Ripping a CD... UPDATE

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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."

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

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?

[bingle]

Originally Posted by NatCh

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".

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

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.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by bingle

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.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

[HarryT]

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".

[HappyMartin]

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?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

[HarryT]

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 .

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.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

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