RIAA Juror: 'We Wanted to Send a Message' - took them 5 minutes to decide guilty

RIAA Juror: 'We Wanted to Send a Message'

It took the jury in Capitol Records v. Thomas only five minutes to find that 30-year-old Jammie Thomas had infringed recording industry copyrights on 24 music tracks, according to the first juror to speak out on the verdict.

The remaining five hours of deliberation was spent debating the appropriate financial penalty, with jurors haggling for both higher and lower awards, before settling last week on the final $222,000 figure, according to juror Michael Hegg, in an exclusive interview with THREAT LEVEL Tuesday.

At least two jurors, one of them a funeral home owner, wanted to award the Recording Industry Association of America the maximum $150,000 for each of the 24 copyright violations, while one juror held out hours for the $750 minimum for each violation of the Copyright Act, he said.

In the end, "after bickering," they settled on $9,250 for each song.

"That is a compromise, yes," said Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth, Minnesota. "We wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/riaa_trial/index.html

Lets send a message that if you download a song, it comes with a 9000 dollar fine. Awful people.

Sir Denis Eton-Hogg.

You make a judgement based on facts of the current situtation. You just ruined a women's life to "send a message" What a moron.

:think:
rocknation

:shrug:

And it seems from the article that the jurors had discretion as to how much to fine.

Do those jurors think that she caused the recording industry 3 million dollars in damage for downloading 22 songs? Seriously, its obvious as hell they were not doing this not to award appropriate damages, but to send a message. And a juror himself even said he was sending a message. The copyright laws need reformed, because they were written by congressmen in the RIAA's pocket.

They're basing it on the 22 songs she made available to the 2 million people that were on Kazaa when she got busted.

She obviously did not cause near the amount of damage that was awarded to the RIAA.

They are imposed to hold one out as an example for others not to be. Just say'n. :shrug:

If the law says that a jury can't fine for less than $750/song, then the law was written by corporate whores.

Morons, instead of finding an equitable solution to a world wide problem, they boosted their own ego's and pretty much made sure that illegal file sharing will go back underground. There are lots of file sharers out there who are smart enough not to use p2p networks or Bit Torrent. And as they have in the past, if the public catches on to what they are doing and puts them at risk, they will pack up, leave their current forum to the public and create new ways of distribution.

there are plenty of other p2p programs the man isnt on to yet

Why stop at a fine? Why not leave the jury box and break her legs?

and other drugs about? Sending a message to corporations.

So if you accept it that a jury can send a message against a corporation you should accept it when it is for a corporation.

Next thing you know they'll copyright Do re mi and all the other notes!!!!:puke:

we've been sending messages to terrorists, to dopers, juvenile criminals, you name it... that's worked well hasn't it?

Copying songs used to just be cheap entertainment. These people have elevated it to a sport.

(No, of course I wouldn't use technology to evade the
law. That would be wrong. Not me. No sir. I'm
very, very law abiding.)

But I surely won't buy any.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you seriously need to calm the fuck down.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I mean, that is just TOO rich!

your point is????

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and you still need to calm the fuck down

I used to live on the West Coast ( by Ft.Myers Beach )

"I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here," he said. "I don't know what the fuck she was thinking, to tell you the truth."
-- From OP article

...a Society that is intelligent, well-schooled, usually Bright but Totally, Totally Ignorant when it comes to Corporations and the World....and the Courts.

Just fuckin' with you Odin ;)

...(most likely) wouldn't screw some poor single Mom.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's theft and it needs to stop.

And you know it.

The punishment for which should NOT permanently ruining someone financially, no matter how many songs they download.

BY the way- your precious RIAA is looking at its British counterpart- that organization is suing a shop for an employee playing a CD in hearing of the customers.
YOU would like PARTIES to get busted for playing RIAA member music, because the partygoers are "stealing" a license to hear the music.

Prove me wrong.

ASCAP is not going to go after people playing music at their house.

ASCAP gives commercial lisense to anyone who plays the radio.

I've dealt with this crap a little because I own a little cafe. I even gave an interview in our local paper. Short but sweet.

http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Eyes+Next+Possible+Targets+CD+Burners+Radio+Listeners/article9218.htm

RIAA's British counterpart. In this case, it seems they are being sued because employees were playing personal CDs within the customers' hearing.

The music was incidental; they were making money from their own service they were performing, which didn't in any way shape or form have to do with the music industry.



This is a witch hunt, and anyone who defends it is on the wrong side of the issue. DU Copyright Apologist Corps, take note: I'm pointing at you.

Busting parties for unlicensed public performance is NOT far off, if this is any indication.

What I said stands.

The "two in a bar" rule that exempted small acoustic performances. This was 2003ish.

...and publishing companies.

The RIAA represents record labels.

What the PRS does, in part, is collect royalties FROM record labels (and from public performances) and distribute those royalties to the people who wrote the music.

such as on LP, 8-track, Cassette or CD, then downloading that same song on the Internet is allowed, its called fair use and format shifting, look it up. However, if you never owned that song, then its copyright infringement.

of income....

Where do you think they went?


Any cafe or burrito cart they can find can expect some kind of bill for playing anything except for corporate radio. This was a result of STEALING music online.

And it's not cheap. The minimum for ASCAP IS well over a thousand dollars. And that is just one of the licensing companies.

Back when I was younger, my friends and I would copy each other's cassette tapes. We would also make mix tapes off of the radio and from other sources like records.

Song swapping and sharing has been around for far longer than online filesharing. The only difference being that the technology and method of delivery have changed.

It's not about infringement, it's about control. The RIAA would love to move to a pay per play model. In their opinion even making a legal backup copy is theft.

Furthermore technology and the internet have enabled artists to strike out on their own without a label. Radiohead and NIN are two examples. I'd much rather buy an album in which the artist, not the middleman, receives my money. With Radiohead's new album you can even name your own price.

The major music companies are dying because they no longer have the iron clad grip of yore on music distribution and refuse to adapt. Their idea of adapting is putting a rootkit (Sony) on their CDs. Ask any gamer-DRM only drives away those who want to buy a legal copy. The only way I'll ever put a music CD in my computer is with every "autorun" feature turned off.

In short, they aren't shaking down people because of online filesharing. Rather they do it because their corporate shills in Congress pass laws that enable them and chip further away at our fair use rights. Patent and copyright laws in this country are obscenely ridiculous.

They don't harass the burrito cart owner because of online filesharing. They do it because they can.

The Future of Music Coalition, which pretends to represent artists, is geared towards the same.

per album basis. I think it represents some exciting music oppurtunities for "unsigned" artists.

Whether it's a radio, a jukebox, or muzak, the business philosophy is that you are using the music to enhance your business.

The laws were there but it wasn't until downloaders started to cut into the market that they started to AGGRESSIVELY pursue licensing.

Restaurants get a pass on standard radio & tv only because a law was passed in 1998 making it so.

Arcade Fire sold 750,000 copies of their second album with no commercial airplay. Where were your downloaders? With only a very small handful of stations on their third, it debuted on Billboard at #2. And this is a band on one of the most stubbornly indie labels, ever.

Where are your downloaders now? Could it be they were all busy downloading records they weren't going to purchase, anyway?

from downloaders you are flat out wrong.

In 2004 we got weekly phonecalls from BMI for liscensing. After a place down the street got fined big time we conceded and bought a $800 yearly contract. Immediately afterward ASCAP comes and starts pursuing their $1300 yearly contract for their market share. After that you have the Hip Hop company, and now there is SEASAC and I'm not even sure what they do.

This was a direct result of loss of market share from downloading. These companies became extremely aggressive over the last five or six. They will call your establisment and threaten to sue you.

If you don't agree with me that's fine. But I've seen it with my own eyes.

The big weekly news and entertainment paper in my town did a little article on it.

As well as their good friends at radio. And that's why the majors are floundering while radio swallows its own tail. I'm in the industry and know what's happened cause I've watched it happen for almost 25 years.

The typical music consumer buys maybe 15 CDs per year - tops. They're your downloading troubles but guess what? In most cases, they weren't going to buy it anyway! Losing money is not the same thing as not making as much money as think you have a right to.


The die-hard music fan will buy 5 albums a month but they won't waste the money on crap. They aren't going to stop buying albums, they like having something solid in their hands. *That* music buyer is not being serviced by major labels or by radio. They have to find good music by seeking it out through friends, through obscure music magazines, through the club scene.

These fans don't owe shit to record labels that won't spend a dime to promote music that appeals to them on a visceral level, but instead throw millions at various media to promote "moldable" pop stars.

What we are seeing now in popular music and the culture of people buying it is a repeat of the early-mid 1980s, when rock radio would only play Rush, Led Zep, Whitesnake, Steely Dan for baby boomers and rednecks, and young people at the front of trend-setting wanted Violent Femmes & New Order.

Except for colleges and 12 commercial stations in the country, radio didn't want to play it, and labels didn't know how to promote it. For anyone who didn't live in range of those stations, the only way to hear what they wanted was to purchase it, get it on a mix tape from a friend or, if they were lucky, they might be able to hear it in the clubs.

When Nirvana hit, the labels proceeded to help kill alternative radio stations (which were being signed on by or bought out by the corps) and turn them into the new AORs.

We are there all over again, but this time, downloading is an option for people who want to hear something but can't get free access. Free access, on a limited scale, is crucial to sales! Ask any drug dealer. That's why labels want to move things towards the subscription model; pay your $5 per month or whatever and you can *hear* those tunes anytime you want but no, ya can't take them with you.

iTunes has proven beyond a doubt that people will pay for downloads, given a reasonable deal.


The other huge factor:

Baby boomers owned rock & roll, it was their culture. Labels haven't given any amount of thought to the needs of succeeding generations (rap is now 30 years old - and most thoughtful African Americans will tell you what's popular in rap is a fucking wasteland) to their own cultures.

The computer is the culture of the under-40s, more so than music. And for the under-30 crowd, especially so! And that's the #1 reason why the labels aren't making as much money as they think they should be. They're in the wrong business to start with, if they want their main market to be people under 40.





SESAC originally dealt with European artists and have now gone broader. They're also admittedly for-profit.

The music that has come out on the radio has been for the most part crap over the last 10 to 15 years. Three to Four chord rhythm guitar crap with some ridiculous little lead laid over the top and crappy lyrics. Maybe that's just me.

I highly encourage the movement away from the record industry. I envision an unfolding process where we no longer have major music labels but lots of small ones. Maybe we can see some truly inspiring movements in music.

Say you parked in front of a fire hydrant. You knew it was wrong, but you were in a hurry and there were no cops around.

Suddenly, a cop appears and gives you a $5,000 ticket, instead of a $50 ticket.

Now, you knew that what you did was wrong, but did you deserve to lose the equivalent of a month's salary?

That $50 fine would have stung enough for you not to try it again. Works almost every time, and also warns others not to do it as well.

Nobody's arguing that the RIAA has no right to protect their copyright.

It's the excessive amount that we're protesting.

just like the jurors :( jesus christ....how about a flogging?

Otherwise I'm not punative at all.

makes more sense than talking up the restaurant angle.

you can't steal the intangible.

People are being destroyed in court on the idea that downloading prevents future purchase, which is impossible to prove.

How can you prosecute someone on loss off hypothetical future profit? One could also argue that making digital copies of original source material is a more efficient use of a purchased good, akin to time sharing.

If I buy a CD and only play it a few hours a year, I am not utilizing the asset to its full extent. Thousands of additional users could listen to the same source material without overlap, just as well if I had lent the the original media in person.


Do all your friends buy things when they could simply borrow them from you?

I would consider you downloading the song from another person to be theft. Although I may not seek 9 grand for the song I would want enough to make sure I or any one else did not get taken advantage of again by you or others.

It's really that simple.

No one seems to understand this.
When I rob a brick & mortar store, I take something of value from their inventory. Their inventory is depleted.

When I download a track, I deprive the record companies of a "sale" but their inventory has not been depleted. It is unlimited because I only downloaded a copy.

To apply the downloading analogy to the brick & mortar store would mean that I robbed a jewelry store but only took "copies" of the jewels with my magic jewel-copying-device.

Granted, if millions of people are making copies, then the value of the jewels will drop drastically. Making magic copies of jewels is wrong. Redistributing magically copied jewels (even for free) should also be wrong.

But the punishment of the redistributor should be of a magnitude related to the amount of redistribution. You don't ruin someone's life over it just to "send a message".

It is a question of scale. This *can* be codified and adjudicated fairly. This case was not.

File sharing is here to stay and notions of intellectual property will just have to adapt, unless of course you want to outlaw the Internet. The RIAA are just being stubborn, whiny dinosaurs that would be perfectly happy if the Internet was banned just so they could suck a few more dollars from people buying their overpriced CDs.

and their parents to buy the music.

As long as the recording industry continues to push outdated paradigms on to new technological forces they will lose.

If I write an album and record it and sell my recording from my website I expect that the buyer will fulfill his obligation that I stated in the buyer/seller contract to not distribute my recording to others. It is not JUST the record companies that lose.

Local or not...this is bullshit, and I won't argue with you either because you are flat out wrong.

By the way I wasn't talking about Artists affiliated with major record companys. I was talking about indie artists.

Piss off and go away that's what!
Trent Reznor and Radiohead did just that and are going at it alone. We don't need them anymore. We own our own home recording studios, make our own CDs, we have our own online distributors to use, our own radio streaming networks. They're realizing now that the corporate music business giants are no longer needed and they're pissing their pants over it. No more corrupted A&R reps, no more payola and coke parties on lear jets for executive leeches, no more formulated in-house commercialized "bands" to force-feed onto the impressionable youth. The real talents will always rise to the top and the shit will get flushed to the $1 Wal-Mart bins.

It may take a few more lawsuits.

200K is insane.

person.

I have to wonder how much her being an American Indian played into this. I'm under the impression that the jury was all white.

I live in Minnesota, the animus in the white community toward Native people is palpable and omnipresent.

sw

In this case, from what I can see there was no doubt whatsoever about her guilt.

Being a "giant corporation" is not a crime. Being an "ordinary person" doesn't give one any licence to break the law.

I think the sentence is disproportionate, but the blame for that attaches to the people who made the law, not the ones who enforced it.

And, FWIW, I think that the fact that this woman was distributing music as opposed to downloading it means that a penalty in the (probably low) thousands of pounds would not be disproportionate.

It really wasn't that big of a deal. :shrug:

you to do so and register your protest with the RIAA because I am sure you're not chicken.

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
1330 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
tel: 202-775-0101 fax: 202-775-7253

Let us know how that works out for you.

That's a very costly lesson for most people. $200k+ is absolutely insane.

Copyright should be limited to seven years. Period.

After the prisoner was sufficiently demonized by an authority figure (the prosecutor), they went all out to punish the prisoner for his egregious acts.

They probably would have recommended lethal injection if that had been an option.

Scary.

I was having trouble getting my head around the cruelty of this jury, and then I read your post.

I mean people just stopped downloading music. Just forced a better mousetrap.

Fuck em.

Someone needs to setup a bit torrent system that uses ssl encapsulated streams for p2p transfer uses LZ compression to optimize data and encrypts the file on your HD with a fast encryption tool like AES256.

Sorry you cant prove that is an mp3 file because it is encrypted on MY PROPERTY, I cant seem to remember the password.

Maybe the NSA can help you with that.

See ya game over. Greedy bastards, I cant tell you how much shitty music I bought to get one decent song.

and stop price gouging for it. They got what they deserved for their decades of ripping off the public.

I am an unsigned artist on CDBaby.com, the most popular online music distributor for independent artists. 85% of their sales are CDs and the rest are from digital downloads. Which shows if you put out something worth having music fans will pay for it. Most of my purchases now are new & used vinyl and some used CDs. Most new CD's are not worth buying. They do the usual "remastering" scam to get you to buy the same titles again. If they go that route why not put the original analog master in high resolution SACD or DVD-A or remix it to surround sound. Now you got something worth paying for! Then there's latest 5 minute flavor of the week "artist" from some reality show who will be bussing your table next week after the label gets their use out of them. Then there's the new "copy protected" CDs than won't let you back up or copy your OWN LEGALLY purchased CD to you in a portable player, plus the sound quality is often compromised through the encryption.

The musicians themselves should just be grateful someone wants to listen to them, and see them live. With the general lack of interest in quality music over the American Idol, reality "talent" shows, and other 3rd rate hacks that dmonate mainstream radio you're lucky to even get your music downloaded.

What i will do is buy your catalogue off cdbaby, and the provide high quality digital copies to everyone on DU, and anyone else who wants one. I will purchase a banner ad, to run when your stuff is viewed, saying the music is available for free, so why pay? You're cool with that?

Argh, I hate these greedy motherfuckers.

If they don't want file sharing, shouldn't they go after the sites that allow it? And how do they know definitively that she downloaded the songs? This is flat out wrong.

in which they couldn't be sued. Or at least that is how the story went. And they learned not to be centralized like Napster.

However the RIAA has been going after individual *uploaders* for some time now. They saw the files she was sharing and that is how she got nailed. Kazaa automatically shares files unless you tell it not to. I know that another way to get busted on Kazaa was to be a 'supernode'.

All of that is moot because I don't think anyone uses Kazaa anymore. A lot of people have moved on to bittorrent which is even more unsafe because you upload as you download. At least on Kazaa you could turn filesharing off.

Basically the RIAA and MPAA outsource companies to catch infringers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a great resource for this stuff.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

...and, while I haven't read the text of this one, I'm pretty sure there was little doubt that she was guilty of breaking it. So, the problem is really with their bizarre willingness to serve as muscle for the RIAA in sentencing, which, unless I am mistaken, is only a suggestion by the jury that the judge can allow to stand or change (within the parameters set by the law) at their pleasure. I'm not sure what the vindictive members of the jury feel they were getting out of "making an example" of this woman, but they are obviously unaware of how many people are guilty of this type of crime, and I wonder if they'll feel the same when it's a younger member of their own family who gets busted for it.

this level of stupidity. I'll put my neck on line and goes as far as call these fucks bunch of fucking rednecks.


:puke: :puke: :puke:

I believe in jury nullification.

I think drugs and prostitution should be legalized.

And I'd say so to the Court during questioning too.

"sneaking" on the jury by hiding your knowledge that jurors are supposed to exercise citizen oversight of the acts of the government legislature and the executive, then a good thing to do while under interrogation from the lawyers and judge is to lay it all out for all of the other prospective jurors to hear and maybe one of them will be inspired to do it. Something like:

Judge: Will you obey my command to execute the law as I give it to you?

Prospective juror not willing to "sneak" on the jury: But, your honor, what about my duty as a citizen to oversee the acts of the legislature? According to Yale Law Journal 74 (1964):173, in 1771 John Adams said that, "It is not only (the juror's) right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Judge, if you are intent on stacking this jury by filtering out all those who would do the important duty of exercising citizen oversight of the government, I hope that at least one good citizen in this pool has the courage to somehow sneak past your gate.

after one of their grandchildren's friends downloads the latest Britney Spears track to the family computer one weekend.

:)

So that he could have explained to Mr. Hegg how those songs got sucked through the series of tubes.

Or ground up and incorporated in the foundation of a bridge to nowhere...

why doesn't the RIAA also go after the computer manufacturer's for putting cd burners in their computers?

Lethally inject Steve Jobs since ITunes actually gives you the means to rip off the very music they Sell You?

I've been using the new button on my IPhone to BUY any of 6 million songs in their collection, which only allow you 5 uses, say a few computers and some CD burns in a format that cuts you off..

Sorta, because if you burn a CD THEN stick it back in and Import the same CD as .mp3's right back IN to ITunes, which are then FREE music, which a person could use to make as many copies as they wanted :)

Not that I would do such a thing :)

But I know it works, and they've be hawking news that they'd be selling DRM Free music anyway..

You can import all songs in ITunes automatically as AAC, or whatever the format is, or in Preferences make the choice to import as .mp3's instead.

I assume it's legal or it wouldn't be so damned easy.

And I hope those Pissant Sparrowfart Jurors roast in a mediocre Hell with their pals for screwing someone with a corporate whores giant golden dildo.

Looks like the total psyops takeover of the Public is complete :)

And I also am a Musician.

That would have shown her and everyone else who might do the same.

























(Yes, it's sarcasm. Do I need to say that specifically or risk flames? Probably.)

I guess it's an effective way to stop poaching, but it didn't help the popularity of Kings. Ask the severed head of Charles I...

That's good for keeping the RIAA away. However, when iTunes doesn't have a song I REALLY want, I get REALLY tempted to dl from some p2p.

:shrug: :wtf: I would have held out until the defendant was acquitted.

"Expert testimony from an RIAA witness also showed that a wireless router was not used, casting doubt on her defense that a hacker lurking outside her apartment window with a laptop might have framed her."

Wow! They went about this all wrong. It's not about a hacker lurking outside apartment. The moment you're in a public place with open wireless then people will try to use that access and they don't have to be hackers. I think this woman was thrown under the bus because the jury, lawyers, and judge are not familiar with the technology of today. And I think the RIAA witness is a fake. How was he able to determine who tapped into her network? I think it's more likely that the "expert witness" was playing on the ignorance of the jury.