Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading songs

[The Imperial Navy]

Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.

[Sdaeriji]

Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.

Not really. They offered her a settlement before trial similar to the settlements offered to other people. She refused it and chose to go to trial.

[Maurepas]

Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.

Not really. They offered her a settlement before trial similar to the settlements offered to other people. She refused it and chose to go to trial.

Wasnt the settlement still over a grand? Its still unreasonable scapegoating...

[Sdaeriji]

Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.

Not really. They offered her a settlement before trial similar to the settlements offered to other people. She refused it and chose to go to trial.

Wasnt the settlement still over a grand? Its still unreasonable scapegoating...

$5,000, IIRC, for 24 songs. $208 per song. That is not unreasonable. The point isn't just to renumerate the record companies for the stolen songs; you need to discourage her or people like her from breaking the law in the future. This cannot be accomplished when the fine for hundreds of songs is a week's pay.

[Maurepas]

$5,000, IIRC, for 24 songs. $208 per song. That is not unreasonable. The point isn't just to renumerate the record companies for the stolen songs; you need to discourage her or people like her from breaking the law in the future. This cannot be accomplished when the fine for hundreds of songs is a week's pay.

lol, that goal cant be accomplished regardless...

Like I said, id rather the RIAA lose their battles anyway...

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Thankyou Vault 10 for that thoughtful post. I'll think about it some more before replying.

---

TCT: Are you really comfortable with a "mandatory minimum" in a civil case?
Also note that very few of us "people" have argued that damages should not exceed the purchase price. That's an upper limit, whereas what troubles me is the lower limit.

Perhaps I have got this wrong, but the jury cannot find her guilty and apply less than $750 per song?

---

Stealing not only is the taking of something that doesn't belong to you, but the deprivation of that same something to the rightful owner. Copyright Infringement in the case of illegally downloading music is the making of an unauthorized copy for personal use. It's more like counterfeiting money than actually stealing it.

To my mind, illegally downloading a CD or a movie is the equivalent of going to a store and stealing the same from the shelf. In both cases, you're acquiring the material illegally. Just because you don't tuck the actual studio-produced CD or DVD under your coat and then leave the store, does not mean you are not stealing.

LG's analogy is inaccurate. Counterfeiting money creates more money, diluting the value of everyone else's money. (It's inflationary.) The money is stolen from everyone who has money, pro rata to how much they have, because it removes something from them without their permission.

Copying music does not impact the value of anyone else's copy. The analogy is not accurate in the very definition of "stealing."

Also, that comment had a WINK at the end of it. And it's LG.


Saying that two things are "equivalent" because both are illegal looks a bit silly to me.

You haven't grasped the distinction I tried to make between the content and the physical medium. Stealing the CD from a store removes a physical thing from its lawful owner. Ripping a CD you bought (which is legal -- "fair use") and then giving that to someone else does not deprive anyone of anything.

If you want it put another way (probably not): when you steal a CD, you gain both the content and physical thing. When you copy the content, you gain only the content. How can the two things be "equivalent"?

Note that I haven't said that copying and giving away is perfectly fine and should be perfectly legal. I'm undecided on that as yet.

[Sdaeriji]

$5,000, IIRC, for 24 songs. $208 per song. That is not unreasonable. The point isn't just to renumerate the record companies for the stolen songs; you need to discourage her or people like her from breaking the law in the future. This cannot be accomplished when the fine for hundreds of songs is a week's pay.

lol, that goal cant be accomplished regardless...

Like I said, id rather the RIAA lose their battles anyway...

Because we can't stop everyone from breaking the law, we shouldn't try to stop people from breaking the law?

We're never going to stop all murders, so we shouldn't have harsh sentences for it?

[Heinleinites]

It just means you are wrong. Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.

You quoted what I said, while at the same time, completely failing to actually read it. That's impressive.

[Maurepas]

$5,000, IIRC, for 24 songs. $208 per song. That is not unreasonable. The point isn't just to renumerate the record companies for the stolen songs; you need to discourage her or people like her from breaking the law in the future. This cannot be accomplished when the fine for hundreds of songs is a week's pay.

lol, that goal cant be accomplished regardless...

Like I said, id rather the RIAA lose their battles anyway...

Because we can't stop everyone from breaking the law, we shouldn't try to stop people from breaking the law?

We're never going to stop all murders, so we shouldn't have harsh sentences for it?

Well, youre problem is you think that downloading music is equivalent to murder...

It isnt, Murder is a fight worth fighting...Protecting a Corporate Label's bottom line, I couldnt care less about...

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Just seems to me they're Scapegoating the woman.

Serves her right. Everyone knows that Scapegoat is evil spywarez.

[Sdaeriji]

Well, youre problem is you think that downloading music is equivalent to murder...

It isnt, Murder is a fight worth fighting...Protecting a Corporate Label's bottom line, I couldnt care less about...

I never said downloading music was equivalent to murder.

If your position is that copyright law should be done away with, then argue that point.

[Maurepas]

Well, youre problem is you think that downloading music is equivalent to murder...

It isnt, Murder is a fight worth fighting...Protecting a Corporate Label's bottom line, I couldnt care less about...

I never said downloading music was equivalent to murder.

If your position is that copyright law should be done away with, then argue that point.

No, copyright law shouldnt be done away with, Labels should be done away with...the Artists should release their music on their own, mass distribution is possible without the help of a company these days...

Then downloading wouldnt be a problem, because the only ones with a vested interest in making it a problem would no longer be a factor...

[Heinleinites]

Ripping a CD you bought (which is legal -- "fair use") and then giving that to someone else does not deprive anyone of anything.

The issue under discussion is not copying CD's that you bought and then giving them to people. It's about downloading music that you have not paid for from someone who in all likelihood has not paid for it either. Yeah, if you trace it back far enough, someone will have eventually bought a CD, but I would be greatly surprised if it was even as close as fifth removed...it's more likely to be tenth at the very least, or more likely twentieth.

If you want it put another way (probably not): when you steal a CD, you gain both the content and physical thing. When you copy the content, you gain only the content. How can the two things be "equivalent"?

Because it's the content that matters. It's not whether or not you have the plastic disc that matters, it's what on it. That's why blank CD's are sold in groups of 50 for 12.99 and Metallica's 'Death Magnetic' is 13.00. When you steal a CD from a store, you're not doing it because you want the plastic disc, you're doing it because you want the content, which is the same motive for the illegal downloading.

[Robarya]

Obviously the fine is very high to serve as a scare tactic more than anything else, to deter pirates from downloading illegally. She will probably never be able to pay the 1.9 million dollars.

Obviously, and that's just the point. I know they're never going to collect $1.9 million from this woman. They'll settle for an insignificant fraction. If the $1.9 million fine is intended to scare people, but everyone knows that there's no way to collect that much money and that the RIAA will always settle for a more reasonable sum, then why fine the $1.9 million in the first place. Its value as a scare tactic goes out the window when we hear the RIAA saying they're always willing to settle for a lot less. It just seems futile. It's bad PR for an organization that hasn't had good PR in its history and, above all, it's impotent. So I just don't see the point.

That depends on how many that are aware of this. While everyone has the capacity to find out of this information, doesn't mean everyone does so.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Ripping a CD you bought (which is legal -- "fair use") and then giving that to someone else does not deprive anyone of anything.

The issue under discussion is not copying CD's that you bought and then giving them to people. It's about downloading music that you have not paid for from someone who in all likelihood has not paid for it either.

No, you are wrong. Sorry. There is no nice way to put it.

She was charged for making copyright material available: "uploading" not downloading. And she legally owned about 200 CD's, with some of the songs made publicly available in the KaZaA folder.

Whether the songs selected by RIAA to sue on the basis of were all second-generation or higher is something I'm not sure about. Perhaps you could go check it yourself.

Some of them apparently were:

Seeking to head off the argument that these were all just CD rips, MediaSentry's Chris Connelly pointed to metadata in numerous songs that suggested the material had itself been downloaded from the Internet. "Bleeding Edge Ripping Crew," said one. "Uploaded by 0ff$3+," said another.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/sony-lawyer-150k-damages-per-song-certainly-appropriate.ars

Don't go nuts and claim that this proves your point. I'm just offering to change the subject slightly since you're losing your own claims so badly.

Yeah, if you trace it back far enough, someone will have eventually bought a CD, but I would be greatly surprised if it was even as close as fifth removed...it's more likely to be tenth at the very least, or more likely twentieth.

So now the link between the legal product and the copy is immaterial?

All the subsequent "thefts" are not theft without that link. The point at which the content becomes illegal is absolutely crucial to establish legal liability.

If you want it put another way (probably not): when you steal a CD, you gain both the content and physical thing. When you copy the content, you gain only the content. How can the two things be "equivalent"?

Because it's the content that matters. It's not whether or not you have the plastic disc that matters, it's what on it. That's why blank CD's are sold in groups of 50 for 12.99 and Metallica's 'Death Magnetic' is 13.00. When you steal a CD from a store, you're not doing it because you want the plastic disc, you're doing it because you want the content, which is the same motive for the illegal downloading.

So now it's the motive which makes the two things "equivalent." Of equal value.

The plastic cover and factory-stamped disk have zero value? Excellent. I will walk into a shop and start destroying them. I'm sure the judge will understand ...

[Robarya]

Where did I ever say the upper limit should be .99c a song?

I think you might have me confused with some other poster.

Nowhere, and my intent is not to put words into your mouth, so do not feel concerned about that.

Due to you saying that you considered $750 too high, I simply found it suitable to quote you and state that if the fine would be too low, there would be no fear of illegally downloading music and getting caught. That said, I do not believe that you think that the upper limit should be the original price of the CDs, so you do not have to discuss details unless you're interested to.

[The_pantless_hero]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/sony-lawyer-150k-damages-per-song-certainly-appropriate.ars

Don't go nuts and claim that this proves your point. I'm just offering to change the subject slightly since you're losing your own claims so badly.

I'm sure $150k per song punitive damages sounds fair to some one making hundreds of thousands of dollars just on that trial.

[Wiztopia]

It just means you are wrong. Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing.

You quoted what I said, while at the same time, completely failing to actually read it. That's impressive.

It doesn't matter what YOU think stealing is. It only matters what is defined by legal and dictionary meanings. You are utterly wrong that copyright infringement is stealing.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Where did I ever say the upper limit should be .99c a song?

I think you might have me confused with some other poster.

Nowhere, and my intent is not to put words into your mouth, so do not feel concerned about that.

Due to you saying that you considered $750 too high, I simply found it suitable to quote you and state that if the fine would be too low, there would be no fear of illegally downloading music and getting caught. That said, I do not believe that you think that the upper limit should be the original price of the CDs, so you do not have to discuss details unless you're interested to.

I know I've written more than my share in this thread, and some of it is rambling or repetitive, so I don't expect you to read it all.

What I've said about the law is that there should be no lower limit to what the jury can set in punitive damages. In this case, the jury picked $80,000 as suitable punishment per song.

The lower limit means that the aggrieved party (prosecution) can add more songs to the charge sheet and be assured of a certain payment (the multiple of songs x minimum) if the jury finds the charges proven but believes that less than that payment is the actual value lost. Or that punitive damages should be lighter because of the offender's ability to pay.

In this case, they did not have an option to fine the woman less than $180,000. If the woman had been charged with 50 songs, it would be $375,000. And so on.

If the woman had been charged for all 1,700 songs in the KaZaA account, the jury could not have awarded any LESS than $12 million dollars!

You see the problem?

[The_pantless_hero]

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9172/1245456677307.jpg

[JuNii]

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9172/1245456677307.jpg

so what's your point? That Air France is cheap?