Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading songs

[Maurepas]

As i expected, there is more to this story. If you're distributing these songs to others then, well, you're a criminal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music ... 82Fk.CfNdF

Its still excessive. Outrageously so.

It's a lot, but I'm not crying for her. Nor will I stop using the legal websites over it.

Well, considering the amount of music Ive downloaded in my time, Id rather the RIAA pick on someone their own size and not wrangle the little guy, or gal in this case, to line their greedy little pockets...

[Conserative Morality]

If we're talking about mere reparations, then sure, $10 per song is reasonable. But you have to add punitive damages and legal costs to that. I could support a much higher figure, perhaps as high as $1,000 per song illegally downloaded. But 80 times that? I find it difficult to believe there's any need for that except for pure greed or pure vindictiveness.

I think $1,000 per song would be very excessive. I could live with $100 per song.

[Non Aligned States]

If every single person in the world wrote a few songs and then just lived of of the royalties, thell me, what would we all eat?

RIAA spokespeople. *nods*

[The Romulan Republic]

It's a lot, but I'm not crying for her. Nor will I stop using the legal websites over it.

How about the children she's supporting? I don't know how they expect her to pay up, but it better not land four innocent children in the streets.

[Flaming Psycopaths]

Consider that the RIAA is just as happy to screw the artists as it is to screw the public. They do not care about anything but lining their own pockets. A lot of the artists are not much better. I lost all respect for David Crosby when he was trying to get legislation passed that would allow his grandchildren to collect royalties from his songs for 60 years after he is dead. the guy who makes chairs for a living doesn't get a royalty payment every time someone sits in the chair he made. If he wants to keep getting paid he has to make more chairs. So a musician who wants to keep getting paid should have to keep performing live appearances. And the record companies? Well the cost of a CD with songs on it is only slightly higher than a blank CD. So they are entitled to only that much more. And that little bit should be split with the artist.

If every single person in the world wrote a few songs and then just lived of of the royalties, tell me, what would we all eat?

This I actually do agree with, but you have to fight the law; not the application of a law; nor fighting the law by breaking it.

I am not defending the woman. she was clearly wrong. I am rather, attacking the corporate system. Which rewards people who do essentially nothing over those who actually do the work.

If every person in the world was a CEO what would we all eat?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Another reason to hate the RIAA, oh, my joy is boundless.

[Naughty Bits]

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

God, I hope she's not planning on blowin off the verdict...

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

I wonder what the offer will be now?

I say this came at a bad time for Mrs Rasset. with Virgin Records closing their megastores recently, alot of people will hold the ILLEGAL sites (as opposed to the legal sites) responsible. sad really.

[Brogavia]

Bastards.

[The Scandinvans]

Good thing I only listen to internet music derived from records from the 1910's.

Thus no one has a copyright anymore.

[Der Teutoniker]

Holy Christ... I support this, in part. This woman broke the law. She deserves to be fined. But 80,000 for each song? No. There is a line, and the RIAA has once more overstepped it.

What do you figure, $1 per song? Ok, well, in the spirit of fairness, let's throw some punitive charges on there, let's add 100% in punitive charges, hold on while I grab a calculater.

After a couple of hours on number crunching (and some favours called in by math-major-buddies of mine), I came up with a cost ~$2.00/song. Someone said 24 songs, so, $48.00.

It includes the general cost of legally purchased downloaded music, along with a relatively heavy (by percent) punitive charge.

Not sure where the court came up with $80,000/song though, they were in base 6 maybe?

[Vetalia]

Hah, my guess is that they're fining her so much because the RIAA's losing huge amounts of money fighting a pointless battle they'll simply never win...got to make up that shortfall somehow.

Of course, rather than scare people in to complying with them, I think it'll just encourage even more piracy...after all, I bet somebody would gladly volunteer to be the first person to be fined $1,000,000,000 for downloading 12,500 songs.

[Newmanistan]

It's a lot, but I'm not crying for her. Nor will I stop using the legal websites over it.

How about the children she's supporting? I don't know how they expect her to pay up, but it better not land four innocent children in the streets.

Sure I hope the children will end up ok, I just don't think they should be used as a reason to say things will be ok, you don't have to pay anything. In general, I can be a hardass for punishing law-breakers, too.

This lady has no intention/means of paying this amount of money and the RIAA looks like they'll settle for much, much less. They know that, I think. This ruling is probably just to set a precedent and to use her as an example for others who are doing this.

[Der Teutoniker]

It's a lot, but I'm not crying for her. Nor will I stop using the legal websites over it.

How about the children she's supporting? I don't know how they expect her to pay up, but it better not land four innocent children in the streets.

Sure I hope the children will end up ok, I just don't think they should be used as a reason to say things will be ok, you don't have to pay anything. In general, I can be a hardass for punishing law-breakers, too.

This lady has no intention/means of paying this amount of money and the RIAA looks like they'll settle for much, much less. They know that, I think. This ruling is probably just to set a precedent and to use her as an example for others who are doing this.

Right, for all the 'regular' guys, who don't have four kids, who can afford to spend $1 million per cd.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I'm curious how the jury justified $79,999.01 in damages per song, and how the RIAA intends on collecting $1.9 million from a mother of four.

Collecting...1.9 million...mother of four. For downloading 24 songs? Unless this woman happens to be a million-heir, or actually committed a crime beyond downloading records, that goes far beyond greed. That is evil. It is a human rights abuse. I would consider it one's duty as a citizen to defy such a court ruling. My first inclination is to say that the company or companies in question should be boycotted as well.

I'm thinking about how to do that. I'll post again if I think of anything.

[Vault 10]

If we're talking about mere reparations, then sure, $10 per song is reasonable. But you have to add punitive damages and legal costs to that. I could support a much higher figure, perhaps as high as $1,000 per song illegally downloaded.

Why should punitive damages at all depend on the number of songs involved?

[Der Teutoniker]

If we're talking about mere reparations, then sure, $10 per song is reasonable. But you have to add punitive damages and legal costs to that. I could support a much higher figure, perhaps as high as $1,000 per song illegally downloaded.

Why should punitive damages at all depend on the number of songs involved?

Assumably a punitive cost would be added on a per song basis. People who illegally download more music should be punished more severely for their greater crime.

[Heinleinites]

As fines/judgments go, that really is excessive, and no doubt they will settle for much much less. I'm not exactly overwhelmed with sympathy for the woman, though. She broke the law, I think some kind of punishment should be in order.

[Vault 10]

The crime is the same - disregarding the publisher's desire not to have the song heard by you.

Since the damage done or intended is zero in either case, there's nowhere the number of songs would enter into this. And why explicitly the arbitrary division into tracks, and not the number of albums, or minutes, or seconds, or bytes?

If two publishers release a symphony as a single track as it's been performed, or cut into shorter tracks for convenience, respectively, is it a greater crime to download the latter than the former?

[Der Teutoniker]

If two publishers release a symphony as a single track as it's been performed, or cut into shorter tracks for convenience, respectively, is it a greater crime to download the latter than the former?

Perhaps that could be an exception brought up in court.

[Vault 10]

That's silly. What's so exceptional about it? This example only differs in being more obvious.
What, then, about the case when the same song is included on an album twice (happens often)? What if the second variant is a remix? What if the second variant is not a remix at all, but a shorter version of the song?

The fact of the matter is, the number of tracks has nothing to do with the substance of the violation committed. It's no less arbitrary than the number of letters in the album title or the weather on the Mars or the current length of Mr.Wong's wong.

[Megaloria]

For those who cannot tell, this is an exercise in fear. The idea is for people to see this lawsuit and think to themselves, "gee...99 cents isn't all that much". I am certain that the RIAA do not expect to get even a visible fraction of the 1.9 million from this woman. Their real profit is in the terror of those who may think twice now about downloading and distributing music illegally. While I agree that the price tag is absurd and the punishment far outweighing the crime, I can appreciate, and on some levels admire, the tactic.

[Maurepas]

For those who cannot tell, this is an exercise in fear. The idea is for people to see this lawsuit and think to themselves, "gee...99 cents isn't all that much". I am certain that the RIAA do not expect to get even a visible fraction of the 1.9 million from this woman. Their real profit is in the terror of those who may think twice now about downloading and distributing music illegally. While I agree that the price tag is absurd and the punishment far outweighing the crime, I can appreciate, and on some levels admire, the tactic.

I dont, I think it is a poor tactic to the point of being laughable...

all this can do is incite hatred for the RIAA and their constituents, and in many would even foster sympathy for the the person committing the illegal act, as the RIAA has now turned them into the Victim in this scenario...

[Megaloria]

For those who cannot tell, this is an exercise in fear. The idea is for people to see this lawsuit and think to themselves, "gee...99 cents isn't all that much". I am certain that the RIAA do not expect to get even a visible fraction of the 1.9 million from this woman. Their real profit is in the terror of those who may think twice now about downloading and distributing music illegally. While I agree that the price tag is absurd and the punishment far outweighing the crime, I can appreciate, and on some levels admire, the tactic.

I dont, I think it is a poor tactic to the point of being laughable...

all this can do is incite hatred for the RIAA and their constituents, and in many would even foster sympathy for the the person committing the illegal act, as the RIAA has now turned them into the Victim in this scenario...

But whether or not she is "the victim" does not matter in this situation. People will be angry, of course, but these people already hate the RIAA, and what this does for the RIAA is set a legal example of what they can do to you if you don't play by their rules. This is not about who is a victim and who is a monster. This is about making people so shit-your-pants terrified of being sued that they won't illegally download and distribute.

[Maurepas]

For those who cannot tell, this is an exercise in fear. The idea is for people to see this lawsuit and think to themselves, "gee...99 cents isn't all that much". I am certain that the RIAA do not expect to get even a visible fraction of the 1.9 million from this woman. Their real profit is in the terror of those who may think twice now about downloading and distributing music illegally. While I agree that the price tag is absurd and the punishment far outweighing the crime, I can appreciate, and on some levels admire, the tactic.

I dont, I think it is a poor tactic to the point of being laughable...

all this can do is incite hatred for the RIAA and their constituents, and in many would even foster sympathy for the the person committing the illegal act, as the RIAA has now turned them into the Victim in this scenario...

But whether or not she is "the victim" does not matter in this situation. People will be angry, of course, but these people already hate the RIAA, and what this does for the RIAA is set a legal example of what they can do to you if you don't play by their rules. This is not about who is a victim and who is a monster. This is about making people so shit-your-pants terrified of being sued that they won't illegally download and distribute.

But the sheer number of people who do get away with it means that this is an impossible task, no matter how big the sentence is...

If they wanted real success they would actually try and win the PR campaign, and, unfortunately for them, they blew that chance 20 years ago...

Now that the Internet facilitates mass distribution, I dont see how Labels are really necessary to Artists these days, I foresee the day when tracks are released freely over the net and are primarily used for the purpose of selling Concert Tickets...taking the major label out of the equation entirely...

[Megaloria]

But the sheer number of people who do get away with it means that this is an impossible task, no matter how big the sentence is...

If they wanted real success they would actually try and win the PR campaign, and, unfortunately for them, they blew that chance 20 years ago...

Now that the Internet facilitates mass distribution, I dont see how Labels are really necessary to Artists these days, I foresee the day when tracks are released freely over the net and are primarily used for the purpose of selling Concert Tickets...taking the major label out of the equation entirely...

It doesn't matter how many people DO get away with it. The message is "Every so often, ONE of you will get burned, HARD. Are you willing to risk getting your number called in that lottery?" 1.9 Million is nothing at all to the RIAA. They probably wipe their asses with that kind of chump change. It is, however, more money than the average Joe Downloader will see in his entire life. The whole point is fear, and the threat that maybe it will be YOUR life that is destroyed.