Mockingbird

1inxs

Did you read this in the article?
The fine awarded against a Minnesota woman is absolutely absurd. I could see them fining someone equal to the value lost or a fine based on a value verses theft. But these jurists are moron's.

Jay

He downloaded and distributed. Offering those files over the internet for everyone to download and redistribute does cost the record industry.

It does seem a bit excessive though. It's not cheap to take a case like this to court. Legal teams and experts cost a lot of money.

bicker

Well, of course, everyone does. However, there are different perspectives regarding what that means. In a digital world, "getting with the times" means protecting digital assets with copy protection. Otherwise, you're basically subjecting your assets to the whims of the lowest-common denominator in society. Alternatively, "getting with the times" means no longer producing content -- essentially going out of the business, because technology has made it such that there is no longer any money to be made. I'm sure you can see how that would be the last choice option.

With music, that's not really a big deal. The production of music is cheap enough that failure of the industry isn't going to have much impact. You mentioned movies, though. There, money matters much more. And if assets cannot be sufficiently protected, you'll simply see only the cheap-o suppliers continuing to operate. Quality will be history.

Jay hit the nail on the head:There was no concern about people doing that back in the analog age, because each copy resulted in sufficient degradation that the illegal distribution was not a significant competitor for the legal copies.

Not in context: If people just lose what they made from the enterprise, then losing a case like this becomes simply a managed risk of doing business. Punitive fines like this make committing such crimes something that all but the most transgressive of people would avoid.

Aaron62

I say it's way too much. RIAA probably overspends with each court case knowing that if they win, their costs will be covered. It really is a David vs. Goliath situation here but one thing kind of struck me in the story:

I'm not sure if they offered the guy in this case that deal, but if they did, he clearly should have taken it.

Jay

Back in the analog age, copying and distribution of cassette tapes was probably limited to local flea markets. It's a whole different ball game these days with the internet and file swapping. point, click, download, distribute. repeat.

Mockingbird

thats very true Jay.

To "get with the times" recording companies have to be aware of the technology available and the limitations it poses to them as a business. If you know as a business your intellectual property can be copied and shared easily you would think you would run to R&D to find ways to prevent it. But instead what seems to be happening is a trend towards over zealous fines instead. If you can't make it in sales make it in punitive damages?

Funny the software industry managed to stem the flow of pirate copies. Sure theres ways still, but definitly not to the point that music media experiences. And I have to ask why is that?

bicker

I think you're missing some critically important information about the nature of copy protection, of business, and of the law:

Any lock you can make can be broken. Also: The stronger lock you make, the more expensive it is to provide access, and so you're adding cost without adding any value that would incentivize consumers to pay more. Also: The objective of business is to maximize profit, so when choosing among the available methods of asserting property rights, the only responsible choice would be to employ whatever is the most cost-efficient mechanism, even if that is lawsuits with heavy punitive damages.

As a software developer, that comes as a big surprise to me. When did that happen, and why wasn't it reported in the media.