BASTARDS.

Journey, Green Day, AFI, Aerosmith

c'mon RIAA, hasn't she suffered enough?

Fark the RIAA.

Stupid jury :(

BASTARDS.

This.

Time to start making your own music:

This is my effort. (new window)

Approves

BOOOOooo

Check out www.radiohead.com; this band is actually doing something to slap the recording industry in the face.

They're releasing their new album on October 10th, online only - and you choose how much you want to pay for it. Ya'rly, you name your own price.

She'll declare bankruptcy and they'll never see a penny. They spent all that money and will probably get nothing.

I think she got find for bad taste.

FTFA: Journey, Green Day, AFI, Aerosmith

what a sad day.

RIAA needs to come up with a way for people to download music supported by shiatloads of advertising. It has to be possible - broadcast TV just figured it out.

Keep in mind that the artists will never see a dime of the $222,000.

Seriously, what the fark? The sentence SHOULD have been that the RIAA has to pay all legal costs to everyone (retroactively applicable) and be disbanded.

I Said: I think she got find for bad taste.

FTFA: Journey, Green Day, AFI, Aerosmith

find = fined

I hate me

What a shiatload of fark.

How much crack did this jury smoke prior to the hearing?

So one person has to pay back 222,000 dollars to the record industry? I guess ruining someone for life is ok just as long as snooty crap talent gets their 12 dollars off the records sold.

weak

Well, this'll surely embolden the RIAA.

Lars Ulrich is the submitter.

Well, they should either be disbanded OR be biatch-slapped back to their original purpose: quality control, and be stripped of all the idiotic powers they've assumed regarding copyrights, etc.

rjShadow: Keep in mind that the artists will never see a dime of the $222,000.

Exactly. Its really sad. TV isn't the only place that figured it out; there is the radio as well. Costs nothing to tape a song off the radio, downloading on the internet should be the same, supported by advertising.

Yeah it was pretty much curtains for her from the get go. Her case was miserably weak and the RIAA had her over a barrel with her computer in hand.

How the hell are you going to fine the woman roughly $9,000 a song, when she has like.. one CDs worth of music?

$200 a song, max.

Makes me glad to be Canadian

Thank goodness for common sense

oh wait, none here

Wow, that's so weak. Fine someone $200,000 dollars because of an IP address? Because of 24 songs? This is just ridiculous.

catch me if you can RIAA.

This verdict and the whole tracking down of downloaders is meant to get the rest of us to stop the free file sharing.

I don't think they give a rat's a$$ about the money verdict, just the fear created.

/probably will work
// welcome to Bush's Amerika
///suck it Lars

3xodus: How the hell are you going to fine the woman roughly $9,000 a song, when she has like.. one CDs worth of music?

$200 a song, max.

Because the RIAA is a greedy f*cking association of corrupt bastards, and a superb example of what happens when your government policies are bought and paid for by corporations and capitalism is allowed to run rampant.

This wasn't a Californian jury was it?

They don't think so good.

How can they award them more than the cost of the song? They aren't suffering emotional damage when a song is downloaded. If thats what they cost then every sale on iTunes costs them $9249.

OJ Laughs

Damn.

FTA:

the RIAA's litigation war on internet piracy has neither dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the hearts of music swappers.

Of course it hasn't. They cannot stop it, period. You might as well try and stop Niagra Falls with a maxipad.

fark me...

So what does the award actually mean? That she personally cost the RIAA $222,000? And if that's for sharing 24 songs, does it scale upwards in a direct correlation? If so, does that mean there's trillions and trillions of dollars a year that aren't going to the RIAA?

This is kind of like getting a parking ticket for $185,000... it just doesn't make sense.

Schmapdi: This wasn't a Californian jury was it?

They don't think so good.

Simulpost ftw!

Um, she did it.

She committed piracy. Piracy is theft. No sympathy for her.

That being said, the RIAA does need to get off its ass and get with the 21st Century.

something bothers me:

"...the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas' share folder...the RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files."

i'm not some kinda law-talking-guy, but wouldn't these be required in order to get a successful conviction? i mean, these seem kinda important. what if it turns out her kid did it and is scared silent because of the fear-mongering the RIAA has done?

the number of peer-to-peer users unlawfully trading goods has nearly tripled since 2003, when the RIAA began legal onslaught targeting individuals.

"gee, I wish I didn't have to pay for all the music I want...wait, what's this 'Napster' thing the RIAA is suing over? WOW! Everything I ever wanted all in one place...and it's all FREE!"

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

You know pretty much all new songs are on YouTube these days. A clever little programmer can easily capture all data coming across the soundcard and make a MP3 out of it.

I'd like to give a shoutout to the RIAA for putting their songs on YouTube for me, love ya guys.

/Put up some more AC/DC would ya guys?

The jury should be hung, shot and quartered.

Just leave the oink alone.
/For that much money she could have Journey play her kids' b-day parties.

This should stop many people from pirating music. Or at least think twice about sharing out.

Seriously.

dj_bigbird: Um, she did it.

She committed piracy. Piracy is theft. No sympathy for her.

That being said, the RIAA does need to get off its ass and get with the 21st Century.

You're funny.

Theft involves depriving someone of property. Making a copy of something does not deprive anyone of property. If I burn a copy of one of my CDs for you, does that mean I no longer have the original CD? No, that's not what it means? Thought not.

Oh and here y'all go if you want a link:

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-rip-audio-from-youtube-videos.html

You're next...

24 songs?! jesus, mary, and allah akbar.

/31,000+ and counting. RIAA, suckit.

dj_bigbird: She committed piracy. Piracy is theft. No sympathy for her.

I guess you work for the RIAA?

Let me ask you something... if you had a car and I managed to take measurements of your car, etc... and constructed a duplicate of your car for my own purposes, have I stolen anything?

I think it's even a stretch to call it copyright infringement as you're not even using the copies of the songs to make money.

Give her a fine... whatever... but bankrupting someone over sharing 24 songs is way beyond justice.

dj_bigbird: She committed piracy. Piracy is theft. No sympathy for her.


Piracy is not theft. At least, not theft in the traditional sense.

Do you honestly think that charging $9,000 per downloaded song is fair? Now who's stealing from who?