While it looks like she may be guilty, $80,000 per song is unfair. I honestly want to know what the jury was thinking by awarding 80,000 times the cost to buy the songs online.
All the music industry is doing with cases like this is causing more and more people to hate it.
Because they want to set an example.
But hey its their own fault. If I told you, I made a really shit album, would you buy it? Ofc not. Wheras you dont get to actually know whether an album is shit or not until you buy it.
Whats the fucking point, you don't go to the concert of a band you hate do you.
Ah yes! Pure justice. This wretched terrible person deserved to be milked of every last penny. It is absolutely evident that downloading a song will cause damages of $80,000 to the poor and innocent record company, who was brought down to it's kneese ready to keel over and die if this woman wasn't penalyzed to the full extent of the law!
God bless the justice system, God bless the innocent, and may this women rot in HELL where all who download a few songs deserve to go for all eternity.
Amen.
Hmmm, she got caught stealing. So what's the point again?
Lemme be even more sarcastic while stressing on the ridiculous situations;
- She can't pay as proven by the fact she HAD to get something off the web for free. Free? Are you absolutely sure? We all pay for connection. ISP bandwidths aren't free.
- The penalty should simply be this; enforce her to purchase the corresponding items (CD) at regular price in a store.
More importantly, it's the lawyers setting up traps (indirect exploitation of consumers in fact) along whomever backs these claims in ANY courts.
The state itself gains HUGE taxes on these products (administrative costs of Justice itself, btw), heck we're even charged supplemental fees when we rent a DVD (remember the VHS scams?) that gets shipped straight in the sales figures of that specific industry.
Law is failing cuz it's also caught in the greedy opportunities caused by rules & regulations **created** to abuse some vulnerable people -- poor enough to not submit a proper defense.
Don't start me on the Health/Tobacco propaganda; another product taxed beyond value. And which handed over weird amounts to lung cancer patients AND their lawyers; they bought a right for treatment with taxes or, as is the case in the US, must be insured privately to use these benefits.
There will be an appeal or even, a third trial... and, i can understand why.
The rich live waaaaayyyyyy above their means and would exploit the already crippled & misinformed for even for more profits.
aka -- the Capitalism ideology which divides rather than sustain an economy for & by the ENTIRE population.
Don't start me on Banks & Credits issues either.
well, if she was selling the downloaded songs and making money, then i can see how the jury could lay down such a harsh fine. otherwise, it seems a little crazy to think that 24 songs downloaded by one person and only used by that one person are worth 2 mil.
You got it right my boy.... you got it right.
what will happen if they catch somebody stealing a loaf of bread ask for 6 million dollars.... Hey it's expensive growing wheat...
One song, does that really cost a record company $80,000? Really now, had she been an average music buyer, how much do they expect she would pay in her life time of album buying? I doubt it would break a few thousand even if she was a hardcore music fan.
The RIAA and record industry have constantly missed the boat.
lol maybe my high school should start charging tickets for the music concerts, lets see, $80,000xApprox usually 12 songs for the whole thing, so about $960,000/ticket. no biggy
Really depends on if she was sharing it or not. Most of the P2P networks automatically put the stuff you download in the shared folder so you also end up distributing.
If they traced that she distributed it to a some thousands people and the cost of a song is $1, well it's getting a bit closer. And then the punishment has to be higher than the base value too.
Mind you, from the common sense perspective $80k/song is beyond idiotic, but from a legal perspective it can make sense under some circumstances.
Not going to win the RIAA any favors though, though at this point I doubt they're even trying. They have so much bad publicity that they probably figured they might as well just keep going and milk as much money as they can while the laws let them.
This really shows how evil, inethical, and greedy the recording industry and the RIAA is. 1.92 million?! Are you fucking crazy?! This came from a jury that was most likely tainted by the RIAA (tainting a jury means persuading it to say something). The high fine is simply for greed, and it's likely to go striaght into the pockets of RIAA and recording industry executives, instead of the musicians who need the money, since they get paid so little already.
The RIAA, aside from DRM developers, is one of the most zealous anti-piracy companies ever. Piracy is never going to go away, and these people continue to pick on and try to financially ruin people. If this ends up going to the Supreme Court, and the lady wins, lets hope the RIAA gets some kind of punishment.
I'm usually the guy supporting the company oppressing the masses (not my opinion of course, but that's what I get painted as) and I think this is excessive. More importantly, as all of you have either willfully ignored or blindly passed over, the RIAA thinks this is excessive as well. Even AFTER the jury award, they've stated they are willing to settle for less - this after the woman has been ruled against TWICE by a jury. They are smart enough to not want the level of shitstorm this is going to cause.
If you are looking for true amorality here, look at her "defense" team. They're the ones standing her up again and again against lawsuits she cannot possibly win and piling up court fees. At this point, their only conceivable strategy is raising the public profile to cause her to be viewed as a hero standing up to the giant oppressing her, drawing comparrisons to the guy who stood in front of the tank in Tienamen Square. That worked out fairly well for his cause, not so well for him personally. I wonder if they bothered to tell her what she signed on for.
Some time ago, in my country, a poor woman have be send to jail for six month because she have steal some food in a dustbin... The reasoning of the judge was simple... what is put in a street dustbin is propriety of the compagny who empty them... since in these case, it was a state compagny, the hungry poor woman have steal state propriety... result was max sentence...
Shows how our justice system is stacked against the poor and helpless.[e digicons]>[/e]
In today's justice system... you can't catch all the lawbreakers, so in order to scare people into obeying, they charge the ones that they DO manage to catch w/ a ridiculously large charge in order to deter future lawbreakers. It's the luck of the draw... this woman probably could've won the lottery if she wasn't caught[e digicons]:grin:[/e] .
Koda0 (^)
Levying criminal penalties in a civil trial is a gross miscarriage of justice and is absolutely illegal.
Dr.Gonzo
No it won't, since she can't afford to pay it.
True, it might be illegal, but you could be sued by the court for questioning a final court ruling...[e digicons]:X[/e]
If the above is not true... well you still can't do anything about it, because who's gonna arrest the court and put the court on trial... the court, well BZZZZZ! That's the WRONG answer![e digicons][/e]
At least it sounds like the RIAA may have the decency to not try to collect on such an outrageous claim. They'll probably just let the court decision itself stand as a waring and seek a (relatively) miniscule sum if any at all.
Still though, that jury clearly screwed up.
That story is clearly not relevant to US law, as garbage does not have legal ownership issues here. Exceptions exist for things like illegal dumping or if you are tresspassing to get to the garbage, but in general once something hits the curb or dumpster it's pretty much fair game.
Don't know what you mean by this. This is not a criminal penalty by any means, it is well within the guidelines for civil liability pertaining to copyright infringement. IIRC the jury had their choice of a range between $750 to $150,000 per violation. This means that a jury - not lawyers, not prosecutors, not judges, a jury of her peers - thought this was a reasonable penalty within the guidelines of the law. Not to mention that this is the second jury to do so, although the first settled on a far lower amount ($9000 per violation, I think).
Either way, what's done is done, you can't change it, and shedding tears over it is a waste of time and energy.
DrGonzo
Good fucking god, pull your head out of your ass. Punative damages are an accepted part of civil law and have been for decades. You are confusing what you think about how the law works with how the law actually DOES work - and the two are quite a bit different, apparently. Remember the woman who got nearly $3 million out of McDonalds for coffee that was too hot? Her actual medical bills were about $11,000 and the rest was punative damages.
More importantly, bounding limits are set for damages like this because it is often difficult to quantify exactly what damages the plantiff has actually suffered. In this case we can easily see the actual damages are far lower than the award, but the jury could have suggested a number far lower than what they did - and chose not to. Do you honestly think that the defence didn't point out the amount of money that was really lost?
Yes, there are ways of violating copyright so severely the FBI and other law enforcement gets involved, but this is not anywhere close to being one of them. If it was, you have heard about jail time as well as fines - not a civil judgement, where the money goes to the injured party but fines paid to the government. The amounts of money involved are also quite different, I believe those go up to $250,000.
Why cant these pricks actually try to do their jobs and prosecute people who actually harm society? We have terrorists and serial killers and gang problems and yet they make an example out of this?
If they think there sending a message they are right. The message I am receiving is they are pompous, corrupt, and greedy corporate pigs. No wonder they arent having any success keeping people from pirating movies or songs because they pull this crap and essentially convince a thousand more people to keep pirating as a big fuck you to these totalitarian waste of tax payer money spectacles.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
