Shared music is illegal too

[bbqit]

Associated Press - December 17, 2007 11:14 AM ET

STARKVILLE, Miss. (AP) - Fourteen Mississippi State University students will be getting "pre-litigation letters" this month from the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally sharing music files.

MSU Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Bill Kibler, said in a December 6th statement, that the first wave of letters were sent to the university to pass on to those who had shared music.

University Associate Dean of Students Thomas Bourgeois says students will have until January 5th, 2008, to respond to the letters.

Bourgeois says the university simply passed on the letters to students.

University officials say students, faculty or staff accused of illegally sharing files are responsible for their own legal expenses.

Students can expect to pay fines of about $750 per file shared, with the average total costs coming to about $3 thousand to $5 thousand.

Kibler said if the cases proceed to court, the costs can rise to $50 thousand per song.







We took a lot of flack over towelgate. This is a bit more expensive. Being a football player or not it still represents the university.

[bbqit]

btw- article didn't mention names so may not be any players but i found this googleing ms state football

[Bburton86]

I feel bad for the students. There have been a number of incidents just like this but the school has refused to give the students the letters and baring the RIAA from communicating with the students in any way. In several incidents when the defendants have challenged the RIAA and not just given them money they have won because the RIAA has no real evidence. And recently a judge ruled that the RIAA needs to prove how much the illegally downloaded songs are actually worth because the judge thought the requests of 50k per song was ridiculous. And when asked how much the downloaded songs cost the RIAA their response, in court was "we haven't looked in to that, that was just a number we made up."

In short, to hell with the RIAA. I hope those kids get some good legal advice because there are people out there willing to help them in this kind of situation.

[Gator2753]

I agree with Burton. How many college kids can afford to give thousands of dollars for illegally downloaded songs?

[Bburton86]

I read a new article on the subject everyday and what it comes down to is in the late 90's the music industry, instead of embracing Napster and making it work with their business model they destroyed it. And totally ignored the potential that it has. Now the online music business does a billion in sales while the record industry is seeing 17% drops in sales. And be careful you will hear the RIAA give you this stat trying to make you think that it is because everyone is downloading music but it's not it's because of the legally downloaded music through iTunes. People love the fact that they don't have to go to Tower Record, spend 17.99 on a CD and have one good song. They can instead go to iTunes and download all their favorite songs that they know are good for $.99 .

[Bburton86]

RIAA versus Grandma, Part II: the showdown that wasn't

By Eric Bangeman | Published: December 16, 2007 - 10:56PM CT

The RIAA has settled a case against a grandmother in Texas who was accused of sharing music over the KaZaA network. Both the RIAA and Rhonda Crain, the defendant, agreed to a stipulation of judgment against Crain, but the record labels involved in the suit will not get any damages for any infringement that occurred.
Related Stories

Crain, a grandmother who was displaced by 2005's Hurricane Rita, was sued for copyright infringement in September 2006 after the RIAA's investigators flagged user "kcrain@KaZaA" for sharing 572 tracks on the P2P network, including tracks by 50 Cent and Usher. After Crain denied engaging in file-sharing and rejected the RIAA's $4,500 prelitigation settlement offer, the RIAA filed suit.

Represented by Lone Star Legal Aid, Crain denied engaging in file-sharing and, in a counterclaim, said that the labels had no evidence that she had infringed on their copyrights other than her ISP's linking of the IP address flagged by SafeNet on KaZaA to her account. She also accused the labels of extortion, and in a filing this past July, accused the RIAA of using investigators not licensed by the state of Texas in violation of state law.

Crain's counterclaims were dismissed in September, but late last month, the parties agreed to settle the case. Under the terms of the settlement, a final judgment has been entered in favor of the RIAA, although Crain does not admit to infringement herself. She is permanently barred from copyright infringement and is required to delete all of the recordings that "Defendant and/or any third party that has used the Internet connection and/or computer equipment owned or controlled by Defendant."

That last stipulation may be the reason behind the RIAA's decision to settle the case without any damage award. The KaZaA user seen by the RIAA's investigators was signed on using the screen name kcrain@KaZaA, which may indicate that one of Rhonda Crain's children or grandchildren was logged into KaZaA at the time and that the defendant's only "crime" was paying for the Internet account used for file-sharing.

That was what happened in two cases that the record labels came out on the wrong end of. Debbie Foster and Patricia Santangelo triumphed over the RIAA after the judges in both cases dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice, meaning that they were both the prevailing parties.

In each case, there was evidence that someone in Foster's and Santangelo's homes may have been logged into KaZaA, but the RIAA was unable to show that the defendants themselves engaged in file-sharing. The labels had argued that, even if Foster and Santangelo had not been on KaZaA themselves, they were both liable for "secondary infringement."

Had the Crain case moved towards a trial, the RIAA would likely have found itself forced to make the same secondary infringement argument. Judge Lee R. West, who ruled in favor of Debbie Foster, found that the Copyright Act failed to support the RIAA's secondary infringement allegations. "The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another," wrote Judge Lee. "Under... common law principles, one infringes a copyright contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging a direct infringement." Paying for an Internet account used by someone else didn't rise to that standard.

By settling with the RIAA, Crain moves out from under the legal cloud without admitting infringement and, more importantly, without having to pay any damages to the RIAA. For its part, the labels avoid the risk of having the case against Crain dismissed and being forced to pay attorneys' fees, as they had to do in the Foster case (Santangelo was given the right to seek attorneys' fees by the judge in that case, but I could find no record of an award one way or another).


RIAA versus Grandma, Part II: the showdown that wasn't (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071216-riaa-versus-grandma-part-ii-the-showdown-that-wasnt.html)

[scfan5338]

For USC students, we can download music from Ruckus, its a software that the university paid for and we can legally download music for free. You have to be connected to the USC network to access it. All colleges should impliment this.

[Bburton86]

For USC students, we can download music from Ruckus, its a software that the university paid for and we can legally download music for free. You have to be connected to the USC network to access it. All colleges should impliment this.


I would definitely support a pay once a month and download all you want type of situation but the record companies are too buys sueing everyone in sight to implement something like this. My only problem with something like this is that the selection would be horrible. I don't many of you were a part of the now infamous Oink.cd site but it was a torrent site which had the largest catalog I've ever seen. Larger than amazon.com, if that puts it in perspective for you. After its dismantling in October many musicians have come out saying that they were members (most notably Trent Reznor) if that gives you any indication of how large and effing awesome the site was.

[scfan5338]

I would definitely support a pay once a month and download all you want type of situation but the record companies are too buys sueing everyone in sight to implement something like this. My only problem with something like this is that the selection would be horrible. I don't many of you were a part of the now infamous Oink.cd site but it was a torrent site which had the largest catalog I've ever seen. Larger than amazon.com, if that puts it in perspective for you. After its dismantling in October many musicians have come out saying that they were members (most notably Trent Reznor) if that gives you any indication of how large and effing awesome the site was.


Ruckus, the music software that USC provides has pretty much all the songs you want, maybe with the exception of the really, really old ones. Over 2.5 million songs or something and we don't have to pay anything. Good legal stuff, lol.

[Bburton86]

Ruckus, the music software that USC provides has pretty much all the songs you want, maybe with the exception of the really, really old ones. Over 2.5 million songs or something and we don't have to pay anything. Good legal stuff, lol.

I'm sure it has enough to appease the average music fan but I've got a much larger taste in music than most legal sites have to offer.

[Cianne]

The Crain case is a bad case to look at if you're a student. A better one is Capital Records v. Thomas, which is currently going to go on appeal after Jammie Thomas lost. The jury found in that case that all the RIAA has to show is that there were songs within the shared folder. They don't have to prove actual sharing of any kind. Of course this is the jury instruction that is going to be appealed but still. Also, don't be an idiot and hook your computer directly into your cable modem/wall. Go through a router so it can't get the MAC address off your computer.

Also, the DMCA sets damages for each case of copyright infringement. While we would all like the damages to be limited to the .99 cents the song is worth, the DMCA just doesn't allow it. That's why the statutory damages can be so absurd and also why the RIAA doesn't pursue punitive damages unless they can prove that you are just straight up jacking music left and right.

Another big thing for students which isnt in the Crain case is the latest case in Oregon as well as other cases involving John Does on campus. The Oregon attorney general has stepped in on behalf of students at the University of Oregon claiming that the RIAA's ex parte discovery techniques where they sue the school to get the students' names and then dismiss that suit to pursue individual litigation is too burdensome as it is near impossible to monitor all the student traffic as well as who is actually behind the screen (such as in the Crain case). The other John Doe cases are attacking the RIAA's ability to issue such lawsuits against the university anyway since the DMCA only allows this against ISPs and it is up for dispute whether the university constitutes an ISP within the meaning of the statute. If not, then every single lawsuit filed so far has been invalid.

The best website for keeping up with this stuff is probably Ars Technica (http://www.arstechnica.com) or occassionaly the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/)

[adamsputnik]

The RIAA are a bunch of greedy arses and I hope the organisation disintegrates into a cloud of fat-cat induced dust.

Sick of these scumbag big businesses chasing after the little guy for money they obviously don't have, all for downloading a bloody song or some other petty offence. Perhaps there is a message here THAT CDS ARE TOO BLOODY EXPENSIVE!

[Cianne]

Oh and by the way, the RIAA's head legal expert in her last testimony stated that ripping a CD to your hard drive (but not sharing it at all) also constitutes copyright infringement in her mind. Just wanna toss that out there to stir the pot a bit more.

[Bburton86]

I didn't really mean for the Crain case to be exactly pertinent to the students I just went on Digg and knew that I could find something that had happened in the last couple of days to highlight. Ars Technica is a great resource in the war against the RIAA. Yes adamsputnik, the RIAA is grasping at straws right now. These are the actions of a dying industry. What industry in their right mind sues their customers? They will be gone soon.......unless they can somehow salvage their reputation and adjust their business model.

[Cianne]

I didn't really mean for the Crain case to be exactly pertinent to the students I just went on Digg and knew that I could find something that had happened in the last couple of days to highlight. Ars Technica is a great resource in the war against the RIAA.

I think I spent more time looking at stuff like this on Ars than I did paying attention to my Copyright Law professor.

[Bburton86]

Are you gonna be a lawyer?

[Cianne]

Halfway through law school and I don't believe I'm changing career paths atm.

[Bburton86]

Very cool, well do the right thing and take on these bastards if you ever get the chance.

[geechee]

In short, to hell with the RIAA. I hope those kids get some good legal advice because there are people out there willing to help them in this kind of situation.

Yea but its going to cost them a ton of money to get that advice and they will still lose 90% of the time. Once you get that letter its too late and you are screwed royally.

[geechee]

Oh and by the way, the RIAA's head legal expert in her last testimony stated that ripping a CD to your hard drive (but not sharing it at all) also constitutes copyright infringement in her mind. Just wanna toss that out there to stir the pot a bit more.

What the hell do they think all those blank CD's sold by Costco are for:laugh:

[MSUBULLY]

We took a lot of flack over towelgate. This is a bit more expensive. Being a football player or not it still represents the university.

You're grasping at straws pillow boy. Please go talk your smack somewhere where a post like this is more suitable like cnn.com. Last time I checked this was a sports talk site.

[geechee]

You're grasping at straws pillow boy. Please go talk your smack somewhere where a post like this is more suitable like cnn.com. Last time I checked this was a sports talk site.

:laugh::laugh:

[crimsonnation713]

Oh and by the way, the RIAA's head legal expert in her last testimony stated that ripping a CD to your hard drive (but not sharing it at all) also constitutes copyright infringement in her mind. Just wanna toss that out there to stir the pot a bit more.

You gotta be f!@#in' kidding me. I was always under the impression that as long as you burned your own CD for a back-up, that it wasn't copyright infringement.

As much as I USED to like Metallica, you can thank them for this.

[geechee]

You gotta be f!@#in' kidding me. I was always under the impression that as long as you burned your own CD for a back-up, that it wasn't copyright infringement.

As much as I USED to like Metallica, you can thank them for this.

"the RIAA's head legal expert in her last testimony stated that ripping a CD to your hard drive (but not sharing it at all) also constitutes copyright infringement in her mind".

The key part of the post in her mind

[shanksta13]

Oh and by the way, the RIAA's head legal expert in her last testimony stated that ripping a CD to your hard drive (but not sharing it at all) also constitutes copyright infringement in her mind. Just wanna toss that out there to stir the pot a bit more.

So basically, she wants all music to be back to strictly audio CDs and completely eliminate digital music? :dry::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[timNem]

I have over 1200 CDs and i think I have done my fair share in supporting the Record Industry. They can take my downloaded tunes when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers :laugh:

[GatorBait15]

I have over 1200 CDs and i think I have done my fair share in supporting the Record Industry. They can take my downloaded tunes when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers :laugh:

I agree with that 100 percent brother I have sooooo many bought cd's I deserve a few ''free bee's''

[crimsonnation713]

I'm sorry guys I wasn't paying attention, I was downloading. What was the question?

[GatorBait15]

Man, we have some absolute hillarious posters here, some of you think up the best shit that was funny!

[timNem]

I'm sorry guys I wasn't paying attention, I was downloading. What was the question?The question was Whats your name, physical address, the number of songs you have downloaded, and where from. Don't worry its just a survey.

[timNem]

Man, we have some absolute hillarious posters here, some of you think up the best shit that was funny!
crimsonnation713 is a hoot. He is the guy who threw the brick through Curry's window...from the inside. Ask him sometime what he was doing inside Curry's office. :ph34r:

[bbqit]

I agree with that 100 percent brother I have sooooo many bought cd's I deserve a few ''free bee's''

I have over 1200 CDs and i think I have done my fair share in supporting the Record Industry. They can take my downloaded tunes when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers :laugh:










I see this has turned into how illegal downloading cds should be. This is not the only industry doing things like this. In my business there is a product I have to have that one company bought 99% of all the quality, lets say widgets, raised the price 1825% (yes 1825%) and proceeded to have it, by using the courtroom, remain their property after I bought it. I may use what I bought, I can not store what I bought (if taken care of it is basically non perishable) and I can not ever use it again after a three month period I bought it. I must register each with that company as I buy it and must prove I destroyed what I didn't use. If I don't I will be out of business and broke cause they will sue and win. Ya better stick to what the courts say do cause these companies don't care if grandma is to blame, a college student is to blame or santa claus is to blame. They will sue to the fullest extent of the law and will be determined to bury you, your name and anything else they can get their hands on.



msu yes i was reaching just to get a rise out of somebody from ms state. you answered it. i got what i wanted.

[Bburton86]

I see this has turned into how illegal downloading cds should be. This is not the only industry doing things like this. In my business there is a product I have to have that one company bought 99% of all the quality, lets say widgets, raised the price 1825% (yes 1825%) and proceeded to have it, by using the courtroom, remain their property after I bought it. I may use what I bought, I can not store what I bought (if taken care of it is basically non perishable) and I can not ever use it again after a three month period I bought it. I must register each with that company as I buy it and must prove I destroyed what I didn't use. If I don't I will be out of business and broke cause they will sue and win. Ya better stick to what the courts say do cause these companies don't care if grandma is to blame, a college student is to blame or santa claus is to blame. They will sue to the fullest extent of the law and will be determined to bury you, your name and anything else they can get their hands on.



msu yes i was reaching just to get a rise out of somebody from ms state. you answered it. i got what i wanted.



But the defendants are winning in these cases though. All people have to do is fight it. When they send you that letter they are only trying to scare you and to get a quick 1500 out of it. They know they don't have enough evidence to get a conviction in a court so they always settle out if it ever goes to court.

[Cianne]

It's still better probably to settle rather than fight it. It's probably 50/50 on people beating them right now and not only are you going to have to pay your own attorney's fees if you lose (because I doubt the EFF or other pro bono organization is going to take up your cause) but you may have to pay their attorney's fees on top of the statutory damages which, while foreign to us crazy southerners, may be upwards of $1,000/hr.

[Bburton86]

I guess for average joe who doesn't really care it's probably better to settle. I personally would want to fight.

[crimsonnation713]

crimsonnation713 is a hoot. He is the guy who threw the brick through Curry's window...from the inside. Ask him sometime what he was doing inside Curry's office. :ph34r:

I plead the 5th....and 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th.:ph34r:

And remind me NEVER to hire you as a lawyer timmy.

[timNem]

I plead the 5th....and 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th.:ph34r:

And remind me NEVER to hire you as a lawyer timmy.
that was a reminder :D