RIAA WINS: Woman loses downloading case
 

$220,000 dollars to the RIAA for a woman who was sued for downloading songs. Instead of settling out of court for a few hundred to a few thousand, she went to court and lost.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3330186.shtml

(the reader comments at the bottom are classic).

Ding. Hey Gideon, want to talk about the risk / reward levels for people downloading stuff? Want to discuss what the courts would do to someone seeding the stuff?

Waaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit...... what about her FAIR USE rights??? didnt' the judge think about that?

You know... if she had been in Sweden, it would have been OK.

Kazaa... do they run via torrent? I don't believe so... can't wait until Gideon comes in and says.. well, sure... Kazaa is different... because torrents are legal.. Kazaa is a P2P protocol.

Mark one up for the good guys. Now if they publish the hell out of it, it may have an effect.

Something kind of disturbing about this case is that the only link they needed to get the guilty verdict was her IP address. The original hard drive wasn't even presented.

Unprotected or comprimised wireless internet routers or trojaned computers are a real possibility. If I had been on that jury I would have needed evidence that she was the one actually doing it. Not just evidence that it involved her IP.

Thats great news, I hope they keep going and sue more people, then people might start getting message

I read an article on Tech Dirt about it. In that article they mentioned that she had used the same user name on kazaa that she used on a lot of other programs as well. That's what made their case stronger.

Plus, from what I've read, it wasn't because she was 'downloading' files, she was being sued because she made the files available to others.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but downloading files aren't what's illegal here, it is sharing or making them available for others that is the legal issue, right?

On engadget the amount of people defending her and talking how fucked up sony is.Makes me want to throw up, dont people realize its stealing.

Well, sony does suck ass. Mostly because of all their retarded proprietary hardware that they try to shove down ppl's throats.

Ouch..... damn

I don't think that's the point.. but lets run with it anyway.

If we didn't have people sharing, we couldn't have people downloading illegally from them now could we?

Also.. if I am a prosecutor... I would rather go after the girl that shared the file 1750 times, than find the 1750 downloaders. It just makes it easier on me. It also scares the shit out of the other sharers and gets them to stop hopefully. Even moreso.... one person violating the law 1750 times gets me the same financial benefit in punishment as 1750 single violators.... I save money prosecuting the single offender rather than chasing the big group just on economies of scale.

If you were a prosecutor, you had better go after the people uploading/sharing the files, because those that are only downloading aren't breaking any laws.

dav3, not really. downloaders are breaking the law just like the uploaders, but the ability to prove the violation is a little bit harder with music. Music is very different from other forms of entertainment, because there are many ways that a user could end up with a file. He could buy the CD (pretty rare these days, apparently), he could buy a track from Itunes or similar, or he could have a friend play the disc on his computer and have the files downloaded onto the machine.

It also isn't the big end of the game. The end user downloading a song isn't anywhere near as important as the original seeder sharing that file with hundreds or thousands of other people. That is where things become a real issue. If you stop the one seeder, you have stopped potentially thousands of copies of the music being made.

It was also clear that the woman in this case was offered the standard "low cost" deal, probably a couple of thousand dollars, and she turned it down and went to court. She got nailed good and solid, and in doing so, set a very strong precedent that will almost certainly be used in other cases. I know if I was a US citizen getting served by the RIAA's lawyers right now, I would be much more likely to settle than I would to go to court with that clear loss on the table.

One other thing that I have noticed about most file share networks or protocols is that in downloading a file, you automatically become a download source as well. uTorrent software, as an example, automatically makes your PC into a seed for that file as well. Even as you download, you are peered to others who are taking the pieces you have already downloaded. Effectively there is no way to download without doing at least some outbound traffic as well, from what I can tell.

It's just like that.

In criminal cases the burden is on the prosecutor to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty. Civil courts are different the plaintiff only has to prove there is a 50%+ chance the defendant is liable or owes the plaintiff damages.

I bet the number of defendants that would settle out of court will raise now. Could be a cool source of income for RIAA, just send out a few letters and collect a few $1000 each time.

RIAA should invest some money to make it more public, that should further improve their settlement conversion rate :1orglaugh

Been saying it all along... go after the people PROVIDING the files illegally. No responces ever to that in multiple threads I have said it in. Guess it just makes to much sense eh? Everyone keeps pissing and moaning about the torrent sites fuck them... get the endusers, make them pay.. and pretty soon you will not have anymore end users sharing this shit. They need to make it easier to nail some of these people, then the problem would start to take care of itself.

Sure getting the seeders makes sense.. but so does going after the conduit of transmission.

It would be damn hard to share a file if you didn't have a means by which to share it.

Gerco is right. We as an industry need to come together and go after those illegally sharing our work. Nail them and offer them the options, settle or see you in court. Then use the funds to go after then next guy.

As for the hard drive issue, she took it out and lost it AFTER she had been found out. The jury might of took that as a sign.

Kevin
Go after the easiest targets not the toughest. Not the fairest but the most effective. Of course if the law changes then the tactic can change.

Great. Now make your own music, share it, and sue them :)

I never take shit to court

As others have said it is illegal to download the files. But the RIAA/MPAA will always go after the people sharing or uploading. When you start distributing just about anything illegally you're going to get a in a lot more trouble than if it was just for you. With p2p networks it's all based on sharing so it's going to be hard to avoid using p2p.

False. They ARE breaking the law. Downloading data that isn't yours to download is stealing. It's theft. However, just like the police going to the dealer to get the drugs bust, they're going to people who share, because they're giving the file as well as downloading. That makes them a source.

But no ... downloading only is not legal and they're still breaking laws.

She should've known better.

Ouch, she should of just settled

I have repeatedly said you should go after the INFRINGING SEEDER directly

This is a perfect example of such an INFRINGING SEEDER

She had no fair use right to the content because she had not aquired any rights to the content

She did not buy the CD with those songs, she did not buy those tracks from itunes, rapsody or any of the song by song download sites.

Compare it with my tv example, i bought the rights to the tv shows by buying the cable subscription.

If you don't get this exactly the type of case i am arguing you SHOULD FIGHT. The RIAA did not sue KAZZA they sued the individual who was actually INFRINGING on their copyright.

i'd like to know how they worked out $220,000 ?

for what of what she downloaded is worth $220,000 ?

who makes up these fig's ?

Damn lawyers...

The recording industry. It wasnt about downloading, it was about sharing. They awarded the RIAA something like almost 10k per song shared.

They did have more evidence against this girl, than in a typical file sharer case. Specifically because of her Kazaa username. I don't think the girl was in the right or should be let off the hook, but the amount awarded is ridiculously absurd. I dont know how anyone can call it fair or "just". Its disgusting.

Not to mention, almost all piracy statistics used in this case, and others are completely made up or built on false premises (such as assuming everyone who downloads a file, would have bought the cd, so every download translates as a lost sale). They literally get to make this shit up and put it forth as evidence, w/ no challenge.

Oh please... this is like saying you go after the drug dealer and not the whole network that brings the drugs... after all, the farmers are just working with the innocuous cocoa leaf, the chemicals they use are intended for other legal purposes until they use them illegally.

When they have enough user examples and they have percentages high enough, they show that kazaa, just like all other sharing protocols, does not do anything to dissuade copyright infringement in the slightest. Which in turn makes it guilty as an accessory and negligence.

If you are aware of the crime in your house, yet you do nothing to stop it, you may as well just sign up to work for the criminals.

I still think your TV example is walking the line. You recording somethign for your own viewing later is the logic of the law... sharing it with others via mass distribution is never how it was intended. At that point, you have made yourself and the distribution channel a network. There is no way it was ever intended to work in that manner. You also didn't buy the right to the TV show, you bought the right to view the show when it was delivered via the cable network. Re-distribution is logically outside of those lines.

It wasn't 10k per song shared... the stats were roughly 1700 violations by the defendant. That's about $130 per violation. Kind of like a speeding ticket per violation.

Court decisions are made as punishments to those involved as well as deterrents to those considering the crime. If they were reasonable, people would weigh the punishment against the crime and many would choose that they could "afford" to do the crime. If the judgement is lofty, the deterrent is greater.

How can you say it's a false premise and use your logic to determine that the users were acceptable, but they never would have been purchasers? That's fine.. but if they really wanted the song, they should have recorded it off the radio. That they have a right to do. If you are a user of a song/video file/software program, etc... you are down the road of purchasing much more than someone who has no interest. Logic reasons that you would either purchase, or you had illegal intentions with your use. At that point it doesn't matter if you intended to purchase or not, it only matters that you are using. Defacto reasoning indicates you are now a purchaser that has just not transferred the funds for your use.

Even if not every download was a lost sale, a percentage of them are. You also have the detrimental effect to the marketing of the work. Why buy it when you can get it for free? Legal judgements are based on actual damages and punitive damages. They both work to compensate the offended party for loses.

you keep making arguments without facts about how wrong i am without producing facts. you keep arguing that when fair use and your commercial rights collide fair use lose even though in every case when that has happened fair use has trumped those commercial rights.


i suggest you answer my question from the other thread before you spout off again about how absolute your commerical rights are under the copyright act.

Because you buy a cable subscription doesnt give you ownership of anything.

Good luck getting a jury that even understands what you just wrote.

A jury is made up of 12 people that are to stupid to get off jury duty.

Sounds to me as though her attorney needs the shit kicked out of him.

just because they had an IP address does not prove she did it.

Wrong. See this is where you make a very major mistake. You don't buy the rights to the shows. You buy the right to legally view the shows if and when they are presented, and to record (on DVR or VCR) one channel at a time and perhaps the right to watch another one while it is recording.

You don't have the rights to the shows. You cannot redistribute them. You cannot republish them. You cannot resell them. You cannot make copies of them beyond what I mentioned above.

When you go to a movie theater and pay to watch a movie, it is the same thing. You have RESTRICTED RIGHTS based on what you are paying for. In a movie, you have the right to a single seat, single viewing. You cannot invite your friend in for free, you cannot run a camcorder to record the movie, and having bought a ticket to the movie in theater doesn't mean you can go to your local bestbuy and take a copy for free when it comes out.

Restricted rights. You pay a certain amount to have certain rights.

Going after the seeders are good. It doesn't matter if she had the rights or not (doesn't matter if she downloaded the songs or copied them from her own CD, that isn't the issue at hand). Going after the seeders is particularly useful in two ways, first the obvious deterrent factor to the general public, who may realize that their internet usage isn't exactly anonymous like they think, and also that with a number of these cases showing that the P2P network is an integral part of and a required part of the violation, that those types of sites can be more actively pursued in a legal sense.

I would thnk that there is potential here to show that foreign bases P2Ps would be breaking US law in the US, and as such, be liable.

This court decision is the tip of a very large iceberg indeed, and it must have you and your torrent buddies shitting your collective pants thinking of the implications.

never said it gave me ownership rights

1. to view
2. to time shift and view at a later time
3. to recover from backup anything i misplaced or damaged
4. and to gain access from other liciences for things that i missed (like if my tv failed and missed my favorite show)

the arguement that i have to spend 2 grand to buy a media pc to record when i can use a torrent to legally implement my timeshifting/ recovery rights is absurd.

Thats really the crux of the issue. From what I have read so far, it looks like the judge initially instructed the jury that the RIAA had to prove that violations took place.

Later, he changed his mind, and decided that making available was good enough.

Everything I have read, said she had about 24 songs shared, and that is about 9250$ per song. No one knows how many violations occured, if any. The 1700 violations appears to come out of thin air, there was zero proof of any of the songs actually being transferred, which is why this judgment is so insane.

From what I read they didn't just have her IP address, they had usage information as well based on her username from Kazaa as well as other locations.

Unless she can prove that her username/password were hijacked.. she's S.O.L. And I am sure at some point, RIAA would prove that she was actually at or near the computer in question. Also.. destroying or getting rid of the offending HD is a good indicator that something was wrong.. otherwise.. why dump it?

There's a lot of other YOU CAN'Ts that should go right alongside that which would match his TV examples.

Alex.. this is my favorite part of your arguement. It really is.

Why Gideon are people not lining up at movie theaters with their camcorders saying I want to watch this later too and therefore I must record it now? Or more so.. they should be demanding that the movie theaters provide them with digital recording jacks at every seat to ensure that their fair use rights are complied with. After all.. I have a fair use right to timeshift my viewing. I would also like to be able to distribute this to other viewers that have attended this movie but did not record it as I have.... without any proof of course.

provide the link to what you are reading.. I am curious to read your info as well.

you missed one very important one, i do have a right to redistribute to people who have said viewing rights.

If you were correct and i did not have such a right then TV Stations would have won the right to force VCR to encode something in the beginning of recorded shows that would have prevented them from playing in another VCR.

THEY DID NOT.

IF power went out in my house and my vcr did not tape my favorite show, i had a right to get a copy fo that show from a friend.

When i upload to the swarm that is exactly the right i am using because as i have said before everyone who is illegally participating will get sued or cut off.


exactly my point
i paid for a certain level of rights, if i did not have those rights the ruling in the betamax case would not have been as such.
DRM, movie theaters, restricted use access are all legitimate, the BETAMAX case respects the right

The key to why this was the desenting position instead of the majority is that the technology in question must be implemented for the copyright holder to claim that they are so limiting rights. The end user must agree to that limitation of right to gain access to the content.


sure it is that why the RIAA tried to prove that she aquired the songs from the P2P network

you may want to make that arguement all you want but the problem is that your artificial expansion of copyright law would create a situation where the .torrent file would be entitled to the same protection as your copyright material.

Again, wrong. You are correct for points 1 and 2. But for points 3 and 4, sorry, but you are wrong. If you missed CSI last night, you don't have the right to go download it this morning. If you didn't happen to see that movie that played on HBO last night, you didn't suddenly get the rights to watch it today. The receiving gear and storage of material received is YOUR problem, not the industry's problem.

When you say "gain access from other liciences" (and I won't comment on the spelling) you miss the main point: everyone else is under the same restricted license with NO RIGHTS FOR REDISTRIBUTION. They have the same restricted rights that you had in watching it.

If you pay for cable TV this month, it doesn't mean that the cable company has to once again provide you access when the shows return as a repeat in the future. It doesn't mean they have to give you copies of the programs you might have missed.

You really don't get it, do you?

Yeah, that bothered me as well. I haven't read too deeply about the case, but I would want to see something more. If I remember correctly doesn't Kazza (sp?) continue to run after the user closes it out? I never used it personally, but from what I've heard alot of file sharing programs are like spyware. I know I've walked people through their task manager to stop the processes and their add / remove programs to get rid of it. :2 cents:

Gideon, again, you have it backwards - it isn't for the end receivers to decide if they have rights to something or not. You as a RESTRICTED RIGHTS owner don't have the right to make widespread distribution. The onus is on you to prove that each person that you gave a copy to had the rights to it. Putting the file on a torrent site is EXACTLY the same as starting your own TV station and broadcasting the tape. You don't have that right either.

not true you have no rights to share anything because you pay a cable bill.Do a google search with the words hbo and bit torrent. They are going after people for downloading hbo's shows. nothing in it about asking them for their cable bills.

Me'thinks Gideon is assuming he has rights that he, in fact, doesn't have.

Go RIAA! Score one for the good guys. :thumbsup

Since we are all spouting off about things we don't know (I am not a lawyer).

Try reading the public filing record listed here:

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull...tatementofCase

then spout off based on what you read.

BTW... Gideon.. as I read it, your claims to distribution are not based in case law. From what I read, the copyright holder retains distribution rights. Read the case law and let us know what you come up with.

Actually, I thought about it a minute, and I have to add this:

In this case, the RIAA won. Almost undoubtedly, the woman found liable had heard the songs on the radio. Perhaps, she even heard the songs on XM or some other subscription based service. It is also likely that the people who received free copies of the song had also heard the song in the same manner. Perhaps some of them even attended a concert where one or more of the songs was performed.

None of those things gave her the right to seed the files out for distribution.

None of those things gave anyone the right to receive those files.

None of those things created a right of ownership or granted unlimited distribution rights.

Gideon, you are making a major, major mistake in your logic assuming that a fee paid once for one type of right grants you all other rights without limit for as long as you want. That just isn't the case.

Thats alot of money

Alex.. in the case of a song over the radio or a show over the television, there is no fee paid! You don't get distribution rights.. period.. the end. Those are retained by the copyright holder.

You as an individual have a right to copy something for yourself. Plain and simple. The original is supposed to be owned by you, not by someone else. If you make a recording of a song off the radio.. fine.. back it up if you like. don't back it up for someone else or offer it to someone else.. that's a violation. Same goes for a television recording, software, video file, etc etc etc.