P2P File Sharer to Pay RIAA $80,000 Per Song

[Guest]

The only way I've discovered most of the music I truly enjoy now from small/foreign/etc style bands is through downloading the material -- this allows me to pick and choose much more efficiently where my extremely limited funds go. The odds of me finding the the Greek rock band I'm listening to at the moment would be 'nil without finding it through torrent sites. I download, listen & if I like it I find a way to legally purchase it, but with the astounding amount of garbage that so many labels have been punching out for years 90% of what I listen to isn't worth the bandwidth spent, let alone to drop funds on it.

Is it illegal? Yes. $2M worth? Example, not sensible -- but having served jury duty a few times over the years my fear of a jury of my 'peers' making a decision about my life is horrific.

 

[eklipz330]

[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]lovely justice you have in USA. Glad I'm in Europe.[/citation]
hold on a sec, didn't microsoft get sued from bundling it's OS with IE in europe? LMFAO you got a fair share of 'awesomeness' in your justice system as well you dope

 

[eklipz330]

[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]lovely justice you have in USA. Glad I'm in Europe.[/citation]
oh, and goodluck getting on the internet xD

 

[anamaniac]

I realize piracy is harmful. Regardless, I don't intend to stop any time soon...

Guess I would owe $800,000,000.00

Yay for the Canadian equilavent being pathetic...

 

[viper666]

must... use... force... to refrain from downloading more! already owe them around 9,653,806,318... but the force is so weak that i surrender to my weakness and continue till i give my last breath

 

[dtemple]

I'd like to sell my completely legally obtained music collection (all purchased as new and used CDs, then ripped to exactly one PC) to the RIAA for $138,560,000.

 

[amnotanoobie]

People who download "illegally" usually is one or a combination of:

1. Who doesn't have money, or the means to pay for it (credit card, paypal, etc). You won't get them to pay even if a legal option through the net is available.

2. The person's location doesn't sell the item locally in any shop, and getting it through carrier or post would usually almost double the cost. Digital distribution might be an option for them, but iTunes like restrictions (restriction by geographic location) prevent them from getting the item even if they could pay for it.

3. Wants to get something for nothing, or try it out because of the hype. Even if somehow torrents, gnutella, emule, etc networks die, very few would actually go out and get it.

4. Love the ease of use of downloading things. There are a lot of content that isn't even available for digital distribution, torrents provide the ease of use that DRM'ed content simply can't.

 

[kingnoobe]

That is such a line of BS. What would you do if the music wasn't readily and easily available online? You say that you "wouldn't buy it anyways" but of course you wouldn't when the alternative is absolutely free. If you had no medium to acquire that music other than iTunes the story might change.


Um no it's not bs.. I bought very few cd's before I even knew how to get them online.. And I mean like 1 a year.. IF that.. So don't assume to know what we do.. Go back to your RIAA camp.

 

[p05esto]

Just another reason for me never to buy another song or movie again. Not that I have since RIAA started their assault. All free for me now!!

 

[coolronz]

it honestly sounds like she knows whats shes doing... RIAA tried to settle out of court, she said no... RIAA tried to sue her.. and it doesnt sound like shes going to or really has to.. within her rights anyways. sounds like shes one stubborn yet very smart cookie. you go girl, you drain those suckers dry in lawyer costs... lol makes me glad i live in Canada... theres too much drama in the US.. lol

 

[danimal_the_animal]

I can't believe they would sue for WAY more than that person could ever pay back in their lifetime.....what is the most they can levy per paycheck????

Just stupid....they will never get all that money....

This is looking at things from the other side of the coin.

RIAA---what a bunch of losers!

 

[68vistacruiser]

I think what a lot of people are missong here is that she downloaded something like 1700 songs, and allowed complete access to these songs by other peers.

 

[Guest]

I remember reading about a Russian server that was taken down, and the guy literally uploading in the Giga (if not terraBytes) per day got charged with a $8000 fine (if I'm correct)!

Things are getting silly... Committing the worst crimes get you free out of jail sooner than committing smaller crimes!
I'm sure this example is to scare the p2p downloader, but IMHO is a little exaggerated!
It's like suing your neighbor for $1.000.000.000 because their kid cries at night!
And that the court would agree is even more ridiculous!
There's no justice anymore in USA!
24 songs downloaded? Shared with about 50 people? $2 per song? That'd be $2.400 + $1.000 legal costs, court adjourned!
A $3.000 fine would be far sufficient punishment in this society,and in these economic times.

 

[jalek]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]I think the outrage from many people on this site here is exactly why the RIAA isn't happy with the outcome of this case.[/citation]

They're not happy because they know they'll never see a penny. They have former team members now in the US administration, they don't give a damn about public opinion.

Was this the woman that claimed RIAA attorneys tried to convince her not to have her day in court by showing her pictures of her kids on a school playground?

 

[vertigo_2000]

[citation][nom]Master Exon[/nom]tayb, a large majority of illegal music downloads are by people who would not have paid for it anyways. Therefor, no potential sales were lost in those cases.[/citation]

This is about as stupid an argument as can possibly get. If you would not have paid for it, why download it? Can't afford it? Then do without. Way too many people think they should have everything everyone else has regardless of their own financial situation. If you can't afford to buy it... you don't get to have it. Period.

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]vertigo_2000[/nom]This is about as stupid an argument as can possibly get. If you would not have paid for it, why download it? Can't afford it? Then do without. Way too many people think they should have everything everyone else has regardless of their own financial situation. If you can't afford to buy it... you don't get to have it. Period.[/citation]
Have you ever taken a free sample of a product at a supermarket? If they charged you $1 for the free sample would you still take it?

Ok, now you understand how something you can get for free you wouldn't necessarily pay for.

I can pick up a Metro (newspaper) on the way to work which is free. If it didn't exist, I wouldn't buy the Globe&Mail or any other paper, even for 50 cents, I'd just go without a paper at all.

The only evidence you raise for someone's purchase of the subject media is that they have an interest in it, but its common knowledge that a person's interest in a product is relative to its price. The minute you put a price on something you change a person's interest in it, most drastically when it goes from FREE to an actual $ figure.

 

[itadakimasu]

[citation][nom]fa_q2[/nom]What does it matter? The judgment is a complete farce since there is no way she will be able to pay that amount anyway. WHY!?!?!?![/citation]

Is that how civil cases work?

I just think that if they want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a serious dollar amount, and grossly exaggerating damages just makes it seem like they're incompetent. Even $9,250 per song is completely absurd.

The actual damages of the 24 songs downloaded (pfff... 24?) is so meager that the court costs were probably 100 times the actual damages. If I download something and like it I'm going to buy it.

If I goto the local used cd store and drop $50... how much of that do the record companies get? Should we make selling used cd's illegal also?

 

[tenor77]

If I was this girl I'd start downloading like crazy. I mean, seriously, what are they going to do to her. Get another judgement she could never even begin to pay?

 

[antilycus]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom] The RIAA didn't didn't hand down the judgment of $80,000 a song, a jury of OUR peers did. The girl and whoever was in the jury both need not reproduce.[/citation]

I am going to guess "our peers" was a bunch of old republicans that have ABSOLUTELY no grasps on today's real world. Yep OUR peers, my arse.

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]Master Exon[/nom]The copyright on the Beatles expired already. You can legally download and distribute them now.[/citation]
Aren't you talking about "49 years" limit in EU, which was just recently raised to 99 to "match US" and "better protect artists"?