Woman fined 1.9 million $ for downloads

[Music_Producer]

We're talking about 24 songs! The jury found her guilty @ $80,000 per song :confused: I'm against illegal downloading, but how did they come up with a song's value at $80,000 ?

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/18/woman-fined-1-9-million-for-illegal-downloads/

[JNB]

Seems to be a clear Eighth Amendment violation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Music_Producer]

I read the article on CNBC where they more details .. seems the jury was 'angry' at her for downloading illegally. She may not have to come up with anywhere near that money anyway as the RIAA is willing to settle for $3000-$5000.

Scary to think the fate of someone's life rests in the hands of a jury who clearly lack common sense.

[JNB]

If I were on the jury, I may have found her guilty, but the only fine I would have voted for would have been $95.04. Actual cost + treble damages. That's as punitive as most courts allow. Oh, maybe court costs, too, and considering what the RIAA's paying their shysters, $3-5K total is probably getting off light, then.

[mkrishnan]

Are "treble damages" like when you play a Kenny G solo on your CD player and the alto sax offends your speakers? :eek: :o

Seriously, I didn't see all the details, but don't these lawsuits typically at least in part rely on the defendants serving the file via the filesharing system as well as having downloaded it? So the actual damages to the entities the RIAA represents is more than $1/song.

However, I think this jury award is a bad idea, since it's going to massively disincentivize anyone else from fighting back against the RIAA and the $3000-5000 settlements are (to me) as unreasonable as letting her go with a $95 fine.

I dunno... there should be some reasonable deterrent middle ground. Maybe about $15 a song. That would be, in her case, around... $400? And then perhaps a tiering system so that if she ever does this again, she gets charged more substantially... Maybe the second offense would be $1200 or something. I dunno. But right now the RIAA is effectively extorting money out of people who did something wrong, but not necessarily diabolical. She should have to make reasonable amends. But it should end there. The jury shouldn't be feeding the RIAA profiteering.

EDIT: And too bad none of these jurors were involved when it was determined how Sony should have been punished for their cybercrime of rootkitting hundreds of thousands of American computers.

[benlee]

With the number of people that illegally download/ share (which it sounds like this woman didn't do) does the RIAA just randomly pick someone to go after?

[dukebound85]

why do they decide an amount they know she will never be able to pay out?

[mkrishnan]

With the number of people that illegally download/ share (which it sounds like this woman didn't do) does the RIAA just randomly pick someone to go after?

I've been wondering this for some time, too. I had sort of assumed that they targeted "low hanging fruit" -- that in cases like this, they "prove" 24 songs but perhaps there were many thousands of "likely" songs they couldn't prove for whatever reason. But that might be totally wrong. I think there's probably a non-disclosure on the settlements, and so little seems to be known about exactly what is happening. At least, when I looked in the past, I could not find an answer to this question.

why do they decide an amount they know she will never be able to pay out?

I think they're trying to send a message, but I don't think their intent was for the message to be, "We are idiots and we have no idea what the consequences of our behavior are, nor do we care to think about it before we act."

[ChrisA]

why do they decide an amount they know she will never be able to pay out?

Lawyers are very good at convincing people of anything. The lawer likely gets a 30% cut so of course he argus for a million dollar fine

[benlee]

Lawyers are very good at convincing people of anything. The lawer likely gets a 30% cut so of course he argus for a million dollar fine

An MPAA lawyer is most definitely either salaried or paid hourly.

[Lipstick]

Good lord!

[Dmac77]

It will be appealed, and any judge with common sense will reduce the judgement.

Don

[jav6454]

I hope she can get those charges reduced.

[edesignuk]

Bravo Courts and Music Industry. Now you'll be respected :rolleyes:

Morons.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_8108000/8108589.stm) story on same item.

[gnasher729]

It will be appealed, and any judge with common sense will reduce the judgement.

The problem with this is that it will go from a payment that is so utterly unbelievably stupidly out of this world that it can't be allowed to stand on grounds of insanity to a payment that is just below this threshold, but still nowhere near anything that could be justified.

The problem here is that they used "statutory damages": If you make copies of one work, then the statutory damages are to be set between $750 and $150,000 according to the law. Now if one of million downloaders is caught with 24 songs in her "shared" folder, then a jury apparently takes $80,000 in statutory damages multiplied by 24 infringed works, which comes up with a ridiculous result. If I made copies of Mathematica or some CAD software that costs far beyond 1000 dollars, and sold them for $100 on eBay, statutory damages would be a maximum of $150,000, even if I sell 5000 copies. Much less than the profit that I made, and much much less than the actual damage.

That is because "statutory damages" counts the number of works (I bought a box set with 10 CDs of Vivaldi music for £9.99. I think it is about 150 songs. If I shared them that would be statutory damages of at least 150 x $750 = $112,500, and maximum of $150 x $150,000 = $22.5 million. So one box set that I bought for £9.99 counts as 150 times as much as Mathematica which costs somewhere above £1000).

[designgeek]

why do they decide an amount they know she will never be able to pay out?

Totally, do they really think this will stop people from using P2P? If I were to torrent something, say CS4, and get charged millions of dollars that I couldn't and wouldn't pay because of chap. 11, would that stop me? It seems I'd have bypassed the consequences.


*I am not a lawyer and I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

[Fizzoid]

I read the article on CNBC where they more details .. seems the jury was 'angry' at her for downloading illegally.

Scary to think the fate of someone's life rests in the hands of a jury who clearly lack common sense. Is it not the Judge who decides on the punishment and the Jury simply decide innocent or guilty?

[JBazz]

She did more than download 24 songs.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service after a settlement with entertainment companies. The music industry tried to prove only 24 exemplary infringements.

She had been on Kazaa for years allowing others to download her songs.

[opinioncircle]

So how did they pick the jury? I mean chances are people in the jury ACTUALLY downloaded content from Kazaa or other P2P sources...bunch of hypocrites if you ask me...

[mkrishnan]

She had been on Kazaa for years allowing others to download her songs.

Thanks, yeah, I figured that was the case but I didn't see it in any of the reports....

[hmmfe]

Seems to be a clear Eighth Amendment violation.

No offense, but I think it would be best to understand the meaning of the 8th Amendment before pronouncing a violation. This was a civil proceeding and the "fine" was awarded to the record labels not the government. Court precedent has long established that "fines" in the meaning of the 8th Amendment refer to situations where the gov't was a party to the action and was the recipient of the payment. Specifically, jury awards in a civil trial are not covered by the 8th Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines.

[lighthouse_man]

why do they decide an amount they know she will never be able to pay out?

To scare everybody else.

[Dagless]

So she was sharing the files? That's not good.

[notjustjay]

To scare everybody else.

There's a fine line between "Yikes, I'd better take this seriously" and "That's just ridiculous".

Take speeding as an example. How many of us have broken the traffic speed limit laws? Pretty much all of us, yes? We know we risk getting caught and being issued a ticket for somewhere in the range of $50-100, but we take that risk. We also know that enforcement is minimal, and fairly lenient, and that (in Canada) a posted speed limit of 100 km/h means we can actually drive 120 km/h.

What if the minimum fine attached to a speeding ticket was $1,000? Would we all be paying far more attention to our speedometers then?

What if it was $1,000,000? Now we've gone too far. We'd all say "Oh, pshaww" and ignore it, and the first poor sap that got pulled over and issued a ticket would be fighting it in court until the settlement was something more realistic... which would immediately render the law, and the $1,000,000 fine, a total joke.

I think a reasonable fine for pirating music could be on the order of $20 per song. Usually when people pirate music they copy entire albums, so the fine would be around $200. That's enough to make you think twice about doing it again.

[MrSmith]

I can't think of a crime more deserving a ruined life than copyright infringement...:rolleyes:

[cycocelica]

No matter what your take is on file sharing, you have to agree this is ridiculous. I mean the maximum fine for a DUI in WA is $5,000. You are telling me that sharing music is more of a heinous crime than drunk driving? Go US legal system.

This is exactly what pirates laugh at when they see this kind of story. They think, "well no **** they we "stealing" from you with your endless suing and money mongering". No one respects the RIAA anymore because ALL over their practices are ridiculous and only screw over the end consumer. Keep ****ing RIAA.

[OutThere]

I've said for a long time that the RIAA is just bitter that they didn't realize the potential in Napster back in 1999, buy it out or create their own and immediately monetize it. Instead they've just played 10 years of whack-a-mole while slowly resigning themselves to the fact that the age of the CD is fading.

Think about where we'd be today if the RIAA had bought Napster before it was ever popular and released it as a new way to buy music!

[killerrobot]

Think about where we'd be today if the RIAA had bought Napster before it was ever popular and released it as a new way to buy music!

I wonder if iTunes would've ever got off the ground had that happened.

Back to the story: I can't believe the price put onto those 24 songs. It seems absolutely excessive whether you take her side or not.

Let me take at look over at piratebay - Hmm... this still didn't stop any music file sharing. Bravo RIAA.:rolleyes:

[Old Muley]

So are the folks getting tapped in these lawsuits people who'd been using site like Kazaa/Napster/etc. or are they also snagging people doing the Limewire thing as well? I don't really know how all these work, but it seems to me that "signing up" on a filesharing site puts you at a lot more risk than the quick in-and-out of direct p2p sharing.

[lag1090]

Seems to be a clear Eighth Amendment violation.

The Eighth only applies to criminal cases. This is a civil matter, so the fines are limited by other statutes.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Let me take at look over at piratebay - Hmm... this still didn't stop any music file sharing. Bravo RIAA.:rolleyes:

Thats the kicker right there. The RIAA is not going to stop copyright violations by acting like dicks. If anything, they are just going to drive the filesharing community to share more so they can essentially tell the RIAA to suck it. Nobody takes the RIAA seriously any more.

[opinioncircle]

Thats the kicker right there. The RIAA is not going to stop copyright violations by acting like dicks. If anything, they are just going to drive the filesharing community to share more so they can essentially tell the RIAA to suck it. Nobody takes the RIAA seriously any more.

Depends. If they carry on with these kind of fines and IF they are paid, then yeah, we actually might be able to take the RIAA a little more seriously...

[63dot]

Yeah, when they do that to me, it sucks. It usually empties out my wallet that day.

[63dot]

I've said for a long time that the RIAA is just bitter that they didn't realize the potential in Napster back in 1999, buy it out or create their own and immediately monetize it. Instead they've just played 10 years of whack-a-mole while slowly resigning themselves to the fact that the age of the CD is fading.


What? I don't get it. And what is this CD thing you are talking about?

[joro]

Now $1.29 a song seems like a bargain…:rolleyes:

[TJRiver]

How about that. This gal got caught and a jury slapped her with the statutory fines authorized by the law enacted by our (the RIAA's?) good friends in Washington. The gal lied through her teeth, took a specious position at trial and got bi%&#slapped by the jury. Guess what kiddies, this happens every day in courtrooms all across this fine country.

Bitching about the amount of the jury award on boards like this will accomplish zip. You have to get the underlying law changed. That means doing boring old things like writing letters to your Congressman, etc. Politics......

[BittenApple]

Richard Marx - Now and Forever
Destiny's Child - Bills, Bills, Bills
Journey - Don't Stop Believin'
Journey - Faithfully
Gloria Estefan - Coming Out of the Dark
Gloria Estefan - Here We Are
Gloria Estefan - Fhythm is Gonna Get You
Sarah McLachlan - Building a Mystery
Sarah McLachlan - Possession
No Doubt - Bathwater
No Doubt - Different People
Goo Goo Dolls - Iris
Green Day - Basket Case
Linkin Park - One Step Closer
Aerosmith - Cryin'
Bryan Adams - Somebody
Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me
Guns N Roses - November Rain
Guns N Roses - Welcome to the Jungle
Janet Jackson - Let's Wait Awhile
Reba McEntire - One Honest Heart
Sheryl Crow - Run, Baby, Run
Vanessa Williams - Save the Best for Last

[Dagless]

Richard Marx - Now and Forever
Destiny's Child - Bills, Bills, Bills
Journey - Don't Stop Believin'
Journey - Faithfully
Gloria Estefan - Coming Out of the Dark
Gloria Estefan - Here We Are
Gloria Estefan - Fhythm is Gonna Get You
Sarah McLachlan - Building a Mystery
Sarah McLachlan - Possession
No Doubt - Bathwater
No Doubt - Different People
Goo Goo Dolls - Iris
Green Day - Basket Case
Linkin Park - One Step Closer
Aerosmith - Cryin'
Bryan Adams - Somebody
Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me
Guns N Roses - November Rain
Guns N Roses - Welcome to the Jungle
Janet Jackson - Let's Wait Awhile
Reba McEntire - One Honest Heart
Sheryl Crow - Run, Baby, Run
Vanessa Williams - Save the Best for Last

Those are some quite relevant song names.

[iPhoneNYC]

How was this woman chosen for trial?

[Dmac77]

How was this woman chosen for trial?

Randomly.

Don

[yg17]

So lets say she pays the $1.9 million fine....how much of that goes to the artists, the only people who might actually be hurt by file sharing? My guess would be not a penny.

[63dot]

How was this woman chosen for trial?

I am going to check Lexus and see what it says about this one if it's on there. There's usually something more than just random 99% percent of the time.

[Schtumple]

I am going to check Lexus and see what it says about this one if it's on there. There's usually something more than just random 99% percent of the time.

Makes sense, why bother going after the people that are uploading when you can just go after the little people and sue them into infinity for the same amount.

Keep Music Evil, abolish record labels.

[sushi]

Wow, this makes no sense. Way to much of a fine.

As someone mentioned, too bad this jury wasn't on the Sony case.

[synth3tik]

I am fairly sure that when looking into whom to sue that the RIAA does go for people with moderate to low incomes. Sadly I think the RIAA finds it easier to bully these people out of money.

The RIAA took a big step forward in their new policy of working with ISPs instead of suing the pants off the entire US. We'll see how they do. There is a lot that needs to happen to the music industry if it is really to survive.

[jessica.]

I am going to check Lexus and see what it says about this one if it's on there. There's usually something more than just random 99% percent of the time.

The company is Lexis, not Lexus. :cool:

Randomly.

Don

Can you qualify that? I'm pretty sure that it's just a guess.

[mkrishnan]

The company is Lexis, not Lexus. :cool:

Maybe he keeps a legal reference in his ride? :D I think I keep some of this music in mine. I'll go check Mazda and let you know. ;)

Can you qualify that? I'm pretty sure that it's just a guess.

I think it is a guess, but I don't think Lexis-Nexus (or Infiniti or Mercedes for that matter) have much that would lend to answering this question definitively. As I understand it, the RIAA used legal channels to obtain a large amount of data on who used these services, and there's never been much in the way of public accountability regarding what exactly was given to them. This information, which includes data on the people who've been followed upon by RIAA but also presumably a large number of others, went into an RIAA black hole inside which decisions about prosecution or other legal avenues were made. AFAIK there is no data out there on what exactly RIAA is doing.

For instance, there are literally people who installed Limewire or Kazaa in the heat of things, and downloaded one or two songs, and got sick of it and deleted it. Are any of them being pursued? Dunno. It seems that in the public cases, the people who "only downloaded 32 songs" or whatever turn out to have done much more. But who knows that they haven't also put their full-court press on someone, picked at random, who downloaded one song? If that person agreed to their demands, didn't they sign an NDA which further shrouds exactly what happened from the public eye?

This issue isn't as important as the wars or freedom of speech or due process for those non-enemy combatants or whatever they're called, but it's still essentially an act of fascism for the government to allow the RIAA to do this. I don't support the defendant in this suit -- by all appearances she callously and repeatedly violated copyright law. She didn't do me any favors in the process. She should receive fair consequences for this. But not by some midnight tribunal shrouded in secrecy, and not $1.9M for the infraction she committed.

[NoSmokingBandit]

So lets say she pays the $1.9 million fine....how much of that goes to the artists, the only people who might actually be hurt by file sharing? My guess would be not a penny.

This would be interesting to find out. I doubt the artists approve of the riaa's behavior at all.

[TJRiver]

This would be interesting to find out. I doubt the artists approve of the riaa's behavior at all.

A lot of these responses show very little understanding of how the music business works (or worked in the "good old days"). Back then, an artist had talent and some songs they have written. At that point, the artist had no way to get their talent and music to the teeming masses. Any artist's goal was to "get a record deal".

Of course, the "record deal" is a deal with the devil. In exchange for taking all of the financial risk (recording and producing albums, manufacturing, selling and promoting albums, paying payolla to get songs on the radio, fronting costs for concerts, advertising, etc., etc.), the record company owns the artist's output, not the artist (there are a few exceptions, like Springsteen, Madonna and very few others who had enough leverage to keep ownership of their music). In exchange, the artists get paid royalties on album sales and other use of their music, like jukebox and muzak play. The RIAA exists to collect those royalties and pay them over to the artists. Without the RIAA, a lot of older artists would have no income.

My guess is that if I was living off those royalty payments, as a retired artist, the last thing I would want to do is promote the theft of my livelihood via file sharing. Many newer artists may give some lip service that they disagree with what the RIAA is doing, but unless they are giving their royalty payments to charity, my guess is that most of them are covertly cheering the RIAA for slamming file sharers.

As for the "new model", where is no record company and the artist simply posts their work product on the web for free, it won't last 10 years. For everyone who makes it as an internet star (for 15 minutes) there are millions who will never make it, much like those countless 12 year olds on the park basketball court dreaming of NBA stardom, one or two of which might actually make it. The arguement that all music should be available to download and share for free is hopeless naive.

[Muncher]

Totally, do they really think this will stop people from using P2P? If I were to torrent something, say CS4, and get charged millions of dollars that I couldn't and wouldn't pay because of chap. 11, would that stop me? It seems I'd have bypassed the consequences.


*I am not a lawyer and I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

It would be chapter 13 for you because you're an individual, and no, you wouldn't walk away without a scratch. Your credit rating would likely plummet, and some personal possessions would be taken. You'd keep your house though, I think.

[wywern209]

So lets say she pays the $1.9 million fine....how much of that goes to the artists, the only people who might actually be hurt by file sharing? My guess would be not a penny.
nope, all of the money got from such lawsuits goes to suing more people out of their livlyhood.

[dukebound85]

theres no point in suing someone if they cant pay so yea, this is pointless

[Muncher]

The arguement that all music should be available to download and share for free is hopeless naive.

True. At the same time, the "system" we have in place now is quite broken. Where do we go from here? How do you stop piracy when it's so easy? It's so much simpler to open up your bittorrent/gnutella client than to go to the store and get a CD, and so much less expensive than iTunes/Amazon/whatever else.

If it can be played through a speaker, it can be copied. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole)

[wywern209]

It would be chapter 13 for you because you're an individual, and no, you wouldn't walk away without a scratch. Your credit rating would likely plummet, and some personal possessions would be taken. You'd keep your house though, I think.

like what possessions? ur car, ur imac( oh noes!)?

[KingYaba]

True. At the same time, the "system" we have in place now is quite broken. Where do we go from here? How do you stop piracy when it's so easy? It's so much simpler to open up your bittorrent/gnutella client than to go to the store and get a CD, and so much less expensive than iTunes/Amazon/whatever else.

RedBox seems to be doing well on the movie front. $1 for a DVD is quite nice and convenient. They're everywhere down here. I hope they offer BluRay in the near future. Not everyone has a fast connection (yet) to download BluRay movies let alone seed a movie if they're using torrents. I'd suggest to the board of RedBox to get HD as soon as possible.

I think for music record labels should look into subscription services with high quality downloads or do a Netflix thing with CDs because regulating the internet is not going to happen and continually punishing people by fining them $2 million aint going to win hearts and minds.

[Muncher]

like what possessions? ur car, ur imac( oh noes!)?

I don't know exactly. I just know they can't take some essential stuff. It varies from state to state.

RedBox seems to be doing well on the movie front. $1 for a DVD is quite nice and convenient. They're everywhere down here. I hope they offer BluRay in the near future. Not everyone has a fast connection (yet) to download BluRay movies let alone seed a movie if they're using torrents. I'd suggest to the board of RedBox to get HD as soon as possible.

I think for music record labels should look into subscription services with high quality downloads or do a Netflix thing with CDs because regulating the internet is not going to happen and continually punishing people by fining them $2 million aint going to win hearts and minds.

Not to mention to $2000-5000 they get from random cases aren't going to cover the cost of their legal department. Although the millions they fine people for make it look like they're trying.

The real money here may be in lossless. People who use limewire generally don't care all that much about the quality of their music; one of the reasons I get CDs for the albums I really like is so I can burn them at high quality. Sell DRM free lossless tracks, the limewire crowd won't go for them all that much because they'll take too long to download, and when you do buy a track you can own it like a CD.

[mkrishnan]

The Justice Department voiced their position that the BMW v. Gore precedent for relationship between punitive and actual damages does not apply to statutory damage cases, and that they therefore believe that the $80,000/track damages levied against Thomas-Rasset are constitutional...

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5240

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was hit with a $1.9 million verdict for filesharing 24 songs — roughly $80,000 per song. Is that even constitutional? Thomas-Rasset’s lawyers filed an appeal saying it’s not. Friday, the Justice Department weighed in with an opinion that it is (PDF).

Under the Copyright Act’s statutory damages provision, the jury had a wide berth to assign damages - anywhere from $750 to $30,000 for standard violations and from $30,000 to $150,000 for “willful violations.” The argument is basically that such high numbers are punitive in nature and punitive damages need to bear some resemblance to actual damages. With actual damages in the realm of $1 per song, the ratios are clearly beyond the pale of “reasonableness.”

In a memorandum to the court, the Justice Department first attacks the defendant’s reliance on the famous BMW v. Gore case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down a jury’s punitive damages award, finding that at 100 times actual damages the verdict violated due process. The Justice Department’s argument is that the Gore decision only applies to jury awards. A different case - the 1919 case of St. Louis IM&S Ry. Co. v. Williams - controls statutory damages laws like the Copyright Act, the Justice Dept. said.

[MegaMillions]

She consciously broke the law. I feel no sympathy. I wish they'd stick with the $1.9 million figure and put her in debt for life (and possibly pass some debt onto her offspring).

[Dmac77]

She consciously broke the law. I feel no sympathy. I wish they'd stick with the $1.9 million figure and put her in debt for life (and possibly pass some debt onto her offspring).

So do you work for the RIAA or something?

This woman should haver been fined $24 and that's all.

And your comment regarding putting her children into debt is absolutely disgusting.

Don

[MegaMillions]

So do you work for the RIAA or something?

This woman should haver been fined $24 and that's all.

And your comment regarding putting her children into debt is absolutely disgusting.

Don

I didn't mean intentionally target her children. I just mean that if she couldn't pay off the $1.9 million in her lifetime, the debt would pass to her kids.

I do not work for the RIAA. I am simply an upstanding citizen who believes that if a person consciously breaks a law, there should be no limit to how harsh the punishment can be.

[Dmac77]

I didn't mean intentionally target her children. I just mean that if she couldn't pay off the $1.9 million in her lifetime, the debt would pass to her kids.

I do not work for the RIAA. I am simply an upstanding citizen who believes that if a person consciously breaks a law, there should be no limit to how harsh the punishment can be.

So by your thinking, we should torture someone to death for shoplifting.

This ruling was and still is completely asinine. It's not like the record companies don't have any money. $1.9 million is way to much.

She should not die in debt, and the debt should not pass onto her kids.

You have problems if you think this ruling was fair.

Don

[MegaMillions]

So by your thinking, we should torture someone to death for shoplifting.

This ruling was and still is completely asinine. It's not like the record companies don't have any money. $1.9 million is way to much.

She should not die in debt, and the debt should not pass onto her kids.

You have problems if you think this ruling was fair.

Don

I'm sorry but she consciously stepped outside of the law. She has nothing to defend herself with. They can do whatever they want.

[THX1139]

I'm sorry but she consciously stepped outside of the law. She has nothing to defend herself with. They can do whatever they want.

I didn't mean intentionally target her children. I just mean that if she couldn't pay off the $1.9 million in her lifetime, the debt would pass to her kids.

I do not work for the RIAA. I am simply an upstanding citizen who believes that if a person consciously breaks a law, there should be no limit to how harsh the punishment can be.

Perhaps you would enjoy living in the middle east where they cut off peoples hands for shop lifting, stone people for getting raped, hang them for being homosexual?

Look, I have no problem of people being punished according to the laws, but sometimes the laws are too strict or too lenient. Where is the justice in that? The issue I have with you is that you come across with a holier than thou attitude. 1.5 million is a ridiculous fine and you know it. What is even more ridiculous is your comment that the fine should be passed on to future generations. Gee, I wonder how you feel about people who really break the law! :eek:

<shakes head and walks away in disgust> :(

[MegaMillions]

Perhaps you would enjoy living in the middle east where they cut off peoples hands for shop lifting, stone people for getting raped, hang them for being homosexual?

Look, I have no problem of people being punished according to the laws, but sometimes the laws are too strict or too lenient. Where is the justice in that? The issue I have with you is that you come across with a holier than thou attitude. 1.5 million is a ridiculous fine and you know it. What is even more ridiculous is your comment that the fine should be passed on to future generations. Gee, I wonder how you feel about people who really break the law! :eek:

<shakes head and walks away in disgust> :(

Just don't break the law. That's all i'm saying.

And your three examples at the beginning of your post are weird. The first one makes sense, but the second two are primitive and unjust. Or did you mean "stone people to death for raping?"

I'm not talking about injustice. I'm talking about harsh punishment for knowingly breaking a law.

I don't have a holier than thou attitude, unless you think i'm holier than thou for not breaking the law. I just don't break the law. I never said i'm holier than anybody. Just that if they break the law, they deserve to be punished.

edit: I'm not saying i'm for chopping off hands for shoplifting. I was just saying that that's the only example of yours where the punished actually did something punishable.

[iBlue]

...
And your three examples at the beginning of your post are weird. The first one makes sense, but the second two are primitive and unjust. Or did you mean "stone people to death for raping?"

....

No, he/she meant being stoned to death for being raped. Maybe when you grow up and learn a little more about the world you'll understand comments like that. Sometimes the punishments don't fit the "crime".

This fine is ridiculous and saying "well don't break the law" is quite frankly a stupid justification for it.

[MegaMillions]

No, he/she meant being stoned to death for being raped. Maybe when you grow up and learn a little more about the world you'll understand comments like that. Sometimes the punishments don't fit the "crime".

This fine is ridiculous and saying "well don't break the law" is quite frankly a stupid justification for it.

Attacking the RIAA for deploying this fine is like attacking a home owner because a thief trying to break into his house broke his leg in the process. There's a story about it called The Judgement of Karakoush. Attacking the record companies for punishing somebody who consciously stepped outside of the law is absurd.

[iBlue]

Attacking the RIAA for deploying this fine is like attacking a home owner because a thief trying to break into his house broke his leg in the process. There's a story about it called The Judgement of Karakoush. Attacking the record companies for punishing somebody who consciously stepped outside of the law is absurd.

That's a BS parallel and not even close to the same thing.

Sure, she broke the law and perhaps a punishment is fair enough, but not THIS punishment. An amount like that has no justification whatsoever.

I'm sure you're convinced though and my saying this is utterly pointless. My only hope is that one day you will look back on the crap you spout on this forum and find yourself humiliated... because you should be.

[arkitect]

Attacking the RIAA for deploying this fine is like attacking a home owner because a thief trying to break into his house broke his leg in the process. There's a story about it called The Judgement of Karakoush. Attacking the record companies for punishing somebody who consciously stepped outside of the law is absurd.

I don't think anyone, at least I am not, Attacking the record companies for punishing somebody who consciously stepped outside of the law but what we are railing against is the massively disproportionate scale of the "punishment".
And chiming in and saying her children should also be punished into perpetuity is pretty daft, to say the least.

Do you really, really believe the punishment is proportionate to the crime?
You realise if she were some white collar criminal who embezzled, stole, mis appropriated millions more he/she'd be most probably be walking away with a slap on the wrists — if not a government loan.

This $1,900,000 fine is madness.

My only hope is that one day you will look back on the crap you spout on this forum and find yourself humiliated... because you should be.
*Thumbs up*
Well said.

[MegaMillions]

I don't think anyone, at least I am not, but what we are railing against is the massively disproportionate scale of the "punishment".
And chiming in and saying her children should also be punished into perpetuity is pretty daft, to say the least.

Do you really, really believe the punishment is proportionate to the crime?
You realise if she were some white collar criminal who embezzled, stole, mis appropriated millions more he/she'd be most probably be walking away with a slap on the wrists — if not a government loan.

This $1,900,000 fine is madness.

Even if you're right, she is in no position to make such an argument. She knowingly stepped out of the law. What don't you get about that? She knew she was breaking the law, and she did it anyway. How can she protest against anything that comes back to bite her?

[edesignuk]

Even if you're right, she is in no position to make such an argument. She knowingly stepped out of the law. What don't you get about that? She knew she was breaking the law, and she did it anyway. How can she protest against anything that comes back to bite her?OK, you pinch a pencil from a stationary store and I'll slap you with a $100,000 fine for doing so.

Over reaction? No way :rolleyes:

[MegaMillions]

OK, you pinch a pencil from a stationary store and I'll slap you with a $100,000 fine for doing so.

Over reaction? No way :rolleyes:

I wouldn't steal a pencil from a stationary store. Those who knowingly break the law should be prepared for any consequence.

[OllyW]

I didn't mean intentionally target her children. I just mean that if she couldn't pay off the $1.9 million in her lifetime, the debt would pass to her kids.


Perhaps Bernard Madoff's children can serve the remainder of his 150 year prison sentence when he dies. :rolleyes:

[edesignuk]

Those who knowingly break the law should be prepared for any consequence.How old are you, 12? How can you possibly have such a simplistic view?

To say that anyone that breaks the rules of "law" should be prepared for any consequence makes no sense.

[MegaMillions]

How old are you, 12? How can you possibly have such a simplistic view?

To say that anyone that breaks the rules of "law" should be prepared for any consequence makes no sense.

If they knowingly broke the law, I feel no sympathy. They are not victims.

[edesignuk]

If they knowingly broke the law, I feel no sympathy. They are not victims.If only everything in life were so simple and clean cut huh.

[arkitect]

Even if you're right, she is in no position to make such an argument. She knowingly stepped out of the law. What don't you get about that? She knew she was breaking the law, and she did it anyway. How can she protest against anything that comes back to bite her?

:confused:
Try and read carefully before you type up a reply. That is not what I am concerned about.

However, since this is how you play the game: I say, this is massively disproportionate punishment — What don't you get about that?

How can she protest against anything that comes back to bite her?
So in your hunky dory world there would be no right to appeal?
Fascinating.

We're back in Victorians times… steal an apple and it's life sentence at the treadmill for you.
Steal a loaf of bread and it'll be the gallows…

*weird*

[iPhone 62S]

Everyone who does this crap at the RIAA deserves to burn in hell.

This is not a isolated incident, they do this crap all the time, and they've even tried to sue people who are deceased, haven't got a computer, etc.

Suing people for stupid amounts of money for downloading music is ridiculous and that's what should be illegal, not piracy (which has been proven not to damage the industry at all anyway).

EDIT: I encourage you to check out your national Pirate Party too BTW, they are working to stop this crap and create a more open culture with no copyright crap. I have links in my signature for the British and US ones, and Google should find you the rest.
EDIT AGAIN: I also encourage you to download and watch Steal This Film if you have a hour or two to burn. It's legal to torrent it as it's released under "kopimi", which is basically the opposite of copyright.

[Dagless]

Suing people for stupid amounts of money for downloading music is ridiculous and that's what should be illegal, not piracy (which has been proven not to damage the industry at all anyway).

EDIT: I encourage you to check out your national Pirate Party too BTW, they are working to stop this crap and create a more open culture with no copyright crap. I have links in my signature for the British and US ones, and Google should find you the rest.
EDIT AGAIN: I also encourage you to download and watch Steal This Film if you have a hour or two to burn. It's legal to torrent it as it's released under "kopimi", which is basically the opposite of copyright.

Oh my what a short sighted view, do you support it because it lets you have commercial products for free? I'm guess you aren't a content provider.

Here's a nice little story. Jimmy here graduated university a couple of years ago and start work on a long-term game. 2 and a half years later he released a nice little game to further fund development. Jimmy was happy to finally be able to buy food, pay bills and live without borrowing more money. Then some twunt uploaded his game to a torrent site and has seen a drop in sales to only a couple per week whilst the torrent has more people seeding than actual purchases. How does that work? None of these moral compasses of men and woman have decided to support me.
So no. Eff these Piracy people. Eff them right in their eye.

The only answer is to use stricter DRM or lace my game with adverts. 2 things no gamer wants. :rolleyes:

But on topic. I don't agree with what the girl did but $1.9million is too much. I'm not for piracy in the slightest but this should be in the hundreds at the most. At the very least it should be how much these songs cost individually on iTunes or Amazon.

[iBlue]

Oh my what a short sighted view, do you support it because it lets you have commercial products for free? I'm guess you aren't a content provider.

Here's a nice little story. Jimmy here graduated university a couple of years ago and start work on a long-term game. 2 and a half years later he released a nice little game to further fund development. Jimmy was happy to finally be able to buy food, pay bills and live without borrowing more money. Then some twunt uploaded his game to a torrent site and has seen a drop in sales to only a couple per week whilst the torrent has more people seeding than actual purchases. How does that work? None of these moral compasses of men and woman have decided to support me.
So no. Eff these Piracy people. Eff them right in their eye.

The only answer is to use stricter DRM or lace my game with adverts. 2 things no gamer wants. :rolleyes:

So because you've had a bad experience you support disproportionate punishments?

[iPhone 62S]

Oh my what a short sighted view, do you support it because it lets you have commercial products for free? I'm guess you aren't a content provider.

Here's a nice little story. Jimmy here graduated university a couple of years ago and start work on a long-term game. 2 and a half years later he released a nice little game to further fund development. Jimmy was happy to finally be able to buy food, pay bills and live without borrowing more money. Then some twunt uploaded his game to a torrent site and has seen a drop in sales to only a couple per week whilst the torrent has more people seeding than actual purchases. How does that work? None of these moral compasses of men and woman have decided to support me.
So no. Eff these Piracy people. Eff them right in their eye.

The only answer is to use stricter DRM or lace my game with adverts. 2 things no gamer wants. :rolleyes:

But on topic. I don't agree with what the girl did but $1.9million is too much. I'm not for piracy in the slightest but this should be in the hundreds at the most. At the very least it should be how much these songs cost individually on iTunes or Amazon.

On the topic of gaming, there is a gaming company that actually wrote comments on torrents of their games saying thank you to people who downloaded it and asking them to donate money to the developers or buy the game and guess what? A whole bunch of people did so.

On the topic of music, artists get hardly anything from record sales anyway, record companies screw them over and artists these days, even the smaller ones, could easily record their own music and put it up on the iTunes Store etc. (in other words, the music industry does not need record labels and the RIAA).

For a better explanation of everything, please watch Steal This Film, it's interesting no matter what your view.

[jessica.]

I think victims of a crime often will approve of disproportionate punishments. I can fully understand that. I don't disagree that she stepped outside the law, but the damages she is paying or will have to pay eventually do not fully correlate to what she received.

In my opinion there needs to be a "fine" set for this. I mean, if you're really going to start convicting there has to be a fine. Like if you litter it's $1000 in places. Just set a freaking fine per song. I'm not saying it's awesome to have this, but at least you know what you're in for.

[Dagless]

So because you've had a bad experience you support disproportionate punishments?

No this kind of thing happens to all the developers I talk to. It's a big problem.
If you like a band you can pirate the music all you want but you can't pirate a live performance. Piracy kills our industry and that guy I quoted wants to see a future where I get little money for my work? I don't think so.

What do you do? Could you imagine doing your job as it always has been, but then getting your paycheque slashed by 90% and there is nothing you can do about it? As I said this kills studios in my industry.

[Abstract]

OK, you pinch a pencil from a stationary store and I'll slap you with a $100,000 fine for doing so.

Over reaction? No way :rolleyes:

I wouldn't steal a pencil from a stationary store. Those who knowingly break the law should be prepared for any consequence.

$100,000??? Based on what MegaMillions said, why not make it a $1 trillion? :rolleyes:

[iPhone 62S]

$100,000??? Based on what MegaMillions said, why not make it a $1 trillion? :rolleyes:

Well it is very bad, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg) maybe this punishment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg&feature=fvw) is needed? :p

[yg17]

Well it is very bad, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg) maybe this punishment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg&feature=fvw) is needed? :p

Why not just make it one hundred BILLION dollars!

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/specialevents/blog/Dr.%20Evil.jpg

Oh, and you can throw her in a pool with frikin sharks with frikin laser beams attached to their frikin heads.

[Abstract]

Apparently, it's all fair game. She downloaded a few music files without paying $1 for each, after all.

[yg17]

Apparently, it's all fair game. She downloaded a few music files without paying $1 for each, after all.


Maybe the songs on iTunes are $1.29, in that case, she deserves death and should be put in line in front of all the mass murderers on death row :rolleyes: How DARE she deprive the big record companies of that extra 29 cents.

[gnasher729]

Richard Marx - Now and Forever
Destiny's Child - Bills, Bills, Bills
Journey - Don't Stop Believin'
Journey - Faithfully
Gloria Estefan - Coming Out of the Dark
Gloria Estefan - Here We Are
Gloria Estefan - Fhythm is Gonna Get You
Sarah McLachlan - Building a Mystery
Sarah McLachlan - Possession
No Doubt - Bathwater
No Doubt - Different People
Goo Goo Dolls - Iris
Green Day - Basket Case
Linkin Park - One Step Closer
Aerosmith - Cryin'
Bryan Adams - Somebody
Def Leppard - Pour Some Sugar On Me
Guns N Roses - November Rain
Guns N Roses - Welcome to the Jungle
Janet Jackson - Let's Wait Awhile
Reba McEntire - One Honest Heart
Sheryl Crow - Run, Baby, Run
Vanessa Williams - Save the Best for Last

I had better selling records on a CD that came for free with one issue of a UK newspaper. My estimate is that the rights to add a CD with these songs to a million UK newspapers would cost you about £50,000.

I think victims of a crime often will approve of disproportionate punishments. I can fully understand that. I don't disagree that she stepped outside the law, but the damages she is paying or will have to pay eventually do not fully correlate to what she received.

The maximum for statutory damages is $150,000 per song. Now let's say that shortly after Michael Jackson's death a major record company with no rights to his music started selling a commemorative CD with Michael Jackson's four greatest hits, with a major advertising campaign on TV and radio. And they sell millions and millions and make tons of illegal profit. Guess what: Maximum statutory damages are $150,000 per song or $600,000 in total. That is the case where the maximum is appropriate. Now what percentage of this damage has Jammie Thomas caused?

[Abstract]

Around $0.99 per song, I reckon.


Add another few hundred dollars for legal fees.

[Mr. lax]

I owe... 510 million to date

HAHA what a joke

P.S. Nice avatar avatar blue

[iBlue]

I think victims of a crime often will approve of disproportionate punishments. I can fully understand that. I don't disagree that she stepped outside the law, but the damages she is paying or will have to pay eventually do not fully correlate to what she received.

In my opinion there needs to be a "fine" set for this. I mean, if you're really going to start convicting there has to be a fine. Like if you litter it's $1000 in places. Just set a freaking fine per song. I'm not saying it's awesome to have this, but at least you know what you're in for.

I agree completely.

No this kind of thing happens to all the developers I talk to. It's a big problem.
If you like a band you can pirate the music all you want but you can't pirate a live performance. Piracy kills our industry and that guy I quoted wants to see a future where I get little money for my work? I don't think so.

What do you do? Could you imagine doing your job as it always has been, but then getting your paycheque slashed by 90% and there is nothing you can do about it? As I said this kills studios in my industry.

You didn't really answer my question. Because this is something near and dear to you that means you support a disproportionate punishment? I can understand (for the reasons Jessica mentioned above) but I don't agree with the outrageous fines for this.

It's a frustrating problem but unreasonable fines don't seem like an appropriate solution.

[iPhone 62S]

I think victims of a crime often will approve of disproportionate punishments. I can fully understand that. I don't disagree that she stepped outside the law, but the damages she is paying or will have to pay eventually do not fully correlate to what she received.

In my opinion there needs to be a "fine" set for this. I mean, if you're really going to start convicting there has to be a fine. Like if you litter it's $1000 in places. Just set a freaking fine per song. I'm not saying it's awesome to have this, but at least you know what you're in for.

Are you trying to say that this will discourage people from downloading pirated music? If so, that's wrong. What happens in the real world is people start using VPN services and proxy servers, or sites like Furk.

[iBlue]

Are you trying to say that this will discourage people from downloading pirated music? If so, that's wrong. What happens in the real world is people start using VPN services and proxy servers, or sites like Furk.

No, it probably won't discourage the vast majority but there should probably be some sort of set fine for the ones who do get caught. It's better than having inconsistent and outlandish fines such as this.

[iPhone 62S]

No, it probably won't discourage the vast majority but there should probably be some sort of set fine for the ones who do get caught. It's better than having inconsistent and outlandish fines such as this.

Yup, I agree there, but I think what would be even better is there should be no fines for those who get caught and everyone who works at the RIAA should themselves be fined for crippling people's lives by putting them in debt! In fact, everyone who's had their lives ruined by the RIAA needs to get together and do a huge lawsuit against them for distress etc!