digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

Woman Defeats RIAA in Lawsuit, Wins $108K Legal Fees

blog.wired.com — A federal judge is awarding Tanya Andersen, who defeated the Recording Industry Association of America's file sharing lawsuit, $108,000 in legal fees to compensate for defending herself against the RIAA. This marks the second time that a target of the RIAA who beat a lawsuit was awarded attorney's fees.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Surferess, on 06/25/2008, -3/+269Chalk on up for the little guy, or girl in this case.
    • BillGod, on 06/26/2008, -0/+36It's nice to see someone not have to shell out $$ to the RIAA. But we have to keep in mind the only true winner here is her lawyer. She still had to take time to meet with lawyers, go to court and all the other BS she was put through. She doesn't see a dime. I will cheer when the RIAA figures out that suing it's own customers is bad.
      • PoopStick, on 06/26/2008, -9/+6She is leading the way and that should be payment enough.
        • stfucupcake, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10Personally, I'd want a percentage.
      • error792, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1its own customers
      • dizavin, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2well.. seeing that if one were to read the article, the big bit of leverage that this woman had was the fact that she did NOT have any stolen MP3's on her computer at all and her lawyer was able to prove that, and was able to grab and run with it, all the way to the bank.

        so the title of this article should be actually be read: "victory for those who legally purchase music with stoic integrity: woman wrongfully accused of stealing music was able to prove her innocence and was awarded large sums of money in compensation... meanwhile shameless pirates are still being perused, so please don't think this a victory for pirates, because it blatantly is not no matter how much you want it to be."
    • TheInformer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+16Once the average layperson, lawmaker, and judicial officlal understands what the RIAA is all about, the RIAA is doomed. Their only weapon has been fear. All of their other contentions have been riddled with holes and are not, imho, legally defensible. Congratulations to Tanya Andersen! Now it's time for more Americans to stand up to this straw tyrant.
    • Tyrghast, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6It seems there is a god...
      • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Seth, God of pirates.
        • Fordi, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Seth is the god of Biscuits. And James is the god of Hairdos.
        • Hangly, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Jeff is god of biscuits, and Simon is god of hairdos.
  • btschul, on 06/26/2008, -8/+343I would say "***** the RIAA", but I really don't think I have to in this case.
    • WallnutBoy, on 06/26/2008, -5/+184It is never a bad time to say
      ***** THE RIAA!
    • pigfister, on 06/26/2008, -1/+138Don't say riaa, ect, name the companies so they can't hide behind the fronts they use to keep anonymity.

      ***** SONY
      ***** UNIVERSAL
      ***** WARNER GROUP
      ***** EMI
      ***** DISNEY
      ***** PARAMOUNT
      ***** FOX


      The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

      The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
      • HolyChimp, on 06/26/2008, -0/+19So ***** SONY, UNIVERSAL AND WARNER the most?
        • tech42er, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4and EMI.
        • HolyChimp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4@tech42er: EMI aren't in the MPAA, so they don't get ***** quite as much. They still get ***** more than Disney, Paramount and Fox though.
        • Silentnite85, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1So there is a hierarchy to getting *****. Interesting. Soooo, *insert oblig comment about diggers not even being on the list*
      • roodammy44, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9Rob the poor and give to the rich is literally what they're doing.
        Not just from the customers but from the artists too!
      • Daniel591992, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Don't ***** Disney :(
      • sarixe, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3***** NEWS CORPORATION
    • xaogo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+35perhaps "***** THE RIAA" is more appropriate.
    • Pyehole, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5I think the judge said it for you.
  • sk11, on 06/26/2008, -2/+108Sue not lest ye be sued.
    • ethamajin, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Wisdom that many Americans just can't recognize.
  • mrn111, on 06/26/2008, -1/+496"Andersen attorney Lory Lybeck requested $300,000 and the RIAA suggested $30,000 was more appropriate."

    Yet, when it comes to collecting for "stolen" music.

    "the RIAA filed a lawsuit against Russian owned and operated website AllOfMP3.com in the amount of $1.65 trillion ($1,650,000,000,000). This number was derived from multiplying 11 million songs with statutory damages of $150,000 per song." -Wiki

    Litigation is the new business model.
    • ut2k4king, on 06/26/2008, -1/+93The RIAA is the equivalent of an evil little Oliver Twist walking around asking for a little bit more soup, but when someone asks them about the soup kitchen they robbed the day before they'll chop your balls off and act innocent. This group thrives off of the ability to point fingers, scream that pirates are stealing from music artists, win lawsuits, and then when the money comes in run off with it. I mean, most, probably all, of the artists whose music is involved in these suits never see a cent from this *****.
      • tech42er, on 06/27/2008, -2/+10"The RIAA is the equivalent of an evil little Oliver Twist walking around asking for a little bit more soup, but when someone asks them about the soup kitchen they robbed the day before they'll chop your balls off and act innocent."

        How the ***** did you come up with this analogy?
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/26/2008, -0/+46Now now...they are willing to reduce the amount they want from you. You just have to admit you're guilty of whatever they claim without them having to provide any real evidence, and pay them whatever new number they decide without question. So they aren't *completely* unreasonable...
    • serif69, on 06/26/2008, -1/+66That's nice that the RIAA is suing a Russian company for more than that entire country's GDP:
      GDP (official exchange rate): $1.286 trillion (2007 est.)
      (from the CIA World Factbook)

      I think I'll sue Sony for $5 trillion for being a member of the RIAA, since Japan's GDP is $4.384 trillion.
    • peterjmag, on 06/26/2008, -0/+16What's even more ridiculous about that is the fact that a large number of the songs on that site are from artists that aren't even associated with the RIAA. Do they seriously think they can collect damages for copyright infringement on the 10-15% of music (significantly higher if you're including the rest of the world) that's not even their "property?"
    • feoren, on 06/26/2008, -0/+43I was going to compare stealing a $0.99 song and having to pay $150,000 in damages to stealing a loaf of bread and having to pay $375,000, but then I realized something. When you steal bread, you're taking it from someone else who no longer has it. When you "steal" music, nobody actually suffers (even the RIAA, I wouldn't spend real money on 99.9% of the music I "steal", so nobody loses anything from me downloading it). In other words, this is like deciding not to buy a textbook for a class because the textbook industry demands your leg and a second mortgage for something that's not even usually necessary anyway, then realizing you can just photocopy it in case you want to refer to it once or twice, and having to pay 2.3 million dollars in damages for this non-crime. In other words, ***** the RIAA.
      • Stavrosian, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3In the case of Allofmp3, I guess their justification would be that they are making it available to people who would otherwise have paid the RIAA's artist, and therefore it is an estimation of lost revenue. To stick with the bread thing, I suppose it would be equivalent to a baker suing Jesus for taking a small amount of bread from him and then, without so much as applying for a permit to distribute baked goods, magically distributing it to 5000 people, each of whom no longer has any need for the baker's services. The people are well fed and happy, but the baker wants Jesus thrown in PMITA prison.

        Obviously their figure is still retarded, but I think the point is clear - the RIAA hates Jesus.
    • magus_melchior, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3"Litigation is the new business model."
      Where've you been? The big companies have been doing it for at least two decades.
  • imacommi, on 06/26/2008, -15/+413***** The RIAA!!!
  • StatiK69, on 06/26/2008, -3/+158So in this case can we say the RIAA got *****?
    • Zanneth, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13$108,000 is practically nothing to the RIAA so I would hardly call it being "*****"--perhaps "bitch-slapped"?
      • DemonWasp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Perhaps "stern look" is more along the lines of what you're looking for.
    • SgtQuackers, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Not really the RIAA got what they deserved.
  • chicoer2001, on 06/26/2008, -3/+81They wont pay. Have they ever payed?
    • martalli, on 06/26/2008, -0/+31They will just have to sue more people, sucker them into paying, and in that fashion "scare up" some money to pay this off.
    • Rainemaker, on 06/26/2008, -1/+53They will pay. Oh, they will appeal first. But in the end, they will pay. There is one thing an attorney will fight for until s/he is blue in the face, and that is court ordered "prevailing party" fees. There is no better feeling than forcing the opposing party to pay you for beating them in court. It's so gratifying on so many different levels.
      • TunaFishGangsta, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, they will appeal the $130k and before long it will surely be under $100k.
    • andyd273, on 06/26/2008, -1/+16I wonder if she can convince the judge to up the legal fees every time the riaa appeals, since it's costing her more to defend against the appeal.
  • PosedMagnet, on 06/26/2008, -7/+245Why hasn't anyone from the RIAA/MPAA been found randomly dead in their home or something by now?

    I think there's only so much ***** you can take before people start taking matters into their own hands.
    • Kornstalx, on 06/26/2008, -19/+4*knock knock*

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c ...
      • PosedMagnet, on 06/26/2008, -6/+11What about them?

        What, do you think there's something remotely illegal about what I posted? There isn't.
        • Ahnteis, on 06/26/2008, -12/+5Actually, it could be construed as inciting violence -- and that IS illegal.
        • PosedMagnet, on 06/26/2008, -6/+10Uh, actually no, it's not.

          I asked a question.
      • roodammy44, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11What, are people supposed to scare others with a govt symbol now?
        ***** off, Kornstalx
      • sagegoku666, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2lol i thought this was hilarious. buryers must not have a good sense of humor =p
    • cableguy84, on 06/26/2008, -12/+2I cant aford to pay for a crappy cd so i cant afford a hit man... and lets face it most people dloading music and knowing about the RIAA are geeks like me and im to lazy to do it my self.
      • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -1/+12Hit man? These aren't exactly dangerous people, they're fat pasty lawyers and bureaucrats. You could probably kill one by jumping out from behind his refrigerator during breakfast and making him choke to death on his bacon.
    • NCg8r, on 06/26/2008, -3/+14I've often wondered the same thing. It's only a matter of time until they tag someone who is unstable AND has nothing to lose. Those evil sh1ts who shoot up schools don't even need a good reason... I wouldn't feel safe if I was orchestrating the ruin of otherwise "normal" people every day.
    • volonix, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Watch out guys! Internet badass!
    • BroodofEvil, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Wishful thinking. However, Bush and Jack Thompson are STILL alive. I doubt anyone will take personal action against mysterious corporate suits at RIAA.
  • leerayIG88, on 06/26/2008, -3/+38Now....***** will start rolling down hill for RIAA.
  • bbliss17, on 06/26/2008, -16/+31Awesome!! You go girl!
  • aimhelix, on 06/26/2008, -19/+3Everyone who has ever bought music sue!
  • LinkGCN4, on 06/26/2008, -15/+98Stealing music kicks ass.
    • dsmx, on 06/26/2008, -1/+72But your not stealing it, under no legal definition is file sharing stealing. If it was stealing you could go to jail but you can only ever be fined, the cases are civil not legal.
      • LinkGCN4, on 06/26/2008, -2/+32Euphemisms kick ass.
        • Kyan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11Euphemisms strongly place a moving foot on a slower moving or stationary derriere.
        • familynight, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Where's the euphemism? The term is copyright infringement. Actually, what you wrote could be considered the opposite of a euphemism, a more charged term replacing the actual term. You're just parroting years of RIAA/MPAA/etc. advertising.
    • feoren, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13Stealing deprives someone else of something. Copying does not. Stealing CDs out of someone's car does not kick ass. Copying music most definitely does kick ass. It is one of the RIAA and friends' greatest victories that they associated file sharing with the word "stealing".
  • SaMdeR, on 06/26/2008, -16/+49is she hot
  • jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -2/+13Finally. This case has been in the news, on digg etc. for ages, glad to hear it's resolved.
    • mysedai, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1No, we'll still have a dozen or so stories about the RIAA appealing and appealing again.
      There's no way they're going to accept defeat, pay up, an walk away.
  • c4sh, on 06/26/2008, -5/+17Good for her.
  • Wyattx17, on 06/26/2008, -4/+60That's great news! Now excuse me while I go and download some music.
    • xenoc1de, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Nothing says it's a good time for a free leach better than sticking it to the RIAA.
    • dizavin, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Jesus H. Christ!

      http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2429/picture1tz7. ...

      she was found to NOT HAVE ANY STOLEN MUSIC ON HER HARD DRIVE! she didn't steal it, and then justice was served. you, on the other hand, ARE stealing music.

      IT DOES NOT HELP YOUR CAUSE.
      • Wyattx17, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1How do you know what I'm downloading is copyrighted? Oh thanks, You DON'T.
  • seriouspyscho, on 06/26/2008, -4/+34*ahem* Nelson from the simpsons.... "Ha ha"
  • megamod, on 06/26/2008, -0/+81"The RIAA dropped the case against Andersen last year after concluding her hard drive didn't contain purloined music tracks. The RIAA initially claimed a Kazaa shared directory that linked to her internet-protocol address was unlawfully distributing thousands of songs."

    Now THAT is lovely. Way to shut them up:

    "but she stole our music. Just look in her hard drive...errm NVM"
  • sindex, on 06/26/2008, -0/+152The RIAA should be required to pay this out before being allowed to bring more cases to court. They overcharge people when they sue, they sue with shoddy evidence, all in an attempt to incite fear in file sharers, then turn around and say the $50-100k people spend defending themselves against their baseless accusations isn't their problem? ***** that. And ***** them.
    • JordanE, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7They don't even need evidence anymore apparently.
  • aeroboo, on 06/26/2008, -34/+1You know, copying music for free is illegal in all 50 states...........................................................and i LOVE it!!!
    • TheInformer, on 06/26/2008, -9/+3No, it's illegal in all 57 states.
      • Pixelpaws, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Which 57 states are you referring to?
        • TheInformer, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1The 57 states that Barack Obama said we had.
  • Albear89, on 06/26/2008, -3/+118Stealing? > = (

    Sharing... > = )
  • Zoshchenko, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11I hope they keep suing people with the same result over and over again. Hopefully they'll go bankrupt and start leaving people alone.
    • TunaFishGangsta, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1No. Too many people settle rather than go to court. It is a business model, and from what I understand, they want to bump it up a notch.
  • BingeBoy, on 06/26/2008, -7/+14Finally a win for the people! The IRAA must be stopped.
    • PabloMac, on 06/26/2008, -1/+24And the RIAA, too.
    • gweedo767, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13No kidding! Down with the International Retarded Anteaters Assembly!
  • pcnerd37, on 06/26/2008, -30/+1This is a duplicate article, I submitted it prior to this submission. Burried.
  • xWURMx, on 06/26/2008, -2/+47In other news.......


    Terrorists attack the RIAA & MPAA headquarters today which resulted in a mass party held worldwide
    • TunaFishGangsta, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2RIAA & MPAA are the terrorists. They will destroy themselves? I hope so.
      • artfiend77, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I actually hope Hollywood makes a movie and uses some big name (read: sell out) musicians music and somewhere down the line forget to pay royalties for it. I'd LOVE to see a RIAA VS MPAA steel cage death match.
  • aladrin, on 06/26/2008, -4/+34You realize that the only people 'winning' here are the lawyers, right? Her life got ***** over and she gets -nothing- for it. The attorneys get everything.
    • leopardflames, on 06/26/2008, -4/+10"The attorneys get everything."

      not quite. please educate yourself before making false statements.
    • Rainemaker, on 06/26/2008, -2/+21You're missing the point. She didn't suffer any damages. She has lost nothing. She is entitled to nothing. In any typical civil lawsuit, you have to pay an attorney to defend yourself, and there is no such thing as "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you for free" in civil law.
      Therefor, some attorney's, out of the goodness of their hearts (and a clear disdain for the RIAA tactics) probably took her case on principal; churned through discovery and blasted a hole in the RIAA's case. Pursuant to either the statute or some procedural fees issue, by defeating the RIAA, the defendant was allowed to recover her attorney's fees for her defense. This isn't about her "winning", this is about justice prevailing and the RIAA losing and subsequently being called to answer on their prosecution techniques. If you want to think of this in her terms, than ok; I guess you could say she won a free $300,000.00 defense.
      • sevenalive, on 06/26/2008, -1/+16No your missing the point. She did suffer. Stress, Anxiety and all the work she had to do for this lawsuit. She should be awarded something.
        • FeloniusMonkey, on 06/26/2008, -10/+3Heroes (and heroines) need no reward. They're friggin' heroes.
        • FeloniusMonkey, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9If I knew her, I'd probably bake her a cake or something.
        • drmangrum, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5If she wants to press the issue all she has to do is open up another lawsuit. She could easily claim 6 figures.
        • admdrew, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah, see drmangrum's post. Her 'pain and suffering' are not at all part of this case, given they came as a result of this litigation.
        • HonoredMule, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Well then I nominate you, FeloniusMonkey, to be our next hero.

          Chop chop.
        • FeloniusMonkey, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Thank you for the nomination. I'd be much obliged if I actually enjoyed downloading ***** music.
      • ovset, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I like to think of it as punishment for the RIAA. They want to jerk the legal system around like this? Let them know what it'll cost them when they get their backwards tactics handed back to them.
    • coleki, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1She defended herself.
  • oldcrows40, on 06/26/2008, -6/+8Inspirational to pirates everywhere.
  • moocow1452, on 06/26/2008, -12/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7DCeQHyWFw
  • aaronbrannt, on 06/26/2008, -8/+106You're forgetting a major difference between stealing digital content and physical content...

    "Stealing" an album online doesn't deprive the owner of the original album. You merely copy the data... It's not like it went missing. And besides, there's no guarantee that a person stealing music would buy music if they couldn't steal it.

    If I had to pay money for albums, even $5 a piece, I would only own my very favorites. Artists need to focus on live performances, because no amount of vigilance will stop data theft.
    • Rikkochet, on 06/26/2008, -3/+12I'm so tired of having to digg this argument up, but there still seem to be people who don't get it.
    • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -4/+15I'll play the devil's advocate. You saying that it doesn't deprive the owner of the original album - that's true, but it is depriving them of potential profits. There's no guarantee that any individual person would have bought the album if they couldn't steal it, but there's a pretty strong guarantee that some people do live in this window - would have bought, didn't because it was available through illegal channels.

      And besides, you've got to admit it's a little ***** to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor for free when they didn't offer them for free. Even if you can make the case that the artist will make more money by getting their name out through free distribution, and then using that as advertising to generate concert revenue - you're setting the terms of the transaction after you have the goods. That's not completely unrelated to holding their income hostage.

      People who download free music from a site not licensed to do so by the person who owns the distribution rights to it are trying to say what they did wasn't theft - but it clearly was. They own the property. Just because they don't agree with the business model or the property rights system in place doesn't mean they're blameless to ignore them.
      • Ahnteis, on 06/26/2008, -7/+2Yes, but that's not stealing. Believe it or not, we have different words to cover this.
        • CircleFusion, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4IP theft.

          Believe it or not, there are variations of "theft" and IP theft is one of them.
        • Travelsonic, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I.P theft: not a legit term IMO, when the only people using it are RIAA associates/lawyers, and nowhere in the lawbooks does it exist, and nowhere is there a case where somebody got sued and/or prosecuted for this act as opposed to copyright infringement.

          It's copyright infringement we deal with in this particular issue, and no amount of spin, **AA or otherwise, will change it. I.P theft no exist.
      • qxrt, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4I do occasionally download music occasionally, but I'm willing to acknowledge that it's wrong and illegal. It really is similar to shoplifting, except that more people do it without fear of repercussion because barriers for getting caught (such as security cameras, shoplifting sensors, etc) aren't there. This makes it all too easy to do it.

        It's worse, though, if you try to justify your own stealing of online music under the pretense of "sticking it to the big guy" or "supporting the underdog" or simply "sharing with a whole bunch of other people."
        • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3I'd say that it's worse to do something believing it to be wrong, than to do something believing it to be morally permissible.
        • geoboy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Copying digital music is NOTHING like shoplifting. It's comparing apples to oranges. When you shoplift, physical property is stolen from its rightful owner. The retailer paid for that property and now it's gone for good. It's impossible for them to make a profit off what was stolen because they can't sell it. It's gone.

          When you copy digital music, you're sharing information and ideas. It's data. Yes, people may feel less inclined to purchase this data when it's easily and freely accessible, but there's nothing stopping them from giving money to the data's creator as long as the creator is still looking for money.

          Think of it this way. If the music industry were a physical store, the trend you see is less people coming into your store to buy music. Twenty years ago you'd average 1000 customers a day, but today you're lucky if you have 200 customers a day. Your store's problem isn't shoplifting. It's what you're selling and it's your outdated business model.
      • HonoredMule, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10Believe it or not, there's no such thing as a "right to profit" in any currently-well-known legal system or moral code.

        The only conceivable purpose of establishing laws that fabricate the concept of intellectual property, or the owning of ideas/creativity, is to deprive others of what would otherwise be an infinity-sum resource. It is the creation of a market by artificially-manufactured scarcity.

        You may argue that without the ability to profit, there is no incentive to create art or develop ideas. I on the other hand maintain that nothing has been worse for art and entertainment than its commoditization, which is the foundation of the current record label that has failed so miserably. What we watch, listen to, and consume has been dictated by what is marketed to us and used to saturate the market, and NOT what we would value in the absence of external forces and presence of greater diversity. I think the average consumer would be surprised with how content he would be in a world without Hollywood, for example--especially considering how well entertainment sells related products and services, thus leaving plenty of room for larger-scale works to be produced commercially.

        Copyright law, never based on morality, was SUPPOSED to promote intellectual growth through producer incentive, but it has only succeeded in enabling/empowering what is now essentially an Information Age aristocracy.
        • bgrah449, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3The Catholic church said that merchants were entitled to a reasonable profit for making their goods in the middle ages.

          But that's not my point. A "right to profit" would mean that the government is legislating prices, explicitly or implicitly. But our government isn't - I'm allowed to offer my goods or services for whatever price I want, profitable or unprofitable, in normal market conditions (perhaps not wartime or state emergency). Nobody is forced to buy it, but it is still illegal to take it from me.

          You say that intellectual property is designed to deprive others of what would otherwise be an infinite resource, but this isn't true. Before the data revolution, this resource was not infinite. IP has not artificially created a scarcity, technology has artificially created an abundance.

          But the fact is, an artist has created a good. This did take time and effort. He is entitled to a return on that time and effort. I'm not worried about protecting a culture of high-quality art or ideas. But I'm not a collectivist. I'm worried about the individual artist, and his right to control his creations.

          If an artist wrote a song and didn't want to share it with anyone, or only with a single person, certainly this should be his right. I have no inherent right to hear every song or track ever created.

          The artist has a right to define his works' audience, within reason. But the wholesale appropriation of his work violates this right.
        • artfiend77, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3@ bgrah449

          So in that case is Company A makes a weed whacker, and I buy one, they can tell me where and when to use it? Can they tell me if I can lend it to my neighbor or not? How about if I just give it to my neighbor all together? Can company A come in and say "hey, that weed whacker belongs to us because we made it" I mean, if I lend it to my neighbor all the time, they just lost a sale right? What if I lend it to everybody on my street? There's a dozen sales lost.

          What if that weed whacker was of such poor quality, that no one on my street wished to buy one such as it, but just borrow mine?

          Pardon my weed induced ramblings, but honestly, I believe if you buy a CD, you can share it with as many people you like. If my girlfriend wants me to pass her a song over MSN, I'm not going to worry about IP laws and other trash such as that.

          If they want to stop pirating, how about going over to flea markets ( P.Mall in Ontario anybody?)
          and stop people who are MAKING money off of stealing other peoples stuff? They are the ones cutting the artists' ( read: record labels) profits, and at least there you can put a number o the amount of sales you've lost, cause people are buying *there* instead of in regular stores.
        • Parkinsons, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2"If an artist wrote a song and didn't want to share it with anyone, or only with a single person, certainly this should be his right."
          But once the artist has shared this song with another he has forfeited his right to exclusive distribution. The person you shared your song to may now share it with others. If you do not want your song heard then do not distribute it.
        • Overcyn, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1@parkinsons
          wtf are you talking about?

          @artfiend77
          your weedwacker analogy doesnt translate to intellectual property. "Sharing" your music it isnt the same as sharing a weedwacker. You are copying not lending. It would be like if you purchased the weedwacker, and produced exact copies of it for your friends (somehow at no cost to you). Are you against patent laws as well?

          "Can company A come in and say 'hey, that weed whacker belongs to us because we made it' "

          The artists (read: RIAA) aren't claiming that they own the cd you purchased. They are trying to enforce their exclusive right to reproduce, sell and broadcast their work.

          The reason for this? cause people should have right to their work and make a profit from it. howd you feel if you spent months writing a book only to have someone photocopy it and give it away for free.
      • vtnerd, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3And there are undoubtedly people that purchase music after first downloading and listening to it to see if they like it. It's a double-edged sword.
        • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2This goes right to the heart of what I was talking about - these are people who are setting the terms of the transaction after they already have the good. A free trial was not offered with the good, and yet they are taking a free trial.

          But a free trial was only the copyright holder's to offer, and they didn't offer it. They could offer it; perhaps they should offer it. Sometimes they even do offer it, through different channels. But it is depriving the artist of his rights to take what wasn't offered.
      • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Well stated, bgrah. It seems to me that we have a conflict between morality and laws. The two are the same if one abides to the social contract and Rule of Law (that is, breaking the law is wrong, even if, for the sake of argument, it's a bad law). On the other hand, laws themselves evolve over time, usually to reflect new social and economic realities. In general, laws (and most social mores) evolve toward optimizing economic efficiencies... we think of them as "right" or "wrong," but beneath the hood, optimization is usually occurring, and ethical relativism is real.

        In the absence of laws, would it be right or wrong to download music without permission? This is where I have the problem: I see no obvious right answer. I could argue either side, as people often do. Musicians should be paid for their effort. But musicians want exposure. But information is a public good. Copying information is not the same as stealing in that the original is not gone. If I whistle a tune of my own creation while walking down the street, do I own it? Yes I do, but only because our laws say I do. Intellectual property is a totally man-made invention and construct... unlike physical objects, which exist even in the absence of laws.

        Point being, we have a system -- more precisely, a CONVENTION -- but it's totally man-made and arbitrary, in the sense that it could just as easily have been different, if our culture had evolved differently.

        Absent the need to respect the Rule of Law in general (which is, I hasten to add, a good idea), I personally feel that less restrictive IP control tends toward economic efficiency -- IN OUR NEW TECH ANABLED WORLD. The environment has changed, meaning mores will change (they always have, always will, and it's pretty pointless to oppose the inevitable). I personally believe that file sharing is inevitable, and is only immoral because it's illegal -- which begs the question of whether the laws should (or by popular demand will be forced to) change. Put it this way, when there is a big enough economic incentive, SOMETHING will change. We can't sue everybody. More likely however, technology will step up and interested parties will evolve a mutuall benefitial solution (a la iTunes, etc.)

        File sharing, to me, is a bit like civil disobedience: breaking the law because one feels it's a bad law. I believe bad laws should be broken if that is the only way to effect change. And whether or not it's a good or bad law really depends on who you are, and how you stand to profit or lose. Taking a step back, the only long-term enduring answer to that is what maximizes economic efficiency in the long term. I don't think we know that yet; will filesharing stop people from creating music?... Some yes, others no. We will always have music, and we arguably have access to more music than ever before, as a result of file sharing, so there you go.

        This has all the makings of a legitimate philosophical battle. (And even the "stick it to the man" punks out there are, IMO, expressing a relevant and real social frustration, albeit not very coherently or persuasively.) There will be winners and losers, but there always are when things change. It will take time for things to shake out.

        Just my $.02.
      • Fubarepublic, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0It is depriving them of potential profits...

        Hmmm ok

        Potential?
        I don't have $30 a week to spend on music. Paying off the house, paying for fuel and eating are far more important. Potential? None really. But like it has been stated. Only my faves would be paid for and indeed, they are.

        Profits?

        Profits for whom? The artists? Most bands I like are Indy and they generally don't get that much money from me, not because I am not buying the album, I am in fact however, the bulk of the profits, 99.2% go to the label. So why would I give a ***** when I could meet the band, give them a $10 note and know they will be getting 1000 times more money.

        Profit? Band? Potential?

        hmmm
    • univerio, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2But you just said it's not theft...
    • spatty, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2thats one reason to pirate. it gets more live gigs which are a much better experience than any CD
    • 1of42, on 06/26/2008, -8/+2That argument is so incredibly contrived. Is it really your contention that record companies and artists have not lost profits from illegal downloading? Because if they have (and it's more or less certain), then the dissemination of their copyrighted data OBVIOUSLY amounts to theft, whether or not each company is technically being "deprived" of each single song or not.

      The bottom line is, property is property, and information is property. Illegal downloading is stealing, pure and simple. I can put up with people who do it (I used to do it too, until my university got Ruckus), but it really pisses me off when people make these pseudo-philosophical ***** arguments in favor of it. It's self-serving and it's annoying.

      But on the actual subject: The more the ***** RIAA loses, the better. Even though I think that illegal downloading is not right, the extra-legal, predatory and intimidation tactics the RIAA use are much, much worse.
      • Travelsonic, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1If copying data were theft, what's copyright infringement for?

        Information as property? You sound sure, when there is a ton of arguing going on still.
    • Overcyn, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Companies using photos without permission
      http://digg.com/tech_news/Stealing_IS_a_crime_righ ... 5000 diggs
      http://digg.com/tech_news/CNET_Caught_Stealing_A_P ... 1800 diggs
      http://digg.com/tech_news/Ticketmaster_steals_imag ... 1400 diggs

      Double standard much?
      • ShinRaTDR, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4Nope, because if the people digging this person up would actually READ those stories, they would notice that they are all instances in which a buisness has copied someones picture for profit, going story by story:

        1. Photographer having images reproduced and sold on eBay. Someone is directly making a profit of copying the persons pictures, which is the equivalent of producing pirated CDs for sale. Few downloaders are in favor of this.

        2. CNET used a picture someone posted on flickr for an article. CNET is using the image in an article thats only purpose for existing is to generate ad revenue for CNET.

        3. They removed it right after it was brought to their attention, but TicketMaster also used a photo from flickr on their site, a site that only exists to generate sales for TicketMaster.

        What do all these examples have in common that downloading doesn't bring? profit, profit and profit. Making money off other peoples work is in no way justifiable or right, however copying for personal use in the current climate of music I think is more than reasonable.
      • Overcyn, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3if you would look at the person i was replying to. " 'Stealing' an album online doesn't deprive the owner of the original album. You merely copy the data... It's not like it went missing."

        Also i fail to see how profit relates to the argument unless the photos were licensed noncommercial or something.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Fair enough, I see your point. However finding examples of digg's hypocrisy as a group is quite easy, because its a collective of individuals with differing opinions.

          Digg's double standard? yes
          OP's double standard? Not necessarily.
    • feoren, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4Let's say the probability that you'd pay money for a song you otherwise download for free is P (For me, P is about 0.02: for every 50 songs I download, I'd be willing to pay money for 1 of them.) and the percentage an artist gets from record labels on albums and songs is Q (I think this is around 10% for the very popular artists). Then downloading 10 $1 songs for free results in the artist losing 10*P*Q dollars on average, which for me is about two cents. So for two cents, the artist has another person exposed to a wide range of their music, a person more likely to spend money on concert tickets and paraphernalia and recommend them to their friends. An advertising executive would have multiple orgasms if he could get such a deal. You cannot make the argument that file sharing hurts artists. It hurts the record labels, and ***** them. Middlemen whose function is no longer necessary thanks to the internet and are just trying to use lawyer-might to preserve their outdated selves. It's like the Scribes' Union suing people for using a printing press.
      • bgrah449, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4The artists have a right to help or ***** themselves. File-sharing takes this right away from them.
      • Overcyn, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1this should have nothing to do with who gets paid in the end. its about property rights. secondly if you're claiming that you share/steal music to hurt the labels, would you stop if all the money went to the artist? Im guessing no, so shut it with the excuses. Man up to your actions.
      • wilywondr, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"Middlemen whose function is no longer necessary"

        Exactly. They have to know that they are not going to be around much longer. These are their last gasps at being viable. People actually used to make buggies and buggy whips. Progress leads to some items/processes/industries becoming obsolete.
        The recording industry is already obsolete. I think even they know it, but they just don't want to admit it.
    • Phyltre, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Overcyn, I think it extremely appropriate that we have different standards for individuals versus profit-entities such as companies.
    • magus_melchior, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Great, another armchair lawyer. (Granted, I'm no lawyer myself, but I've read enough cases to understand some of the legalese)

      Grabbing all your music through Bittorrent for free is not stealing (theft), it is copyright infringement. Whether the copyright holder was deprived of the WORK in question is not the issue, the issue is that in doing so, you deprive the copyright holder of the exclusive right to distribute copies on his own. This is why the "stealing" analogy that the record companies like to trot out fails so miserably; if they tried it in front of a judge, he'll wonder how they got their law degree, and whether they cheated on the bar exam.

      The real solution to this is to permit free music broadcasting online, and let people record them to their PCs, akin to FM radio and tapes back in the day. If the song's a hit, the artist will get stage gigs and other deals easily. The only reason why they're fighting this is because they had a great scam going where the artists sell their copyrights to the label, and the label rake in all the royalties and profits from album sales, while the artists struggle to produce the next album scheduled in their contracts. Not to mention, they can write anything they want into the contract, because they are the only way the artists can get any recognition beyond their neighborhood. This isn't an industry, it's modern-day slavery.

      Now, downloading it, making a ton of bootlegs, and selling them? That's the kind of infringement the FBI loves to hear about. I can only hope that they'll continue to say "no" to the requests from the cartel to bust the downloaders.
  • bgrah449, on 06/26/2008, -2/+27Somewhere Satan is flaying the lawyer who failed.
  • crapmatic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4This is great and all, but won't the RIAA just appeal this thing until the woman runs out of money?
    • ArmandoM, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4They're not off to a very good start if she hasn't had to pay anything yet.
    • magus_melchior, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3@crapmatic: You'd think so, but that's not how they've litigated. Generally they try to sneak discovery against "John Doe" targets past a judge, and then threaten lawsuits (read: extortion). Most people pony up a protection fee to make them go away temporarily, but this defendant fought back instead. Usually when that happens, the RIAA lawyers drop the case and run.

      I suspect they'll start moving cash into judges' pockets.
    • icantdenythis, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3didn't the article say it was to go to the supreme court next?

      Unless God started hearing cases I think she should be fine.
  • jamer19, on 06/26/2008, -0/+17This put a HUGE smile on my face! The RIAA is going to get whats coming to them.
  • Rainemaker, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7fta-

    The issue of whether or not the Copyright Act provides for prevailing party fee's will be going before the supreme court shortly.

    "an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party are "the rule rather than the exception" under the Copyright
    Act, and "should be awarded routinely." Virgin Records Am.. Inc. v. Thompson, 512 F.3d 724,
    726 (5th Cir. 2008)"

    Without looking at the act, i'm crossing my finger's hoping that the court simply affirms the 5th Circuit. RIAA can't appeal a supreme court ruling.
    • jgzman, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6I would like to see that rule in all civil cases, forever. No appeals for that *****, either. Looser pays ALL legal fees.
      • Wesside, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2loser*
      • DemonWasp, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Well, if nothing else, it'd cut down on the frivolous suits (crazy woman suing McDonalds for selling hot coffee?).

        It would just have the downside that only corporations could participate in civil lawsuits, as they're the only ones that could afford the fees if they lost.
  • McShr3dd3r, on 06/26/2008, -4/+9FTW
  • timbley, on 06/26/2008, -5/+3Now that's what I'm talkin' about.
  • VespaModaiolo, on 06/26/2008, -8/+10***** The RIAA, and their associated artists.
  • 8347, on 06/26/2008, -8/+3If I was the judge I would not have awarded ANY money! But I would have given the RIAA the death penalty.
  • diggydougie, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8And the lawyers got all of it you can be sure. She still didn't "win".
    • bobartig, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6well, she was awarded lawyer's fees. Typically "lawyer's fees" go to the lawyers... so, yes, you can be sure that the lawyers got it all.. *sigh*
    • magus_melchior, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3You don't get damages for being a defendant, but you can be awarded damages if you countersue and win. Isn't this the same case where the defendant countersued with a whole stack of allegations? *checks* Yup.

      She'll get attorney's fees for this case, and she may get them for the counterclaims as well. The counterclaims are going to be key, because they can open up a LOT of suits against the record companies. Not to mention, it can bring their litigation campaign crashing to the ground.

      Look at it this way, she had a great counsel representing her in court, and prevailed against a media cartel that would burn their own children to maintain their grip on the recording industry (or at least, their lawyers might). And the plaintiffs will pay for it all, not her, unless they cheat the judicial system-- and you can be sure they'll try.

      Not every lawyer is a beast trying to cheat their clients. There are a minority who do, but they're like extremist followers. They're vocal, blind, and generally despised. Worst of all, the public thinks the entire group are like them because they're far more newsworthy than a lawyer who protects his client's livelihood.
  • AlmostClever, on 06/26/2008, -16/+1The rationalization you babies spew forth is incredible.
    • Travelsonic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6The ***** you trolls spew forth cause global warming.
    • Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4That was almost clever, AlmostClever. Keep on keepin' on.
    • eregorn, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1All of these people voted for Obama. Go go gadget liberal tree huggers.
  • Joetwopointoh, on 06/26/2008, -1/+17So only the lawyers involved are compensated while the victim gets nothing. Yeah this is an equitable system.
  • motters, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I hope this emboldens other people who have been threatened by this unethical organization. You don't have to give in to bullying - it is possible to take them on and win.
    • wilywondr, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The RIAA is a cartel.
      "A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among firms. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition. Competition laws forbid cartels."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
      I am just saying that they need to be called what they are.
  • mlvassallo, on 06/26/2008, -2/+15I feel like if you beat the RIAA in a lawsuit you should also win free music for life. Its only fair.
    • eddan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2The problem is the RIAA represents so few artists that I'd even care to listen to, that it'd be no win for me. The switch to listening to mostly independent artists and labels really hasn't been that difficult.
    • beauTL, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3All pirates get free music for life.
    • magus_melchior, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Free music for life? That wouldn't even dent their member companies' revenue. I'd rather they get nailed for antitrust and RICO violations. That would be fair, given their campaign.
  • umbrellainabin, on 06/26/2008, -16/+9***** BUSH
    ***** THE RIAA
    ***** THE MPAA
    ***** THE IFPI
    ***** THE BFI
    ***** VIACOM
    ***** COMCAST
    ***** MEDIADEFENDER
    ***** AT&T
  • Yndisfagur, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=&q=1025+F+ST ...

    that's their address. i say we deal with them :)
    • grahamnham, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Coincidentally they are next door to the FBI. Better leave the torches and pitchforks at home.
      • wilywondr, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1How about we bring the torches and pitchforks to their homes?
  • AngeloM3, on 06/26/2008, -4/+7Score one for the good guys!!
  • PosedMagnet, on 06/26/2008, -6/+0Wrong reply.
  • jockser, on 06/26/2008, -11/+6***** the RIAA, ***** thing sucks!
  • jockser, on 06/26/2008, -7/+5We can agree on some things and disagree on some, but one thing for sure:
    ***** the RIAA, ***** them in their stupid ass.
  • RainNIU, on 06/26/2008, -10/+4Call North Korea. Ask them to send the nukes over to the RIAA's HQ.
  • kirado4, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8VICTORY!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.