# $80,000.00 per song judgement



## MA-Caver

> *Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer        Steve Karnowski, Associated Press Writer               2 hrs 13 mins ago
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloadingMINNEAPOLIS  A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result  a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.
> A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
> Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.
> The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.
> Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.
> Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
> "*There's no way they're ever going to get that*," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."



Well shoot... I reckon I owe the music industry $184 million by my last count. Will they take a check? 
That is just plain nuts. Are they going to go after the other 30-40 million other people who could'nt afford the original CD to begin with and get anything out of them? They going to start throwing folks in jail? Going to repo houses and cars and whatever else a person owns and gain just a pittance of the amount they SAY is due? 

Honestly I think they need to go after the software engineers who designed the programs that enabled people to download the songs in the first place. Without the means people wouldn't be able to download them now would they? They could've gone after webmasters or whomever to design whatever downloads are made that they are of poor quality and basically not worth listening to. 

Movies usually have anti-pirate coding (which can be circumvented around) on the DVD's so I am presuming that all newly printed CD's have the same thing? 
Yet what about the thousands of songs already out there on the Net? 
The music industry obviously didn't take in account the potential of a music digitally re-recorded for writing to a CD ROM and didn't anticipate the passing from one person to another. 
Funny how they didn't raise THAT big of a fuss when folks were copying cassette tapes or vinyl albums to cassettes. 
I'm sure I wasn't the ONLY one doing this... and merely for the reason that there's no way to play a 45 or 33 rpm record in the car.


----------



## Ken Morgan

I know of someone who has 100 000+ songs and 3000+ movies, Hell catch a few more like him and you can kiss your national debt goodbye!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Well, that award probably was 10x more than any of those songs individually earned on iTunes in sales.  All this does is show that the system is broken.


----------



## jks9199

I'd love to hear the reasoning that got to one person owing $80000 per song...  Even at $50 a CD, figuring 13 or so songs per CD...  You'd be looking at nearly 21000 people downloading the songs!  (I'm assuming that they nailed her for file sharing...)

Sorry -- this award is just nuts on so many levels...

And the simple fact is that there's going to have to be a change in how recorded music is sold...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Also of note:
*Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept.*


----------



## Gordon Nore

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, that award probably was 10x more than any of those songs individually earned on iTunes in sales. All this does is show that the system is broken.


 
I don't get it either. Surely the judgement against her should be closer to the value she didn't pay. That said, I feel pretty much the same way about illegal downloads as I do about plagiarism -- stealing is stealing. However, stealing songs off the Internet is not the most heinous thing one can do and needn't be punnished so aggressively.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

MA-Caver said:


> That is just plain nuts. Are they going to go after the other 30-40 million other people who could'nt afford the original CD to begin with and get anything out of them? They going to start throwing folks in jail? Going to repo houses and cars and whatever else a person owns and gain just a pittance of the amount they SAY is due?
> 
> Honestly I think they need to go after the software engineers who designed the programs that enabled people to download the songs in the first place. Without the means people wouldn't be able to download them now would they? They could've gone after webmasters or whomever to design whatever downloads are made that they are of poor quality and basically not worth listening to.
> 
> Movies usually have anti-pirate coding (which can be circumvented around) on the DVD's so I am presuming that all newly printed CD's have the same thing?
> Yet what about the thousands of songs already out there on the Net?
> The music industry obviously didn't take in account the potential of a music digitally re-recorded for writing to a CD ROM and didn't anticipate the passing from one person to another.
> Funny how they didn't raise THAT big of a fuss when folks were copying cassette tapes or vinyl albums to cassettes.
> I'm sure I wasn't the ONLY one doing this... and merely for the reason that there's no way to play a 45 or 33 rpm record in the car.


 
Yikes do people really take this entitlement attitude as an honest valid reason for anything?

Seriously if you can't afford the CD, listen to the radio. 
Why do people seriously look at it and say its easy so it should be okay!!
Wrong, it's called stealing. It does not matter if the company is worth billions, you are still stealing from someone. We used to have something called Moral Fiber, or Moral Values in this country. Unfortunately technology sped up so quickly and opened up so many ways to do things easily, that moral values got left behind long ago. Its easy so it has to be okay right?
Seriously I get sick to my stomach every time I hear someone justify stealing by saying the thing being stolen has little to no value anyways. Thats a copout and a justification for doing the wrong thing.

There is also nothing wrong with the technology for copying music, it makes it easier for lawful citizens to use their rightfully purchased property in different ways as they should. The music industry went after the sites that were illegally providing pirated copies of music and movies and for the most part turned those around...Napster anyone?

Seriously you think they should go after the software engineers instead of the people committing the crimes? I assume you also think that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for criminals using guns to commit crimes, or knife manufacturers should be held responsible for criminals using knives to commit crimes, or perhaps car manufacturers should be held responsible for all the people breaking driving laws?

What happened to people understanding the concept of right and wrong?
I weep for our future generations.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Gordon Nore said:


> I don't get it either. Surely the judgement against her should be closer to the value she didn't pay. That said, I feel pretty much the same way about illegal downloads as I do about plagiarism -- stealing is stealing. However, stealing songs off the Internet is not the most heinous thing one can do and needn't be punnished so aggressively.


 
I agree that the punishment sounds harsh, hell it is harsh..
But how much money has been lost in sales due to pirated music and movies in the last 20 years?

more then a Billion? I bet
Close to a Trillion? Doubt it, but I bet its probably close
I saw one site that listed the lost just in Britain as over 12 Billion a year.

So at some point don't you have to make the punishment harsh enough to stop people?
Everyone knows they will never collect this from this lady, but she should have credit effected forthe next 7 years at least, and she should be made to feel uncomfortable for quite a while to make the point clear. Maybe others will stop, maybe after a few more conviction more will stop, and so on. I have no problems with it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Let's look at "losses".
It's an imaginary number.
I know people who back when the C=64 was king who had thousands of programs on hand.  Thousands.  I also know that if they were 50c each, they wouldn't have bought all of them. There was a hot movie recently, they were crying about how much it "lost" to piracy. It broke records at the box office, that's how much it was hurt.

The music industry has long been crying about how much they lose. Maybe that new Britney CD is bootlegged so much because it's not worth more than the cost of a blank CD as it's redundant crap? Maybe they should innovate a bit.  Maybe if they are selling a track on iTunes for 99c, they shouldn't get a 20k award from someone who shared maybe 50 'copies'.  Maybe they need to stop protecting a failing business plan and enter the 21st century?

I dunno.  What I do know is that when I was running Napster and downloading mp3's by the ton, I also was buying 5-10 CD's a month after finding new bands with cool music, and old bands I thought had broken up but hadn't because my local CD shop chose to not stock their stuff, but had 4 rows of BackStreet Boys and Britney Spears crap. Most of what I buy now, are European Imports off Amazon, because Fyes doesn't cater to my tastes.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

sure losses is an imaginary number....an estimate..
but the fact is its still Stealing.
Its still a crime.
Its still not OKAY

It does not matter if the music industry wants to go back to an outdated model and record all of their music from now on to a beta format video player.

Can the update their model? Hell yes
Will they make more money or push more music out if they did? Quite possibly sure.

Does it make it okay to steal from them because its easy to do, and because the business model is outdated and burdonsome??

I say no. I would like to see how someone tries to justify it though.. I see no justification, only excuses.


----------



## celtic_crippler

The musicians don't make any real money on CD sales so who's really the victim here? Most of the money made in the music industry is from playing shows and other streams of revenue, of which CD sales is the least if any. 

The playing and sharing of music is what promotes the artist and drives people to the shows. 

Besides...I've always found this ridiculous. Nobody ever came after me as a kid when I recorded songs off the radio onto a tape. Nobody ever came after me for sharing a physical copy of a CD with a friend. It's utterly ridiculous.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

So is it okay for me to disregard any laws I think are utterly ridiculous?
OR if I break a law even if I consider it ridiculous, should I be held to whatever damages are deemed appropraite for it?

Is it only breaking the law if you get caught? Or only if you get convicted?
Is it okay to break a law if its a victimless crime?
Is it a victimless crime because the money is coming from millionaires and billionaires? Is the indirect result of all the illegal copying that there are less music stores, and less jobs for low income workers? So does that mean you are actually stealing from people who can't find a job now?

Sure thats a fairly extreme way of looking at it, but it can be directly attributed to whats going on.

I mean seriously there are legal ways to subscribe to a legal service and have access to hundreds of thousands of songs at one time, why steal them?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

A multi million dollar award for stealing 24 songs that retail for under $40 total seems way out of line, especially if compared to the penalties for worse crimes.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Bob Hubbard said:


> A multi million dollar award for stealing 24 songs that retail for under $40 total seems way out of line, especially if compared to the penalties for worse crimes.


 
I agree it does... but then what is appropriate? anything too small and everyone will say screw it I will pay the fine if I am caught... /shrug


----------



## celtic_crippler

Bob Hubbard said:


> A multi million dollar award for stealing 24 songs that retail for under $40 total seems way out of line, especially if compared to the penalties for worse crimes.


 
*Now that's criminal!* 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> So is it okay for me to disregard any laws I think are utterly ridiculous?
> OR if I break a law even if I consider it ridiculous, should I be held to whatever damages are deemed appropraite for it?
> 
> Is it only breaking the law if you get caught? Or only if you get convicted?
> Is it okay to break a law if its a victimless crime?
> Is it a victimless crime because the money is coming from millionaires and billionaires? Is the indirect result of all the illegal copying that there are less music stores, and less jobs for low income workers? So does that mean you are actually stealing from people who can't find a job now?
> 
> Sure thats a fairly extreme way of looking at it, but it can be directly attributed to whats going on.
> 
> I mean seriously there are legal ways to subscribe to a legal service and have access to hundreds of thousands of songs at one time, why steal them?


 
You might be surprised to find out what laws you break every day. Ridiculous laws that if you knew were in place would think it ridiculous as well.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

People have been P2P sharing  for a while now. Who wants to pay $20 for a CD?

You are in no way stealing music downloading then borrowing a cd from a friend. 

Maybe if CD's were not so expensive people might buy them. But really in this economy you got to watch your pennies and spending it on a $20 CD with maybe one or two good songs on an artist who usually does not care about their fans seems like a lot to me.

And look at the movie industry. Who wants to pay $10 a ticket to see an hour and half movie when Pablo down the street is selling the movie for $2. 

Almost everyone is downloading music,movies instead of trying to fight it the industries should be trying to embrace it and think of ways to profit off it. 
I think the lady should appeal. Because noone should have to pay that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I agree it does... but then what is appropriate? anything too small and everyone will say screw it I will pay the fine if I am caught... /shrug


Charge proven damages. If she distributed 200 files (or 1 file 200 times), charge the going rate at the e-store.  $2 per track * number of times downloaded, she just bought music for everyone. Include reasonable court and legal costs for sucessful prosecutions. So if they spent 25k in legal fees, tack that on too.

24 tracks * 200 downloads = 4,800.
court fees = 25,000
fine = 29,800.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> People have been P2P sharing  for a while now. Who wants to pay $20 for a CD?
> 
> You are in no way stealing music downloading then borrowing a cd from a friend.
> 
> Maybe if CD's were not so expensive people might buy them. But really in this economy you got to watch your pennies and spending it on a $20 CD with maybe one or two good songs on an artist who usually does not care about their fans seems like a lot to me.
> 
> And look at the movie industry. Who wants to pay $10 a ticket to see an hour and half movie when Pablo down the street is selling the movie for $2.
> 
> Almost everyone is downloading music,movies instead of trying to fight it the industries should be trying to embrace it and think of ways to profit off it.
> I think the lady should appeal. Because noone should have to pay that.


I own maybe 2,000+ dvds.
almost all of them are originals, and the ones that aren't are slowly being replaced by legit copies.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

celtic_crippler said:


> *Now that's criminal!*
> 
> 
> 
> You might be surprised to find out what laws you break every day. Ridiculous laws that if you knew were in place would think it ridiculous as well.


Actually no I am not surprised. I know what the laws are. I know what the penalties are for the laws that I disagree with.
I spend time to figure it out rather then walk around like an ignorant yokel waiting to claim I didn't know when confronted for breaking a law.
Ignorance never was and never will be a valid excuse.

I just find it comical that so many people have double standards, or how moral standards have dropped.
You can justify breaking a law anyway you wish. It does not make it right, it just makes it easier for you to live with yourself.
I get what people are saying... trust me I would love to not have to buy another cd ever again. I guess this whole argument reminds me of martial arts in general.
It seems so many people think they can defend themselves because they call what they do martial arts... without actually accepting the fact that they are nowhere close to being able to defend themselves... they just justify what they do in their own minds to make it ok.
Same thing here... Justify it all you want, its still wrong. You are still stealing from someone else. I don't understand how some people are trying to make it sound like its okay and should not be a crime.
If you can admit that then fine do what you want. I do not care. I won't report you, I won't share in it, but I don't personally care enough to get involved past this discussion. Hell I do not even disagree that the music should be cheaper, or done differently, but that is not my choice unless its my music that I made, recorded, and chose to distribute... of course if it was mine I would have to pay people to take it LOL


I also think that the thought of fining the lady actual loses is really naive, or at the least ridiculous. If thats the case people would steal anything and everything they could if the penalty was just to charge you what was actually lost in value if you are caught.... know what I mean? There has to be a substantial penalty to prevent it from happening.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Bob Hubbard said:


> Charge proven damages. If she distributed 200 files (or 1 file 200 times), charge the going rate at the e-store. $2 per track * number of times downloaded, she just bought music for everyone. Include reasonable court and legal costs for sucessful prosecutions. So if they spent 25k in legal fees, tack that on too.
> 
> 24 tracks * 200 downloads = 4,800.
> court fees = 25,000
> fine = 29,800.


 
BTW it says she had over 1700 tracks for download, they are only going after 24 of them...
so lets say 1700 * 200 downloads = 340,000
court fees =25,000
her first lawyers fees were over 130,000 BTW
fine = 495,000.....
i mean if we are going to look at it like that... plus how many people downloaded a song from her, then had that song downloaded from them and so on. /shrug
its just not as simple as you are making it sound. It is a ridiculous amount of money that is lost, hell you want to balance the budget and do universal health care, then lets have people pay for the pirated music and its done, plus a surplus for a rainy day fund ya?


----------



## celtic_crippler

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Actually no I am not surprised. I know what the laws are. I know what the penalties are for the laws that I disagree with.


 
Really? 

Have you ever peeled an orange in a hotel room? 

Ever been involved with bathing two babies in the same tub at the same time? 

Ever fried up some gravy? 

Ever had a pet fish with an 'aggressive' name like "Biter" or "Killer" or even "Sugar Ray"? 

Ever ridden a bicycle without the "appropriate fashion accessories"? 

Ever wear cowboy boots in public? Well, if you don't own at least two cows you're a criminal! 

Ever set a mouse trap? Well, I hope you had a hunting license. 

These are but a few "silly" laws in your state, California. 

Now, tell me the penalties since you claim to be so knowledgable.  Or do you agree with all these laws? 

Oh..by the way...I'm curious as to whether you may be guilty of any of breaking any of these laws. LOL 




LuckyKBoxer said:


> I spend time to figure it out rather then walk around like an ignorant yokel waiting to claim I didn't know when confronted for breaking a law.
> Ignorance never was and never will be a valid excuse.


 
Well huh-yuck-yuck, bless my biscuits and call me fer dinner. So I take it you wear bicycle shorts to match your Schwin when you ride? :uhohh:



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I just find it comical that so many people have double standards, or how moral standards have dropped.
> You can justify breaking a law anyway you wish. It does not make it right, it just makes it easier for you to live with yourself.


 
Like the last time you broke the speed limit and didn't promptly head to the police station to turn yourself in. :rules:



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I get what people are saying... trust me I would love to not have to buy another cd ever again. I guess this whole argument reminds me of martial arts in general.
> It seems so many people think they can defend themselves because they call what they do martial arts... without actually accepting the fact that they are nowhere close to being able to defend themselves... they just justify what they do in their own minds to make it ok.
> Same thing here... Justify it all you want, its still wrong. You are still stealing from someone else. I don't understand how some people are trying to make it sound like its okay and should not be a crime.
> If you can admit that then fine do what you want. I do not care. I won't report you, I won't share in it, but I don't personally care enough to get involved past this discussion. Hell I do not even disagree that the music should be cheaper, or done differently, but that is not my choice unless its my music that I made, recorded, and chose to distribute... of course if it was mine I would have to pay people to take it LOL


 
It's not the "breaking of a law" that most of us are criticizing. It is in part the law itself, and in part the fact that they singled out one person who is doing pretty much what millions of other people are doing and not getting penalized for. Now _that's _a double standard. 




LuckyKBoxer said:


> I also think that the thought of fining the lady actual loses is really naive, or at the least ridiculous. If thats the case people would steal anything and everything they could if the penalty was just to charge you what was actually lost in value if you are caught.... know what I mean? There has to be a substantial penalty to prevent it from happening.


 
I'll remember that when we hear about you getting hungry at the hotel that sponsors the next martial art camp you go to and you get caught peeling an orange in one of the rooms. :hammer:


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

celtic_crippler said:


> Really?
> 
> Like the last time you broke the speed limit and didn't promptly head to the police station to turn yourself in. :rules:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the "breaking of a law" that most of us are criticizing. It is in part the law itself, and in part the fact that they singled out one person who is doing pretty much what millions of other people are doing and not getting penalized for. Now _that's _a double standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll remember that when we hear about you getting hungry at the hotel that sponsors the next martial art camp you go to and you get caught peeling an orange in one of the rooms. :hammer:


 

Obviously you don't get my point.
Obviously you want to try to be clever instead of realistic.
Obviously you think you are pretty smart...
I really could care less about any of those things, and am even less impressed by them... slightly amused though so kudos for you on that /shrug
I know what the laws are here in my area. I know what I can get in trouble for and what I can't get in trouble for.
I never said I never break a law. I simply make sure I know what the possible penalty is if I get caught, and If I get caught I don't try to make some BS excuse for it.
I take accountability for my actions, I do what I feel compelled to do, except when the possibility of harsh punishment is too severe to risk.
I never said don't do the crime.
I just said if you do, then you should be prepared for the consequences, and those consequences should be severe if the law being broken is a problem.... with billions of dollars lost this is a problem.
Naming my pet goldfish something like the "Eater of Celts" is a victimless crime....unless I tell other people the name of the fish, or I actually feed it Celts 
taking something that is copyrighted and belongs to someone else and is required to be paid for is taking money from someone that is not rightfully yours.
Steal it all you want, but you can't claim its not a crime, and when you get caught you are responsible for paying the penalty.
Stupid criminals pay more then smart criminals.... /shrug sounds like a darwinian thing there to me.
I also have to say they are not letting millions of other people get away with it, many other people simply paid a penalty assessed to them and agreed not to do it again. They are going after these people, most of them are just smart and agree to take care of it out of court and as quickly as possible...because they understand they stole and pay the penalty for it.
Everyone has to choose what values they live by.
You either steal things or you don't
It's really quite simple.
I don't think someone who feels fine about stealing music would have any problem taking a 20 dollar bill from the front seat of a parked car that has the windows down and nobody in sight.
Probably given the right circumstances those same people would not need much prodding to steal even more if they felt it was easy and they could get away with it...
And people wonder why I do not let any random acquaintence over to my house.
I think I made the point I wanted to make. People are either going to get it, or they are going to continue to make excuses to validate their stealing and not wanting to get punished if they are caught doing it.
I just find it really eye opening how easy it is for people to justify stealing, when they do not have to put a face to it...or at least a sympathetic face.


----------



## jks9199

I'm not defending outright theft of material, nor am I defending selling pirated material of any sort... but music (and books and articles and movies) are becoming a more complex area.

It's definitely a larceny if I go into a store, and steal the CD.  But what if I record the song as it's broadcast on the radio?  Is that a theft?  I'm probably not going to buy the album for the one song.  I might buy a single (especially today with I-tunes and other similar places services) -- but I might not.

Now... I buy the CD and a make a copy for my buddy.  He wouldn't buy the album; let's take that as a given.  Is that a theft?  I didn't sell it -- I gave it to him.  I'm not presenting it to the public as "get this album free from me..."  What if I simply lent him the CD -- and he copied it on his own, without my knowledge.  Who OWNED that CD in the first place?

That's the problem with trying to equate real physical property and intellectual property.  It's not easy to sort some of these things out.

But... even without those issues, how is this verdict reasonable?  Did this one woman really cost the record industry to the tune of millions?  Even allowing for a significant punishment component... does the verdict seem reasonable?  

This is why I and others (including a respectable number of artists) feel that the paradigm of music and other creative arts sales needs to change.  It needs to respect the effort and work of the creative process -- but also recognize the realities of the current world where it is nearly impossible to prevent or control unauthorized copying.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Let me put this another way.
Like most photographers, I charge for my work.  Lets say you hire me to shoot your portrait for your school. Lets say I charge you $100 for that service, and at the end hand you an 8x10 print.  You don't have the right (unless I give it to you) to head down to Walgreens and have then crank out a few copies. 

Under the same terms as this case, you could owe me $2 million bucks.

Maybe I'm arguing the wrong side here.....


----------



## MA-Caver

Bob Hubbard said:


> I own maybe 2,000+ dvds.
> almost all of them are originals, and the ones that aren't are slowly being replaced by legit copies.


I've been doing the same thing... now that DVD's are getting cheaper or you can find them in the $5.00 bin at Walmart for an "older" movie. Little by little this poor man is buying the original films where he can find and AFFORD them.


----------



## Cryozombie

jks9199 said:


> It's definitely a larceny if I go into a store, and steal the CD. But what if I record the song as it's broadcast on the radio? Is that a theft? I'm probably not going to buy the album for the one song. I might buy a single (especially today with I-tunes and other similar places services) -- but I might not.


 
Right... Here is where this becomes a HUGE grey area...

If I rent a copy of "Ernest goes to the Moon" from Comcast "On Demand" on Cable and Record it on my Set-top DVD recorder... I'm in the clear.

If I rent a copy of "Ernest goes to the Moon" from Netflix and Record it on my PC... I'm a theif.  

WTF?  Can someone explain the difference to me, beyond saying "Well, its the law you have to follow it?"

The same applies to The Radio or even Streaming radio and music.  I can record the songs off of the Radio, Broadcast, Satalite or Streaming and Its ok... but the minute I download them instead I'm breaking the law.  

Personally, I find the idea of "Theft of Intellectual property" kind of crazy in the first place.  If you are a baker and I steal your loaf of bread, I'm a thief.  If I copy your recipie for bread and make it for myself, am I still a theif?

One thing is for sure... if my movie ever sees production and is released on DVD, the minute I see it on Pirate Bay, I'm throwing a party, because I will know that somehow, someone somewhere liked my film enough to share it. Cuz, if Wolverine is any indication, its clear that Piracy doesnt hurt Profits like they want us to believe.


----------



## Cryozombie

LuckyKBoxer said:


> You either steal *things *or you don't
> It's really quite simple.


 
Ah, but see... Code isnt a thing.  I can make infinate copies of code, at basically no cost whatsoever. (Perhaps the cost of the electricity or storage space)  If you have code, and I copy your code, now we both have the code... what THING was stolen?  If Bob and Caver then copy my code, now there are 4 copies of the code, what have you had taken from you?

Thats quite different than taking a 20.00 bill.  If I take your 20 you no longer have a 20.  There really is a difference.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I wrote these a decade+ ago. Misspellings and typos aside, I still feel this way.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Software Pirates are cool 1995
Re: Software Etc. inflates game prices (i.e. MW2)?                1995
More comments on the piracy topic 1995
Another Piracy Opinion 1995
Re: holier-than-thou-I'd-never-pirate tight-wads                1996[/FONT]


----------



## Tensei85

Wow! thats a huge amount. I won't get into a debate if its wrong or right, we all have our own code of conduct that we live by. Its just a matter or not if it agrees with the federal laws that are in place.


----------



## AceHBK

I knew something was wrong when I walked in a big CD chain store and saw that they sold blank CD's!!!!

Blockbuster sells blank DVD's!!!

Come on now, despite what they say there is a whole lot of nodding and winking going on.  I mean come one now, you can walk in Blockbuster and rent 3 newly released movies and buy blank DVD's at the SAME TIME!!!


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

AceHBK said:


> I knew something was wrong when I walked in a big CD chain store and saw that they sold blank CD's!!!!
> 
> Blockbuster sells blank DVD's!!!
> 
> Come on now, despite what they say there is a whole lot of nodding and winking going on. I mean come one now, you can walk in Blockbuster and rent 3 newly released movies and buy blank DVD's at the SAME TIME!!!


 
Umm blockbuster is a business, they are in the business of making money, meaning they stock what they can sell to their core audience.
Once again it is not illegal to copy your own music or movies that you paid for, for your own use. It is illegal to copy it without purchasing it for your own use.

Home Depot Sells Rope and Chainsaws, you think they are nod and wink implied for serial killers to come get their equipment to break the law?

Seriously come on now.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Bob Hubbard said:


> I wrote these a decade+ ago. Misspellings and typos aside, I still feel this way.
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Software Pirates are cool 1995[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Re: Software Etc. inflates game prices (i.e. MW2)? 1995[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More comments on the piracy topic 1995[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Another Piracy Opinion 1995[/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Re: holier-than-thou-I'd-never-pirate tight-wads 1996[/FONT]


 
All seem like pretty logical, honest, opinions on the subject. i can agree 100% with everything I read... I have a bad habit of skimming at times, but I am pretty sure I read everything there.


----------



## Empty Hands

celtic_crippler said:


> Nobody ever came after me as a kid when I recorded songs off the radio onto a tape. Nobody ever came after me for sharing a physical copy of a CD with a friend. It's utterly ridiculous.



They didn't come after you because they couldn't, not that they didn't want to.  The recording industry put up a huge fuss each time a new recordable medium came out.  They put up a fuss for audio and VHS/Beta tapes, CD's and probably more I'm not aware of.  They just couldn't do anything practical to bust people unless they got greedy and stupid.  The main difference with file sharing now is that all the transactions can be tracked.  If giving a CD to your friend could be tracked, they would have tried to bust you for that too.


----------



## celtic_crippler

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Obviously you don't get my point.


 
Maybe not. Just going by what you posted. RTFM



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Obviously you want to try to be clever instead of realistic.


 
Those laws I posted are "real". LOL Just pointing out the silliness. Call me "Captain Obvious"... or is that too clever? LOL  :lol:



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Obviously you think you are pretty smart...


 
...well...maybe. I did graduate from college with a 3.35 GPA ...Does that qualify? :2xbird:



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I really could care less about any of those things, and am even less impressed by them... slightly amused though so kudos for you on that /shrug


 
Why? Based on your previous post you claimed to have knowledge of all the laws where you lived, as well as the penalties for them. Or were you just being "clever." LOL :bs1:



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I know what the laws are here in my area. I know what I can get in trouble for and what I can't get in trouble for.


 
Perhaps you weren't being clever! BTW, are you gonna fill the rest of us in on the penalties for breaking some of those great laws you have out there in sunny Cali? I'm dying to know the penalty for not properly accessorizing with your bicycle. :lfao:




LuckyKBoxer said:


> I never said I never break a law. I simply make sure I know what the possible penalty is if I get caught, and If I get caught I don't try to make some BS excuse for it.


 
So...what happens if you get caught setting a mouse-trap without a hunting license? Quick! Don't google it either 'cause you claimed that "...ignorance is no excuse..." 
:readrules



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I take accountability for my actions, I do what I feel compelled to do, except when the possibility of harsh punishment is too severe to risk.


 
I gathered from your previous post aboutthat it was a matter of morality and not a fear of repercussion that guided you. As you can see, it's obvious that I'm not always right. :uhoh:




LuckyKBoxer said:


> I never said don't do the crime.
> I just said if you do, then you should be prepared for the consequences, and those consequences should be severe if the law being broken is a problem.... with billions of dollars lost this is a problem.


 
You sure about that? 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/ben-goldacre-bad-science-music-downloads

and...


> *"The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is the focus of much discussion," the paper states. "However, adding in concerts alone shows the industry has grown by 5% over this period. If we also consider the sale of iPods as a revenue stream, the industry is now 66% larger than in 1997." *




more here from Hardvard Business School..you know..the really smart folks.. http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/ipod/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218000206



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Naming my pet goldfish something like the "Eater of Celts" is a victimless crime....unless I tell other people the name of the fish, or I actually feed it Celts


 
What happened to all your fist-pounding about "_You can justify breaking a law anyway you wish. It does not make it right, it just makes it easier for you to live with yourself._" ????

Had a change of heart? 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> taking something that is copyrighted and belongs to someone else and is required to be paid for is taking money from someone that is not rightfully yours.
> Steal it all you want, but you can't claim its not a crime, and when you get caught you are responsible for paying the penalty.


 
...if it were only that simple in regards to "intelectual property." 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Stupid criminals pay more then smart criminals.... /shrug sounds like a darwinian thing there to me.


 
Stupid criminals pay more "_than_" smart criminals? I didn't know they had separate penalties for the dumb ones. LOL Is that like claiming insanity as a defense? Can you claim stupidity? :lfao:



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I also have to say they are not letting millions of other people get away with it, many other people simply paid a penalty assessed to them and agreed not to do it again. They are going after these people, most of them are just smart and agree to take care of it out of court and as quickly as possible...because they understand they stole and pay the penalty for it.


 
Could you please cite your resources on that? Thanks! 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> Everyone has to choose what values they live by.
> You either steal things or you don't
> It's really quite simple.


 
Is it? Define "things". Do they include ideas? So, if you steal my idea you should be fined and/or get jail time? What if you steal one of my "moves"? Man...if that's the case, they should be locking up a lot of folks for stealing my stuff! Nobody should be able to execute rear punch the way I do or else they have to pay me! 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I don't think someone who feels fine about stealing music would have any problem taking a 20 dollar bill from the front seat of a parked car that has the windows down and nobody in sight.
> Probably given the right circumstances those same people would not need much prodding to steal even more if they felt it was easy and they could get away with it...


 
And if you swat a fly and kill it, you're just as likely to become a serial killer too! Uh-huh...that's right! 

How could I have ever doubted your logic? :idunno:



LuckyKBoxer said:


> And people wonder why I do not let any random acquaintence over to my house.


 
I didn't. 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think I made the point I wanted to make. People are either going to get it, or they are going to continue to make excuses to validate their stealing and not wanting to get punished if they are caught doing it.
> I just find it really eye opening how easy it is for people to justify stealing, when they do not have to put a face to it...or at least a sympathetic face.


 
Yeah...a sympathetic face like this one:


----------



## Cryozombie

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Once again it is not illegal to copy your own music or movies that you paid for, for your own use. It is illegal to copy it without purchasing it for your own use.


 
I thought you knew and understood the laws?

It *IS CURRENTLY Illegal* under the DMCA to buy a movie, and make a copy for personal use.  CD's too.  They (RIAA) claim (however I dont know what the court rulings on this are currently) that you cant buy a CD and rip it to MP3 for personal use either.

And again, even if we assume you are correct... (which you are not) your statement that It is illegal to copy it without purchasing it for your own use is also invalid becuase if you rent it from Pay-per-veiw services you ARE allowed to record a copy.  Hmm.


----------



## Empty Hands

Cryozombie said:


> It *IS CURRENTLY Illegal* under the DMCA to buy a movie, and make a copy for personal use.  CD's too.  They (RIAA) claim (however I dont know what the court rulings on this are currently) that you cant buy a CD and rip it to MP3 for personal use either.



A clear violation of Fair Use, even though the bastards have bought out enough politicians and judges to make it stick.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Cryozombie said:


> I thought you knew and understood the laws?
> 
> It *IS CURRENTLY Illegal* under the DMCA to buy a movie, and make a copy for personal use. CD's too. They (RIAA) claim (however I dont know what the court rulings on this are currently) that you cant buy a CD and rip it to MP3 for personal use either.
> 
> And again, even if we assume you are correct... (which you are not) your statement that It is illegal to copy it without purchasing it for your own use is also invalid becuase if you rent it from Pay-per-veiw services you ARE allowed to record a copy. Hmm.


 
The RIAA does not make law. I also think you should recheck the revisions of the DMCA. There is no law against buying a CD and ripping it to MP3 format for personal use.
Most of the fair use reasonings being applied to copying movies are being argued on a timeshifting basis.... which is dubious at best. There is also no law against recording a movie you purchased to a different format, or a back up copy. The laws against are for sharing those copies with others.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

celtic_crippler said:


> I gathered from your previous post aboutthat it was a matter of morality and not a fear of repercussion that guided you. As you can see, it's obvious that I'm not always right.
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to all your fist-pounding about "_You can justify breaking a law anyway you wish. It does not make it right, it just makes it easier for you to live with yourself._" ????
> 
> Had a change of heart?
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid criminals pay more "_than_" smart criminals? I didn't know they had separate penalties for the dumb ones. LOL Is that like claiming insanity as a defense? Can you claim stupidity?
> 
> 
> Could you please cite your resources on that? Thanks!
> 
> 
> And if you swat a fly and kill it, you're just as likely to become a serial killer too! Uh-huh...that's right!
> 
> How could I have ever doubted your logic?
> 
> 
> 
> First of it is a matter of morality, I see nothing wrong with speeding, but the cost of the ticket, and the other possible penalties prevent me from driving 140 MPH
> 
> I have had no change of heart, I stand by it... people seem to be justifying stealing something that belongs to someone else. Instead of just saying... "yes I steal music, I could care less, its not like they dont make more then enough money anyways, and I have no interest in buying it when I can get it for free with no effort."
> At least then I can respect your decision...when you try to argue that its not stealing is when I question your ability to understand right and wrong.
> 
> My comment about stupid and smart criminals paying different amounts was sarcastic.... much like the majority of your post..... the point is the smart criminals acknowledged they stole, and paid fines, like the majority have done... the dumb criminals like this lady is delusional and thinks she did nothing wrong so decided to fight it, and lost big time and now wants to get off somehow.... thats just stupid... dumb criminal..../shrug
> 
> my resources? Did you even bother to read the full story on the link provided at the beginning of this story? Interesting.
> 
> Also who said anything about the slippery slope argument? I never said stealing music would make y ou steal anything else... I simply said I bet that one who steals music would have no problem stealing money... not that it leads to it, its just pretty close to the same thing.
> 
> I have no idea how you could have doubted my logic you claim to be smart, with y our high GPA and everything
Click to expand...


----------



## Cryozombie

LuckyKBoxer said:


> There is also no law against recording a movie you purchased to a different format, or a back up copy. The laws against are for sharing those copies with others.


 
Wrong. With very limited exceptions providing cetain exemptions the section on Anti Circumvention makes it illegal. There is no current exemption in the Anti Circumvention law of the DMCA that allows for the creation of Fair Use Backups. The DMCA Nerfed the Fair Use laws you are referring to, because you have to bypass the Copy protection in place in order to make your copy, it is a violation of the law. Period.



> The current administratively-created exemptions, issued in November 2006, are:
> 
> Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or universitys film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors. (A new exemption in 2006.)
> Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (A renewed exemption, first approved in 2003.)
> Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2003.)
> Literary works distributed in e-book format when all existing e-book editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the books read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2003.)
> Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. (A new exemption in 2006.)
> Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities. (A new exemption created in 2006, after a faulty copy protection system installed on Sony's compact discs had caused technical problems for many users.)


 
Those revisions expire every 3 years and are the ones currently in place.  Where does it provide for an exemption for personal backups?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Cryozombie said:


> Those revisions expire every 3 years and are the ones currently in place. Where does it provide for an exemption for personal backups?


 
Umm it makes breaking the encryption illegal, it does not make copying the encryption over to the new dvd along with all of the files on the dvd illegal.
Of course the studios are actively opposing this, but as far as I know its not been deemed illegal at this point. 
The DMCA contradicted other personal use laws already in existence. There is software available that copies all files on a dvd including the encryption without breaking the encryption and makes a second secure disk. This is not illegal, it is being challenged, but it has not been rules on, unless I missed something in the last two weeks or so...


----------



## Cryozombie

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Umm it makes breaking the encryption illegal, it does not make copying the encryption over to the new dvd along with all of the files on the dvd illegal.


 
And you can make a backup *copy* without removing the *copy protection* how? Even if you use software that nullifies the protection scheme and then puts it back, you are still breaking the law. So yes it does.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

You can do exactly what the MPAA said.
Hook up a camcorder and tape off the tv display. They are ok with that.
Seriously.


----------



## MA-Caver

> Originally Posted by *LuckyKBoxer*
> 
> 
> _Umm it makes breaking the encryption illegal, it does not make copying the encryption over to the new dvd along with all of the files on the dvd illegal._


So the makers of DVD Decrypter are making an illegal program? Because that is all that program does... break up the copy protection and prevents it from being part of the file bundle that makes up a movie copy. 
But then it's the intent of the person USING the program isn't it? 
I dunno, for me it's for my private use and mine alone. Oh sure I may have a friend or two sit down with me and watch it but... well... gee. Is it any different than my using a "legal" copy and showing the movie to a friend or a group of friends sitting at the house with pizza and what nots? They bought the pizza and drinks... so I am profiting by not spending the money on the food or drinks because I have the movie and am showing it to them? 

Pretty grey area isn't it?


----------



## jks9199

Folks, 
If you're not lawyers very well versed in the complexities of copyright law... it might be wise to be cautious about trying to say what is and is not legal.  All I know is that it's a maze, with lots of on-going litigation -- and that even it something is arguably "legal", the RIAA among others is going after folks for damages...  Heck, the NFL even went after a church for having an "unauthorized public showing" of the Superbowl!

That's why I said the whole paradigm needs to shift...


----------



## Cryozombie

MA-Caver said:


> So the makers of DVD Decrypter are making an illegal program? Because that is all that program does... break up the copy protection and prevents it from being part of the file bundle that makes up a movie copy.


 
Yes.  And they have been in and out of trouble for it.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer

Cryozombie said:


> And you can make a backup *copy* without removing the *copy protection* how? Even if you use software that nullifies the protection scheme and then puts it back, you are still breaking the law. So yes it does.


 
Without naming the program, the way it works is it does not bypass the copyright encryption program, it simply copies the entire disk including the encryption and puts it on the new copy. Basically it creates a new disk with copyright protection on it. The argument is that since they are copying the disk without bypassing or breaking the encryption they are not breaking the law as written, and are conforming to the fair use policies that were in place before.

Like I said it is going to court, and I have not really checked to see the status but I am pretty sure it is going to be later this year before a decision is reached.

And yes any program like DVXCopy and many others that break the copyright code to copy the disk are currently illegal to use on copyrighted dvds...but are fine to use on other dvds...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

DeCSS

It's about 6-7 lines of PERL code. Lots of lawsuits, lots of headaches, etc.  Best copy I ever saw was written on an red headed Austrailian's body, some years ago.

Was a huge stink about it being illegal to even play a DVD on a Linux box back then.


----------



## Cryozombie

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Without naming the program,


 
Why?  If it's legal, and works as you claim why not name it?  Cuz I can't find one... that sure would be useful.


----------



## MA-Caver

Cryozombie said:


> Why?  If it's legal, and works as you claim why not name it?  Cuz I can't find one... that sure would be useful.


Am thinking it's probably Clone CD/DVD program which I've used several times to good success.


----------



## Cryozombie

MA-Caver said:


> Am thinking it's probably Clone CD/DVD program which I've used several times to good success.



NAh, clone still has to strip the copy protection...



> CloneDVD is a flexible and easy to use DVD movie copy software. Without special setting, CloneDVD auto removes all protections (CSS, RC, RCE, UOPs and Sony ARccOS) while copying, lets you freely copy all of your DVD movie collections..


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Any program that allows you to copy DVD's is illegal as the MPAA got an exemption to Fair Use and the Backup clauses worked in. The only way they think you should be able to back up a DVD is by pointing a camcorder at the screen. Nothing else. 

The RIAA on the otherhand wants a royalty for your ring tones, and for any USED cd's being sold, beyond what they already get from blank media, and ASCAP fees.

Triple Dipping.


----------



## AceHBK

Notice the makers of such programs live somewhere overseas in hopes of not being sent to court over it.

The biggest one of them all is DVDFab & Slysoft's AnyDVD.
You can make copies *but* it has to break the encryption off the DVD first.
Once again..it has to do something illegal.


----------



## celtic_crippler

If somebody is making copies to make a profit, then I think that's wrong. 

If somebody is sharing, not making a profit, I really don't see a problem with it. It's an old, existing *precedent*! Like I said before, people have been making copies for friends since tapes came out and probably even before that. 

It's "word-of-mouth" advertising for the product or artist; most of which would actually be less profitable if it weren't for file sharing!!!!


----------

