Comments on: $222,000 http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/comment-page-1/#comment-48379 Steve R. Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:44:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/#comment-48379 <p><a href="http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/10/8/235122/810" rel="nofollow">Ed Foster</a> has an excellent post on the inequity of this verdict. He reports <i>"The comparisons between two news stories last week struck me as rather telling. You probably saw some of the coverage about a jury decision ordering a Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 for infringing copyright on 24 songs. But you may have missed the FTC's announcement of its successful action against a spyware outfit that's going to cost the offenders $330,000 ... of the $3,595,925 in illicit revenue they earned from their scam. Gee, what message does that send?<br>...<br>In other words, both copyright and spyware laws are designed to protect corporate interests, not to protect us. </i></p> Ed Foster has an excellent post on the inequity of this verdict. He reports “The comparisons between two news stories last week struck me as rather telling. You probably saw some of the coverage about a jury decision ordering a Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 for infringing copyright on 24 songs. But you may have missed the FTC’s announcement of its successful action against a spyware outfit that’s going to cost the offenders $330,000 … of the $3,595,925 in illicit revenue they earned from their scam. Gee, what message does that send?
…
In other words, both copyright and spyware laws are designed to protect corporate interests, not to protect us.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/comment-page-1/#comment-39488 Steve R. Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:44:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/#comment-39488 <p><a href="http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/10/8/235122/810" rel="nofollow">Ed Foster</a> has an excellent post on the inequity of this verdict. He reports <i>"The comparisons between two news stories last week struck me as rather telling. You probably saw some of the coverage about a jury decision ordering a Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 for infringing copyright on 24 songs. But you may have missed the FTC's announcement of its successful action against a spyware outfit that's going to cost the offenders $330,000 ... of the $3,595,925 in illicit revenue they earned from their scam. Gee, what message does that send? ... In other words, both copyright and spyware laws are designed to protect corporate interests, not to protect us. </i></p> Ed Foster has an excellent post on the inequity of this verdict. He reports “The comparisons between two news stories last week struck me as rather telling. You probably saw some of the coverage about a jury decision ordering a Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 for infringing copyright on 24 songs. But you may have missed the FTC’s announcement of its successful action against a spyware outfit that’s going to cost the offenders $330,000 … of the $3,595,925 in illicit revenue they earned from their scam. Gee, what message does that send? … In other words, both copyright and spyware laws are designed to protect corporate interests, not to protect us.

]]> By: Anonymous http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/comment-page-1/#comment-48378 Anonymous Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:16:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/#comment-48378 <p>Q from the last post:<br>"And you're telling me that none of the several dozen songs she's accused of sharing had been registered properly?"<br><br>They are registered but the name on the registration is not that of the companies suing. The RIAA did not provide any additional proof during discovery and tried to get a stipulation. Ray Beckerman's blog has the details. Without proof of registration the Judge should nullify the jury virdict as unconscionable. Additionally the forensics "expert's" foresic methods don't pass Frye. There was never any testimony by Media Sentry to validate their methods or prove that their "evidence" wasn't just faked. The jury shouldn't have ever been allowed near this case. The judge let the RIAA steam-roll right through without meeting proper legal muster.</p> Q from the last post:
“And you’re telling me that none of the several dozen songs she’s accused of sharing had been registered properly?”

They are registered but the name on the registration is not that of the companies suing. The RIAA did not provide any additional proof during discovery and tried to get a stipulation. Ray Beckerman’s blog has the details. Without proof of registration the Judge should nullify the jury virdict as unconscionable. Additionally the forensics “expert’s” foresic methods don’t pass Frye. There was never any testimony by Media Sentry to validate their methods or prove that their “evidence” wasn’t just faked. The jury shouldn’t have ever been allowed near this case. The judge let the RIAA steam-roll right through without meeting proper legal muster.

]]> By: Anonymous http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/comment-page-1/#comment-39487 Anonymous Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:16:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/#comment-39487 <p>Q from the last post: "And you're telling me that none of the several dozen songs she's accused of sharing had been registered properly?"</p> <p>They are registered but the name on the registration is not that of the companies suing. The RIAA did not provide any additional proof during discovery and tried to get a stipulation. Ray Beckerman's blog has the details. Without proof of registration the Judge should nullify the jury virdict as unconscionable. Additionally the forensics "expert's" foresic methods don't pass Frye. There was never any testimony by Media Sentry to validate their methods or prove that their "evidence" wasn't just faked. The jury shouldn't have ever been allowed near this case. The judge let the RIAA steam-roll right through without meeting proper legal muster.</p> Q from the last post: “And you’re telling me that none of the several dozen songs she’s accused of sharing had been registered properly?”

They are registered but the name on the registration is not that of the companies suing. The RIAA did not provide any additional proof during discovery and tried to get a stipulation. Ray Beckerman’s blog has the details. Without proof of registration the Judge should nullify the jury virdict as unconscionable. Additionally the forensics “expert’s” foresic methods don’t pass Frye. There was never any testimony by Media Sentry to validate their methods or prove that their “evidence” wasn’t just faked. The jury shouldn’t have ever been allowed near this case. The judge let the RIAA steam-roll right through without meeting proper legal muster.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/comment-page-1/#comment-48377 eee_eff Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:28:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/#comment-48377 <p>Exactly my sentiments:<br><br><i>“We welcome the jury’s decision,” the RIAA said in an e-mailed statement following the decision. “The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner.</i><br><b>Hey RIAA, get a clue! Do you really think Joe Sixpack believes that a $222,000 fine is “fair and reasonable”?</b><br><br>By the way, you have just:<br><br>1. Sued your own customer,<br>2. Made yourself look like a bully,<br>3. Made the DMCA enormously less popular,<br>4. Strengthened the case for copyright reform<br><br>So just like Dirty Harry said: Go ahead, make my day. The RIAA has engaged in plenty of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors of their own. That is about to end, thanks to the RIAA’s attitude towards their own customers. Thankfully, there are a great many places where you can get great music without supporting the RIAA.<br><br>Just who is the RIAA anyway? They really don’t want you to know, as they are engaging in a highly unpopular and undemocratic activity, so they obfuscate. Look at their website for the answer? Do you think you will find that information on their website? surprise surprise–you will not! But have no fear-wikipedia has unearthed the truth (again!)<br>So who are the real members of the RIAA? There are really four members, the others are just there for show, so the RIAA can appear to be something other than the mouthpiece and legal bully for the four large corporations that pay all the bills. Those four are:<br><br>* EMI<br>* Sony BMG Music Entertainment<br>* Universal Music Group<br>* Warner Music Group<br><br>And what is the RIAA doing?<br><br>As the blog Recording Industry vs The People says (and I could have hard put it better myself) people “have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for having computers whose internet accounts were believed to have been used to access peer-to-peer file sharing. In these cases, a cartel of multinational corporations collude to abuse our judicial system, distort copyright law, and frighten ordinary working people and their children.”</p> Exactly my sentiments:

“We welcome the jury’s decision,” the RIAA said in an e-mailed statement following the decision. “The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner.
Hey RIAA, get a clue! Do you really think Joe Sixpack believes that a $222,000 fine is “fair and reasonable”?

By the way, you have just:

1. Sued your own customer,
2. Made yourself look like a bully,
3. Made the DMCA enormously less popular,
4. Strengthened the case for copyright reform

So just like Dirty Harry said: Go ahead, make my day. The RIAA has engaged in plenty of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors of their own. That is about to end, thanks to the RIAA’s attitude towards their own customers. Thankfully, there are a great many places where you can get great music without supporting the RIAA.

Just who is the RIAA anyway? They really don’t want you to know, as they are engaging in a highly unpopular and undemocratic activity, so they obfuscate. Look at their website for the answer? Do you think you will find that information on their website? surprise surprise–you will not! But have no fear-wikipedia has unearthed the truth (again!)
So who are the real members of the RIAA? There are really four members, the others are just there for show, so the RIAA can appear to be something other than the mouthpiece and legal bully for the four large corporations that pay all the bills. Those four are:

* EMI
* Sony BMG Music Entertainment
* Universal Music Group
* Warner Music Group

And what is the RIAA doing?

As the blog Recording Industry vs The People says (and I could have hard put it better myself) people “have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for having computers whose internet accounts were believed to have been used to access peer-to-peer file sharing. In these cases, a cartel of multinational corporations collude to abuse our judicial system, distort copyright law, and frighten ordinary working people and their children.”

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/comment-page-1/#comment-39486 enigma_foundry Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:28:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/10/04/222000/#comment-39486 <p>Exactly my sentiments:</p> <p><i>“We welcome the jury’s decision,” the RIAA said in an e-mailed statement following the decision. “The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner.</i></p> <p><b>Hey RIAA, get a clue! Do you really think Joe Sixpack believes that a $222,000 fine is “fair and reasonable”?</b></p> <p>By the way, you have just:</p> <ol> <li>Sued your own customer,</li> <li>Made yourself look like a bully,</li> <li>Made the DMCA enormously less popular,</li> <li>Strengthened the case for copyright reform</li> </ol> <p>So just like Dirty Harry said: Go ahead, make my day. The RIAA has engaged in plenty of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors of their own. That is about to end, thanks to the RIAA’s attitude towards their own customers. Thankfully, there are a great many places where you can get great music without supporting the RIAA.</p> <p>Just who is the RIAA anyway? They really don’t want you to know, as they are engaging in a highly unpopular and undemocratic activity, so they obfuscate. Look at their website for the answer? Do you think you will find that information on their website? surprise surprise–you will not! But have no fear-wikipedia has unearthed the truth (again!) So who are the real members of the RIAA? There are really four members, the others are just there for show, so the RIAA can appear to be something other than the mouthpiece and legal bully for the four large corporations that pay all the bills. Those four are:</p> <ul> <li>EMI</li> <li>Sony BMG Music Entertainment</li> <li>Universal Music Group</li> <li>Warner Music Group</li> </ul> <p>And what is the RIAA doing?</p> <p>As the blog Recording Industry vs The People says (and I could have hard put it better myself) people “have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for having computers whose internet accounts were believed to have been used to access peer-to-peer file sharing. In these cases, a cartel of multinational corporations collude to abuse our judicial system, distort copyright law, and frighten ordinary working people and their children.”</p> Exactly my sentiments:

“We welcome the jury’s decision,” the RIAA said in an e-mailed statement following the decision. “The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner.

Hey RIAA, get a clue! Do you really think Joe Sixpack believes that a $222,000 fine is “fair and reasonable”?

By the way, you have just:

  1. Sued your own customer,
  2. Made yourself look like a bully,
  3. Made the DMCA enormously less popular,
  4. Strengthened the case for copyright reform

So just like Dirty Harry said: Go ahead, make my day. The RIAA has engaged in plenty of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors of their own. That is about to end, thanks to the RIAA’s attitude towards their own customers. Thankfully, there are a great many places where you can get great music without supporting the RIAA.

Just who is the RIAA anyway? They really don’t want you to know, as they are engaging in a highly unpopular and undemocratic activity, so they obfuscate. Look at their website for the answer? Do you think you will find that information on their website? surprise surprise–you will not! But have no fear-wikipedia has unearthed the truth (again!) So who are the real members of the RIAA? There are really four members, the others are just there for show, so the RIAA can appear to be something other than the mouthpiece and legal bully for the four large corporations that pay all the bills. Those four are:

  • EMI
  • Sony BMG Music Entertainment
  • Universal Music Group
  • Warner Music Group

And what is the RIAA doing?

As the blog Recording Industry vs The People says (and I could have hard put it better myself) people “have been sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for having computers whose internet accounts were believed to have been used to access peer-to-peer file sharing. In these cases, a cartel of multinational corporations collude to abuse our judicial system, distort copyright law, and frighten ordinary working people and their children.”

]]>