[Y!] Woman to pay 1.92 million for illegal downloads - Page 11 - Overclock.net

Aaron_Henderson · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike

You understand that the jury is the one that imposed the high fines here, not the RIAA? The RIAA was willing to settle.

The RIAA can still Dera-lick my balls.

TestECull · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

where do you buy yours? just out of interest.

mp3fiesta.com and mp3panda.com , depending on whether one has the song I want or not. Same company runs both of them.

ElMikeTheMike · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron_Henderson

The RIAA can still Dera-lick my balls.

Why? The women broke the law and should pay the fine. It's the RIAA's job to protect the IP of musicians.

You all know music piracy is illegal, but when someone gets taken to court for it, you all get upset about it like its some grave injustice.

As the article states, most people wind up paying a few grand. Not the hundreds of thousands of dollars you all think.

quakermaas · 06-19-09

Would they like that paid in cash, cheque or blood and sweat

Argorn5757 · 06-19-09

Did you guys even read the articles or just look at the title?

Quote:

Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

Quote:

Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

Quote:

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005,

She could have settled for 3k to 5k, and it wasn't just 24 songs, it was 17 hundred!
This will send a message to the pirates, and she will settle for 5k probably.

FYI ~ 1,700 x 80,000 = 136,000,000

bad_haze · 06-19-09

Priority of persecution:

1) Download & duplicate & use & sell for profit
2) Downoad & dulpicate & use
2) Download & use

Despite what the "report" says, she was probably in category 1. She must have made enough money from the sale of such stuff to cover 1.2 million $ and not have deposited it in the bank so she can claim "Oh, woe is me! Little poor me... I have nothing". If she didn't make a good chunk of money selling this stuff for profit, then she is a terrible business person and did not foresee including the risk factor into her business model. As such she should never be allowed to do business again.

kurosu · 06-19-09

This is all kinds of g a y!!! Anybody against file sharing is retarded!

T3h_Ch33z_Muncha · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike

Why? The women broke the law and should pay the fine. It's the RIAA's job to protect the IP of musicians.

You all know music piracy is illegal, but when someone gets taken to court for it, you all get upset about it like its some grave injustice.

As the article states, most people wind up paying a few grand. Not the hundreds of thousands of dollars you all think.

I facepalmed.

TERAHERTZ · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

As a Canadian citizen I'm protected from the RIAA and their bogus lawsuits, and hey its only a few hours drive from Minneapolis to Winnipeg (although personally I might be willing to take the 1.92 million fine than live there)

Its quite simple, without the ability to download music I wouldn't have discovered Dream Theater. Now, after downloading their songs I buy everything I can get my hands on, both CDs and DVDs.

Anybody who does a serious study into the effects of music sharing will tell you that with the exception of the garbage on MTV, most bands have benefited from the massive exposure. My own government recognizes this, hence my protected status.

Its not like the bands receive any significant profit anyways. This is all about the recording industry fighting back against digital downloads in general. Bands make their money from touring and selling swag, so if piracy means the difference between playing at a club and selling out a 20,000 seat arena why the hell should they care?

true that bands make money from touring/playing shows..the record companies make money from the albums thats why there mad..but there never gona stop illegal downloads

Aaron_Henderson · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike

Why? The women broke the law and should pay the fine. It's the RIAA's job to protect the IP of musicians.

You all know music piracy is illegal, but when someone gets taken to court for it, you all get upset about it like its some grave injustice.

As the article states, most people wind up paying a few grand. Not the hundreds of thousands of dollars you all think.

As a musicion myself, I can say it basically infuriates me how much money is tied up in the recording industry. Music is not about money. At least, it never used to be. How about if someone gets nabbed for theft under $5000, and then is ordered to pay back a restitution of $100,000? Realistic? Not really. Ridiculous? Sure. Anyway, not trying to start a flame war. People need to see past laws and governments to understand, which is something most are unable to comprehend. Anyway, not starting a flame war. Just stating opinion.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Software News
[Y!] Woman to pay 1.92 million for illegal downloads

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)