Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined $1.9 million

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: SunSamurai
Bolded relevant parts to make this idiot-proof.

Make something idiot proof, and the internet will present you with a bigger idiot.

omg sig material!

 

[Jeffg010]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Patranus
She knew the law, took the risk, and it didn't pay off.

Many people copy DVDs and don't think twice about the FBI warning but it is there.

The same could be said about smoking. Packs of cigarettes are clearly labeled with warnings yet people are still "surprised" when they get cancer.

Simple solution to a simple problem: DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T DO THE CRIME.

Clearly we should just shoot her and have done with it.

Why take this to the extreme? She was punished within the confines of the law by a jury of her peers. She had a chance to present her defense, was found guilty, and was punished. The jury could have fined her much less but chose to fine her the most amount allowed by the law. This punishment was not handed down the the RIAA and you cannot fault the RIAA from defending its intellectual property.

I really do not understand why this is such a hard concept to understand.

p-r-o-p-o-r-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-t-y o-f p-u-n-i-s-h-m-e-n-t

Like I said before the jury could have awarded the minimum fine of $750 per song but they found that her actions warranted a higher level of punishment, a fine of $80,000 per song.

You say the punishment didn't fit the crime...the jury of her peers would say otherwise.

And a jury found OJ not guilty :roll:

 

[alchemize]

Is this a civil or a criminal trial? If it is civil, the constitution doesn't apply because there was no crime committed here. Either way, it's bullshit, and I long for the day that the entire recording industry goes bankrupt.


However, for all you lefties that don't want to cap damages for medical malpractice, welcome to damages awarded to a corporation, the blade cuts two ways.

 

[StageLeft]

RIAA says in an article i read they are still willing to settle (probably for $3-5k), so this number is just a silly one.

 

[Slew Foot]

Thats pretty much a bigger punishment than Stallworth got for running over a guy while drunk.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Thats pretty much a bigger punishment than Stallworth got for running over a guy while drunk.

Not really. It might as well be $1.9 billion, $1.9 trillion. When it comes to collecting the money, they won't get jack.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is this a civil or a criminal trial? If it is civil, the constitution doesn't apply because there was no crime committed here. Either way, it's bullshit, and I long for the day that the entire recording industry goes bankrupt.


However, for all you lefties that don't want to cap damages for medical malpractice, welcome to damages awarded to a corporation, the blade cuts two ways.

There's a bit of a difference between simple financial damages and permanent physical damage to your body, health, well-being, and quality of life. And these damages are capped, these fines were half the maximum legally allowed (according to CNN this morning). The mere fact that there is a limit would indicate the 8th amendment at least should apply since the government apparently does have control of the potential fines (as I think these were entirely statutory and not punitive).

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Thats pretty much a bigger punishment than Stallworth got for running over a guy while drunk.

Not really. It might as well be $1.9 billion, $1.9 trillion. When it comes to collecting the money, they won't get jack.

Fry: One Jillion Dollars!
Crowd: *GASP*
Auctioneer: Sir thats not a number...
Fry: Fine! Fifty million...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is this a civil or a criminal trial? If it is civil, the constitution doesn't apply because there was no crime committed here. Either way, it's bullshit, and I long for the day that the entire recording industry goes bankrupt.


However, for all you lefties that don't want to cap damages for medical malpractice, welcome to damages awarded to a corporation, the blade cuts two ways.

There's a bit of a difference between simple financial damages and permanent physical damage to your body, health, well-being, and quality of life. And these damages are capped, these fines were half the maximum legally allowed (according to CNN this morning). The mere fact that there is a limit would indicate the 8th amendment at least should apply since the government apparently does have control of the potential fines (as I think these were entirely statutory and not punitive).

Did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she shared each song 80,000 times?

 

[abaez]

Guys, read the articles on the trial at Ars Technica. They've been covering the trial with several articles quite well the past few weeks, from the first mistrial to this verdict.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

Originally posted by: Patranus
She knew the law, took the risk, and it didn't pay off.

Many people copy DVDs and don't think twice about the FBI warning but it is there.

The same could be said about smoking. Packs of cigarettes are clearly labeled with warnings yet people are still "surprised" when they get cancer.

Simple solution to a simple problem: DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T DO THE CRIME.

Why is this idiot allowd to post?

Might I start a line of inquiry as to how my post could could lead you to the conclusion that I am an idiot?

People are warned about the consequences of their behavior and the law day in and day out. Ignorance of the law or breaking it "because you feel like it" is not a valid excuse. It amazes me that people show such carelessness towards the law and other peoples intellectual property.

I typically like your posts Patranus, but this to me is clearly an example of the punishment not fitting the crime.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is this a civil or a criminal trial? If it is civil, the constitution doesn't apply because there was no crime committed here. Either way, it's bullshit, and I long for the day that the entire recording industry goes bankrupt.


However, for all you lefties that don't want to cap damages for medical malpractice, welcome to damages awarded to a corporation, the blade cuts two ways.

There's a bit of a difference between simple financial damages and permanent physical damage to your body, health, well-being, and quality of life. And these damages are capped, these fines were half the maximum legally allowed (according to CNN this morning). The mere fact that there is a limit would indicate the 8th amendment at least should apply since the government apparently does have control of the potential fines (as I think these were entirely statutory and not punitive).

Did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she shared each song 80,000 times?

They didn't even prove it was her doing the sharing.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Patranus
She knew the law, took the risk, and it didn't pay off.

Many people copy DVDs and don't think twice about the FBI warning but it is there.

The same could be said about smoking. Packs of cigarettes are clearly labeled with warnings yet people are still "surprised" when they get cancer.

Simple solution to a simple problem: DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T DO THE CRIME.

Right, and her punishment "clearly" fit her crime. :roll: Gimme a break. </stossel>

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is this a civil or a criminal trial? If it is civil, the constitution doesn't apply because there was no crime committed here. Either way, it's bullshit, and I long for the day that the entire recording industry goes bankrupt.


However, for all you lefties that don't want to cap damages for medical malpractice, welcome to damages awarded to a corporation, the blade cuts two ways.

There's a bit of a difference between simple financial damages and permanent physical damage to your body, health, well-being, and quality of life. And these damages are capped, these fines were half the maximum legally allowed (according to CNN this morning). The mere fact that there is a limit would indicate the 8th amendment at least should apply since the government apparently does have control of the potential fines (as I think these were entirely statutory and not punitive).

Did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she shared each song 80,000 times?

They don't need to.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Good job RIAA, you got a mother of 4 for $1.9 million for 24 songs. Must be mighty proud of yourself.

RIAA should be relocated to Gitmo.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have my own answer to this. I stopped listening to any music I either have to pay for or should have to pay for. In short I have boycotted the music industry. I turned off the radio, never watch music on TV, never walk around with music out of a headset. Screw them. I sometimes listen to old music I bought back when I was stupid enough to think I needed stuff to be entertained.

 

[Pacemaker]

1.9 million.... WTF. Has this country lost all common sense? Who does the RIAA think they are suing Bill Gates?

IANAL so question, can you even declare bankruptcy to clear that out?

 

[Fear No Evil]

It was my understanding she was sharing something like 1700 songs, they just picked 24 of them to charge her on. But I do agree the punishment is way out of wack.

 

[Jaskalas]

This sort of ?justice? reminds me of going after the drug user instead of the drug dealer.

Sue against the means to produce piracy, not piracy itself. Attack the dealer, the means of production, not the user.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: alchemize
Is this a civil or a criminal trial? If it is civil, the constitution doesn't apply because there was no crime committed here. Either way, it's bullshit, and I long for the day that the entire recording industry goes bankrupt.


However, for all you lefties that don't want to cap damages for medical malpractice, welcome to damages awarded to a corporation, the blade cuts two ways.

There's a bit of a difference between simple financial damages and permanent physical damage to your body, health, well-being, and quality of life. And these damages are capped, these fines were half the maximum legally allowed (according to CNN this morning). The mere fact that there is a limit would indicate the 8th amendment at least should apply since the government apparently does have control of the potential fines (as I think these were entirely statutory and not punitive).

Did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she shared each song 80,000 times?

They don't need to.

They do if it's compensatory damages. If it was punitive it'd be different.

 

[her209]

So when can we expect our millions per person from Sony?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
The old copyright system needs to go out the door. These are modern days and we need modern laws.

The RIAA and the like pay off the right people and can do what they please. Maybe if the record companies treated their customers better than criminals, they wouldn't "loose" money on pirating.

What's so bad about paying 99 cents for a song you like, so the artist and distributor are compensated for providing it?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: IsLNdbOi
She paid $.99 for each song. Why did they fine her?

Where do you get that from?

 

[Craig234]

The article doesn't explain the basis of the award amount. That would be good to have.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Patranus
She knew the law, took the risk, and it didn't pay off.

Many people copy DVDs and don't think twice about the FBI warning but it is there.

The same could be said about smoking. Packs of cigarettes are clearly labeled with warnings yet people are still "surprised" when they get cancer.

Simple solution to a simple problem: DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T DO THE CRIME.

Clearly we should just shoot her and have done with it.

Why take this to the extreme? She was punished within the confines of the law by a jury of her peers. She had a chance to present her defense, was found guilty, and was punished. The jury could have fined her much less but chose to fine her the most amount allowed by the law. This punishment was not handed down the the RIAA and you cannot fault the RIAA from defending its intellectual property.

I really do not understand why this is such a hard concept to understand.

You don't think 2 million dollars is taking it to the extreme???