how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4  |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
 ·Site5.com
edit:
November 6th, @11:42AM
| reply to aaron83_01
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by aaron83_01  :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 | |
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA
·CableOne
edit:
November 6th, @11:51AM
| 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 $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k.
Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.
Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| said by aaron83_01 :Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. They might not, but you would be forced into bankruptcy, might have to sell off a lot of your possessions, might lose your house (if you have one), and would suffer with bad credit for awhile. All because the RIAA said you had shared a dozen songs on a P2P network. | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
·Site5.com
| reply to aaron83_01
said by aaron83_01 :Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ 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 | |
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA | reply to Jason Levine
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. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to Nightfall
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. | |
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
Erie, PA | reply to aaron83_01
Pay the fine at $5 bucks a month in pennies.
Restitution can be very slow. | |
iSEPIC
join:2001-04-17
San Jose, CA
 ·QuantumVoice
| reply to Nightfall
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. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to Nightfall
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. | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
·Site5.com
| reply to iSEPIC
said by iSEPIC : 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. Well, look at it from this perspective...
They have your IP address.
ISP has your records as to the lease on that IP was yours.
ISP has the bills saying you are paying for the internet connection.
You are responsible for the data being transmitted on that connection.
You as the defendant can counter those claims. This person did by saying her wireless router was wide open, and someone else did it. Well, it worked because the judge let her off. Would it work again? Who knows.
Point is that the defendant can present evidence to the contrary in a civil case. If all the evidence points to the defendant, the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent. They should have a say in the matter, like the person in the article did.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA
·CableOne
| reply to iSEPIC
iSEPIC, I agree wholly.
An excerpt from another post of mine in a different forum:
The plaintiff in a civil suit should be required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury of at least 6 peers, similar to a criminal case. The idea of "whoever's case sounds slightly better wins," sucks ass, especially since, unlike a criminal charge, you can sue someone for ANYTHING!
Also, the plaintiff (and his lawyer) should be required to show the court what the plaintiff has spent on his legal "offense," and pay the same amount to the defendant for his defense before the proceeding may commence. Or something similar to that. My point to this is, a large corporation with a multi-million dollar team of attorneys should not be able to sue Jane Doe and her kids who can barely afford her Kia Payment and the Mac and Cheese on the dinner table. If Major Corp. sues Jane Doe, Jane has the right to be equally defended at no cost to her, since she didn't start the lawsuit in the first place (just like in the criminal court system; they'll give you a lawyer if you can't afford to hire one).
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA
·CableOne
edit:
November 6th, @12:59PM
| reply to Nightfall
I don't think iSEPIC's point was how much evidence they had against you, but that the current civil suit system is simply unfair to the defendant.
You think the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent? Ever been charged with a crime (especially a felony) Nightfall? I'm willing to bet you have NEVER had to defend yourself in a court of law. Do that, then get back to us on defendant's rights.
What if I were to sue you for $1,000,000 for whatever-I-could-come-up-with? Say, you painted your house purple and it lowered the value of mine (this happened in Seattle one time, don't remember the outcome). I had a picture of your newly-painted house, and an old and recent appraisal of my home showing this. Looks like I could surely prove my case.
Oh, but shouldn't you have the right as a US citizen and a homeowner in the US to paint your house as you see fit?
That was rhetorical; don't answer it. I was just trying to make a point. You should not be allowed to sue anyone over any bullshit you want, and if you do, the poor bastard you sue should have some rights.
In our criminal system, there are only certain things the prosecution may charge you with, and even then, they are REQUIRED to give you a lawyer (albeit a lousy one), and THEY must prove you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have to do it all within 90 days unless you agree to a continuance.
Why should a criminal be afforded all those rights, yet John Doe who is a good citizen who minds his own damn business can be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit, and his only rights are to pay for his own defense and spend his own time and money to try and win?
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
·chambers cable
·Qwest.net
| reply to Jason Levine
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. | |
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA | reply to Grail Knight
YES! | |
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Better yet give them just a dollar a month.  | |
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to aaron83_01
If the **AA wanted to prove a point why don't they file criminal actions against the alleged persons?
They would then have to prove it (not just attempt to extort $3k and drop the case).
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... | |
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA | PERFECT, bigjim! | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to aaron83_01
Just to tweak the analogy a bit closer to the RIAA, after you sued Nightfall for painting his house purple, you would quickly contact him and tell him that you were willing to settle for $3,000. Otherwise, he could look forward to a long, drawn out trial, tons of legal expenses, and financial ruin when he finally lost his case. (You might also remind him that you have plenty of time and money to fight this case and that he would likely tire before you.)
Of course, if he signs the settlement, he has to agree that painting his house purple lowered the value of the other houses on the block. And your settlement won't protect him should the other neighbors decide to sue also. | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to bigjimc
Nah, it proves their point by all of those dirty rotten pirates who settle. Ignore the fact that the lawsuit and potential expenses stemming from it likely scares many innocent people into settling rather than fighting. That's not important. What's important is that their settlement papers say that they are dirty rotten pirates!
(Above said with heavy sarcasm just in case someone doesn't get it. ) | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to PDXPLT
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.) | |
|
