MarCustomized

She only facilitated sharing. There is no actual proof that more than 1 person downloaded the files from her, so that argument is moot.

Guns and bullets facilitate murder and death but we aren't fining our glorious weapons industry for potential harm.

Lolno. If I win a huge sum of money, why would I settle... to be nice? Even if what you are saying were the case, this amount she is being forced to pay is beyond "ridiculous".

No one implied that.

__________________

SgtSpike

Guns and bullets aren't bound by copyright law. Copyright law is different, and aiding people in breaking copyright law can add up to some hefty fines. I see nothing wrong with this - if you want to avoid hefty fines, don't help people break the copyright laws. Pretty simple really.

And do you have proof there is no proof that she helped other people? I haven't look at the court file myself...
No, you would settle because you know that the person couldn't pay up what they owed. You settle because the only other option is to go through collection, and that usually ends up even worse for you, as the person will go through bankruptcy and you'll probably be one of the last people to be paid. You settle because you, as a company, don't even want to deal with that.

A couple million is pennies in the pockets of the music industry. They couldn't care less if they collect anything from her. But they wanted to win the lawsuit to make an example of her, in hopes of scaring other people away from piracy, and also setting a precedent that can be followed in other courts of law.

And I would agree that it is excessive, but it is well within the bounds of the US Law, and that has been in place, available for anyone to read, for a long time. If this woman didn't want to have a potential liability of $2M sitting on her plate, she shouldn't have downloaded the songs.
You implied it.
You implied that it wouldn't be ok because she couldn't afford to pay it. Thus, it would only be ok if she could afford to pay it. At least that's the way I read it.

__________________

The Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L Thread
101% OC on E6300!

MarCustomized

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...t-for-publica/

Ultimately, there is no proof that she aided anyone in breaking copyright law. Well there is proof that the Mediadefender detective downloaded it from her. But that most likely adds up to one or 2 actual persons. Not "100's, perhaps 1,000's". I'm pretty sure 1 or 2 actual persons doesn't make you a commercial infringer and might be considered fair use. That's all that can be proven.

I'd also like to note that most copyright law is in regards to commercial criminals who make a profit or have some sort of monetary exchange. This was free. Also, there is not a single copyright law in the books that defines "making available" as actual infringment.

You're assuming so much here that it's not worth arguing. And honestly, I'm not well versed in how that process works.

Proof?

Simple misstep here. I was merely remarking at how absurd the fine is in comparison to the cost of purchasing the song legally and the fact that she can't afford to pay it doesn't make the greater precedent of fining people $80,000 per song acceptable.

__________________

Cesaro Summability

I completely disagree.. They tried this a couple years ago, and it hasn't put a dent into file sharing at all. It's actually increased, actions like this do NOT scare people away. There is no evidence to suggest it, in fact evidence points to the opposite as more and more people get broadband.

TestECull

Dude, where I buy my music it's 20 cents a track. Where are you buying yours, Failtunes?

__________________

USFORCES

She must of really been handing out the uploads, because if they went after the average person that downloads a few songs here and there they wouldn't need to sell anymore CD's.

__________________
Case is Retired

T3h_Ch33z_Muncha

where do you buy yours? just out of interest.

__________________
Please don't call me Muncha, as cheese is not the only insinuatable munchable object; Ch33z will suffice. Oh, and i almost forgot to express my love for Heru
Planned upgrades (kind of in order): 22" Monitor, Goliathus Omega (mousepad), new chair, Windows 7, CM 690, new desk, Ideazon ZBoard MERC, Sennheiser HD201, bong, DX 11 card(s)+necessary PSU
Epic things happening in 2010: Toy Story 3, new H.I.M album, Supreme Commander 2, MechWarrior, The Elder Scrolls V, Mafia II, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Bioshock 2, Crysis 2, Iron Man 2

SgtSpike

Ok, you're right, after reading further, there is no proof. So if I was the judge, I would have ruled against the plaintiff.

I do assume a lot, and obviously not every case is going to be the same, but the vast majority of cases are handled in that way for that reason. But I won't try to convince you of that.

Proof? The article itself said that copyright infringement can carry fines of up to $150,000 per work. And, AFAIK, that's about the only guidance the law gives as far as how much of a fine can be levied.

Ok. We just misunderstood each other on this point. Sounds like we're on the same page there.

__________________

The Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L Thread
101% OC on E6300!

ChielScape

shoulda stayed in the kitched and made me a sammich.

__________________

bomfunk

What's that?

__________________
Statistix show that 92% of teenagers have moved to real music . If you are one of the sane 8% that still listen to funk, hip-hop or jazz, copy and past this into your sig, for thou art now offically awesome!DISCLAIMER:
By reading the above post, you accept that the poster ("bomfunk") is now the rightful owner of all your present possessions.