The real problem, in my mind at least, is that the laws on the books allow such excessive damages to be claimed because the lawmakers are in the pockets of the RIAA and other publishing industries.  The entire market has changed and these producers are clinging harder and harder to the deck rails as though that's going to save the ship.

Look at this way: In 2006 McDonald's reported having 450,000 employees (or so says the intarweb).  If it took 30 minutes to properly train every single employee on the new procedures to prevent burns, and they pay an average of say 7 bucks an hour, then it would cost around $1.5 million to correct the safety issue.  Even lowballing it, saying it would cost them 400,000 bucks, they're still not going to fix things if they only have to pay 11,000 dollars every few years to cover a clumsy customer's burn treatment, especially considering that no amount of safety training would guarantee zero burn cases and said training would have to be repeated over and over for new employees.

Therefore the punitive damages are a necessary incentive to motivate a profit driven corporation like McDonald's.  I agree that 3,000,000 is overboard, but if I were on that jury you can bet your dick that I'd have given that lady way more than $11,000.

However, take this lady who got in trouble for piracy.  I would wager $500 would be a sufficient disencentive to keep her from pirating again.  Charging say $20,000 total would have been punitive enough to discourage anyone who can ever be discouraged from pirating.  1.92 million dollars is just outrageous, it serves no purpose whatsoever and the jury failed, period.  

In the case of McDonald's a high sum is necessary to motivate McDonald's to do the right thing.  In the piracy case a high sum is aimed to keep other people from repeating what she did.  She's being dealt punishment for other people's crimes and for crimes that haven't happen yet, it's absurd.  At least with drug laws there's some distinction between possession and intent to sell.  She got the kind of punishment I would expect to see a bootlegger who'd made a considerable amount of money off of it would receive.

That kind of punishment is an example of the US justice system... it's way beyond what is appropriate, and the lawyers involved profit most from it.

By the way, it is just causing further harm to the US economy: Since the little that she owns or earns can now be seized, she no longer has any motivation to work, but just to live on welfare, until such time as she decides to emigrate from the USA to a country that doesn't enforce this sentence.

Good joke. I'm fairly sure the RIAA lawyers are on retainer, meaning they get paid whether they are litigating or not. Her lawyers are working pro bono, so for once the lawyers ARENT making a killing.

The McDonalds case was somewhat different. They KNEW there was a scalding risk and had paid several settlements before this, in aggregate about $900,000. They chose to continue serving their coffee that way because customers preferred it that way. Most of their drive through customers weren't trying to bathe in it, and wanted it to be reasonably hot for a substantial time period, dictating a higher start temperature. Not only that, the "safe" temperature - which can still cause scalding - requires them to brew the coffee and then store it at a considerably lower temperature, reducing quality. Employee training was never an issue, it was a hardware fix.

If you think it wasn't aimed at changing other companies' behavior, you need to look again. Every coffee shop in the US now sells their coffee in a cup with a disclaimer "Caution: contents EXTREMELY HOT" - as if anyone with two brain cells to rub together can't figure that out. In that jury, I wouldn't have given her shit. Yeah, the coffee was hot, but after she spilled it she chose to continue sitting in it instead of taking corrective action such as getting out of the parked car and dropping her pants (modesty takes a back seat to burned genitals in my book, her opinion differed). The problem with the legal system is not excessive awards (usually going to the customer, not to the company/industry as in the RIAA case), but that people can be sued when their their products are used in ways any rational person can see is hazardous. Why be responsible for your own stupidity when you can sue the company and make millions?

Or, those same lawmakers realize the industries affected by piracy constitute a significant fraction of the US GDP and would cause massive economic destabilization if they collapsed due to the government not enforcing its own laws. The publishers represented by the RIAA are not indiviually huge, but overall at least as large as the auto companies we are currently bailing out. Not to mention the film and software industries.

If you want to change the rules, change the laws. Start your own version of the pirate party - they seem to be doing OK in Europe. Maybe even start or contribute to a lobbying campaign for your point of view. Don't just bitch, do something.

Yeah, I triple posted. What of it?

If you will read closer, I already agreed that it was excessive in this instance. What I"m arguing here is that, while excessive, it is perfectly legal for the jury to award such an amount. It is extremely unlikely that the judge will let it stand; the jury amount is merely a recommendation, not final.

As for not enforcing the law, my apologies. It was Zyxpsilon who suggested:

Clearly, the opinion that ANY penalty is outrageous has been expressed, I just confused who expressed it.

For changing the law, I meant it - even if it doesn't apply entirely due to the aforementioned confusion. Legislative changes would be necessary to reduce the range of possible judgements, so it is still a viable suggestion. On the up side, you won't have to start the party, there is apparently already an unofficial pirate party in the US.

For the record, the Pirate Party is not for completely abolishing copyright, just making it not apply to consumers. The frightening part is how well they are doing in Europe; if current trends continue they will be  able to make the music and software industries inviable in the EU. Who cares if there are penalties for copying and selling material, if copying and filesharing are legal and encouraged?

S_O_C_I_E_T_Y.

The difference being that the penalty becomes a way to abuse populations when it's proven that someone gains from the whole judiciary exercise; as in, lawyers receiving payments for failing *AND/OR* winning cases.

The administration of defense *AND* offense has a clear cost for individuals and society.

Organized crime by law.

no she didn't get caught stealing.

Actually, she did. See, when someone puts a copyright on information, and you download it in a manner that violates the copyright, that is effectively stealing information. And for those saying she should be forced to buy the CD's and be done with it... If I could download music with the only risk being the exact amount it would cost me to buy something, why would I ever BUY it outright? I could just steal it for free, and if I get caught, I lose nothing.

These record labels are what bring the music to the people, and keep the bands in business. It's their right to protect themselves against internet piracy, rediculous fine or otherwise.

Exactly, we was detected (amongst probably thousands of others) and *monitored* until proof could be brought in courts and even more important... admitted it when asked by stating the truth.

It doesn't neglect the fact that a jury has allowed a guilt to be magically transformed into abuse that i consider, rightfully so, indirect but corporately driven theft which accomplice is the justice system and the lawyers used to file such case - twice i must add.

If this is how US law works out the evidence and reasonably acceptable penalties for illegal downloading of 24 songs... i guess the current economic recession will turn into a depression worth not 10% unemployment rates but MUCH higher numbers based on the fact that your salaries will become a way for criminals to abuse even more people until most will HAVE to file for personal bankruptcy.

Losing a home to banks for being unable to pay a loan (in order to acquire property with value) is one thing, purchasing (after the fact) 192,000,000$ of some music represented by 24 mp3 files another.

What next, a gallon of fuel at 50.00$? Drive to work.

The absurdity of it all makes me completely sick to chaotic vertigos.

Anyone has an aspirin so i can turn this headache into rational thoughts?

Apparently we have a Starforce fan in the house. Seriously, you are arguing for MORE DRM? Besides, there is no way to completely secure anything from theft. You are simply blaming the victim - and yes, in this case the RIAA is technically the victim, even though they aren't the downtrodden poor everyone likes to think are the victims in every story. If this case were somehow reversed, you would be cheering that some poor person stuck it to the greedy corporation for eighty thousand times what was stolen from them. Don't kid yourself, you know you would.

Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but this sounds like an argument for banning all file sharing technology. Yeah, that certainly would cut down on the piracy - but there are legit uses for that technology that would also suffer from the blanket ban this approach would require.

As a Canadian, you should also be outraged by the loss of a home to medical bills. That IS the leading cause of bankrupcy in the US - and most of that is due to the effects of legal practice on the field. Absent actual negligence, there is no reason doctors can get sued for millions for damn near any reason. How about the drug companies made to pay billions of dollars for drugs that were certified safe by the FDA? Don't forget, even YOUR health care system is partially paid for by US consumers; most of the pharmaceutical research for the world is done in the US, as it is one of the only places where laws make it profitable to do so.

Besides, she didn't get sued simply for downloading the songs, she was also uploading them for others to download.

Good, you won't be rich very long. The behemoth wouldn't be trying to rape them had they not screwed the company first.

Until the behemoth looks your way and decides to collect. Not everyone can afford everything, but then you don't need everything to live, do you? Music (movies, games, etc) are LUXURY ITEMS. If you can't afford them you do without. An internet connection does not entitle you to everything ever made.

poor woman is a scapegoat. 

Even fragments are enough to be considered copyright infringement, so legally that shouldn't matter. From what I've been able to find of the actual evidence, these songs were all found in her KaZaA "share" folder, indicating all were available to be uploaded upon request. Almost certainly her IP address was discovered while she was uploading, not downloading, but I can't confirm that. You are correct in that there is an odd lack of actual evidence available to be seen by the public in this case. I'm used to reading actual court documents in cases like this, not articles by someone who listened to a news conference about it.

He was discussing his intention "to help these average people fight the behemoth corperations that rape them". I chose to use the plural forms to respond to his particular post, not to the case the rest of the topic is discussing. That is why his post was conveniently quoted right before my text, to indicate precisely what I was responding to.

Hey I just found a way better article on this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9y16Zokxk90

It pretty much sums up all of my misgivings about the whole thing and fills in an important detail:  Vivendi (the actual plaintiff) offered to settle for $3,000-$5000 before ever going to court, which is way more reasonable.

Suffice it to say the story will probably have a much better ending that the artical the OP linked would lead you to believe.