RIAA Lawyers: "Give Us $75 Trillion" Judge: "Absurd"

[mrjarrell]

Every so often a judge gets it right and speaks the truth. In this case the lawyers for RIAA want somewhere between $400 Billion and $75 Trillion from Limewire. They're doing more to destroy IP than all the pirates on the planet.

Manhattan Federal Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for $75 Trillion in Damages 'Absurd' in Lime Wire Copyright Case

 

[deadeye]

RIAA is just out of control. Hopefully these outrageous demands will bite them back.

 

[dross]

"Limewire, please produce a payment in the amount of five times the U.S. GDP. Also, the Moon, and one half of the stars."

If I ever have to sue someone, I'm going to sue them for 75 Trillion. 'Cause, you know, if you even settled for like 1% of that it would be okay money.

 

[lashicoN]

The government is going to have to bail out Limewire.

 

[hornadylnl]

Just how many of these "stolen" songs would have been purchased had their been zero access to pirated music?

 

[jedi]

The government is going to have to bail out Limewire.

Oh snap! ROFL!!!

I don't think we can afford to bail them out.

 

[Dargasonus]

Oh snap! ROFL!!!

I don't think we can afford to bail them out.

Someone needs to bail out our government before they can bail out anyone else

 

[dross]

Someone needs to bail out our government before they can bail out anyone else

Perhaps Limewire should bail out the government.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

Just how many of these "stolen" songs would have been purchased had their been zero access to pirated music?

So you can "steal" a Lexus, as long as you wouldn't have paid for it?

The RIAA is over the top crazy, but Napster, Limewire, and all of the others are wrong as well as everyone that downloads.

I know I'm going to be in the minority on this and probably catch some flack. But I don't understand how people think that new technology all of a sudden entitles them to get all of their music and movies for free.

Yes, I'm sure people download some things that they wouldn't buy anyway. I'll go even further. I'm sure some people have downloaded something that exposed them to a new artist and then actually paid for future offerings. Neither of those is justification.

The only legitimate argument I've heard had to do with formats. I'm a pretty big Jackson Browne fan and have owned several of his recordings on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and now CD (yes, I'm old). Having to replace some favorites because the industry advanced kind of bites. But even then it's not justification.

I'll get off the soap box now. I don't really feel that strongly about it one way or the other, but it does surprise me how many people don't view it as theft at all simply because the technology has changed and made making perfect copies so easy.

 

[INGunGuy]

Here is the argument that I have. Ok, so I have purchased a CD. What does that give me, that give me the RIGHT to listen to that music on that one particular medium. I can not copy that song and give it to my friend. I can play it for him or her to listen to as long as I am not making a profit off of playing that song. So I have that CD and something happens to it, the damn thing gets a scratch and will no longer play. Ok, since I have purchased the RIGHTS to listen to that song, I should be able to make a archival copy of that CD for my own personal use. Now, because I save a copy of that CD on my computers hard drive then transfer it to my iPad, am I breaking the law? I still have the RIGHT to listen to that music so as I am only listening to it on ONE device at a time and not copying if for people to make a copy of. So if I had a CD that was scratched and I did NOT make a backup copy, I should be in the clear to download that particular piece of music again because I have still paid for the RIGHT to listen to that music.

Just my thoughts...

INGunGuy

 

[Goodcat]

Just how many of these "stolen" songs would have been purchased had their been zero access to pirated music?

Perhaps less than 0.0001%. Those who pirate a lot of music generally get a collection 10,000x larger than their playlist. I'm leaving my personal opinions out of this.

 

[slackerisme]

My favorite argument is "If I bought a case of beer and gave one to my friend, am I breaking the law?" I always laugh....none of my friends would ever give away beer.

If you are using a file transfer service, you deserve what you get. Usenet FTW!

 

[.40caltrucker]

So you can "steal" a Lexus, as long as you wouldn't have paid for it?

The RIAA is over the top crazy, but Napster, Limewire, and all of the others are wrong as well as everyone that downloads.

I know I'm going to be in the minority on this and probably catch some flack. But I don't understand how people think that new technology all of a sudden entitles them to get all of their music and movies for free.

Yes, I'm sure people download some things that they wouldn't buy anyway. I'll go even further. I'm sure some people have downloaded something that exposed them to a new artist and then actually paid for future offerings. Neither of those is justification.

The only legitimate argument I've heard had to do with formats. I'm a pretty big Jackson Browne fan and have owned several of his recordings on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, and now CD (yes, I'm old). Having to replace some favorites because the industry advanced kind of bites. But even then it's not justification.

I'll get off the soap box now. I don't really feel that strongly about it one way or the other, but it does surprise me how many people don't view it as theft at all simply because the technology has changed and made making perfect copies so easy.

I used to download a lot of songs off lime wire before the law suites started. Was it wrong? Before I had internet I copied songs on tape off the radio, I had hundreds of tapes loaded with songs. How is it really any different, I wouldn't have bought them either way. I own 2 store bought cds that were bought for me. They haven't lost any money by me downloading free something I wouldn't have bought.

I also don't buy any movies until I stream them free online. I don't download them. If I like it I'll buy the DVD or go to the movies and watch it in better quality. Since so many movies are complete crap anymore I fell justified in watching them before I spend money on them. They will have great previews but the movie it's self will suck like Cloverfield and Paranormal Activity. Previews actual movie. Saved my self $30 by watching first.

 

[tv1217]

Picture of the lawyer:

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Just how many of these "stolen" songs would have been purchased had their been zero access to pirated music?

Most thieves think that stealing is justified, as long as the property they are stealing belongs to someone else and they are doing the stealing.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

Before I had internet I copied songs on tape off the radio, I had hundreds of tapes loaded with songs. How is it really any different, I wouldn't have bought them either way.

The main difference is quality. When you taped (read analog recording off of air waves), you had an inferior product to the original. Also, you could only record in real time (i.e, it took you 3 full minutes to record a 3 minute song). You didn't turn around and make that tape available to hundreds of others for free. Even if you did, they also would have to "record" it in real time. The investment in time just wasn't worth it for the quality of recording you could get.

Now, someone can buy a CD, create a digital copy in seconds, that digital copy is every bit as good as the original, connect to the internet, make that digital copy available to hundreds of others who can download that digital copy in a matter of seconds. High quality, no time or $$$ invested.

Is that enough of a difference?

 

[steveh_131]

So you can "steal" a Lexus, as long as you wouldn't have paid for it?

Are you really comparing stealing "intellectual property" with stealing actual, physical property?

If you steal a lexus, the owner no longer has that lexus. If you download a song, the owner still has their song.

They are not comparable.

Most thieves think that stealing is justified, as long as the property they are stealing belongs to someone else and they are doing the stealing.

See above.

Is that enough of a difference?

No, it's not enough of a difference. This debate is based on the concept that any given person should have to pay the creator to listen to or watch their creation. It's about the information, not about the quality.

So if you morally believe this, then you have to morally be against taping songs off the radio. If you believe I shouldn't be allowed to send an MP3 to someone over the internet, then you also have to believe that you shouldn't be allowed to let your friend listen to your CD in your car.

My biggest issue with this debate is the complete lack of consistency by anyone claiming that widely distributed intellectual property can be stolen in a moral sense.

 

[Plinker]

Picture of the lawyer:

"One hundred bajillion dollars..."

 

[lashicoN]

So you can "steal" a Lexus, as long as you wouldn't have paid for it?

I'll get off the soap box now. I don't really feel that strongly about it one way or the other, but it does surprise me how many people don't view it as theft at all simply because the technology has changed and made making perfect copies so easy.

Yes, you can "steal" a Lexus if someone goes out and buys one, scans it, uploads that Lexus on a PTP network, and gives everyone else permission to download a copy of that person's Lexus that they bought and paid for.

It isn't theft if you have permission from the owner. I'm of the mind that when you purchase something, it's yours. If you don't want people to use or change your product, then don't put it out. I believe if you purchase a shotgun, it's yours, you should be able to cut YOUR barrel down to whatever length YOU wish, since it's your product that you paid for with your money from your job. Just because someone creates something, doesn't mean they own everything that comes of it. Ask George Lucas about his failed lawsuit against Wicked Lasers.

Most thieves think that stealing is justified, as long as the property they are stealing belongs to someone else and they are doing the stealing.

Sure, but this isn't stealing, because you didn't steal anything. If your friend buys you a CD for your birthday and you accept it for free, did you steal it? You didn't give the record company any money from your pocket.

If you purchase an apple, can you extract the seeds, plant them, grow apple trees, and sell those apples? Do they belong to you or do they belong to the person who sold you the original apple?

 

[dross]

Are you really comparing stealing "intellectual property" with stealing actual, physical property?

If you steal a lexus, the owner no longer has that lexus. If you download a song, the owner still has their song.

They are not comparable.

How do you propose the creator of intellectual property be paid?