Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million
from the bad-bad-idea dept
Last month, we noted that it was a really bad idea for Jammie Thomas not to settle her lawsuit with the recording industry. There was simply way too much evidence for a jury not to convict her. The trial itself was, again as expected, something of a circus, rather than anything interesting or compelling. So, it should come as no surprise that, yet again, Thomas has been found guilty. But what is surprising is that the the jury chose to fine her $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song. That's $1.7 million more than the original trial. $80,000 per song! Still, it was a really bad idea for Thomas to go through with this suit as there was way too much evidence linking her to the music (and too many problems with her own testimony). Now the RIAA is handed a gift. A verdict that it can gloat about and misrepresent to its own advantages. What might be interesting is whether (for all the RIAA gloating) this ruling has a similar impact as The Pirate Bay victory had in Sweden -- galvanizing people to support the Pirate Party. Somehow, the story isn't quite as compelling though.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, fine, jammie thomas, lawsuit, music, settlement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How do you pay that back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you pay that back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How do you pay that back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you pay that back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How do you pay that back?
Although that is beside the point: The RIAA can still cite the ruling in their favor. The money is secondary, so long as they have a court precedent on their side. They can keep on suing and settling out of court with people who can afford to pay a few thousand each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you pay that back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Give it a rest - she shares a single song with one person, and that person shares with a couple more, that share with a couple more... because remember, once you share, you can't control what else will happen - but you started it.
So if there are a million illegal copies, even at 8 cents a copy, you get to $80,000 per song. It isn't unreasonable to consider that a single seeded song could get that many downloads.
So really, Thomas got off lightly, and yes, the RIAA has something to work with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously? OK, I can see the argument for liability WRT to the people she directly shared with - but by what logic does she become liable for what those people then did with the music (and what the people who share with them did as so on)?
What is this, some kind of crazy inverted pyramid scheme???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Left hand does not have to know exactly what the right hand is doing to still be liable, when you are all in on the same thing.
She started an inevitable chain of events which lead to the music being shared widely. Only one person could stop it, her - by not sharing to start with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems like a scam to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What kinds of decisions can you expect from 12 people not smart enough to get off civil case jury duty, that's why they don't have the jury system for civil cases in a lot of other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gm was proud, arrogant, and made a crappy product that fewer and fewer people wanted.
I dare you to delete all the "crappy" music that the record industry has put out off your hard drive, off your MP3 player, etc - and I dare you not to listen to any more of it ever. You can't, because YOU LIKE THE PRODUCT - you are just too arrogant to admit it.
When you can come back and say "I don't listen to any music from a record label or an artist that sells it in any way", then we can talk. Until then, you are like a priest that complains about the drug problem, and then smokes crack after the sermon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop supporting the RIAA mafia! Go indie! I did, and I'm loving every minute of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have NO music on my computer anymore. none.
And if I choose to listen to something, it's the wonderful world of (presently) free FM radio.
Try it.
You'd be amazed what you hear once you shut out the noise (and your own voice) and listen.
On another point - Did anyone think to point out that all the songs pirated could have been easily ripped from the radio and digitally cleaned?
In that case, it's already been paid for. By the radio station. The RIAA has no proof that that wasn't the case.
Also, someone should have pointed out to the jury WHO the money would be going TO. Bring in a former label musician and get them to testify how much debt the record companies put them in, and how much they fail to pay their artists by hiding the money from them in subtle fees. Then see if the jury would be so quick to award a bunch of theives their extortion money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some pirates buy the music they download. Most pirates were never going to buy it in the first place. Albums that sell a million legal copies are called platinum albums, (I guess it's pretty rare for that to happen?). Are you sure you want to hold Jammie Thomas liable for crimes that other people committed further down the chain?
I'm honestly surprised that you can, with a straight face, say that this is anything but punitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
preventing ONE SOURCE (or seed) does NOTHING to stop others from downloading. It merely creates a higher density of connections to the existing files.
No way can this "million download" figure be applied. It's simply impossible.
To say that "no other crimes would have occurred" when it is clear that it IS presently available regardless of any one persons actions is sticking your head in the sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, without her copy, no other crimes would have occurred. If she didn't share, nobody else down that chain would have a copy of the song from her either to share. It's amazing when you think about it, stop one share, and all those other people under her can't share either."
Don't you think that the subsequent file sharers would simply obtain the same song from sonmebody else, if they didn't get it from Jammie (not that there is any eveidence that anybody at all got it from Jammie)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't matter - if she didn't share it, and others didn't share it, nobody would have a copy. Just because there are multiple sources doesn't mean that she is suddenly in the clear and able to share with impunity. She was the one that could have stopped the process, she did not. She is responsible, and now she gets what she gets.
A few more like this and the Masnick effect will join Geocities in the mouldy history of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't matter - if she didn't share it, and others didn't share it, nobody would have a copy. Just because there are multiple sources doesn't mean that she is suddenly in the clear and able to share with impunity. She was the one that could have stopped the process, she did not. She is responsible, and now she gets what she gets.
A few more like this and the Masnick effect will join Geocities in the mouldy history of the internet.
------------------------
Here's a question for you, retard.
Are any of the people BELOW Jammie in that great pyramid you're talking about going to get prosecuted? How about the person or persons SHE got them from in the first place?
How about this? The RIAA should just petition the Gvt. to get a hold of everyone's hard drives like they asked for in the Tenenbaum case ( they tried to get a hold of the defendants PARENT'S home pc). Then they could get a look at every American's hard drives. I wonder how many record label ppl have digital music files in their personal pc's.
Shit.....they might end up suing themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except, no. You cannot be held liable for what people down the line did.
Nice try, but very very wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree, but that seems to be the logic behind these absurd rulings. Even if it's not spelled out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even by the twisted logic of the torrent universe, let's consider this: Let's say the song breaks down into, what, 100,000 blocks? She sends 1 block to each of 100,000 users. She is therefore an active part of 100,000 violations.
It isn't hard to see the scale here. I think the RIAA wouldn't be pushing hard if she just copied her CD and gave it to her neighbor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As soon as the RIAA can prove this in a court of law the damages would be fair. I think a written letter from 100,000 file sharers testifying that it was her computer they downloaded the song from would suffice.
Otherwise they, like you, are just making this shit up.
Failure to determine exactly how many copies were distributed and then failure to link that to any ACTUAL lost profits means a failure in my book.
Furthermore the premise of most laws is that they are enforceable. So unless you can pull all 100,000 people into a court to convict them I think that is NOT enforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eighty thousand?
I'm just asking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few thoughts
If this is true, it would make sense to this of this case as a sacrificial lamb- someone who would be held to huge award damages.
This benefits the legalistic process and current system, while thwarting technology. Ultimately, it will will scare more people into settling in the future, while also re-baselines the legal/court-based (NOT market-based) value to willful infringement.
As for the crazy-ass fine which is not tangible to reality, it's not surprising-- I am quite familiar with the court system in Minneapolis, and know first hand, that some of the judges are quite crooked. Perhaps this Judge is a Prince Fan. Who knows. But that's Ramsey County for ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did she become a target? There are probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people guilty of infringing hundreds or thousands of songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: A few thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As opposed to you misrepresenting it if the award was lowered? Mike, you are so transparent and bitter at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi ho, hi ho, its off to upload I go....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brought to you by Hennepin County, Representing Minnesota's Humor Campaign since 1852
This was where Larry Craig to visit for tapping his feet while dropping a duce, and also partially responsible for the Al Franken/Norm Colman Dispute (which, by the way hasn't been decided yet.)
The only way she would have won is if she had superb lawyers.
This is political.
I'm just sayin'... Consider that these people can't count votes and seat a Senator after 7 months, but can gleefully re-try a case and assign blame real quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We get it you're a publisher. I hate to be the one to have to be the one to tell you, but you've been replaced. We don't need your printing presses, we don't need your warehouses, your trucks, or your stores. Society has changed. Distribution is no longer a scarcity. It can no longer be used to make money.
You've built a stand to sell bottled water next to a mountain stream, gushing with fresh water. No ones buying, so you're trying to get the government not to let people get their water from the stream. Find a new profession. Evolve.
You have to understand you're fighting a losing battle. There isn't enough money or time in the world to litigate against everyone who has infringed on a copyrighted work.
We're talking about copyright; not patent or trademark. We're talking about works of art and culture, not inventions created through research and development. These things belong to the society from which they come. The more readily available they are, the more access creators have, the more will be created and shared. The more enriched society will become.
I know you're worrying- "but how am I going to get mine?" You're not. It's called creative destruction. Allocate your time and resources else ware.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, you really drank the Masnick Koolaid, didn't you?
Here's a news flash for you: If the only distribution available is "everything is free", then there is no incentive for anyone to make more music. Distribution isn't the point - the SCARCE NEW MUSIC is the key. Mike makes you guys all think the distribution is the key point, but it isn't - without new music, you will distribute the same old crap around and around.
Distribution isn't just a question of "getting the product out there", it's also a system to pay to get more of it made. Remove the financial motivation for new music, and the only new music you will get will sound like Jill Sobule or some dude with a guitar in a coffee bar.
Distrubution can be inifinite, but without a business model, nobody will do business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're suggesting that all musicians are in it for the money made off of record sales. They get practically nothing from record sales in the first place, so I fail to see your point.
Some musicians like to make music because they like being famous to the point where their name is a household item, and free distribution of their work sure does that well. Then with their throngs of fans they can tour and sell t-shirts and do the things they'd be doing anyway, but with a much larger audience. Everybody wins!
PS: my house has no basement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heh. You are really amusing sometimes.
Just yesterday we pointed out that the exact opposite is happening. More new music than ever before is being made, and more people are making more money from music than ever before in history.
But reality doesn't sit well with you, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That statement says absolutely nothing about what has brought this about. You want to infer that it is because your "business model" is being adopted and used widespread. Someone else once called your business model "Give it all away and pray." It looks like that description is still apropos.
Looks to me like, judging by the commentary here, that you are losing ground in finding agreement with your ideas on how to make money on intellectual property. I am not surprised. It sometimes takes awhile for some people to get that two-by-four upside the head in order to pay attention. I am not sure you are getting the message yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, not at all. I made no such claim. First, I have no "business model" for bands. I merely explain the economics at work, that open up many different business model opportunities. I'm not advocating any business model. I'm advocating understanding fundamental economics.
Second, I'm not claiming that the reason more music is out there is because of bands using new business models. Not at all. I don't think nearly enough bands are using these models yet, though that's starting to change.
The study only made one point, and that's all I was pointing out: that the rise of file sharing has NOT killed off the incentive to create music, and the evidence actually suggests the opposite.
Someone else once called your business model "Give it all away and pray." It looks like that description is still apropos.
No, actually, I'm the one who coined "give it away and pray." And I coined it because that's a *bad* business model: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml
I think that some bands think it's the way to do things, but I disagree. Give it away and pray is a bad business model. We agree on that entirely.
Looks to me like, judging by the commentary here, that you are losing ground in finding agreement with your ideas on how to make money on intellectual property.
Huh? How do you figure? We see more bands than ever before starting to adopt these models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Backtracking so fast, I can see the dust flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait. There's a difference between "backtracking" and accurately pointing out that you falsely stated my position.
You really ought to go to trolling 101 school. Making statements that are factually incorrect and can be shown to be factually incorrect makes you look pretty damn silly. But, it's amusing to see how you respond (i.e., not actually addressing a single point, but simply accusing me -- incorrectly -- of backtracking).
Real trolls at least have a bit of talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike, you make tons of posts every month, and for those of us who read them all, we can often connect the dots between your thoughts. Just because you haven't said something all in a single sentence in a single place doesn't mean you aren't saying it.
if you say "I like trees", and "I like green things with leaves", you have effectively said you like green trees. You don't have to say the sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. But when you can't connect the dots accurately, I can point out that you are flat out, 100% incorrect.
That's not backtracking. That's pointing to your own inability to understand basic logic 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time you are pushed on the subject, you say you don't support it, you say it is a bad business model, that it is a terrible thing. Yet, every band or act that has some sort of give it away and pray plan comes for praise for you as being pioneers in the great battle for freedom.
Further, when asked to explain business models that involve the giving away / infinite distribution of material and how they aren't a "pray" system, you make vague comments about "we have covered that before" and offer nothing more. You do tend to do a quick radiohead / jill sobule / reznor / cory smith thing often enough, but none of it is particularly informative or on point, especially when one looks at the history of each of your poster children.
So basically there is where I think you often backtrack and weasel word. You seem to actively support piracy / torrents / infinite sharing, and yet at the same time you are saying it isn't a business model, and yet at the same time you are saying everyone should do it.
So how about you make a few on point posts that let us know where you actually stand on the issues, so that we can get a grasp. It would be nice to know what the business model is that you are trying to push, because it never seems to be the same from day to day, except that there does appear to be a whole bunch of praying involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no... That's not a logically valid conclusion, because there is no connection between those, other than in your mind. Feasibly he could be talking about liking Oak Trees in the first, and talking about Grape Vines in the other.
That's basically what I've been seeing from you, so it's par for the course. (assuming you're the same Coward that's been arguing with Mike... Then again! I can assume you're the same person that made every other AC post, too.)
Taking two sentences without a connection and applying one to it that doesn't exist is called a conspiracy theorist.
Also, I like feeding trolls. It makes them gag and sputter. ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The idea behind intellectual property is not supposed to be to make money, it's supposed to be to advance technology and the arts. The problem is that it has turned into a scam where everyone just tries to make money. This prevents the advancement of technology and the arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's a news flash for you: If the only distribution available is "everything is free", then there is no incentive for anyone to make more music. Distribution isn't the point - the SCARCE NEW MUSIC is the key.
-- ENDQUOTE --
Anonymous,
Radio stations that play the same songs until you're sick of them do not pay one dime to the artists, yet the artists are happy to have them play the tunes because doing so spreads their art and generates demand -- including sales of music.
I can tell you from first-hand experience that the goal isn't to sell records. Please re-read that -- artists aren't in it to sell records. Selling records is a means to funding, that's true, but the goal is to reach an appreciative audience. All artists want is an exhibition, they really don't care how it gets funded.
So as long as the music is being heard and the artist is being well kept, then everyone is happy.
The old business model is broken but only somewhat so. I appreciate being able to jump on Amazon.com and get the music that I want. But a good fraction of an artist's music is going to be out there for free -- it always was -- and it always will be.
The RIAA club in particular is still the buggy-whip set trying to exist in an automobile age. They need to morph or die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"and the only new music you will get will sound like Jill Sobule or some dude with a guitar in a coffee bar"
When I read that line I thought of yoko ono and Grinned a wide grin.
You can now get multi track (32 track i think) software for recording and mixing under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. A high end studio mike will only cost you 100 bucks on e-bay. Add in a computer, USB Mixing board, and sound proofing you have a recording studio. All for under $2000 USD.
If you have listened to some of the remixes of linkin park, Suzanne Vega (Toms Diner), new stuff from Indie artists, or just garage bands with remixing software. You find its often better than what the studios are doing.
sound proofing - soundproofing.org
mixing board - http://www.zzounds.com/cat--2861
Note to self - Add GNU mixing software download area and equipment area to music site specs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have to agree. The penalties for sharing were already *far* beyond the pale, meant to be a significant sting to *companies* infringing on content, and were never meant to apply to individuals - the relevant laws were written well before the internet.
This case is *so* ridiculous, though, that it should appeal nicely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I doubt it. Chances are she'll now settle rather than fight it. And, even if she fought it... the courts to date have given no indication (at all) that they have any problems with the statutory rates set out by Congress.
The problem is with those rates that Congress set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if appealed, it would be likely that the Surpremes would just deny it without explaination. There is no controversy here, just the law as written at work. There are no constitutional arguments in play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Verdicts
The people (via the jury system) have the right, the power, and indeed, the obligation, to overturn any and all unjust, unconscionable, and ridiculous laws created by our lobby-enriched legislators.
Unfortunately in a civil case, just one juror who does NOT have his head up his ass cannot hang the jury, but if the entire jury pool of the United States were well informed of their full rights as jurors there would be significantly less abuses by the "big guys" and their purchased legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-------------------------
No it's not. It's a system to get fat cats at record labels paid so they can gold plate their house. The ones making the music aren't getting paid from it. Some artists are becoming more wise that you treat the music like a commercial and tour/release special editions for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please.
Without the music out there and distributed, promotes, and supported, you would never know the artist, and therefore they wouldn't make a penny. Remove the record labels, and we are back to a society with tens of thousands of bar bands, nothing more - few will ever happen to get past that status.
You really need to put down the masnick koolaid and go see what the music industry actually does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without the music out there and distributed, promotes, and supported, you would never know the artist, and therefore they wouldn't make a penny.
I can really dive into it if you want, but here's some highlights you missed:
* Distribution can be handled via internet/iTunes/Amazon.
* Promotion can be done thru a hybird Youtube/Facebook/Fan Website/Local Radio Stations
* What is support? Support could be provided by revenue generated via iTunes, short term financing via Venture Capital or a more traditional bank loans. With some venues, you could even negotiate a net-90 payment schedule, so as long as you promote it right, you could feasibly run on the ticket sales float in the near term.
Remove the record labels, and we are back to a society with tens of thousands of bar bands, nothing more - few will ever happen to get past that status.
Actually, it opens up the ability to re-distribute control back to the band and away from the labels and the whole ideology of "Tollbooth Based Culture" and draconian copyright.
Several trials have shown that some artists are receiving $0.70 to the dollar gross revenue, versus the $0.20 to the dollar gross revenue under the legacy Label/Record Album Deals. Some bands have said that they've made much more in ONE self-produced album than five thru traditional record deals.
You really need to put down the masnick koolaid and go see what the music industry actually does.
Do you always "shoot first and ask questions later"?
Because it's getting less and less funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean that I can't enjoy the music artists make unless a business man tells me what to like?
You mean that bar bands aren't good and that only artists backed by SONY have any real talent?
The only person drinking electric Kool-aid here is you.
I would prefer it if you and those who share your extremely limited view point would drink some of that satisfying Jonestown juice and leave the rest of us to enjoy music without all the added bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, not the good stuff, like hip hop and Britney Spears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remove the record labels, and we are back to a society with tens of thousands of bar bands, nothing more - few will ever happen to get past that status.
-- ENDQUOTE --
Every year for the past many years, one of my favorite Seattle bands, The Coats http://www.thecoats.net/ would make a trip through Portland. I've purchased most of their recordings. They are unsigned. They've published 10 albums. (They're great, by the way.)
But think about those 10,000 bar bands. Do you really think that the first step to getting famous is to start selling CD's? HECK NO! Even if they can get one recorded, no one buys one until they can get heard. They start gigging until they get a few people willing to take home a CD for a few bucks (believe me, they are so thrilled that they feel a little guilty for selling them). But that income remains a side income for a very long time.
Selling your recordings is one of the later privileges in the music business. It's certainly not part of the music creation process, rather it is a result of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remove the record labels, and we are back to a society with tens of thousands of bar bands, nothing more - few will ever happen to get past that status.
-- ENDQUOTE --
Every year for the past many years, one of my favorite Seattle bands, The Coats http://www.thecoats.net/ would make a trip through Portland. I've purchased most of their recordings. They are unsigned. They've published 10 albums. (They're great, by the way.)
But think about those 10,000 bar bands. Do you really think that the first step to getting famous is to start selling CD's? HECK NO! Even if they can get one recorded, no one buys one until they can get heard. They start gigging until they get a few people willing to take home a CD for a few bucks (believe me, they are so thrilled that they feel a little guilty for selling them). But that income remains a side income for a very long time.
Selling your recordings is one of the later privileges in the music business. It's certainly not part of the music creation process, rather it is a result of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question on Availibility Instruction
Now, in this case was the jury again instructed that simply making content available is copyright infringement? If not, then how did they find infringement?
Answers, anybody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question on Availibility Instruction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question on Availibility Instruction
It is those instructions as to "what infringement is" that I am asking about. In the first trial "what infringement is" included "making available". Now you're saying in this trial that the instructions were that infringement was limited to "copy/distribute by downloading/uploading"?
So, did they present any evidence that the material was actually uploaded, rather than being merely made available? I thought that I remembered from her first trial that there was no such evidence and that was why the jury was instructed to consider "making available" as infringement. Did they have some new evidence of actual uploading for this trial? Where would they have gotten such new evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please.
Without the music out there and distributed, promotes, and supported, you would never know the artist, and therefore they wouldn't make a penny. Remove the record labels, and we are back to a society with tens of thousands of bar bands, nothing more - few will ever happen to get past that status.
You really need to put down the masnick koolaid and go see what the music industry actually does.
-------------------------
What you mean we wouldn't have the record labels pushing crap down our throats like Britney Spears, Flo Rida, Hannah Montana, Lady Gaga, etc.? I'd rather listen to tens of thousands of good bar bands then the crap pushed out by the record labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one is stopping you. No one says you can't. What's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He didn't say he can't. Why make up that strawman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? GREAT! Sign me up!
Thank GOD!! NO more (c)rap music, no more arrogant rappers extolling the virtues of gin & juice and hos (doing what EVERY OTHER rapper does, while at the same time screaming constantly how "original" they are), no more EMO boy bands, no more Britney Whores...sounds GREAT to me! Where do I sign up for the law that makes this happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Start Copying
To the Anonymous Coward (there are a lot of them) who is obviously in the RIAA's employ, your masters need to be slapped down. If the courts won't, it's time to do it by public pressure. They are thugs, no different than the mafia who threatens harm if you don't follow their rules. They have no concept of fair use (nor, for that matter, does the MPAA and Authors Guild). If I buy a CD, I should be able to make 10 copies if I want... play them in any personal device I own. They actually feel it's illegal to rip a CD I own to play it on my iPod. They really need to be put out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the RIAA gets money for a copyright violations against someone who allowed people to download songs for free, does that mean that everyone who downloaded the music for free now legally owns that music because the RIAA got paid for it?
Meaning, any money the RIAA gets is because they claim it was lost revenue because they didn't make money from selling all those downloads. So, when the RIAA does get money, wouldn't that mean that the people who downloaded the songs for free now own them because they were paid for by the copyright violator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This statement clearly shows that you have not paid attention, but that you are in fact an idiot.
While this may seem discouraging, I implore you to continue to look into the subject from more than one point of view, and then maybe, just maybe you can pull your head far enough out of your ass that you can see the light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA Penalty, Deterrent, Encouraging Fair use!
There are enough bands who can't reach the public and need to create an audience. The RIAA often claims to protect interest of the artists but I don't see them help upcoming artists who seldom get their albums published. The RIAA is fine with (and does not fine) you if you don't buy music and listen only over radio or live performances.
While they have every right in discouraging "theft" of intellectual property, they need to get back to the drawing board and understand how best it can be done. If there is a smart way to reach the music lovers (Apple/iTunes) online and make money, then they should encourage that and pay attention to that. This approach of imposing huge fines just discourages both artists and music lovers.
How about shelving the lawyers and actually sending sales guys to the people who are enjoying music after downloading them illegally? How about educating your "customers" and helping them make the right choice? Truth is a lot of this is being done (eg. MoserBaer movie CDs and DVDs.) and is not being given due attention. There are bands who reach out without going through record labels when they haven't yet done a number that is popular. Some of these fines and their amounts are beyond reason. The members of the RIAA have to really work on their customers and increase that base. There's either win-win or lose-lose, the win-lose is lose-lose in camouflage. Just my $0.02.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA Penalty, Deterrent, Encouraging Fair use!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/0946355250.shtml
Read where I say
"This song is released to the public domain for anyone to freely copy, distribute, and play as they see fit. This includes playing the music in restaurants without a license. This disclaimer may never be removed from the song and by playing this song you grant everyone else the license that this song provides you."
Have someone say that at the beginning (or ending) of the song. People should have a right not to be represented by the RIAA and if people do freely distribute music that explicitly gives them permission to do so, that should be enough proof for a judge/jury that the RIAA does not represent them on that song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA Penalty, Deterrent, Encouraging Fair use!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
Where at all is the justice in this? Should drop that Jury off in Tehran.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help her out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help her out
The first problem, is that she would have to be the one to setup the collection.
BUT that's the problem: sending her money sends a signal that people are willing to subsidize RIAA's continual failure. This will only *prove* that the court was right in it's ruling.
Secondly, if she claims Bankruptcy, she needs to claim all her assets, which may include the potential trust fund/donations collected, even potential FUTURE collected assets. The Bankruptcy court COULD still be able to collect and dispurse the money to the RIAA, even after the bankruptcy is finalized. She's screwed.
Assume any money sent to her will be passed thru to the RIAA.
The light at the end of the tunnel is actually on the other side of the equation. Perhaps the artists and employees of the record companies and labels named in this case will "Man Up" somehow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFF wonders: Record Labels' $1.9 Million Win in Thomas Retrial Constitutional?
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/record-labels-awarde
I'll definitely donate some money to EFF if they pick up the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
K.I.S.S. my A.S.S. R.I.A.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a big fat naked hairy dude (representing the RIAA.) He is jerking off two other fat blokes on each side (representing politicians and judges) who come all over him with dollar signs and in front of him there is a skinny dude he's fucking up the ass, his pants showing empty pockets (representing artists). In the background there is a long line of people on chains being guilty of copyright infringement who leave all their money at a RIAA stand!
Please someone who can draw, create this image for me!
PS
I, the copyright holder of this idea, give away any rights to anyone who want's to use it!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: "So really, Thomas got off lightly"
Here's a nickel; go buy a clue!
Why does Jammie deserve to be "the example"?
Why is there such a humongous disparity between the damage the RIAA suffered (they *cannot* prove they lost a single penny because of Jammie) and the damage Jammie will suffer (permanent total financial ruin)?
And, even if Jammie did have $2 million to give them, will Prince, Sheryl Crow and the other artists they have been name-dropping ever see a penny of that money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: "So really, Thomas got off lightly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, it did not help her cause that after being sent notices by instant messageing and FedEx that her hard drive mysteriously "broke" and was replaced with a new one she bought at a local Best Buy. When she was asked to turn over her hard drive for forensic analysis, she did herself no favor by turning over the new one and never mentioning anything about the one that "broke". It seems she tried to pull a fast one and got caught in the process. The word "dumb" comes to mind, but somehow it seems totally inadequate in the context of this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watunes, The New Music Industry!
Watunes offers services for the entire independent music community, whether you already have digital representation or are just getting started in the digital world. We make it easy to distribute your content to digital outlets, promote your content using our innovative marketing systems, and manage your catalog and sales using our first-class technology.
WaTunes is a social media distribution service that enables artists, groups, and record labels to sell music, music videos, and audiobooks through leading online entertainment retailers, including iTunes,ShockHound, and eMusic. Artists and labels can sell unlimited music and earn 100% of their profits – ALL FOR FREE! In fact, as of Tuesday June 9th, we signed NBA Legend and Hall of Famer Earl ‘the Pearl’ Monroe who owns record label Reverse Spin Records. The link is listed right below & you can either click on it and/or copy & paste into your browser. Please direct any further inquires, comments, questions, or concerns to us. We're more than elated to serve you anyway we possibly can.
Best,
Sammie
Earl "the Pearl" Monroe link:
http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=watunes&oe=UTF-8&um=1&am p;ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn
--
watunes.com
Sammie Houston
SVP, Client Services
e-mail: sammiehouston@watunes.com
Skype ID: sammie.houston
Office: 678-598-2439
Sneak Preview: http://tinyurl.com/dh3mum
Youtube advertisements, don't click on the link, please copy & paste into your browser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwBmhWmF4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2AYrcDVhCs
Check out our Reviews, add your comments & feedback too:
http://www.rateitall.com/i-1125252
watunes.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The jury should be hunted down and deported at least
Anything as stupid as the retards on the jury deserve everything they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]