"insisted that the high rates were necessary to act as a deterrent"
Deter what? It was never proven at Tenenbaum's trial that any unauthorized person shared songs off of her computer.
Essentially, Tenenbaum is being made to pay 1.5 million dollars for downloading 24 songs.
Think about that. 24 songs is about two CDs worth of music. If I steal two CDs from Walmart, I wouldn't have even committed a felony. I'd be charged with a misdemeanor and the most I'd have to pay back is the actual cost of the CDs. About 30 bucks, tops.
In the theft of the CD, Walmart would have lost real money. The actual cost of the CDs. While if I download the same songs, the most anyone would have lost would be a possible sale.
But apparently we want to deter the loss of possible sales more than the actual loss of property.
If anyone needs any evidence that the copyright middlemen have too much control over our government, here it is. You steal physical property, you get a slap on the wrist. You deny someone a sale. You're out over a million bucks.
Even without the immunity defense, the guy will never see any money. Unfortunately, I can't find the article, but it's nearly impossible to collect judgments against the state of Texas.
In a nutshell, as we all know, budgets are created by legislative branches of government. In Texas, only the legislature can budget the payment of a judgment. To put it another way, a court cannot force the payment of a judgment by the state of Texas, or any city or municipality of Texas.
Even if you get a judgment against the government in Texas, you have to go through all the rigmarole to get the state legislature to pass a budget to get your money, which is completely their discretion. That rarely happens.
"with an eye towards greater user rights and freedoms"
That's copyright-industry-speak for more DRM and more delay windows. Isn't that what they told us when they broke our DVRs to implement broadcast flags on movies? Only by removing our freedom to record shows can we have the freedom to watch them.
"what's amazing to me is that the state's attorney office was willing to issue that subpoena without realizing that it appeared to be more of a personal vendetta, and without any concern for the First Amendment anonymity rights of the blogger"
You're not too familiar with Floridian politics, are you?
I've argued the same thing. If you're sharing on bittorrent, you're not sharing the entire song. You're sharing bits, merely collections of zeros and ones which are not even copyrighted, to hundreds or thousands of others. I don't see how anyone could ever prove that you shared an entire song while using bittorrent.
Was there actually any evidence admitted at trial proving that she did in fact share those songs? That is, someone actually downloaded those songs from her without authorization from the copyright holder?
I'm bored of the case too, but from my memory no such evidence was ever admitted.
"it's kind of silly that the Daily News, who is reporting on this, isn't naming the sites in question."
Justin.tv? Assuming it's illegal to broadcast copyrighted programs on justin.tv, is it illegal to watch them? If so I'll be going to NFL prison soon enough.
"if the US government really was effective in "stopping" Julian Assange, how long do you think it would take for an even more distributed group to pick up the slack?"
A short history lesson. IRC begat Napster, which began WinMX, which begat Bitorrent.
In other words, even when you plug one leak on the net, a stronger one will develop.
"So in the last 24 months they take billions from tv providers (directv,comcast, etc) and you think its smart to give those customers of their the finger and offer the same product online ?"
I'm imagining a conversation which occurred in about 1995. Someone suggested that maybe the labels should start selling music online in portable formats. The labels would point out that they make millions selling music encoded on plastic discs, and why the frick would they ever want to upset the apple cart?
Well, sometimes the apple cart gets bypassed by consumers looking for better deals. Despite numerous attempts to protect the sales of music encoded on plastic, they all failed.
"Do cable subscribers realize that you can get Fox for free with a set of rabbit ears"
No. The current generation of TV viewers are about three decades removed from the days when we received all TV from antennas. I'd guess that 99% of people under 25 would have no clue that you can get HD network television for free. 95% for those under 30.
I remember the good old days when cable companies could legally rebroadcast without paying. I still don't understand how a broadcaster could complain that its number of viewers is being increased by being rebroadcast. Expecting and demanding payment for having your audience vastly increased is pure greed.
"It tends to be a lot harder to identify folks behind a DDoS attack than you might think."
Gene is almost certainly a technological idiot. He probably did talk to some people from the FBI who likely promised to "do whatever we can" to bring these people to justice, i.e., absolutely nothing.
Or maybe Gene will sue the innocent people who own the infected machines which were used as the basis of the attack.
Are you saying that Universal Music holds the copyright to 20/20? No, you're not saying that, because that's not true. (If you are saying that, you're an idiot.)
But that particular episode of 20/20 might have featured some music, and that music might be covered by copyrights held by Universal.
However, I highly doubt the program featured full and complete songs. If it did, Universal would have sued ABC a long time ago. If the program featured any music at all, it most likely just included snippets of songs. If that's the case, then a strong fair use exists.
I've written about the music crash in the 80s before.
The point of my blog post is that whenever there is a lack of exposure to new music, the industry suffers. That's what's happening now with the labels.
The labels have been taken over by MBA bean-counters. Everything is safe and homogenized, just like it was back in the late 70s early 80s.
MTV saved the music industry back in the 80s by exposing kids to new music, British pop, metal, rap, etc. That huge wave of success died about the same time MTV stopped playing videos.
The net should have been the technological break-through to get new music exposed to kids. But the labels did their best to kill net radio and every other not-lame attempt to bring music online.
As someone once said, the internet will not kill off the music industry, just the current one.
Are you kidding, that's the easiest decision to make. Who ever made the biggest contribution. If by chance they contributed the same, hit 'em up for more.
On the post: Why Ridiculous Statutory Rates For File Sharing Are Inappropriate
Deter what? It was never proven at Tenenbaum's trial that any unauthorized person shared songs off of her computer.
Essentially, Tenenbaum is being made to pay 1.5 million dollars for downloading 24 songs.
Think about that. 24 songs is about two CDs worth of music. If I steal two CDs from Walmart, I wouldn't have even committed a felony. I'd be charged with a misdemeanor and the most I'd have to pay back is the actual cost of the CDs. About 30 bucks, tops.
In the theft of the CD, Walmart would have lost real money. The actual cost of the CDs. While if I download the same songs, the most anyone would have lost would be a possible sale.
But apparently we want to deter the loss of possible sales more than the actual loss of property.
If anyone needs any evidence that the copyright middlemen have too much control over our government, here it is. You steal physical property, you get a slap on the wrist. You deny someone a sale. You're out over a million bucks.
On the post: Photographer Sues State Of Texas For Using Image From His Photograph On Auto Inspection Stickers
In a nutshell, as we all know, budgets are created by legislative branches of government. In Texas, only the legislature can budget the payment of a judgment. To put it another way, a court cannot force the payment of a judgment by the state of Texas, or any city or municipality of Texas.
Even if you get a judgment against the government in Texas, you have to go through all the rigmarole to get the state legislature to pass a budget to get your money, which is completely their discretion. That rarely happens.
On the post: UK Plans To Review Copyright Laws (Yet Again), With Eye Towards Fair Use
That's copyright-industry-speak for more DRM and more delay windows. Isn't that what they told us when they broke our DVRs to implement broadcast flags on movies? Only by removing our freedom to record shows can we have the freedom to watch them.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Finally Responds... Makes Things Worse [Updated]
No, you now have 1,760 committed enemies.
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
You're not too familiar with Floridian politics, are you?
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
And it'll make the RIAA jealous.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Verdict: This Time It's $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs
Re:
On the post: Jammie Thomas Verdict: This Time It's $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs
Was there actually any evidence admitted at trial proving that she did in fact share those songs? That is, someone actually downloaded those songs from her without authorization from the copyright holder?
I'm bored of the case too, but from my memory no such evidence was ever admitted.
On the post: Fox Accuses Cablevision Of Telling People To Go To 'Illegal' Sites To Watch Games Fox Is Blocking
Justin.tv? Assuming it's illegal to broadcast copyrighted programs on justin.tv, is it illegal to watch them? If so I'll be going to NFL prison soon enough.
On the post: City Paper Mocks Competitors For 'Policies' Over Stewart/Colbert Rallies
11. Any laughter that targets any person of Islamic faith will lead to your immediate dismissal.
On the post: The Revolution Will Be Distributed: Wikileaks, Anonymous And How Little The Old Guard Realizes What's Going On
A short history lesson. IRC begat Napster, which began WinMX, which begat Bitorrent.
In other words, even when you plug one leak on the net, a stronger one will develop.
On the post: A Look At How Many People Have Been Kicked Offline In Korea On Accusations (Not Convictions) Of Infringement
On the post: Mark Cuban: It's Okay For Broadcasters To Block Access Based On Browsers, Because They're Making Billions
I'm imagining a conversation which occurred in about 1995. Someone suggested that maybe the labels should start selling music online in portable formats. The labels would point out that they make millions selling music encoded on plastic discs, and why the frick would they ever want to upset the apple cart?
Well, sometimes the apple cart gets bypassed by consumers looking for better deals. Despite numerous attempts to protect the sales of music encoded on plastic, they all failed.
On the post: Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs
Apparently, if he's a copyright holder and decides to add DRM to his own content, he's violating the court's order.
On the post: Democrats Are From Cablevision & Republicans Are From Fox In Retransmission Fee Dispute?
Re: Paywalls
No. The current generation of TV viewers are about three decades removed from the days when we received all TV from antennas. I'd guess that 99% of people under 25 would have no clue that you can get HD network television for free. 95% for those under 30.
On the post: Democrats Are From Cablevision & Republicans Are From Fox In Retransmission Fee Dispute?
On the post: Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail
Gene is almost certainly a technological idiot. He probably did talk to some people from the FBI who likely promised to "do whatever we can" to bring these people to justice, i.e., absolutely nothing.
Or maybe Gene will sue the innocent people who own the infected machines which were used as the basis of the attack.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
Re: Re: Re:
But that particular episode of 20/20 might have featured some music, and that music might be covered by copyrights held by Universal.
However, I highly doubt the program featured full and complete songs. If it did, Universal would have sued ABC a long time ago. If the program featured any music at all, it most likely just included snippets of songs. If that's the case, then a strong fair use exists.
On the post: Why Won't Universal Music Let You See The 20/20 Report From 1980 About How The Music Industry Is Dying?
The point of my blog post is that whenever there is a lack of exposure to new music, the industry suffers. That's what's happening now with the labels.
The labels have been taken over by MBA bean-counters. Everything is safe and homogenized, just like it was back in the late 70s early 80s.
MTV saved the music industry back in the 80s by exposing kids to new music, British pop, metal, rap, etc. That huge wave of success died about the same time MTV stopped playing videos.
The net should have been the technological break-through to get new music exposed to kids. But the labels did their best to kill net radio and every other not-lame attempt to bring music online.
As someone once said, the internet will not kill off the music industry, just the current one.
On the post: Would US Officials Really Decide Not To Sign ACTA?
Re: Obama's conundrum
Next >>