Dept. of Justice sides with RIAA in MP3 File-Sharing Lawsuit

A

admin

Audioholics Robot
Staff member
The Bush administration officially sided with the RIAA in the latest file-sharing lawsuit. Jamie Thomas, a middle class single mom in Minnesota has been ordered to shell out $222,000 for making 24 MP3s available on Kazaa.


Discuss "Dept. of Justice sides with RIAA in MP3 File-Sharing Lawsuit" here. Read the article.
 
birdonthebeach

birdonthebeach

Full Audioholic
4 songs for $222,000!

Even thought there is no way to know how many times the songs were downloaded and passed on. You can download 24 songs legally from iTunes for $24. Somebody’s estimate of digital music value is seriously out of whack!
Well I could not disagree with you more. The point is not how much it costs one person to download the songs. Let's call those 24 songs two albums. The combined costs making & marketing 2 major release records is FAR more than a quarter of a million dollars. As noted in the article, they could have hit her with MUCH larger fines, based on the law as it is written.

While I have no doubt that there are MUCH bigger fish out there for the DOJ to pick on, the bottom line is that the poor "single mom" still broke the law. Music is not free - there are way too many kids right now (not to mention adults who should know better) that seem to think that you should not have to pay for music.
 
Highlander

Highlander

Full Audioholic
You can download 24 songs legally from iTunes for $24...
I couldn't agree more with Birdonthebeach. Why didn't she just buy the songs if they're as cheap as quoted above? She deserves everything she gets.
 
C

chris6878

Audioholic
I cant believe either one of you. The riaa which is making billions comes along sues a women making 30k a year for some outrageous amount of money and it is ok with you guys. The people that actually made that music is not gonna get a dime of that money she has to pay. I think they should take each song that she downloaded and ask the artists if they want her to pay, if not then leave it alone. ITs the law, its the law blah blah, it is bull ****! Next they are gonna start suing children which will fall back on computer illiterate parents. But I am sure that is also fine with you guys. Before you know it the riaa will start to do public hangings to illegal down loaders. This downloading has not put any kind of dent in the pockets of the riaa or the artists. THe government is giving them 2 much power.

Also why not go after the people on the street corner botlegging music and making money, not the mom downloading 24 songs. This is like giving the casual in home pot smoker 30 years in jail.
 
Last edited:
birdonthebeach

birdonthebeach

Full Audioholic
This downloading has not put any kind of dent in the pockets of the riaa or the artists.
This is where you are dead wrong. It absolutely has put a dent in everyone's pocket involved, especially the artists - or those that are left with recording contracts.

The point is not this one woman, the point is that it is against the law to steal music, whether you are an individual or a sophisticated syndicate producing thousands of counterfeit discs.

And they certainly are going after the bootleggers. The media just loves to get the dramatic story of a helpless single mother who didn't know any better because it makes a great story - "Evil billionaire corporation sues single mom making 30k a year." Look - I am sorry for her. But to argue that stealing music is okay because the RIAA represents rich people or something to that effect is ridiculous.

Can anyone explain to me your rationale for the opinion that you should not have to pay for music?
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
While I do feel the fine is steep, I don't disagree with the ruling. Unfortunately, I highly doubt it will curtail the practice.
 
Gimpy Ric

Gimpy Ric

Moderator
I have over 2200 MP3's @ 320 Kbps sampling, and bought them from Russia for 2 cents a meg. That means I payed anywhere from $1.97 to $4.00 an album.

Allofmp3.com is long gone, since the RIAA put them out of business. It took them several years though. At first the Rusckies told them to XXXX Off. But some big money, ie the RIAA, finally won.

Call me a thief, and XXXX, I don't care. Now I'm back to buying CD's from Amazon.com and still pay big bucks for concert tickets, T-shirts, etc.

Last time I checked, none of the popular artist I downloaded from Russia are starving.

I've never allowed anybody to use these MP3's, as I buy all my software, and think bit torrent users are the scum of the Earth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
She uploaded the songs, doesn't say anything about her downloading any.


Regardless, I don't think the crime fits the punishment.
 
birdonthebeach

birdonthebeach

Full Audioholic
She uploaded the songs, doesn't say anything about her downloading any.


Regardless, I don't think the crime fits the punishment.
Okay, so she's distributing not stealing. Whatever. And I agree - she got off pretty easy, considering what the max fine could have been....

:cool:
 
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
Hey, I'm all for the artist but the RIAA are a bunch of slimy, greddy toads.

"RIAA's practices involve price-fixing, blaming its poor financial state on unfounded digital piracy claims and in turn, blaming and suing its own consumers, lobbying for changes that hinder technological innovation and change copyright laws, underpaying the artists it represents, invading personal privacy to enforce copyrights, and dismantling entire computer networks just because of their ability (of their users) to share copyrighted files."
 
Clint DeBoer

Clint DeBoer

Banned
I'm not taking sides, but I love lobbing grenades:

Remember, this whole lawsuit began because she decided that she wouldn't pay the default ~$2000 settlement fee. She has financial backing - this is about her lawyer and backers now. I doubt she'll ever pay a dime.
 
birdonthebeach

birdonthebeach

Full Audioholic
Hey, I'm all for the artist but the RIAA are a bunch of slimy, greddy toads.

"RIAA's practices involve price-fixing, blaming its poor financial state on unfounded digital piracy claims and in turn, blaming and suing its own consumers, lobbying for changes that hinder technological innovation and change copyright laws, underpaying the artists it represents, invading personal privacy to enforce copyrights, and dismantling entire computer networks just because of their ability (of their users) to share copyrighted files."
I can't disagree with you entirely, but it cuts both ways, unfortunately. I find the "slimy, greedy toads" description to be a perfect fit for the big record label execs, who totally let their own greed and and ignorance get in the way of logic when it came to technology. They brought it all on themselves.

My "crusade" is definately for the artists, who are the ones who get totally screwed in all of this. But I also just can't understand why people think they should not have to pay for music....even if the RIAA or fatcat label execs are part of the picture.
 
birdonthebeach

birdonthebeach

Full Audioholic
I'm not taking sides, but I love lobbing grenades:

Remember, this whole lawsuit began because she decided that she wouldn't pay the default ~$2000 settlement fee. She has financial backing - this is about her lawyer and backers now. I doubt she'll ever pay a dime.
BINGO!!!!

:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
I'm not taking sides, but I love lobbing grenades:

Remember, this whole lawsuit began because she decided that she wouldn't pay the default ~$2000 settlement fee. She has financial backing - this is about her lawyer and backers now. I doubt she'll ever pay a dime.
Well now, that really puts a spin on my perspective of this case. I wasn't aware of a settlement fee.



Still, my biggest pev with the RIAA is their belief that you should not be able to make back-up copies of media that you have legally purchased.
 
birdonthebeach

birdonthebeach

Full Audioholic
Well now, that really puts a spin on my perspective of this case. I wasn't aware of a settlement fee.



Still, my biggest pev with the RIAA is their belief that you should not be able to make back-up copies of media that you have legally purchased.
I agree with you there - you are certainly entitled to that under "fair use." I doubt you can find an example of anyone being prosecuted for making personal backups though....
 
Highlander

Highlander

Full Audioholic
I cant believe either one of you. The riaa which is making billions comes along sues a women making 30k a year for some outrageous amount of money and it is ok with you guys...
Yes, it is okay.

It is completely irrelevant to the case in question whether or not the RIAA are screwing people over. The behaviour of the RIAA is not the issue in question here; it is the illegal action of one woman. Once you (rightly) separate the two you may understand why Birdonthebeach and I think the way we do.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
I cant believe either one of you. The riaa which is making billions comes along sues a women making 30k a year for some outrageous amount of money and it is ok with you guys. The people that actually made that music is not gonna get a dime of that money she has to pay. I think they should take each song that she downloaded and ask the artists if they want her to pay, if not then leave it alone. ITs the law, its the law blah blah, it is bull ****! Next they are gonna start suing children which will fall back on computer illiterate parents. But I am sure that is also fine with you guys. Before you know it the riaa will start to do public hangings to illegal down loaders. This downloading has not put any kind of dent in the pockets of the riaa or the artists. THe government is giving them 2 much power.

Also why not go after the people on the street corner botlegging music and making money, not the mom downloading 24 songs. This is like giving the casual in home pot smoker 30 years in jail.
Artists are tangentially protected by this through deterrence. The street vendors are gone after. Why would you think they aren't chased down?
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
I have over 2200 MP3's @ 320 Kbps sampling, and bought them from Russia for 2 cents a meg. That means I payed anywhere from $1.97 to $4.00 an album.

Allofmp3.com is long gone, since the RIAA put them out of business. It took them several years though. At first the Rusckies told them to XXXX Off. But some big money, ie the RIAA, finally won.

Call me a thief, and XXXX, I don't care. Now I'm back to buying CD's from Amazon.com and still pay big bucks for concert tickets, T-shirts, etc.

Last time I checked, none of the popular artist I downloaded from Russia are starving.

I've never allowed anybody to use these MP3's, as I buy all my software, and think bit torrent users are the scum of the Earth
All this tells me is you are a person that will rationalize any of their actions as long as it suites them. Nothing to be proud of.
 
M

mojo_13

Audioholic
I see both sides of this and do buy cd's so don't take this as an excuse. I took a college ethics class with the wife of a popular rock groups singer and this topic got brought up and she said that her husband loved people downloading there songs off the net because it drummed up interest in their group and brought them out to their concerts where the actuall money is made for them. I thought that it was a very interseting point. Just another point of view.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top