Comments on: Trouble looms for RIAA

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:20:14 +0000

José A. Fusté’s Opinion In Few Words:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/fuste-opinion-in-few-words.htm

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:14:08 +0000

Let us, and hope the case judge does not forget or realize that the cartels repeat and repeat that sharing is a crime, that jail sentences are possible and that a penalty of $150,000 per “violaton” (a song, for example) are possible.

Good to hear that our history is not repeating itself and that a judge is finally getting it right.

Funny thing about our incredible copyright infringement cases….

RIAA members and partners in infringement Sony and Sonolux have made over 24 recordings with songs my family owns without our authorization, owe us over one million US dollars in royalries (or several millions in the illegal profits made qith our songs) and have never paid us one damn cent. A $300,000 damage award we obtained about 2 years ago Sonolux has not been paid yet, and no explanation has been given to the judge and the judge has done nothing.

Venegas v. Sony Copyright Infringement Lawsuit:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/venegas_v_sony_lawsuit.htm

Then on another case, massive corporate infringers got away with murder in the court.

José A. Fusté’s Opinion In Few Words:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/fuste-opinon-analysis.htm

Rafael venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:05:46 +0000

If the 70 cents label payment is held true and the satuatory damages follow that line, then the RIAA/MPAA/**AA has a bigger problem. The problem would be that every uploader, downloader, or P2P user can become a distributor, and the payment for each song offered would be 70 cents, or a dollar max.

Here’s the catch… if allowed to progress, a system could develop where the P2P users themselves, instead of being sued to cough up 0.70-1.00 per song, could voluntarily pay it themselves, or even collect it from those that downloaded it. Paypal 70 cents for a torrent link? There would be no need for Itunes, as you could (and should) just be able to get any song you want, in any format, at any quality, DRM-free. 256 kb/s mp3 playable on anything. Toss in music videos for kicks. It’s not costing P2P users any extra money to distribute songs on the internet, but by adding (forcing) that extra Apple-Itunes layer, the labels can restrict and penalize customers to try and maintain control over the market.

They dropped the ball 20 years ago, and they’ve been chasing it ever since. We’re the ones pioneering and doing all the hard work for the entertainment community, and they’re trying to hang people out to dry. They’re the criminals, we’re the future. Bless the people in power and in the courts that realize this.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:43:21 +0000

They’ll squirm on this one, hope to get a good ruling and if it looks like they are going to lose they will want to take their marbles and go home. I can only hope the judge won’t let them off the hook so easy.

Should this defense be termed to have merit, you can write up sue’em all as a dead duck for all but those that make a profit in infringement. Any others won’t be worth going after. It’s high time that some light was brought in to show that statutory penalties don’t apply without financial gain coupled with it. That’s what the original penalties were meant to deal with, not to be hijacked by cartel thugs for whenever they want to pull it out.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:11:03 +0000

Yes, it’s time to pull that rope hard until the pig shall squeal.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:46:44 +0000

At last! A judge finally calls the RIAA on it’s ridiculous figures and blackmailing behaviour

The noose is around the neck of the RIAA, let’s hope the judge pulls it tight…