Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined $1.9 million

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: 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!

Also quoted without attribution - the RIAA may be contacting him:)
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
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?

You have 8 posts and that gives you a right to call him an idiot??
Technically he is correct!

Usually it is those who are downloading songs and such without paying for them that are complaining about such judgements!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Originally posted by: Red Irish
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 think he may have been drawing attention to your inability to understand the concept of proportionality; however, by all means proceed with the line of inquiry.

There is no concept of proportionality...nice words and such but totally meaningless !!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Originally posted by: 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???

It is taking it to the extreme...but obviously the jury did not think it was extreme!!
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,488
2,659
136
Originally posted by: Acanthus
They do if it's compensatory damages. If it was punitive it'd be different.

In this case, it was neither. She was assessed statutory damages.

Also, the thought that it was $24 worth of songs so $1.9mm is outrageous is way off the mark. She was NOT guilty of downloading songs. She was guilty of AIDING copyright infringement by MAKING INFRINGING COPIES AVAILABLE. "$80,000 per song" is not an accurate statement. The correct statement would be "She was assessed $1.9mm for infringing 24 copyrights. Since actual damages cannot accurately be assessed, and since statute gives guidelines on what the general value of a copyright is worth, damages were calculated using those guidelines." Any other interpretation is disingenuous.

Do I think this result is absolutely stupid? Yes I do. I believe digital copyright and the RIAA/MPAA are abhorrent in their current form and action. But I also believe the 'anti-RIAA' crowd that is warping reality by stating she was "fined $80,000 per song" that "only cost $0.99" are bad as well.

What really needs to happen is someone needs to create a KaZaA/Napster/bittorrent program that allows you to NOT automatically share your download folder. It's that automatic sharing of all downloaded content that snags people.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?

Like it makes it any different if a jury comes to a decision like this? Don't lawyers get to sort out he jury? If so, I am guessing the RIAA laywers populated the jury with those with the like mind of Patranus and her el-cheapo lawyers did nothing to stop it. It doesn't matter who came to this decision b/c this really isn't just at all.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?
Change the law that sets the $80,000 per song maximum. Make it something reasonable like $500.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?
Change the law that sets the $80,000 per song maximum. Make it something reasonable like $500.

This.

On one hand, the amount she was fined is ridiculous. But on the other hand, you can't just say 99 cents per song, because more than one person downloaded the song.

The amount of the fine needs to be more than 99 cents and less than the current $80,000 per song. In other words, the fine needs to be reasonable. :p
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: sactoking
Originally posted by: Acanthus
They do if it's compensatory damages. If it was punitive it'd be different.

In this case, it was neither. She was assessed statutory damages.

Also, the thought that it was $24 worth of songs so $1.9mm is outrageous is way off the mark. She was NOT guilty of downloading songs. She was guilty of AIDING copyright infringement by MAKING INFRINGING COPIES AVAILABLE. "$80,000 per song" is not an accurate statement. The correct statement would be "She was assessed $1.9mm for infringing 24 copyrights. Since actual damages cannot accurately be assessed, and since statute gives guidelines on what the general value of a copyright is worth, damages were calculated using those guidelines." Any other interpretation is disingenuous.

Do I think this result is absolutely stupid? Yes I do. I believe digital copyright and the RIAA/MPAA are abhorrent in their current form and action. But I also believe the 'anti-RIAA' crowd that is warping reality by stating she was "fined $80,000 per song" that "only cost $0.99" are bad as well.

What really needs to happen is someone needs to create a KaZaA/Napster/bittorrent program that allows you to NOT automatically share your download folder. It's that automatic sharing of all downloaded content that snags people.

Good points before the last one; why is a program allowing pirates to download songs a good solution, just because it's less bad than the current ones?

That's a little like saying that finding a way for bank robbers to rob banks and get away with it but guarantee no violence is a good solution.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?
Change the law that sets the $80,000 per song maximum. Make it something reasonable like $500.

Zero objection by me. I'd make it even less. Like nothing.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: Chunkee
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.

This is bullshit. A woman steals a box of tampons from the store, class a misdemeanor..fined 2500 bux. reduced to 500, community service...dont give me that shit...most likely RIAA is sucking some major dong and lobbying to do this shit...its out of fucking control.

I think the higher fines for downloading music are in place because it is so much easier to get away with than shoplifting.

That said, the fines in this case seem pretty excessive.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?
Change the law that sets the $80,000 per song maximum. Make it something reasonable like $500.

This.

On one hand, the amount she was fined is ridiculous. But on the other hand, you can't just say 99 cents per song, because more than one person downloaded the song.

The amount of the fine needs to be more than 99 cents and less than the current $80,000 per song. In other words, the fine needs to be reasonable. :p

I just don't know reasonable means in this case. Everyone is caught up with the fact that she downloaded a song. That isn't the problem here. The problem is that she also distributed the song. $2 mil seems excessive but $500 for stealing someone's intellectual property and giving it to the world doesn't seem reasonable to me either.

**EDIT** I just read the article again and it only specifies 'download'. I must have read the distribution part somewhere in the thread...
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
She was sharing 1,700 songs, so at $500 each she'd still owe $85,000.

The jury could have awarded $750/song x the 24 she was charged with, but she apparently "allegedly":

- destroyed evidence
- lied under oath, multiple times in both trials
- is unrepentant about the infringement

She wrote a paper on Napster in college, then said under oath that she'd never used KaZaa. Even though it was her password-protected computer, with only a wired internet connection, and the KaZaa account used the same user name that she used for all of her other accounts.

"Allegedly" lying to the jury and getting caught at it isn't a good defense.

If she'd told the truth, said she was sorry and focused on the unfairness of a high damage award the jury would probably have been much more sympathetic and gone with the $750/song or even gave her a jury nullification innocent verdict.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?
Change the law that sets the $80,000 per song maximum. Make it something reasonable like $500.

This.

On one hand, the amount she was fined is ridiculous. But on the other hand, you can't just say 99 cents per song, because more than one person downloaded the song.

The amount of the fine needs to be more than 99 cents and less than the current $80,000 per song. In other words, the fine needs to be reasonable. :p

I just don't know reasonable means in this case. Everyone is caught up with the fact that she downloaded a song. That isn't the problem here. The problem is that she also distributed the song. $2 mil seems excessive but $500 for stealing someone's intellectual property and giving it to the world doesn't seem reasonable to me either.

**EDIT** I just read the article again and it only specifies 'download'. I must have read the distribution part somewhere in the thread...

I agree that $500 is too little, but $80,000 is too much. That's why I said somewhere in between 99 cents and $80,000. :p

I was just agreeing with jpeyton's comment that the amount allowed per song was ridiculously high.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: 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?

The artist likely isn't making anything from those downloads due to contracts often not including royalties for online distribution.

Craig fails again.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,032
2
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: 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?

The artist likely isn't making anything from those downloads due to contracts often not including royalties for online distribution.

Craig fails again.

I guess the moral thing to do is download the music and send a check to the artist and sound crew? ;)
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
"Allegedly" lying to the jury and getting caught at it isn't a good defense.

If she'd told the truth, said she was sorry and focused on the unfairness of a high damage award the jury would probably have been much more sympathetic and gone with the $750/song or even gave her a jury nullification innocent verdict.

Know what really isn't a good defense? Admitting guilt at your trial.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Patranus
Hey, if the RIAA cant sell their product because people are stealing it, who is going to be rich and who are you going to tax for all of the social programs?

As much as I hate to admit it you were doing fine up until this point.

The answer to that question is, of course, the RIAA and their lawyers.

Edit: Yes, the fine is way out of line but everyone knows it will be settled much lower - as has already been offered.
 

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
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?

You have 8 posts and that gives you a right to call him an idiot??
Technically he is correct!

Usually it is those who are downloading songs and such without paying for them that are complaining about such judgements!

Sorry, unlike you I do not stroke my e-peen based on post quantity. If the shoe fits...

No, its the people that think the 8th Amendment still means something. You're just another kind of terrorist.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
"Allegedly" lying to the jury and getting caught at it isn't a good defense.

If she'd told the truth, said she was sorry and focused on the unfairness of a high damage award the jury would probably have been much more sympathetic and gone with the $750/song or even gave her a jury nullification innocent verdict.

Know what really isn't a good defense? Admitting guilt at your trial.

It's the ethical thing to do if you are guilty, but most people would agree.

It still could make sense in a case like this when the evidence is so strong and it's a civil trial where the plaintiff only needs to prove more likely than not.
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Originally posted by: 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.

BAN
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I may have to recant and go with Patranus on something.

This penalty was given by a jury. The rules were followed, and a harsh punishment ensued. What exactly do we propose in attempting to alleviate this?

Like it makes it any different if a jury comes to a decision like this? Don't lawyers get to sort out he jury? If so, I am guessing the RIAA laywers populated the jury with those with the like mind of Patranus and her el-cheapo lawyers did nothing to stop it. It doesn't matter who came to this decision b/c this really isn't just at all.

No you are watching too much television my young Jedi!!
The lawyers get to dismiss a certain amount of the jury pool based on questionaires and questions asked the jury.
There is a certain percentage that the lawyers have absolutely no contro0l over.....du7e to thye people they chose to dismiss!!
Like it or not Jury`s are what they are!!