how-to block ads
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick!
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
|  
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by PolarBear  :ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick! I don't mean to laugh at your statement, but I have to. All of the lawsuits are scare tactics? Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it. Seems that most of the people I know that have been served with warning letters and lawsuits (yes, I know a couple) were indeed file sharing. Its the dollar figure that the **AA is seeking that is insane.
I have had my work used without my consent and distributed using methods I would not consent to either. I put a reasonable dollar figure on my work and there wasn't even a need to file a civil suit in any of my situations.
We need some independent governing body to step in and actually put a price on these civil suits. If someone is caught sharing 5 music files, that should be $50, not $3,000.
I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way. Just make the punishment fit the crime. These $10,000 civil suits for 10 songs is outrageous.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
1 edit | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k.
Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.
Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
| | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by PolarBear :Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. They might not, but you would be forced into bankruptcy, might have to sell off a lot of your possessions, might lose your house (if you have one), and would suffer with bad credit for awhile. All because the RIAA said you had shared a dozen songs on a P2P network. | |
| | | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice The only thing I own is a Ford Explorer. I already have bad credit. Not much else they could do.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
| | | | | 
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31 | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Pay the fine at $5 bucks a month in pennies.
Restitution can be very slow. | |
| | | | | |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice YES! | |
| | | | | | | 
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Better yet give them just a dollar a month.  | |
| | | | | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice A dollar a month sounds good, but wipe with it first, or let it soak in the litter box over night, just to pass along your new found respect for them... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Not sure why but too many people think this will get them over. Just because you pay them something, does not mean they will consider it acceptable and it most certainly does not mean your wages, bank and real estate can not be hit. Either both parties agree to a payment plan or the judge, in some cases, will set one. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice In some states like this one if they refuse a payment you can take them to court and have the bill dropped. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by hayabusa3303 :In some states like this one if they refuse a payment you can take them to court and have the bill dropped. Could you clarify this statement? I know for a fact that SC is a consumer/debtor friendly state, difficult to collect on post judgment but getting a judgment was not such an issue. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Say you owe XXX amount to a bill. If they refuse a payment you can take them to court and the judgement will be in your favor(they didnt take the money). For the back that is OWED you dont pay it and its there LOSS. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Ok, now I understand. There is a big difference though between not accepting a payment and not considering a certain amount to be enough to satisfy the terms of repayment. That said, no, you can not just pay $1 a month and consider yourself safe. Yes, they do have to take the $1 and put it toward your balance but they can still do any other post judgment remedies they see fit to collect the full balance up to and including seizure of property (state laws allowing.) SC is one of those states where you would have to bribe a judge to get anything more than voluntary arrangements. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice With the way our uneployment is here its not too hard..lol | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| It doesn't get them over. But it does send a statement and if anything, provides a little enjoyment to the payer, not the payee. Now, if most people keep up on the laws in the state which they reside, they may find some states do not allow taking ones property which is not in said person name who is listed in the lawsuit. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice If it's not in your name, it's not your property. Also, some states will not allow taking of property if the property is in an additional persons name, not party to the suit. Now, if you think you can do this after you get sued (change title on property) think again. Most states will recognize what's known as fraudulent conveyance, which basically states you changed title on property to avoid paying the judgment. If the judge believes the plaintiff, the property may then be executed upon. As mentioned, check your state laws for specifics.
One example would be CT. Even though there may be a second owner on the property, not party to the suit, a judgment lien could be used to sell 50% of the property, that which is owned by the defendant. This leaves the other party (usually a spouse) now partnered with an unknown third party who just happened to be the highest bidder. Now, if you added your spouse during the suit, fraudulent conveyance could be affirmed by the plaintiff giving them the possibility of selling the home outright.
None of the above can happen without a judgment and that is why you need to fight it. This is why I suggest counter suing no matter what. Make them provide all evidence, including the person they claim downloaded from you, along with the computer that person used. Make them spend the money to go to court against you. Just because the have deep pockets, does not mean they are looking to empty them. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | agreed. Might as well keep one person righteous in the family and keep property in "their" name..  | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Then you don't know much about Bankruptcy.. The scenerio you just described would not happen. Not to mention, a judge allowing a million dollar judgement would be doing it so, and as a favor to the defendant so that it would never be collected on. (Satisfies both parties.. the plaintiff gets their judgement, worthless as it is, and the defendant would not have to pay it.. no court would allow for insolvantcy for a case like this with an amount way beyond the means of the defendant)
By the way.. getting a judgement and actually enforcing them are two different things.
Once the judgement is obtained, they have to do a discovery of your ability to pay and assets. When they find out that there are no assets, there is a very slim chance they would ever collect or persue.
The legal system is not as cut and dry as some people like to believe it is.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice The legal system is fine if you're rich and have the money to use it. And it's fine if you're poor and they can't collect. However, if you're somewhere in the middle, you can't effectively defend yourself and they'll take everything and garnishee you into slavery for the rest of your life (now that you can't get a Chap 7 bankruptcy as long as you have income). | |
| | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| said by PolarBear :Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k. Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more. I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist.
No matter what the price of these things will be, there will always be people who will use P2P to get them or share them. Imagine if software makers dropped the price across the board by 50% if you downloaded instead of bought in the stores. The stores could drop their price by 25% for those who wanted the hard copy. There would still be people who pirate. Same goes for music and movies. Even music as cheap as allofmp3 would get distributed illegally. People will do anything to save a buck, including pirate.
These people must be punished at some level. If someone is so cheap to not pay .25 cents a song, they should be hit with a $10 per song shared bill. People who fight it in court better be expected to pay court costs if they lose. Nothing is anonymous on the internet, so people who are dumb enough to get caught sharing should get nailed. I am glad we agree on the cost being inflated at least.
In short, there has to be a way to protect the intellectual property of others. I am a published writer and photographer, and I have caught other websites and news organizations using my work without my permission and without paying me. These people, when confronted, paid up because they knew they were in the wrong and I didn't put a outlandish $3000 per article or picture on it either. Its amazing how, when the price is reasonable, there is no arguement if one party knows they were in the wrong.
Glad we at least agreed on some things. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by Nightfall :I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist. Back during the heyday of Napster, I thought the recording industry should team up with Napster and build an online music store. The idea would be to limit the bitrate of the "free, shared" music. Say 96kbps tops. Then they would sell higher bitrate (and more reliably produced) versions for differing prices. The higher the bitrate, the more it would cost. (Of course, all of the songs would be reasonably priced. It would just cost more for more quality.)
They could have thought of the free, low bitrate songs like radio copies. Free publicity. Sure, some people wouldn't buy the higher bitrate copies, but some people are content to listen to music on the radio and never buy the CDs. Many more people would be likely to hear the low quality version and decide to buy a higher quality version to keep.
Instead, they decided to stomp Napster out of existence and in doing so provided the climate for the P2P apps to develop. Finally, after many years of fighting music online, they finally figured that they could benefit from online music, but even now they seem to regard online music as a bastard child. Something that should be dealt with with a wary eye and kept as hidden away as possible lest some embarrassing questions be asked. | |
| | | 
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | said by PolarBear :Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. You obviously don't know how our legal system works. If a court orders you to pay a certain amount to someone and you are unable to do so willingly, the courts have the authority to find and dip into your bank accounts, confiscate your property and garnish your wages and other official income.
So suppose that you do lose $1 billion to RIAA. While most likely you'll never be able to pay them back in full, you'll be constantly "sharing" a part of what you make with them for the rest of your life. There are, of course, ways around it. You can flee the country, but you'd have to move to a third-world one because in a civilized one you will eventually be caught and extradited back to the US. You can move your money off-shore to a country that doesn't cooperate with the US. Or you can work off the books, but you won't make much and risk going down for tax evasion.
The purpose of these ridiculous fines it to scare the sh*t out of people. RIAA/MPAA are showing that they are big and powerful, but most of all capable of destroying people's lives and are more than willing to do so when they catch someone who messes with them.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill...
| |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice You are KIND OF right.. (Many of the laywers I have as clients deal in this very practice).. I posted more on it above in another message.
When discovery is done, they figure you don't have the ability to pay, their judgment would most likely be stayed or reduced and that would be the end of it. The initial judgement would be on record but what ultimately happens in the end is different.
"CAN" they do what you said? Sure.. would/do they? In VERY rare occasions.. to this day, the punishment is still based on the situation.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Wow, your pretty close to being wrong. What pirate515 is true of any company that is looking to collect on any large number of judgments. You always look to hit the bank accounts and garnish wages. You also look to lien and possibly force a sale on any real estate. If they do not have any of the above, the judgment is never reduced or stayed as you have put it. Also, keep in mind that all states are different but I can tell you we sue in yours quite often and collect monthly from wage garnishments, bank attachments and sometimes property sales. Discovery is only a required process in a few states. KY, for example, requires no discovery post judgment and no notification aside from the judgment itself before a wage garnishment begins.
My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. | |
| | | | | |
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by Midak :My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. Great suggestion, but when taking on an organization with huge amount of money in the bank such as RIAA, does it really pay to drag the thing on? You are forgetting that the defendant's lawyer(s) also charge by the hour, and when individual Joe Schmoe takes on the RIAA, he will run out of money way much faster than RIAA will. That is why the majority of those who get sued choose to settle, as they are presented with 2 choices: pay RIAA $5,000-10,000 to make this go away or spend several times more defending themselves with no guarantee of winning, and if they do lose, you could owe up to $150,000 per song.
Of course, there are people out there with enough money to drag the lawsuits on for as long as it takes, but something tells me that RIAA doesn't pick on them. They are too afraid to tackle someone of their own size, they'd rather prey on small and weak.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
| | | | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice They may have a huge bankroll but the reason for that is they dont spend it where they dont ned to. If I told you I could get 5k each from 100 suits while only spending 150 in court costs and 25% to my attorney and do this fast, why waste the time and money on the ones where I will spend 5k in attorney fees due to them charging me hourly for their defense of the counter claim? Sure, I could defend the counterclaim, bury the poor sap I am suing and get a judgment for $150k but now I have to try to collect it. Now, instead of just making up for the $150 investment, I have to also make up for the $5k in attorney fees so even if I do a wage garnishment, the first $5150 is just getting back what I invested. No, the quick money for the win every time. Poor people make poor payers, the more affluent can afford to defend the claims. That said, if you have no real estate, file your answer and counter claim pro-se claiming harrassment and lack of evidence. Also be sure to include the plaintiffs attorney in your counter claim to really grab their attention. | |
| | | | | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? I'm not too sure I would. The $3,000 settlement would be a lot of money, but it would mean that it would all go away quickly rather than dragging on. It's sad, but true. And that's the main reason why I think that the penalties need to be changed.
If the fines faced were only $3,000 or so, then I'd bet that the RIAA would be suing a lot less people (based on better information) and the innocent people would be more likely to fight the charges. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by Jason Levine :They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by Midak :Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. I would applaud you then for going to court to fight to clear your good name. Unfortunately, you are in the minority. Most people wouldn't know what they are doing if they went to court.
To the average Joe, a multimillion dollar lawsuit against them coming out of the blue is a very scary thing. They don't know which way to turn or what to do. Their whole life could be ruined. And then the offer comes in from the RIAA's Settlement Center to forget the whole thing for a "mere" $3,000. Sure, it's still a lot of money, but it is less than the millions they could wind up owing and it saves them the time, expense, and stress of an actual lawsuit. So they take the settlement. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY | Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice Agreed. In my business, this is what we hope for. Judgments mean nothing without the cash being paid. Any plaintiff that does this often enough knows it's a gamble going to court, regardless of how strong you feel your case is. | |
| | | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by Midak :My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. This is good advice in theory. In practice though, the people being sued have limited time and resources to fight a long, protracted case. Anything that will create a financial hit on the RIAA will bankrupt your average Joe. The RIAA knows this and is counting on people to take the quick and easy settlement rather than fight the charges (even if the person is innocent). | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Wow! Are you an attorney? Giving advice? with out a disclaimer?
Either you are not an attorney, or you need to know better....
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by fiberguy :Wow! Are you an attorney? Giving advice? with out a disclaimer? Either you are not an attorney, or you need to know better.... Please stop spewing bad advice and providing misinformation. I know better from experience, while your claims are based on who you say you know. Have a nice day. | |
| | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Actually, the minimum punishment is $750 per violation. If you have 1,000 violations (like RIAA claims that the people that sue have), then that is $750,000. The courts might work with you as far as payment goes: A lien on your income, sale of real estate that you own, etc. However, they won't reduce the verdict just because you don't have the funds to cut a check right then and there.
Of course, the RIAA might never see most of their hypothetical verdict even at the minimum, but that's not the point. Even if the court did alter the final amount based on what the person could pay, the RIAA would use the potential of huge penalties to scare people into settling. The maximum punishment is $150,000 per song, so the RIAA will claim that your choice is take their $3,000 settlement or face $150,000,000 in fines (plus legal fees and time spent fighting the case). | |
| | | | 
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Oh, so is that what happened to OJ Simpson?
"I gave all my money to my lawyers, so I don't have any left to pay off the families of those I didn't murder (no matter what the jury said). I have some income but it's just enough to keep me for food, rent and greens fees." | |
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| I've long been a fan of having two separate penalty systems for copyright violations. Call them "Professional" and "Casual."
Professional Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright for profit. And example would be those folks that get one CD, burn a hundred copies, and sell them on the street corner for $1 each. The penalties for Professional Copyright Violators would be the same as the current scheme calls for.
Casual Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright without seeking profit. (If you violate copyright with profit in mind, but are unsuccessful at it, you still get classified as a Professional.) An example of this would be someone who shares out copyrighted music on a P2P network without the copyright holder's permission. The penalties for this would be much less. Let's say about three times the cost that buying the item would typically incur.
Using this system, a person caught sharing 1,000 songs on a P2P network would need to pay three times $0.99 (iTunes cost) for each song, or $2,970. (Ironically, I picked that number out of the blue and it wound up very close to the RIAA settlement figure. It wasn't intentional!) At that amount, the guilty will still feel a financial hit ($3K is a big amount for most people) but the innocent won't feel so threatened that they just automatically roll over because it is easier and cheaper. | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by Jason Levine :Professional Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright for profit. And example would be those folks that get one CD, burn a hundred copies, and sell them on the street corner for $1 each.... Casual Copyright Violators would be anyone who violates copyright without seeking profit. ... An example of this would be someone who shares out copyrighted music on a P2P network without the copyright holder's permission. The penalties for this would be much less. Why should the penalties be much less? The potential damages to the copyright owner are far, far greater.
In your examples, the copyright owner, in the case of the "professional violator", only loses the potential revenue from 100 customers. In the case of the "casual violator", the violator has published the copyright owner's property for free, unlimited, worldwide distribution, via the internet, which means that the owner potentially loses his entire customer base. That's why the fines for this type of infringement are so high, and can even include criminal penalties now, in certain circumstances. | |
| | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice The penalties are worse because the professional violator is looking to get a quick buck off of someone else's copyrighted item (without the appropriate permission). My example cited 100 customers, but the professional violator likely wouldn't stop there. They would press thousands of copies and sell them on the street corner. These "lost sales" (I tend to hate that term) are sales of the entire CD. So even with my limited example, the 100 customers means a loss of $1,500 (given $15 per CD usually). (This ignores the fact that some of those $1 buyers wouldn't have bought the $15 legitimate version, but let's ignore that for now.)
Meanwhile, the casual violator might be someone made a thousand songs onto a P2P network, but it is hard to prove just how many people downloaded from them. Across those 1,000 songs, they might have had a single download or a dozen, or a hundred thousand. So absent any ability to determine how many songs were downloaded, I would err on the side of caution. Assume that each song was downloaded once (the one time that the RIAA downloaded the file to confirm that it was the right file) and assign penalties from there.
With P2P shared music, the competition isn't really the CD, but digital sales (iTunes, Napster, etc) which tend to run $0.99 each. Given that, and given the one share = one download assumption, the "lost sales" amount to $990. Therefore, it really isn't fair to charge $750 - $150,000 per violation, or $750,000 - $150,000,000 total. Tripling the "lost sales" figure provides an amount that will act as a disincentive to uploaders while not bankrupting ordinary people who don't understand the particulars of copyright law. (And there are a lot of those people out there.) | |
| | iSEPIC
join:2001-04-17
Las Vegas, NV
| quote:
Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it.
you see, this *IS* the problem, YOU as being the defendant SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PROVE anything, they should have to prove you did it, and just having an IP address doesn't mean crap, unless you're very new to the technology, and if you are (meaning the judge for instance) you should consult. | |
| | |
See 14 replies to this post | |
| Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by Nightfall :Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it. ...and then there were the cases of RIAA coming down upon the deceased grandmother who never owned a PC, and various other cases. Their lawsuits are historically far from flawless. Just because they claim they have "evidence" doesn't mean it's not just another botched claim and/or lawsuit fishing expedition.
If it was another company, maybe. However, RIAA has a track record of suing first, and verifying their evidence later. I wouldn't be surprised if many in their lawsuit files were yet more fudged data. | |
| | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice said by Thaler :said by Nightfall :Its hard to argue when the **AA has your IP address logged, ISP records that it was your IP coming from your modem, and the items you were downloading. Unless, you weren't file sharing in the first place and can prove it. ...and then there were the cases of RIAA coming down upon the deceased grandmother who never owned a PC, and various other cases. Their lawsuits are historically far from flawless. Just because they claim they have "evidence" doesn't mean it's not just another botched claim and/or lawsuit fishing expedition. If it was another company, maybe. However, RIAA has a track record of suing first, and verifying their evidence later. I wouldn't be surprised if many in their lawsuit files were yet more fudged data. All the more reason to have that evidence available to you to defend yourself. That is the crappy thing about civil court cases. Thankfully, I have only had to file a civil court case once, and never had to go in any of my copyright infringement cases. You can show all the evidence you have, and even if it is iffy or too technical, they will just approve it. Which is why there needs to be some kind of governing body to overlook this process, especially with digital media rights.
That said, just because mistakes were made doesn't make copyright infringement a lesser crime. There has to be some kind of repercussions for this. Just because a company has screwed up doesn't mean those laws should be just thrown out the window. It just means that these lawsuits should be analyzed and dealt out by a group that is a little more neutral and can analyze those claims.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| said by Nightfall :I am all about limiting the **AA frivolous lawsuits, but I think people who commit copyright infringement should be punished in some way. Watch out, you'll be called a troll for having morals. | |
| | | | | 
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by Nightfall :said by PolarBear :ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick! I don't mean to laugh at your statement, but I have to. How many lawsuits have the **IA won? NONE. Do you know why none of these cases have been resolved in court? Because if the **IA loses, even one, a precedent is set and this tactic will no longer work.
--
I'm for freedom - go ahead and call me a terrorist. I won't give up my freedom for you to feel safe. | |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
·Verizon Online DSL
| Exactly and the consumers for the most part fall for it or do not have the denarius to fight them.
The corrupt/clueless court officials and lawmakers allow big business to set the tone in the US so the behavior of the RIAA & MPAA will continue unabated for awhile.
--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something". - Plato | |
| | | |
|
