Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

$616.57 Three Strikes Verdict Cost RIANZ $250,000

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the gotta-spend-money-to-make-money! dept.

Piracy 131

Dangerous_Minds writes "On Wednesday, we discussed news that RIANZ convicted its first file-sharer under the New Zealand three strikes law. While the fine totaled $616.57, a New Zealand Herald report points out that in order to get that fine, RIANZ had to spend $250,000. Freezenet makes an interesting point that HADOPI (France's version of the three strikes law) faced similar problems when the Socialist party commented that 12 million euros was a lot of money to pay 60 agents to send out 1 million e-mails. The question raised is whether or not this money pit trend will continue when the Copyright Alert System starts processing strike notices in the United States."

cancel ×

131 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Simple solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761547)

Just increase the fine!

Reminds me of a joke with the punchline: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762509)

"Plitty soon, no more Japanese!"

Heads on pikes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761607)

The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA. Every head publicly displayed on a pike serves a purpose: "pour encourager les autres". It's an advertising expense. Pay up, or this could happen to you, too.

Re:Heads on pikes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761699)

But is it? What if someone set up a fund? Every $1 you contribute costs them roughly $400. Would you contribute a buck to legally cost the RIAA/MPAA a real $400, not a fake imaginary potential $400?

Then honeypot them with lots of tiny 1-2 file shares that will result in similar very tiny payouts. At that rate they will be bankrupt or give up within a year.

IANAL (5, Funny)

srussia (884021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761767)

But is it? What if someone set up a fund? Every $1 you contribute costs them roughly $400

I am not a lawyer, but I now feel a strange urge to become one.

Re:Heads on pikes (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761919)

No this costs the taxpayer $400.

If these companies were paying for it your idea would be brilliant.

Re:Heads on pikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762147)

Also, you'd have to find people willing to spend $600 someodd of their own money, and the only thing you immediately, directly get out of it is to be dragged through the hell of the court system.

Not going to be a whole lot of people signing up for that one.

Re:Heads on pikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764969)

The dollar donations are to pay the fines and costs of the court appearences. I suspect there would be plenty of volunteers.

-1, Wrong (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762439)

eh? even the fucking summary says says "RIANZ [wikipedia.org] had to spend" not "the taxpayer had to spend" .. and if you rfta the first damn line:

The local body representing big record labels claims to have spent around $250,000 chasing alleged music pirates

then later:

Rianz says it has sent out around 6000 notices to alleged pirates, for which the music industry body must pay a $25 fee each for internet companies to send on to their customers.

that's $150k right there, plus $100k to employ people to hunt/send stuff and lawyers is hardly unreasonable .. how the hell is this "insightful" when it's contradicted by the summary

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762381)

Good luck with that.

The problem with that theory is it requires enough willing participants to carry out. And the thing is, believe it or not, if enough people get dinged for this, however much it costs the organizations to do it, then that fine is genuinely going to act as a discouraging factor, reducing the number of potentially willing participants in your proposed scheme.

Tell you what though... if somebody does manage to pull off what you describe, I'll certainly admit to being wrong. That doesn't change what I currently expect the outcome to be, however.

Re:Heads on pikes (2)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762945)

Good luck with that.

The problem with that theory is it requires enough willing participants to carry out. And the thing is, believe it or not, if enough people get dinged for this, however much it costs the organizations to do it, then that fine is genuinely going to act as a discouraging factor, reducing the number of potentially willing participants in your proposed scheme.

Tell you what though... if somebody does manage to pull off what you describe, I'll certainly admit to being wrong. That doesn't change what I currently expect the outcome to be, however.

Huh? What do you think the $1 collection is for?

I interpreted it as contributing to a fund that is used to pay the fines of those poor souls caught in this predicament, as long as they contested the charges and dragged it out enough to make it unprofitable for the claimants. He mentions setting up honeypots, but those wouldn't necessarily have to be tied to different people as long as each honeypot is a separate instance...it just increases the chances to get the RIAA/MPAA to 'bite' on a situation that will maximize their losses. That part is run by volunteers, the rest goes to regular people who step up and fight back, if their fight is unsuccessful.

I'd contribute to something like that.

Re:Heads on pikes (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763905)

Like I said.... good luck with that.

What basis do you have for believing that such a fund could realistically hope to cover the costs for enough cases that it might bankrupt those companies?

And even by offering to cover such costs in advance, it might be argued (they do have good lawyers, after all) that the person infringing on copyright with advance knowledge that the fine they could expect to pay has been given economic incentive to do so (even if not a monetarily profitable one), elevating it to the level of commercial infringement, where the damages will be orders of magnitude higher. Oh, and the organizers of the fund could end up being liable for deliberate contributory infringement as well, since they would have already admitted that they intended to pay such fines.

So.... tell me. How many volunteers do you think you are liable to get, that are willing to take the financial risks involved with financially supporting copyright infringers?

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764237)

Like I said.... good luck with that.

What basis do you have for believing that such a fund could realistically hope to cover the costs for enough cases that it might bankrupt those companies?

And even by offering to cover such costs in advance, it might be argued (they do have good lawyers, after all) that the person infringing on copyright with advance knowledge that the fine they could expect to pay has been given economic incentive to do so (even if not a monetarily profitable one), elevating it to the level of commercial infringement, where the damages will be orders of magnitude higher. Oh, and the organizers of the fund could end up being liable for deliberate contributory infringement as well, since they would have already admitted that they intended to pay such fines.

So.... tell me. How many volunteers do you think you are liable to get, that are willing to take the financial risks involved with financially supporting copyright infringers?

Really? Is this what happens when people choose legal aide lawyers, say? I know, I know, this is civil, not criminal law...but to my mind this is basically equivalent to a croud-funded class action lawsuit, only one where the claimant chooses how many people are participating in it. After all, the 'damages' they want to claim are criminal...but yes, IANAL. There may very well be no airtight legal way to set something like this up. That's a real shame.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764357)

Were you, perhaps, unaware that copyright infringement actually *IS* a crime?

Re:Heads on pikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764667)

I would gleefully contribute $100 a month if I knew if would cost the RIAA/MPAA $40,000 a month. I am liking this fund/honeypot idea.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765151)

It wouldn't work. You'd be contributing $40,000 a month to cost them $4,000 at most.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765137)

No, because the tribunal will see that as willful infringement and will not be inclined to hand out such tiny payments. In fact, you'd probably end up being hit with something closer to the statutory $15,000 maximum.

Re:Heads on pikes (2)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761939)

Except that $600 is not exactly head on a pike. Sure some of the US verdicts were insane, and could be used to intimidate people, even if they weren't worth it from a purely financial standpoint. But so much work for a measly 600 bucks?

Re:Heads on pikes (2)

click2005 (921437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763005)

$600 for 3 songs is still a big fine.

Re:Heads on pikes (2)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762177)

not true even remotely.

While MAFIAA may be incredibly stupid, don't think their finance people are as stupid. It's not hard for them to figure out if it's not worth the money.

Re:Heads on pikes (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762797)

"While MAFIAA may be incredibly stupid, don't think their finance people are as stupid. It's not hard for them to figure out if it's not worth the money."

Exactly. When numbers were grossly in their favor, the copyright trolls were actually looking at this as a cash cow. There have been several statements by organizations and private firms that they were after the money, not principle. They wanted to be "compensated for their losses", if not make an outright profit.

But when they *lose* money, what then?

The problem is the U.S. has been statutory damages. The law originally only targeted actual "pirates", who sold copyrighted works for money. Then it was changed to anybody who "expected to receive something tangible in exchange".

It should be noted, however, that your typical downloader still does not meet this definition.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762903)

statutory damages are easily fought off by asking for a trial. This has been the fun/issue of all of the settlement shakedowns to exist currently. Get a letter? get a lawyer and immediately lawyer up, and watch them try to run away. refuse to settle, and go from there.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763539)

statutory damages are easily fought off by asking for a trial.

Unless you are Jammie Thomas.

Re:Heads on pikes (3, Interesting)

thoughtfulbloke (1091595) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764839)

You asked "When they *lose* money, what then?".
They bill the artists the costs of "protecting the artist's copyrights"

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762329)

it's actually an employment program. you know, giving the economy a boost!

Re:Heads on pikes (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762403)

If the guy is actually guilty, and the fine is not excessive, why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group? Is there anything in this article that indicates a wrong was done to the "convicted file-sharer"?

From one of the articles,
So, with guilt under current law established, the Tribunal set about the task of a financial punishment. According to regulations, in a downloading case the cost of the infringed products must be considered. Man Down is available of iTunes for $2.39 (US$2.00) and Tonight Tonight at $1.79 (US$1.50). ...

"Head on a pike", indeed.

Re:Heads on pikes (4, Insightful)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762703)

If the guy is actually guilty,

There is some question as to whether the girl (I know, RTFA is a crime on /.) is guilty of any infringement. She admitted to downloading one song, and that song was listed twice in the lawsuit for some reason. She says she never downloaded the other song. There was no indication that any uploading took place, but the RIANZ never had to even try to prove it, as it was assumed she had uploaded because she had been sent a notice.

and the fine is not excessive,

More than 150x actual damages (since she only downloaded two songs, not three) isn't excessive?

why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group?

Maybe because they are stupid for spending $250K to recover $600?

Is there anything in this article that indicates a wrong was done to the "convicted file-sharer"?

Because there was no "conviction". There was merely an accusation, which under the "three strikes" law is a presumption of guilt. If other laws worked that way, all I'd have to do to put you in jail for life is to say you murdered some person, without even having to prove the person was dead (or even existed in the first place). Don't like that analogy because it's criminal? OK, then you have infringed on my patent, please pay me $600, because I say so, and my accusation is proof enough that you are guilty.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763513)

Because copyright itself is unjust and should be abolished.

Re:Heads on pikes (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764885)

Good news: As a democratic government, both NZ and the US have mechanisms whereby that can happen, if you can get the majority of the populace to agree with you.

Bad news: The majority of the populace does not agree with you.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765045)

The fact that the majority favors an unjust law doesn't make it any more just. Slavery was favored by the majority of Americans for our first 100 years. Those who broke the law were heroes.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765235)

There is no reason I can fathom why copyright laws innately fall into categories of "right" or "wrong" in the way that slavery does, except in the general sense that all government laws do by virtue of restricting other humans.

In other words, you can argue that copyright goes too far very easily and I would agree that is possible.

But the argument that copyright laws in themselves are unjust is not a battle I think you will be able to defend in the least; if you have a rationale for that statement I would be very interested to hear it.

Re:Heads on pikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764033)

why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group?

Because government-granted monopolies over information that you yourself store on your own equipment that results in a loss of real property rights and encourages censorship is a bad thing? Yeah.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764863)

Youre going to have to accept that basically every modern country in the world recognizes some degree of intellectual property and ownership rights for such, Youre also going to have to accept that it has nothing to do with corruption, lobbying, or conspiracies, as these rights have been recognized for hundreds of years.

At the end of the day, the entire role of the government is to tell you what things you may not do. Sharing other people's copyrighted stuff is one of those things societies have agreed should be restricted.

Re:Heads on pikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762423)

The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA. Every head publicly displayed on a pike serves a purpose: "pour encourager les autres". It's an advertising expense. Pay up, or this could happen to you, too.

Then perhaps the government should wise up and step in and start taxing the shit out of "advertising" expenses like this so that these kinds of "legal" tactics are not worth it to companies as (ironically) a tax sheltered expense.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762847)

Isn't that called racketeering?

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763763)

No, racketeering is when you do the exact same thing without first making the required political donations.

Re:Heads on pikes (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763387)

The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA

Is it actually worth $250K? Does each prosecution convince 10,000 people to spend $25 on music?

Like policians care (5, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761649)

Citizens see the cost situation like this:

Cost to pursue and prosecute these cases -(is greater than)- The return in fines + the benefit to society.

Politicians see it like this:

Donations to my campaign from the media industries + Future support from my party -(is greater than)- Any backlash from voters about the cost

Re:Like policians care (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761831)

It wasn't $250,000 in tax money; it was $250,000 in money from the private trade association representing the labels.

Re:Like policians care (4, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762337)

That's what Hollywood Accounting is for. They simply deduct that $250,000 expense from the artists' revenue, without asking if the artists thought that was money well spent. To add to the insult, they likely also reduce their own taxable income by that same amount.

Still, the money they owe artists isn't enough to cover too many such court cases.

Re:Like policians care (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762619)

Nothing a few "contributions" wont fix.

Re:Like policians care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761843)

Even if politicians cared they aren't the ones who benefit from this, industry execs pulling the strings of lawmaking are the true benefactors, and they didn't pay a cent to lean on people they don't like.

Tax Payers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761695)

They've put the tax payers money to good use!

Re:Tax Payers (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765187)

For the billionth fucking time, it wasn't tax payers money.

File Sharing is no Crime (1)

F.Minusia (748125) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761701)

and it should be accepted as such. Capitalist games for creating misery may or may not succeed, but it is important for us to be on guard at all times. Some people will never learn.

Re:File Sharing is no Crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762301)

It is a crime. Just because you don't think it should be one doesn't change that fact.

Re:File Sharing is no Crime (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762411)

Its a crime, and a very specific one. Im not sure what school of law you went to, but I somehow get the feeling that not many of its graduates pass the bar.

Re:File Sharing is no Crime (2)

Travelsonic (870859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762489)

Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.

Re:File Sharing is no Crime (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764101)

Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.

"File sharing" is just a convenient shorthand for copyright infringement, It's not the actual name of the crime. The same way that people talk about "possesion" being illegal when they are really talking about possession of illegal drugs.

Re:File Sharing is no Crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764635)

Well, as of now, in the United States, it is also a crime to root your smartphone or jailbreak your iPhone. "Crimes" are created by laws drafted by politicians and industry lobbyists to expand their power base. The more citizens they can turn into "criminals," the more people they will be able to control through threat and intimidation. You haven't learned this lesson yet?

Defense costs (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761713)

This works both ways. If it cost $250,000 to prosecute in NZ, it will probably cost $250,000 to defend against in the US. Any interaction with the justice system in the US is likely to ruin one, financially if not emotionally.

Re:Defense costs (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761759)

In the end, only the lawyers win.

Re:Defense costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761879)

Young lawyers make millions arguing both sides of poorly defined laws. Old lawyers make more millions writing poorly defined laws.

Unfortunately, the best solution I've come up with involves getting a non-lawyer president (nearly impossible) to declare martial law for three days and jail all lawyers in Congress (especially the unelected staff).

Re:Defense costs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762391)

I like this. Also, we need to ratify a constitutional amendment that stipulates congress may pass no laws which cannot be read and understood by someone with a basic high-school education.

This ignorance of the law is no excuse crap is bullshit when your laws are so numerous, complicated, and illegible that it becomes impossible to know and understand the one you're supposedly breaking.

Re:Defense costs (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765207)

An American high school education or a foreign one?

Re:Defense costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763521)

Unfortunately, the best solution I've come up with involves getting a non-lawyer president (nearly impossible)

The previous President was an MBA, and that didn't turn out so well for the country.

Re:Defense costs (4, Insightful)

Technician (215283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761763)

I wonder if this is more record labels bookeeping. We wond the case but we can't pay the copyright owner because our expenses exceeded our income.

Anyone have an itemised list of the expenses.. What was this money spent on anyway? Sounds steep to me.. Now if only the city had to pay that rate to issue a redlight camera or photo radar ticket..

Re:Defense costs (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762351)

I wonder if this is more record labels bookeeping. We wond the case but we can't pay the copyright owner because our expenses exceeded our income.

Anyone have an itemised list of the expenses.. What was this money spent on anyway? Sounds steep to me.. Now if only the city had to pay that rate to issue a redlight camera or photo radar ticket..

well that's exactly what it is. the 250 000 is money paid to the organizations workers.

Re:Defense costs (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763093)

I wonder if this is more record labels bookeeping.

Wait, they're keeping scary bees now? In what, a haunted hive?

Sorry, couldn't resist, it tickled my funnybone :o)

Re:Defense costs (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763331)

A lot of people defend themselves in the UK. It is actually becoming a big issue because it slows down proceedings. The judge must try to ensure a fair hearing, and even if the people who hired lawyers win they don't automatically get their costs paid. Judges tend not to award legal costs when the defendant is an individual going up against a large company anyway.

Re:Defense costs (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763481)

That would be great if it worked that way in the US. The Copyright Alert System that's going into place in the US even lets you see the inside of a courtroom. They shut you down up front, without a hearing of any sort, and you have to pay them in order to get an appeal in front of their mediator.

Better (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761787)

It seems to me that RIANZ is doing better than the HADOPI as they charge the media companies $25 per warning while the cost of the French notices is only 10 euros.

Both of these are ridiculously low. Legal notices should cost at least $100.

 

Re:Better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762313)

Totally - at least then there is a rate limiting factor, and you're less likely to see little old granny's and 10 year old girls getting sued.

Re:Better (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765247)

€10 EUR is pretty close to $25 NZD. And they have to pay for all three, and the tribunal doesn't have to award them the costs of those back. And, they can only send one a month per person.

Easy solution. (1, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761791)

Why is it so expensive? Because it has to go through all the legal process of gathering evidence, formal accusation, defence and so on. I predict that the next step will be for RIANZ to call for the process to be 'streamlined' by taking away all that expensive 'innocent until proven guilty' rubbish and just automating the lot: Enforcer bot finds suspect file, informs ISP, ISP adds the fine on the customer's next bill. So much cheaper than due process.

Re:Easy solution. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761915)

Red light traffic cameras

Re:Easy solution. (2)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761981)

Ahh, but that's already happened.

If you look at what the man was accused of, you'll see that he's asked to prove a negative.

He was accused of downloading one file twice, and another file. What's interesting is that he admits to downloading the first file once, but he used bittorrent with default settings. So apparently, restarting your client now counts as a second download. What's also interesting is that he flat out denies downloading the Second file.

So, a man comes to this thing and flat out apologizes for downloading a file. This apparently means he's lying about everything else, and bam give us money or we'll violate your rights.

Re:Easy solution. (2)

ljw1004 (764174) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762353)

Did you read the New Zealand case? They already did away with "innocent until proven guilty". In particular

[14] There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues,. That is the nature of the decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work,, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged.
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/20135/RAINZ%20v%20Teleom.pdf [nzherald.co.nz]

I know where they got the idea from (-1, Flamebait)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761801)

RIANZ must have got their economic model from Obama's stimulus package.

Relative Costs (1)

nick357 (108909) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761809)

Its been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. In New Zealand the price for file sharing is $616.57. Seems about right...

Re:Relative Costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762845)

Can I just pay my 600 bucks and then download what I like? I might consider that...

Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761859)

The answer to this Copyright nonsense is simple: Consume only content that you can legally share.
When it is no longer profitable to produce things that people can't share, corporations will stop producing them.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761959)

The answer to this Copyright nonsense is simple: Consume only content that you can legally share.
When it is no longer profitable to produce things that people can't share, corporations will stop producing them.

Ha, the answer is to go to a party with your friends and start sharing those 2 TB hard drives.
No internet, no RIAA/MPAA snooping and they're none the wiser.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762051)

Ha, the answer is to go to a party with your friends and start sharing those 2 TB hard drives.
No internet, no RIAA/MPAA snooping and they're none the wiser.

Some people I know have been doing this for YEARS.

Except they send the hard drives around via UPS.

It works nicely, and the most that can happen is a hard
drive is lost or damaged.

It's the 21st century sneakernet.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762365)

and since a network wasn't involved it's not even wire fraud but just plain old copyright infringement even if the cops do come knocking.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762679)

Well, at least youre honest in your utter contempt for the law.

Not exactly sure why youre bringing the MPAA / RIAA into it, however.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762979)

There is still a valid law in England which says you have to practice archery weekly. I ignore that, in just the same way I ignore the one about copyright law.

The serious point is these dudes have to work out a new business plan, or go out of business. When guns got invented, the archery law became irrelevant. When mp3 got invented, much of the basis on which the record industry was based on also became irrelevant.

No matter how much they push and shove, that pesky Genie just won't go back in the bottle.

I still pay for music, but nowadays I do so by going to gigs and buying stuff I have downloaded and like for friends birthdays.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763647)

If the government won't respect the law, why should I?

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764705)

Because anarchy is about the worst form of government there is.

Our societies "work" when the majority of people follow the majority of the laws. Everyone with the attitude you express chips away at that.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764795)

Because anarchy is about the worst form of government there is.

You can blame the government for not following its own laws for that. If they want me to play by the rules, they need to play by the rules. Anything else and I'm just a sap.

Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (2)

Kalriath (849904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765311)

Then hold your government accountable for it, rather than just ignoring the laws you don't like. Your argument is an excuse, not a justification. And it's not even a good one.

Bastard child of the lobbying industry (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42761899)

These cushy arrangements are the result of blatant political corruption. "Fund my campaign, and we'll see to it that you get these bullshit unfair laws to prop up for decaying business model and undermine the free market"

Lobbying == legalized political corruption.

The American disease is spreading, first to the Anglo countries, and developing countries with weak governments, then Europe, then everyone else.

Too bad the anti-corruption movement, e.g. Lawrence Lessig's Rootstrikers can't getting any critical mass.

Re:Bastard child of the lobbying industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762249)

Any anti-corruption will never get critical mass, because we're part of the lower caste. Only those in the upper caste are allowed to make changes that affect everyone.

Re:Bastard child of the lobbying industry (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763097)

well... the business here is really the business of sending notices and fining people. they send bills to both rights holders and to the people they fine.

The hidden cost of the eternal Jew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761967)

Sooner or later the world is going to get tired of dancing to the tune
called by the Jewboy RIAA and MPAA.

And by the way, FUCK the Anti Defamation League. It's just a propaganda
tool for hideous people. Do WASPS need an anti-defamation league ?
Do Italians ? Do those of Irish descent ? No, of course not.

The Jew ruins the world and then whines about how rough his life is.

It's a shame we didn't let Hitler finish the job.

HADOPI (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762027)

The French branch of the RIAA was much smarter: have the tax payer pick up the bill.

French President François Hollande ran his campaign with the promise he would abrogate (abolish) the HADOPI three-strikes law. Yeah, we've seen how that worked out, right, French voters? And the word on the web [melty.fr] is that the law is just going to be changed, so you will get a 140 Euro fine right at the first "strike" with unlimited strikes to follow (instead of strike I propose the term "ka-ching", as in "Gee, that's my third ka-ching this year, and it's only February!").

For some reason, the *AA is able to corrupt everyone once they get in a position to do something.

greece compels you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762967)

the debts of greece compel you....to be stupid

Re:HADOPI (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763053)

> as in "Gee, that's my third ka-ching this year, and it's only February!"

I'm wondering how many ka-chings before "I was just watching these myself, but now I have to sell pirated DVDs to recoup costs."

Re:HADOPI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765011)

For some reason, the *AA is able to corrupt everyone once they get in a position to do something.

I think is not *AA only.
Remember that Canada got on the bad side of US Trade Representative which is an office of US Government.

Of course you can make the point that first *AA infected the government, but this was a long time ago.
When they are in a room, in the shadow cast by them you may see an eagle profile.

(Remember)
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-labels-spain-and-canada-as-piracy-havens-110217/

Price of deterrence (2)

cabraverde (648652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762047)

RIANZ will be weighing $250,000 against the deterrent effect this will have on filesharers. NOT the return they get in fines.

Perhaps that's money well spent from their point of view. It doesn't seem like it, but I'm in no position to judge.

Re:Price of deterrence (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763029)

RIANZ will be weighing $250,000 against the deterrent effect this will have on filesharers. NOT the return they get in fines.

Absolutely correct. Now, everyone raise their hand who thinks $600 in fines will be an effective deterrent. Or that some effective change actually comes about before politicians lose enough face to start to get de-elected.

Yeah, but all things considered... (4, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762069)

You can't spell "Pyrrhic victory" without "victory"! Yay!

This the way it's supposed to work... (2)

judoguy (534886) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762209)

Government exists to consume resources. Any benefits to the citizens/subjects are incidental.

I really believe that.

I also believe that some government is a lot better than no government. The current U.S. problem is WAY too much government.

Government is at it's best when it provides for the lightest possible framework for us to live and work together.

Sensible people can debate where to draw that line, but now in the U.S. at least, the only argument going is how much parasitic government we can have without immediately killing the host.

Re:This the way it's supposed to work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42763367)

That just makes you an idiot.

Re:This the way it's supposed to work... (0)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765155)

Care to elaborate further, Mr. Obama?

Fight the power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762495)

I have a plan to make these battles interesting.

Atleast where I live, we have urinals in the mens bathroom that shows video commercials.
I know how to update these.

Make your local McDonalds show 0 day movies

profit!!!

I have a morbid idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762569)

Most of this is a joke... Mostly...

In light of all of these wonderful new laws protecting copyright at incredible costs to the public. We should start recruiting depressed and hopeless (dying of some terrible chronic disease) people.

Hear me out -- we recruit them to pirate like there is no tomorrow and then when they are taken to court -- they off themselves (assuming they were going to do this anyway) and then we can blame the RIAA/MPAA/Govt. Maybe then the average Joe Sixpack will begin to rise up against our overlords and demand change. Think of the headlines! "Teenager being sued for 3.8billion dollars by RIAA kills self," "Grandma dead after government threatens suit of 8trillion dollars for downloading Bieber album," "LawSuit over Batman movie ends tragically after murder suicide"

Meh, they wouldn't care...

$250,000 to collect $616.57? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762781)

How will they make up the difference? Volume!

Continue? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762971)

> The question raised is whether or not this money pit trend will continue

God, I hope so.

Title is obviously misleading (1, Insightful)

Slippery_Hank (2035136) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762997)

RIANZ has paid 250k in total, the 616 dollars represents the result of the first case. They have sent out notices to roughly 6000 alleged infringers though. So if we assume that 616 is an average results ( I know that a sample of one is not very representative ), then we can expect that they will pull in 616*6000 which is approximately 3.7 million dollars. Lets wait til the dust settles to start scoring winners and losers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>