Single Mother must pay $1.8m for downloading 24 songs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Apple OC, Nov 5, 2010.

  1. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #1
    WTF ... who decides this? ... the freakin Taliban?

    is public stoning next? :cool:
     
  2. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #2
    Never before has any company or organization been so malicious towards their customer base. They threaten, extort, blackmail and antagonize ISPs, individuals and universities. They run background checks on their potential targets and then sue those weakest. All the while they have their senate puppets Leahy and Hatch pass legislation enabling them to take such actions.

    Not only has it brought bad publicity towards the organization and indirectly towards the artists they represent, it has cost them more money to go after individuals than they are receiving back from the lawsuits. They even turned down a potential tax on devices such as iPods, iPhones, Zunes and other media player and recording devices out of "principle." So instead of guaranteed income, they get a $58 million loss.

    The RIAA thinks Thomas will pay. They'll find a notice of bankruptcy instead, and they'll get nothing.
     
  3. bigjnyc macrumors 601

    bigjnyc

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    #3
    there's a simple way to put an end to all this madness



    stop downloading illegally and pay 99 cents for a song on itunes :cool:
     
  4. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #4
    Most of these lawsuits came right before iTunes became a major household name. The statute of limitations on such copyright restrictions is six years, often times the cases are decided after six years because they were initially filed shortly before the the limitations expired.
     
  5. Apple OC thread starter macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #5
    sounds like you agree with the fine?

    and parking tickets? ... maybe they should be bumped to $1 million also.
     
  6. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #6
    I am guessing this is a repeated case that has been posted before but let me explain how that 1.8m number came from.

    It not that she download the songs but instead she had them shared and they were downloaded from her quite a few times and each time they were downlaod they charged her the max they could and it ads up to 1.8 million.
     
  7. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
  8. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #8
    Exactly.

    As the tired and cliche saying goes, 'Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.'
     
  9. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #9
    I don't think there are too many people who can honestly say they think it's completely okay for her to download and share the songs - I think the issue is, were there really almost $2 million in damages? It doesn't sound to me like the judgment fits the infraction.
     
  10. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #10
    I would say, $20,000 is enough punishment. But 1.8M is too high for 24 songs.
     
  11. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #11
    I agree, but I think she should pay a fine.

    I think anything over $5k is ridiculous, so you can probably guess what I think of $2000k (expressed in this way just to put it in perspective).

    How many musicians, even "stars", earn $2 million from just selling their album to fans? Not many. Not even the Glee kids, combined, earn that much from Glee album sales on which they sing on.
     
  12. filfortugno macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    #12
    never

    i will never, ever, in a million years, pay for another movie or song again, not until they put the price at a reasonable tier. The price is going up and the quality and creativeness of the media is sinking fast. 20 $ for a movie is just ridiculous, i don't care how much work is put into it and it isn't my problem the big studios choose to work with 100 million dollar budgets. 20$ for an 1.5 hrs of entertainment is ludicrous to me.
    I hope this woman puts up her middle finger, claims bankruptcy, and pirates every single song she can find until her HDD is filled.
    rant over lol
     
  13. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #13
    Well, to be fair, if they're not buying the music, they're not really customers.

    To the OP - you might want to put a link in.
     
  14. R94N macrumors 68020

    R94N

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    I don't think everybody knows that downloading content for free from the Internet is illegal still. I think they are fining here that much to make an example of her, not that that makes it okay. She's never going to be able to pay that back, obviously.
     
  15. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #15
    I think she got that because she was sharing them. Just downloading or possessing copyrighted data isn't that bad but sharing it without a permission is.
     
  16. r1ch4rd macrumors 6502a

    r1ch4rd

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    #16
    Pfft, that's nothing. In the UK you can go to prison for 10 years and receive an unlimited fine. It's madness.

    http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/10309

    I don't think the punishment fits the crime in any of these cases.
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    It's all about precedent, and fear. They know they won't see the money, from her.

    This is a shot over the bow of future downloaders.
     
  18. heehee macrumors 68020

    heehee

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Location:
    Same country as Santa Claus
    #18
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

    She had the option to settle for less than $5000 according to an article I read, but she chose to go to court. She deserved it.
     
  19. allmIne macrumors 6502a

    allmIne

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #19
    The irony of you not realising that prices are going up because you, and others like you, are pirating is just too much. Also quite ironic that you complain about dwindling creativity, not realising that your contribution towards diminished profits disincentivises said creativity.

    Hilarious - you, sir, made my day! :)
     
  20. Apple OC thread starter macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #20
    A link to what? ... read the news ... I did not make this up

    (oh ... now it makes sense, she was also caught with 2 joints of weed)
     
  21. AAPLaday Guest

    AAPLaday

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    #21
    Depends what she was downloading. If it was Justin Beiber then she deserves the fine :p

    Wonder how much your fine will be? :D
     
  22. gnasher729, Nov 6, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2010

    gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #22
    Well, Psystar was found guilty of having made about about 750 illegal copies of MacOS X. The stupid law says the fine is "per work", and while MacOS X 10.5 retailing for $129 is one work, a CD with 15 songs that you grab from the bargain bin for $3.99 is fifteen works. So a "work" sold for $129 and a "work" sold for 26 cents are treated the same by the law. And while the fine is between $750 and $30,000 per work, with fines up to $150,000 if the copying was "willful" whatever that means, it never occurred to Apple that Psystar's copying was "willful" so Psystar was ordered to pay $30,000; but in this case apparently the stricter rule had to be applied for some reason that I cannot fathom, with no evidence at all that any substantial number of copies were made, and the fine was set to $62,500 _per song_.

    If you compare the circumstances, if songs with a retail price of about $80 had been copied, and if there was reasonable evidence (not proof, but reasonable evidence) that about 750 copies of each song had been made, _then_ a $20,000 fine would be about right. The RIAA claims that "millions could have downloaded these songs", but they don't mention that these millions could have downloaded the songs from a million different file sharers, so the number of copies downloaded from any single file sharer is very small.


    I haven't seen any recently, but there have been plenty of websites in the past that offered software for $29.99 with the headling "download millions of free songs legally". Now I know that there is _some_ amount of free and legal music out there (google for Tryad, or Tasmin Little, just some examples, and a really determined person could have downloaded 250 free songs from iTunes over the last five years), but not _millions_ of songs. And you don't need any special software for anything that is free and legal. Anyone believing one of these ads obviously put themselves at a huge legal risk unknowingly.
     
  23. Firestar macrumors 68020

    Firestar

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Location:
    221B Baker Street.
    #23
    This was on the front page of Yahoo, a day or two ago. I can't find it though.

    $1.8 million is ridiculous, even if they are making an example of it.

    Well, I also agree with this. She shouldn't have gone to court, but $1.8 million is still ridiculous.
     
  24. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #24
    Well, Psystar was found guilty of having made about about 750 illegal copies of MacOS X. The stupid law says the fine is "per work", and while MacOS X 10.5 retailing for $129 is one work, a CD with 15 songs that you grab out of bargain bin for $3.99 is fifteen works. And while the fine is between $750 and $30,000 per work, with fines up to $150,000 if the copying was "willful" whatever that means, it never occurred to Apple that Psystar's copying was "willful" so Psystar was ordered to pay $30,000; but in this case apparently the stricter rule had to be applied for some reason, with no evidence at all that any substantial number of copies were made, and the fine was set to $62,500 _per song_.

    If you compare the circumstances, if songs with a retail price of about $80 had been copied, and if there was reasonable evidence that about 750 copies of each song had been made, _then_ a $20,000 fine would be about right. The RIAA claims that "millions could have downloaded these songs", but they don't mention that these millions could have downloaded the songs from a million different file sharers, so the number of copies downloaded from any single file sharer is very small.
     
  25. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #25
    I didn't say you made it up, but it's accepted practice here to include a link to the story or article you are referencing.
     

Share This Page