time to rally
one week until trial. want input? send us a letter of your support :
–at joelfightsback@gmail.com and we’ll post it to joelfightsback.com
or
– comment here!
This entry was posted
on Saturday, July 18th, 2009 and is filed under featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
wonder how much the plaintiff’s lawyers have billed to this point…
apparently, the RIAA is committed to slowly sawing off the nose to spite the face. have at it - the rest of the music industry will continue passing you by
Joel I wish you luck. I’m still confused why the music industry is pursuing this line of threatening behavior. In the past I have purchased CD’s and passed them around for others to copy, once the ipod came along I no longer purchased cd’s instead I look for free downloads and listen to my old music. It appears to me that the music industry doesn’t see themselves in the same way as the book industry. If I purchase a book, I can give it away, loan it out and in some cases I’ve copied segments of the book and handed them out to friends. Its my book.
I would think that rather than alienate their customers the music would turn to their customers and ask for other options (can we say netflix, kindle, pandora, seeqpod, etc).
If you lose, and I hope you don’t, I WILL NEVER purchase another song from itunes or any other site. Screw the industry and their pitiful attempts at bringing 1984 scare tactics into this century.
Some folks spend time trying to defend the music industry by saying that copying albums takes money out the pockets of artists. The fact of the matter is, as a musician, I will freely give away whatever I record. Music is too often about money and this lawsuit you’ve been slapped with is a brand new low, even for the RIAA.
Best of luck to you in your struggle. I hope that after you win, you’ll have grounds to file a counterclaim against them.
My suggestion? examine these words from the judge very carefully: The advent of the internet in the late 1990s threw a number of norms into disarray, offering sudden access to a wealth of digitized media and giving the veneer of privacy or anonymity to acts that had public consequences. At the beginning of this period, both law and technology were unsettled. A defendant who shared files online during this interregnum but later shifted to paid outlets once the law became clear and authorized sources available would present a strong case for fair use. It might matter, too, who the defendant shared files with—his friends, or the world—as well as how many copyrighted works, and for how long.
———–
I’d try to push her own words that speak of this ‘interregnum’ to the limits of time as best as possible - to suggest that the interregnum is in essence still going on; that there’s a huge population in the US that still believes they should have the right to distribute copyrighted media to the masses without permission and that they’re not breaking the law. I would suggest to the judge that (were I Tennebaum) maybe my actions were wrong. I would try to accept responsibility for my actions and accept them as wrong. Maybe I would point out that this would be like a police officer singling out a single driver who was speeding along with a lot of other cars, going neither faster nor slower than the others, and then charging that single driver with a life-time penalty. i would beg the court’s forgiveness and ask that they not make a massive penalty out of a common mistake in personal judgement.
As to what phenix hall said: I think what you said is fair use: “If I purchase a book, I can give it away, loan it out and in some cases I’ve copied segments of the book and handed them out to friends. Its my book.” now, putting it on kazaa for 1000s of people to download is not fair use, and that seems to be what the judge has said.
You have to lose this case. You’re like a drug dealer going in for his first trial: you can defend your right to sell drugs or you can be repentent. The penalty will often reflect this. No matter what happens, you’ll lose as you rightly should. The only question is how much. It has to be significant enough to make a nation of pirates second think the act of piracy, and at the same time not be excessive to the point where it’s going to cost a life time of debilitating payments.
I am an artist and a writer. I have paid a lot of money, and three people have spent a year of their lives working on a book that I wrote: 2 illustrators and my own time. The thought that someone could simply and easily steal it, scan it, and freely distribute it to the world once i published it to the extent that I never see a return for my investment bothers me. The RIAA isn’t just persecuting you for their own interests, but also for mine, as an artist. i could never afford to go after someone for doing that to me or any other copyright holder. So, in my own mind, the RIAA are doing the right thing here, the heroic thing. i thank them for their efforts behind this expensive campaign of theirs to make people around the world become responsible and stop the rampant piracy.
Joel-
I just found out about your website and wanted to emphasize my wishes for the best of luck with the case. I emphasize luck should only be needed in regards to the integrity of those reviewing your case and not in the aspect that you should even need luck in your stance to win this obviously ridiculous case.
Thanks so much for fighting for us.
This isn’t just a fight for you, but for all of us little people that don’t have a chance when big business decides to bully us around over menial distribution of intellectual property.
I am going to mention this case to freepress.org (as I’m sure it has already been) in hopes to educate everyone on what you are going through.
Thanks so much,
Keith
Joel,
I can’t think of much to say right now; words escape me due to the sheer idiocy and unfairness of this case against you. What I can say though is this: good luck. Show these companies that one person really can make a difference against multinational corporations, a.k.a. “bullies” such as these pathetic people attempting to sue you for millions for something so petty.
For the consumer!
Best wishes,
Nik, UK.
I have to say that I feel what they are doing is wrong and the courts are only supporting them. I personally hope they do this to someone mentally unstable like Theodore Kaczynski.
I wish you luck
In the ’60’s and 70’s I has a cassette recorder hooked into my receiver. I recorded songs, lots of them and albums from FM stations that would play an entire album, usually late at night.
I copied my records onto cassettes, shared them with friends, they shared with me.
Didn’t stop me from buying albums, but now I will only buy music I can buy directly from the artist.
I was musician back then and played with bands involved with Warner Bros, Bearsville, Monument, Mercury. They were all thieves and liars. Unless you had a good manager and entertainment lawyer you got screwed.
And what they did to black artists in the ’40’s, ’50’s and even 60’s was criminal. They stole millions from them, never to be held accountable.
And there are ways, old school equiptment, cable boxes, freeware, no computer or internet needed.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, BUY DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTIST