Morning Sentinel
Music industry sues Augusta man
By BETTY ADAMS
Staff Writer Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel Tuesday, February 6, 2007

By BETTY ADAMS

Staff Writer

In its running legal battle against unauthorized downloaders, five recording companies have sued an Augusta man in federal court claiming he illegally pirated and shared copyrighted music.

Scott Hinds, 23, is a defendant in one of a number of lawsuits by Recording Industry of America affiliates seeking to halt illegal sharing of copyrighted songs -- a once-widespread practice some maintain was "fair use," encouraged by certain computer software.

As artists attempt to regain control of their music -- and reap profits from sales -- recording industry spokeswoman Amanda Hunter said 18,000 individuals have been sued in similar lawsuits since September 2003, but Hinds is one of only six defendants in Maine.

Hinds said he is not yet represented by a lawyer.

Monday, he wondered: "Why choose me?"

"Every single person has done this," he said, saying he doesn't listen to music online presently.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, alleges Hinds illegally downloaded:

n "Automobile" by NWA, Priority Records, LLC;

n "All Over You" by LIve, UMG Recordings Inc.;

n "Fast Car" by Tracy Chapman, Elektra Entertainment Group;

n "Don't Know Why" by Norah Jones, Capitol Records Inc.; and

n "What Would You Say" by Dave Matthews Band, BMG Music.

The allegation is that Hinds used an "online media distribution system" to download tunes, then distributed the copyrighted material to others.

The lawsuit doesn't identify the download service Hinds allegedly used, nor does it identify individual users who allegedly obtained the copyrighted music from Hinds.

According to the association, "online investigators searched for copyrighted recordings made available by individuals on peer-to-peer networks."

They then filed a lawsuit against Internet service providers prompting them to identify individuals who allegedly shared music files.

Hinds faces a minimum civil penalty of $750 per song. There can be criminal penalties as well.

If guilty, Hinds would hardly be the first person found downloading music on the Internet; the Internet has been chockablock with sites offering free music almost since there have been browsers and bandwidth.

The most well-known site -- Napster, founded in 1999 by 18-year-old college dropout Shawn Fanning -- signed up 25 million users in its first year.

In 2000, the Recording Industry Association of America sued Napster, charging "tributary copyright infringement" -- an allegation that Napster was not violating copyright itself, but was contributing to and facilitating other people's infringement.

The premise of the civil lawsuit against Hinds is a December 2005 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court's 2004 opinion in MGM Studios, Inc., v. Grokster Ltd.

In the latter case, the court found "that a distributed file-sharing system is engaged in contributory copyright infringement when its principal object is the dissemination of copyrighted material.

"The foundation of this holding is a belief that people who post or download music files are primary infringers."


Reader comments

Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First

previous page | next page1-10 of 98 comments:

Martin Lowrence of Tolm, ME
Mar 24, 2009 5:01 AM
In order not to have problems with anything, I prefer buying disks or downloading music from rapidshare (thanks god, http://rapidqueen.com/ makes this process quick)- as far as I knwo this is legal, right?report abuse
nines09 of Big Little City, SD
Feb 17, 2007 2:17 AM
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.
- Hunter S. Thompson

The original point on Dr Dre and Metallica was this; They're the bad boys? Metallica got NO airplay except on college stations and CD's they sold.They played speed metal. Dre and the Hoods had their own footprint till big money saw a way to make BIGGER money. Now they are players in a players game, and are forced to come crying about a thing that they both did to get noticed and spread their product. As far as profit sharing by a label goes, well it only goes so far. It's called selling out, and it means you lose control and rights to your product, and 9 times out of 10 they will produce you as they see fit untill the vision you had is an hallucination. The R&B I hear today is not Rhythm and Blues. The country is POP, and the rock is just what sold last week. Plenty of bands are frozen out because the Labels only want into BIG money, a sure thing, looks and beauty. See an ugly band lately make large with label promo? They could care less about integity or quality. Did you ever consider what the Oldies stations will be playing in 20 years? This drivel? Don't sell enough and blip! Off the radar, and now you owe them money. No, boys and girls, it's not "illegal" downloads. It's crap product that has sales down. PreFab bands that sound just like...same old tired crap that gets played over, and over, and over, till you think you like it. Untill you hear it again 3 years later. Just turn your attention to the movies. Wow, really original stuff there. Step on a dollar to pick up a dime. Just my opinion. I can have one, you know. Now go get the CD with 8 poop songs on it, it's got that one that reminds you of.....report abuse
vegicide
Feb 8, 2007 10:37 PM
Dear Mister jay hov of atlanta, GA

You responded to my previous picture/couch copying is not stealing analogy with :

"Hey, let me know when you can put that picture on the floor in the living room and you and your friends can have a seat on the picture and watch the football game.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. A picture is not a usable duplication of a product like a copied mp3 file is!"

- Although I cannot disagree with your argument, I believe that you have missed mine entirely. I stated that making or receiving a copy of something is not the same thing as stealing or even "taking" it. I used the simple analogy of someone coming into a house and taking a picture of a couch as opposed to taking the couch to illustrate the the difference between STEALING something and COPYING something. Perhaps my analogy was over-simplified or poorly chosen, I only use a cracked copy of protools I downloaded of the internet (I kid, I kid =)

The words stealing and theft imply that goods/items/whatever something tangible are taken against the owners will. Who do you believe owns the MP3 files being shared the copyright holder or the person with them on her/his computer?

Regarding the rest of your retort : If I walked into a furniture store, took pictures of the same couch, then went out and made an identical couch which I distributed freely to the public, that furniture creator could very well "have my tail on a hot defendants seat in front of the legal bench" but I would do him no good as I would not be profiting by freely distributing the couches that I had made to the public.
report abuse
AbleGoodman of Grand Junction, CO
Feb 8, 2007 8:39 PM
I consider those of Jay hov’s ilk to be truly DANGEROUS people, and here’s why. As I said the problem is self-evidently technology-induced. So for a gang of lawyers to attack some poor ignorant young kid who is very unlikely to have either the money or the knowledge of politics and the law to combat them effectively, is nothing more or less than cowardly and bully-ish. Let them come after somebody who knows how to fight back and establish facts which will result in legal precedents favorable to freedom!
It is theoretically possible to legally pay for, and legally download, a music file. That being an obvious fact, if person A legally paid for and downloaded a computer file of a certain song, and person B legally paid for, and downloaded a computer file of another song it would be perfectly legal for person A and person B to exchange those two legally bought and paid for computer files over the Internet via email attachments, just the same as it is perfectly legal for person A and person B to trade or exchange legitimately purchased CDs with each other through the parcel post. No money is involved, and no profit is involved, and that fact can be brought out in an affirmative defense. If the plaintiff disagrees, then he can assume the burden of trying to prove there was profit.
The problem with truly dangerous (self-absorbed and greedy to boot) thinking like Jay hov’s is that, in order to find out whether or not the LEGAL exchange of LEGALLY bought and paid for files by hypothetical persons A and B was actually illegal, the control-freak copyright owners and their corporations would have to be able to TOTALLY monitor and regulate the entire Internet. The thought of such Orwellian BIG BROTHER government intrusion into people’s privacy must necessarily be anathema to any and all decent freedom-loving persons. A free and unregulated Internet, along with the free flow of ideas and information, is CRUCIAL to the achieving the potential and destiny of humankind.
report abuse
AbleGoodman of Grand Junction, CO
Feb 8, 2007 6:27 PM
I consider those of Jay hov’s ilk to be truly DANGEROUS people, and here’s why. As I said the problem is self-evidently technology-induced. So for a gang of lawyers to attack some poor ignorant young kid who is unlikely to have either the money or the knowledge of politics and the law to combat them effectively, is nothing more or less than cowardly and bully-ish. Let them come after somebody who knows how to fight back and establish facts which will result in legal precedents favorable to freedom!
It is theoretically possible to legally pay for and legally download a music file. That being an obvious fact, if person A legally paid for and downloaded a computer file of a certain song, and person B legally paid for and downloaded a computer file of another song, it would be perfectly legal for person A and person B to exchange those two legally bought and paid for computer files over the Internet via email attachments, just the same as it is perfectly legal for person A and person B to trade or exchange legitimately purchased CDs with each other through the parcel post. No money is involved, and no profit is involved, and that fact can be brought out in an affirmative defense.
The problem with truly dangerous (self-absorbed and greedy to boot) thinking like Jay hov’s is that, in order to find out whether or not the LEGAL exchange of LEGALLY bought and paid for files by hypothetical persons A and B was actually illegal, the control-freak copyright owners and their corporations would have to be able to TOTALLY monitor and regulate the entire Internet. The thought of such Orwellian BIG BROTHER government and intrusion to people’s privacy must necessarily be anathema to any and all decent freedom-loving persons. A free and unregulated Internet, and the free flow of ideas and information is CRUCIAL to the potential and destiny of humankind. Hopefullly some group like the Electronic Freedom Foundation will get involved and kick these jerks' butts.
report abuse
AbleGoodman of Grand Junction, CO
Feb 8, 2007 3:46 PM
Regarding Jay-hov-type spin. The case of LaSalle Music Publishers, Inc. v. Highfill, 622 FS 168, is a classic example of how easy it is for spinning lawers to misrepresent a quote to deceive someone into believe an inccorrect, even deliberately misleading, “point” of law. Instead of a “for profit” requirement bing included in a copyright holder’s bundle of legal rights, a “not-for-profit” exemption is now transferred to (recodified as 17 USC 110(4). All that means is that a copyright holder is no longer obliged to present the “for profit” issue as part of his complaint. It is now the defendant’s obligation to raise the “not-for-profit” issue as an affirmative defense. But the subject of profit or nonprofit, in and of itself, is just as germane to, even dispositive of, a copyright infringement lawsuit as it ever was. ASCAP/BMI tried to get cloggers to believe it doesn’t matter whether they are teaching or performing “for profit” or not. That implication was, as is, a lie. So, while these types of legalese technicalities may not be understood and appreciated by all, certainly the obvious ease with which even intelligent people can be tricked into a legally incorrect presumption cannot escape unnoticed or unresented.
I also find it interesting that Apple’s CEO, Steve Jobs, has made the case for abolishing the protections known as "Digital Rights Management" in an open letter posted on Apple’s Web site.
Honest people try to discuss and resolve a problem openly and honestly. Manipulative types just try to manipulate others to false conclusions in a scummy attempt to win some sort of sick PC PR contest. Seems to me Jay hov belongs in the latter category.
FYI information, Jay hov, the legal axiom is, the facts determine what law shall apply to the case. In my case, I have never downloaded a single tune in my life, and don’t intend to start. I just don’t like bullies, especially ones who like to pretend they know something about the law when they obviously don’t.
report abuse
AbleGoodman of Grand Junction, CO
Feb 8, 2007 3:14 PM
To jay hov of atlanta. Thank you very much for that enlightening dissertation on the definitions of "trade" and "exchange." Now I will suggest a couple of another words, "manipulation", "distortion", "misleading."
A relevant rhetorical yes-or-no question: Is it, or is it not, possible to legally pay for and legally download a music file from such as the apparently now-legal Napster? The obvious answer is "yes." So, please demonstrate your great intelligence and honesty for us, and answer this second question, "yes" or "no." If person A has legally paid for and downloaded a computer file of a certain song, and person B has legally paid for and downloaded a computer file of another song, would it be perfectly legal for person A and person B to exchange those two legally bought and paid for computer files over the Internet via email attachments, just the same as it is perfectly legal for person A and person B to trade or exchange legitimately purchased CDs with each other through the parcel post? The only honest answer is "yes." Then I rest my case on your manipulation, distortion, and misleading. Fortunately, some of us understand legal research.
The fact is, at the current state of technology, it is impossible to LEGALLY curb all ILLEGAL behavior without simultaneously ILLEGALLY attacking LEGAL behavior. What I don't appreciate about people who try to float self-evidently intellectually dishonest talking points like yours, is that they couldn't care less about their ILLEGAL attacking and threatening and suing of LEGAL behavior. In any free society, the legal maxim is: it's better that a thousand guilty go free than to convict one innocent person.
I understand the problem, and it is technology-induced. Perhaps one possible free-market solution would be for artists to post their own music on their own websites and allow downloaders to purchase songs directly from them at a MUCH cheaper price than all of the overhead of producing CDs and records necessitates.

report abuse
Dubuhq of Dubuque, IA
Feb 8, 2007 1:43 AM
To Mr. Jay Hov
Your digidesign credentials are impressive, I’m sure you’re smarter than all get out, but unless you also have a law degree, you should be careful with what you post. (I don’t have a law degree, either, but I’ve had some experience in the legal area. I’ll let you decide what to make of that.)

The legality of music downloading has not been finalized, by any means. Scott Hinds has been selected as a “class action” defendant, and how his case turns out will go toward determining the future of shareware music downloading. The RIAA has lost some important decisions along the way – the 2004 ruling the PnP software is legal being a BIG one, and they’ve got no guarantees. Case law is being established. The lawyers will lawyer, the juries will listen, the judges will rule and the legislators will make law. Until then, it’s still test-case type stuff. I’d like to read the whole case file, to see exactly how the RIAA investigated the matter, and how Hinds was chosen as a lone patsy among multiple millions of people nation-wide who’ve been downloading. That information should be available, although I’m not all the savvy on how to find it online.

Believe me, if the RIAA had a solid case, the law would be written and anyone who ever downloaded would be told to pay up or be tracked down and crucified – which could be done if some judge or legislature ever opens the Internet floodgates - and the billionaires would become trillionaires.

In January ’07 the RIAA requested in court that ISPs give them access to information on people who’ve downloaded, and one of their reps at that time said they were looking for a settlement. Money rules, and the RIAA is not going to stomp all over little people while pursing their goals. That’s bad for bidness.

Consider this: Hinds is only being sued for 5 downloads at $750 a pop (which could become considerably more if the RIAA wants to push it), and the $3,750 total ain’t even chump change, relatively speaking. They’re showing restraint, and Hinds is yet to even get an attorney. They’re looking to regulate and standardize, and though I’m not a government guy, that kind of thing is needed, to some degree, at least. Having iTunes here and Napster there, and tons of who-knows-what other kind of operators pushing slick, misrepresentative ads, is confusing. A lot of good, honest people have been lured into bad deals, and they aren’t even aware they’ve done anything that could somehow land them in trouble.

After all, some of these places charge a one-time fee for their software, which people construe as paying for the music, and that makes it seem like it’s perfectly all right. The average consumer isn’t able to decipher all that. What’s morally right or wrong? That’s not all that apparent, and the courts will make a decision, whether it’s the right one or the wrong one.
report abuse
Pendragon304 of Saint Albans, VA
Feb 7, 2007 8:16 PM
It's not a "running legal battle," it's a WAR. Some call it the cyber war, others call it the file sharing war, still others call it what it is - the war for cyber-libraries.

Ask yourself, why doesn't Steven King &/ his publisher file a law suit against the Lithgow Public Library? Think of all that intellectual property being shared. A library's "principal object is the dissemination of copyrighted material," is it not? Think of the millions, nay the billions, lost every day - every day that users fail to pay! Could it be that Publishing Houses know that library users are also book purchasers?

Downloaders, file sharers, cyber-library users, are CD buyers. Does the Recording Industry know this? You bet-cha! However, greed blinds them - they want us to pay for it more than once - and keep paying them.

How many times do you good down-east folks pay for a book?

This WAR is not about having respect - respect for rights, for the law, for the art of music or the musicians - its about corporate greed - greed by those that regularly abuse the artists, the art, and those that make them rich.

So, Betty Adams, where do we send money for the Scott Hinds' DownEast Defense Fund?

I am Scott Hinds - well, just like him, and we are many more than they - the sleeping giant awakens.

report abuse
jay hov of atlanta, GA
Feb 7, 2007 5:27 PM
vegicide wrote:
"Making or receiving a copy of something, whatever it may be, is not the same thing as stealing it or even "taking" it. If I walk into your house and take your couch with me when I leave that is stealing, if I walk into your house and take a picture of your couch it is not."

Hey, let me know when you can put that picture on the floor in the living room and you and your friends can have a seat on the picture and watch the football game.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. A picture is not a usable duplication of a product like a copied mp3 file is!

I bet if you walked into a furniture store, took a picture of that same couch, went out and made an identical couch, and distributed it freely to the publilc, that furniture creator would have your tail on a hot defendants seat in front of the legal bench.report abuse

previous page | next page

You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.