[Moof_in_Charge]

Racism sensationalism? You mean like when you implied minorities ...
No like when I explicitly asked you not to discuss the race issue in my first response to you but you keep harping at it. So I am going to stop right here, this is one of the points that Macworld editors jump in and get peeved.
You are trying to hold up a poor position you chose to defend your argument by reaching beyond and hypothesizing a fantasy behind the meaning of what I said.
Again, I am going to attempt to make you focus. Try and answer the points I raised in my communication with you. You're coming across as grasping at straws trying to make me in to a racist /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

She chose to take this to trial
Good point, do you know if she chose to go to trial because the RIAA went after her or did she just get up and say, today I am going to fess up to RIAA that I stole 24 songs, wait for them to sue me then I'll put up a defense and show them what I am made of? Give me a break, your reality is distortion plagued.
No one instigates a trial just so they can defend themselves.
BTW, for the record, being at the lower range of the median income is not considered poor. (not according to the US government anyway)

[tylerkirkkelly]

Quote:

---

So...if I copy my CDs that I purchased to my computer, and then transferred them to my iPod, I'm guilty of this too?
That seems like what's being said here.

---

That does seem to be the plaintiff's lawyer's point of view, but I think that is wrong. I think it's legal to make copies for your own use, provided you don't give them to others.
If this were true, the only legal way to get the big record labels' music on to your iPod would be to purchase it from the iTunes store, which is absurd.

[gudin]

Well, the case was not a criminal matter, it was a civil lawsuit, and the amount was not a "fine" it was civil damages set by the jury. So yeah, it doesn't match up at all to stealing CDs from a store. The comparision is completely without merit, and the comparison of punishments is like saying a baseball player should get a fifteen yard penalty for traveling.
I personally think the jury is out to lunch and the statute is out to lunch, especially the part (that many people here are ignoring) where the mere act of making the song available is a violation, regardless of whether it was actually ever viewed or downloaded. That is why she lost (and the fact that she did not hide her tracks at all). Everyone saying she had a bad lawyer, and it's because she didn't have much money is pretty much missing the point. She apparently has $60,000 in legal bills, but the statute was so stacked against her, that the jury had very little choice. They could have hit her for $750 a song, but picked something in the middle.
She could have settled the thing for $3000 apparently, but chose not to.
The RIAA got what they wanted, a message sent.
They won't get any $220,000 because she'll just go bankrupt. She's 30 with two kids. Unless her job pays her very well, I imagine this judgment alone would make it crazily obvious to a bankruptcy trustee.

[robb1068]

Quote:

---

She chose to take this to trial
Good point, do you know if she chose to go to trial because the RIAA went after her or did she just get up and say, today I am going to fess up to RIAA that I stole 24 songs, wait for them to sue me then I'll put up a defense and show them what I am made of?

---

It's been alleged (by the RIAA's lawyer) that she was encouraged by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) to fight in court, probably thinking that the RIAA wouldn't go after a single mother of two.
Opps!
There's a LOT more detail on this case over at cNet's news site (link below).
http://www.news.com/...-9791383-7.html

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

When I see something like this, I tell myself, look at the vein attempt at masking the problem instead of addressing it, look at how this hurts society's greater good. This is a terrible loss for society.

---

I agree. History has proven the RIAA lawsuits against consumers to be ineffective at deterring the theft of music. This is no different. What she did was wrong, but suing your potential customers has more of a long term negative impact. If anything, this type of action vilifies the record industry and makes people want to steal.
The industry is showing signs of moving in the right direction by starting to sell DRM free downloads, but all of the labels need to get on board here. When DRM free tracks are available for about $1, it's harder for anyone to justify stealing the music.

[bastion]

I don't see how anyone can possibly justify a penalty far in excess of what she would have been saddled with for shoplifting an armload of CDs (an equivalent crime).
In what world is stealing a few dozen physical products equivalent to unlimited distribution of intellectual property to which you don't have the rights?

[bastion]

All the lawyer has to do is point out how this is no different than people in the 80's making mix tapes with cassettes, and handing them out to their friends.
Analog magnetic copies degrade generationally and are distributed to a very small population.
That's very different from what we're talking about here.

[Philip Michaels]

Quote:

---

What does her race have to do with anything? Weird.

---

Nothing that I can see. I'm not sure why the reporter included it or why the wire service put it out there in that format.
The story has been edited to bring it in line with our editorial standards.

[tbrianware]

Quote:

---

Your post doesn't even make sense.
If capitalism is ending, why are there more products available than ever before, as you say? If they weren't making a profit, the product wouldn't be made (unless they were Microsoft products). They are making huge profits, but they are losing revenue to people not paying for the product and obtaining it illegally.
And the same communists who complain about having to pay for things don't have basic understanding of economics or inflation.
The average price of a movie ticket in 1980 was $2.69. When you adjust it for inflation that comes to $7.20 in 2006, which is higher than the $6.58 average in 2006.
And a new audio CD in the 80s, when they debuted, cost $18. $18 from 1980 adjusted for inflation would be $48.20 in 2006! The $7 I paid for an LP in 1980 would be $18.74 in 2006.
So you don't have a leg to stand on.

---

Actually, as a person with a career (and numerous degrees) in economics, I do have a leg to stand on. Your analogy of the cost of a CD at original launch in the 80's is completely irrelevant. Of course the cost would be higher as the technology was newer. However, as I state, as technology improves, the cost should theoretically go down (as the industry said they would but never have).
The cost of the movie ticket would also be impacted by easier distribution, more theatres, availability, etc. The way traditional capitalism (in a supply side version as we have in the US) works is to reduce the cost as supply increases. Supply of movies has increased with only an increase in cost. The demand has decreased in the past 3 years while the price has continued to rise.
Capitalism, like all other forms, has a life cycle when placed into a framework of a society. We are reaching the end of ours. Pure and simple.

[mwalker]

Quote:

---

Honestly, I believe the RIAA and MPAA are totally out of line in suing the consumers.

---

What consumer did they sue in this case?
Here's a little point that may have escaped some people: If you don't pay for it, you ain't a consumer.
You can argue all day over whether it "just copyright infringement" or "theft," but in the end, if you didn't pay for it, you aren't holding the moral high ground.

[derekm]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely nothing. She is not even claiming any type of discriminatory action by the plaintiffs.
Note that at The Minneapolis StarTribune article it says she is a mother of two and works for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. No racial background is mentioned at all. The BrainerdDispatch (local paper) is viewable by registration only. Grrrrr!

---

I suspect that the mention of the Band and Tribe has something to do with jurisdiction, because they are not under state laws, but federal. In other words, even Ojibwe car licenses are not issued by the state (at least that was the case a few years ago)

---

Sorry, but no. First, there is no mention of her actually living on a reservation. Tribal law would only be relevant if she lived within the special jurisdiction. Second, the article I cited listed an employment detail. One could assume that she was also a member (or at least decendant) of that tribe, but considering the number of tribal organizations in Minnesota, that assumption would not be such a good idea to make. Third, a lot of news organizations will print something to the effect of place of employment if it is relevant or if it is the hometown paper. For an article appearing in a Minneapolis, Duluth, or Brainerd paper, that could be relevant. For anyone outside the local area, it's not relevant at all.
MacCentral (oops, Macworld News) did the right thing and deleted the info from the IDG article. As an aside, I can tell which articles are written by the core Macworld people and which are not simply by these types of problems. Keep up the good work Peter, Rob, Chris, Dan, and everyone else!

[nyip11]

Quote:

---

When I read news like this, I feel my only course of action is to boycott the RIAA, and support indepedent music distribution. I doubt I will be totally successful, but I'm pretty sure I could GREATLY curtail my music expenditures to a pittance per year.

---

Don't forget to press for the law to be changed. These laws are pretty much made up by the RIAA. If the law is equitable, there wouldn't even be a case to start with.

[nyip11]

Quote:

---

Fantastic, I am so happy for the RIAA, they are a GREAT American Institution! Really, now how is this helping piracy?
I hope they are happy to have legally beaten a single mother with their EXPENSIVE lawyers. Screw the RIAA, they won a ill-thought out legal battle to only lose the war.
Give us all a break and boycott the entire record business. Band should do what Radiohead just did, lose their record company on their next release.

---

Tell me again. For every dollar people spend on music, how much goes to the musicians and how much goes to the RIAA?

[nyip11]

Quote:

---

The industry is showing signs of moving in the right direction by starting to sell DRM free downloads, but all of the labels need to get on board here. When DRM free tracks are available for about $1, it's harder for anyone to justify stealing the music.

---

Anyone can sell DRM free music, including the musicians themselves. If musicians can sell their music over the web, why do they need the RIAA?