Ok, I feel like stirring up the pot today.
Here is a story about the first verdict issued in an illegal downloading of music case. The jury has assessed damages of $222,000 against the defendant, who asserted that she didn’t own the Kazaa account, hadn’t downloaded the music files in question, and hadn’t been “proven” to have downloaded the files. The jury didn’t agree.
Let the fur fly!!! 
<standing back>
No fair. You have to tell us how you feel about the decision.
How did the Plaintiffs prove their case?
That amount of money just seems absurdly high. The story said the jury could have awarded the record companies up to $30,000 per song.
Given the amount, I am wondering if the jury was somehow led to believe that Ms. Thomas somehow caused that much damage to the record companies.
“Downloading” is a misnomer. She was “sharing” files–i.e. she was acting as an internet radio station and not paying royalties. Since she didn’t have any contract with the labels, they’re perfectly free to assume that she is liable for the most expensive license she could have gotten for broadcasting to an unlimited number of listeners. Had she actually gotten a license, she might not have chosen to go for such an expensive one, but since they have no way of knowing that, why not?
Theres no way to prove that she actually was the one who did it. There are no witnesses who can state that she was sitting on her computer, uploading these files. And even if you did believe her guilty those damages are ridiculous. I bet there are plenty of wrongful death suits that awarded less than that.
In short, the jury members are a bunch of jive-headed gatorade brains.
Absolute proof isn’t necessary in a civil case. The burden of proof is the preponderance of evidence – that is, that the plaintiff’s version of events is more than 50% likely to be true.
Now, I feel that the damages are excessive, but I don’t have a heck of a lot of sympathy for someone who’s broken the law. TANSTAAFL.
Let’s suppose for a moment that the issue was child porn. Are you prepared to say that a person accused of distributing child porn through their computer should go free, unless there are “witnesses who can state that she was sitting on her computer, uploading these files?”
I don’t know about Fireclown, but I would require more than an IP address to convict someone for child pornography.
Depending on the situation, I wouldn’t necessarily consider the IP address enough. The person’s computer could have been hacked and used as a relay. Their wireless network could have been compromised. I would consider it probable cause that could lead to a search, but unless the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that only the defendant could have been using that IP address, I would not consider it sufficient evidence for a conviction.
I can’t believe that I’m arguing that people downloading kiddie porn should be given more legal leeway than people downloading music
Was there any evidence presented in this case advocating the position that she was not the one sharing the files?
Seems to me they should get a warrant for the computer in question and nab it to prove there are illegally downloaded songs on there. To just say it came from your IP address seems rather insufficient “proof” to me.
And $222,000? I wonder after they pay their attorneys how much the record companies really got. Seems more of a show trial than an expectation of actually recovering money.
I also wonder if the artists of the songs in question receive part of that as royalties or if somehow the record companies magically hang on to it all.
More to the point, she was “making available” songs. The downloaders were the RIAA.
from http://www.news.com/the-iconoclast/8301-13578_3-9792175-38.html
The crud of it is I could see how someone could get caught out by this without meaning to actually provide songs.
I tried Kazaa once ages ago to see what it was about and deleted it almost as fast as I tried it as the thing was a virus infested, spyware bonanza. I forget how it all works but often these programs will look for music on your computer to add to its list. Once on it will keep doing its thing unless you take very specific control over it.
Thing is MANY computer users are just not savvy about this stuff. If I put Kazaa on my mom’s PC she would never have a clue till the RIAA knocked down her door.
It is entirely possible she was mucking about with it once and forgot about it or her kids (if she has them) did it or a boyfriend/friend did it. Once there it just kept dishing out songs.
I would hope “proof” would require more. That they show she was actively using the service. Providing songs and downloading songs and such.
I do computer support and my experience is MOST people do not have a freaking clue what is all running in the background on their PCs (good thing for me since it pays the bills).
And I agree – in the case of child porn, a crime, the prosecution DOES have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that only the defendent could have been using that IP address.
Now we turn our attention to this case. Here, the plaintiff (not the prosecution) has to prove by preponderance of the evidence that only the defendent was using the IP address.
From what I’ve seen on this case, they make no bones about this being a show trial. It’s not so much to get the money as to show potential offenders that they might also have to pay that money should they be caught. They used the phrase “being made an example of” on the news this morning.
Indeed, you can’t complain that there’s no reasonable way for people to know that they’re breaking the law at the same time complaining that the RIAA is going around being real loud and annoying so that everyone knows by running show trials that give a real compelling reason ($222,000) to not break that law.
Huh? Maybe it is the few beers I have had but I am not following what you mean.
And FWIW certainly some people know they are breaking the law and willfully sharing files. I am just saying some people may end up doing so and not really knowing they are.
Two seconds worth of thinking makes it pretty obvious that music sharing is illegal. The only thing that has been needed to be publicised is that one can get caught doing it, which is what they’re doing.
No one downloads Kazaa not knowing what it does. “Oh hey this gives me free music.” Just knowing what the product does is everything you need to know that it’s illegal. Anyone who somehow doesn’t connect “free goods” with “stolen goods” deserves to get prosecuted. And even assuming the lesser half of the IQ pool, I would still believe that 99% of everyone knows that it’s illegal but, again, simply doesn’t think they can be caught.
You’re complaining that people don’t know at the same time that you’re complaining that the RIAA is doing its best to make sure everyone knows.
Oh no, there’s a problem and it has a solution! Make it stop!