SOURCE:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/11675234.htm

=================================

Father sued for teen's downloads

BY MEGAN TWOHEY

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel


MILWAUKEE - (KRT) - Dave Bink was shocked when he learned last month that he was being sued by the recording industry for the downloading of hundreds of songs, including "All You Wanted" by Michelle Branch, "Eat You Alive" by Limp Bizkit and "U Don't Have to Call" by Usher.

Bink, 48, a motorcycle salesman from Racine, Wis., listens to nothing but Led Zeppelin and The Doors and can barely turn on the computer.

"I don't have anything with Usher or anything like that," Bink said. "And I've never downloaded music in my life. I thought it was a joke."

It's not.

Two years ago, Bink's teenage daughter downloaded more than 600 songs on their home computer through Kazaa, Internet software that allows users to swap music for free.

Since 2003, the recording industry has been searching the Internet for people who use Kazaa and similar software to share and download copyrighted songs. It has sued 11,000 users for copyright infringement.

Because the home computer was registered in his name, Bink is among the targets. He faces this choice: Pay $3,750 to settle or go to court, where he may be ordered to pay at least $750 per song.

It's part of the recording industry's strategy to thwart the sharing of music online, a growing practice that helps explain why CD sales dropped 21 percent from 1999 to 2004.

The recording industry has gone after the software companies that provide free peer-to-peer file-sharing technology. In a case that will soon be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Recording Industry Association of America argues that the companies should be held liable for the alleged copyright infringement that is committed by their customers.

But it wants to hold the customers accountable, too, said Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the association. Every time a copyrighted song is downloaded for free, the record label and artist are robbed of royalties.

"While we work to hold accountable the businesses that encourage and profit from illegal file sharing, it is critical for us to send a strong message to individual users that you can be caught and there are consequences for your actions," Engebretsen said.

Hence the lawsuits against people such as Bink. The Recording Industry Association of America files them in federal courts - Bink's was filed in Milwaukee - after gathering the Internet Protocol addresses of users of Kazaa and other music-sharing software. In most cases, it refers to the defendants as "John Does" until it can obtain actual names from their Internet service providers.

Bink's daughter, Samantha, said she never imagined that her computer clicks could set such a process in motion.

She began using Kazaa two years ago when she was 13. Her friends said she could use the software to download music for free.

"I just thought it was really cool," said Samantha, who takes piano lessons and plays the trumpet in her school band. "You could listen to music and you didn't have to pay for it."

Until last week, Kazaa advertised itself as "100 percent legal." That she might have been breaking the law never crossed her mind.

She stopped eight months later under the instructions of her mother. A family member read an article about people who were being sued for downloading music. Sandy Bink didn't know if her daughter was doing something illegal, but she wanted to play it safe.

The software was removed from their computer, and Samantha deleted the downloaded songs.

They never told Bink about Samantha's downloading, so he was especially confused when a process server slapped him with a summons last month. He learned what had happened from a recording industry "counselor" in Seattle whom he was directed to call.

Outraged, Bink has decided to fight the lawsuit in court - even though it could cost him more than $450,000, more than 10 times the settlement offered.

He argues that he shouldn't be sued for something his daughter did. As he sees it, Samantha was duped by Kazaa's advertising.

"I'm going to take it to court, even though I can't afford a lawyer," Bink said. "I'll probably get chewed up and spit out. But I just don't think it's fair."

His odds aren't good.

Of the 11,000 lawsuits filed nationwide, 2,300 have been settled, Engebretsen said. None has gone to trial.

Earlier this year, a Chicago woman tried to fight a lawsuit filed against her. The woman didn't think she had committed copyright infringement when she downloaded music. But before the case went to trial, the recording industry filed a motion for summary judgment. The judge ordered the woman to pay $22,500 for the downloading of 30 songs.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization in San Francisco that advocates for Internet freedom, calls the lawsuits misguided and unfair.

"This is not the way the recording industry should be enforcing copyright infringement," said Annalee Newitz, a policy analyst with the organization. "Basically, they're suing their fans, alienating their audience and victimizing people who don't even realize that what they're doing is wrong."

Newitz said the recording industry should be creating legal ways for people to share and download music on the Internet instead.

But Engebretsen said that the Recording Industry Association of America does support pay-for-use music downloading sites such as iTunes, and that the lawsuits are part of its effort to steer people toward such legal alternatives.

The lawsuits have made a dent in the illegal sharing and downloading of music, Engebretsen said, pointing to a survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project to make her point.

The survey taken in 2003 showed that the percentage of Internet users who download music had fallen from 29 percent in March and April to 14 percent in November and December, shortly after the lawsuits began.

But data provided by Big Champagne, a market research firm that measures music-sharing traffic, tells a different story. It shows that the average number of worldwide users of music-sharing software has nearly doubled since the fall of 2003. More than half are American.

"There are more and more people downloading and sharing free content over the Internet," said Eric Garland, Big Champagne's chief executive director. "There's nothing the recording industry could have done to reverse the trend."

He added, "The capacity to share music on the Internet is bigger than the lawsuits. There are always going to be new waves of 10-, 11- and 12-year-olds who are discovering it."

A spokesman for Kazaa pointed to a message in fine print on its Web site that says the company "does not condone activities and actions that infringe the rights of copyright owners."

"As a Kazaa user," the Web site says, "it is your responsibility to obey all laws governing copyright in each country."

---

© 2005, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

"Until last week, Kazaa advertised itself as "100 percent legal." That she might have been breaking the law never crossed her mind."

uh, they now advertise themselves as "illegal?" That WOULD be news if.

This article was found by DeadMan2003.

As I stated elsewhere. What the heck is this summary judgemet? Why can't some people have their day in court if they wish to contest it?

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - A decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the facts of the case, and one party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.

A material fact is one which might affect the outcome of the case under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To preclude summary judgment, the dispute about a material fact must also be "genuine," such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

Conclusory or speculative testimony is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment. See, e.g., Falls Riverway Realty, Inc. v. Niagara Falls, 754 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985); Thornhill Publishing Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

In general, inadmissible hearsay evidence may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F.2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1990).

Summary judgment is properly granted when the evidence in support of the moving party establishes that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. (Code Civ. Proc., section 437c; Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35.) The court is required to consider all the evidence set forth in the papers, except where objections are properly sustained, and all inferences reasonably deducible from such evidence. Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Asare v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 856, 862.) If the court determines there is no triable issue of fact, the court will determine any remaining issues of law. (Pittelman v. Pearce (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1441.)
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s102.htm

"Basically, they're suing their fans, alienating their audience and victimizing people who don't even realize that what they're doing is wrong."


REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN FILESHARING AND BIG MUSIC REVENUE DROPS.

There is nothing "WRONG" about filesharing.

That statement is like someone saying "People having abortions just don't know theyre killing babies".

The activity HAS YET TO BE PROVEN HARMFUL, and exactly like the abortion issue, those who favor engaging in it should be ALLOWED TO until they can provide absolute and concrete evidence it is harmful.

Good job hawk7771.

Deadman2003 - They did get their day in court and they got their asses kicked.

Now - where are those misguided individuals Dreddsnik and INeedALover?! LOL!!

Was it downloading or sharing?

Thanks hawk7771, but I'm with DeadMan2003, why does THIS case warrent/merit a summary judgement?

mroop, did I miss something?

I question that too.

Even if he can prove with evidence that it was not him, but his kid, wouldn't he have to do that in trial?

UNLESS he used that new court ruling from texas which states in much more long winded terms that "making available" does not equal "distribution" and therefore can't be considered an infringement.

"But before the case went to trial, the recording industry filed a motion for summary judgment. The judge ordered the woman to pay $22,500 for the downloading of 30 songs."

so let me get this straight:

they got a judge to issue summary judgement before the merits of any evidence was actually questioned by the defense? Doesn't that amount to conviction without evidence at all?

I sincerely hope they'd strike this down on appeal.

There WAS a disagreement as to the material facts under the law because there is no statute stating that downloading from the internet is a crime. If the case was uploading and the evidence was for "making available" then once again there are facts to be contested and precendents which work in the defense's favor.

I smell the "rat" too awehr.

Here we go, awehr playing lawyer.

Awehr: "Even if he can prove with evidence that it was not him, but his kid, wouldn't he have to do that in trial?"

Mroop: Do you read these articles or just skim them and use them as an excuse to ramble nonsensically? Read this again:

"Earlier this year, a Chicago woman tried to fight a lawsuit filed against her. The woman didn't think she had committed copyright infringement when she downloaded music. But before the case went to trial, the recording industry filed a motion for summary judgment. The judge ordered the woman to pay $22,500 for the downloading of 30 songs."

The guy with the kid who is the subject of the article didn't even go to trial yet. Got it?

Awehr: "UNLESS he used that new court ruling from texas which states in much more long winded terms that "making available" does not equal "distribution" and therefore can't be considered an infringement."

Read the article again, this time slowly:

"Goldman points out that a close reading of the decision indicates that Judge Patel HASN'T YET DETERMINED whether 17 USC 106(3) (right of distribution) includes "making available."

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16913

THERE IS NO NEW COURT RULING IN TEXAS THAT STATES "MAKING AVAILABLE" DOES NOT EQUAL "DISTRIBUTION" AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED INFRINGMENT.

Awehr - first learn how to read and comprehend, then start typing.

Awehr: "so let me get this straight:

they got a judge to issue summary judgement before the merits of any evidence was actually questioned by the defense? Doesn't that amount to conviction without evidence at all?"

Mroop: No, you don't have it straight. Where does it say the defense did not have an opportunity to present their side? It doesn't say that anywhere. You just made it up.

"Was it downloading or sharing?"

It had to be sharing. That's what all these cases are.

More "Jerry Springer" sh*t brought to you courtesy of mroop and awehr.

Shameful?

Summary Judgement.
WITHOUT a trial.

"Where does it say the defense did not have an opportunity to present their side? It doesn't say that anywhere "

It doesn't say that they DID have the
opportunity either. Your making THAT up.

"But before the case went to trial, the recording industry filed a motion for summary judgment. "

Note the word .. BEFORE .. in the
sentence. No Trial.

No day in court.

We are simply wondering how the RIAA
managed that. It is a good question,
that merits an answer without insult,
since the article DOES make it clear that
there was a judgement without benefit
of trial.

Shameful Schmoo ???
Alex started with questions, Mroop
attacked with insults.

You tell me

Actually, This paragraph from Cecilia Gomez summary judgement ( the woman mentioned above ) would seem to support my contention that if the downloader owns hardcopies, there is no infringement.

" Gonzalez asserts that the "fair use" defense applies because she: (1) was just "sampling" thesongs to determine if she wanted to purchase them; (2) already owned [*3] many of the songsshe downloaded; and (3) did not cause any financial harm by downloading 30 songs. Thesecontentions are without merit. First, the Ninth Circuit in A&M Records, Inc., 239 F.3d at 1014-19, rejected the argument that "sampling" by direct infringers is a "fair use." Second, thecontention that Gonzalez already owned some of the recordings she downloaded is not relevantbecause the Recording Companies only seek redress for songs that Gonzalez admits she did notown. Finally, the court in A&M Records, Inc. held that the cumulative effect of direct infringers,like Gonzalez, harms the recording industry by reducing sales and "raising barriers" to therecording industry's "entry into the market for digital downloading of music." Id. at 1016.Accordingly, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on the infringement claim "

I have been saying , over and over, that
if both parties own "legal" copies, there
is no distribution. It appears that the Industry does not wish to contest this.


A google search turned up the PDF of the judgement, which I won't pretend to
"get" all of it.

If someone WITHOUT bias wouldn't mind having a look-see and summarize for us
legally challenged ???

"Was it downloading or sharing?"

Mroop: It had to be sharing. That's what all these cases are.


Not really.
This from the summary judgement.

" Plaintiffs BMG Music, Sony Entertainment Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Fonovisa, Inc. and Atlantic Recording Corp. ("the Recording Companies") brought this action against DefendantCecilia Gonzalez alleging that she infringed their copyrighted music recordings, in violation of17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. [*2] , by downloading 30 songs onto her home computer. After limited discovery, the Recording Companies now move for summary judgment "

Looks like it is for downloading to me.
Someone WITHOUT bias correct me ??

Dreddsnik:"Looks like it is for downloading to me.
Someone WITHOUT bias correct me ??"

If it was downloading, how did they catch her?

If there is one thing Mroop should know, having lived here in the US, that the new national pastime is pretending to be a lawyer. CNN and Fox are full of them...they seem to be growing out from under our feet. The worst offenders are some of the lawyers themselves. Most lawyers who pontificate about this or that, rigidly adhering to what THEY think the law should be interpreted end up more like the nightly news weatherman who talks in psuedoscientific terms why his forecast was wrong for that day.

I believe i read somewhere, they did not show up in court. Then the RIAA filed for summary judgement. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

"Looks like it is for downloading to me.
Someone WITHOUT bias correct me ??."

Thank you. I stand corrected. She was sued for downloading.

"It doesn't say that they DID have the
opportunity either. Your making THAT up."

I'm not making anything up. The defense presented their case and lost.

"Note the word .. BEFORE .. in the
sentence. No Trial.

No day in court."

Just because you don't make it to a trial does not mean you haven't had your day in court. To get to trial you have to have a legal basis. You can't just waltz in to court and expect to get a trial without a proper legal argument. If you don't have a sound legal argument, you get your ass kicked on a summary judgement motion. That is what happened to Cecilia Gonzalez. She had her day in court and she lost. So here is the case you were looking for!

"I believe i read somewhere, they did not show up in court. Then the RIAA filed for summary judgement. I'll have to see if I can find it again."

That would be a default judgement, not a summary judgement. I just read the pdf, Gonzalez did make her argument and was represented by an IP attorney.

"More "Jerry Springer" sh*t brought to you courtesy of mroop and awehr."

Sorry independentm, when I read awehr actually claiming that a Texas court ruled that making available does not equal distribution that just blew my mind. What a tool.

To answer Dreddsnik's question directly:

"No day in court."

She had her day in court and lost. You can just go to court and get in front of a jury without a legal argument. See my post above.

"We are simply wondering how the RIAA
managed that."

Simple. No valid legal argument means you lose on summary judgement.

"If it was downloading, how did they catch her?"

From reading an article, it sounds like she had her sharing open for a little while. I presume that is when they caught on to her.

"I have been saying , over and over, that
if both parties own "legal" copies, there
is no distribution."

Dreddsnik gets his day in court:

Cary Sherman: Your Honor, RIAA music files were downloaded via the internet to Dreddsnik’s computer from another computer.

Dreddsnik: I agree that RIAA music files did travel by way of the internet from another computer to my computer.

Judge: That’s just wonderful.

(Now we have an agreement on the material facts, both parties agree as to what happened. Next we will apply the law.)

Cary Sherman: Your Honor, by downloading RIAA music files from another computer via the internet, Dreddsnik has committed copyright infringment by copying copyrighted files without permission of the copyright holder in violation of Title 17, Section 106(1).

Dreddssnik: But Judge, listen dude, what you don’t understand is that I already own an original copy. And the guy I downloaded from also has an original copy. So that means I didn’t actually copy anything. You see what I’m saying, dude? You get my drift, bro’? We both own original copies!

Cary Sherman: I move for summary judgement against Dreddsnik.

Judge: Thank you, gentleman. I have a question for you, Dreddsnik – Are you high? Is this some kind of joke? Is there a hidden camera in here somewhere? Am I being Punk’d? I am, right? I’m being Punk’d, aren’t I? I can’t believe I got Punk’d! Where’s Ashton? This is a joke, isn’t it? This better be a joke, because I’m starting to get pissed. Dreddsnik, are you telling me that you wasted my time with that ridiculous argument? Jeebus, Lord above, please save us all. SUMMARY JUDGEMENT GRANTED FOR CARY SHERMAN.

It's been mentioned several times before on here...because these are CIVIL SUITS, the RI-CRAP-AA doesn't have to prove jack sh*t.

$22,500 for the DOWNLOADING of 30 songs? She HAD to have gotten caught SHARING them, too. And even so...$22,500 is absolutely PREPOSTEROUS either way you slice it! $750 per song is an OUTRAGEOUS figure without having to prove HOW MANY people actually downloaded those 30 songs from her.

Seriously, folks. Our country's judicial system has been a mess for years. And these lawsuits are making it look worse.

"It's been mentioned several times before on here...because these are CIVIL SUITS, the RI-CRAP-AA doesn't have to prove jack sh*t."

You don't have to prove anything in a civil suit? Wow. You heard it here first!

You're kind of a smart a**, aren't ya, Nancy?

I'm confused here. I'm trying to sort it out, not being a lawyer, and this is what I've come up with...

When someone sues you (in this case a Record Label) you are not entitled to a trail to present your case if the judge doesn't think you have legal grounds to stand on even though the ones doing the sueing is doing so on (what some might say) shaky legal grounds themselves? Also if you don't have to prove anything in a civil suit how can anyone defend themselves when approached this way. the defendant is always wrong and is guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. Doesn't sound like the America our forfathers envisioned.

from www.rbs2.com

"In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff. For example, if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. This is a very low standard, compared to criminal law. In my personal view, it is too low a standard, especially considering that the defendant could be ordered to pay millions of dollars to the plaintiff(s)."

"A few tort claims (e.g., fraud) require that plaintiff prove his/her case at a level of 'clear and convincing evidence', which is a standard higher than preponderance, but less than 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' "

Just to reiterate...the above are not my words. But the point is obvious...the odds will not be in good in court for any of these people....and it's a bunch of b.s.

then can't it work both ways. can some creative lawyer(and I empasize the word creative as many lawyers aren't) find a law or loophole in which the defendant can countersue the plantiff for damages and slander (in this case calling them criminals when all they're accused of is a civil violation)

"Second, thecontention that Gonzalez already owned some of the recordings she downloaded is not relevantbecause the Recording Companies only seek redress for songs that Gonzalez admits she did notown "

Read that part of the summary judgement again.

"The recording companies only seek redress for songs she admits she does not own."

The record companies themselves don't want to test that. We know it's still fair use, and apparently they do too.

Mroop's scenario, while entertaining, is still just fantasy.

Now read again ..
ADMITS she does not own.

Her own penchant for honesty screws her over.

Admit nothing.

Interestingly enough,
Haven't the media outlets been saying
that they are only going after uploaders/distributors ???

The judgement itself states downloading very clearly as the "offense".

"When someone sues you (in this case a Record Label) you are not entitled to a trail to present your case if the judge doesn't think you have legal grounds to stand on even though the ones doing the sueing is doing so on (what some might say) shaky legal grounds themselves?"

This is correct. It is the judge's decision to grant a summary judgement motion if put forth by the plaintiff before it gets to a jury. Generally speaking - the judge decides the law, the jury decides the facts. It doesn't matter if some pundits on a message board thinks there are shaky legal grounds. It is the decision of the judge.

compmore - Yes, they can. And it's my understanding that some people are attempting to do so. Unfortunately, finding news and information about these people is not easy to dig up these days.

Dreddsnik - I agree with and see what you're saying. I have to admit, though...something still doesn't sound right to me. I mean, if she only downloaded and didn't share anything the settlement the RIAA must've offered (that she didn't take and instead tried to fight) for the DOWNLOADING of 30 songs should've been like, $30. Over the past 2 years it stands to reason that the inflated dollar amounts in settlements and threats from the RIAA suits stem from people sharing songs...because it's the high amount of distribution that's causing the most problem.

On the other hand, the problem again stems back to the fact that these are civil cases and it's more about "damages" than "proof beyond reasonable doubt" or a fair figure. Basically, what the court might be saying here is: "We don't care if you stole $30 worth of music and didn't distribute any of it. You're still going to pay an inflated amount of money to the RIAA. We plan to make an example out of you."

And that's exactly what happens in civil cases...examples are made out of people.

Oh...and like Dreddsnik said...she screwed herself into getting a summary judgment. Apparently, her lawyer didn't know any better either.

"Now read again ..
ADMITS she does not own.

Her own penchant for honesty screws her over."

So now you're recommending committing perjury? That will land you in a cold jail cell. Nice job, counsel.

"Oh...and like Dreddsnik said...she screwed herself into getting a summary judgment. Apparently, her lawyer didn't know any better either."

I call bullshit on that. Her lawyer was an IP lawyer who owns his own firm. He knew what he was doing. It would go like this:

RIAA: Sues Gonzalez for infringement.

Gonzalez: I already own those songs.

Now Gonzalez has just lied to the court. That is something that you do not want to do unless you are stupid.

"On the other hand, the problem again stems back to the fact that these are civil cases and it's more about "damages" than "proof beyond reasonable doubt" or a fair figure."

Ridiculous statement. As you yourself noted "reasonable doubt" is the criminal standard, "preponderance" is the civil standard. So it's not "more about damages", it's just a different standard of proof.

"then can't it work both ways. can some creative lawyer(and I empasize the word creative as many lawyers aren't) find a law or loophole in which the defendant can countersue the plantiff for damages and slander (in this case calling them criminals when all they're accused of is a civil violation)"

Yes they can. I would tend to doubt anyone for the RIAA has specifically said "Mr. X. is a criminal". I'm no slander expert, but I think you would have to name the person, as opposed to a class of persons. Also, opinion is protected. I can say "Awehr likes to play lawyer, but he is jackass who doesn't know his ass from his elbow." That is opinion. Is saying "Mr. X. is a criminal" a statement of opinion or fact? I don't know.

"So now you're recommending committing perjury? That will land you in a cold jail cell. Nice job, counsel."

Nope, not at all.

There is a 5th ammendment to the constitution, if I remember correctly.

Or, did you forget that ?

BTW,
I am certain noone here has EVER known
a lawyer to lie.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You need to calm down, mroop? Who's side are you on, anyway?

(Pssst. Is he ALWAYS like this?)

I was posting from memory and trying to recall some info from the site I mentioned earlier. The part I was trying to remember was actually talking about PUNITIVE damages:

"The use of punitive damages makes a public example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful conduct by others."

So I got my wires crossed. Sue me. (pun intended)

But anyway, mroop...she DID screw herself. As Dreddsnik said, she should've admitted nothing. NO ONE is saying she should've LIED. Saying nothing is NOT a lie to my knowledge. But by saying "I already own this, this, and this...but not these and these" she's admitting guilt...and this is why the summary judgment happened.

"But anyway, mroop...she DID screw herself. As Dreddsnik said, she should've admitted nothing. NO ONE is saying she should've LIED. Saying nothing is NOT a lie to my knowledge."

I noted how it would go in my example above:

RIAA: Sues for copyright infringment.

Gonzalez: I already own those songs.

Gonzalez has to put forth an affirmative defense. So she HAS to lie in putting forth her defense. There is no other way around it. It's not about saying nothing, she has to put forth a defense. If she says she owns all the songs and she knows she doesn't then she is committing perjury.

"You need to calm down, mroop?"

I am calm.

" Who's side are you on, anyway?"

The side of justice and the American way.

"There is a 5th ammendment to the constitution, if I remember correctly.

Or, did you forget that ?"

I am aware of the fifth amendment. So you are recommending lying if you think you won't get caught? Is that your point? Nice job again, counsel!

If nobody lied in court, would we even have "court"?

Westmar ...
Yes, he IS always like that.

He usually has good points.

Trouble is,
He believes his answers are the only
right ones.
Anyone who may believe differently is a "boob".

See,
He made another great point.
"Affirmative Defense"

Another thing I had never heard of.
Now, hopefully, someone who is not
Mroop will come along and clarify.

Tho his insults are valueless,
his input IS very worthwhile.

Ignore the junk, and just pick apart his arguments.

"The side of justice and the American way. "

The American way and Justice have nothing to do with each other anymore.
Haven't for a long time.

Oligarchy is the American way now, and you certainly do appear to support that.

What does the 5th have to do with Lying ??

Protection from self incrimination is a right. Silence is a right and not in itself
proof of guilt.

OR have I in my idiocy, misinterpreted ??

Thanks for the scoop, Dreddsnik.

I still find this "30 songs downloaded, not necessarily shared" a little disturbing.

Oh well...

Your welcome, but don't thank me

Thank everyone here ( even Mroop ).

Spend some more time here.
Get's even scarier .

ha ha! I'll do that!

And in mroops defense, it seems there WAS some sharing going on in Gonzalez's case. A great story here that mroop might've already read, judging by his posts:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheMeter/050204.html

If nobody lied in court, would we even have "court"?

There would be no need of a justice system in that case.

"I am certain noone here has EVER known
a lawyer to lie."

Absolutly not, they are the cream of all professions. Their integrity is beyond reproach. They are the most highly valued and............. hahahahahaahhahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... Whew!! Sorry I tried to keep a straight face.

But they are necessary. We need them in order to defend us against laws created by other lawyers and civil suits in which more lawyers make their living. Has little to do with justice. That's how the masses feel and calling them names doesn't change their distrust.

Changing the subject for a bit:

I think the RIAA is using lawsuits more than just deter people. They know that it won't. What I think is going on here is what people have been saying all along...

They are trying to find out a way to make money off the distribution of songs on the Internet. Since they have this sue, sue, sue mentality, this is all they could come up with. Let's sue everybody we can. People will ALWAYS buy our music no matter what!

Looks like they may be right so far. Having lawyers that are hired on and earn a salary whether they work or not, it only costs RIAA the investigation time and a small filing fee to file a lawsuit that they know most will settle anyway.

In my opinion, this is another way for them to scam their customers out of their money for their crappy songs.

Seriously, folks. Not to pat myself on the back, but that link I posted (above) in my previous post tells the "rest of the story" of the woman who was "sued for downloading 30 songs".

I'm not going to summarize it here, but if you're interested in a story about someone getting sued by the RIAA that isn't the same ole same ole...check it out:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheMeter/050204. html

PS - I was wrong, too (again). Her lawyer is not an idiot...and he's still fighting for her, pro bono.

Oh, and compmore...that was exactly my point. If no one lied in court, we wouldn't need a justice system. There's some philosophical theories behind a society such as this, but...I won't get into it.

Ok, if this were my kid, I'd have grounded her for thoroughly aweful taste in music. I mean, really really bad stuff here. And it's not like she couldn't have turned on the radio to hear any of it blasted 100 times an hour, why the heck do people download stuff they get saturated with every single day?

Oh well, another hardworking family who has to shell out $5000 to greedy corporate pigs instead of spending it on the kid's college tuition. Hope all those signed recording artists feel proud of themselves.

whoops the link I posted at 7:33 got screwed up. can't edit it, so here it is again:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheMeter/050204.html

If the father fights he wins, of course his daughter will lose but he will win easily becuase he didn't do it and didn't even know about it.

good story westmar. I wish them the best. too bad there aren't more laywers out there like that.

"His odds aren't good."

I don't know why they say that. I think that his odds should be pretty good. After all what did he do?

Well guess what? No justice no peace!

I am afraid that the time when few will get their guns and snap down the Shitman Glueman and consort is
near. If I was them I will stop this bullshit right now. My guess is that they think they can hide behind
lawyers. They will probably keep pulling on the rope until it break and tragedy will strike them. If this
happen I will not feel sorry for them.

PS: mroop! you get on my nerve! Go study the constitution and then come back there to talk about the real
American way. Supporting these foreign parasites as you do is treason! This is not very smart because
these guys are going to disappear. Do you know what's happened to the colabos in Europe in 1945?

"PS: mroop! you get on my nerve! Go study the constitution and then come back there to talk about the real
American way."

I guarantee I've studied the Constitution a helluva lot more than you.

And enough already with your predictions of imminent violence. Get your fat ass out from behind your keyboard if you're such a tough guy. Stop being such a pussy already!

"Supporting these foreign parasites as you do is treason!"

Uh oh, someone's been listening to too much Michael Savage again!

"Oligarchy is the American way now, and you certainly do appear to support that."

I don't support jack shit. I just call it like I see it. You're not the guy who actually thinks I am paid by the RIAA, are you? (RIAA - If you're out there, I can be hired for a reasonable fee. I have a Paypal account.)

I notice that Awehr hasn't come back after his pitiful showing yesterday. But just in case:

Awehr said: "There WAS a disagreement as to the material facts under the law because there is no statute stating that downloading from the internet is a crime."

Dude, you don't even know the difference between facts and law. So I will explain it to you. Facts are facts. Law is law. There you go! This should help you along the way in life when the road gets rocky and things are not looking so good. Just remember - the time that you saw only two footprints in the sand is when God was carrying you!

Awehr prolly hasn't come back because you have had nothing of substance to say other than your usual insults.
We ARE learning here.
Respond to your your points, not your insults.
Once again you show us the way

Thou Dost protest Waaaaaay too much.

How are the boys .. BTW

From the article:

" 'Investigators photographed and catalogued each of Gonzalez's CDs; Baker claims that the record companies narrowed their suit to include just 30 songs after realizing they'd weaken their case by pursuing judgments on downloaded music Gonzalez already owned.' "

So actually, they went after her for the 30 songs she didn't own. I question what took place in the courtoom. Since Summary Judgement was issued, does that mean the Judge believed the mp3 files downloaded to Cecilia's computer were equivalent to the full uncompressed digital files extracted from CDs????? Now can anyone tell me this, if Cecilia had recorded those same 30 songs onto cassette tape from FM radio, and the RIAA got wind of it and sued her for (illegal recording/analog downloading), would the Judge have issued a Summary Judgement??????

From the article:

" 'Investigators photographed and catalogued each of Gonzalez's CDs; Baker claims that the record companies narrowed their suit to include just 30 songs after realizing they'd weaken their case by pursuing judgments on downloaded music Gonzalez already owned.' "

So actually, they went after her for the 30 songs she didn't own. I question what took place in the courtoom. Since Summary Judgement was issued, does that mean the Judge believed the mp3 files downloaded to Cecilia's computer were equivalent to the full uncompressed digital files extracted from CDs????? Now can anyone tell me this, if Cecilia had recorded those same 30 songs onto cassette tape from FM radio, and the RIAA got wind of it and sued her for (illegal recording/analog downloading), would the Judge have issued a Summary Judgement??????

mroop: I can tell you are not a practicing attorney.

lawyers argue in an adversarial manner, but do not get hot headed because experience has taught them otherwise.

you are a fraud, and a flamer, and for that reason i will be ignoring your posts from now on.

"So actually, they went after her for the 30 songs she didn't own. "

I still question seriously the summary judgment.

I have a large CD collection, and all of it is backed up on my PC. i've had at least 4 cd's destroyed by family and friends. doesn't mean i didn't buy them, but now i'm left with only the backups... and THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FOR.

"Awehr prolly hasn't come back because you have had nothing of substance to say other than your usual insults."

That's BS. You know damn well I clearly demonstrated that awehr had the facts of the article posted above wrong and mispresented Judge Patel's ruling in Texas. Can you honestly say otherwise? I just did it in a rude manner, but that doesn't make the substance of my argument untrue.

"Since Summary Judgement was issued, does that mean the Judge believed the mp3 files downloaded to Cecilia's computer were equivalent to the full uncompressed digital files extracted from CDs?????"

Oh no, you're one of those guys? What don't you just say it's really only a bunch of 1's and 0's?

"I still question seriously the summary judgment."

Me too! It's because of that case in Texas where the judge said that "making available" is not the same as "distribution". LOL!

"lawyers argue in an adversarial manner, but do not get hot headed because experience has taught them otherwise."

Yeah, I never heard of an attorney who gets hot headed! Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Too damn funny!

"There WAS a disagreement as to the material facts under the law because there is no statute stating that downloading from the internet is a crime."

Oh yeah, I almost forgot this one, where awehr demonstrates he doesn't know the difference between facts and law!

Kudos to hawk7771 for the summary judgement info and Dreddsnik for the Gonzalez case info and westmar for the standard of proof info and anyone else who came across with some real facts and information.

Awehr brings nothing to the table but incorrect information and pseudo lawyer speculation that is laughable at best. For that he gets a big fat ZERO!

mroop: I ask that you kindly stop spamming this thread so other visitors may read pertinent views on the article rather than your railing against me.

you are the definition of pseudointellectual.

You know, i've not seen one word from you in the time you've posted here to indicate you have a hint of a law degree.

You peruse around this site looking for people to bash, weather it's the article's author or the people posting it's all the same.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree.

why don't you go to some political forum where they'll eat your flame bait alive and stop spamming this place.

Good morning! I just spent the past 30 minutes reading the latest posts and links.

I found this site in September 2003 when I first heard about the RIAA and their subpoenas. I knew my kids were downloading mp3s and I told them to stop.
Here's my question: If a teenager is arrested for shoplifting, he/she suffers the consequences - not the parent. If a teenager downloads or uploads music on the internet (commits copyright infringement), why should the parent be held liable?

mroop: Dude, you don't even know the difference between facts and law. So I will explain it to you. Facts are facts. Law is law. There you go! This should help you along the way in life when the road gets rocky and things are not looking so good. Just remember - the time that you saw only two footprints in the sand is when God was carrying you!

thanks for the clarification but which world do you live in? There are grey areas everywhere and i guess it's only the best of the best that can utilize them to their advantages (IE: CORPORATE FUCKING AMERICA THE SAME JACK OFFS WHO SUPPORT RIAA and such)

Just remember, facts aren't facts unless someone says they are. I would say you cannot be sued for downloading songs. How can they prove that you were downloading them without invasion of privacy? How can internet2 be monitored? How can the internet be monitored?

Which laws are which laws also? I know in canada i download pirated movies and enjoy watching them, which seems perfectly legal to me.

*gasp* you.. told them to stop?!
I'm amazed, astonished. I would have told them how to continue in their activities and at the same time avoid being sued.... that is unless they were downloading that top 40 crap like the "back door boys" or "N*suck" or "pink"... then i would scare them half to death and refuse to buy the cd's too.

awehr some kids do listen to their parents. not always I grant you. my son stopped downloading long ago. nothing of intrest for him. my daughter looks for all her favoriate indie groups however it's hard to determine often which ones have gone over to the dark side.

Lachatte that is an excellent point.

Anyway...back the points of the Gonzalez case. I find it rather amusing that she downloaded all of those songs that she already owned because she didn't want to take the time to rip the cds to her computer and listen to them in a shuffled order. It clearly takes more time to hunt for and download songs via p2p than it does to rip a cd to your PC.

What's not funny is the way the judge corn-holed her. It's exactly what's wrong with America today:

"blah blah blah...summary judgment...blah blah...these lawsuits are getting old...blah blah blah...you're poor and obviously ignorant but I'm going to rule in favor of the rich guys...blah blah...pay them $22,000...blah blah...I'm going home...it's 5pm..."

In summary...she had downloaded and shared approximately 1,000 songs...how long she actually SHARED those tunes is in question. She claims only a couple of days, the RIAA says they don't care HOW LONG she shared them, they caught her and she must pay. When they discovered (and had it proven to them) that she already owned nearly all of the songs, they backed off to wanting compensation for only 30 songs and STILL got a judgment for $22,500. Absolutely ridiculous. Basically, Gonzalez wasn't like most all of the others who have been sued, when the RIAA discovered this they backed off and STILL received a ridiculous judgment. Only in American, folks.... (roll eyes)

It seems that mroop's posts are unpopular with some people.
But if we should only see "pertinent facts" that agree with our viewpoint, we're likely to be surprised when more judges make more summary judgements going againsts us.
Oh, well, we can always call them fascists. That'll work. Sure.
Personally I'd rather read comments that show us what we're up against than read the railings of people who think they are entitled to anything they want simply because they want it to be so.

Awehr: "You know, i've not seen one word from you in the time you've posted here to indicate you have a hint of a law degree."

Mroop: What a dope! LOL

Lachatte: "Here's my question: If a teenager is arrested for shoplifting, he/she suffers the consequences - not the parent. If a teenager downloads or uploads music on the internet (commits copyright infringement), why should the parent be held liable?"

Mroop: In some states the parent can be held liable for shoplifting by a teenager. For example, here is the Pennsylvania statute:

http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/23.Cp.55.html

To learn more, you can google, "parental liability" or "parental liability for acts of children" or "vicarious liability" or stuff like that.

Awehr: "mroop: I ask that you kindly stop spamming this thread so other visitors may read pertinent views on the article rather than your railing against me."

Like your post about Texas laws that don't exist? Is that a "pertinent view"? Ha ha!

Westmar: "blah blah blah...summary judgment...blah blah...these lawsuits are getting old...blah blah blah...you're poor and obviously ignorant but I'm going to rule in favor of the rich guys...blah blah...pay them $22,000...blah blah...I'm going home...it's 5pm..."

That is such bullshit. If you have a valid basis to criticize the judge that is fine. But you just made up a load of crap.

What is wrong with America today (to use your quote) is these ignorant attacks on the judiciary with no basis in fact simply because you don't like the judge's ruling. Are you Tom Delay or Rick Santorum?

All I know is..."spamigation" is a dirty way to sue a large amount of people...errrr...ip addresses.

And when the RIAA only has to prove 51% of its case to be true, it's going to be next to impossible for any John Doe to fight and win. The only way these ridiculous lawsuits, judgments, and settlements are going to end is thru Congress. I'm not going to hold my breath...

"When they discovered (and had it proven to them) that she already owned nearly all of the songs, they backed off to wanting compensation for only 30 songs and STILL got a judgment for $22,500. Absolutely ridiculous."

You cannot blame the judge for that. 750 dollars per infringement is the MINIMUM LIABILITY IMPOSED BY STATUTE. The judge had no choice but to award that amount at the minimum.

mroop...do you report directly to Cary Sherman...or are you just bangin' Hilary?

No, it's not bullshit. While it's true I don't know the exact details of this case, my point was clear. The Judge made the easier call, plain and simple.

"You cannot blame the judge for that. 750 dollars per infringement is the MINIMUM LIABILITY IMPOSED BY STATUTE. The judge had no choice but to award that amount at the minimum."

You are too worked up. You're missing my point. God forbid one of these judges would take the time to hear a case.

"No, it's not bullshit. While it's true I don't know the exact details of this case, my point was clear. The Judge made the easier call, plain and simple."

Again, a conclusory statement with no evidence to back it up. You are saying the judge made the "easier call" to make his life less difficult and you can't back it up. At all. Zero evidence. None. Nada. Zippo.

"You are too worked up. You're missing my point. God forbid one of these judges would take the time to hear a case."

What the heck are you talking about? The judge heard the case and found the summary judgement motion to be supported by facts and law. To allow the case to go forward would be a violation of the judicial oath to uphold the law.

"mroop...do you report directly to Cary Sherman...or are you just bangin' Hilary?"

Hilary Rosen? She's a lesbian. : )

"And when the RIAA only has to prove 51% of its case to be true,"

I have to say that until yesterday I had never heard of anyone against the standard of proof utilized in a civil case.

But you are either misunderstanding the standard of proof or misstating it. The plaintiff does not have to "prove 51% of its case to be true". They have to prove their entire case to be true by a preponderance of the evidence - 51 percent.

"Again, a conclusory statement with no evidence to back it up. You are saying the judge made the "easier call" to make his life less difficult and you can't back it up. At all. Zero evidence. None. Nada. Zippo."

True. But I felt better after I typed it.

"What the heck are you talking about? The judge heard the case and found the summary judgement motion to be supported by facts and law. To allow the case to go forward would be a violation of the judicial oath to uphold the law."

You're a little off here. The case never went to trial. Read the story from the link I provided above. The RIAA filed a motion for a summary judgment and then:

"(Her lawyer) filed a memorandum in opposition, stating that summary judgment could be granted only 'where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.' He was and is confident that Gonzalez would win if given her day in court. 'If a jury of her peers was sitting there looking at her -- we're talking regular folks who go out and buy music -- most of those people don't own 250 CDs like Cecilia. I think they'd say, 'I can't believe they're picking on this woman. She didn't do anything that wrong.' "

The case never went to trial BECAUSE of the summary judgment. That's why her lawyer is appealing, etc....he WANTED it to go to trial because he thought they could win.

"Hilary Rosen? She's a lesbian. : ) "

I've read rumors that you wooed her with your charm and she converted.

"But you are either misunderstanding the standard of proof or misstating it. The plaintiff does not have to "prove 51% of its case to be true". They have to prove their entire case to be true by a preponderance of the evidence - 51 percent."

Misstating it would be fairer. Damnit cut me some slack. I've been misstating things throughout this entire thread!

What I meant was that the entire ruling ends up based on whether or not it's 51% probable that the defendant is negligent. Those aren't good odds for the John Does. Sure, I'd think they were GREAT odds if I was the plaintiff, but most of us here are trying to find good odds for the defendants:

"...if the jury believes that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins. This is a very low standard, compared to criminal law."

I'm just sayin'....

"True. But I felt better after I typed it."

Funny. : )

"You're a little off here. The case never went to trial. Read the story from the link I provided above."

Yeah, I know it didn't go to trial. I didn't say otherwise. A case that does not survive a summary judgement motion will not make it to trial.

"If a jury of her peers was sitting there looking at her -- we're talking regular folks who go out and buy music -- most of those people don't own 250 CDs like Cecilia. I think they'd say, 'I can't believe they're picking on this woman. She didn't do anything that wrong.'"

What the lawyer is saying in legal speak is that he wants to get in front of a jury and get them to focus on their emotions and ignore the law. He wants to make them feel sorry for the woman so that they will ignore the law and not find her liable. Look at his statement "She didn't do anything THAT wrong." He is almost admitting liability, while at the same time saying, "It's not that bad." There is nothing illegal about getting a jury to feel sorry for your client and hoping they will ignore the law.

"I've read rumors that you wooed her with your charm and she converted. "

If only it were true. She is a smoking hot babe!

"Misstating it would be fairer. Damnit cut me some slack. I've been misstating things throughout this entire thread! "

Heh. I just wanted to make sure you were clear on the standard.

I don't know if anyone saw that movie "A Civil Action" with John Travolta. It was a true story. Travolta just wants to get the damage to the citizens in front of the jury. He knows that if he can put people up on the stand with cancer and dead children and all this horrible stuff that the jury will take pity on them and ignore the law and find the corporate parent company liable. Duvall as the corporate attorney knows that Travolta is right and he will lose the case if the citizens get on the stand and testify to their injuries. So he pulls a legal maneuver to prevent the testimony of the injured parties. It's an excellent flick. I was reminded of the movie when I read Geoff Baker's statement. It's kinda like when OJ's lawyers introduced the evidence about Furman calling black people niggers. You get to the emotions of the jury and you win the case.

Fair enough.

Friendly (sometimes heated) discussions and disagreements ending in a calm manner make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


"I'm not a lawyer, but I try damn hard to make people think I'm a really BAD one at boycott-riaa.com"

-Westmar
Sunday, May 22nd, 3:10 pm EST

A Civil Action - good comparison, mroop.

I found the film rather boring in some spots, but the overall story and point were obviously a good one.

The only material fact in this case was never brought up -- registered ownership of the copyrights.

Awehr :
I really don't want Mroop to go away.
The devil's advocate is needed, badly.

My only real complaint with him is the
arrogant nastiness he radiates. This is
to , heh, get emotions flying to distract
from the issues.

"What the lawyer is saying in legal speak is that he wants to get in front of a jury and get them to focus on their emotions and ignore the law."

LOL .. kind of like that

Well, the sad fact is, sometimes the law
IS simply, ... wrong. When it is, it is
NECESSARY for emotions to get stirred
up, to possibly create change.
The law is not about justice, that's what
emotions are about, Hence, a jury of
your peers. Kinda brings to mind one of
the REAL purposes of jury nullification.

Fighting bad laws.

Nope,
I rather enjoy Mroops "evil" ways.
I learn much.

Don't allow him to drive your emotional
level up, and drive you away.

Know you're enemy, know him well.

"The Judge made the easier call, plain and simple. "

I suspect that is why we have appeals courts and this judge is not the last word.

In Defense of Mroop (bet you never thought I'd say that) I know what he's doing. He is putting his personal view of the law and situation aside (though not always) and looking at the issue through the eyes of what he believes the law says. doesn't matter if a person agrees with it or not (most of us don't). In order to defeat it we must understand it.

However if we could pretend we were in an actual courtroom and cut out all the name calling (I've tried very very hard) on all sides (which is why so many have a problem with mroop anonanonon) I think we can see the logic of some of his arguments. I know it gets hard when the personal attacks begin. I only have one question for mroop, and this isn't intended to antagonize it's an honest and sincere question. When you practiced law in the past how did you handle yourself in the courtroom when you were faced with oposing attorneys you thought were idiots or witnessess you didn't like? or even Judges you thought should never sit on the bench? Perhaps that's whats needed here. you're the professional. set an example for us kids and don't lowere yourself to our level as you see it.

I'm going to stand up again for these poor people whose thread you continue to spam.

SHUT UP MROOP, YOU'RE SCARING AWAY THE CONSCIOUS.

Compmore:

I don't think mroop ever even practiced law. I think mroop is a snickering teenager with access to his father's law references or a legal search engine whose simply shuffling around looking for people to flame.

He's been flooding this thread with spam and if you read his posts you'll note most of them attempt to generate doubt of other posters without providing any evidence other than verbosity and an arrogance which reeks of adolesence.

I mean.. i know the type.. i run into them every now and then.

They have a crowd of acquaintances, are expert liars, and have people believing they posess some great skill, wealth, or connections when they have shown no evidence as such. The main marks of such a type are their arrogance, their pattern of putting down those around them to elevate their status rather than providing evidence of their own talents, and their ability to mask their true selves by providing just enough to avoid people asking them REAL questions.

I know awehr. I've had my words with him as well. but I believe he did practice law at one time and is in his mid thirties from what he has said. unless he's just buffaloing everyone

Hmmmmmm..."So it goes."-Vonnegut

Mroop spelled backward is "Poor M"\
Hmmm...Do tell...
Where's Diogenes2?

"I suspect that is why we have appeals courts and this judge is not the last word."

That is correct. And a supreme court to check the appeals courts.

"In Defense of Mroop (bet you never thought I'd say that) I know what he's doing. He is putting his personal view of the law and situation aside (though not always) and looking at the issue through the eyes of what he believes the law says."

That is correct. I am just giving my objective opinion. I am not playing devil's advocate just to be contrary. I am just giving my opinon.

"When you practiced law in the past how did you handle yourself in the courtroom when you were faced with oposing attorneys you thought were idiots or witnessess you didn't like? or even Judges you thought should never sit on the bench? Perhaps that's whats needed here."

Well, this is a message board, not a courtroom. Yes, I am aggresive. And I will continue to call out fools like awehr who misrepresent articles and court opinions. Another board I read (and occasionally post at) is a board for music professionals at velvetrope.com. Over there it is very rough and tumble. If a fool like awehr were to post over there he would be flamed so viciously and unmercifully that he would have to change his ID. I am being soft on him in comparison.

"SHUT UP MROOP, YOU'RE SCARING AWAY THE CONSCIOUS."

Do you consider yourself among the conscious? A guy who can't even grasp the ruling of a Texas court and misrepresents the contents therein? If so, please count me among the unconscious!


"I don't think mroop ever even practiced law. I think mroop is a snickering teenager with access to his father's law references or a legal search engine whose simply shuffling around looking for people to flame."

If I am just a teenager then what is your excuse? Why do falsely misrepresent the court's opinion in Texas with such extreme stupidity? Inquiring minds want to know!

" know awehr. I've had my words with him as well. but I believe he did practice law at one time and is in his mid thirties from what he has said. unless he's just buffaloing everyone"

This is true. If I am just buffaloing everyone, then even if I'm not a lawyer I should be one! : )

"I'm going to stand up again for these poor people whose thread you continue to spam."

Aren't you too busy misrepresenting court opinions like the complete idiot and fool you are? Ha ha ha!

And readers please note that awehr has yet to admit that he was wrong on the facts of this case and very wrong on the court opinion in Texas.

In comparison, when Dreddsnik pointed out that I was wrong about the Gonzalez case being uploading as opposed to downloading, I quickly admitted my mistake and thanked him for correcting my error. That is the difference between a forthright debater and someone like awehr who is completely full of shit!

Fuck texas.

"Well, this is a message board, not a courtroom."

true but we do need civility in order to have an effective debate.

Mroop, thanks for responding and providing a link. I have a question about this quote from http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/23PA5504.html "d) Action against parent.--Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, a victim of a willful, tortious act of a child may initiate a civil action directly against the parent or parents of the child who committed the tortious act for the purpose of receiving compensation for the injuries suffered, not to exceed the limitations set forth in section 5505."
It states that the act must be "willful". If the child downloads music and does not believe it to be harmful or illegal, then why would the parent be liable? Also, could the parent turn to the insurance company (homeowner's) and file a claim?

This is interesting, too.
" 5505. Monetary limits of liability.
(a) General rule.--Liability of the parents under this chapter shall be limited to:
The sum of $1,000 for injuries suffered by any one person as a result of one tortious act or continuous series of tortious acts.
The sum of $2,500 regardless of the number of persons who suffer injury as a result of one tortious act or continuous series of tortious acts.

(b) Proceedings where loss exceeds liability.--In the event that actual loss as ascertained by the court or the judgment against the child exceeds $2,500, the parents shall be discharged from further liability by the payment of $2,500 into court. The court shall cause all aggrieved parties to submit itemized statements of loss in writing and shall make distribution proportionately, whether the claims be for injuries to the person or for theft, destruction or loss of property."
Does this apply to copyright infringement?
George, wouldn't the RIAA have a tough time showing itemized statements of loss? Wouldn't they have to submit proof of copyright ownership?

"true but we do need civility in order to have an effective debate."

I will agree with that. But, and I say this with all sincerity and no attempt to denigrate the poor fellow, awehr is incapable of serious debate. I've tried in the past and he simply lacks the capacity to follow a train of thought and respond appropriately. He sidetracks into areas that are not relevant and can't keep his responses on topic. Again, I say this not to be cruel, but simply to explain why debating with awehr is equivalent to debating with a brick wall.

"It states that the act must be "willful". If the child downloads music and does not believe it to be harmful or illegal, then why would the parent be liable?"

Willful probably means intent to committ the act, not knowledge of the harmful or illegal nature of the act.

"Also, could the parent turn to the insurance company (homeowner's) and file a claim?"

Probably not due to the intentional nature of the act. It would depend on the language in the policy, but the safe bet is to assume no coverage.

"A Civil Action - good comparison, mroop.

I found the film rather boring in some spots, but the overall story and point were obviously a good one."

Yeah, I like those "lone lawyer goes up against powerful evil corporation" movies. I also liked Erin Brokovich. I recently saw "Runaway Jury" and I thought that was a really good one. Rent that if you haven't checked it out.

mroop

Truly a master debater.

"In comparison, when Dreddsnik pointed out that I was wrong about the Gonzalez case being uploading as opposed to downloading, I quickly admitted my mistake and thanked him for correcting my error."

--For the record, mroop...it's my understanding that you were technically correct with your original statement concerning the sharing/uploading in that case. The only reason Gonzalez was sued in the first place was because of the several hundred (allegedly 1,000 or more) songs that were found by the RIAA in her share folder.

Errr - let me restate that. She was only caught because her share folder was open, according to the RIAA. How many songs were in there at that time is difficult to say. She claims she turned off the sharing after only a couple of days...my guess is it was, in reality, longer than 'a couple of days' and she had a good chunk of songs in there when the RIAA found her.

Later in the article it gives an overall figure of approx. 1,000 songs downloaded.

The number of "30 songs downloaded" only came about when the RIAA knocked down the charges after finding out that she already owned nearly all of these songs on cd.

Sorry I'm obsessing about this case. I find it to be one of the more intriguing ones.

Masterbater?

"I don't support jack shit. I just call it like I see it."

You should know better than to do that on this website.

"That's BS. You know damn well I clearly demonstrated that awehr had the facts of the article posted above wrong and mispresented Judge Patel's ruling in Texas."

Again, you should know better. Proving someone wrong and mixing it with sarcasm = "nothing but insults."

"I quickly admitted my mistake and thanked him for correcting my error."

This will be conveniently ignored, because it will make it easier to respond to your side of the argument with random comments about your character and how we should disapprove of it and the mean things that you say.

"Since Summary Judgement was issued, does that mean the Judge believed the mp3 files downloaded to Cecilia's computer were equivalent to the full uncompressed digital files extracted from CDs?????"

mroop: "Oh no, you're one of those guys? What don't you just say it's really only a bunch of 1's and 0's?"

OK. Both files are comprised of 1's and 0's, however, the important thing is they are not the same set of 1's and 0's. Facts are facts, but I'm disputing what someone thinks are facts.

I was actually being serious here. In one of your posts mroop you gave an example of how the courtroom drama might have played out, the defendant basically agreeing that she had these song files on her computer. That's why I questioned the content of those files. The Judge may not know jack shit about computers and thinks those mp3s that someone else created from legally purchased CDs were actually exact duplicates from the CD, which they aren't.

So my question still stands, did the Judge believe the files on Ms. Gonzalez computer were equivalent to those extracted from CDs?

I'll ask my second question again, of anyone, or mroop if you'd like to respond:

If Cecilia had recorded those same 30 songs onto cassette tape from FM radio, and the RIAA got wind of her sharing and sued her, would the Judge have issued a Summary Judgement??????

The reason I'm asking is because when the original Napster was around, I do recall one song that appeared on FM radio BEFORE being sold to the public. Well, someone recorded it and shared it. At the time Sony was getting vocal about it, but hey, it came off of FM radio!

"--For the record, mroop...it's my understanding that you were technically correct with your original statement concerning the sharing/uploading in that case."

I guess that's true, but I don't mind being wrong and fessing up to it. It does happen, although very very very rarely. : )

"Again, you should know better. Proving someone wrong and mixing it with sarcasm = "nothing but insults.""

Ha. A lamebrain like awehr can only accuse me of "nothing but insults" in order to deflect attention from his lack of knowledge and downright stupidity. That's OK. I still have fun puncturing his pretentious offal.

"Both files are comprised of 1's and 0's, however, the important thing is they are not the same set of 1's and 0's"

That's not important at all.

"The Judge may not know jack shit about computers and thinks those mp3s that someone else created from legally purchased CDs were actually exact duplicates from the CD, which they aren't.

So my question still stands, did the Judge believe the files on Ms. Gonzalez computer were equivalent to those extracted from CDs?"

Who cares if they are equivalent or not? It doesn't matter. Digital technology allowing exact copies is a fairly new technology. Do you think copyright infringement did not exist before the invention of digital technology? Whether the copies are exact identical copies is irrelevant.

"If Cecilia had recorded those same 30 songs onto cassette tape from FM radio, and the RIAA got wind of her sharing and sued her, would the Judge have issued a Summary Judgement??????"

I don't know. I do know that radio pays license fees to broadcast those songs. Either way, it doesn't really matter. My advice - roll down your window shades before you tape a song off the radio. : )

Hilary Rosen just called out her answer from the bedroom:

"Q: Taping songs off the radio.

A: The copyright law is a fairly strict model, so all that stuff is technically illegal, but we don't enforce it because it's not necessary. We try to strike a balance between what is consumer enjoyment of the music they purchased in all of these formats, or hoping to purchase, by taping it off the radio. .. and making the distinction between that and taking it offline and sending it to 60 million strangers."

"mroop

Truly a master debater."

Since I don't see any sarcasm emoticons I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.

"Masterbater?"

That too! I'm typing with one hand right now.

"That too! I'm typing with one hand right now."

Me too.

"That too! I'm typing with one hand right now."

Don't knock it. It's sex with someone you truly love.

mroop: Who cares if they are equivalent or not? It doesn't matter. Digital technology allowing exact copies is a fairly new technology. Do you think copyright infringement did not exist before the invention of digital technology? Whether the copies are exact identical copies is irrelevant.

Actually it does matter, to me. There is no digital technology to allow an exact copy of the original song. It is still a "copy" of the song from the CD, not the song from the CD. I'm pretty sure copyright infringement was a bit different before the internet. When encoded in the mp3 file format, the song is unrecognizable to its previous format as an uncompressed file. This really brings home the fact that, mp3 files are essentially different than the uncompressed digital media files originally found on CDs and are therefor legal to share by the billions. Not limited to just mp3 files either.

You cannot steal a song, by copying to your computer, you can merely copy the pattern of 1s and 0s that allow the computer to reproduce some of the original sound. This also includes song sharing, the original work isn't being shared, but the combination of 1s and 0s are. What the fuck is wrong with that?

How can you copyright the numbers 1 and 0? It all seems rather silly to me.

That's enough drivel from me however, continue on.

And if you look at something written in pencil under a microscope all you see is tiny little individual particles. If someone re-wrote the same words and plagarized your writing, it would be completely different on the microscopic level. Meaning your logic also applies to copyrighting things written in pencil.

The pattern of 1's and 0's of a picture also changes when it is saved as a different format. Meaning if a picture is copyrighted, I should be able to save it as a .gif and distribute it at will because it's not the same copy.

The 1's and 0's argument has been done here before about 5,000 times. It doesn't make any sense.

From the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/



In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement."

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.

1. Comment and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.



Based on this, I see no reason why an individual, like Cecilia Gozalez couldn't obtain a copy of a work for critical review. And basically, this is what she said in the article, some of the songs she downloaded were for preview, which really was a critical review to determine if it was worth purchasing. Now I ask, how is she to obtain a copy of the work to criticize? Does she ask the RIAA or the record label directly?? You could argue that she isn't posting her review anywhere, but the critical review portion doesn't specify you MUST write a review. Couldn't a review be private?

Anyone interested in contesting this?

"Hilary Rosen just called out her answer from the bedroom:

'Q: Taping songs off the radio.

A: The copyright law is a fairly strict model, so all that stuff is technically illegal, but we don't enforce it because it's not necessary. ' "

Let's be honest here...what she was REALLY saying was "we don't enforce it because WE CAN'T."

Like mroop said...keep the shades pulled and odds are good you'll be safe when making that cassette tape off the radio. But the internet, unfortunately, is a different story.

Regarding my post above, copyright permission can be granted by the copyright holder.

In todays internet age, that means that if those 60+ million people who are using P2P would like to request permission to download and review a song on the internet they'd have to contact the copyright holder and ask permission. Now tell me, which copyright holder could ever respond to even 1% of those requests?!?!?!??! My point is, the internet is so vast and expansive, that the old copyright model is outdated and doesn't apply in regards to requests for permissions.

"The 1's and 0's argument has been done here before about 5,000 times. It doesn't make any sense."

Thank you.

"Based on this, I see no reason why an individual, like Cecilia Gozalez couldn't obtain a copy of a work for critical review. And basically, this is what she said in the article, some of the songs she downloaded were for preview, which really was a critical review to determine if it was worth purchasing. Now I ask, how is she to obtain a copy of the work to criticize? Does she ask the RIAA or the record label directly?? You could argue that she isn't posting her review anywhere, but the critical review portion doesn't specify you MUST write a review. Couldn't a review be private?

Anyone interested in contesting this?"

No, a review can't be private. They are talking about reproducing portions for a published article or TV show. You are just trying to twist the meaning to allow Gonzalez to do what she wanted to do. And maybe you missed this part, "fair use principles allow you to reproduce SOME OF THE WORK of the work to achieve your purposes."

"My point is, the internet is so vast and expansive, that the old copyright model is outdated and doesn't apply in regards to requests for permissions."

Puhleez. Do you realize how far you are reaching with this stuff? Permission is requested by people who need samples for business purposes, not people who just want a copy for free.

"Let's be honest here...what she was REALLY saying was "we don't enforce it because WE CAN'T."

That's what I told her shortly before we engaged in hot monkey love.

mroop, you know as well as I that copyright law isn't written in a cut and dry manner, it's all open to interpretation. I contend that reviews can be private, but there would still need to be a source for the review. Someone must provide a copy.

"Puhleez. Do you realize how far you are reaching with this stuff? Permission is requested by people who need samples for business purposes, not people who just want a copy for free."

Most people don't want a free copy, that's what you're missing here. Think about Indies as well, how many people would buy their music without hearing it first?? There are thousands of bands I've never heard, nor will I ever buy it either, I've never heard them. With P2P, people get that chance, although I'm not using it, I'm boycotting.

Can't you even godamn read??!!

* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The Comment and Criticism section talks about reprinting PORTIONS of copyrighted works for purposes of commenting on it.

What the hell is wrong with you? This has nothing to do with downloading entire songs! It is about reprinting portions of works or maybe playing a snippet on a broadcast. I refuse to believe you are really as stupid as you are acting.

How old are you? Am I wasting my time explaining this stuff to a 12 year old kid?

There are those here who do seem to have learning disabilities

"Can't you even godamn read??!!"

* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case."

"The Comment and Criticism section talks about reprinting PORTIONS of copyrighted works for purposes of commenting on it. "

Exactly, and individual songs are not the same thing as an album, they are only portions of a whole. The length of the portion is not defined in law, sorry.

From you're quotes you imply that only print material is affected since you think I can't read, but our discussion is about song files.

I am 45. How old are you????

If the law was so cut and dry as you believe it is in copyright law, there wouldn't be any need for court cases.

Sherm, if you're implying anything, why are you even on this site?? You should keep buying RIAA music like the industry tells you to do.

"Sherm, if you're implying anything, why are you even on this site??"

First off, I didn't know that people who "implied things" had no reason to be here. Secondly, it was not directed at you anyway. Third, we have WAY TOO MANY IDIOTS on this website. Just because I'm not one of them, doesn't mean I need to a) leave b) put up with it.

"You should keep buying RIAA music like the industry tells you to do."

Keep buying? What makes you think I'm currently buying? Does it have anything to do with the fact that I haven't bought RIAA music in over three years? If so, that's not a very good reason.

Sherm, you know as well as I, that written text can be misunderstood. Your post above was unexpected, as this thread has moved well off the front page and no one is responding but mroop. Your post also seemed to support mroop, who seems to believe copyright law, and the gonzalez case are cut and dry, not open to debate. As such, I thought you were in firm support of him and his ideas. Not that I don't like opposing ideas, I do, but without the verbal attacks. I took your response as such. I'm sorry for that.

I support mroop's refusal to back down from people on this site. When I read his posts, I see fact after fact after fact combined with his take and the usual sarcasm. The sarcasm cuts through some members' hearts like a warm knife through butter, and the conversation gets derailed, as usual, into people completely disregarding good information because they don't like his personality/sense of humor/whatever.

I never meant to attack you. Feel free to completely ignore me. I hate the way 85-90% of the people here think. It's never had anything to do with what they think, but everything to do with why they think it and how they are able to defend it. It's like reading post after post of people who listen to too much michael savage. They're so loud and proud, and when it comes down to it, completely full of shit. So I'm just pissed in general by the time I get to the end of a thread like this.