Empecemos con Jammie Thomas, que la obligaron a pagar 9,250 USD por cada canción que compartió en Kazaa y que su multa puede ir de 222,000 a ¡DOS MUTHERFUCKING MILLONES DE DÓLARES! . Se me hace una reverenda pendejada de la vil y asquerosa industria musical. Aquí les van siete crímenes que te hacen pagar menos de multa:

1. Secuestro infantil: 25,000 USD
2. Robar el CD: 2,500 USD
3. Robar a tu vecino: 375,000 USD
4. Quemar una casa: 375,000 USD
5. Acosar a alguien: 175,000 USD
6. Hacer un ring para peleas de perros: 50,000 USD
7. Asesinar a alguien: La penalidad máxima es de 25,000 USD y 15 años de prisión.

Artículo completo aquí

Más información sobre Jammie Thomas aquí, aquí y aquí

RIAA says, 'GOTCHA'!

Okay, so what? I’ve download a couple of thousand songs off the internet. Who hasn’t? Who hasn’t?!

-Glen Whitmann, RIAA’s public enemy number 1, from Transformers

So recently it has hit the fan in terms of music downloads.  When I say recently I mean the last 4-5 years.  The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has won some large judgments against those sharing files across the internet.  To name a few Joel Tanenbaum, was hit with a $675,000 lawsuit (for 30 songs @ 22.500), and Jammie Thomas who was hit with a $1.9 MILLION (24 songs @ $80,000 per song) lawsuit.  I am not endorsing (by any means) file sharing over the internet but doesnt the RIAA think that is a little high for average citizens.  You get in less trouble for committing real crimes (murder, abuse, drunk driving, etc).

Here is my issue with the lawsuits.   The fine and attention is directed at the wrong person.  If the RIAA’s goal is the eradicated file sharing then the target should be the internet service provider or the actual file sharing program.  Last I heard most of file sharing sites are still in existence today.  As long as the sites are active the downloads will continue.

I did an impromtu interview with a person (a gentleman at a car wash) who told me that he never buys a cd because the internet is free.  While I don’t agree with never buying a cd , I had to agree with some of his comments about the lack of quality in a lot of music today.  Also he mentioned that technology leads to file sharing.  Why would someone need a hard drive that hold a terabyte of information?  Better yet an iPod that can hold over 30,000 songs?  A cell phone with 8GB of space?  Society always has us thinking bigger and better.  Same mentality hits us when we think of our technology needs.  I have almost my entire music collection on a 60GB iPod with over half empty even with hundreds of photos, home videos, and four movies.  He guaranteed me that if a cd exists he can find it on the internet in less than 5 minutes.  I laughed and thought it was impossible.  As I sat back I wrote the names of 7 albums on a piece of paper and handed them to him…they were;

Johnnie Taylor – Good Love

Kirk Franklin & The Family

Ludacris – The Red Light District

TLC – CrazySexyCool

Booby Brown – Don’t Be Cruel

Remy Shand – The Way I Feel

Juvenile -600 Degreez

As you can tell they are a little varied and one (600 Degreez) was never released in stores.  Guess what.  In less than a few minutes he had found all 7 and was starting to download the ENTIRE album for each.  I was flabbergasted…I knew albums were available online but not like this.  he downloaded Johnnie Taylor’s Good Love first and played each track…each one was flawless and in the order I remembered it.

I guess my question is this…How do we resist the temptation with the current generation of millennials and the “must have it now” mentality.  The RIAA has a point.  Money is being lost because of music downloads and there are some really interesting statistics.  I remember being in college and EVERYONE had a burned copy of thier favorite music.   Well nowadays if you want to live dangerously then download music.  I mean that new Maxwell jams, but its not worth $100,000.  Besides if you ask a few questions I am sure your favorite music is right under your nose.  Good luck and happy downloading.

Die Millionenstrafe wurde gegen Jammie Thomas wegen 24 Songs verhängt, einer davon stammt vom US-Schlagerstar Richard Marx (Bild). Dieser erklärte nun öffentlich:

“Als langjähriger Komponist war ich immer gegen illegale Musikdownloads. Aber ich hegte auch immer schon eine gewisse Sympathie für den durchschnittlichen Musikfan, der konsequent durch die Gier der Major Labels ausgebeutet wird. Diese Labels waren für den Vertrieb eines Grossteils der Musik verantwortlich, aber anstatt diese Industrie weiter auszubauen und den Fans die maximale Qualität zu bieten, übervorteilen sie den Konsumenten und füllen ihre eigenen Taschen. Das aktuelle “Urteil” in einem Fall von illegalem Download ist, gerade in unserer wirtschaftlich schwierigen Zeit, fehlgeleitet und eine Farce. Die Verantwortung von Frau Thomas steht ausser Frage, aber diese Machtdemonstration ist ein Missbrauch, und ich schäme mich dafür, dass mein Name damit in Verbindung gebracht wird”.

Schlagerfuzzi hin, Weichspüler her, ich finde, der Mann hat das gut ausgedrückt: Machtmissbrauch und nackte Gier. Jetzt muss nur noch jemand Richard erklären, wie die Aufmerksamkeitsökonomie funktioniert (Musik zum Gratisdownload, Umsatz mit Fan-Artikeln wie Tshirts und CDs), dann schwenkt er auch um und lädt seine Songs eigenhändig in die Pirate Bay hoch.

( via arstechnica)

So sind nun mal die Verhältnisse heute. ( via hypebot) (aufs bild klicken vergrössert, jetzt)

Der US-Musiker und Komponist Moby nimmt in seinem Blog zum Urteil gegen Jammie Thomas Stellung. Diese soll jetzt nach dem Willen der Geschworenen knapp zwei Millionen US-Dollar bezahlen. Moby sagt: “Aargh. Was für ein totaler Blödsinn. So wollen die Musikfirmen ihr Geschäft schützen?

In dem sie Mütter aus der Vorstadt wegen Musikhörens verklagen? Auf 80.000 US-Dollar pro Song?” Das fragen wir uns natürlich auch. Moby weiter: “Es tut mir um jeden Musikfan leid, ganz egal wo, der dazu gebracht wurde, eine schlechte Zeit zu haben, nur weil er Wert darauf legte, Musik zu hören.” So ist es einfach nun mal.

Und die Lösung hat er auch parat: “Die RIAA muss aufgelöst werden”.

Das muss sie, und zwar dringend. Diese gewissenlosen Geschäftemacher behaupten lautstark, nur sie alleine dürften Musik vertreiben, egal in welcher Form, und sei es die Privatkopie, die ja nach deren Willen verboten sein sollte. Das ist ein dickes Paket krimineller Lügen.

In Wirklichkeit haben diese Geschäftemacher nur ein Recht: Tonträger zu verkaufen, wenn der Künstler ihnen das vertraglich erlaubt hat. Nichts anderes. Jemand muss die Musikheuschrecken zum Schweigen bringen. Aber wahrscheinlich macht sich der musikalisch-industrielle Komplex in wenigen Jahren selbst obsolet. Genau durch diese Geschäftspolitik.

( moby via torrentfreak)

tradução por Paulo Rená (com ajuda de João Silva Costa) de texto original de Ernesto, publicado em 20 de junho de 2009

Moby: A RIAA precisa ser desmantelada

A multa de dois milhões de dólares imposta a Jammie Thomas por um júri de Minnesota essa semana não fez muito bem para a imagem da indústria da música. Enquanto os advogados e gerentes de alto escalão nos principais selos estouraram o champanhe, artistas como Moby e Radiohead balançaram a cabeça de vergonha com o que o mundo da música se tornou.

No início desta semana, o caso de Jammie Thomas contra a RIAA foi a julgamento de novo perante um novo júri. Ela foi considerada culpada por compartilhar 24 canções utilizando o Kazaa e condenada a pagar US $ 80.000 por infração, as quais juntas somam um total de US$1,92 milhões em multas.

Pessoas de alto escalão no gravadoras logo declararam vitória alegando que a justiça tinha sido prestada. No entanto, muitos dos artistas para os quais os executivos das gravadores devem seus salários bem pagos estão enojados pelo desfecho do caso e pela caça às bruxas contra seus fãs.

Um dos artistas que tem partilhado a sua decepção com a multas desproporcionais é o músico americano Moby. “Argh. Que absoluta falta de sentido”, escreve ele em seu site. “É assim que as empresas discográficas querem se proteger? Processando mamães suburbanas por ouvir música? Cobrando $80.000 por música?” ele questiona.

“Eu não sei, mas ‘é melhor ser temido do que respeitado’ não parece ser lá um modelo de negócio sustentável quando se trata da escolha do consumidor. Como sobre um novo modelo de ‘é melhor ser amado por ajudar artistas a fazer boas gravações e dar aos consumidores gravações bacanas a preços razoáveis’?”

Moby está certo de que as táticas de processar e assustar da RIAA não são o modelo ideal de negócios no longo prazo. No entanto, até agora eles têm feito milhões de todos os casos resolvidos isoladamente. Nos últimos anos, alega-se que mais de 30.000 pessoas tenham feito acordo com a RIAA por um valor médio de 3.500 dólares. Isto significa que a RIAA arrecadou mais de 10 milhões de dólares, sem sequer ter de ir a tribunal.

No Reino Unido, uma coalizão de artistas famosos tem se manifestado contra as ações de uma indústria da música que escolhe criminalizar os seus fãs e expressou seu crescente desconforto com as gravadoras que abusam dos direitos autorais para seu próprio benefício.

O Radiohead, que também faz parte da coalizão, mostrou até interesse em testemunhar contra a RIAA, no caso de um estudante da Universidade de Boston também acusado de compartilhar várias gravações musicais. OS problemas de Tenenbaum começaram em 2003 quando ele rejeitou uma oferta para fechar acordo com a RIAA parapor US$ 500. Depois de mais algumas tentativas de acordo e discussões legais, o caso finalmente foi para tribunal

Moby, um defensor da neutralidade da Rede — outro tema caro para a maioria dos compartilhadores de arquivos — está igualmente insatisfeito com a táctica da RIAA. Na visão dele, seria melhor tanto para artistas como fãs acabar com todas as picuinhas jurídicas e, em vez disso, focar na arte da música.”Estou fico tão triste de que já se tenha feito qualquer fã de música em qualquer lugar se sentir mal pelo esforço de ouvir música”, escreve Moby, finalizando a entrada em seu blog com alguns conselhos concretos para as gravadoras que a bombeiam milhões de dólares para organizações sem fins lucrativos.

“A RIAA deveria ser desmantelada”, escreve.

I’ve had enough. For years I’ve seen the Recording Industry Association of America make a mockery of their customers, common sense, and fair play. I love music, though, and I really respect a lot of the artists that are represented by the RIAA. Yesterday, though, I read this story about a verdict handed down in the trial of the RIAA versus Jammie Thomas-Rasset:

This is the result of a retrial, by the way, so it’s not like this is some one-off crazy jury. She downloaded 24 songs off of Kazaa, a popular file sharing software, and made those songs available to others. Boom: lawsuit. She fought it, mistakenly thinking that you can depend on the courts and the U.S. legal system (I’m not that much of a cynic, mind: usually you can, but not always). Years later, after a retrial was allowed, a jury hands down a judgment against her for $80,000 per song. Because, you know, that’s how much money the recording industry might have lost due to her evil machinations. I don’t use that word carelessly, either: it was decided that her actions were “willful”. Right. Like this woman decided to get those horrible industry executives, managers, and oh, especially the artists.

Listen: the intellectual property system needs to change. The whole mess needs to be rethought, refactored, and redesigned from the ground up. Regular work-a-day artists aren’t going to make this happen themselves, and I understand that. The thing that’s pushed me over the edge is the fact that the RIAA doesn’t have to do this. It’s a choice they make. The law gives them the power to go after people like Thomas-Rasset for “damages”, and they don’t pass those laws. They have a choice to exercise that power or not. And they choose to. The RIAA’s reaction:

So to heck with them, and to heck with any artist that’s represented by them. This is Arstechnica said about the ruling:

From now on, I will only buy music by way of used CD’s, or from artists who are either self-published or on labels not represented by the RIAA. Here’s a list of the RIAA member labels. I’ll be checking this from now on with every purchase. I encourage more people to do the same.

Things need to change. Keep voting at the ballot box, but vote with your dollar, as well.

El caso de Jammie Thomas es realmente escandaloso. En un primer momento fue condenada a pagar 222.000 $ por compartir 24 canciones en Kazaa (ya en ese momento dije que me parecía bochornoso que una sentencia de ese tipo fuera posible). Posteriormente, en Septiembre de 2008, un juez anuló dicha sentencia y el que más y el que menos, ya penso que se había cerrado el caso. Posteriormente la RIAA trató de apelar la decisión de este juez sin éxito.

Por eso me he quedado alucinado cuando he leido en Menéame que en un nuevo juicio ( ¿Cuantas veces hay que volver a juzgarla por los mismos hechos? ) Jammie ha sido condenada a pagar 1,92 millones de $ (cuando en la primera condena habían sido sólo 220 mil $). Naturalmente esto no ha acabado ni mucho menos, y yo estoy seguro que los abogados de Jammie Thomas van a apelar y a ganar dicha apelación.

Por si a alguien le interesan las empresas demandantes (propongo boicotearlas) son Virgin Records America, Capitol Records, Sony BMG, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records y UMG.

Jammie Thomas (now Thomas-Rasset) is not the first person charged by the RIAA with copyright infringement for downloading and sharing music files, but she is the first to have taken the RIAA before a jury, rather than reach a settlement outside.

She lost her first trial and was ordered to pay $222,000 damages for sharing 24 songs. However, a retrial was ordered when the judge revealed that he had falsely instructed the jury on the technicalities of copyright infringement. The retrial concluded yesterday, with a federal jury finding Thomas-Rasset liable again, and a judge now ordering her to pay damages of $1.92 million, or $80,000 for each of the following tracks:

* Guns N Roses “Welcome to the Jungle”; “November Rain”
* Vanessa Williams “Save the Best for Last”
* Janet Jackson “Let’s Wait Awhile”
* Gloria Estefan “Here We Are”; “Coming Out of the Heart”; “Rhythm is Gonna Get You”
* Goo Goo Dolls “Iris”
* Journey “Faithfully”; “Don’t Stop Believing”
* Sara McLachlan “Possession”; “Building a Mystery”
* Aerosmith “Cryin’”
* Linkin Park “One Step Closer”
* Def Leppard “Pour Some Sugar on Me”
* Reba McEntire “One Honest Heart”
* Bryan Adams “Somebody”
* No Doubt “Bathwater”; “Hella Good”; “Different People”
* Sheryl Crow “Run Baby Run”
* Richard Marx “Now and Forever”
* Destiny’s Child “Bills, Bills, Bills”
* Green Day “Basket Case”

Statutory damages for willful infringement of copyright can range from $750 to $150,000. The jury in this case were particularly punitive, it is thought, because they felt that Thomas-Rasset had been lying to them. And it must be said that the story of how the files got from her computer onto the Kazaa filesharing site has been sketchy. Nevertheless, the judge in this case appears not to have clarified the difference between the right to statutory damages and the right to compensatory damages. The former allows for whopping punitive fines like this without the burden of demonstrating exactly how much money has been lost for each infringement.

According to ars technica, there is talk, however, that the RIAA may not try to collect these damages for fear of stoking even more grassroots anger. There is also a good chance that this case will go further, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, since there may be Constitutional concerns over the exorbitant fines that music corporations are empowered to wield against individual citizens.

Whatever happens, it is extremely unlikely that a cent will go to any of the artists above, some of whom have had previous brushes with copyright infringement. Bryan Adams has forced fansites into signing rights agreements for use of his name and picture. A blogger was arrested for streaming nine leaked songs from Guns ‘n’ Roses’ Chinese Democracy (his sentence was reduced to one year imprisonment for assisting the FBI); the band weren’t impressed. And Aerosmith have successfully used the threat of copyright action to prevent one of their songs being used in a GOP campaign video.

There are pros and cons to all these stories, and to the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. Artists have, and deserve, rights in their works that need to be protected. The big flipside, particularly evident in Thomas-Rasset, is that the legal mechanisms appear to be in place now for corporate copyright holders to exercise a power way beyond the spirit of the rights they are defending, and possibly even against the interests of their own artists if anger against their policies continues and spreads. The big question still unaddressed is for how long will artists be happy to remain complicit in the punitive strategies of their paymasters, or will there come a point when they realise that such wild-eyed greed is not why they got into music in the first place?

Ayer fue un gran día para las discográficas. Una mujer llamada Jammie Thomas fue condenada en Estados Unidos a pagarles casi 2 millones de dólares, quedando así arruinada de por vida. ¿Su delito? Se bajó 24 canciones con el programa p2p Kazaa.

Cada una de estas 24 canciones no cuesta ni un dólar en iTunes (su precio es 99 centavos), y todavía cuestan menos en otras webs que son más baratas que iTunes, pero Jammie tendrá que pagar 80.000 dólares por cada una. Las discográficas están entusiasmadas, por fin se ha hecho justicia.

Porque, no lo olvidemos, se las bajó intencionadamente, por lo cual el castigo legal en USA es de hasta 150.000 dólares por canción. El jurado decidió ser benévolo y castigó a la acusada a poco más de la mitad de la pena máxima.

Sin duda se trata de un castigo apropiado. Desde luego, no guarda proporción alguna con el hipotético daño causado, pero por algo se trata de una indemnización estatutaria. Es decir, que la indemnización viene expresada en la propia ley, y no tiene porqué tener ninguna relación con el daño causado.

Al descargarse la canción la estaba compartiendo, eso equivale a distribuirla, y la distribución en Estados Unidos se castiga estatutariamente, con hasta 150.000 dólares si se hace intencionadamente (son sólo 50.000 dólares si no se demuestra la intención de hacerlo). La condena es totalmente conforme a la ley norteamericana.

¿Y en España? Aquí no tenemos indemnización estatutaria (todavía). La ley española establece para estos casos que la indemnización ha de ser lo que los autores o cesionarios hubiesen percibido de haber sido vendida la canción con su consentimiento. Es decir, menos de un euro por canción, menos de 24 euros en total, y eso suponiendo que el juez considere que bajarse una canción del p2p supone una “distribución” (o comunicación pública) de la misma. A día de hoy, las interpretaciones legales de la SGAE no han tenido gran aceptación entre los jueces españoles que digamos.

descargar = distribuir

¿No son cosas contrarias?

Sin embargo, aunque en España y en otros países las descargas p2p de canciones sean legales ahora, eso no quiere decir que lo vayan a ser en el futuro. Naturalmente, la SGAE querrá que la indemnización a pagar sea estatutaria, sin relación alguna con el supuesto daño, y que la ley marque la cantidad más alta posible. Digamos 120.000 euros por canción, para ser como Estados Unidos. Así, con 2 canciones que nos bajemos ya les da para comprarse un buen pisito.

Son leyes hechas por ladrones y para los ladrones, leyes que sólo buscan el expolio de la gente común bajo la excusa barata de inmensas pérdidas imaginarias. Nos vendrán diciendo que aquí no van a ser 120.000 euros, que sólo van a ser 100 euros como en Alemania. Es decir, que no nos van a robar tanto, son sólo 100 euros nada más.

No hay daño alguno. Cuando te bajas una canción lo mismo puede ser que acabes comprando el disco o que no lo hagas. Si no lo compras, sigue sin haber daño alguno, simplemente no compraste ese disco ni tampoco compraste un kilo de tomates porque plantaste una tomatera, ni contrataste al fontanero porque tú te arreglaste el grifo. Y como el daño es indemostrable, porque es inexistente, lo mejor es imponer por ley una cierta cantidad a pagar, una indemnización estatutaria.

Por absurdamente injusto que sea, es esto exactamente lo que andan buscando, lo que han conseguido ya en Estados Unidos y en Alemania. Así, por una canción que ellos mismos venden por menos de un euro, cobrarán tal vez 100 euros o tal vez 120.000, lo que marque la ley. Todo muy legal. ¿Acaso los autores no tienen derecho a que se les pague por su trabajo?

El artista recibe 60 céntimos por disco vendido, o bien 4,5 centavos de dólar por canción si esta fue comprada en iTunes, la discográfica y la tienda se quedan el resto. Y por estos 4,5 centavos que el artista tal vez haya dejado de percibir o tal vez no (Jammie compraba muchos discos), ella tendrá que pagar 80.000 dólares por canción. Repitámoslo: todo muy legal. ¿Acaso los autores no tienen derecho a que se les pague por su trabajo?

Die alleinerziehende Mutter zweier Kinder wurde im neu aufgerollten Verfahren vom Bezirksgericht in Minnesota verurteilt, knapp 2 Mio. USD an Schadensersatz zu bezahlen. Was? Weil das Gericht überzeugt ist, dass die Indizienbeweise der von der RIAA bezahlten Internet-Schnüffel-Agentur ausreichen, und weil das Gericht überzeugt ist, dass 80.000 Dollar pro Song im Uploadordner der damals womöglich von Jammie benutzten Kazaa-Filesharing-Software angemessen sind.

Natürlich wird die RIAA das Geld niemals bekommen, Jammie meldet Bankrott an und lebt fortan von der Stütze. Aber die Chancen für eine US-amerikanische Piratenpartei wachsen mit einem solchen Märtyrer-Urteil beträchtlich.

( via techdirt) (pic p2pnet)

By Wendy Davis, The Daily Online Examiner

It was 10 years ago this month that Napster officially debuted, marking the beginning of the end for the record industry — or at least for its business model.

Today, the Pew Internet & American Life Project released a new report that looks back over the changes to the music industry, and other media as well, since June of 1999. “Media analysts now broadly use the term, ‘Napsterization’ to refer to a massive shift in a given industry where networked consumers armed with technology and high-speed connectivity disrupt traditional institutions, hierarchies and distribution systems,” the report says. And in many cases, those consumers have come to expect that a digitized version of a product — such as news, movies or television shows — should be available online for free.”

While the major record labels weren’t happy that people had found a way to share music for free online, there was little they could do to prevent it.

But that didn’t stop them from trying. Among other tactics, the record labels waged a deeply unpopular litigation against individual file-sharers. For this effort, the major labels targeted around 35,000 file-sharers, plucked seemingly at random, and threatened to sue them unless they paid four-figure settlements.

The five-year litigation campaign cost the industry millions in legal fees, not to mention the goodwill of untold music fans. Last December, the labels said they would stop bringing new lawsuits, but would continue to pursue cases already in the pipeline.

Still, some of those cases — including the lawsuits against Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum — continue to make their way through the courts, and could have an impact for years to come.

The retrial of Thomas began today in Minneapolis. In 2007, a federal jury found that Thomas infringed the labels’ copyright by sharing tracks and ordered her to pay $220,000, marking the first (and only) time a file-sharing case has resulted in a jury verdict. But the judge in the case, Michael Davis, declared a mistrial because he wrongly instructed the jury that they could find her liable for copyright infringement for simply making tracks available on a peer-to-peer network.

The other potentially landmark case involves Boston grad student Joel Tenenbaum. His defense team, led by Charles Nesson of Harvard Law, intends to turn the trial into a referendum on whether non-commercial file-sharing should even be considered copyright infringement.

Tenenbaum intends to assert a “fair use” defense and the judge presiding over his case, Nancy Gertner, has said she will allow him to do so, Ray Beckerman reports. (Beckerman, who runs the blog Recording Industry Vs. The People, has defended many alleged file-sharers, but isn’t representing Tenenbaum.)

Tenenbaum aims to convince a jury that the non-commercial sharing of music should be considered fair use, similar to quoting from a book in a review.

It’s not clear how a jury will react. But to even argue the issue raises the stakes of this lawsuit for the record labels. Before, Tenenbaum was the only party who risked financial ruin if he lost the case. Now, the industry also could see the final nail in its business model if a jury clears Tenenbaum on the theory that non-commercial file sharing doesn’t infringe on the labels’ copyright.

Read more great articles at Media Post

Charles Nesson, Juraprofessor an der Harvard University, hat es auf die RIAA abgesehen. Er verteidigt den Studenten Joel Tenenbaum, der Piraterie als Teenager angeklagt, berät einen seiner ehemaligen Studenten K.A.D. Camara, der Jammie Thomas in einer ähnlichen Sache vertritt (sie war wegen Filesharing verurteilt worden, aber das Urteil wurde vom Richter zurückgezogen) und ebenfalls mit Camara zusammen die Studentin Brittany English. Ebenfalls P2P.

Nur steht in den Gegenforderungen der Verteidigeranwälte diesmal, das Gericht möge bitte entscheiden, dass die Schadensersatz-Forderungen der RIAA vom bis zu 150.000-fachen des Wertes eines Uploads verfassungswidrig und ihre Klagewelle daher illegal sei, und dass die RIAA bzw die angeschlossenen Musikkonzerne das bisher auf juristischem Weg erwirtschaftete Geld, nämlich 100 Millionen US-Dollar, zurückzugeben hätten.

Zudem solle festgeschrieben werden, dass P2P “fair use” sei, also ein Recht des Endnutzers.

Hört sich gewagt an, aber der Mann hat jahrzehntelange Erfahrung und eine der anerkanntesten Unis dieses Planeten hinter sich. Man kann davon ausgehen, dass Nesson für die Musikindustrie zu einem ernsten Problem werden wird. (via arstechnica)

From Wired:

In a few weeks, we’ll likely know the Obama administration’s position on whether it supports hefty monetary awards in file sharing litigation brought by the Recording Industry Association of America.

The Bush administration’s position was clear. It supported the Copyright Act’s penalties of up to $150,000 per infringed song.

“Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation by ensuring that it serves both a compensatory and deterrent purpose. Congress established a damages range that provides compensation for copyright owners in a regime in which actual damages are hard to quantify,” the Bush administration wrote in 2007.

Now it’s President Barack Obama’s turn, and we’ll see how tight he is with Hollywood.

One thing I’ve thought about that I don’t see mentioned anywhere by bloggers and media, is a challenge to how the MAFIAA justify their 9-to-1 ratio cost of a single music track.

No, I don’t mean how constitutional or fair it is, I mean challenging it on the basis of lost profits. Surely, after winning* their lawsuit against Jammie Thomas, all lawsuits should have stopped right there. You see they didn’t just sue Jammie Thomas for the tracks that she had downloaded or owned (worth approximately $1 a piece) they sued her for all the other people who otherwise would have bought the shared track too**.

Therefore if the MAFIAA recovered all that lost profit from Jammie Thomas (and someone can’t own one downloaded file twice over), then the score is even and there are no further profit losses i.e. no further lawsuits needed!

Am I just stating the obvious that no-one has thought up yet, or am I missing something?

*I say ‘won’, but it’s been public knowledge for a while now that the original judge has dismissed the original trial as a mistrial and it will be heard again.
**I’m obviously ignoring the fact that ( a ) many filesharers will buy an album anyway and ( b ) many other fileshares would not even buy if it was not available for download – so no profit to be had in the first place.

mafiaa, filesharing, pirates, jammie thomas, copyright act, obama, music, downloading, freedom, wired

Powered by ScribeFire.

eDonkey derrière les barreaux?

En termes de jurisprudence, Napster a été la première plateforme P2P, créée en 1999. La RIAA a poursuivit le créateur et la plateforme a été obligée de fermer en juillet 2001¹. Depuis ce procès, beaucoup de plateformes se sont développées et ont gagné en popularité.

Les analystes affirment qu’il est inutile de les poursuivre en justice car quand une plateforme ferme, 3 autres émergent².  La preuve est qu’en août 2008, Shareaza, qui avait été attaqué en justice et spolié de son identité, annonçait le lancement d’un nouveau locigiel libre encore plus performant: Panthera³.

Néanmoins, le 27 juin 2005, la Cour Suprème des Etats-Unis a décidé que ceux qui mettent un outil à disposition avec pour but de promouvoir son utilisation en violation du copyright son responsables des utilisateurs. Cette décision aspire à faciliter les poursuites contre les P2P⁴.

Mais les plateformes ne se rendent pas sans se battre: pour répliquer aux attaques répétées, les sites de liens BitTorrents cryptent les communications entre administrateurs et utilisateurs. En adoptant le cryptage SSL, ils bloquent les tentatives de blocage ou d’espionnage⁵.

Et récemment, la RIAA⁶ a essuyé un échec cuisant. Le procès contre Jammie Thomas, la première internaute jamais condamnée pour avoir uploadé dure depuis maintenant 3 ans. L’année dernière, elle se voit contrainte de verser une amende de $220.000 pour avoir partagé 24 chansons. Cependant, en mai dernier, le juge décide de reprendre le dossier. Prenant exemple sur un collègue d’Arizona, il déclare que la mise à disposition d’une oeuvre n’est pas un délit. Jouant sur une subtilité de la loi, il veut, par le nouveau procès, influencer le Congrès à modifier la loi. Il rappelle que l’accusée est un individu, pas une entreprise. Il ne soutient pas ses actions mais souligne qu’elle “n’a tiré aucun profit de ses actes”⁷.

En avril 2008, l’IFPI⁸ attaquait The Pirate Bay. La plateforme se défend en déclarant n’être qu’un moteur de recherche de fichiers Torrents et donc non responsable des liens proposés⁹. En Allemagne, le tribunal a jugé cette défense valable puisqu’en septembre dernier, le Warner Music Group a été débouté dans son procès contre eDonkey¹⁰. En Espagne, les sites comme Mininova ou The Pirate Bay sont légaux¹¹. La justice espagnole confirme que poster des liens P2P sur un site Internet n’est pas un délit¹². Déjà, en 2006, un magistrat espagnol avait jugé que partager de la musique sur Internet n’était pas illégal si c’était à but non lucratif et à usage personnel uniquement¹³.

Il est à noter que l’Espagne détient le record du taux de piratage de fichiers musicaux, mais aussi paradoxalement, et ce d’après la SNEP¹⁴, est le pays où le marché du disque est le plus stable. Alors qu’en France, le marché est en chute libre malgré la répression et l’illégalité affirmée du P2P¹⁵.

1 01 NET. (27/07/2000) Billet, A.: Napster condamné à fermer.

A federal judge tentatively has set (.pdf) a March 9 retrial date in the Jammie Thomas music file sharing case. Of about 30,000 cases the Recording Industry Association of America has lodged against peer-to-peer users, the Thomas case was the first and only one to go to trial.

Full Story Here

pwned!

Score one for the little guy (sort of). The Jammie Thomas trial has been the poster-child for RIAA legal tactics for well over a year now for a couple of reasons. The most obvious reason is that Thomas is a single mother who was sued by the RIAA for sharing 1,702 songs on Kazaa; the RIAA is only targeting her for 24 of these.

However, beyond the “Jesus Christ, suing a single mother?” factor, the big reason why this case is so notable is that this is the first time that an RIAA case has been brought to a jury trial; before now, all of the nearly 30,000 cases brought against individuals had been settled out of court, simply because people the RIAA came after would rather pay a few thousand dollars instead of getting into an expensive legal battle. Thomas, however, decided to fight the charges, claiming that she did not share the files.

The case eventually came to an end, with a judge and jury ruling in favor of the RIAA and ordering Thomas to pay $222,000, or $9,250 per downloaded song. One of the deciding factors in the jury’s ruling was “Jury Instruction Number 15,” which dealt with Thomas “making available” the files for download. Jurors were instructed that the fact that Thomas had “made the files available” by having them in her share folder, it constituted copyright infringement – despite the fact that there was no proof these files were ever distributed. In fact, a hard drive with the files was never even presented in court.

This changed today when, after the judge had intimated in August that he was having second thoughts, he declared a mistrial and ordered a new one with different jury instructions. He did so because in retrospect, he decided that Jury Instruction Number 15 was “a manifest error of the law.” And that wasn’t all.

“While the court does not discount plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs -‐ the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than 500 times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than 4,000 times the cost of three CDs.”

This isn’t a total victory for digital rights groups, since there will be another trial, albeit this time with different jury instructions. And the judge did note that songs that RIAA investigators had downloaded from Thomas’ open share folder could “form the basis of an infringement claim.” RIAA investigators got these songs by essentially surveilling users on Kazaa and LimeWire, going into open share folders and taking stock of what was available while also taking down IP addresses. If that sounds shady, that’s because it is, and the RIAA is currently facing heavy scrutiny for its tactics.

It’s normally a moot point since the RIAA strong-arms people into settlements, but this case is showing just what obstacles there are in trying to nail file sharers. The fact that this judge ruled that making content available is not enough to constitute infringement is pretty big, considering that if that were the case, the RIAA wouldn’t have to supply any evidence in order to make the claim. The RIAA lawyers argue, of course, that it’s impossible to provide evidence of file transfers.

But then that leads to one major head-exploding dilemma: can you really prosecute wrongdoing if you can’t even supply evidence that it took place? Ruling that you can is at odds with pretty much the basis of the entire US legal system. Talk about setting a judicial precedent.

What is positive, however, is that the judge took the size of the penalties to task, rightfully noting that it’s outrageous to find someone almost $10,000 for pirating a single song. Perhaps there’s hope that one day this ruling will lead to a modification of copyright laws so that this doesn’t happen…but that won’t even come close to happening when the government can’t even agree on a deal to stop a financial apocalypse.

Still, in spite of the victories today, Thomas and file sharers on the whole are far from being out of the woods. But it never hurts when yet another wrench gets thrown into the RIAA’s ruthless legal machine.

Judge declares mistrial in RIAA-Jammie Thomas trial [Wired]