Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

First music download trial may get a do-over

JOSHUA FREED

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 7:08 PM EDT 17/05/08

Judge who sentenced Jammie Thomas says his instructions to the jury may have been a mistake ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jon B from Saskatoon, Canada writes: And this, good people, is why we need to watch out for DMCA style legislation here. How much time has this lady spent in courts because of 19 songs? How long until this ends? Lawyers who encourage this sort of litigation are paid to be in court pursuing it ad infinitum. Citizens who are forced to defend themselves are not. I can think of no justifiable reason why our lives should be put on hold to protect an industry's antiquated business model.
  2. Delta J from Canada writes: Let's hope the ruling gets overturned with ten times as much fanfare as the first trial.

    The floodgates are about to be opened, either with with this case or another one, and it's high time for the RIAA and MPAA to drown in their own greed.
  3. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: Many tax authorities have "voluntary submissions" for tax remission in cases of 'forgetting' or 'realizing' or 'penalty exemption'. One sends in a submission, usually with check/cheque, listing 'forgotten' or 'missed' or 'realized', etc., itemized. The tax authority gets money, often it's due, often overdue and subject to reasonable interest, sometimes pre-calculated. The person is less the liability otherwise. The rules have been recognized. Isn't the music industry one of the best examples of an instance of a total FAILURE to utilize the opportunity of such a system? Song Title Group Date:First Use Standardized Price Int.Com ======= ==== ========== ============= === BorrowedTime Lennon 2005 $4 3yr If one has a ton of songs on a drive that one suddenly 'realizes' may well be a realistic civil pursuit, a facilitated in place system might get money to artists and distributors. Should it really be more than a question of what standard rates are for any particular song? Compounded interest rates? Perhaps there are models around suggesting that 'out' that's good enough for so many tax authorities. There are other plans, including "Voluntary Collective Licensing" : http://www.eff.org/pages/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing
  4. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: In a couple of years these silly little associations will be as relevent to music as the 8 track.
  5. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: It's important to note that the record companies are suing the generous people who give away things freely and may have even bought the CDs.

    It is not the freeloaders they are targeting.

    This is deliberate. Partly it's due to the way the law works. Partly it is their way of attacking what threatens them. What threatens them is free sharing.

    It is not theft or freeloading that is scary to them. They are use to that in their competitive industries. They are attuned to that way and they are the winners of that contest. Instead, they are threatened by voluntary sharing that doesn't tax the exchange.

    They are defenceless against freedom.

    Remember that, and don't get sidetracked by show trials - whatever the outcome.
  6. Mark _ from Canada writes: $200,000 in damages when the big record companies suffered $0 in losses from her actions? That's stupid. I would agree if she actually distributed songs, but they admited that she didn't and they couldn't prove otherwise. Makes no sense.
  7. gordon foster from Canada writes: It wasn't just 19 songs. The article mentions 1,702 files that she made available for downloading. It seems she was establishing her own foothold in the music industry with music copyrighted by others.
  8. Voice of Reason from Ottawa, Canada writes: She should sue the record companies for 200 million in damages to reputation for putting her through all this.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top