6 million p2p users.
If some ‘enterprising’ person could get only 1 dollar, bimonthly from EVERY p2p user,
that person could pay RIAA fines easily for them
Lawsuits with no teeth.

What a fascinating idea.

You still haven’t addressed this …

‘ So, are artists that are not label affiliated going to benefit from this ? ‘

Do you HONESTLY think that the Label cartels will leave a way for non-affiliated
artists to be paid in this scheme ?
All this levy amounts to is ‘ Download Insurance ‘, and the actual artists will not see a
dime, or SoundExchange won’t be able to ‘find’ them to pay them.
A download levey is just a way of allowing business as usual for the cartels.

So, are artists that are not label affiliated going to benefit from this ?

I realize you don’t have all the answers for this, neither do I,
but ANY tax on everybody will only do exactly the same as the blank CD levy.
Labels ( not the artists themselves, mind you ) will get money for nothing, ALL
of the public will pay the labels, even if they NEVER support a label act, and non-
label artists will see NONE of the benefits.

And THAT is what this is all REALLY about.
Full label control of all media, with those that do not wish to be signed into
indentured servitude locked out, with no way in.

And many deliberately interchange the terms to foster confusion, or to hide
personal or political agendas .. ie saying Copyright infringement = Theft
( an absolute falsehood ) to deceive lawmakers and the public.

Also like the RIAA constantly saying ‘ illegal P2P ‘ in order to convince the
public that P2P is in itself illegal. Since they control the mass media
such a propoganda flood is pretty effective. Eventually too many people
interchange incorrect terms ‘ in common use ‘ without even realizing that
they are working for the industry in propogating a deliberate falsehood.

Take the time and the care to call something what it IS, and not what it
isn’t, or what you wish it would be, otherwise you are doing their job for
them.

Good.
Then don’t say .. ‘P2P is illegal’ , because that simply is not true, and is a
completely misleading statement.
VCR’s CD burners etc are all legal, but can be used illegaly.

A more correct statement might be , ‘ sharing copywrighted works without permission is
illegal ‘ .. that would be correct, and not misleading.

Make no mistake, P2P is legal, always was.
Certain USES of P2P are possibly copyright Infringement.

To say P2P is, in itself, illegal is very misleading, possibly deliberately so.

P2P is legal.
Copyright infringement isn’t.

The grey area is what constitutes infringement

This is not wishful thinking or controversial interpretation.

P2P is legal.
copyright infringement is not.

kind of like owning a butterknife is legal, but sticking it between someones ribs is not.
P2P is a tool with many legal uses.
P2P is legal.
using it for copyright infringement isn’t.

Yet David, you still haven’t responded to this.

” It seems I “misunderstood” my being called a troll. ”

Troll is likely to be the wrong word.
” Shill ” is closer to the truth.

Ususally my memory is better, but maybe you can help , David.
I visited your website a while back, to listen to what you were trying desperately
to get the labels attention with.
You know, your music site with samples of you and your wife’s ‘musical’ offerings.
It’s been a while though, and I have forgotten that link.

You wouldn’t mind posting that link so others can listen to wha you are so intent on
selling the labels .. would you ?

Yup ” shill ” would be more accurate.

By showing so much support for the labels failing actions, perhaps you hope that
one of those labels might ‘pick you up ‘ ?

It seems I “misunderstood” my being called a troll.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4603982-1.html

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n24/4SaleLatinMusic-en.html

This whole issue of copyright infringement damages only shows that the law-judicial combo has gone berserk ( mentally or emotionally upset; deranged).

Not too long ago a small black owned record company went bankrupt when a jury awardad an $7.7 million award for the infringement (use w/o license) of a song on a record/video where about 50 thousand units had been sold. The actual damages were less than $10 thousand in royalties not paid. The damages awarded were thus over 700 times actual damages. All of this in spite of the american copyright law that allows only up to a $150 thousand award in damages or actual damages.

I have asked several lawyer friends how this $7.7 million award was possible, as I was plaintiff in several copyright infringement cases and the issue of damages was of interest. The explanation is that judges and juries have total freedom and that judges do favors (in exchange for what?) and that juries are sometimes racially prejudiced. When these are bersek or corrupt, anything can happen.

No doubt the copyright law is senseless (the legislators were berserk too) in allowing up to $150 thousand in damages when actual damages could be as low a zero or at least not worth going after before filing a lawsuit. For example, why write a letter to someone who downloaded 24 songs (to Jammie Thomas, for example) to collect the download price of 24 songs if the cost of writing the letter is higher?

Yes, the record companies have gone berserk too.

A berserk damage award must be unconstitutional.

Good luck, Jammie Thomas

A. No one called you a troll.

B. We respect your opinion.

C. Opinion does not equal fact.

D. Your original statement may have some truth to it, but is untested and it is not very probable that it will get tested anytime soon. Dreddsnik’s statement is verifiably true based on previously established case law regarding the awarding of damages in the USA.

In essence, you called yourself a troll, David, and you didn’t say anything to refute the fact that awarding $3M in damages for songs that retail around the $150 mark is unconstitutionally excessive punitive damages, and egregiously so. The real problem is that your statement doesn’t seem to fit here at all. What inspired you to say “$3M would be a better deterrent?” What does that have to do with the topic on which you were the very first commentator, which is the topic of unconstitutionality of the punitive damages awarded?