Senator Norm Coleman wants, "legislation this year to reduce legal penalties for people who download copyrighted music off the Internet" two days after his Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations hearing into the RIAA's subpoena war.

Coleman, who chairs the committee, said existing penalties are enough to scare innocent people into settling lawsuits filed by the recording industry, according to an Associated Press story here..

"The range of penalties was put in when downloading wasn't even thought of," Frederic Frommer quotes Coleman as saying.

"I can tell you that $150,000 per song is not reasonable, and that's technically what you can put in front of somebody. That forces people to settle when they may want to fight, but they're thinking, 'Goodness, gracious, what am I going to face?' "

Coleman said he'll also press for changes in federal law to curb the recording industry's subpoena power, says the AP report.

"The wide statutory range of $750 to $150,000 in the copyright law was meant to provide deterrence to a wide range of infringers - from individuals to large corporations," said the RIAA's Jonathan Lamy.

Right on!Make it 20 bucks per song or something...
Or,preferably 2 dollars per song,that way people with 1000+ downloads can fight.

Fight with a gun, they are more effective. If one person starts blasting the rest shall follow

I must say, I'm impressed. If this isn't all smoke and mirrors, then perhaps Sen. Coleman didn't buy the RIAA + MPAA's "Downloading music/movies you didn't buy is stealing, and is NOT a victimless crime" bs (as many of us expected he would), in which case this is a step in the right direction.
If Sen. Coleman is in fact going to do what he says he will, this is great news...
Maybe, just maybe, Lorraine Sullivan's powerful testimony helped him lean towards our favor, or maybe (hopefully) the evidence presented (on both sides!) only further proved what he had already suspected (and, quite possibly the very reason he called for this hearing in the first place) - that the RIAA was, and still is, abusing the powers the DMCA supposedly grants them.

That said, I'm sure somewhere in the back of his head, there's a little voice telling him "$150,000 a song ?!? What if my kids get sued?" : )

Regardless of the senator's motivation, this could end up being VERY interesting - especially if he attacks (verbally, of course) the RIAA for their rampant abuse of power up to, and including the "Sue 'em all" campaign...

I can almost hear it now:

"While downloading copyrighted material without permission is wrong, the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA)'s tactics are deplorable, and raise serious due process and privacy concerns. I am not condoning file sharing, but two wrongs do not make a right..."

I'll believe it when I see it

I say make it 99c per song (even though that's still bs) in line with the current selling cost of songs on iTunes.

Yeah well I'm right behind you Coleman, and if you dont jump maybe i'll just push you in

How about this

A. A reasonable penalty for "infringing" copyrighted material.

B. Go ahead and keep the 150k per song penalty for anyone who MAKES A PROFIT by "infringing."

If you "infringe" on britney spears' latest steaming pile of crap, you face a reasonable penalty. If you burn 100 copies and sell them on a street corner, then maybe you should face stiffer penalties.

Unfortunately, I don't give a rat's ass about this aspect of the ordeal until I can download any song at any time off a P2P network. We can worry about 'infringment' after it's decided that using kazaa et. al. is not infringment.

While I'm at it, I want my new P2P system that allows me to download anything to be completely free of the following:

RIAA interference
Microsoft
Spyware
Any per album fees over $7.99

I will go to my grave saying that I will purchase albums again when the prices fall below $8. Cassettes were $8. Cassettes were more expensive to produce yet still a rip off. However, I am considering going to my grave with a figure closer to $5. And if a system is devised in which the artist has 100% control over 100% of the fees and 100% of the distribution of his/her profits, then I will pay whatever. Let the artists compete (Imagine that. Fair and free competition in America. Wow, The RIAA is right, what is this world coming to? They better stop it before it gets out of control and the country prospers).

If P2P remains free, that'd be nice. And it wouldn't hurt a damn person. Not even Cary-sue. It never has.

this sound good that someone is actually listining to the majority.
The present maximum is 150.000 times the cost of purchase. I feel a fair amount would be 10 to 50 times the cost of purchase.
And more support for fair use.

BOYCOTT EDUCATE VOTE

I'm siding with boom on this one. The government is ineffective. Start blasting those fuckers!

the RIAA will not have thier way with intimidating their very own customers with the suing tactics that they are proceeding with. it's just a matter of time for someone of their peers get slapped with a supeona of their own. the mp3's should be at the cost of a song off the pay per download songs off of i-tunes or rhapsody; 0.99 cents a song.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

RIAA - 1
File Sharers -

Zero

Senator Coleman's comments are worth watching with optimistic caution for sure, but this is NOT enough!

Is someone out there going to screen and compile a national list of candidates favorable for P2P for each of the Senate and Congressional race that we can vote on in next year's election? I know I would push it to all my friends and family if such a list was made!

Labor has their slate of candidates, why not us? Let's put our people in office and get rid of the paid-for rascals! We get the power once every two years let’s use it! We can join forces and get out the vote and show them once and for all the power of P2P!

This may be a direct result of "K-Street." This was James Carvilles' solution. It worries me a little becuse it may work.

The fact of the matter is that, the wilful infringing penalties can already be reduced to 200 dollars per song. And I firmly believe that would be the max any federal judge would ever award.

So if he reduces the maximum to $200 per song it will loko like they (Congress) are protecting us, when they are in fact not.

I think it should be more like a parking ticket or some other incidental infraction not a f*cking felony as the current fine schedule now allows.

Those accused of downloading Brittany and the other such garbage should also have to pay an environmental impact fine as well for the waste of energy and bandwidth they used. lol

I'm with Boomstick and kneo24!

RIAA
Viva DMUSIC Revolution!

This doesn't address all the problems with existing copyright law, but it is certainly a good start. Can't see how any reasonable person could say that $150,000 per shared song is a fair penalty even if it is technically copyright infringement.

I also think it should be required for a warning cease & desist letter to be sent (via certified mail) to a potential copyright infinger before any charges can be filed.

I generally concur with most people here. This (if anything more than hot air) is a very small step in the right direction, but a step nonetheless. What is really needed is a complete re-thinking of copyright law, repeal of the DMCA, disbanding RIAA and breaking up these oligopolistic beasts. Fair competition now!

Can i invest in intellectual property? it seems to have more value than gold(im svengali2 now that someone cleaned off my computer)

.....and im glad to see the board back in order

Why is it always about the money? What about the isps being invaded for information? What about peoples privacy rights? What about the riaa's terror tactics?

I say it should only be 10 cents per song. If an MP3 file at 128mps is 1/10th the size of the original file, and each song is approximately 1/10th of the price of a CD, and the price of a CD SHOULD BE $10 (not the joke of a list price $18.98. Tom Petty ought to write a song called 18.98.) then the penalty should be 10 cents. Thats 5 times my 2 cents worth!

A better step in the right direction would be a reinforcement of our "Fair Use" rights and our 1992 Home Audio Recording Act exemption.

It's amazing how our elected officials can overlook these doctrines and laws in the process of deciding what is copyright infringement and what isn't. Did anyone read Carl Levin's take on the hearing and copyright laws? It is disgusting, and echos the views of far too many of our elected officials. I agree with Mr. Dude. We must have an agenda of whom to put into office... and whom to KICK OUT!

LOL ineedalover!!

Yay! finally some good news!

Yay! finally some good news!

Yay! finally some good news!

(sorry - this site appears to have some screwy code goin' on...)

Mr. Dude, I have been wondering the same thing about a list of congressional candidates on should stay and who should be voted out. If no one else does, I will start working on one.

On a related note, does any one have any information on how to run for congress. If enough of us run from different parts of the country and win (yeah, it's a long shot) then imagine what we could do to the RIAA.

"That forces people to settle when they may want to fight..."

What Coleman may be doing is merely setting the stage for the showdown. The DMCA has not been tested in court.

By reducing the penalties to a reasonable level, it may give someone the impetus to fight an RIAA subpoena. Unfortunately, if not worded properly (and they never are), such a change would also reduce the punitive damages for REAL copyright infringement (physical piracy for profit, plagiarism, etc.).

BrandonH - I don't really know what the process is. I will do some digging and see if I can't find something. Perhaps it wouldn't even TAKE winning, just the senators know that we're pissed and we intend to DO something about it that might take THEIR spots. Which they wouldn't like one bit.

Well, whatever it is Senator Coleman is doing, I think Lorraine has done an incredible job, and I hope everybody on here has written to her to tell her so.

l_sulliv@hunter.cuny.edu

I have read quite a few 'selling out' type messages from people in the past when she decided to settle, but going before the Senate and testifying took a lot of bottle and this is the first sign that she may have made a difference.

BrandonH, TheFirstNutZo, maybe Lorraine ought to be encouraged to run for congress

You hit it, George. I bet each and every one of those who settled did so because of the sheer size of the damages being sought against them. They get cowed.

Hopefully with less people being so intimidated this will get into court sooner and set a precedent.

A complete scrap of the DMCA isn't necessary. IMO people who make substantial profit from copyright infringement should have the book thrown at them. I think the DMCA was used to nail a cable television theif to the wall...justly IMO.

I'd say half of the law is good, and the other half is bad.

Lorraine is already gaining media attention, and that is a big first step. (Notice of the 130 candidates running for Cal. Gov. only about 5 or 10 are getting any media attention?) And once the public knows why she is running, they would get behind her.
Also convince the public that like most of them, we aren't rich like most of the current members of congress.

COLEMAN IS A JERK AND THE MOB IS LOOKING FOR HIM SAME THING WITH HATCH WAS JUST STAYS IN UTAH FOR HIS SAFETY.

HOW CAN THEY SUE ME? I HAVE NO MONEY I COLLECT WELFARE SO BASICALLY THEY ARE SUING THE STATE.

I THOUGHT YOU COULD NOT SUE THE STATE.

ALSO I SETUP PHONE SERVICE UNDER A FAKE NAME WITH NO ID AND NO SSN AND MEXICO WORK NUMBER TRACE THAT RIAA!!!!!!!

KNOCK KNOCK

WERE FBI LOOKING FOR A 1 JUAN GONZALEZ.....

JUANS NOT HERE HE IS IN MEXICO

DO YOU KNOW WHEN HES COMING BACK?

NO

CAN YOU SEND THIS TO HIM ITS PRETTY URGENT.

OK I LL GIVE IT TO HIM WHEN HE COMES BACK.

THAT SOLVES THAT.

RIAA SUBPOENA THAT!!!!!!!!!!

OH WAIT YOU HAVE TO IDENIFY THE PERSON DOWNLOADING AND THERE IS NO MATCH SO IF THE GLOVE DOES NOT FIT YOU MUST AQUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me while I go "infringe" on Britney Spears' virginity!