Woman to Pay RIAA $220,000 For 24 Downloaded Songs

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

People don't get sued anymore for downloading music, you people are lost in time. She was being sued for SHARING those songs or rather hosting them so they could be downloaded by others. Of course the amount is ridiculous, ask any person with a masters in any math or social science field that isn't on RIAA payroll[actually some of them too] will tell you the whole formula is complete gibberish and without redeeming value.

This is what you get when you live in a system where only the rich are allowed to make laws and bribery is sanctioned under the law. Doesn't matter if it makes the country itself weaker over all or ruins lives, as long as the rich get richer. It still annoys me when people talk as if America was a Democracy and what happens is the "will of the people", its not, its the will of Goldman slipping some senators 50k to go their way.

AzrealMaximillion:
I'll just leave this here:

image

This is a great picture, thank you.It is easy to see who are the real criminals or to be more accurate extortionists.

I find it funny that digitally filesharing 24 song would cost 220,000 in damages but if I went into best buy right now and stole the same exact songs and go caught, the damages would only be around 5,000 at most (i've worked there in the past and seen this exact case).

So the lesson here kids is if you want to break the law and get the lesser punishment, its best to physically go steal stuff. RIAA making the world more stupid one suit at a time.

Oh, heavens, how glad em I for some of the laws in my country. Did you know that in Czech republic you can download any audio/video from piratebay and the such completely guilt free? I'm serious! It's just that we pay a small tax for every 1GB of storage space that goes to US labels. Meh.

And juts to stay on topic:
Completely agree that 220k is a bit too much and also completely agree that refusing to pay 4.5k is stupid, especially when you have family to feed and risk much, much higher fee in the long run.

RIAA are greedy bastards, to be sure, but they aren't idiots.

It's not a per-copy she downloaded fine, it's a per-copy she seeded fine. She only shared 24 songs, but she probably shared each one way more than once.

The sharing part is what they're after.

They are still assholes, but dividing the total fine out per single is confusing the issue.

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

Except if you are trying to do civil disobedience.

Entitled:

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

Except if you are trying to do civil disobedience.

There's still no news there. Break the law. Be punished. You don't need to like it and you don't need to agree with it. Think punching babies in the face shouldn't be against the law? Alrighty. Be prepared to be punished when you do it.

AzrealMaximillion:
I'll just leave this here:

I may just have a piece of media that tops Cracked's analysis:

I for one love copyright math. My laptop is worth some ten billion dollars, obviously.

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

chadachada123:

AzrealMaximillion:
I'll just leave this here:

I may just have a piece of media that tops Cracked's analysis:

I for one love copyright math. My laptop is worth some ten billion dollars, obviously.

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

But it is illegal. Signing a contract and then later refusing to follow through with your promise is illegal. You can't be arrested for it (ignoring things like fraud for the sake of argument) but it's against the law. Here, anyway. "Normal sense" just refers to how much of the law you understand.

Boudica:

chadachada123:

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

But it is illegal. Signing a contract and then later refusing to follow through with your promise is illegal. You can't be arrested for it (ignoring things like fraud for the sake of argument) but it's against the law. Here, anyway. "Normal sense" just refers to how much of the law you understand.

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

chadachada123:

Boudica:

chadachada123:

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

But it is illegal. Signing a contract and then later refusing to follow through with your promise is illegal. You can't be arrested for it (ignoring things like fraud for the sake of argument) but it's against the law. Here, anyway. "Normal sense" just refers to how much of the law you understand.

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

Thank you for that education on the subject. It is painful to see many people using buzz words and not fulling understanding the difference between words. You should pursue the degree.

chadachada123:

Boudica:

chadachada123:

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

But it is illegal. Signing a contract and then later refusing to follow through with your promise is illegal. You can't be arrested for it (ignoring things like fraud for the sake of argument) but it's against the law. Here, anyway. "Normal sense" just refers to how much of the law you understand.

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

I think you'll find "damaging someone" is criminal in most places, if you want to argue semantics so badly. As is copyright infringement and the distribution of unlawfully obtained goods.

Why would she take the $4500? Every day in court is more negative press for the RIAA & one step closer to her inevitable appeal.
The woman's drawing a line in the sand & I support it

Boudica:

chadachada123:

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

I think you'll find "damaging someone" is criminal in most places, if you want to argue semantics so badly. As is copyright infringement and the distribution of unlawfully obtained goods.

*Sigh*

OJ Simpson was arrested for killing his girlfriend and another guy. He was found not guilty. He was then SUED in a civil case for damages to the other guy, and lost. The first case was a criminal case, for him breaking the law, and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter case was a civil case and only requires a preponderance of evidence (basically, a greater-than-fifty-percent-chance of him being at fault).

He was found to have broken no laws but was found to have been enough at fault for the man's death to warrant paying the dude's family some huge sum of money.

According to Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illegal

The definition of "illegal" says:

1. (law) Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

The rest are unrelated to law. Under criminal law, it says:

(law) The area of law pertaining to crime and punishment.
Coordinate term: civil law

Under civil law, it says:

1. (law) Roman law based on the Corpus Juris Civilis; it contrasts with common law.
2. (law) The body of law dealing with the private relations between members of a community; it contrasts with criminal law, military law and ecclesiastical law.

She may have broken several laws, but she was not charged for breaking any laws. She is being sued for causing damage to the RIAA. The law may be written to allow for these civil suits, but she didn't 'break the law' in the eyes of prosecutors. If she were, she would be in a criminal case against the state/town, and not against an entity.

Example: You punch someone. When someone "presses charges," they are seeking for the state/town to pursue criminal charges against you, with this person as a witness. They can additionally sue you in civil court for damages, with *this person* bringing the case against you, which is a separate issue.

chadachada123:

Boudica:

chadachada123:

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

I think you'll find "damaging someone" is criminal in most places, if you want to argue semantics so badly. As is copyright infringement and the distribution of unlawfully obtained goods.

*Sigh*

OJ Simpson was arrested for killing his girlfriend and another guy. He was found not guilty. He was then SUED in a civil case for damages to the other guy, and lost. The first case was a criminal case, for him breaking the law, and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter case was a civil case and only requires a preponderance of evidence (basically, a greater-than-fifty-percent-chance of him being at fault).

He was found to have broken no laws but was found to have been enough at fault for the man's death to warrant paying the dude's family some huge sum of money.

According to Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illegal

The definition of "illegal" says:

1. (law) Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

The rest are unrelated to law. Under criminal law, it says:

(law) The area of law pertaining to crime and punishment.
Coordinate term: civil law

Under civil law, it says:

1. (law) Roman law based on the Corpus Juris Civilis; it contrasts with common law.
2. (law) The body of law dealing with the private relations between members of a community; it contrasts with criminal law, military law and ecclesiastical law.

She may have broken several laws, but she was not charged for breaking any laws. She is being sued for causing damage to the RIAA. The law may be written to allow for these civil suits, but she didn't 'break the law' in the eyes of prosecutors. If she were, she would be in a criminal case against the state/town, and not against an entity.

Example: You punch someone. When someone "presses charges," they are seeking for the state/town to pursue criminal charges against you, with this person as a witness. They can additionally sue you in civil court for damages, with *this person* bringing the case against you, which is a separate issue.

I'm confused as to why you're quoting me, to be honest. You seem to be suggesting I'm making a claim that I'm not and are arguing a semantic, as you see it, that I never actually brought up. The message you quoted said:

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

You told me that she had broken the law, but not in the "normal sense." You also just stated then she "broke several laws." So we both agree she broke the law and is being punished under that law. I never said anything beyond that and I don't the need to infer beyond it for the sake of arguing a supposed semantic.

Funny. They love complaining about 'pirates' and yet they're the ones forcing a mother to jump off a plank. Ruining the future of numerous kids over a few downloaded songs. The truth behind businesses like this is that despite how much they love sucking the dick of Capitalism and Democracy their practices are neither very capitalist nor very democratic. Corporations like these are more like dictatorships. They don't need to respect you, they don't need to be just and fair, and whenever you buy something from them you need to practically be in awe of just how kind and gracious the 'benevolent' dictator is.

I don't pirate. But you know, when I read things like this I really hate my self when I buy things from these immoral punks. I really do. They don't deserve money. They're nothing but these self entitled spoiled brats that need a good belting. In fact, by this point I'm willing to argue that The Pirate Bay are just thieves, meanwhile it's the RIAA that are the real pirates. Thieves only steal, where as pirates rape, pillage, and destroy. And gee, doesn't that sound familiar, like maybe forcing a mother of four kids to pay a ridiculous fine over a few fucking songs?

I've completely lost faith in the music industry. They were always enslaving musicians to contracts, suing musicians for plagiarizing themselves, (like John Fogherty) but now they really just reached a new low. This can't be forgiven. In fact, I'm not even going to say that piracy is even a detriment to the music industry anymore. Instead it's just competition. Except the service they bring is cheaper, arguably better, and doesn't involve completely destroying the lives of families over a few songs which, what, would cost only around 40 dollars at most?

I got a good idea of 'setting an example' How about instead of probably ruining the lives of a family of five over a few songs we have the mother pay 50$ to a charity and we have these criminals shut down once and for all. If you think that's extreme, then it's fortunate that I didn't share what I think these monsters truly deserve.

Brilliant move. By all means, RIAA, please continue trying to extort almost a quarter of a million dollars from a Native American mother of four whose crime was not paying for a Green Day song.

That's just going to get everybody on your side.

One of these days somebody needs to invent a sarcasm font for the internet.

How do 24 songs equal 220'000 dollars in damages?

Is the RIAA saying they sell singles for close to 10000 dollars each these days? This is really just fearmongering. Scaring people with insane high fines.

I am sure that the musicians are happy that less people will know about their songs now seeing as downloading them could lead to a death setence of debt.

I am also 100% sure that the musicians will be receiving the full amount of those 220'000 dollars right? It's not like the RIAA will pocket it themselves.

Entitled:

mattttherman3:
Wait a second, did she download these songs or host them for filesharing?

You seem to be confused about how filesharing works: The two are the same.

Actually they compeltely aren't.

Filesharing is making files available online for download. Downloading a shared file is not filesharing. That is just downloading.

She both downloaded and uploaded the songs to a filesharing site.

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

The issue isn't the punishment, it is the extent of the punishment. People are not complaining that she received a fine, but the ridiculously high amount of it.

I'd have thought that'd be obvious, but you seem to love going into every news thread and replying "Why is this an issue" or "Why is this a news story?" without seeming to actually ready any of it.

Legion:

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

The issue isn't the punishment, it is the extent of the punishment. People are not complaining that she received a fine, but the ridiculously high amount of it.

I'd have thought that'd be obvious, but you seem to love going into every news thread and replying "Why is this an issue" or "Why is this a news story?" without seeming to actually ready any of it.

Penalty is part of the law. If you break it, you cop it. It's only surprising if you make yourself ignorant of the law. I'm no more surprised that a murderer receives time in prison than a pirate (of the digital variety) is slapped with a massive suit. If you give them the chance, the powers that be will come down on you very hard, both to prove a point and to set the legal standard. It's not shocking.

Also, I'd like to where else you've seen me say "Why is this a news story." I'm not aware of any such pattern, but you seem quite insistent on stating that there is.

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

To change a law can often take literal lifetimes of red tape. Most people aren't willing to wait that long or dedicate that effort just to download a song. In any case there are people currently working on getting piracy and copyright laws changed.

She did break the law, and she got caught, so she can't just be let off scott-free, but the damage estimations are beyond ridiculous and are in no way correlated to the crime she committed.

OT: She should have settled when the charge was 4500$, but I guess hindsight is 20/20.

sethisjimmy:

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

To change a law can often take literal lifetimes of red tape. Most people aren't willing to wait that long or dedicate that effort just to download a song. In any case there are people currently working on getting piracy and copyright laws changed.

She did break the law, and she got caught, so she can't just be let off scott-free, but the damage estimations are beyond ridiculous and are in no way correlated to the crime she committed.

OT: She should have settled when the charge was 4500$, but I guess hindsight is 20/20.

Yeah, I don't like hindsight. It's a bitch of a thing lol.

sethisjimmy:
To change a law can often take literal lifetimes of red tape. Most people aren't willing to wait that long or dedicate that effort just to download a song. In any case there are people currently working on getting piracy and copyright laws changed.

All of this.

Don't act like everyone is shocked and appalled someone violated copyright and got punished. Nobody here is surprised that there was a fine, they're surprised it was a completely ridiculous one.

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

The issue is that 220,000 bucks is nearly what some people/families get paid for permanent disabilities or death. So basically the crime of sharing songs is giving the RIAA more money than a human life is "worth".

I disagree with copyright laws as they are right now, but this is beyond stupid laws - it's their ridiculous implementation.

A little off-topic but how well did the music industry fair during the last recession?

Zombie_Moogle:
Why would she take the $4500? Every day in court is more negative press for the RIAA & one step closer to her inevitable appeal.
The woman's drawing a line in the sand & I support it

Indeed. The RIAA is a bully trying to make you eat a shit sandwich, why take a bite to make him leave you alone instead of trying to fight him off?

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

If the punishment fit the crime this wouldn't even be news.
But as it sits now it should be reported to help along changes.

Look. They're not trying to fix a problem. They're doing this to discourage others. Basically, spreading fear so that people fall in line. You know, like the Comissars of ye olden times. The only difference is that Comissars have the humanity to not look you in the eye when they shoot you.

Organizations like this disgust me. The money isn't going to the artists, they have no right to demand that much in return. They should demand $20 (the cost a CD) from her. That is it. And it's really disgusts me that this is allowed to happen to an individual. Just another reason to burn all the politicians.

Boudica:
What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

There are rules in societies that dictate equal punishment for crimes committed. I don't know at what part 24 songs = $200,000 can constitute equal retaliation. People can just make up the value of something and then demand someone pay them that much money. In the real world, 24 songs is worth about $20 (as that is what you would pay for a music CD containing that many songs).

There should be a max of like $50 penalty per song. It's fifty times the value of the song and then people who download hundreds of songs would still owe thousands. Enough to punish but not seem ridiculous.

But stupid greedy companies will be stupid.

That's a bit ridiculous. I can understand them sueing for the value of the music and possibly damages but um.. 24 songs are not worth 200k. I don't feel the punishment fits the crime here.

Karloff:
"We are pleased with the appellate court's decision and look forward to putting this case behind us."

And I will be pleased the day some random hoodlum beats you to within an inch of your life over a couple of dollars and leaves you to die slowly with no one around to hear you whimper. Your corpse will be found, the company that you represented will casually sweep you from their payroll and you will be forgotten.

Damn that was dark, even for me. ;)

My lawful good side says 'tough noogies, you did a crime. It's sad but we can't make exceptions for your sad sob story', my neutral good side says 'That's unreasonable. Can't they cut here some slack. I mean their tactics have changed, why not relent a bit?', my chaotic good side just keeps muttering about dirty streets and says 'no' to people.

So... how do they get a 220k figure when all those songs are about a buck a piece on itunes?

Boudica:

chadachada123:

*Sigh*

OJ Simpson was arrested for killing his girlfriend and another guy. He was found not guilty. He was then SUED in a civil case for damages to the other guy, and lost. The first case was a criminal case, for him breaking the law, and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter case was a civil case and only requires a preponderance of evidence (basically, a greater-than-fifty-percent-chance of him being at fault).

He was found to have broken no laws but was found to have been enough at fault for the man's death to warrant paying the dude's family some huge sum of money.

According to Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illegal

The definition of "illegal" says:

1. (law) Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

The rest are unrelated to law. Under criminal law, it says:

(law) The area of law pertaining to crime and punishment.
Coordinate term: civil law

Under civil law, it says:

1. (law) Roman law based on the Corpus Juris Civilis; it contrasts with common law.
2. (law) The body of law dealing with the private relations between members of a community; it contrasts with criminal law, military law and ecclesiastical law.

She may have broken several laws, but she was not charged for breaking any laws. She is being sued for causing damage to the RIAA. The law may be written to allow for these civil suits, but she didn't 'break the law' in the eyes of prosecutors. If she were, she would be in a criminal case against the state/town, and not against an entity.

Example: You punch someone. When someone "presses charges," they are seeking for the state/town to pursue criminal charges against you, with this person as a witness. They can additionally sue you in civil court for damages, with *this person* bringing the case against you, which is a separate issue.

I'm confused as to why you're quoting me, to be honest. You seem to be suggesting I'm making a claim that I'm not and are arguing a semantic, as you see it, that I never actually brought up. The message you quoted said:

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

You told me that she had broken the law, but not in the "normal sense." You also just stated then she "broke several laws." So we both agree she broke the law and is being punished under that law. I never said anything beyond that and I don't the need to infer beyond it for the sake of arguing a supposed semantic.

I said that she is not being charged with breaking the law. She MAY have broken some laws, but she is not being CHARGED for them. She has done nothing illegal in the eyes of the law.

That's it.

Ignore everything else, because that is what I meant, even if you interpreted it wrong. Don't say she did anything illegal when she hasn't been charged with doing anything illegal. It's slightly semantic, but it's really fucking annoying to see CIVIL suits described as being criminal.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.