Woman ordered to pay $222,000 for illegal downloads

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 16 2007, 06:48 AM) [snapback]526300[/snapback]</div>

That may be, and I do agree with you that the law is wrong. Canada, which allows downloading, has a better law. But people are being sued, and they are paying fines, for downloading. The RIAA site makes it clear that they will go after anyone who joins a peer-to-peer network to download files (cited earlier), regardless of whether or not they share them with anyone else. They feel the courts have given them the green light that joining a peer-to-peer network and downloading, without any proof of uploading, makes you liable.

Being old has its advantages: I remember the same argument about broadcast-cable when it first started. I had a friend who insisted it was legal to decode it and use it, and he even had a copy of the law to show
people. The judge disagreed with his interpretation of it, and he paid a hefty fine ($2,500 in 1978, I think).


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 16 2007, 06:48 AM) [snapback]526300[/snapback]</div>

Your advice, in this forum, is that the law does not make it illegal. You don't see how that makes you responsible, in part, for empowering them to believe that your analysis of the law is correct?

Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could chime in here ... you may even have some legal responsibility if someone takes your advice, and then is fined. Its an interesting question. I think the answer is yes.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 16 2007, 06:48 AM) [snapback]526300[/snapback]</div>

OK, so you you've just proved you're not an attorney. Anyone reading this should remember that this dialog is just two guys who own a Prius talking, and if they want a real legal opinion they should do their own research and/or talk to an attorney.

Do you really think these fines fall under 8th Amendment protections? These are civil actions. The 8th Amendment doesn't apply (it rarely has been applied even to government fines!)

The Court has been very reluctant to ever invoke that section, and a quick Google search confirmed my initial reaction to your statement:

From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...ent08/02.html#1

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 17 2007, 12:14 AM) [snapback]526713[/snapback]</div>

Does the RIAA claim it's illegal to download? of course - it's in their best interest. But please show me one single case where someone has been sued for downloading and not for uploading. Just one.

This isn't a forum about legal advice. It's a car forum. If i was giving advice pertaining to modifying the Prius, then it would be reasonable to hold me accountable for that advice, as that is the purpose of the forum. Where is the reasonable expectation that any other advice provided for anything is provided by a someone certified in providing that advice? No where have i claimed to be a lawyer, and i very much doubt the courts would hold me responsible for anything i say here.

in UMG v. Lindor, the defense claimed:

The judge in that case replied with:

Which means, basically, that the argument is not frivolous. It serves as an indication that the excessiveness of the fines would be assessed if the trial went that far.

The link you posted above has a very nice explanation of why the courts don't apply this to cases like: car accident rewards, the woman who sued McDonalds for hot coffee, or other such personal lawsuits. In those cases, there is no governmental direction for the size of the fine. In this case, They're appealing the law as being unconstitutional, not the fines that were actually levied. The law very clearly states the range of the fine per violation, and they're contending that that range is unconstitutional according to the 8th amendment. There's a huge difference between this and what was said in your link. In fact, even your link says that the 8th amendment

Her appeal directly challenges the court to exercise those limits on the powers of the government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 17 2007, 08:28 AM) [snapback]526804[/snapback]</div>

Evan, i'm not sure how the law works out in this case, but i do remember reading about a Russian site that was shut down about a year ago - the State department apparently put a lot of pressure on the Russian government to start going after copyright infringement. It came about as part of the talks between Russia, the US, and the rest of the WTO. You can look at the agreement yourself here:

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Librar...ile151_9980.pdf

I'm sure that doesn't really answer your question - has anyone been sued for downloading from a Russian site? Will anyone? - but I personally take it as a good indication that Russia will be approaching the point we're at in terms of RIAA lawsuits before too much longer.

Of course, this all also goes along with the current argument we're having about whether downloading is illegal, or just uploading.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 17 2007, 08:57 AM) [snapback]526890[/snapback]</div>

USA TODAY - 41 more sued over music downloads

FOXNews.com - 12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 17 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]527100[/snapback]</div>

Those articles are INCORRECT. Those people sued were sued for using software that both downloaded and uploaded songs. They were sued for UPLOADING songs. Eagle has a point, the media often has it wrong on the terminology. These are civil cases and the damages come from allowing OTHERS to have the music. It may be illegal to download but that is not what ANY of these lawsuits are about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 17 2007, 05:14 PM) [snapback]527100[/snapback]</div>

As it's been said, the media got the details wrong. You can get the true facts here:
41:
http://www.news.com/RIAA-launches-new-file...8.html?tag=item

12 Year Old:
http://www.news.com/P2P-group-Well-pay-gir..._3-5074227.html

Emphasis mine.

The difference between these articles and the ones you posted are the source. Fox news and USA Today are regular newspapers - they may have a technology desk, but they aren't very well informed on tech matters. Cnet, on the other hand, is a widely respected Technology news service - they don't bother with politics or celebrities or sports - except in those cases where it directly effects technology. They know the proper terminologies that should be used.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 18 2007, 06:33 AM) [snapback]527273[/snapback]</div>

From your link:

Sure reads like downloaders to me.

 

Another article today on Russia that you may find interesting, Evan:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9799924-7.html

Basically, it outlines the steps Russia's taken already (not too many) and those that are planned. Particularly, it appears that some new laws are going into place over there in January targeting these music sites.

To everyone else, the RIAA just sent out 411 more letters to individuals at 19 different universities. From what i've seen, these are pretty much form letters, an example of which can be seen here:
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD4832.pdf

Of particular interest to our conversation here is the following paragraph from the letter:

This paragraph is the only one in the letter that addresses the infringement by this individual, and it says nothing about downloading - only about the 476 songs that were shared.

If downloading is illegal, why hasn't the RIAA targeted anyone for downloading yet? With the millions of music titles out there, it's incredibly easy to download way more music than you own. Why go after someone who is sharing 500 songs, when the guy down the hall from him downloaded 5 thousand songs last week?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 18 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]527466[/snapback]</div>

Then why haven't they dues anyone for downloading? The "Clean Slate" program is targeting people who don't know the difference between the technical talk around the issue. As it's been pointed out, many news outlets get the details wrong when reporting on this, saying that people are being targeted for downloading when, in fact, they aren't. The RIAA is capitalizing on that for all their worth, providing this program to help fuel people's misconceptions.

Also, their "Clean Slate" program is of dubious legality - it's being challenged in several states as it doesn't provide a true clean slate or provide amnesty for those that come forward. Any group can use the information these people provide the RIAA for their own targeted lawsuits. currently, the RIAA is looking for distributors and tracking it back to an IP then a name. If they already have the name and evidence of doanloading, how hard is it to get a judge to give them a warrant to target that individual and look for uploading?