Minnesota Mom has to pay 1.5 million fine
 

Wow, that's crazy.. she should pay something but that's alot of coin :2 cents:

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amp...ding-24-songs/

jez they financialy raped her with this

Bad press for the music industry.
But they have to do something...

party like it's 1999.

How stupid... like they will ever collect that.

This is what some in the adult industry are trying to do. Hilariously pathetic.

Don't you think they know that? Was this even about money? Nope.

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

wow that really sucks but I am sure the record companys want to make an example from someone

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...2TXlQ4IcXQciU=


This lady has already been sued for sharing 1700 other songs.
And it's not that she "illegally downloaded 24 songs"; it about her sharing
those 24 songs with 60 million people.

If only food worked like file sharing; then one dude could buy one McDouble
for .99 cents and take it to the hood and feed everybody.
Wouldn't life just be fucking great.............. Except for anyone who invested in McDonalds.

Odd.... The article says, "Thomas-Rasset maintained she wasn't the computer user who did the file sharing."

That's a hell of a difference from, I purchased these and couldn't find the cd.

you have got the facts totally wrong. you may have lost it finally. talk to a family physician.

It's not bad press for the people who pay for music and think other
people who don't pay are crooks.

And who does the music industry care about?
People who pay? Or people who download for free?

:2 cents:

Except McDonalds sells tangible goods which are depleted after distributing them. So it's totally different!

This case is about her leaving them in a folder that shared them with potentially millions of other people.

if that were the case should would have been convicted for all 1700 songs she "shared"

the reason it down to 24 songs is because kazza automatically indexed the my music folder, and she ripped all her cd to that folder.

she was convicted for the 24 songs she didn't personally rip.

kazza is a file locating protocol not session based like bit torrent so remember just by having the file in the folder she was sharing it

BTW Doc

this legitimized "not my fault defence" was what this article is misrepresenting as "i was not the file sharer defence"

20th century vs Cablevision ruled that when defining fair use you must look at it from the prespective of the end user when the US supreme court upheld that decision it made that POV rule of law.

FORMAT SHIFTING?

someone needs to beat in your fat ass head with an aluminum baseball bat you fat lunatic piece of shit

Kazaa was NOT just a format shifting tool you fucking clown!!! lolz...

:1orglaugh


Yeah, no shit. As if I didn't say this : "If only food worked like file sharing".

You're such an expert on the usage of Kazaa but can't even spell it right.

I'm trying to understand how you consider something like Kazaa different than something like torrents when the only difference is that the downloader is getting it bit by bit from multiple places.

It doesn't say anything about her ripping her own cd's and those by mistake making it into Kazza. It says she was "penalized for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer"

The problem isn't that she downloaded or ripped them... the problem is she shared them on a "peer-to-peer" AFTER she downloaded them.

It's fair use for her to download/rip her own, it's not fair use to share them on a peer-to-peer, as already proven by her court case, other court cases and Kazaa itself.

Basically... Kazaa was controlled software, that searched and recorded the search, across the p2p network, matching people up directly to other users... and you could lbrowse through what they had, I think that was an issue too.

Torrent, (not the trackers) isn't a single controlled software, it doesn't record anything and it does not control access/accounts, the torrent-user isn't searching 'you' then grabbing a variety of things.

Now the trackers, are some what like Kazza, other than the bit differences and search doesn't gather/log anything. I think that is why some of the torrent sites/trackers have taken the heat and not the technology directly.

this shit is crazy... :rasta

I'm no legal expert, but I excel in common fucking sense.

They'll never collect that much money, and it'll end up dragging out in court for years(as it has), make an enemy out of a customer, and possibly anyone else that knows about this case.

They could just ask for a reasonable amount like $100 per song, which most offenders would probably willingly concede to, and probably never download illegally again.

Case closed.

BULLSHIT. How fucking stupid are you that you can't rip a song on a a CD to MP3 format? And if you are that fucking stupid then pay the 99 cents for the MP3 from a LEGAL source.

If one is pirating music they are NOT a customer are they?

It would be a legal source if she ever owned the music... It wasn't that she downloaded it, the issue was she also shared them.

1 the case started win her being convicted of 1700 violations

and is now down to 24

common sense should tell something happened to eliminate most of those violations she first got convicted of

just because the blogger doesn't give you all the facts doesn't mean they don't exist

read the actual case. This has been something i have repeatedly talked about here

and there are dozens of articles, and transcripts that tell you exactly why most of the songs stopped being violations.

(see the reason i gave you)

and RPVR of cablevision was not just a timeshifting tool

and a SMS server is not just a backup tool

the legal point is not what it COULD be used for but what it IS used for.

someone using kazaa to get music they never bought is violating copyright law

someone using kazaa to change format shift content they bought is not.

read ruling in the 20th century fox vs cable vision ruling.

The judge (and the supreme court agreed) that the point of view you must take when determining if something is fair use or not is end user

fair use counts even in large amounts.

If they can shut Limewire down for hosting illegal member content, why can't they shut down the tubes for doing the same?

Please explain to me how a person stealing your stuff is a customer that you
should care about.

I'm not getting that part. :helpme


And yes, they don't give a shit about ever getting any money out of this
person. They do want this to drag on and on and on and on and make
her life a living hell of legal trouble.

If she fails to appear in court just one time then she can go to jail for that.
So they will keep calling her into court to stress her until she goes to jail
or they exhaust all means to order her to court.

It works great.

Imagine still being called to court 5, 6, ...9 years down the line and wishing
they would just reach a settlement that you could pay and be done with it.

Believe me, this lady wishes she could just pay and make this all go away.

The music industry doesn't want her to pay. That would be too easy.

First... It was 1700 she was sued for originally, ie: they blanked her. Then after the VERY FIRST court case, it was 24 that she lost on. She has lost on the same 24 songs, 3 times total.

"On October 4, 2007, after 5 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding her liable for willful infringement, and awarded statutory damages in the amount of $9,250 for each of the 24 songs, for a total of $222,000." <---- first trial


Here are the facts.... You've never read the case or the transcripts. And the only information you have about this case, you've probably read from torrent news sites or... like the rest of us, news AFTER the court ruling happened.

That's IF it's fair use... then all that would apply. However - this case has nothing to do with fair use, it's not fair use - at all.

If you upload content to "change format shift content" and it's for yourself ONLY, then you're fine. But once someone else downloads it, YOU are in violation of copyright and not the person downloading it - they would be subject to fair use - depending on the use.

Do you read any of these court rulings you always quote?

because no one cares about porn. And in fact if tubes cause the downfall of porn then that's all the better for all the anti-porn people.

:Oh crap

so by that standard if you throw copyrighted song in the garbage and i search thru your trash and make a copy your guilty of a copyright violation

the make available ruling was thrown out, in this case btw

that the reason it went from 1700 violations down to only 24

because kazaa auto indexed her my music folder, she ripped most of the songs to the default location (my music folder)

the remaining 24 were songs who's source was the kazaa network.


you have to understand that every fair use can be precieved as infringement if you look at it from the networks point of view.


in fact when the original ruling came down in 20th century fox vs cablevision that exactly why they ruled it was an infringement.

the appeals process showed that if you looked at it from the end users it was no different then useing a vcr to play timeshifted content.


The key point is that the pov you must use because that the ruling of the supreme court

if you look at from that point of view, there is no difference between clicking a few buttons on cd ripping software, to make a formated shifted copy of your mp3 to your my music folder and clicking a few buttons to make a formated shifted copy of an mp3 from the kazaa network to your music folder.


once it there legally, sharing it due to an autoindexing of kazaa is no different then the over 1600 songs she was found not guilty of infringing on.

really then tell me what the mistake was in the first case.

it was that the judge gave instructions that even if she didn't intend for the content to be shared she would be guilty of wilfully infringing .

the second case they blanketed her with the same 1700 mp3s.

they were only able to get a conviction for the 24 she didn't personally rip, the logical arguement was that since the source was a pirate source, she had no right to put them in her my music folder, ergo, she wilfully infringed when they were shared, automagically by kazaa since she had no right to put them in her my music folder in the first place.

ie none of the other infringements would have ever happened has she not "wilfully infringed" in the first place

that all changes if kazaa is just the network aware version of cd ripping software (like the rpvr is the network aware version of pvr)

as for reading the transcripts, i understand that prespective is going to change your opinion of this case, so yes i do read the transcripts.

that why i know what mistake the judge made, the reason why it was dropped from 1700 to 24 and so on,

obviously you don't

btw

your statement doesn't even make sense, if they successfully blanketed her before with 1700 violations and they simple decided to reduce it 24 (and therefore getting ungodly grief for the per song damages) why would the not simply go back to the old proven and supposedly valid original 1700 mp3 arguement again.

so the case that establishes the point of view you must take to legitimately define fair use should only apply if it already defined as fair use

:error:error:error:error

do you even think when you make statements like this.

i don't know why they don't do something realistic. charge her 1 dollar per song plus a 15 dollar fine per song. something people could easily (usually) pay but wouldn't want to...

Hahaha, that some of the best bullshit I've ever heard... no, that would be your standard of made up shit, however the courts see it differently.

The 1600 songs was kicked because they couldn't prove she downloaded/uploaded, traded them - it's in the article. It had nothing to do with fair use and everything to do with a lack of them proving it. They could prove the 24 other songs were pirated.

The mistake was a blanket lawsuit without proof of every infringement, but not a mistake enough for her to be able to come back after them. The 2nd case was appeal, SHE repeated it and got nailed again

And no, you haven't read the transcripts...or you would know why the reduction in songs happened.