MegaUpload Dangerous Secrets affect YOU

[Saint in Paradise]

A 15 minute video you may find interesting?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tD1yaE0GfQ&feature=player_embedded#!

 

Watch out "they" know who you are

 

 

.

[pap]

I have only seen the first 5 minutes of this, but some of the judgements passed look amazingly draconian.

 

Woman who downloaded 24 songs on the Internet hit with $1.5million fine.

 

Price on iTunes / similar = $24 or thereabouts.

 

Wondering how the hell they justify that sort of money for that level of offence.

[saintbletch]

It's an important issue Saint in Paradise but that video is scaremongering of the highest order. I am concerned over our extradition laws and I think New Zealand citizens should probably also be concerned too, but this video is simply ridiculous.

 

The 'presenter' has some valid points but his stream of consciousness linking of discrete events and statistics into some form of coordinated attack on copyright infringers is totally cringeworthy.

 

I only made it to 8 minutes. I stopped when the presenter conflated China's cooperation with the US over MegaUpload with the prediction that US citizens would now likely be extradited to China where they would face the death penalty.

 

He did however suggest that the UK's extradition laws now make us look like the US's b*tch. I can see his point there.

[pap]

Fairly clear the guy has an agenda, which is to scare you into taking notice.

 

Leaving aside the obvious bs about US citizens being deported to China, the sort of money they are charging copyright infringers is crazy and ultimately, counter-productive.

 

No person in their right mind could equate the level of larceny with the level of fee. I mean, how is the single mum with a $1.5 million fine ever going to pay that back? The only thing that they are likely to generate is public resentment, not cash - because the punishment simply doesn't fit the crime.

[saintbletch]

Fairly clear the guy has an agenda, which is to scare you into taking notice.

 

Leaving aside the obvious bs about US citizens being deported to China, the sort of money they are charging copyright infringers is crazy and ultimately, counter-productive.

 

No person in their right mind could equate the level of larceny with the level of fee. I mean, how is the single mum with a $1.5 million fine ever going to pay that back? The only thing that they are likely to generate is public resentment, not cash - because the punishment simply doesn't fit the crime.

 

I completely agree that a $1.5M fine is over the top pap. And I also agree that the guy has an agenda. Not sure that his agenda is quite so altruistic as you suggest though. It seems to me that self-publicity is higher up his priority list. Anyway there is an important message buried somewhere in his rant.

 

Both sides have achieved their objective - we're both talking about this. The mentalist behind the video has gained fame and spread the word and the RIAA has publicised the fact that copyright infringement will be pursued and eye-watering damages sought.

 

It appears that in the case in question the damages have been reduced following multiple appeals to $54,000 ($2,250/song). Which means some form of justice has been served and the headline figure of $1.5M will serve as the real deterrent.

 

What I find difficult to understand in our society today is that financial crimes sometimes seem to be far more important to the courts than crimes against the person.

[pap]

Sadly, I am inclined to agree with your last sentiment, saintbletch.

 

This is a day and age in which we British citizens to be extradited for linking to copyrighted material. I hate to say victimless crime, but when you see the amount of money that record companies etc make in comparison to the artist, it's clear that the law is essentially protecting corporate interests.

 

The problem is, public apathy with this sort of egregious penalty is ultimately to blame. Even the lower figure of $2,250 per song is still not justifiable on any level whatsoever. Anyone with any sense should know this. Remember that this follows years of big record companies charging over the odds for CDs, DVDs etc.

 

But yep, you're right - priorities are totally out of whack, and few governments have the balls to put their citizens' rights over corporate interest.

[saintbletch]

Sadly, I am inclined to agree with your last sentiment, saintbletch.

 

This is a day and age in which we British citizens to be extradited for linking to copyrighted material. I hate to say victimless crime, but when you see the amount of money that record companies etc make in comparison to the artist, it's clear that the law is essentially protecting corporate interests.

 

The problem is, public apathy with this sort of egregious penalty is ultimately to blame. Even the lower figure of $2,250 per song is still not justifiable on any level whatsoever. Anyone with any sense should know this. Remember that this follows years of big record companies charging over the odds for CDs, DVDs etc.

 

But yep, you're right - priorities are totally out of whack, and few governments have the balls to put their citizens' rights over corporate interest.

 

The extradition issue is very important in my opinion. That we will send our citizens to another country when their crime is either very minor, or not illegal at all in UK law, should be a worry to us all.

 

Back to Jammie Thomas-Rasset and the $2,250 per song, I don't think that amount is based on the value of each song to the record company or indeed the value to the woman that 'stole' it.

 

I think it is based on the fact that due to the way peer to peer file sharing works, whilst she had access to the music her PC was also making those songs available to many others. In the eyes of the law, she was, in effect, distributing music.

 

The losses to the record company were therefore potentially much higher. Your point about obscene profits within the music industry notwithstanding, I guess it's possible that her PC served 2848 other Kazaa peers ( 2250 / 0.79 ). 79 cents - the likely cost of buying the track as a download.

 

That said, the article I read suggested that the $54,000 was a 'constitutional maximum' as opposed to being related in any way to the amount stolen. It seems that the record company is not going to let it lie and is appealing that decision further.

 

Surely the biggest crime here though is that one of the 'stolen' songs was Rythym is Gonna get you by Gloria Estefan?

Edited 24 January, 2012 by saintbletch

[pap]

The extradition issue is very important in my opinion. That we will send our citizens to another country when their crime is either very minor, or not illegal at all in UK law, should be a worry to us all.

 

Back to Jammie Thomas-Rasset and the $2,250 per song, I don't think that amount is based on the value of each song to the record company or indeed the value to the woman that 'stole' it.

 

I think it is based on the fact that due to the way peer to peer file sharing works, whilst she had access to the music her PC was also making those songs available to many others. In the eyes of the law, she was, in effect, distributing music.

 

The losses to the record company were therefore potentially much higher. Your point about obscene profits within the music industry notwithstanding, I guess it's possible that her PC served 2848 other Kazaa peers ( 2250 / 0.79 ). 79 cents - the likely cost of buying the track as a download.

 

That said, the article I read suggested that the $54,000 was a 'constitutional maximum' as opposed to being related in any way to the amount stolen. It seems that the record company is not going to let it lie and is appealing that decision further.

 

Surely the biggest crime here though is that one of the 'stolen' songs was Rythym is Gonna get you by Gloria Estefan?

 

A-ha, the whole "lost sale" argument. Yep, seen that one trotted out many times in relation to piracy. The record company are proceeding from the assumption that if people had not downloaded the song from Kazaa/whatever, they would have bought copies instead.

 

The theft is the potential amount of money that the company could have made if all customers had bought, rather than nicked, the tracks in question. Of course, in reality, 99.9999% of those people would have just found it somewhere else on-line, and still not paid for it.

[Jones91]

Apparently 'youtube downloader' is the best way to nick music - according to a mate.

[Flyer]

I have only seen the first 5 minutes of this, but some of the judgements passed look amazingly draconian.

 

Woman who downloaded 24 songs on the Internet hit with $1.5million fine.

 

Price on iTunes / similar = $24 or thereabouts.

 

Wondering how the hell they justify that sort of money for that level of offence.

 

Simple, bribery of politicians is legal in the US so laws are made for the corporations.

 

You only have to look at the MPAA openly threatening to withdraw bribes unless the politicians pass SOPA.

[buctootim]

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota woman ordered to pay a recording industry trade group $1.5 million for illegally sharing music online doesn't plan to pay those damages as her attorneys continue to argue the amount is unconstitutional, she said Thursday.

 

A federal jury found Wednesday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, must pay $62,500 per song — for a total of $1.5 million — for illegally violating copyrights on 24 songs. This was the third jury to consider damages in her case, and each has found that she must pay — though different amounts. And after each time, the single mother of four has said she can't pay. "I can't afford to pay any amount. It's not a matter of won't, it's a matter of 'I can't,'" Thomas-Rasset said Thursday. "Any amount that I pay to them is money that I could use to feed my children. Any amount that I pay to them is money I could use to clothe my kids, and pay my mortgage so my kids have a place to sleep."

 

The Recording Industry Association of America has said it found Thomas-Rasset shared more than 1,700 songs on the file-sharing site Kazaa, but it sued over 24 of them. RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said the association made several attempts to settle with Thomas-Rasset, at first for $5,000, but Thomas-Rasset refused. Duckworth said the RIAA was thankful the jury recognized the severity of Thomas-Rasset's misconduct. "Three juries have now spoken and each has sent a strong message that she needs to accept responsibility for her actions," Duckworth said. "I'd say, enough is enough." Under federal law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement but the law allows the jury to raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful.

 

The vast majority of people targeted by music industry lawsuits have settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits and is instead working with Internet service providers to go after the worst offenders.

 

Thomas-Rasset, 33, was the first person to go to trial. In 2007, jurors decided she willfully violated the copyrights on all 24 songs, and she was ordered to pay $9,250 per song, or $222,000.

But Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ordered a new trial, deciding he had erred in giving jury instructions. The case went back to court. Last year, another jury also found that Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights and ordered her to pay $1.92 million in damages, or $80,000 per song. Davis called that figure "monstrous and shocking" and reduced the penalty to about $54,000. The RIAA rejected the reduced penalty for legal reasons. But the industry group said it would settle for $25,000, with the money going to a charity for struggling musicians. Thomas-Rasset refused, setting up another trial to deal just with the issue of damages.

 

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he has 30 days to submit arguments that the statutes allowing for such hefty damages in these cases are unconstitutional. He said even the minimum amount for damages is not reasonably related to the actual harm caused to the recording industry. He said in Thomas-Rasset's case, the minimum damage amount would be $18,000, but the actual damages are $24 — the amount Thomas-Rasset would have paid if she bought each song for $1 off iTunes. Camara said he'll take the argument to the appeals court if necessary.

 

Thomas-Rasset has maintained her innocence from the start, saying she never used Kazaa. She said Thursday that the law allowing for such disproportionate damages needs to be changed, and she's willing to keep fighting. "It's not a fair law," she said. "In my eyes, it's legalized extortion." When a reporter pointed out that three juries of her peers had decided that she should pay well above the minimum, she said there's "no rhyme or reason to the numbers" but she respects jurors for doing their jobs. She said she's not going to worry about damages until the case is finalized and appeals are finished. Even then, she said, she'd probably file for bankruptcy and write off the damages, rather than pay herself.