Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined $1.9 million

[Mr Pepper]

Luckily for the RIAA, they will never have to compensate for the billions they have stolen from artists through shady (but legal) contracts and practices. Artists are some of the finest suckers you can find in the business world. Go RIAA

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

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.

fact remains downt download illegally if you cant afford to do the time!!

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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 !!

To some.

 

[Freshgeardude]

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.

dont you mean TIME?

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Luckily for the RIAA, they will never have to compensate for the billions they have stolen from artists through shady (but legal) contracts and practices. Artists are some of the finest suckers you can find in the business world. Go RIAA

You know a contract requires 2 signatures, not 1.

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.

An excellent post.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: sactoking
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.

umm...I think the point is to share but most of this software I've ever used allows a person to limit the uploads however you want.

Not that i condone this behavior, hell I work in the movie industry. We feel it, believe me, we feel it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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.

huh? Aren't a neocon conservative jabba jabba? But you believe content should be available to all for free? ok. Their is hypocrisy here I'm just not going to take the time to link it all up.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Luckily for the RIAA, they will never have to compensate for the billions they have stolen from artists through shady (but legal) contracts and practices. Artists are some of the finest suckers you can find in the business world. Go RIAA

You know a contract requires 2 signatures, not 1.

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.

An excellent post.

I still find it hard to believe that the record company is damaged in such a large way.

If they would just go with legal music services a la the new napster, yahoo music, etc... Then infringement is off the table. The problem with that is the artists get screwed.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Mr Pepper
Luckily for the RIAA, they will never have to compensate for the billions they have stolen from artists through shady (but legal) contracts and practices. Artists are some of the finest suckers you can find in the business world. Go RIAA

You know a contract requires 2 signatures, not 1.

Corrupt industries can cause there to be limited options.

If the music industry is bad, it can mean that artists don't have great options.

I defend the right of both artists and the industry to be compensated; and I'm also against 'bad business' that is corrupt and doesn't treat artists with 'economic justice'.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I defend the right of both artists and the industry to be compensated; and I'm also against 'bad business' that is corrupt and doesn't treat artists with 'economic justice'.

Every artist should come to the bargaining table with a team of lawyers and reps. Not doing so is just stupid on the artists' part.

or go the independent route...


If an artist wants the experience and money that a major record label brings, they should be prepared to pay for it.


Personally, I think every artist needs to pay their dues. Suck it up, live life with a major label, get huge, and then go independent.

 

[halik]

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.

[/quote]
This,
for someone reason people tend to confuse the MAKE AVAILABLE and downloading part of these lawsuits. RIAA would never go after someone just downloading the songs, since they would most likely get stuck with just compensatory damages (.99*x).

Since you're making the copyright available, the damages will be a lot more since it's not just you that downloaded the music.

punitive damages in copyright

 

[Paddington]

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?

America has a lawsuit mad culture, in fact one supported by the current President who categorically ruled out any clamps on medical lawsuits just the other day.

I think Joe Q. Public generally supports the mad lawsuit culture in hopes of eventually one day hitting the jackpot against one of those "evil corporations" or insurance companies or tobacco companies, or maybe even his doctor. But this is a case where the corporations used that same mad culture to their benefit.

LOL.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Craig234
I defend the right of both artists and the industry to be compensated; and I'm also against 'bad business' that is corrupt and doesn't treat artists with 'economic justice'.

Every artist should come to the bargaining table with a team of lawyers and reps. Not doing so is just stupid on the artists' part.

or go the independent route...


If an artist wants the experience and money that a major record label brings, they should be prepared to pay for it.


Personally, I think every artist needs to pay their dues. Suck it up, live life with a major label, get huge, and then go independent.

That's neither practical nor helpful. A bunch of lawyers and reps don't fix a corrupt industry.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ns1

That's neither practical nor helpful. A bunch of lawyers and reps don't fix a corrupt industry.

404 corruption not found

Maybe I missed it, but please inform me how the industry is corrupt.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ns1

That's neither practical nor helpful. A bunch of lawyers and reps don't fix a corrupt industry.

404 corruption not found

Maybe I missed it, but please inform me how the industry is corrupt.

Silly boy, it's corrupt because Craig says it is!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ns1

That's neither practical nor helpful. A bunch of lawyers and reps don't fix a corrupt industry.

404 corruption not found

Maybe I missed it, but please inform me how the industry is corrupt.

Silly boy, it's corrupt because Craig says it is!

Not corrupt in the illegal sense, but in the sense that it's not really competitive and is exploitave to the artists.

Rather than my posting, you can read many, many comments easily from many people who are famliar with the the industry and provide specifics.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Not corrupt in the illegal sense, but in the sense that it's not really competitive and is exploitave to the artists.

Rather than my posting, you can read many, many comments easily from many people who are famliar with the the industry and provide specifics.

I fail to see how giving dumping millions into an artist, promoting the shit out of them, selling records, and taking back their cut on the backend is exploiting the artist, ESPECIALLY when the artist signs on the dotted line.

In summary, 404 corruption not found.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

No offense, but that's a moronic argument. By your logic, ANY law is supportable, and ANY punishment for violating it is permissible as long as it's clearly stated ahead of time that the law and the punishment exist. I could replace "copy DVDs" with "sit in the front of the bus" and you could be defending sending Rosa Parks to jail.

The "simple solution to a simple problem" is the first sign that a position you might be holding requires further consideration. Rarely are problems simple or solutions obvious, especially when dealing with new concepts like digital copies.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Craig234
Not corrupt in the illegal sense, but in the sense that it's not really competitive and is exploitave to the artists.

Rather than my posting, you can read many, many comments easily from many people who are famliar with the the industry and provide specifics.

I fail to see how giving dumping millions into an artist, promoting the shit out of them, selling records, and taking back their cut on the backend is exploiting the artist, ESPECIALLY when the artist signs on the dotted line.

In summary, 404 corruption not found.

Yes, that's the typical record company deal.

Your 404 error is because a lot of information is lacking for you. Do research.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

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.

fact remains downt download illegally if you cant afford to do the time!!

Troll alert.

Or maybe you are too stupid to understand that I agree she should be punished. Most people agree that it not ethical to do what she did. The outrage comes from the cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps your mind cannot get passed simplistic ideas like "dont do the crime if you cant do the time", not to mention its not even relevant because shes not doing time, you imbecile.

Try and read the 8th amendment. Even criminals have rites, or are you just a nazi?

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your 404 error is because a lot of information is lacking for you. Do some research.

nah that's ok. I'm pretty content with my position and you've yet to disprove me or offer a meaningful rebuttal.

 

[SunSamurai]

..

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your 404 error is because a lot of information is lacking for you. Do some research.

nah that's ok. I'm pretty content with my position and you've yet to disprove me or offer a meaningful rebuttal.

Yes, I've decided to let you either remain uninformed or do your own research, not do it for you for now. It gets old after a while, not that you personally have needed it before.

 

[Fern]

The amount sounds so outragious, and by a jury too, that I'm inclined to believe there's much more to the story than this article is telling.

Might the article be written with an anti-RIAA bias? Leaving out pertinent info is one obvious and oft used way to promote a desired outcome/reaction.

I'm not pro/anti-RIAA (don't know much about it, I don't download music etc), but this situation sounds too absurd to take at face value.

Fern

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Craig234
text.

Sure thing bud. You called the industry corrupt without providing any factual input. It's on you to prove it, not me to disprove it.

Now unless you plan to back that shit up, let us continue on with this discussion and not waste anymore bandwidth with this nonsense.