SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
Remember, we are talking about the RIAA.
Unless she tied every song with a kilo of free cocaine I don't see much reasoning for this amount of fine.
Remember, we are talking about the RIAA.
Unless she tied every song with a kilo of free cocaine I don't see much reasoning for this amount of fine.
The most interessting thing I read about entertainment and copyright is that people are still spending money on entertainment, it hasnt gone down at all in spite of piracy.
What has changed is where people spend their entertainment money, now it has moved on to games. Every year the gaming industry has been posting record numbers. Add that up to the money the movie and music industry is making then you see an actual increase in spending instead of a decrese.
The music and movie industry fails to see that they are competing for our money, competing with the gaming industry and loads of other markets that werent around 10-20 years ago.
What has changed is where people spend their entertainment money, now it has moved on to games. Every year the gaming industry has been posting record numbers. Add that up to the money the movie and music industry is making then you see an actual increase in spending instead of a decrese.
The music and movie industry fails to see that they are competing for our money, competing with the gaming industry and loads of other markets that werent around 10-20 years ago.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
I wouldn't be surprised if people are spending more of their money on unsigned and indie artists than they have been in the past as well. With the internet, you don't need a major record label contract to get your name out there. The RIAA no longer has a monopoly on music, today they have many more artists to compete with for our money.
Just a couple things,
While the 8th amendment can apply to civil cases(Austin v. United States), and the court has lowered judgements against BMW and Exxon in the past, I do not beleive there is precendent set by the court in dealing with civil judgements with monetary damages set by Congress. While yes $150,000 per infraction seems steep, these laws are not just for music, they cover EVERYTHING, so there are legit instances to keep the range they have. It is the juries applying the law thats the issue. Which is why a lot of judgements are lowered by the trial judge.
No matter what, she will owe at a minimum $18,000. There is no likelyhood of the judgement being completely tossed, and all courts are bound by the law. Going to trial is expensive, if you lose it usually costs you big. She had her oppurtunity to settle for peanuts compared to $18k or $1.9million. Her lawyer advised her to initially. I mean she knew based on the law if she was found to have infringed a judgement could range from a minimum of $18k and a maximum of $3.6million.
Its plain and simple. She shared 1700 songs, the court had the RIAA narrow that to 24 specific infractions. She lied to the court multiple times. She continues to lie, she continues to be unrepentent, and continues to say she will never pay a dime. She brought ALL of this on herself. $1.9million is to much, but while the media views her as sympathetic, her actions in court made the court VERY unsympathetic towards her. She royally screwed herself and her defense offered no compelling evidence disproving the plantiffs.
Also, even if she could ever get this to the Supreme Court on an 8th amendmen claim(which is unlikely), the Supreme Court will not rule in her favor. Almost everyone on that court sides with the copyright holders. Although, not yet on the court, Sotomayer, is a very avid supporter of copyright holders. It wouldn't help the DoJ would brief the court on the side of the plaintiffs(the RIAA), as 5 of the DoJs top ranking officials including the #2, #3, and the person in charge of the Civil Division ARE former RIAA lawyers. The #3 in charge has specific ties to this very case.
Finally, her original lawyer wants his $130,000 in legal fees from her. I guess she has no plans to pay that either.
While the 8th amendment can apply to civil cases(Austin v. United States), and the court has lowered judgements against BMW and Exxon in the past, I do not beleive there is precendent set by the court in dealing with civil judgements with monetary damages set by Congress. While yes $150,000 per infraction seems steep, these laws are not just for music, they cover EVERYTHING, so there are legit instances to keep the range they have. It is the juries applying the law thats the issue. Which is why a lot of judgements are lowered by the trial judge.
No matter what, she will owe at a minimum $18,000. There is no likelyhood of the judgement being completely tossed, and all courts are bound by the law. Going to trial is expensive, if you lose it usually costs you big. She had her oppurtunity to settle for peanuts compared to $18k or $1.9million. Her lawyer advised her to initially. I mean she knew based on the law if she was found to have infringed a judgement could range from a minimum of $18k and a maximum of $3.6million.
Its plain and simple. She shared 1700 songs, the court had the RIAA narrow that to 24 specific infractions. She lied to the court multiple times. She continues to lie, she continues to be unrepentent, and continues to say she will never pay a dime. She brought ALL of this on herself. $1.9million is to much, but while the media views her as sympathetic, her actions in court made the court VERY unsympathetic towards her. She royally screwed herself and her defense offered no compelling evidence disproving the plantiffs.
Also, even if she could ever get this to the Supreme Court on an 8th amendmen claim(which is unlikely), the Supreme Court will not rule in her favor. Almost everyone on that court sides with the copyright holders. Although, not yet on the court, Sotomayer, is a very avid supporter of copyright holders. It wouldn't help the DoJ would brief the court on the side of the plaintiffs(the RIAA), as 5 of the DoJs top ranking officials including the #2, #3, and the person in charge of the Civil Division ARE former RIAA lawyers. The #3 in charge has specific ties to this very case.
Finally, her original lawyer wants his $130,000 in legal fees from her. I guess she has no plans to pay that either.
The gaming industry is ravaged by piracy, the difference between the music/movie industries and the gaming industry is, the MPAA and RIAA and their respective companies that make them up, work together. And they work together very effectively. Where as the ESA and the game industry does not. The ESA is powerless and mostly useless association.
If the gaming industry had the ability to go after pirates they would, don't fool yourself.
The gaming companies may not be able to actually catch the pirates, but it seems that they have an easier time discouraging piracy by simply attaching a unique key to each game. IIRC, pirated games still can't get around the fact that each copy of the game must have it's own unique cdkey to play online.
By pirating the game, you are effectively limiting yourself to whatever single player mode is available. With online gaming becoming a bigger part of the experience, only having access to the single player mode is a pretty big restriction.
Music doesn't have this advantage because we aren't required to register each song we own with the RIAA and have the media player phone home to verify the song every time we play it (yet).
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
She stole. Plain and simple. Her punishment from God is justified.
Since this country is a Christian nation, we follow Christian morals and Christ's teachings. Maybe next time she thinks about pirating she'll remember, "thou shalt not steal."
Luckily she doesn't live in a Muslim country or she'd have her hands cut off.
Since this country is a Christian nation, we follow Christian morals and Christ's teachings. Maybe next time she thinks about pirating she'll remember, "thou shalt not steal."
Luckily she doesn't live in a Muslim country or she'd have her hands cut off.
RoloMather
Golden Member
- Sep 23, 2008
- 1,598
- 1
- 0
You're right that she stole, but she stole from people, violating criminal and civil laws of human beings. You're ooga booga deity has nothing to do with it. :roll:
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Might want to check the batteries on your sarcasm meter.
My sarcasm meter is fine. Between this one's user name and his/her posts in this thread. Sadly, I think he/she's serious. :roll:
My (admittedly unreliable) reading of the OP's link was that the songs *would have* cost 99 cents had she paid for them - but regardless, the issue is her distributing them.
Yeehaw. Another fundie.
Let's get fundamental. Let's make the punishment cutting off the person's ears. And, for the poor companies involved, we'll sell tickets to the event. You, 666Christ, can be a ticket taker. Remember, if you come up short, you'll be dealt with severely.
- Jul 2, 2004
- 3,492
- 1
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter