Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

$1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
John Strohsacker, Photographer
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 10:46 PM on 06.18.09
->> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=avGs4Kczflus

.99 on ITunes?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sheen Yen, Photographer
West Lafayette | IN | USA | Posted: 11:15 PM on 06.18.09
->> A bit excessive... to say the least. I wonder how they came up with that number.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:40 PM on 06.18.09
->> damn, wow.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Derek Montgomery, Photographer
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 11:45 PM on 06.18.09
->> There was a previous trial for this woman in Duluth where she was originally told to pay the RIAA just over $200,000. The defense got the judge to throw out the case and now she ends up paying almost 10 times that. Ouch.

Here is an article by my old paper's writer:
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/123115/

You need to register, but it is a good read.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bruce Twitchell, Photographer
Coeur d'Alene | ID | USA | Posted: 12:02 AM on 06.19.09
->> If I am reading the article correctly, she is not getting the settlement against her for downloading the songs, she is getting the fine for putting the songs out there for others to download.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Stanton, Photographer
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 12:29 AM on 06.19.09
->> Either way, she will never pay it. The RIAA rep said they are still willing to negotiate a settlement which originally was in the $3,000-$5,000 range. I mean, you can't get blood from a turnip. What a waste of the taxpayers' time and money.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

James Broome, Photographer
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 8:10 AM on 06.19.09
->> Bruce - If I'm not mistaken, it's against the law to share copyrighted songs. Not to download them.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:54 AM on 06.19.09
->> Definitely excessive, but the reason for the excessive fine is the jury probably believed she misled/lied to the court, which - based on the evidence presented at trial - seems pretty likely.

If you read the past few days of notes on the trial you'll see what I mean. Her contention all along has been that she did not knowingly share the songs...it was her kids that did it, a virus or something, etc. The RIAA brought out some very concrete evidence to disprove that notion...stuff that even if you wanted to believe her story you'd be hard pressed to believe it now.

Her mistake was acting like a victim of mistaken identity or unintentionally sharing the songs, and basing her entire case around the victim posture. It's pretty clear she knew what she was doing - to the point of switching out hard drives to obscure her tracks. Once the victim bubble was popped, it made her look like a scammer...and juries don't like scammers.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stanley Leary, Photographer
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 11:07 AM on 06.19.09
->> Excessive? Due to the size of the settlement the prosecution has mostly likely achieved their main goal. I doubt they were just interested in this case alone, but stopping the practice.

By getting this size of a settlement it got this communities attention. If it were smaller would we even know about it?

I hope the story is that using copyrighted material in an illegal way can ruin your life. Otherwise the risk maybe worth the reward.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Bergman, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:42 AM on 06.19.09
->> I realize that it's easy to bash the record companies and it is unfortunate that the headlines of this case probably won't help their cause at all. However, what they've done is not that much different from what we would do if someone had stolen or abused our copyright.

Many on this board have noted that the maximum amount that can be paid for damages in a copyright case is $150,000 per willful infringement. The record labels -- with their very high powered legal team -- only got about half that amount.

Of course they'll never see that money and will probably settle with her on a much smaller fee. But I bet their goal was to get the public's attention, which apparently they did.

Best,
David


--------
David Bergman
Photography, Video, and Multimedia
http://www.DavidBergman.net

Presidential Inauguration gigapan prints available now:
http://www.ObamaGigapan.com/
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wesley Hitt, Photographer
Fayetteville | AR | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 06.19.09
->> I read this news and thought how great it was for the record companies. Protecting their copyrights and their artists copyrights can only benefit me as a photographer who owns the rights to his photographs. Excessive? No such thing in America. The cost or penalty is whatever the market will bear. Would it not be great to have a Record company protecting your images from being downloaded illegally off of the internet. I wish there was a organization willing to go to bat for me and my images. What is important is the message being sent to everyone that downloads songs illegally from illegal sites. You can buy a song for .99 cents. Who can complain about the price?
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:09 PM on 06.19.09
->> The value (IMO) is in the headline shock value - whether or not they ever collect a dime. How many parents (myself included) will shove this in front of their kids' face with an admonition to stay away from this practice so as to not jeopardize the house, car, college-fund?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Wright, Photographer
Wayzata | MN | USA | Posted: 10:20 AM on 06.20.09
->> I'm just sitting here imagining if I could get a couple of bucks every time someone ripped off one of my images...hmmm
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Putz, Photographer
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 11:31 AM on 06.20.09
->> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/18/227219/In-Round-2-Jammie-Thomas-Jur...

There's more behind this case.










--I think that figure is WAY EXCESSIVE. I'm pretty sure the party involved now has the idea what they did was wrong. Ya think? It's ridiculous.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 7:03 PM on 06.20.09
->> why didn't she do more to claim her case, that is just weird?!?

The things she didn't do either means her lawyer is incompetent or shouldn't be practicing law (yeah the same I know)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:46 PM on 06.20.09
->> James,

You are mistaken. A person who downloads a copy of intellectual property to which they do not have the appropriate license is guilty of copyright infringement.

It's like buying a car from somebody who stole it. You don't get to keep the car and you're guilty of accepting stolen property.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 10:48 PM on 06.20.09
->> But when you steal something like clothes, food, whatever you usually don't pay 8000% higher then the original price of the item?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:37 AM on 06.21.09
->> $80,000 for the 24 "representative" songs, but ignoring the purported 1,000+ other songs she put online. It's pretty sensationalistic to focus on the "80k/song" while ignoring the larger facts.

It's easy to get outraged at the sums, but a "jury of peers" found her guilty and imposed large damages. On appeal, another jury decided to increase those damages. Basically, two seperate groups of ordinary citizens, when presented with the facts of the case, found against her and decided on the damages. It's pretty simple for people to "read the headline" and decide that it's "over the top", but reading the headline and actually sitting the jury - I'll go with the jury.

I'm no fan of the RIAA, but as a software engineer and sports photographer, I have plenty of firsthand experience at the costs of copyright theft.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rick Rickman, Photographer
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 12:58 PM on 06.21.09
->> As a content producers/artists I find it ironic that the comments on this thread that speak to excessive penalties and take the side of someone who, in essence, steals content she doesn't own and tacitly condone her actions confuse me on a profound level.

What's the difference between an art buyer/designer using your image without payment and a women in Brainerd Minnesota who distributes music which doesn't belong to her.

The problem, as I see it is, as a country we have become desensitized to people bending or breaking the law unless that act directly affects us individually. It seems that the prevailing attitude in America has become that as a member of society, we should be able to do whatever we want because we are entitled. There seems to be an attitude that if you do something inappropriate and you don't get caught, then it's ok and who cares who gets hurt. This is becoming more and more of an issue as seen in the Bernie Madoff case. As long as it benefits me, it's ok appears to be the prevailing attitude.

Maybe I'm hopelessly naive but, I still believe that my grandfather had the right idea. If something doesn't belong to you, it doesn't belong to you. If you'd like to have something that doesn't belong to you, earn the money to buy it or .... make something like it or better yourself.

As artists, we should be particularly offended when someone takes content and uses it without appropriate compensation regardless of the type of content. (Music, Pictures, Sketches, Etc.)

The fact that we aren't all loudly applauding this outcome is truly baffling for me. It important and long overdue for people to realize that none of us live in a vacuum.

What effects individual artists and content providers effects all of us collectively. Abdigation of moral responsibility can only hurt all of us. Finding humor in or justifying bad behavior only downgrades the quality of the entire human condition.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Putz, Photographer
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 1:31 PM on 06.21.09
->> The problem is they didn't detail "how" she distributed them, nor did they establish what exactly "distribution" is! Without that, how can they have a solid case? (seing that distribution is a BIG part of wrongdoing)

Another problem is MediaSentry, which used questionable practices to attain the information:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/20/1535220/Analysis-of-MediaSentry-Wins...


I'm not going to applaud an organization who's getting rich on exploiting the legal system for exorbitant damages. It appears more like bloodlust, than actually recovering damages. (I see $2M from 1000 songs)

Put it this way, since everyone else seems to stretch parallels: If someone shared 1000 of your images, would you seek TWO MILLION DOLLARS. Didn't think so. (id rather investigate what actually happened to the images first, something that mediasentry couldn't and never did).

Here's more on MediaSentry:
http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=mediasentry

It's a very shady "I can do what I want" tactics kind of organization.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 2:21 PM on 06.21.09
->> "The jury could have awarded anywhere from $750 a song to $150,000 a song."

The RIAA didn't make the award, the jury did. The jury chose to make it that much because she apparently lied.

You have to remember that her entire defense was that she didn't knowingly share the songs. Based on the evidence presented at trial, it's fairly obvious she did. She also did not tell the truth about the hard drive extracted from her computer - a key part of her defense:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-testimony-ends-with-...

Mess with bull. Receive horns.

Her biggest mistake was taking the stand in her own defense. There's a reason they allow you to keep your mouth shut. Her attorneys should have never allowed her on the stand. They might not have had a choice, but regardless it was a mistake - and it's the main reason she's facing a record judgment.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Putz, Photographer
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 3:24 PM on 06.21.09
->> http://www.p2pnet.net/story/23534
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 5:53 PM on 06.21.09
->> kinda ot but I did not realize that 4 out of the 5 labels were foreign?

Anyways to be honest that amount of money per song is just plain terrible. When you can purchase a song for 99 cents why is she paying 80,000 per song?

Also like I said when you steal a car, or clothes you don't pay 80,000% more in penalties that I know of

Am I against what she did, yes. But to say the penalty is not excessive is just plain wrong
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 7:02 PM on 06.21.09
->> Matthew, it seems like what you're missing is the fact that she distributed them. I didn't see anywhere in the original story posted how many people downloaded the songs that she illegally posted. Maybe 80,000 people downloaded the songs causing the record companies to lose 80,000 sales. A report from 2001 said that Kazzaa averages 500,000 to 600,000 users online at any given time.

It's not the 99 cents that the song costs on iTunes, it's the fact that they lost sales because the person posted it so people could download it for free.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:39 PM on 06.21.09
->> Exactly, Bob. She didn't just steal a car, she stole the keys to the dealership and handed out keys to all the cars on the lot. At a whole bunch of dealerships!

Or it's like someone who steals the password to your event photo site, then hands it out to all the event participants.

I have no pity for these infringers. She oughtta face criminal prosecution.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Putz, Photographer
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 8:21 PM on 06.21.09
->> ~$25 in songs =/= a lot full of cars

I can see lost income as a reason to seek damages, but you can't assume she caused GIANT RECORD LABELS to lose $2 million from 24 songs.

Using the "handing out keys to every car on the lot" comparison is flawed, mostly because you can actually tell what's gone...and you can reasonably assume it will be found; and you can exactly pinpoint the value of the stolen goods.

This is a case of a large conglomerate of extremely wealthy companies railroading a single person (who obviously can't pay for even a good lawyer, let alone 2 million smackers).

I'm expecting yet another retrial. :|
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Samuel Lewis, Photographer
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 8:37 PM on 06.21.09
->> Daniel,

What is fair? Let's assume for the sake of argument that someone ripped off a number of your images, and then forced you to go through costly litigation to enforce your rights. What would you expect to recover after that process?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 9:39 PM on 06.21.09
->> To be honest I have not read up fully on the issue, but was it proven anyone actually downloaded songs from her share folder? If so how did they prove that?

Or just by her making them available that was proof enough?

If there is no proof that anyone downloaded I think the actual cost, which is between 99 cents and 1.25 I believe
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Putz, Photographer
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 10:25 PM on 06.21.09
->> I wasn't aware music piracy was on the same level as possession of narcotics. *shrugs*

And no Matt, they didn't have to. Nor did they even prove what 'distribution' is. I also wasn't aware 'possession' and 'distribution' are synonyms.

---

Mr Lewis, I would expect to recover confidence in that I knew exactly where the images went, who used them and discern between just "looking at the image," and scanning it, putting it on a poster, and throwing it up in a 1000 places around NYC.

I would take a rational approach and recover actual damages (if it can be PROVEN that exchange of the image outside my control actually happened) and any fees to cover a lawyer (if I didn't get one from the EFF).
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Samuel Lewis, Photographer
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 10:45 PM on 06.21.09
->> Matthew,

To answer your question, the RIAA hires what amounts to a fancy private investigator. The organization obtains evidence of the illegally-copied songs and then downloads copies as evidence of what others were capable of downloading. Since all activity online is capable of being tracked back to an IP address, it is just a matter of working backwards in order to find the culprit. In many cases, the lawsuits against the individuals follow a lawsuit against a Doe Defendant (e.g., unknown defendant) in order to serve a subpoena on a service provider or institution (you may have heard of efforts to force universities to reveal the identity of students using certain IP addresses).

It is enough to prove that the individual has an illegal copy. The fact that the person allowed the investigator to download a copy helps prove that others were capable of downloading the same file, and makes it more difficult for the defendant to deny they infringed (and, from a technical copyright standpoint, transforms the violation from involving one of the exclusive rights under Copyright Law into two of the exclusive rights--e.g., copying and distribution).

Daniel,

In most cases, the actual damages are going to amount to the license fee you would have charged for the use of the image (and in determining the actual damages, you don't get to add penalty fees or multipliers; instead, the actual damages determined by the value that would have been charged to an honest licensee negotiating at arms length).

Now for the bad news. Awards of attorneys fees are discretionary (the Judge gets to decide whether to award fees, and if so, how much to award). In the average case taken through trial, the attorney's fees will exceed the actual damages by roughly an order of magnitude. To make matters worse, even where a court awards fees, there is no guarantee that the court will award all of the fees actually expended.

Are you still just as happy with actual damages? Or would you rather that the court or jury have the discretion to award more against an infringer?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Martin, Photographer
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 3:31 PM on 06.22.09
->> Statutory damages are the only way to provide a deterrent effect. If I can "steal" your image and my only exposure (ha ha) is to pay the normal fee if caught, where is the down side for me? I can pay up front or take it maybe not pay at all.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
Dallas | TX | Lower 48 | Posted: 4:47 PM on 06.22.09
->> That's funny ... $80,000 is about $80,000 more than I'd be willing to pay for a Goo Goo Dolls song.

[good conversation, by the way -- interesting to read the myriad thoughts on the subject]
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 5:09 AM on 06.23.09
->> Ah yes...the "wealthy companies" argument. They're to blame for everything! Like giving many of us jobs, for instance. Yes, those filthy fat cats. [As an aside, I love Wal-Mart's new slogan: Save money. Live better. Damn right! Glad some wealthy company out there is trying to save me money. Glad they're making a nice profit doing it.]

Puh-leeze.

The record companies aren't trying to get $2 million from anyone. They're trying to make an example to deter piracy. They said all along they'd settle for far less. And it's obvious they're not going to get anywhere near $2 million from this person. And anyone who uploads thousands of songs...hell, this chick is a liar. And a stupid one at that.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Putz, Photographer
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 9:24 AM on 06.23.09
->> She uploaded 24 songs, not thousands.

They're trying to make an example out of someone...who isn't a good example.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (2) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joe Kaleita, Photographer
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 10:41 AM on 06.23.09
->> "She uploaded 24 songs, not thousands."

from a cnet story -

"In 2007, the Recording Industry Association of America claimed in a lawsuit that Thomas-Rasset pilfered 1,700 songs. The RIAA eventually culled that number down to a representative sample of 24."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10268199-93.html
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 12:36 PM on 06.23.09
->> M. Sauk said: "why didn't she do more to claim her case, that is just weird?!?"

This is strictly an assumption but judging from her approach and candor I bet she (as well as most other people who do this) thought it was absurd to be sued for such a high dollar amount over a $.99 song and that everyone would agree with her that "it's not that big a deal". (If the jury was a bunch of people in their young 20's, I bet this would have been decided differently.)

Think back to the recent Pirate Bay case. The defense there took a different but equally absurd approach which was to originally send back profanity laced letters to the plaintiff. Because of their lack of cooperation, the stakes kept rising which is why a cease and desist letter eventually turned in to a prison term. Likewise with Thomas-Rasset, she wasn't originally presented a 3.6M lawsuit, she was presented with a cease and desist letter which kept anteing up due to refusal to cooperate. Considering all of the precedents already set regarding this, I'm actually shocked her legal counsel pressed the case.

---

Sauk again: "But when you steal something like clothes, food, whatever you usually don't pay 8000% higher then the original price of the item?"

Because their isn't a federal law stating you're liable for up to X dollars if you steal AND REDISTRIBUTE said merchandise. Remember, this is not entirely about stealing, it's also about the redistribution which is a major copyright no no.

To apply this in photo terms, if a magazine steals your image and runs it, you very very likely will not be able to win the maximum $150,000 in damages. However if a wire service were to steal the image and post it for licensing (distribution) you would have a lot better shot.

I've personally filed seven infringements and one of them was against a wire service for exactly this reason. Unfortunately for me, they were a legitimate victim (long story but validated) so we only recouped 100% of what the agency made from all the licenses... Well 65% of it because my lawyer kept the other 35%.

Lets take that example and expand upon it because it comes back around and explains a few things. I was awarded roughly $18,000, because that was what the agency audit showed they were able to license the image for over the few week span they had the image. They licensed it 104 times. So one image was stolen and that one theft turned in to 104 other "illegal usages". Now Thomas-Rasset obviously wasn't charging people for the songs and making money off of it, but she WAS causing the record labels to lose money by allowing people free access to the music, one dollar at a time. If one of the songs were downloaded 100,000 times, that's $99,000.99 that the music industry was deprived of in sales. Multiply that by 1700 songs (for example) that she allegedly was distributing and that's $168,301,683.... Now what if .0001% of the people who downloaded it from her also redistribute the song? Then the potential for lost revenue jumps to 1.68 billion. With a B. Granted those are rough numbers, but it is to serve as a general example.

---

Rick Rickman; I couldn't agree more. How any of you can say "Woo hoo we won..... But that's too much of a settlement", is shocking to me. I'm wagering a bet that those of you dissenting the decision have never had to pursue a copyright claim.

---

D. Putz (post #2): Actually yes they did, and please don't use the "..organization who's getting rich on exploiting the legal system for exorbitant damages" argument because it's fantastically off base. They aren't trying to get rich, they're trying to recoup lost income from unlawful distribution of their property. Jump up two paragraphs and reread the example.

And yes, if someone stole 1000 of my images and REDISTRIBUTED THEM, I would go for 2,000,000. Actually no I wouldn't, I'd go for 150,000,000 probably. '

Oddly enough, I'm in the research phase of something very similar at the moment. I can't get in to details but apparently someone has access to several hundred (possibly thousands) of images (several of mine and several of people I know) and is using them for thumbnail sized ads on a popular website. So far I only know of (ironically) 24 images that are mine, 31, 18, 14, 17, 10 and 5 that are other people's that I know, and the numbers keep going up as we research this. We can't make a move yet until we figure out several things though because as you say, you need to research it. I'm pretty sure if little ole me goes through this much leg work that the deep pocketed RIAA goes through far more work to research their claims. Just a hunch.

---

D. Harpe: The defense either didn't take the case seriously, was fresh out of law school, or had absolutely NO knowledge of copyright law. I'm thinking that Thomas-Rasset was turned down by several law firms because they knew they wouldn't win the case, such as with my attorney. We've worked together in the past but if he doesn't think we can win the case, he won't take it because we don't want to go through the BS.

---

D. Putz (post #4): They aren't railroading one person without reason. They are fully aware of other people distributing songs, but they aren't going to go after the guy hosting 1, 10 or 100 songs because there are too many of them. Instead they are going after the biggest offender(s) first and trickling down. If they make an example of the big dogs, then the little dogs will make a little pee puddle and run away with their tail between their legs.

Realize too this woman is a thief first and foremost and she should be treated as such. It's not like she was just merrily skipping along through life being a perfect little angel when this "evil conglomerate" came out of nowhere and broadsided her.

---

J. Martin: Precisely. If I steal a six pack of beer and the only recourse if I get caught is paying for the six pack, what's going to prevent me from trying my best not to get caught and continually enjoying free beer? In Ohio the thought of a $1000 fine and 6 days in the pokey are a pretty good deterrent. You would think a $150,000 fine would be a good deterrent for copyright theft but apparently not, hence cases like this.

---

D. Putz (post #6): Wrong. 1700'ish. As it was stated, it was culled down to 24 (probably the 24 most downloaded songs that caused the most monetary loss to the record labels). Two million dollars is not a large court settlement by any stretch of the imagination. It's considered quite manageable to pay off. Bare in mind $3,600,000 was the most they were probably going for anyway due to it being 24 songs. That's a far far cry from the $255,000,000 they could have gone after.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

TD Paulius, Photographer
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 2:23 PM on 06.23.09
->> Witte: Thank you for a breath of fresh air!
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Luke Sharrett, Student/Intern
Bowling Green | KY | United States | Posted: 2:38 PM on 06.23.09
->> While the RIAA is surely within their right to sue people for file sharing, I think pursuing individuals through legal action will backfire. Sort of a Philip Morris effect, if you will.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 5:58 PM on 06.23.09
->> Luke, how do you figure?

I say that because the RIAA has filed over 30,000 suits like this, and thus far, they have a pretty good batting average winning (from a cursory search) every suit they've filed. So they'll continue to make examples.

Unless you're referring to what happened with Napster (which I'm shocked to see was settled for only 36M) where the termination of Napster lead to a rise in P2P services which are more difficult to proctor... (see point in previous post about trying harder not to get caught.)

So obviously nobody thinks they'll ever get caught so they aren't concerned about high statutory damages as a deterrent, but that doesn't mean we or the RIAA are going to stop. It's just a constant game of whack-a-mole. An example of this comes from back during one of my more public infringement spats where I found over 300 violations. A phone call or email solved the problem for just about everyone and the most common response I heard (one even from a columnist at a major East Coast newspaper) was "how in the world did you ever find out"?

Because it was the only image of it's kind in existence for several months and I know how to use Google.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Luke Sharrett, Student/Intern
Bowling Green | KY | United States | Posted: 6:08 PM on 06.23.09
->> Thomas, I agree with everything you have to say, but at some point the RIAA has to come to terms with the fact that file sharing will continue despite their efforts (30,000 lawsuits later), and eventually they will alienate their clientele with these suits. Record companies will never recoop their losses through settlements and lawsuits. They have to realize there's a "new model" and adapt, much like newspapers.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 6:19 PM on 06.23.09
->> They did. They started selling songs individually for a buck because the big complaint and reason people went to Napster was "I don't want to pay $15 for a CD full of crap when I just want one song".

Again though, you're missing the reason for this lawsuit. They don't care so much that this woman unlawfully downloaded 1700 songs, they care that she's perpetuating the problem by making those 1700 songs available for further download.

Heck, she could have gone out and spent $400,000,000 on gold plated record recordings of all these songs, but if she copied them and put them online for free download, it's still an infringement. That's what irks the RIAA.

That being the case, there is absolutely nothing the RIAA can do to "adapt" to that. Even if they drop the price of the songs down to a penny and have them transmitted to our brains whenever we get a song stuck in our head, they still will not look kindly on someone else doing the same thing without proper licensing and royalty compensation.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Strohsacker, Photographer
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 7:08 PM on 06.23.09
->> Luke:

"alienate their clientele"? Are you speaking of the clientele that download from ITunes or other service for $.79-$1.29 licensing fee or those that use P2P networks to download and redistribute for free?

What is the "new model" RIAA / music labels / artists should adapt?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Strohsacker, Photographer
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 7:46 PM on 06.23.09
->> How Music Licensing Works by Marshall Brain
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing.htm
-- worth reading.

1)Introduction to How Music Licensing Works
2)The Basics
3)Licensing the Song
4)ASCAP and BMI
5)Commercials and Film
6)The tale of "Happy Birthday to You"
7)Other Licensing Scenarios
8)Lots More Information
9)See all Music Industry articles

And for those interested in
"The Basics of Copyright and Licensing" in Photography
ASMP SB2 video - by - Susan Carr
Grab a drink and sit back and watch, 11 mins - 30 secs.
http://www.asmp.org/strictlybusiness/2009/04/sb2-video-the-basics-of-copyri.../
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thread Started By: John Strohsacker
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Look first; See first; Think first: so many things to do at once! keep shooting ::..