright law should have been changed to allow copyright periods to be extended to protect Mickey - at some point copyrighted works are supposed to pass into the public domain.

Doug D.

[TheBigotBasher]

44. The studios have NO RIGHT to make a living.

The Studios existed to aid in the distribution of a physical product, be that a record, cassette, or CD. That distribution method is effectively dead and Governments all over the World are using extreme terrorism in the guise of "preventing theft", where in reality they are protecting a dead industry.

The analogies of stealing cars, or even CDs are wrong. What the Music Studios are effectively defending is their "right" to charge you for hearing music. If they could they would charge you for listning to a track of lift music. They have redefined theft for their own purpose. If I steal a CD it is gone, if I copy a file, or download it on a torrent, the original is still there. There has been no theft.

The music studios want to remain in control of something they have lost control of. What is the saying is that if I want to listen to music from a group that I have not heard of, I should pay for it. Regardless of whether I like it or not. If I like the song I can pay for it or I can see the group in concert.

There are many musicians who have now made a great impact on the market by allowing the free distribution of their music. Some may never have got into the market if the studio monopoly had remained.

It is complete and utter rubbish to say that this is about protecting the rights of the artist. The RIAA and MPAA are nothing but a protection racket.

[TheBigotBasher]

47. And ITunes is an overpriced rip off

Awful compulsory software and DRM ridden music tracks that you have to play on their crappy device, unless you pay extra for a poorer quality rip.

Itunes is more expensive than buying the physical cd.

AllMP3s was a reasonably priced model. The RIAA killed it because they used a radio licence.

Tell me what is the difference between a radio licence, for a site that streams music 24 hours a day and a site that allows you to download an individual track?

[Occulus]

71. Wasn't there an auto mechanice in the UK a couple years back

that got sued by your country's version of the RIAA for playing a CD on a radio/CD player in their offices withing earshot of customers?

I believe they were trying to say in that case that the shop was engaging in a "public broadcast" by doing so. Private stereo, owned by an employee, as was the CD in question.

These "trade groups" would making humming the tune as you walk down the street an actionable offense if they thought they could get away with it.

[JCMach1]

13. $1.98= 100% penalty!

that is all...

And FK the RIAA

[Pharlo]

19. The single biggest problem I have with the entire issue of

making downloading music illegal is that I do not understand how this premise/precedent cannot be extended to the printed intellectual property of books.

If the print publishing industry uses this as a premise, will used book stores and libraries become illegal entities as well?

It just seems to me, that based upon what the written publishing industry has lived with for millennia, this whole RIAA thing is a bogus issue.

Why should the recording industry be treated differently than the publishing industry?

Is the RIAA anti-library?

[tabbycat31]

23. I agree

before I started using itunes, I bought most of my CDs used through ebay (for about $1-$3 for a CD). Better than paying $20 new for it.

Was I doing something illegal by purchasing my music secondhand at a deeply discounted price?

[TheBigotBasher]

46. The Games Industry is lready lobbying to block

second hand sales. EA is trying to block it through software.

If the RIAA got their way you would have to wear headphones at a nightclub so that you could only hear songs you have paid for.

[Spike89]

32. Illegal to copy a book too

Of course, there aren't a lot of blackmarket book copiers out there, but trust me, the book industry does protect its copyrights. There are people sharing audio books illegally and they are as likely to be prosecuted as people sharing a Metallica song. Nothing prevents you from loaning your purchased CDs to a friend, just like a book. Copying the book so you both can have a copy is just as illegal as copying the CD. Besides, the fines are for the sharing of the files, not for downloading.

There are certainly things that need adjustment in our copyright laws, but basically you've never had the right to listen to/read or otherwise consume someone's art without their permission.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. In the article you linked to from LBN it says $750 to $150,000 per violation

Not a flat $150,000 per violation.

[onenote]

42. and even that was wrong. its $200 to $150,000

Actually, its $750 to $30,000 in the ordinary case. If the plaintiff proves that the infringer acted willfully, the amount can, if the judge decides the facts warrant -- raise it to $150,000. On the other hand, if the accused shows that they acted "innocently" (i.e., without knowledge that they were infringing) then the amount of damages that a judge can decide to award drops to as low as $200.

And folks should keep in mind that several years ago, mp3.com got hit with what was the largest statutory damages award for infringment in history for making unauthorized copies of entire CDs as part of a commercial enterprise. The amount of damages: $25,000 per CD (or less than $2000 per song). Based on that precedent (which itself was roundly criticized as excessive), its unlikely in the extreme that someone who uploads a few music files not for profit is going to to be hit with anything approaching $150K in damages -- or even $25K. THere is one case that I know of where someone accused of uploading over 1700 songs was held liable for uploading around 24 of them at around $9000 per song -- and that was a judgment imposed by a jury that was instructed it could award as little as $750 and as much as $30K. It appears that they weren't terribly sympathetic to the accused but nonetheless still decided to pick a damages award in the bottom half of the legal range.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

54. Thanks for that information

It's not half as sensational as ranting about $150k per violation, but then reality seldom is as sensational as a good (over) dramatization.

[rvablue]

24. Are you arguing that working families didn't listen to music before they illegally downloaded it on

the Internet.

Complain about the amount of the fine, but refine the argument. This one fails.

[Marrah_G]

28. non-wealthy parents will need to take all internet access away from their children

Because unless they are watching them every single second there is a chance that their entire family's future will be destroyed by one teenager's lapse in judgment.

[tammywammy]

38. Why not just check their computer for programs that allow them to down/upload music?

Or check for files that have music in them, and ask where the original copy of the music is?

[JerseygirlCT]

49. And of course, there's that old standby:

teaching your kids not to steal...

[Marrah_G]

55. You know what Jersey: I have taught my kids not to steal

Frankly your remark was pretty uncalled for if it was aimed at me.

The problem is that all their friends don't consider it stealing- society in general doesn't consider it stealing- Teenagers are pretty darn good at breaking the rules without parents knowing, especially if they think it is a stupid rule. Teenagers make stupid mistakes and do stupid things.

I am not advocating for no penalty, just not a penalty that would bankrupt a family most likely until the parents die.

[JerseygirlCT]

62. Not aimed directly at you at all

But we as parents are not nearly so powerless as that. And I do believe that our example and teaching matters much more in the end than friends' examples and "what the other kids are doing".

The problem is that there are many here, apparently who see nothing wrong with this - it's free music, right? But it's not free music, and hasn't been for a while. So whether we like that or not, it's stealing. And I know I certainly drummed that into my older kid's head - along with what could potentially happen if he did it anyway.

There's also plenty of really free music out there - offered by artists on their sites, etc.

That wasn't a knock on your parenting - but a reminder that you're much more important than you might think to your kids. Even when they don't want to show it, you matter.

[Marrah_G]

64. So sorry I was snippy at you yesterday

I was having a bad day all around. Your comment didn't deserve my lashing out.

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Well, no, I felt awful if you felt attacked

Certainly wasn't my intention!

[Marrah_G]

53. Yes of course

But all it would take is one time. Just one time.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. But from the sounds of it, those who were prosecuted had had

many warnings. It wasn't a first-time offense at all. I highly doubt one slip would result in prosecution.

But I won't say that it's not far from mind when younger ones are using the computer. I think we just have to take the course of vigilance (in talking about it, openly and often) and modeling (in not doing it ourselves!).

[Marrah_G]

65. The scary part is that one slip up "could" cause enormous damage to an entire family.

Here is an example:

if my son gets caught shop lifting a few CD's then he gets arrested, pays a fine, is probably on probation, and maybe even has to serve some time in a juvenile facility.

However there is the possibility that if he stole those same songs off the internet that it would hurt not only him, but bankrupt his family for their entire life. I know I would never, ever be able to pay that fine off.

Both are against the law. One result teaches him a lesson. The other destroys his family.

[JerseygirlCT]

69. I agree there's an imbalance there

Though, I really doubt they'd spend the effort looking for one person, downloading once, you know? Most of those charged have been continual offenders, IIRC.

But yes, there's little difference between swiping a CD and stealing music online - and there ought to be some balance in the respective fines and punishments.

[Ignis]

74. "programs that allow them to download/upload music"

Do you realize that you can upload/download any file from one system to another with native tools built into almost any operating system--Telnet, FTP, web browsers, etc.?

Unless you're saying that it's the responsibility of parents to make their home computers C-2 compliant--i.e., completely secured and without a network connection--what you're suggesting is just not feasible.

[natrat]

31. yea, signs are there that the new admin are full on corporate shit, i'm shocked just shocked

[onenote]

41. except the administration hasn't said anything close to what is being claimed

What a bunch of bs is being spewed. The administration took the utterly unsurprising position that its not unconstituional for congress to establish a range of statutory damages as an alternative to forcing copyright owners to prove actual damages. As for the amount, the current law allows judges to set those damages as low as $200 or as high as $150000, depending on the facts. The administration said nothing about whether a particular award of damages of a particular amount would be appropriate in any particular set of facts. It certainly said nothing about what the award of damages should or shouldn't be for illegally uploading a single music track or even a whole bunch of tracks. In fact, the brief points out that the plaintiff's case is premature because the plaintiff hasn't yet been found guilty of infringement or had any amount of statutory damages imposed on them.

People should actually consider getting the underlying facts before they go off half-cocked assuming the administration has done something dire.

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. I haven't bought music for years and don't download it either because of this.

I don't go to concerts anymore either. That's for at least 10+ years now. Until the prices come way down, I have enough music. I'll just re-listen to what I have.

So they lost me, and I used to buy a lot. Fuck 'em.

[mitchum]

36. Fuck the little people!

[onenote]

37. this is a continuation of one of the most misleading threads on DU in a long time

See posts number 201 and 202 in the linked thread.

The administration didn't say what is being claimed they said. And they certainly haven't expressed "support" for a $150K statutory damages award per uploaded file.

One of the largest (and heavily criticized) statutory damages awards in history was $25,000 per CD (not track) imposed on mp3.com for willfully copying those CDs as part of a commercial enterprise. With that decision as a touchstone, there is no way a "working family" is going to get hit with anything approaching a $150K per file statuory damages award. Its more likely to be clsoer to the $200 minimum award for innocent infringement.

[dem629]

40. There is a way to get around this!

Don't steal copyrighted material.

I don't care what kind of pretzel-logic bullshit people come up with -- people who try to justify downloading this stuff are just wanting something for nothing.

This is an old, tired argument and I'm glad people are getting punished for stealing other people's work.

[TheBigotBasher]

45. Where is the theft?

How is it stealing? Are the bytes missing off the other persons computer? How does this protect the artist?

[dem629]

56. I'll address the only serious question you were able to come up with.

"How does this protect the artist?"

If an artist creates a song or book or picture, and rather than people buying it, somebody copies it and give those copies to people who would have otherwise paid for it, the artist takes a financial loss.

That's what copyright law is about.

That's why bands sign with record companies and charge for CDs rather than making their own CDs and giving them out free at flea markets.

That's why authors sign with publishers and put out books rather than printing up copies themselves and handing out copies at a bus terminal.

Seriously, you don't understand how business works?

Why won't people just admit they want free stuff? At least you'd be intellectually honest during these discussions.

[dem629]

60. I forgot to ask you a question.

I write for a living.

Can you tell me why I should write for free? I mean, if I write something and someone makes copies and that causes my sales to drop, it's not stealing, according to you, right? So I should just go along with that?

[TheBigotBasher]

72. When you sell a book

you sell a physical product. So if you shoplift a book from a store, you are stealing.

If I buy a book of yours and then lend or give it to my friend - have you lost a sale or got a new reader?

In your opinion should libraries be banned as people are stealing your print because they are not paying to read it?

[and-justice-for-all]

50. Ok, then they better stop selling blank CDs too...

Whats the difference between downloading music and burning a CD for a friend? If your downloading a trying to make money off that work, yes, penalties for theft.

But sharing the music with others is not a crime last I checked. Do I buy CDs and DVDS, hell yes I still do. I happen to have a massive collection of CDs and DVDs, I even still buy Cassettes.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

52. I don't think it's that it's not illegal to make copies for friends

It's just not something that's enforced. If you made massive copies and gave them away they would probably pursue the case if you got caught.

If I recall correctly back in 1992(ish) they passed a law that said we could record for personal use from music we owned. To soften the blow recording companies collect royalties on the blank CDs. How crazy is that?

[dem629]

58. That falls under Fair Use. Perfectly fine.

[and-justice-for-all]

61. I can't see the difference between the two...

burning a CD or file sharing, it seems like the same thing to me.

Granted, as with everything else, people will and do go to the extreme with it and they may also be making money off of it which is what I would call theft in that case.

[dem629]

70. Like I said, read a little on Fair Use.

[dem629]

57. Nope. Research Fair Use (and its limitations, which some people willingly ignore).

[Ignis]

75. So if I want a book that is out of print...

And not carried in any bookstores (new or used) any longer, and the publisher has no future plans to publish a new edition, how would you suggest I acquire a copy of this book?

There's a LOT of music out there that is neither in the public domain nor actively copyright controlled. Yet the artists who made that music are often contractually bound by record companies not to make it available--even if the record company no longer sells a copy of that album.

Have you ever considered that your Black/White view isn't large enough to encompass the vast continuum of all possible experiences? :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

59. It seems to me you're being a little unfair ......

..... if for no other reason than to say that the lowest penalty proposed is $750. That is above your parallel universe, but not an order of magnitude so.

Second, as a creator of one type of intellectual property and the spouse of a creator of other types of intellectual property, I am totally in support of protecting the rights of the creators of such works to the fruits of their skill/talent.

I don't know the first thing abut the law your upset about, but I **do** know t hat if it protects artists and creators, then I am all for it.

Sorry, but unless something is public domain, you have no right to use it at will for free. It is no different than sticking up a little kid with a shotgun held to the back of their head.

Why that analogy? Because the artist being robbed is just as defenseless against the crime as would be that kid.