She was ordered to pay $US62,500 ($A62,303.74) for each of the 24 songs, a total of $US1.5 million ($A1.5 million) dollars.
That was a very interesting read. I take my hat off to you sir/madam.
I know little to nothing about the particulars of the laws involved and the legal processes, and that was an eye opener. Thanks.
As far a music goes:
The RIAA are a bunch of bloated, greed-seeking dinosaurs throwing tantrums. Their claims of losses are unsubstantiated, and they conveniently ignore studies that show P2P users actually buy more music than non users.
When I was a kid, we frequently traded mix tapes and borrowed albums to copy off and listen to... it was, and still is, the best free advertising a musical outfit can get. Now, since the whole bloody planet has gone lawsuit-happy, it's acceptable to litigate 12 year-old kids and colledge students just so that musicians can blame their public when they spew out mediocre material and cry about alleged 'lost revenues'.
Yes, stealing is wrong... but a little perspective on things would serve mankind far better; let kids listen to their favorite bands for free once in a while... and instead focus on the thousands of other issues that cause actual pain and suffering to those who can't help themselves. Rape, murder, hunger, disease, war, environmental time-bombs, torture, random acts of violence, terrorism, child pornography... these are all concerns, but they hardly compare in importance to slapping punitive damages on little Johnny for having a half-dozen Britney Spears songs on his computer!
As for other media...
People will gravetate towards legitimacy when a product shows merit, despite the fact that popularity also increases unlawful distribution.
Common sense is often times a lack of sense.
Lack of sense is paying over-inflated prices jacked up by greed.... that's when I use my prerogative and leave it on the shelf.
More should do this (for non-essentials/luxuries, etc)... would send a clear message. "Enough is enough"
Common sense doesn't exist. Ask someone what it means and he/she will look at you dumbfounded.
It's not your right to determine if they're allowed to live off one song. That's the market's right, combined with the artist's willingness to live off that income.
How hard they work is irrelevant also. I'm not some free market libertarian either, but the criteria you are using flat out are wrong and won't work.
Really, I don't think anything has a problem with pirates being held accountable, but I have a problem with pirates being held excessively accountable, and for the benefit of corporations that aren't beneficial, and not societal benefit.
It's not the role of the courts to do corporate welfare in my eyes.
Actually, you're quite right. If sense were common... more people would have it.
If you are American, you can't possibly complain with a straight face about this. I mean, the RIAA is just doing what your laws allow. If you disagree strongly with their behaviour then emigrate, stage a revolution, or go back to sleep while you're waiting for the next travesty.
PS I'm not American. For those who lack reading comprehension this is not an accusation of lack of patriotism. It's an accusation of apathy and failing to be involved in your own government. No wonder they screw you, and take my word for it that the worst is to come.
Or just don't break the law in the first place. There, problem solved.
Wow, what a crazy rant. Please don't be Muslim, I don't want to think of another one of us saying this crap...Can I imagine you a a french Canadian snooty person? I know that's another bad stereotype, but it's one that I am personally not apart of.
Actually....let's NOT stereotype anyone at all.
Thankyou kindly.
So Abeaudoin is either lying in the above post, or lying in the profile which says you're from the United States... interesting.
Either way, way to discredit yourself along with your baseless threats of doom against America.
Whole lot of people wanting a whole lot of different things. It's just not that simple, other than simply being a matter that everybody can't have everything their own way. Acceptance of that is a big part of how the whole thing works, something that does seem to get forgotten from time to time.
Play nice, and leave religions out of it, please.
What surprises me is the fact that some posters can't stick to the facts. Always blowing it out of proportion. Fact ...... a young mother is being unjustly penalized for downloading 24 songs. Fact ..... the media is the one behind the governments pursuing this line. Fact ... all the rants, complaining and everything else is not going to change what is. Why? Simple. The ones responsible will never see this thread. Maybe sending all this to where it will do some good along with as many signatures as is possible will wake somebody up. Will it happen? Probably not.
Fact: you don't know what the word "fact" means. Those are your opinions. The fact is, she's being prosecuted for committing a crime. Whether or not it's unjust, blown out of proportion, or what ever is your opinion.
Yes, Lord Xia got that bit right.
Don't confuse facts with opinions.
I don't agree with 'unjust'...but it's certainly disproportionate...
Silly twit should have taken the original fine/offer.... as that one was 'generous'.....
Beg to differ. Fact! Disproportionate is unjust. There is no way anyone with even a modicum of common sense can justify the amount of money those corporate jackasses are trying to squeeze out of her. Fact! Greed rules here as has been said throughout this thread. Opinion? Sorry dude. Unjust fine is not opinion. It is a fact! My opinion would be that those idiots need to get their priorities in order. It is not a priority to ruin a persons life over 24 songs for crying out loud. These are songs not million dollar priceless objects. From the way some are making this sound you'd think the mother stole antique paintings or some such. C'mon now. A little bit of common sense. Yes it is a crime to steal. But would you like it if it was happening to you?? I doubt that very much. You'd be screaming bloody murder. Fine her for what the songs are worth. Is one song worth $62,500. You can buy a song for less than a buck! Buy an entire CD for less than twenty. Common sense as far as this is concerned has gone out the window. That! is my opinion.
Uvah....no, it's not a 'fact' that the fine/penalty is 'unjust'. The fact IS that the Justice system has allowed that fine to be imposed, ergo it IS 'Just'.
Whether it is FAIR or not is still ONLY an opinion.
I think it's quite fair...to penalize the STUPID. She was offered a FAIR penalty...but apparently refused, so they threw the 'book' at her.
As for 'buying a CD for 20...or a song for one'...the problem is when you 'Torrent'/file-share you are disseminating copyright to MANY.... and that is akin to stealing the entire shop.....giving almost the entire catalogue to OTHERS while keeping 'ONLY' one or two for yourself.
No, you WILL NOT be penalized [just] for the stolen goods in your possession...but also for the entire 'heist'.
THEN the severity or size of the penalty begins to make [more] sense.
The argument here has gone backwards and forwards without compromise or resolution and seems to have superceded the value of its worth.
While it seems greed and market gouging is lost on the proponents of antiquated copyright laws, the idea of theft and illegal gain is lost on the opponents. What may seem like fair comment or opinion is now just repetitive and superfluous, rather than a contribution. Time to move on, me thinks... it's has become no more than tit for tat quarrel and that produces nothing of value to anyone.
I have to agree with starkers. This thing has been beaten to death and then some. All of us here can bandy it about till doomsday but one thing is clear. The ones who should be seeing this never will. IMHO.
This isn't an argument it's a contradiction...
No it isn't.
Yes it is....
1) Leaving all adjectives behind, we have "Person A took IP which wasn't person A's and did not pay for it."
Is person A guilty? Yes. No one can contest that.
2) Was person A offered a way to give restitution for this property? Yes.
3) Did person A choose that option? No.
4) Did Person A get a fair trial and was person A sentenced correctly per law? Yes.
Now we get to the qualifiers such as "she can't afford it", "her children will starve", "the punishment is outlandish". For the first two, "She should have thought or found out about that" and "No, they won't starve. The court will make provision for that" answers while being hard, are true. As for the last, it's not the function of the Judiciary to write law. Efforts to change that should be directed to the Legislature.
Personally? I think she was a fool turning down the $5,000 settlement. I think she brought this on herself. I don't see an option for her at this point, but I'm no lawyer. It's a terribly harsh verdict... but sometimes "You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them."
This would be true if the market was actually free and fair. But it is not. It is ruled by greed and corporations. Laws of many countries help them.
I would believe in market system if somehow greed could be exchanged by compassion in the equation.
This is a cool story. I would have a similar one if I could hide behind unfair laws. The main question here is why is there a law that allows this and how to change it?!
In a country that allows slavery someone being pronounced a slave in the courts also had a "fair" trial.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
