[Y!] Woman to pay 1.92 million for illegal downloads - Page 13 - Overclock.net

Tainok · 06-19-09

Bankruptcy... or leave the country if the bankruptcy judgment just sets it up to empty your paycheck. Heh.

Liability · 06-19-09

It's really disgusting that some of you can sit here and defend the RIAA like some grave injustice was done to them. You can honestly justify ruining the life of a woman and her four kids over 24 songs that she downloaded? Allow me to take a quote from one of the few competent judges out there, Judge Michael Davis, regarding a previous case like this:

Quote:

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...

The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...

These laws were made to go after people who produce bootleg content and sell it for a profit, not your average stay at home mom who happened to pull a few songs off Kazaa. This is exploitation of the system, and since our judges and juries, as a whole, are tech incompetent, the RIAA successfully paints these people as hardened criminals, and a scourge to humanity. The 'evidence' used in these cases is inconclusive and should not be admissible, but when you have judges who struggle to do so much as send an email, what can you expect?

I am disappointed that some of you vehemently defend the RIAA when what they do amounts to nothing more than extortion. Their shady tactics (many of which should be landing them in court) and complete lack of morality should garner them no support, yet you anti-piracy clowns stand up for them anyway. I'll never understand it. Are you really that blinded by your hatred of pirates that you can't see the RIAA for what they really are?

And for the record, the artists don't see a penny from lawsuits like this... So no, they're not fighting for the artists.

r34p3rex · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liability

It's really disgusting that some of you can sit here and defend the RIAA like some grave injustice was done to them. You can honestly justify ruining the life of a woman and her four kids over 24 songs that she downloaded? Allow me to take a quote from one of the few competent judges out there, Judge Michael Davis, regarding a previous case like this:

These laws were made to go after people who produce bootleg content and sell it for a profit, not your average stay at home mom who happened to pull a few songs off Kazaa. This is exploitation of the system, and since our judges and juries, as a whole, are tech incompetent, the RIAA successfully paints these people as hardened criminals, and a scourge to humanity. The 'evidence' used in these cases is inconclusive and should not be admissible, but when you have judges who struggle to do so much as send an email, what can you expect?

I am disappointed that some of you vehemently defend the RIAA when what they do amounts to nothing more than extortion. Their shady tactics (many of which should be landing them in court) and complete lack of morality should garner them no support, yet you anti-piracy clowns stand up for them anyway. I'll never understand it. Are you really that blinded by your hatred of pirates that you can't see the RIAA for what they really are?

And for the record, the artists don't see a penny from lawsuits like this... So no, they're not fighting for the artists.

this. artists aren't getting crap from these lawsuits, RIAA is just a bunch of money hogs that have no talent aside from taking more money away from the artists and the people

killerhz · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liability

It's really disgusting that some of you can sit here and defend the RIAA like some grave injustice was done to them. You can honestly justify ruining the life of a woman and her four kids over 24 songs that she downloaded? Allow me to take a quote from one of the few competent judges out there, Judge Michael Davis, regarding a previous case like this:

First let me say that in my previous posts I completely agree that this fine is out of control. No one is against piracy more than me but what people like you fail to realize is that; The Jury, neither courts nor the RIAA ruined her life. She made the decision to download the music herself. No one forced her to use a P2P program and illegally download 24 songs. She put her family’s quality of life at stake the moment she broke the law. Maybe the laws need to changed but as of right now, they haven’t.
I am no saint, I smoke weed on a daily basis. I have been caught 3 times and every time the fines get bigger and bigger. I don’t blame anyone else for my mistakes. When do we as a society accept accountability for our own actions? When?

Edit: nice post though. even though I do not agree with everything.

Aaron_Henderson · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerhz

First let me say that in my previous posts I completely agree that this fine is out of control. No one is against piracy more than me but what people like you fail to realize is that; The Jury, neither courts nor the RIAA ruined her life. She made the decision to download the music herself. No one forced her to use a P2P program and illegally download 24 songs. She put her family’s quality of life at stake the moment she broke the law. Maybe the laws need to changed but as of right now, they haven’t.
I am no saint, I smoke weed on a daily basis. I have been caught 3 times and every time the fines get bigger and bigger. I don’t blame anyone else for my mistakes. When do we as a society accept accountability for our own actions? When?

Edit: nice post though. even though I do not agree with everything.

What of you were fined $100,000 for smoking pot? Would you accept that as fair and carry on your day?

Greatness · 06-19-09

Personally I think if these are the fines we are to expect for downloading music we should be able to charge the same kinds of fines for artist releasing weak CD's and tricking us into buying them by releasing a "Single" that is far above the quality of the rest of the tracks on the CD therefore misleading people into buying a CD that is well below the expected quality. Its almost like buying a box of random crap, I personally am done buying CD's or downloading them f*** the RIAA

lordikon · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashdummy35

A Federal judgment too?

Garnishment.

Property leins/auctions.

Bankruptcy.

Years and years of misery.

I wonder if the jury is ok with the fact it will be impossible for the mother to help her children get into college now?

If I was a musician, I'd find a way to sell my music on my own, no way I would support a music industry run by a bunch of tools like this.

Kryten · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElMikeTheMike

Why? The women broke the law

She didn't seem to think so.

Her kids did it. Not her. Going to sue the kids? I think this hassle was more than enough to teach them a lesson.

ElMikeTheMike · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liability

It's really disgusting that some of you can sit here and defend the RIAA like some grave injustice was done to them. You can honestly justify ruining the life of a woman and her four kids over 24 songs that she downloaded? Allow me to take a quote from one of the few competent judges out there, Judge Michael Davis, regarding a previous case like this:

These laws were made to go after people who produce bootleg content and sell it for a profit, not your average stay at home mom who happened to pull a few songs off Kazaa. This is exploitation of the system, and since our judges and juries, as a whole, are tech incompetent, the RIAA successfully paints these people as hardened criminals, and a scourge to humanity. The 'evidence' used in these cases is inconclusive and should not be admissible, but when you have judges who struggle to do so much as send an email, what can you expect?

I am disappointed that some of you vehemently defend the RIAA when what they do amounts to nothing more than extortion. Their shady tactics (many of which should be landing them in court) and complete lack of morality should garner them no support, yet you anti-piracy clowns stand up for them anyway. I'll never understand it. Are you really that blinded by your hatred of pirates that you can't see the RIAA for what they really are?

And for the record, the artists don't see a penny from lawsuits like this... So no, they're not fighting for the artists.

How is $3500 extortion?

Edit - I mean come on, we all know the woman isn't going to pay that giant sum. According to the article, she was given (or has) the opportunity to settle for significantly less.

denrocks2 · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashdummy35

Yeah.

She'll probably settle and have to sign a "gag" order never to disclose the terms/amount and people will only remember 1.92 million.

The record companies will then say "We felt bad a lessened the fine; but won't next time," to calm the anger down and keep people from hating them.

It's mostly PR.

Am I the only one to take this the wrong way?

		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)