Book publisher files mass BitTorrent lawsuit

[Sydney's Mom]

It is scary, though. Remember the housewife who downloaded 19 songs? How many hundred thousand dollars was that?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

It is scary, though. Remember the housewife who downloaded 19 songs? How many hundred thousand dollars was that?

Ah yes, Jammie Thomas, "the world's dumbest file sharer", as she was immediately labelled in the computer press, after making claims such as that someone else must have accessed her computer via WiFi, when she didn't actually HAVE a WiFi connection . She was punished big-time by the jury for trying to make fools of them. Juries really don't like people who try to pull that stunt.

[kennyc]

I was not familiar with the detail so found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I was not familiar with the detail so found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

That was the one that was supposed to set an example to all the naughty mp3 downloaders to stop it or suffer the consequences. Obviously they all did, and mp3 piracy became a thing of the past. And they all lived happily ever after.

[Sydney's Mom]

It sure made me stop and think. Too bad my conscience wasn't enough. Never did download any songs, although I did stumble upon pirate book sites a couple times before I knew any better ("free library").

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Downloading copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is against the law, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Congratulations, you have just made every single person on the internet (including yourself) guilty.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

She was punished big-time by the jury for trying to make fools of them. Juries really don't like people who try to pull that stunt.

This is the same one where the judge threw it out afterwards, right? Did she ever end up having to pay anything?

[Richey79]

The fine was reduced to $54,000 on appeal.

The RIAA have filed an appeal to try to fiddle with the wording of what she's accused of having done and raise the fine back up to 'silly-money' levels.

None of which really matters, when she doesn't have the assets to pay anywhere near the $54,000 in the first place.

You wouldn't think the publishing industry would want to follow the lead of the music industry and ape their tactics of ten years ago. Do the book people really look at the current position of the music people and think, 'that's where we'd like to be in a decade's time'?

All we need now is for the Simon Cowell of literature to make himself known.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by Richey79

All we need now is for the Simon Cowell of literature to make himself known.

Are you sure that's what you want? If that happens, we'll all be reading Dan Brown and James Patterson .

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Richey79

The fine was reduced to $54,000 on appeal.

It wasn't reduced on appeal; it was reduced by the trial judge.

But it's more complicated than that; there have been 3 trials. She lost the first one, but the trial judge ordered a new trial (for an issue unrelated to the amount of the damages). In the second trial, the jury awarded $2 M, but the court reduced it to $54,000, with the plaintiff's having the option to reject that amount and have a new trial on damages only. In the trial on damages, the jury awarded $1.5 million. The trial court reduced it to $54,000 again and the record companies are appealing that judgment...this is the first time that an appellate court has considered these issues.

(Also, for whatever reason it appears that Thomas actually shared 1700 songs but the companies only sought damages for 24; I'm not sure why)

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Richey79

You wouldn't think the publishing industry would want to follow the lead of the music industry and ape their tactics of ten years ago. Do the book people really look at the current position of the music people and think, 'that's where we'd like to be in a decade's time'?

They are all tarred by the same brush. Fanatically determined to defend a last century distribution system no matter the cost.

You would think a small amount of common sense might actually come to light and that the money spent employing lawyers and copyright trolls is used to actually re-invent themselves in the digital age.

But no.....

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

(Also, for whatever reason it appears that Thomas actually shared 1700 songs but the companies only sought damages for 24; I'm not sure why)

Probably because those were the only ones they owned along with the musicians that created them, and all the other songs were independent/small label releases.

Independent music has always been shared more than corporation music, right back to the cassette days. The reasons are pretty obvious, if you want to listen to corporation music you just turn on the radio. People who discover other types of music for the first time want to share it with their friends. mp3 is just the latest version of cassettes. Technically illegal, but only the corporations care about it.

[Skip_intro]

Probably just throwing petrol on the flames, but...

Here's the scenario; I have several dozen metres of books in my study, Hardback editions of authors I particularly like, Paperbacks of many, many, others. In some cases I have multiple versions of the same book, different covers, earlier editions, etc.

However, I have the opportunity to download the collected works of these two of my favourite authors to fill my new eReader, in non-DRM'd ePub format. These authors are Stephen King and Iain Banks, for example.

The Stephen King collection contains all of the Dark Tower series, which I don't like and have no physical copies of. It does have all of the books I own as well.

The Iain Banks collection has all of this SF and non-SF books, all of which I own, multiple times.

Now, it seems I have no legal right to download any of this, even though I would not be depriving anyone of revenue as I would not have bought the Dark Tower books and have paid for original copies of all of the others.

Would I be on stronger ground if I exclude the books I don't like/own from the download? Legally, of course, it makes no difference what-so ever as it seems that I am depriving someone, somewhere of profit. This is, in fact, not the case.

But, in the same way that no-one has yet been successfully prosecuted for recording music from the radio, taping LP's or ripping their CDs to MP3 - Home Taping Is Killing Music, right? - I cannot see how a case such as this involving books would also be successfully prosecuted.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Skip_intro

But, in the same way that no-one has yet been successfully prosecuted for recording music from the radio, taping LP's or ripping their CDs to MP3 - Home Taping Is Killing Music, right? - I cannot see how a case such as this involving books would also be successfully prosecuted.

Taping a record isn't something you would do in public or advertise in front of the whole world, so it would have been pretty much impossible to prosecute. (Which is the only reason nobody ever was). People were prosecuted for selling and swapping bootleg recordings of live concerts, even though no commercial version of those recordings were available.

I doubt copying your own books onto a Kindle would get you in trouble either, because nobody (except Amazon) would ever find out. But if you download them instead you will leave behind evidence of that download. That is what might get you in bother.

Format shifting might be legalised in the UK at some point in the future, as long as none of the corporations who would be affected by it pay to have that clause removed, but it would need to be you who did the format shifting yourself.

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by Skip_intro

Now, it seems I have no legal right to download any of this, even though I would not be depriving anyone of revenue as I would not have bought the Dark Tower books and have paid for original copies of all of the others.

I think you've asked and answered your own question, by separating legality from morality. Once you pass that fork in the road, you're free to follow your chosen ethical system wherever it may lead.