If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law.com)   Judge: "You want how much from LimeWire?" Records Execs: "75 trillion dollars." Judge: "You do know that's five times the national debt, right?" Record Execs: "Potato"   (law.com) divider line 288
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

36916 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2011 at 2:30 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-22 04:41:57 PM

thomps: if you aren't guaranteed any right to control your creation, you aren't going to create anything.


Because there was no music, literature, or art before copyright law. Got it. This is the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life. Congratulations!
 
2011-03-22 04:43:30 PM

WaltzingMathilda: i know that's how you people have justified it to yourselves, but copyright infringement is (a) wrong, and (b) you are a bad person.


a.) no, it isn't
b.) you have no idea whether I have ever engaged in any particular activity, so your judgement is both wildly speculative and highly amusing. Do you make all of your decisions with so little data? I would guess so, from the general tone of your response (however, that's just speculation on my part).
 
2011-03-22 04:45:41 PM

Theaetetus: Yes... And on the internet, everything is proximate to everything else. Durrrrrrr.


We were talking about selling liedowns on a lawn, dude. YOU made the hypothetical. Did you forget that already? I was responding to that hypothetical, not the original filesharing argument. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. AFAIK you can't lie down on someone's lawn over the internet. Yet.
 
2011-03-22 04:47:07 PM

thomps: if you aren't guaranteed any right to control your creation, you aren't going to create anything.


files.sharenator.com

Banksy disagrees.
 
2011-03-22 04:48:23 PM

untaken_name: thomps: if you aren't guaranteed any right to control your creation, you aren't going to create anything.

Because there was no music, literature, or art before copyright law. Got it. This is the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life. Congratulations!


before the gutenberg press, there was very little threat of reproducing ones' music. it was very difficult to do, and the only people really committed to it were monks, which is why most pre-press western music still in print is religious. after the press, artists began looking for protection, which is how copyright law was developed.
 
2011-03-22 04:49:16 PM

untaken_name: Theaetetus: If they're copying it and distributing it for free, it still means that the person who put in the hard work creating it can't charge anything for it.

Why not? Soup kitchens give away food every day, and yet restaurants are still in business.


... Okie, I'll take you in good faith and not assume you're a trolling idiot. I've volunteered in a soup kitchen. I'll pay for restaurant food any farking day of my life before I would make that sort of stupid comparison.

Similarly, the producers often offer product at higher quality than that which is found for free.

Huh, maybe you've been using different peer to peer sites than I've seen, but I don't see any that confine themselves to 32kbps or 64kbps MP3s only. In fact, most of them now offer FLAC or ALE encoded stuff.
I think you'd have a really good argument for the existence of a file sharing client that automatically resampled everything down to a really low bit rate prior to transmission. It would let people listen to full tracks and decide if they want to purchase higher quality versions.
But, of course, we're talking fantasy land here, 'cause that's not what's out there.

Additionally, were you aware that at one time in history, people were not paid for the music they produced? Yet musicians still existed.

Heh. You're funny. You think patronage didn't exist.

And they managed it without any copyright laws, too.

Actually, you'd be wrong. Copyright monopolies have existed for 500 years, and there were public performance monopolies prior to that.
And, to stay on topic, for as long as there have been recorded embodiments of musical works, there have been copyrights.

Of course, none of that music, by people like Mozart, survives to this day.

What's your point? That copyright shouldn't exist, or that it should be limited in duration? You should probably figure this out as a first step.

Furthermore, no one makes money today selling Mozart music since it is public domain. Oh, wait.

... I think it's clear from this statement that not only have you never been in the classical section of a record store, you also don't understand copyrights.

Y'know, I think I was wrong at the beginning. You are trolling. Goodbye.
 
2011-03-22 04:53:52 PM

thomps: after the press, artists began looking for protection,


There were a few centuries in between the press being invented and the first copyright laws. Also there's tons of secular music that predates the printing press. A song that's a few minutes long is very easy to copy by hand, unlike a book which is hundreds of pages. Also it's pretty easy to memorize a short song.
 
2011-03-22 04:59:33 PM

WhyteRaven74: thomps: after the press, artists began looking for protection,

There were a few centuries in between the press being invented and the first copyright laws. Also there's tons of secular music that predates the printing press. A song that's a few minutes long is very easy to copy by hand, unlike a book which is hundreds of pages. Also it's pretty easy to memorize a short song.


i meant in terms of ease of use - comparing the advent of the printing press as a revolutionary distribution system to the internet. it obviously took time for the issue to become apparent and for laws to acknowledge that issue, but i think it's pretty reasonable to agree that copyright and distribution monopolies arose as a direct result of the printing press.
 
2011-03-22 05:03:41 PM
Maybe they can win, but the Judge rules that they only need to pay the RIAA $1 per month.
 
2011-03-22 05:08:24 PM

WhyteRaven74: thomps: after the press, artists began looking for protection,

There were a few centuries in between the press being invented and the first copyright laws.


Printing press - 1440
First copyrighted book - 1486, "Rerum venetarum ab urbe condita opus" in Venice
First copyrights in the Holy Roman Empire - 1492
First copyrights in Germany - 1501
First copyrights in England - 1518

Technically, there were a few centuries in between the press being invented and the first American copyright laws.
 
2011-03-22 05:10:26 PM

thomps: OK So Amuse Me: Anyone here have their GED in Law?

I lost a 33 year record collection in a house fire. I had probably three thousand albums, everything from 8-tracks to vinyl to cassettes to CDs, and over five hundred singles, mostly vinyl 45s but some cassette singles. I had every album and single because I loved the music.

If I were to download music from a peer to peer site for free could I get in trouble? See I already purchased the music once, sometimes more than that if I had it on more than one different format. I need my music back it's the soundtrack to my life!

I've paid for it I just need it back.

would you feel comfortable going to a record store and just taking new copies of your old collection? if not, then i'd say you probably shouldn't expect to not get in trouble for torrenting your old collection. you should also probably get homeowners/renters insurance.



30.media.tumblr.com

/that said, they would be infringing copies, and thus, illegal
//but you probably won't get caught
 
2011-03-22 05:18:08 PM

Theaetetus: ... Okie, I'll take you in good faith and not assume you're a trolling idiot. I've volunteered in a soup kitchen. I'll pay for restaurant food any farking day of my life before I would make that sort of stupid comparison.


So have I. It was unspectacular but decent food, of exactly the kind that many popular cafeteria-style restaurants serve. Stew, potatoes, rolls, green beans. That kind of thing. Maybe your standards are higher than many restaurant-going patrons', I'll grant you that. But your specific preferences aren't at issue, I don't think.

Theaetetus: Huh, maybe you've been using different peer to peer sites than I've seen, but I don't see any that confine themselves to 32kbps or 64kbps MP3s only. In fact, most of them now offer FLAC or ALE encoded stuff.


I don't actually use peer-to-peer sites, but please note that I did use a qualifier in my statement.

Theaetetus: Heh. You're funny. You think patronage didn't exist.


What? I do? Then why was I making a specific allusion to it? People were paid to be musicians, not paid for the specific songs they created (aside from commissions, but even they didn't provide a guarantee of exclusivity).

Theaetetus: Actually, you'd be wrong. Copyright monopolies have existed for 500 years, and there were public performance monopolies prior to that.
And, to stay on topic, for as long as there have been recorded embodiments of musical works, there have been copyrights.


There was no written music more than 500 years ago? And there were performance monopolies 3400 years ago? Link (new window)
Hmm. Looks like you're mistaken. Again.

Theaetetus: ... I think it's clear from this statement that not only have you never been in the classical section of a record store, you also don't understand copyrights.


You must have not understood what I meant by "Oh, wait". That's ok. My fault for using sarcasm without the sarcasm tag.

Theaetetus: Y'know, I think I was wrong at the beginning. You are trolling. Goodbye.


You were indeed wrong, but I am not trolling. Fare well.
 
2011-03-22 05:26:47 PM

Theaetetus: Kazrath: They were designed to deal with physical copying of an item and it was pretty unlikely that millions or even billions of infringements could happen. The whole system is very outdated when dealing with digital copyright and is in need of a serious rewrite.

Not so. Congress addressed it just about a decade ago, and made explicit references to digital copies. You may have heard about it: the act was called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.


Gah yer right.. still seems poorly thought out. It is ridiculous to have damages for something that exceeds the entire worth of your company even if you sold every single item you ever released to market at MSRP. And they are claiming individual songs are so heavily pirated that they manage to exceed the above.

This is on par with someone hitting your parked car valued at $20,000 that you are not even inside of and you claiming 20,000,000 in damages.
 
2011-03-22 05:28:39 PM

ne2d: Theaetetus: Blame Congress

This is Fark. We don't blame the government for anything it does. It's all the corporations' fault.


i18.photobucket.com

STOP THE INJUSTICE!!!
 
2011-03-22 05:29:42 PM
Do what you want cause a pirate is free! You are a pirate!

Lazy Town would approve the majority of Fark I'm sure!

/hoists her colors high...so to speak...
 
2011-03-22 05:34:27 PM

HeartBurnKid: thomps: OK So Amuse Me: Anyone here have their GED in Law?

I lost a 33 year record collection in a house fire. I had probably three thousand albums, everything from 8-tracks to vinyl to cassettes to CDs, and over five hundred singles, mostly vinyl 45s but some cassette singles. I had every album and single because I loved the music.

If I were to download music from a peer to peer site for free could I get in trouble? See I already purchased the music once, sometimes more than that if I had it on more than one different format. I need my music back it's the soundtrack to my life!

I've paid for it I just need it back.

would you feel comfortable going to a record store and just taking new copies of your old collection? if not, then i'd say you probably shouldn't expect to not get in trouble for torrenting your old collection. you should also probably get homeowners/renters insurance.

/that said, they would be infringing copies, and thus, illegal
//but you probably won't get caught


You can be against corporations ruining the viability of the public domain through inane copyright laws, or that "punitive damages" are absurd and unjust (the fines you would receive from physically stealing CDs opposed to downloading them.) But for the love of God don't argue that that piracy isn't the same as stealing. That argument never holds up where it counts, a courtroom. If it did you can make the same argument for patents and other intellectual rights.
 
2011-03-22 05:34:40 PM
I'd like to see some sort of pie chart detailing how much of the recording industry comes from sales, and how much comes from these lawsuits.
 
2011-03-22 05:39:08 PM

ne2d: Theaetetus: Blame Congress

This is Fark. We don't blame the government for anything it does. It's all the corporations' fault.


That would explain why they're suing Limewire, rather than the users.
 
2011-03-22 05:41:13 PM

AR55: But for the love of God don't argue that that piracy isn't the same as stealing. That argument never holds up where it counts, a courtroom.


Ah, yes, of course. I forgot all those file-sharers who were convicted of larceny and grand theft.
 
2011-03-22 05:41:38 PM

AR55: But for the love of God don't argue that that piracy isn't the same as stealing. That argument never holds up where it counts, a courtroom. If it did you can make the same argument for patents and other intellectual rights.


No, no, it holds up just fine in a courtroom, it's just irrelevant:
"Your honor, this isn't theft... It's copyright infringement!"
"Yes. And?"
"Well, the plaintiff still has their original,your honor. I just made and distributed copies!"
"Yes. And?"
"So therefore, it's not theft, your honor."
"Yes. This is an action for copyright infringement, not theft. You know that if you bothered reading the complaint. Do you have a point, or should we just proceed to damages?"
"Uh... That's all I've got."
 
2011-03-22 05:43:34 PM

Theaetetus: First copyrights in the Holy Roman Empire - 1492


Those copyrights were often not exactly what we think of copyrights. For one they applied only to the physical printing of books, they said nothing about derivative works, translation rights and so on. They were laws granting printing monopolies not control of original content. And even then, in the early days, depending on where you look, they weren't necessarily granted to all printed books. Keep in mind that at the same time these early copyright laws came into being many places also greatly restricted who could get a book printed. In England with the creation of the Stationers Company, if you wanted to get a book published, you not only had to belong to their guild, you had to submit the book for approval and have it approved.
 
2011-03-22 05:46:00 PM

AR55: But for the love of God don't argue that that piracy isn't the same as stealing.


Copyright infringement is a civil matter, selling of counterfeit materials aka piracy is a criminal matter. You get sued for violating someone's copyright, you get arrested for producing and selling illicit copies of their goods.
 
2011-03-22 05:48:34 PM

WhyteRaven74: Theaetetus: First copyrights in the Holy Roman Empire - 1492

Those copyrights were often not exactly what we think of copyrights. For one they applied only to the physical printing of books, they said nothing about derivative works, translation rights and so on. They were laws granting printing monopolies not control of original content. And even then, in the early days, depending on where you look, they weren't necessarily granted to all printed books. Keep in mind that at the same time these early copyright laws came into being many places also greatly restricted who could get a book printed. In England with the creation of the Stationers Company, if you wanted to get a book published, you not only had to belong to their guild, you had to submit the book for approval and have it approved.


Yep... but they were still copyrights, and established within a century of the printing press. That they were more limited rights than today doesn't mean they didn't exist.
 
2011-03-22 05:51:41 PM

WhyteRaven74: AR55: But for the love of God don't argue that that piracy isn't the same as stealing.

Copyright infringement is a civil matter, selling of counterfeit materials aka piracy is a criminal matter. You get sued for violating someone's copyright, you get arrested for producing and selling illicit copies of their goods.


You can also engage in criminal copyright infringement, too. See 17 USC 506 and 18 USC 2319. It can be a felony too, with up to 10 years in jail.
 
2011-03-22 05:55:56 PM

SphericalTime: Free Range Deranged: I don't understand why LimeWire just doesn't write them a check.
Virtual money for the virtual theft. Seems fair to me.

Insert "they should have hired virtual lawyers" joke here.


skinnyhead?
 
2011-03-22 05:59:32 PM
Give the asswipes every penny they want and the artists will still not evar see a penny.
 
2011-03-22 06:04:31 PM
I've always though sharing with your friends isn't illegal. I mean back in the old days we had a dual cassette tape deck, and in fact we could record straight from the radio or record. Would that have got us sued? Just because the internet opens your world up to so many people that you can share with, doesn't change much. As long as you aren't passing it off as yours, and selling these products to make a profit, it should be none of their business what you do with what you now own. The RIAA and MPAA can all go fark themselves.
 
2011-03-22 06:04:52 PM

Andrew Wiggin: yogaFLAME: Weaver95: who the hell still uses limewire!?

I know, right? *fires up kazaa*

you both suck

/opens napster


GET OFF MY LAWN!

/Presses record on tape recorder.
 
2011-03-22 06:05:38 PM

Big Al: I've always though sharing with your friends isn't illegal. I mean back in the old days we had a dual cassette tape deck, and in fact we could record straight from the radio or record. Would that have got us sued? Just because the internet opens your world up to so many people that you can share with, doesn't change much. As long as you aren't passing it off as yours, and selling these products to make a profit, it should be none of their business what you do with what you now own. The RIAA and MPAA can all go fark themselves.


do you really not remember all of the ad campaigns from the recording industry about the illegality of copying tapes?
 
2011-03-22 06:06:44 PM
Well yeah but did they actively go after people and prosecute them? Just because they tell me something doesn't mean I have to follow it. It's not like they're a government regulatory group that comes to my house to inspect new building.
 
2011-03-22 06:08:45 PM

Big Al: Well yeah but did they actively go after people and prosecute them? Just because they tell me something doesn't mean I have to follow it. It's not like they're a government regulatory group that comes to my house to inspect new building.


when it's a really small-scale offense, it's not worth pursuing, but that doesn't make it legal.
 
2011-03-22 06:08:51 PM

Big Al: Well yeah but did they actively go after people and prosecute them? Just because they tell me something doesn't mean I have to follow it. It's not like they're a government regulatory group that comes to my house to inspect new building.


I don't think they went after individuals unless they were selling tapes, but there was a huge legal fight between the content industries and the tape manufacturers. Look up the Betamax decision sometime.
 
2011-03-22 06:11:26 PM

SphericalTime: See, if people just bought their music legally, record companies would be tens of trillions of dollars richer. These are reasonable damages that are calculated from the actual destructive effect of downloading of music.

Music pirates are the greatest threat to America that has ever been conceived of.

/potato


Ever since cassette tape that is.

/potatō
 
2011-03-22 06:13:49 PM

Big Al: Well yeah but did they actively go after people and prosecute them? Just because they tell me something doesn't mean I have to follow it. It's not like they're a government regulatory group that comes to my house to inspect new building.


They could have, but it's not worth spending $15,000 to prosecute a civil complaint against some kid who has only his lunch money.
 
2011-03-22 06:17:01 PM

markb289: Came for Dr. Evil $100 Billion Dollars reference. Leaving disappointed.

RIAA= Dr. Evil but not as funny.

Any Lawyer who asks for $75 Trillion Dollars should be permanently disbarred for wasting the time of the Court and for being a complete and total asshat.


Otoh, a lawyer who fails to ask for statutory damages determined by Congress...you know, those guys you voted for...is likely guilty of malpractice.
 
2011-03-22 06:22:43 PM
Judge Kimba?
i55.tinypic.com
 
2011-03-22 06:27:50 PM

Genju: Andrew Wiggin: yogaFLAME: Weaver95: who the hell still uses limewire!?

I know, right? *fires up kazaa*

you both suck

/opens napster

pffft

/connect irc.undernet.org
/j #mp3passion
@find *my*song*
/ctcp fserv_bot_name my_song



I wasn't able to read the article because their gopher server appears to be down. What was it about?
 
2011-03-22 06:35:28 PM

Theaetetus:
No, they aren't, because they don't have to be: as the statute says, they don't have to calculate. Instead, they can just take the statutory damages set by Congress.


Um, the statutory damages weren't set by congress, they were paid for by the RIAA. $1 billion for 10,000 songs is still unreasonable.
 
2011-03-22 06:38:44 PM

Virulency: data is cheap, data storage is relatively cheap, internet distribution is relatively cheap... (as in downloading, cds and material is comparatively expensive)

copy right infinitely expensive apparently...


And anything that is infinitely expensive is, for all practical purposes, free because charging someone infinity dollars is meaningless.
 
2011-03-22 06:39:49 PM

thomps: i say the judge allows the award, requires the record companies to recognize the gain right away rather than if they ever actually collect, and then tax them on the income. then when they can't pay, we transfer our national debt to the record industry. ta-da, debt-free USA.


Elegant.
 
2011-03-22 06:43:40 PM

Joce678: Theaetetus:
No, they aren't, because they don't have to be: as the statute says, they don't have to calculate. Instead, they can just take the statutory damages set by Congress.

Um, the statutory damages weren't set by congress, they were paid for by the RIAA.


Um, no, the statutory damages were set by congress in 17 USC 504. They were raised to present levels by congressional amendment about a decade ago.

If you mean that the RIAA lobbied for them, yeah, and? Tell us something we don't know, Kreskin.
 
2011-03-22 06:46:36 PM

Dman33: So we are saying that the copyright laws, which are supported by the music lobby and the money the music industry pays to politicians and lawmakers, are inadequate and decisively pro-music industry especially when it comes to defining punitive damage guidelines?

Quite frankly, with the whole "distribution" problem solved by the internet, I do not see why the music "industry" exists anymore? What, to sponsor potential talent for recording studio time? fark that. If an artist is good, they will be able to sell live music until they can afford a few hours in a studio.

I am pro-artist, but anti-industry.


For many artists, particularly those in Southeast Asia, that's pretty much how it is. Europe, Japan, and the US are trying to enforce an outdated economy at the behest of wealthy businesses that seemed to think profits were going to stay at 1990s levels forever. That's pretty much what the US always does, though.
 
2011-03-22 06:51:14 PM

kab: DarnoKonrad: Supply and demand. When supply becomes infinite, your business model is shot.

Clearly the record industry needs to consult Monsanto on ways to get around this.


While the demand for food may be infinite, the demand for seed is not, and those who purchase it are a very small group already under monopoly control. Given that Monsanto knows every one who's growing their crops and knows where their farms are located, it's much easier for them to take someone to court for hording seeds to plant next year without paying for them again, or not doing one of the hundreds of senseless things Monsanto requires it's contracted "family farmers" to do.

The problem that the RIAA faces is that it can't sue everybody, and anybody can download music.
 
2011-03-22 06:53:13 PM

Heron: Dman33: So we are saying that the copyright laws, which are supported by the music lobby and the money the music industry pays to politicians and lawmakers, are inadequate and decisively pro-music industry especially when it comes to defining punitive damage guidelines?

Quite frankly, with the whole "distribution" problem solved by the internet, I do not see why the music "industry" exists anymore? What, to sponsor potential talent for recording studio time? fark that. If an artist is good, they will be able to sell live music until they can afford a few hours in a studio.

I am pro-artist, but anti-industry.

For many artists, particularly those in Southeast Asia, that's pretty much how it is. Europe, Japan, and the US are trying to enforce an outdated economy at the behest of wealthy businesses that seemed to think profits were going to stay at 1990s levels forever. That's pretty much what the US always does, though.


... Europe, Japan, and the US are trying to enforce an outdated economy on countries like Vietnam and South Korea?
 
2011-03-22 06:57:08 PM

WhyteRaven74: Copyright infringement is a civil matter, selling of counterfeit materials aka piracy is a criminal matter. You get sued for violating someone's copyright, you get arrested for producing and selling illicit copies of their goods.


Yes, I understand that. However most people in this thread are ignoring everything and just clamoring to "It's not stealing" banner. It is irrelevant.

HeartBurnKid: Ah, yes, of course. I forgot all those file-sharers who were convicted of larceny and grand theft.


That's not what I'm arguing. All I'm saying is that most of the above arguments are pointless to the cause. People should be arguing that the resulting damages are no way just or fair. As I stated before, in most of these cases and settlements, defendants would of been better off physically stealing the product instead of downloading.
 
2011-03-22 07:03:15 PM

AR55: HeartBurnKid: Ah, yes, of course. I forgot all those file-sharers who were convicted of larceny and grand theft.

That's not what I'm arguing.


But that's what you said.

I'm not arguing that piracy isn't bad, or that it isn't illegal. I'm arguing that piracy isn't theft. Until we're willing to talk about it on its own terms, and not use emotionally loaded words with completely different meanings to refer to it, we're not going to have a productive discussion on the root causes and what can be done to stop it.

It's like the twits who scream "fur is murder" or "George Lucas raped my childhood" -- no, it isn't, and no, he didn't. We can talk about what it actually is as soon as you stop being a drama queen.
 
2011-03-22 07:08:22 PM
yeah this is reasonable. (eyeroll)
 
2011-03-22 07:34:49 PM

Panspechi: CleverGuy81: the only companies i can think of that would have that much money are umbrella corp and north central positronics.

But the Tet Corporation will ruin their plans, ruin them I say!


say true, thankee-sai.
 
2011-03-22 07:47:00 PM
I was having a hard time visualizing this ridiculous sum. Had to have a friend dig up an infographic for me on what even one trillion dollars (new window) looks like.
 
2011-03-22 08:30:56 PM

thomps: i say the judge allows the award, requires the record companies to recognize the gain right away rather than if they ever actually collect, and then tax them on the income. then when they can't pay, we transfer our national debt to the record industry. ta-da, debt-free USA.


Uhm, that would require that the RIAA, and the large music corporations that they represent actually pay taxes. They would just offshore it, give several hundred thousand dollars to the congressmen they keep on a leash, and the debt would be ignored.

Downloading music and videos isn't theft. That is like saying that downloading a picture is theft. No one has had anything taken from them.

My feelings are that no corporation should be able to copyright any person(s) creative works, those works should be owned solely by the individual(s). Music corporations can distribute, and take a small cut (like 1%-5%), nothing more.

Same goes for patents. Corporations are not sane enough to be allowed ownership of human ideals and creativeness. Capitalism is good, corporate greed is evil and it is destroying this country.


Hey terrorists! The RIAA and MPAA are the 2 things America believes in most, please don't blow up their headquarters, that would make us all sad and the United States would collapse...
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report