Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$1.5 million ruling for 24 downloads
upi ^ | Nov. 5, 2010

Posted on 11/05/2010 9:27:54 PM PDT by JoeProBono

MINNEAPOLIS, - A Minnesota mother was ordered by a jury to pay $1.5 million to the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay the sum, $62,500 for each illegally downloaded song, by a Minneapolis court after two previous convictions were thrown out on appeal, the New York Daily News reported Friday.

Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $222,000 following a 2007 trial but the decision was declared a mistrial upon appeal.

She was next ordered to pay $1.92 million in a June 2009 trial, but the judge lowered the amount to $54,000. The RIAA offered to settle for $25 million, but Thomas-Rasset instead appealed the decision and ended up on trial a third time.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Computers/Internet; Music/Entertainment
KEYWORDS: intellectualproperty; riaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last


1 posted on 11/05/2010 9:27:57 PM PDT by JoeProBono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

Good luck collecting $.50 from her....


2 posted on 11/05/2010 9:31:26 PM PDT by freebilly (No wonder the left has a boner for Obama. There's CIALIS in soCIALISt....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

I’m not for illegal downloads, but it’s this kind of ridiculous overreach that is damaging, not downloading 24 songs. Let the punishment fit the crime, huh?

That we have this kind of “justice” when we blithely allow illegal aliens to invade the country and the system just shrugs says so much about the state we’re in.


3 posted on 11/05/2010 9:31:48 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

I think this is something that the new GOP congress should take a look at. I know stealing is against law and I do not need a lecture on copyrights. However, this unreasonable.


4 posted on 11/05/2010 9:32:04 PM PDT by Perdogg (What Would Aqua Buddha do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

The copyright laws are ridiculous. The length of time for an artist, writer, or composer to collect royalties should be the same length of time that inventors have for a patent: 17 years.

After that, anyone can own the song.


5 posted on 11/05/2010 9:32:55 PM PDT by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

WTF was the jury thinking?

Automatons.


6 posted on 11/05/2010 9:33:04 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Exactly, damage awards ought to have some relationship to actual damages.


7 posted on 11/05/2010 9:36:21 PM PDT by JLS (Democrats: People who won't even let you enjoy an unseasonably warm winter day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler

8 posted on 11/05/2010 9:38:05 PM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Visualize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Right. How about giving that judgement to the site where she got the songs, not to a poor Mom who is just trying to save a buck.


9 posted on 11/05/2010 9:41:26 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler

The RIAA just had to make an example of her and did it beautifully. Will this stop downloads? NO.


10 posted on 11/05/2010 9:41:38 PM PDT by max americana (Hoax and Chains, Dopeychangey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

Aren’t legal downloads pretty ceap these days? Isn’t price $0.99 per track these days?


11 posted on 11/05/2010 9:42:35 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler

It is like that. And I am sure she wasn’t downloading 17 year old songs!


12 posted on 11/05/2010 9:42:40 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

How about a lecture on smaller government and the ills of a nanny state?


13 posted on 11/05/2010 9:43:32 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

ceap = cheap


14 posted on 11/05/2010 9:43:36 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

I was thinking the same thing! Where did they get this jury? I know that every single one of them has gotten a movie or song illegally at some point in their lives! I can not believe they would do this to another person!


15 posted on 11/05/2010 9:45:14 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout

Especially since sites have been shut down over this in the past. It’s like suing a user and leaving the drug dealer on the street. I mean, 24 songs? How many musicians is she putting out on the street?


16 posted on 11/05/2010 9:47:10 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Yep they are. Exactly what I use to pay for a top ten 45 record in 1973!


17 posted on 11/05/2010 9:47:10 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

The judgment is ridiculous, but it isn’t the downloading, it’s the uploading. She made the songs available for any number of other people to download from her computer.

News stories always say people were clipped for downloading, but it’s always for having a shared folder people could download copyrighted material from.


18 posted on 11/05/2010 9:48:07 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tuckrdout
I know that every single one of them has gotten a movie or song illegally at some point in their lives!

HA! Awesome point.

I'd ask the members of the jury, "How many of you have not purchased a CD but had a friend burn you a copy?"

19 posted on 11/05/2010 9:49:27 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

I figured that. I asked that question because it seems a bit ridiculous these days to download illegally when tracks are fairly cheap from legal sources.


20 posted on 11/05/2010 9:52:52 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Aren’t legal downloads pretty ceap these days? Isn’t price $0.99 per track these days?

You can stream pretty much any song you want to hear off of youtube. People post links to favorite songs on this forum all the time. Somehow that's legal and acceptable. Download a song from a file-sharing site however and you're an arch criminal.

21 posted on 11/05/2010 9:53:53 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

That reminds me of people who used to make tapes of songs aired on the radio.


22 posted on 11/05/2010 9:55:43 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
That reminds me of people who used to make tapes of songs aired on the radio.

Lock me up!

My friends and I used to tape each other's LPs onto cassettes as well back in the 80s. Doesn't make it right but we did it anyways.

In retrospect, I guess I stole food from the mouths of Bon Jovi's children.

23 posted on 11/05/2010 10:03:12 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I worked with a guy who told stories of his childhood when used set-up a tape recorder next the radio and recording songs.


24 posted on 11/05/2010 10:05:48 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
I worked with a guy who told stories of his childhood when used set-up a tape recorder next the radio and recording songs.

Yep! Some of my best mixed tapes were recorded straight from the radio, back when the DJs used to talk through the first 20 seconds of the song in a deliberate effort to discourage this.

25 posted on 11/05/2010 10:09:24 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

LP 2 CD, one of the many audio conversion products offered by Ion Audio, lets you convert your vinyl records directly onto a CD or onto your Mac.


26 posted on 11/05/2010 10:10:15 PM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Visualize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I never made a copy of aired music (I didn’t like the crappy sound quality with the electronic noise). However, I did make the occasional copy of cassette albums that I really liked. These were “listening copies” that I could play over and over again while keeping my purchased album in good order (this was when I was a kid and bought tapes with hard-earned money and didn’t want to trash my albums).


27 posted on 11/05/2010 10:15:43 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NorthWoody; Manic_Episode; mikethevike; coder2; AmericanChef; Reaganesque; ER Doc; lesser_satan; ...

WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!

143 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!

FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!


28 posted on 11/05/2010 10:16:05 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

I would use that for some of my rare and long-out of production vinyl (stuff that just can’t be found on CD).


29 posted on 11/05/2010 10:17:56 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
I worked with a guy who told stories of his childhood when used set-up a tape recorder next the radio and recording songs.

Yeah, we used to do that with our reel to reel recorders in the mid '60s by holding a mic up to the radio speaker.

30 posted on 11/05/2010 10:18:26 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

I knew one person with enough savvy to rig a cable with a headphone jack at one end and a microphone jack at the other end...


31 posted on 11/05/2010 10:21:56 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

One shyster lawyer can steal all you assets for copying a couple of songs?


32 posted on 11/05/2010 11:04:28 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
I knew one person with enough savvy to rig a cable with a headphone jack at one end and a microphone jack at the other end...

I had almost forgotten, but I helped my Dad do the same thing, except he hooked up his reel to reel to the TV set to record some of live broadcasts that weekend when President Kennedy was killed in 1963. I still have those tapes out in my garage somewhere...

33 posted on 11/05/2010 11:06:39 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

Wow! Make digital copies of those because those are an historical record!


34 posted on 11/05/2010 11:09:42 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Yeah I think I will. Luckily, I have access to high tech digital equipment and reel to reel tape decks.

P.S. My Dad was Army Air Corps 1942 to 1945.


35 posted on 11/05/2010 11:43:49 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono
The constitution is quiet clear: Patents are supposed to be for useful things and creations, and be only for a limited time. I can not imagine any of the founding fathers conceived of patents lasting for more than a few years, much less multiple generations.

Beyond, the concept that the courts can seize such vast assets and award them to another is a prime example of cruel and unusual punishment. Again, trying to find some example from the time of the founding fathers where a court had the ability to seize not just one lifetime's accumulation of income, but multiple generations, is beyond any reality.

The price today to download legally 25 songs is under $25, or for a $15 fee, you have unlimited access to vast libraries of media. I'm not a supporter of theft, so I'm completely against the RIAA, those in Congress who violated the constitution in awarding these extravagant protections, and the courts overreaching their charge.

Because the biggest theft of all is being committed by the RIAA.

There's a singular solution which would fix all these problems. Limit copyright for ethereal creations and ideas to a five year protected period. The moment that's passed, you'll see the industry flock to making media access affordable, easy and an end to these endless John and Jane Doe lawsuits.

36 posted on 11/06/2010 12:10:01 AM PDT by kingu (Favorite Sticker: Lost hope, and Obama took my change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
The copyright laws are ridiculous. The length of time for an artist, writer, or composer to collect royalties should be the same length of time that inventors have for a patent: 17 years. After that, anyone can own the song.

While this is a ridiculous case, as a writer who isn't famous or anything but who has his works protected by copyright, I can only say...

You will get my royalties when you pry my cold, dead fingers from them.

Why one thinks they have the right to something I (or any other person who actually creates) made, I have no idea. Seems to be the answer always comes down to, "Because I really want it."

37 posted on 11/06/2010 12:45:41 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
The judgment is ridiculous, but it isn’t the downloading, it’s the uploading. She made the songs available for any number of other people to download from her computer. News stories always say people were clipped for downloading, but it’s always for having a shared folder people could download copyrighted material from.

Then either every other person who did this on the site should be sued, or the site owners should be the only ones sued. IMHO. It's like suing someone for distributing burned CD copies who met her customers at a place called Burned CD Copy Exchange.

38 posted on 11/06/2010 12:48:43 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

I have one like the one in the picture. I bought 2000+ albums over the years, I’ll be damned if I’m buying them again! (Many of which aren’t on CD anyway.)


39 posted on 11/06/2010 12:50:36 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
That reminds me of people who used to make tapes of songs aired on the radio. Lock me up!

If this were prosecuted according to the frequency of the criminal's actions, I'd be the first American executed for taping stuff off the radio.

40 posted on 11/06/2010 12:52:02 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JoeProBono

I dont get this.. you can go on youtube and listen to any song on the planet and pay nothing.. whats the difference between doing that and downloading?
I dont even understand how they even come up with that large of a fine.. for 24 songs? They probably wont get a dime from her and they probably spend more money pursuing these lawsuits and developping new ideas to combat illegal downloading than they would ever save from people not downloading.. Kids these days are much smarter than these computer security companies that combat piracy, they hack their software, which they probably spent millions of dollars creating, in a matter of minutes.


41 posted on 11/06/2010 2:26:59 AM PDT by hannibaal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Why one thinks they have the right to something I (or any other person who actually creates) made, I have no idea. Seems to be the answer always comes down to, "Because I really want it."

I'm an arch-conservative who doesn't own any patents (except indirectly, through my stock portfolio). But, by the same token, I've never violated any copyright laws.

Having said that, I think that it is legitimate to distinguish between material and immaterial property.

One's ownership of something is defined partly by the mere fact that one has stumbled across and/or found a previously ownerless object (think "pioneers") and "taken possession" of it, or has created something de novo (that "something" can be a material object like an iPod or an oceanliner, or something immaterial like a poem, a song, a novel, or an industrial process).

In the case of material goods, besides keeping paperwork (a "pink slip" to an automobile or a deed to land), one can also constantly re-assert one's ownership by maintaining physical possession (think "inhabiting land and defending it, if need be, with the force of arms") - but in the case of immaterial goods, unless one keeps them a secret (which may defeat their purpose - e.g., with music), as soon as they become disseminated, i.e., known to others, one can establish ownership only by referring to the paperwork (e.g., patent documents).

In regards to material things, the Law wisely limits ownership to things which one can actually control and maintain possession of (including even borderline cases like bees). In other words, property rights are limited to those things which one can, in actual practice, keep and defend. Thus, one cannot claim ownership of the air one exhales since it isn't practically possible to keep track of or corral the individual molecules of air. As soon as you bottle it in compressed air tanks, however, you can claim ownership.

In the case of intellectual property rights (some of which protect pretty piddling "inventions" like the use of a "clockface" or "hourglass" or "steaming cup of coffee" icon for the concept of "Be patient!" in computer program interfaces), the issue is even more complex since the "good" can be replicated trillions of times at virtually no cost (in the case of novels, at least, it used to be that they were bound to physical objects - i.e., books - which hampered unlimited reproduction, though bootleggers throve by printing on substandard paper).

I'm not really staking out a position in this debate except to say that, with the innovation of a distribution network like the Internet and the ability to reproduce "goods" even trillions of times at almost no cost, it may be necessary to re-think the concept of "private property" - at least with respect to intellectual property rights.

Regards,

42 posted on 11/06/2010 3:24:00 AM PDT by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

I have never produced anything worthy of patent or copyright protection. I doubt that I ever will. But I DO listen to, read and watch material that others have produced, I am of the opinion that their efforts should not go unrewarded. One can argue about how long protection of these works ought to last—which should be a balance of a fair return on an inventor’s efforts and the “right” of the public to use that which has been made public.

Why do we buy/download/steal/borrow books and CDs? Is it not because we think they have value to us as entertainment or information? I have read arguments on threads such as these that the person who invents or creates loses nothing if his work is copied without attribution or payment. I see a certain logic there. But the other side of this argument is that the person who does the copying gets something he values without paying anything for it, which most conservatives (like myself) ought to think is unfair.

The only reason this woman downloaded the songs was because she found value in them, either because she wanted to hear them herself (and arguably lacked the talent to create music that she wanted to listen to) or thought others would want to listen to them (if she made them available for others to download from her). She got (before the judgment was entered) something for nothing. Was that fair or right?

From the inventor/songwriter’s perspective, he has invested time and effort, or has given from a fruitful and talented mind, something that belonged to him, and something that did not exist before he created it. The results of that effort/talent should not be taken from him to be freely used by others who made no effort to create it.

The mechanisms and formulas for determing how to fairly compensate people who create can be argued, but I don’t see how the concept of allowing someone to benefit from the fruits of his labors without having others treat his work as their own property can be countenanced by anyone, and especially conservatives, who value the rights of the individual.


43 posted on 11/06/2010 4:11:04 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
The idiots in the Music Industry are like the idiots who produced “Refer Madness”. They are so over the top average people will never take music piracy seriously. By going to such an extreme they will only piss off a bunch of young techies whose next move will likely to put every piece of music out there on some torrent server they set up in Russia or some other place who will not pay the least attention to letters or the crying of the DCMA folks..

W

44 posted on 11/06/2010 4:25:43 AM PDT by WLR (Remember 911 Remember 91 Iran delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
I worked with a guy who told stories of his childhood when used set-up a tape recorder next the radio and recording songs.

Was that me?
45 posted on 11/06/2010 4:34:14 AM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
But the other side of this argument is that the person who does the copying gets something he values without paying anything for it, which most conservatives (like myself) ought to think is unfair.

One should further differentiate between 1) someone who copies something for his own, personal enjoyment and entertainment, and 2) someone who copies something with the intention of disseminating it for personal gain (including making it available to others free of charge, but, e.g., while collecting advertising fees, increasing the traffic of his site, or otherwise obtaining a monetary benefit). The Law also views denying someone else their legitimate profits as equivalent to making a profit, oneself.

While both "1" and "2" are examples of Copyright Infringement and/or Theft of Intellectual Property, I don't believe that Law Enforcement is currently prosecuting people for case "1" - but that is only for reasons of practicality.

Regards,

46 posted on 11/06/2010 4:55:35 AM PDT by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Thanks for such an interesting post.

I think about these issues on a daily basis. I completely understand what you’re saying, but to bottom-line it, when it comes to the examples you site, there is such a significant difference between the clockface design you’re talking about and a novel that is the transcription of an author’s created-from-scratch interior world that we’re talking about two completely different topics, really.

One has to define the difference you touch on here. The difference between the situation I responded to and the woman in this case is simply this: This woman did not make any claims that watered-down the copyright-holder’s claim to first-authorship. She did not take the songs and put her name on them, claiming she sang them. By NOT suing this one woman, the copyright holders would not have been hurting their own protection of their copyrighted material.

It’s a long, complex discussion, but I have strong feelings about this. There is aworld of difference between allowing others to build on the innovations of, say, the makers of a new technology, but just as no one can now say “I’M now the creator of the Mac or ipod because it’s been X number of years” (though they can build on the technology), no one has the right to say, “Sorry, DW, that you wrote that book which I had nothing to do with—it’s MINE now.” That’s a world of difference from liking something someone wrote and then building on it.


47 posted on 11/06/2010 4:56:06 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ( Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Mm-yummy! --E. Cartman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WLR

Wasn’t it Disney that pushed Congress to change the laws a few years back, to protect their classic movies?


48 posted on 11/06/2010 5:10:44 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Wasn’t it the RIAA who sued a mom & pop antique store because they played a radio?

They really do reach.


49 posted on 11/06/2010 5:33:56 AM PDT by gnickgnack2 (QUESTION obama's AUTHORITY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Thanks to you, too, Darkwolf377!

By pointing out the quantitative difference between, e.g., a novel and, e.g., a "clockface" icon - both of which are fully patentable/copyrightable and both of which enjoy the full protection of Intellectual Property Rights - you bring up an additional, interesting issue.

An "invention" can consist of just a single "innovation" - e.g., "when an e-mail arrives in the in-box, an electronic tone is emitted, signalling to the user its arrival" - while, e.g., a novel typically represents/embodies tens of thousands of individual artistic choices. Yet both are equally protected.

Also, we can recognize the similarity of an original song and a "rip-off" only because the human brain is "hardwired" to do so - just as we are hardwired to recognize human faces (even when they aren't really there, for example: in photographs of the surface of Mars). A judge being asked to decide in a plagiarism suit doesn't rely on word-counts, he/she makes a subjective judgement - but one which we, as humans who are hardwired to compare and correlate narratives, are eminently qualified to make.

This problem (Internet music downloads) has been around for approx. 15 years, and yet I think that we are still far from reaching a (new) consensus on what constitutes "Fair Use," what are commensurate penalties, and what can be practicably enforced.

Regards,

50 posted on 11/06/2010 5:40:20 AM PDT by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson