$1.92 Million to RIAA P2P Verdict Challenged

[CR0W M@GN3T]

Seriously is anybody actually reading the case presented to them?
"Durrrrrr..24 albums, huh? Uuhhhhh, the nice guy down the street sold me an album for $80,000 once so errr (let's see) 1.92 million sounds right".

 

[oafed]

Glad I never got caught! I have 9,299 MP3s. At 80k a song that would mean a fine of $743,920,000.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]NoCaDrummer[/nom]He's lucky. I've got a friend who produced a movie, has Warner distributing it for the last 3 years, and hasn't received a dime. They don't seem to know how many they've sold yet. THREE YEARS and they haven't figured it out? How do they stay in business if their accounting is so bad?!? (Hint - it's easy to make a profit if you don't pay expenses.)[/citation]
Sue them for $80k per minute of footage sold.

[citation][nom]oafed[/nom]Glad I never got caught! I have 9,299 MP3s. At 80k a song that would mean a fine of $743,920,000.[/citation]I hope you're a rich kid.

 

[Wayoffbase]

[citation][nom]oafed[/nom]Glad I never got caught! I have 9,299 MP3s. At 80k a song that would mean a fine of $743,920,000.[/citation]
If a song averages 4 minuets long, that's almost 26 continuous days of music. How much of it have you actually listened to? Are there anywhere near 9,000 decent songs in the world? Even at $.99 each, that's enough stolen property to buy a small car. Do you have OCD? The RIAA are ridiculous idiots, but so are a lot of the pirates.

 

[TKolb13]

it's as simple as this... DUE THE CRIME, PAY THE FINE! stop crying... YOU GOT CAUGHT!

 

[Guest]

Not trying to defend the RIAA here but folks' logic of comparing simply the cost of a song or an album to the award (normalized per song or per album) is wrong. I assume that RIAA was claiming that the songs were shared with many users so the damage is not simply the cost of the song but the cost of the song times the number of people it was illegally shared with.

Now I have all sorts of problems with the RIAA's claims on piracy damages and how it's calculated, but most people on this board are using bad logic by merely looking at the cost of the song to analyze the judgment. (Though I agree the judgment is obviously excessive)

 

[bunz_of_steel]

STFU MAF-RIAA

 

[bigalfantasy2004]

I think there should be a class action lawsuit against the RIAA. After all the crap songs that we were forced to buy over the years packaged on a CD with one song that we wanted to buy, the RIAA should pay us back. Based on the logic in this lawsuit, we wouldn't have to show actual damages. With the math involved here, we could probably get billions of dollars.

 

[brendano257]

[citation][nom]bigalfantasy2004[/nom]I think there should be a class action lawsuit against the RIAA. After all the crap songs that we were forced to buy over the years packaged on a CD with one song that we wanted to buy, the RIAA should pay us back. Based on the logic in this lawsuit, we wouldn't have to show actual damages. With the math involved here, we could probably get billions of dollars.[/citation]
Not likely to happen, but it's really what they deserve at this point.

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]bigalfantasy2004[/nom]I think there should be a class action lawsuit against the RIAA. After all the crap songs that we were forced to buy over the years packaged on a CD with one song that we wanted to buy, the RIAA should pay us back. Based on the logic in this lawsuit, we wouldn't have to show actual damages. With the math involved here, we could probably get billions of dollars.[/citation]
you know - I wonder if the comparison could made to like say if McDonalds only sold McNuggets with 2 large cokes and 3 large fries and one of their pies and that was the ONLY way you could buy McNuggets. is that a fair comparison? and if so do you think people would ever buy McNuggets or that it would even fly and consumers wouldn't be immediately griping and complaining?

maybe someone should ask that to the simpleton jurists that get picked.

 

[njalterio]

I still think the woman is a retard for not taking the $3k settlement out of court offered to her before. Now she wishes she could get it down to $18k!

Doing illegal stuff like this is one thing....but acting like a belligerent ass when you get caught red handed is just plain dumb.

 

[thegh0st]

[citation][nom]o0RaidR0o[/nom]You know what baffles me, is who are these jurists? Do they not have the same access to the same information that we have? Do they not possess the same common sense as must of us posters that see the same unethical malice witch hunt that the RIAA has been putting forth all these years? It astounds me that in America people still live like sheep following and believing what anyone in the smallest role of authority tell'em. RIAA/MPAA are not losing money from file sharing, you can't lose what you didn't have to begin with![/citation]
[citation][nom]brendano257[/nom]The problem is that most likely during jury selection anyone with a bias either way was taken out. So if any potential juror admitted to having file shared before, (or even knowing someone who did) they were most likely taken out of consideration. Therefore really only leaving people who look at it blindly and just say "Well it's against the law....put them in hell." That and people who don't even understand file sharing/what actually happened. I'm sure the prosecution made it sound very conniving and made her sound like she had planned out some grand escapade for free song downloading.[/citation]
I had to comment on what RaidR said to. brendan is right and beat me to it though I see. I was going to say it a little differently though -

I think it pretty much goes like this during jury selection -

RIAA: has anyone used the internet? downloaded or listened to a song through the internet? do any of you know what iTunes is? or an iPod or zune? do any of you know how to program a VCR? (or DVR I guess nowadays!)

potential jurists: *raises hands*

RIAA: thank you for coming! *turns to judge: judge these are the people we need to eliminate because of potential bias against us.* oh almost forgot, have a nice day! - next!

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]kyeana[/nom]^seriously now, isn't 5000$ for 24 songs still insanely excessive? Tell me if that happened to you that you wouldn't try to fight it.[/citation]

Absolutely not! Now I definitely do not like the RIAA and their methods, but if you get caught doing something illegal you better get out as easy as you can! I think the RIAA only wanted $3k, but $5k is STILL a gift given what she is trying to get now.

I can definitely see where the cost would come. So she shares 24 songs, 20 people download them who COULD have bought the CD. Now that doesn't mean all of those people would have actually purchased the CD, but this is beside the point.

She should have just cut a deal when she could.

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]TKolb13[/nom]it's as simple as this... DUE THE CRIME, PAY THE FINE! stop crying... YOU GOT CAUGHT![/citation]

"Due" the crime? Is there an expiration date on illegal activities?

Also, in this case the RIAA is suing for damages/loss of sales, not for "committing a crime". If this was an actual crime, the person in question would be facing criminal charges / jail time, not a ridiculous fine of which no normal person could ever hope to afford to pay.

 

[hillarymakesmecry]

$18,000 is too much. It should be like $300. Only real cases of stealing someone's music should be this much money.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]I still think the woman is a retard for not taking the $3k settlement out of court offered to her before. Now she wishes she could get it down to $18k!Doing illegal stuff like this is one thing....but acting like a belligerent ass when you get caught red handed is just plain dumb.[/citation]

do you actully pay atention to the entire case , the "lady" is nott eh oen that did thier sharing it was her kids but well since the RIAA cant string kids trhoguh finical hell (since they are protected by law from such) they hit the mother. if i were i i'd tell them to take thier figures and shove them up thier ass , assumgin she works a normal job she could file bankruptcy and they would enver s3ee one red cent.