Comments on: RIAA victim Jammie Thomas will appeal http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586 p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:04:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Keepn It Real http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-189281 Keepn It Real Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:39:11 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-189281 To the previous poster.. you got to be kiddn me?!?! These record company executives and lawyers are only out for their own agendas and that is to make as much money as they personally can. They don't care about the artists, if they did the contracts, the royalties, etc. would not be so one sided. I would never condone stealing from the artists; these record company executives and lawyers are doing the same thing they are attacking others for on a much larger scale. Where do you think the money for these lawsuits is going? to the artists; not likely. Where do you think they are getting the money to fund these lawsuits? from the stolen royalties and money from the artists. BTW, and which record company or law firm do you work for? To the previous poster.. you got to be kiddn me?!?! These record company executives and lawyers are only out for their own agendas and that is to make as much money as they personally can. They don’t care about the artists, if they did the contracts, the royalties, etc. would not be so one sided.
I would never condone stealing from the artists; these record company executives and lawyers are doing the same thing they are attacking others for on a much larger scale. Where do you think the money for these lawsuits is going? to the artists; not likely. Where do you think they are getting the money to fund these lawsuits? from the stolen royalties and money from the artists.
BTW, and which record company or law firm do you work for?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-189269 Reader's Write Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:21:35 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-189269 I'm sorry to hear about the decision that the courts made, BUT, she knew what she was doing while she was doing it. She accepted the consequences as she was sharing music, and by doing so put herself and her kids in danger of this decision and financial instability . No doubt the record companies would have offered a smaller amount for her to pay in settlement, that she would have denied (since many of my friends have been in the same situation) So should we sympathize with a women who knowingly risked stealing music, and then the welfare of her own kids by suing the record companies knowing that by doing so she risks paying well over 50 times more then she would have paid originally? I'm sorry but my answer is NO. If I were in the same situation I would have settled instead of risking not being able to provide for my kids, and then in turn using them for a sympathy vote. When you really think about it, the record companies are not stupid, they are not out to make enemies, they are just out to provide compensation for the work of the artists we want to listen to. I'm sorry if I offend people with this opinion, but thats what it is, an opinion. I’m sorry to hear about the decision that the courts made, BUT, she knew what she was doing while she was doing it. She accepted the consequences as she was sharing music, and by doing so put herself and her kids in danger of this decision and financial instability . No doubt the record companies would have offered a smaller amount for her to pay in settlement, that she would have denied (since many of my friends have been in the same situation) So should we sympathize with a women who knowingly risked stealing music, and then the welfare of her own kids by suing the record companies knowing that by doing so she risks paying well over 50 times more then she would have paid originally? I’m sorry but my answer is NO. If I were in the same situation I would have settled instead of risking not being able to provide for my kids, and then in turn using them for a sympathy vote.

When you really think about it, the record companies are not stupid, they are not out to make enemies, they are just out to provide compensation for the work of the artists we want to listen to.

I’m sorry if I offend people with this opinion, but thats what it is, an opinion.

]]> By: Rafael Venegas http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-188722 Rafael Venegas Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:39:05 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-188722 CORRECTED ----end of opinion quote An open letter letter to attorney Brian Toder and Jammie Thomas. "“There’s never been a single case where that’s been squarely an object of appeal,” he says." Not so I believe. In a case where I was a plaintiff, United the States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit said in an opinion that thrashes the "make available" argument: Because the right to "authorize" is literally one of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the authorizing person could (as a matter of language) be treated as an infringer subject to statutory damages even if no listed infringing act (for example, performance) actually occurred. Yet the legislative origins of the "authorize" language in the statute arguably support a narrower reading, and most (perhaps all) courts that have considered the question have taken the view that a listed infringing act (beyond authorization) is required for a claim. See II Goldstein, Copyright § 6.3.2, at 6:44 (2d ed. 2005). ----end of opinion quote In ur case, the problem was that a music publisher authorized several radio station to use hundreds of songs they did not own (we were the owners) during several years in EXHANGE FOR MONEY. Said unlawful authorizations we done through a blanket license. We testified tha many songs were indeed performed over the radio stations but the testimony was considered as worthless. In the case of Jammie Thomas, making available is analogous to the licensing in our case. If in our case, without proof of actual performance meant no infringement claim could proceed then in the Thomas case, without proof of copying no infringement claim could proceed also. If you wish the entire court opinion and/or our appeal for your research, just e-mail me at venegas.rafael@gmail.com. CORRECTED —-end of opinion quote

An open letter letter to attorney Brian Toder and Jammie Thomas.

““There’s never been a single case where that’s been squarely an object of appeal,” he says.”

Not so I believe. In a case where I was a plaintiff, United the States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit said in an opinion that thrashes the “make available” argument:

Because the right to “authorize” is literally one of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the authorizing person could (as a matter of language) be treated as an infringer subject to statutory damages even if no listed infringing act (for example, performance) actually occurred. Yet the legislative origins of the “authorize” language in the statute arguably support a narrower reading, and most (perhaps all) courts that have considered the question have taken the view that a listed infringing act (beyond authorization) is required for a claim. See II Goldstein, Copyright § 6.3.2, at 6:44 (2d ed. 2005).

—-end of opinion quote

In ur case, the problem was that a music publisher authorized several radio station to use hundreds of songs they did not own (we were the owners) during several years in EXHANGE FOR MONEY. Said unlawful authorizations we done through a blanket license. We testified tha many songs were indeed performed over the radio stations but the testimony was considered as worthless.

In the case of Jammie Thomas, making available is analogous to the licensing in our case. If in our case, without proof of actual performance meant no infringement claim could proceed then in the Thomas case, without proof of copying no infringement claim could proceed also.

If you wish the entire court opinion and/or our appeal for your research, just e-mail me at venegas.rafael@gmail.com.

]]> By: Rafael Venegas http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-188719 Rafael Venegas Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:35:33 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-188719 An open letter letter to attorney Brian Toder and Jammie Thomas. "“There’s never been a single case where that’s been squarely an object of appeal,” he says." Not so I believe. In a case where I was a plaintiff, United the States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit said in an opinion that thrashes the "make available" argument: Because the right to "authorize" is literally one of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the authorizing person could (as a matter of language) be treated as an infringer subject to statutory damages even if no listed infringing act (for example, performance) actually occurred. Yet the legislative origins of the "authorize" language in the statute arguably support a narrower reading, and most (perhaps all) courts that have considered the question have taken the view that a listed infringing act (beyond authorization) is required for a claim. See II Goldstein, Copyright § 6.3.2, at 6:44 (2d ed. 2005). In ur case, the problem was that a music publisher authorized several radio station to use hundreds of songs they did not own (we were the owners) during several years in EXHANGE FOR MONEY. Said unlawful authorizations we done through a blanket license. We testified tha many songs were indeed performed over the radio stations but the testimony was considered as worthless. In the case of Jammie Thomas, making available is analogous to the licensing in our case. If in our case, without proof of actual performance meant no infringement claim could proceed then in the Thomas case, without proof of copying no infringement claim could proceed also. ----end of opinion quote If you wish the entire court opinion and/or our appeal for your research, just e-mail me at venegas.rafael@gmail.com. An open letter letter to attorney Brian Toder and Jammie Thomas.

““There’s never been a single case where that’s been squarely an object of appeal,” he says.”

Not so I believe. In a case where I was a plaintiff, United the States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit said in an opinion that thrashes the “make available” argument:

Because the right to “authorize” is literally one of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the authorizing person could (as a matter of language) be treated as an infringer subject to statutory damages even if no listed infringing act (for example, performance) actually occurred. Yet the legislative origins of the “authorize” language in the statute arguably support a narrower reading, and most (perhaps all) courts that have considered the question have taken the view that a listed infringing act (beyond authorization) is required for a claim. See II Goldstein, Copyright § 6.3.2, at 6:44 (2d ed. 2005).

In ur case, the problem was that a music publisher authorized several radio station to use hundreds of songs they did not own (we were the owners) during several years in EXHANGE FOR MONEY. Said unlawful authorizations we done through a blanket license. We testified tha many songs were indeed performed over the radio stations but the testimony was considered as worthless.

In the case of Jammie Thomas, making available is analogous to the licensing in our case. If in our case, without proof of actual performance meant no infringement claim could proceed then in the Thomas case, without proof of copying no infringement claim could proceed also.

—-end of opinion quote

If you wish the entire court opinion and/or our appeal for your research, just e-mail me at venegas.rafael@gmail.com.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-188532 Reader's Write Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:04:21 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13586#comment-188532 I realy hope Batman is a good lawyer! :) and i hope US get more freedom and music industry starts to move with the world and not against it! first step would be to drop stupid organisations leeching money and harrassing their own customers... :) stream line the money flow, use P2P for distribution, use direct donation and drop all the money leeching middle hands. if your tune is good you will know it and make the money you deserve for it! anyone can donate any amount they want easy and fast, uber fans will donate more while others might only donate little, eventualy it equals out and you get a "normalized" profit from your music! and bad artists die from natural selection by well being bad..! :D no more buying worthless CDs and throwing them in the trash after 5 minutes, and no more artists doing old stuff over and over again pumping out bad CDs with premium prices.. I realy hope Batman is a good lawyer! :) and i hope US get more freedom and music industry starts to move with the world and not against it!

first step would be to drop stupid organisations leeching money and harrassing their own customers… :)
stream line the money flow, use P2P for distribution, use direct donation and drop all the money leeching middle hands. if your tune is good you will know it and make the money you deserve for it!
anyone can donate any amount they want easy and fast, uber fans will donate more while others might only donate little, eventualy it equals out and you get a “normalized” profit from your music!
and bad artists die from natural selection by well being bad..! :D no more buying worthless CDs and throwing them in the trash after 5 minutes, and no more artists doing old stuff over and over again pumping out bad CDs with premium prices..

]]>