(this is an update from here (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14419))

I just heard about a proposed Jury instruction in this case.

from Ars Technica:

After both parties rested in Capitol v. Thomas, the attorneys for both sides began going through Judge Michael J. Davis' proposed jury instructions. Instruction no. 14 proved to be a sticking point, as Thomas' counsel Brian Toder told Ars tonight that the judge's proposed instruction indicated that the plaintiffs must show that an actual transfer took place in order for there to be a finding of infringement. "The mere act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network without license from copyright owners does not violate the copyright owners' exclusive right to distribution," reads the proposed jury instruction. "An actual transfer must take place."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html


At first, I thought the instruction was a little unreasonable. It seemed like a hard thing to prove.

But then I realized that it would have required little extra work on the part of RIAA to get that proof. All they would have to do is have an employee log into Kazaa, and download songs from someone who has them available. I am moderately surprised that they don't already do that.

No... that would only show that SOMEONE is sharing the files. To prove that this particular plaintiff is sharing the files, they would have needed to do this before they seized her equipment or whatever, and show that some of the files they received through P2P came from her IP address. Retroactively, the best they can probably do is subpoena the ISP logs of traffic and look for outbound P2P connections, but even that won't prove that the outbound files were copyrighted music-- they could have been copies of her dissertation or something.

No... that would only show that SOMEONE is sharing the files. To prove that this particular plaintiff is sharing the files, they would have needed to do this before they seized her equipment or whatever, and show that some of the files they received through P2P came from her IP address. Retroactively, the best they can probably do is subpoena the ISP logs of traffic and look for outbound P2P connections, but even that won't prove that the outbound files were copyrighted music-- they could have been copies of her dissertation or something.

I have to disagree with you. I have been following the case on Ars Technica. I think the plaintiff presented a very good case to prove she did it. All they are lacking to prove that one jury instruction is a record of songs downloaded from the Kazaa username. This would have been a very simple thing to provide.

Missed the point about the Kazaa username.

Seems 100% certain to me that she's guilty. Equally, however, I think it's ludicrous to try and claim a million $ in damages, or whatever it is they're asking for. The punishment should fit the crime. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do, but should it be something which financially ruins you for life? I don't think so. I don't know what would be a reasonable punishment - perhaps $20,000 or something like that? Enough to seriously hurt and set an example to others, but not enough to ruin someone.

$20,000 could be enough to ruin someone. Who's to say what is appropriate?

The judge, presumably? Is it the judge who sets the amount of damages? That's the way it works in our courts.

This is a civil case, right? If so then the issue at hand ought to be did she cause harm and how much. Damages should (in theory) be in line with the actual demonstrated harm, and any punitive award would be where they'd send the message to "other" infringers. I don't know what, if any, limits would apply there in this case. :shrug:

Certainly if she's proven (to the jury's satisfaction) to have caused $1 million in harm to the plaintiff then the damages should be in line with that, regardless of her actual means. It's the way it works. There's no limitation tied to one's means to the actual harm one can cause: all the means a person needs to burn down a building for instance, is a few bucks for gas and matches, regardless of the value of the building. :shrug:

But then I realized that it would have required little extra work on the part of RIAA to get that proof. All they would have to do is have an employee log into Kazaa, and download songs from someone who has them available. I am moderately surprised that they don't already do that.

I goofed slightly here. The RIAA did get songs from her. I missed that when I read the article before. Since that's the case, I encourage them to go after whatever they can.

On this one issue I stand with Harry. Uploaders are scum.

But as NatCh pointed out, in a civil case they're going to have to prove damages, and that's going to be tough. I don't think they are going to have an easy time proving beyond probable doubt that someone out there who would have paid them for a copy of the music didn't do so because of her actions.

If they can't actually show damages, she could be found against and fined $0. It happened to me in a civil suit (under very different circumstances--nothing to do with file sharing).

if they sued for 20k they would be laughed out as the legal fees are more than that, you never get more than you ask for

I don't think they are going to have an easy time proving beyond probable doubt that someone out there who would have paid them for a copy of the music didn't do so because of her actions.What's the standard for a Civil case? I can't remember....

Criminal is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" but I'm thinking that civil is something about a "preponderance of evidence" ... maybe that varies from state to state ....

Sorry, you're right, it's "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases. I still think they're going to have a hard time proving damage. The plaintiff has already admitted that they don't know how much, if anything, filesharing is costing them.

I just heard about a proposed Jury instruction in this case.

from Ars Technica:

After both parties rested in Capitol v. Thomas, the attorneys for both sides began going through Judge Michael J. Davis' proposed jury instructions. Instruction no. 14 proved to be a sticking point, as Thomas' counsel Brian Toder told Ars tonight that the judge's proposed instruction indicated that the plaintiffs must show that an actual transfer took place in order for there to be a finding of infringement. "The mere act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network without license from copyright owners does not violate the copyright owners' exclusive right to distribution," reads the proposed jury instruction. "An actual transfer must take place."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html

I understand that, as of this morning, the instruction has been changed: Simply making the files available DOES violate the copyright owners' exclusive right to distribution. "If there's an index and something behind it, that's distribution," argued Gabriel.

Sorry, you're right, it's "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases.I don't think I can claim that one (if we're even keeping count!) -- I really didn't remember. :nice:

I still think they're going to have a hard time proving damage. The plaintiff has already admitted that they don't know how much, if anything, filesharing is costing them.Heh. That does make it difficult. Well ... it ought to make it difficult. :shrug:

Seems 100% certain to me that she's guilty. Equally, however, I think it's ludicrous to try and claim a million $ in damages, or whatever it is they're asking for. The punishment should fit the crime. Yes, it was a stupid thing to do, but should it be something which financially ruins you for life? I don't think so. I don't know what would be a reasonable punishment - perhaps $20,000 or something like that? Enough to seriously hurt and set an example to others, but not enough to ruin someone.

From AP:
Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for six companies that sued Thomas, didn't ask jurors to award a particular dollar amount or to find Thomas willfully infringed on copyrights.

"I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said.

With his mention of deterrence, Gabriel wants to set a serious example here. I think he does want to ruin her, and the RIAA is making clear that they will continue to sue others. The implication is clear: "If we catch you, you are so screwed."

I understand that, as of this morning, the instruction has been changed: Simply making the files available DOES violate the copyright owners' exclusive right to distribution. "If there's an index and something behind it, that's distribution," argued Gabriel.That makes better sense to me anyway: the actions of the person posting posting the files isn't materially changed just because someone else does or doesn't do something else after the fact. :shrug:

Just because no one takes it, doesn't mean you're not trying to distribute it. Posting a file for download seems to me to demonstrate a rather indisputable intent to allow others access to it whether any one actually accessed it or not -- what exactly would that be if it's not distribution?

Just because no one takes it, doesn't mean you're not trying to distribute it. Posting a file for download seems to me to demonstrate a rather indisputable intent to allow others access to it whether any one actually accessed it or not -- what exactly would that be if it's not distribution?

Actually, the "intent to distribute" argument was recently viewed skeptically by a judge in another case. The fact of the matter is that the law only penalizes actual infringement - there's no codified crime of "attempted distribution".

I'd say the RIAA is going for the clearest definition of wrongdoing, and seeking to punish that, without worrying about exactly what was distributed or at how much of a loss. Smart, from their standpoint, since they can't provide evidence that backs up any actual distribution claims or dollars lost.

I'd say the RIAA is going for the clearest definition of wrongdoing, and seeking to punish that, without worrying about exactly what was distributed or at how much of a loss. Smart, from their standpoint, since they can't provide evidence that backs up any actual distribution claims or dollars lost.

Steve,

Substitute 'broadest definition' for 'clearest definition' and I'd agree with your post completely.

Derek

The fact of the matter is that the law only penalizes actual infringement - there's no codified crime of "attempted distribution".Exactly, but in this case, the posting of the material is effectively the distribution. Whether or not anyone actually downloads it doesn't affect the fact that the poster deliberately posted a file where it could be downloaded. If the file were never posted, it couldn't be downloaded. That's why I see the posting itself as the defining act of "distribution."

That's what I was trying to get at ... rather clumsily, as it happened. :o

With his mention of deterrence, Gabriel wants to set a serious example here. I think he does want to ruin her, and the RIAA is making clear that they will continue to sue others. The implication is clear: "If we catch you, you are so screwed."
See, I really think this isn't what the civil courts are for. They get misused this way, especially in the US, but if they can't prove any damages, I really don't think they ought to be able to fine her anything. (Though she could get whacked with their court expenses, which would be bad enough.)

If the RIAA thinks file sharing is bad enough to be treated as a criminal offense, they need to lobby for the laws to read that way. Then they can ask for people to be charged by the state with crimes and put in jail or whatever. But I doubt they'd ever get such a law passed, because they'd have to show that filesharing is actually harming the community, which so far no one has been able to demonstrate.

Just to be clear, I am all in favor of creators being fully compensated for their work. I disagree with some over whether they deserve to be compensated multiple times per work per customer due to format changes or whatever, but I do believe strongly in paying authors and musicians (and editors and sound engineers, for that matter), and I've been putting my money toward the cause for two score years now. I just don't think this litigation approach is going to work any better than the other nonsense that's been tried toward getting money from customers to creators. One person will be financially ruined (and unable to ever pay any artist for any work for years, likely). Other folks who want to share files will just switch to tools with better anonymity. Nothing else will change.

I see that this woman has, not surprisingly been found guilty, but I do believe that the fine of US$222,000 is rather excessive for the crime. I suppose, though, that the idea is to send a clear signal to other "file sharers".

Am I out of line or being unreasonable to think that it sends a clear signal to only one party involved in the crime? Did no one download any files, i.e. receive stolen goods?

I see that this woman has, not surprisingly been found guilty, but I do believe that the fine of US$222,000 is rather excessive for the crime. I suppose, though, that the idea is to send a clear signal to other "file sharers".

According to the reporting on News.com, the RIAA "may not require Thomas to pay the full amount" of her fine. Is this another example of making Thomas a very public scapegoat, to scare everyone else, then privately let her off the hook? (Not that that would work, with today's news services. In fact, the mere rumor of such an action has probably already empowered file sharers to ignore the decision.) If so, it makes a mockery of the decision, and the trial.

Am I out of line or being unreasonable to think that it sends a clear signal to only one party involved in the crime? Did no one download any files, i.e. receive stolen goods?

I guess it makes more sense to go after the uploaders rather than the downloaders. If you stop uploads, then downloads also stop. Rather like (in this country at least) the police really aren't interested in people who use drugs for personal use; they go after the dealers - the people who sell the drugs. Get caught with a gram of heroin and you'll get a police caution (ie a "telling off"), but get caught with a kg and you'll spend 20 years in prison.

According to the reporting on News.com, the RIAA "may not require Thomas to pay the full amount" of her fine.

Do they have any say in the matter now that she's been found guilty? In this country, once a court has set a fine, it's the court system which enforces payment, not the original plaintiff.

Do they have any say in the matter now that she's been found guilty? In this country, once a court has set a fine, it's the court system which enforces payment, not the original plaintiff.

Don't know... but the RIAA was obviously pulling the strings on this case, so if a fine "magically" gets reduced somewhere, we'll know who was responsible for it.

I think I've figured out the real impact of this case. The decision was based on the fact that the prosecution couldn't absolutely prove that Thomas did the deed... however, it was her computer, with her account, in her house, and therefore she as the owner of the household was ultimately responsible. For $220,000. Coincidentally, a figure pretty close to the average price of a home in America.

Who do you think is going to get that message? Parents. Every one that hears about this is going to storm into their child's room and say, "I'm not going to lose this house because of your illegally sharing files! I want to see what's on your PC right now, and you're removing all file-sharing software, or else!" So the RIAA manages to appoint finance-fearing parents as their watchdogs, saving them the trouble of chasing after kids.

And the adult file-sharers now have a dollar figure (or a concept--a second mortgage) to refer to, if they get fingered, which will guarantee that in 90% of cases their lives will be ruined. Those who have more than 3 brain cells to rub together will severely curb their file-sharing activities.

I strongly suspect that you're absolutely right there, Steve.

Wow - the average price of a house is only $220,000 in the US? I wish you could buy a house for that here :grin:.

Obviously the message that the RIAA want to go out from this is "ignore our warning letter at your peril". People are probably now going to think that paying $2000 (or whatever) is an easy get-off after reading about this court case.

Actually, the average price is just a bit more... over $264,000 according to Federal statistics... but close enough.

Wow - the average price of a house is only $220,000 in the US? I wish you could buy a house for that here :grin:.

Obviously the message that the RIAA want to go out from this is "ignore our warning letter at your peril". People are probably now going to think that paying $2000 (or whatever) is an easy get-off after reading about this court case.

Depends where you live, do not forget the US has wide spaces out there.. I wish I could pay that for a house here too :)

Regarding the RIAA case, I think that since their statistics affirm that the number of file sharing households increased from 6.3 million to 7.1 million in the period covered (03-05 I think), this case is just a drop in a bucket and the chances of happening to anyone are less than having a car accident...

This being said, I am still amazed at how many people share files with strangers not considering the possible consequences (viruses, trojans, leaving aside the legal stuff)

Heh, 2100 square feet here runs you about $180k :smug:

Heh, 2100 square feet here runs you about $180k :smug:

And if you move here, you'd practically have to tack a 0 on the end to get a house that size.

I lived in San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara for almost 2 years in the middle '90's -- I think your estimate is a bit low, Alisa! :grin:

From C|Net:
Copyright law is harsh. Once the jury decided that Thomas was behind the IP address in question, there was almost certainly going to be a stiff fine--of at least $18,000. In this case, the jury was given these instructions:

"JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22: In this case, each plaintiff has elected to recover "statutory damages" instead of its actual damages and profits. Under the Copyright Act, each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just. If, however, you find that the defendant's conduct was willful, then each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of up to $150,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just.

"In determining the just amount of statutory damages for an infringing defendant, you may consider the willfulness of the defendant's conduct, the defendant's innocence, the defendant's continuation of infringement after notice or knowledge of the copyright or in reckless disregard of the copyright, effect of the defendant's prior or concurrent copyright infringement activity, and whether profit or gain was established."

In this case, the jurors chose $9,250 in damages for each of the 24 songs, or $222,000. They could have gone as low as $18,000 in total or as high as $720,000, and seemed to want to pick something closer to the middle.


So now we know where the dollar figure comes from.

But if that will bankrupt and ruin someone's life, why do it? All it's going to end up doing is make her a burden to society. I'm sorry, but that fine is just too much for what was done. Also, I feel the RIAA should be taken to court for price gouging. I used to be able to get CDs to $9.99 and then suddenly $12.99 was the SALE price. Let the RIAA give back all the money they STOLE from customers.

Heh, 2100 square feet here runs you about $180k :smug:

That's at least three apartments, here, so ... about $2 - $3 million or so, depending.

But if that will bankrupt and ruin someone's life, why do it? All it's going to end up doing is make her a burden to society. I'm sorry, but that fine is just too much for what was done. Also, I feel the RIAA should be taken to court for price gouging. I used to be able to get CDs to $9.99 and then suddenly $12.99 was the SALE price. Let the RIAA give back all the money they STOLE from customers.

They can do it because they paid the lobbyist to get the laws passed that make their stealing legal while her stealing is illegal.

They can do it because they paid the lobbyist to get the laws passed that make their stealing legal while her stealing is illegal.
yeah, I know. They break laws and get away with it. They accuse people and get them in big trouble without due process or proof. They have not always been correct on who they say is doing what. So they are the ones who need to spend some quality jail time (IMHO).

If you think it's that bad, you can always stop buying music.

$20,000 could be enough to ruin someone. Who's to say what is appropriate?
The judge, presumably? Is it the judge who sets the amount of damages? That's the way it works in our courts.
This is a civil case, right? If so then the issue at hand ought to be did she cause harm and how much.
But as NatCh pointed out, in a civil case they're going to have to prove damages, and that's going to be tough. I don't think they are going to have an easy time proving beyond probable doubt that someone out there who would have paid them for a copy of the music didn't do so because of her actions.

The whole point of a civil case is to repair the harm caused. Sometimes the harm can be repaired directly, but usually it's by equivalent ($). So the amount of damages is whatever it takes to put the plaintiff in his original state before the harm was caused. Of course there's a lot of discretion on the part of the judge as to the actual amount, and proof of the harm is sometimes very iffy. Nevertheless, there's a principle according to which a judge must render a decision, even if the proof doesn't allow him to know exactly how much the damages should be. That doesn't mean he has to award damages when there is insufficient proof, it just means that when the proof is sufficient, but where he is unable to determine the exact appropriate amount needed to repair the harm by equivalent, he is forced to decide almost arbitrarily.

What's the standard for a Civil case? I can't remember....
Criminal is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" but I'm thinking that civil is something about a "preponderance of evidence" ... maybe that varies from state to state ....
The standard in civil proof is the balance of probabilities, or the preponderance of evidence (or plenty of other terms) which means that a fact's existence must be determined to be more probable than its nonexistence. It's like voting at a referendum: 50%+1 vote. It doesn't vary from state to state or from country to country.

Do they have any say in the matter now that she's been found guilty? In this country, once a court has set a fine, it's the court system which enforces payment, not the original plaintiff.

In a civil case, it's not the court's responsibility to enforce a judgement; it's the plantiff's. A plaintiff must hire an officer who executes the judgement on the defendant's property.

The whole point of a civil case is to repair the harm caused.

That wasn't the point of this case at all. The point was to make an example of someone, with a serious monetary fine that had nothing to do with any actual harm caused ("statutory damages"). They clearly stated that they were finding her guilty of making the files available, and not on whether or not a single file was downloaded as a result of her actions.

That wasn't the point of this case at all. The point was to make an example of someone, with a serious monetary fine that had nothing to do with any actual harm caused ("statutory damages"). They clearly stated that they were finding her guilty of making the files available, and not on whether or not a single file was downloaded as a result of her actions.

That's a questionable motive on the part of the plaintiff, but the fact remains that the only thing the courts are interested in is repairing the harm caused. But there are some weird exemplary (penal) damage laws in the US which mix repression into the civil process, so it could be possible that most of the damages asked for in this case were exemplary damages. I also find questionable using the term "guilty" in a civil suit.

I think RIAA is like the rest of the industry in that they have grossly overreacted to a problem that is not going to go away. The part I consider funny is that most of the music out is not worth buying. Same with the video's. Few are keepers.

But I fight back. No buying new CD's, no downloads. I buy only used CD's for half the cost of downloads. I get a hardcopy with all the artwork and RIAA gets nothing.

Dan <><

The part I consider funny is that most of the music out is not worth buying.

Isn't that rather a subjective judgement? I'm an opera fan, but I'm well aware that many people can't stand it and certainly wouldn't consider it "worth buying". I can't stand "rap" music, but many people consider that worth buying. We all have different tastes, and I'm sure that most music that's commercially published is bought by somebody.

I don't think it was his point, exactly, but I suppose it's true that most music isn't worth buying to any given person, but different people would have different ideas about which parts were worth buying. :nice:

I personally consider a lot of today's rap to be unsuitable for the kids they try to sell it to. Parents need to watch this. A lot of rap is offensive and racist. The problem is that we have censors for network TV. And they won't let things on TV that is a lot more tame then this rap. yet this rap is allowed on TV in for form of some awful video. It's not right.

Isn't that rather a subjective judgement? I'm an opera fan, but I'm well aware that many people can't stand it and certainly wouldn't consider it "worth buying". I can't stand "rap" music, but many people consider that worth buying. We all have different tastes, and I'm sure that most music that's commercially published is bought by somebody.

I should have stated it "IMHO".

But the point can also be made that a lot of the music that people download they would not buy anyway. Doesn't excuse it, but I don't believe RIAA's going to get any richer doing this.

BTW, I love opera. And people that listen to opera don't have it rattling out of their car trunks at the stoplights.

Dan <><

But the point can also be made that a lot of the music that people download they would not buy anyway.

:huh: You're saying that if there was music someone wanted, and they couldn't get it for free, that they wouldn't buy it? Come on! If that were the case, there would be no music industry today!

I don't know a lot of people who indiscriminently download gigabytes of music that they've never heard, just hoping that they'll pull a few good ones from the pile. People selectively download what they want, generally based on hearing it first, or being recommended by a peer.

Before the internet, people occasionally experimented by buying new artists and albums, they taped off the radio, or they watched MTV. They were therefore exposed to a lot of music that they would not buy, because it didn't strike their fancy. I haven't gotten the impression that people use download services the same way. They generally cherry-pick their music, ignoring the stuff they don't like. And I think you'd find that most of those people, if denied that music for free, would buy it if they wanted it.

WHen Napster first came out, a lot of people shared incomplete CDs. Sales went up 6% because people downloaded tracks they liked and decided they either wanted the CD or another CD from the same artist. The RIAA managed to close down something that was actually making them money.

WHen Napster first came out, a lot of people shared incomplete CDs. Sales went up 6% because people downloaded tracks they liked and decided they either wanted the CD or another CD from the same artist. The RIAA managed to close down something that was actually making them money.

Isn't that a bit like saying that if a kid steals a Ford, they might like it so much that they'll go out and buy one?

:)

It's more like that they stole the hubcaps and liked them so much they bought the whole car. :)

Isn't that a bit like saying that if a kid steals a Ford, they might like it so much that they'll go out and buy one?

:)

It's like try before you buy. And it worked. But the RIAA had their heads so far up their rear that they could not see this.

So are you condoning stealing music, merely because some people who do so also buy legitimate music? Sorry, but to my mind, the crime is not removed or "legitimized" merely because of that.

HarryT, I think it would be worthwhile seeing if more people bought more music after downloading "free" (if "pirated") samples. Several people, including some researchers at places like Harvard, have made that claim. I happen to think it's a plausible claim, after reviewing the research. I suppose it still doesn't negate the fact that the people sharing files are breaking the law, but if the research is correct, the content publishers are really acting against their own interests by pursuing such laws.

Steve, with regard to people downloading songs they don't like, see John Scalzi's (or maybe it was Charlie Stross') discussion of the "gift-giving" economy of file sharing. Some people download content just so they can offer it to others.

Steve, with regard to people downloading songs they don't like, see John Scalzi's (or maybe it was Charlie Stross') discussion of the "gift-giving" economy of file sharing. Some people download content just so they can offer it to others.

Okay... I did read that, and I guess it's a fair point. However, I believe the people who do this are a small percentage of downloaders compared to people who are just trying to get the music they like. And I still question whether even the mass file offerers are downloading and converting material they don't like, and therefore wouldn't potentially buy. If that were the case, there would be as massive a catalog of non-pop music as popular music (mostly rock and rap) , and that is not the case.

Isn't that a bit like saying that if a kid steals a Ford, they might like it so much that they'll go out and buy one?

:)

Hey, Harry, I have a neighbor who plays music so loud that I can't help hearing it. I sure wish he would quite making me steal his music. Now I know why silence is golden - it cost more money to listen to it!

So are you condoning stealing music, merely because some people who do so also buy legitimate music? Sorry, but to my mind, the crime is not removed or "legitimized" merely because of that.
I'm not saying it was legal, I'm saying that sales were up. So instead of learning from the Napster model and say offering sample songs available online at say a low bitrate of 64k they just shut down Napster. They didn't look at the big picture. The big picture was that it was not harming sales at all. It was increasing sales. They could have overlooked things that time while sales were up till sales started to drop and then go after Napster. But trying to shut down something that is making you money is rather silly.

So are you condoning stealing music, merely because some people who do so also buy legitimate music? Sorry, but to my mind, the crime is not removed or "legitimized" merely because of that.Sounded more like an observation than a value judgment to me. :shrug:

Easy come easy go. Below is my take on the difference between stealing and buying.

I buy a CD, pay a fair amount of money for it. Too excited to wait to get home to listen so unwrap it in the car and stick it in the player to listen to on the way home. Once home listen to it again in the lounge while looking at the cover art and reading the credits and lyrics (with a magnifying glass these days). Over weeks I get to know the CD and play it when my mood feels right for it, sometimes years and even decades later.

Download a bunch of stuff for free on the net, forget what you have or where it comes from, have so much stuff you are never sure what is what. Never get to know any of it very well and it eventually it goes missing from your hard drive or where ever it was you stuck it.

Stealing is not just about respect for the artist but respect for yourself as well.

It's like try before you buy. And it worked. But the RIAA had their heads so far up their rear that they could not see this.

Like the difference between bookshops in Spain vs. in the UK... they don't like you browsing too long here in Spain (they come up to you and say "can I help you?", ugh!), you get armchairs, a coffee shop and a kids section in the UK. :rolleyes: I told my husband about it, but he was still amazed when he actually saw it, he kept saying "but if they let you read the whole book right there, why would you buy it?". :D

Note: that nasty habit is starting to change in Spain, good bookshops will leave you alone to roam among the bookshelves now. :book2:

In the USA we have large books shops that have comfy chairs, coffee shops, kids sections. And they do leave you alone. They may has "Can I help you?" but if you say you don't need any help they leave you alone. It's like you described for the UK. Now if we only Sony made ebook shops like that it would be awesome.

Now if we only Sony made ebook shops like that it would be awesome.

Mobipocket is not bad that way, allowing you at least a sample of the book... although I've found first chapters to often be misleading, many a book I've had to struggle past the first chapter before it gripped and turned out to be a good book; when I browse through a p-book, I open it in the middle and read a few paragraphs from there. :)

But, I've never browsed online like I did at Dillon's in Oxford, where I would go after lunch and be in danger of getting locked in at night (boy, do I love bookshops in the UK!). :D

We have two biggies here Barnes and Nobel and Borders. both are nice for browsing and spending too much time in. But my problem is I see things on the shelf that just make me want to go to the publishers and shake them till they realize what a mess dead tree books are becoming. This new MMPB format that's taller and thinner and more expensive is a horrendous idea. It's just a way to make more money on the same content. They blame it on old people. Saying that older people prefer larger print. SCREW YOU PLUBLISHERS! I WILL NEVER BUY ONE OF THEM!

Mobipocket is not bad that way, allowing you at least a sample of the book... although I've found first chapters to often be misleading, many a book I've had to struggle past the first chapter before it gripped and turned out to be a good book; when I browse through a p-book, I open it in the middle and read a few paragraphs from there. :)

I used to see a lot of books that would put a few paragraphs of an internal chapter on an inside cover page, something akin to an exciting teaser scene:

Doc Savage took a quick look over the edge of the abyss, while Monk opined, "We'll never get to the bottom of the gorge in time to stop Baron Rotweiller from launching that rocket! What else can we do?" He hadn't noticed, though, that he was speaking to no one... as Doc had silently leapt off of the rock he'd been perched on, and was already plunging down into the thick forest canopy like a guided missile...

(Whew! Those were the days!...)

Anyway, I occasionally think about adding something like that to each of my novels' detail pages, but haven't tried it yet. Maybe I should give it a shot.

In the USA we have large books shops that have comfy chairs, coffee shops, kids sections. And they do leave you alone. They may has "Can I help you?" but if you say you don't need any help they leave you alone. It's like you described for the UK. Now if we only Sony made ebook shops like that it would be awesome.

Thanks to Sony and Borders (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14954), you may be getting your wish before too terribly long.

Thanks to Sony and Borders (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14954), you may be getting your wish before too terribly long.
I hope they are smart enough to do this in at least one Boston Store.