[Y!] Woman to pay 1.92 million for illegal downloads - Page 8 - Overclock.net

Antolen · 06-19-09

Not reasonable at all there is no way a regular person will pay that off. They should charge more like 80 per song. They will not charge you at a store if you steal 2CD's and get caught then why they should over the internet?

Cesaro Summability · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtSpike

Yeah, because that would CERTAINLY keep people from pirating music!

Ha! Caught you pirating music! Now I'm going to impose a hefty fine of... exactly what you would have paid if you had bought the music legally to begin with.

Personally, I think this is excellent. The fine is absurdly high, but as others have said, she's never going to pay most of it. But it'll help scare people away from piracy. 1.92 million for 24 songs? People will look at that and stop risking being even the "little downloader".

It will scare people from piracy? Do you really believe that? What evidence do you have that could possibly cause you to draw that conclusion? If anything it will scare people into avoiding crap like limewire, and Kazaa.

Also, if you ever find yourself on a jury in cases like this, or non-violent drug crimes, ALWAYS vote to acquit, it's the best way to fight back against injustices like this.
Excessive fines are never a good thing, and people shouldn't be made "examples" of for the sake of a music industry who still fails to change it's economic models to fit a changing market place.

thiussat · 06-19-09

I have always wondered why the MAFIAA only sues when they could pursue criminal charges.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%

So, I ask, MAFIAA, why don't you man up and begin putting these pesky single mothers and MIT students in prison as the law clearly allows? Why waste your time with lawsuits? I demand imprisonment and forced hard labor of these scumbag pirates who dare download even one song! Hell, let's not even waste tax payer dollars with prisons, let's put the b*stards in Gitmo! If they're not on American soil, you can even use some "enhanced interrogation techniques" so that they reveal who is involved in their evil underground network intended to rip off the MAFIAA! We can call it "rendition for pirates."

(Oh wait, imprisoning 50% of America wouldn't work. OK, scratch that).

T3h_Ch33z_Muncha · 06-19-09

MAFIAA?

random text to keep ^ in caps

**SgtSpike** · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuNkDrSpOt

The lady actually did have a valid reason to sue. It's been talked about before but it wasn't just hot, it was boiling scalding hot. Hot enough to cause scarring

All coffee is hot enough to scald and cause scarring. It's how people like their coffee. 160 degrees F. Haven't yet figured out WHY people like their coffee to be hotter than they can drink, but hey, it's what any coffee shop or restaurant will give you.

This should fall under common sense. And even if it didn't, it was her fault that she spilled the coffee on herself in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoTMaXPoWeR

Lol?

I agree that the children shouldn't suffer because of her stupidity, but do you really think that she thought of getting a 1.92m debt for downloading 24 songs?

Stupid IMO. It's just big corps trying to scare P2Pers.

This is a good thing. The less piracy, the better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liability

That's PER SONG, and you act like even that amount is justified. Just goes to show how screwed up our legal system is.

That's plenty justifiable. She broke the law, and allowed 100's, perhaps 1,000's of other people to do the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesaro Summability

It will scare people from piracy? Do you really believe that? What evidence do you have that could possibly cause you to draw that conclusion? If anything it will scare people into avoiding crap like limewire, and Kazaa.

It would scare the enthusiast who knows what he's doing into avoiding limewire and Kazaa, but it would scare the average pirateer to just stop altogether. You'd be amazed how many people at my workplace have tried to download music illegally using limewire... And these are casual users, people who know just enough about computers to get themselves in trouble. As far as they know, "everyone pirates", and there's no way to get caught. But when they start hearing of people who get $2M levied against them for downloading and sharing just 24 songs, you can bet they're gonna get the crap scared out of them and not touch filesharing again, at least for a long time.

MarCustomized · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtSpike

The fine is absurdly high, but as others have said, she's never going to pay most of it.

You think it's okay because because she can't afford to pay it? How's that logic work? This sets a dangerous precedent.

low strife · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by xguntherc

How terrible. That's why you shouldn't share or DL without Peer Guardian or the new utorrent has an ipfilter. (I'm not saying it's RIGHT to pirate either) But What a shame. I feel bad for her.

I hope she DOESN'T pay a penny. I'd file bankruptcy if I couldn't settle it.

Why not just get it from sources that don't even need the use of such programs (talking about PG)? Or even just get it in other ways entirely? There are many options open for those who look for them, and get themselves positioned in the right places.

As has been previously stated in the thread, the music industry is refusing to adapt to the changing environment. History has shown us time and time again that people\companies\organizations\countries that refuse to change with the times (with the exception of religion) always get run into the dirt at some point or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtSpike

That's plenty justifiable. She broke the law, and allowed 100's, perhaps 1,000's of other people to do the same.

If she hadn't done it, it wouldn't have impended said 100's or 1000's of people from downloading anything. It would effect, at most, the speed at which they downloaded at.

Quote:

It would scare the enthusiast who knows what he's doing into avoiding limewire and Kazaa, but it would scare the average pirateer to just stop altogether. You'd be amazed how many people at my workplace have tried to download music illegally using limewire... And these are casual users, people who know just enough about computers to get themselves in trouble. As far as they know, "everyone pirates", and there's no way to get caught. But when they start hearing of people who get $2M levied against them for downloading and sharing just 24 songs, you can bet they're gonna get the crap scared out of them and not touch filesharing again, at least for a long time.

The average joe is the one getting "jibbed" out of it, yet the real "threats to the music industry", such as the pirating "enthusiasts" (who take it to a whole new level) are the real ones, logically, they should be going after. However, they don't, because the resources required to do that would be IMMENSE.

**SgtSpike** · 06-19-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarCustomized

You think it's okay because because she can't afford to pay it? How's that logic work? This sets a dangerous precedent.

Lol, well the only reason I say that is because that's the way our current court system works. People get levied with ridiculous fines that they can never pay, and then they settle afterwards for some insignificant amount. It's up to whoever the court finds favor with to settle - they don't HAVE to settle. It's just they always do, because it's much easier than it is to actually try to collect 1.92 million from someone who doesn't have it.

Besides, punishments should never be dished out based on capability of payment - that sets an even more dangerous precedent IMO. A precedent that encourages people to be poor and stay poor (kinda like welfare).