   Excessive Damage $80,000 per mp3
Damages of $1.9 million could backfire on music industryQuote:LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - The recording industry secured a resounding victory last week when a Minneapolis jury awarded the four major labels $1.92 million in damages after unanimously finding that a 32-year-old mother had willfully infringed on their copyrights by downloading and sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network....No one expects that the labels will collect the entire amount from Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old Brainerd, Minn., mother of four who testified during the retrial that her ex-boyfriend or sons, then 8 and 10, were most likely responsible for downloading and distributing the songs. Thomas-Rasset lost her previous trial in 2007 and was ordered to pay $222,000, only to achieve a now-pyrrhic victory when the court tossed the verdict because of a faulty jury instruction....The Copyright Act provides for awards of statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, in the case of willful infringement. A number of copyright scholars on the "copyleft," led by Harvard Law School's Charles Nesson, have argued that such damages awards for personal use of file-sharing networks are excessive. Though no court has yet adopted that theory, the Thomas-Rasset verdict provides a very human face to the argument, which she will likely pursue on appeal if the case isn't settled....$80,000 per mp3 is excessive. What do you think? Will this verdict generate a backlash as this writer suggests?    
  I challenge you to find someone vaguely connected with the world around them who thinks the recording industry are stand-up guys right now. Seriously, everybody hates those morons already. It's just that thanks to their cartel setup, nobody can do anything about it. I wouldn't mind seeing what would happen if someone brought a full RICO case to bear. I've heard some murmurs about it but no one has done it yet.   ;  The reaction has gotten as far as having at least  one musician calling for the RIAA to be disbanded.   ;  Score one for Moby, but can he get Eminem to go along with him on this one? [grin]Wouldn't a RICO case require a federal prosecutor? I'm surprised that a jury went so harsh on this woman. Even $800 per song would have totaled $19,200, an amount that seems more than enough to punish and dissuade.   ;  This is completely absurd. I find it unbelievable how such a claim could not be directly dismissed as excessive. The methods of the RIAA remind me of organized crime. Just instead of sending thugs with guns, they abuse the legal system. They should be the ones put on trial.;  I think it is absurd.I really only commented to be the only non-staff member of gamedev to post :)   ;Quote:Original post by SiCraneThe reaction has gotten as far as having at least one musician calling for the RIAA to be disbanded.Quote:Original post by LessBreadScore one for Moby...Score half for Moby. He's signed to Mute Records, which is owned by EMI, which is a member of the RIAA, so the proof of his convictions will be when he decides to terminate his publishing agreement or otherwise circumvent the RIAA in the release of his music.The key to disempowering the RIAA is artists realizing they don't need record companies. Record companies need them, so why do they let the record companies own the material and set the agenda? (Yes, I know, it's because a lot of "artists" are nothing but performers, puppets, and need the marketing muscle of the record companies to push them on non-discerning consumers.)   ;  The good thing is, a lot of artists are realizing this.  Lots of 'em are going indie these days.  It's not too pricey to put together a decent digital recording studio, at least not as much as it used to be.The main concern with going indie is the marketing aspect, but there are a lot of artists out there making great use of technology (YouTube, soundclick, all the social networking sites) in order to get their voices heard.Big record companies are becoming less and less valuable to artists, and that is why they are pulling little stunts like this.;  I always wondered what happens in those cases? So she files bankruptcy and her credit rating goes down? Are they just trying to make a message? If they did they should target the people sedding TB of data. That would make a bigger impression, or not. I mean it seems like people that use encrypted torrents on private sites are never found guilty.   ;Quote:Original post by OluseyiQuote:Original post by SiCraneThe reaction has gotten as far as having at least one musician calling for the RIAA to be disbanded.Quote:Original post by LessBreadScore one for Moby...Score half for Moby. He's signed to Mute Records, which is owned by EMI, which is a member of the RIAA, so the proof of his convictions will be when he decides to terminate his publishing agreement or otherwise circumvent the RIAA in the release of his music.Sure. Moby seems so 1999 anyway. What does No Doubt have to say about this? [grin] Quote:Original post by OluseyiThe key to disempowering the RIAA is artists realizing they don't need record companies. Record companies need them, so why do they let the record companies own the material and set the agenda? (Yes, I know, it's because a lot of "artists" are nothing but performers, puppets, and need the marketing muscle of the record companies to push them on non-discerning consumers.)American Idol perfectly illustrates your acknowledgment. The performing puppets phenomena is nothing new. It's actually the normal model found in the music business, going back to the late 1940's if not earlier. [To tie this into another bit of recent news, check out the Woody Guthrie biopic starring David Carradine for a portrayal of the music business back then and an artist's  refusal to surrender to it.] The very concept of musician as artist - I should say the practice of calling any musician an artist - took hold during the mid to late 1960's, when musical acts who didn't write all of their material began to be seen as inauthentic.  Before that, would it make sense to call Pat Boone an artist? Moving forward in time, would it make sense to call the Village People artists? Milli Vanilli? It seems to me that the music industry has always been hostile to musical groups that it could not control, that it could not use to produce product. To get back to the American Idol comment that I started off with, it's clear that there is a lot of talent in America that goes undiscovered and unappreciated so long as it remains outside of the system of the music business. This approach keeps that talent desperate for success and desperate people tend to sign over too much control. That's why they let the record companies own the material and set the agenda. They want to be stars, not artists, and the record companies are looking for stars, not artists.  <br><br>** I'm talking about pop music, not jazz etc. <br>