Woman Must Pay $1.5 Million for Sharing MP3s

[husker]

[citation][nom]bunz_of_steel[/nom]Don't buy no stinking music do it on the web like u guys said. I haven't bought music in years and with the MAFRHIAA constantly walking around with a boner I don't plan to buy any music in the foreseeable future, it's my lil personaly grudge match against them weenies.[/citation]
I'm sure all the musical artists that you enjoy listening to are happy to hear that you are stealing their stuff. What kind of a fan are you? Would you take money out of your grandmother's purse because you know she won't catch you?

 

[NightLight]

RIAA, SABAM... all the same... They claim to give back to the artist but they don't. In Belgium, there was a lawsuit against SABAM wich found them guilty of only paying a very small percentage of the reported funds to the artists, and it was swept under the rug. Nobody ever heard anything anymore after the verdict. If you ask me, they are the real crooks! I've been saying it over and over: make music more digitally available, without having to subscribe to a service or website. Slap this woman on the wrist and let it go RIAA.

 

[pale paladin]

WE are too big of poon tangs to execute rapists and killers for first offenses but digital intellectual property pirates need to cough up 1.9million dollars???? Make the punishment fit the crime every time. if you steal , give back. if you kill, then be killed.etc.... why is that reasoning bad???

 

[pale paladin]

[citation][nom]requiemsallure[/nom]do you realize 90 % or more of the majority of artists income comes from concerts and such, and not as much from accual sales.[/citation]
As it should be. They need to work hard to make money. Touring is hard work but it make the fans happy and it make the artist rich. win win

 

[jugr0jones]

These types of stories get old really quickly. They failed to embrace technology, create decent music and most importantly they failed to market this music to the right people. The only solution they can find to their problem is to sue individual people who download a relatively small number of songs, and this despite their repeated warnings that they are not after the individuals who do so, but they want the "big boys".

On another note, does anyone know what happened to this story?

Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may owe $60 billion in damages

see http/boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-labels.html

 

[steiner666]

gotta love how you get a bigger fine for downloading some mp3s than you would for... uh, any actual serious crime. 1.9M, lmao.

 

[jugr0jones]

These types of stories get old really quickly. They failed to embrace technology, create decent music and most importantly they failed to market this music to the right people. The only solution they can find to their problem is to sue individual people who download a relatively small number of songs, and this despite their repeated warnings that they are not after the individuals who do so, but they want the "big boys".

On another note, does anyone know what happened to this story?

Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may owe $60 billion in damages

see http/boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-labels.html

 

[Conner Macleod]

[citation][nom]khanny[/nom]I do like how the title of this article is "Woman Must Pay $1.5 Million for /Sharing/ MP3s." Should read "Woman Must Pay $1.5 Million for /Stealing/ MP3s." Secondary title: "Do You Think She Still Loves Music?" I would question if that woman EVER loved music. The simple fact of the matter is when you steal MP3s, you're hurting the artist MUCH more than some exec, or whatever justification people use when they decide bootlegging MP3s is somehow ethically okay. It's absolute crap that people can somehow find "moral" arguments that they grapple onto like leeches as they steal thousands of songs. (@ekulz: it looks like she stole some 62,500 songs)At the end of the day, you're hurting an entire industry that is trying to entertain you. Your carte blanche willingness to steal their product is not only disrespectful, but its illegal. With all that being said, 1.5 million is excessive... I imagine its in large part due to the attorney's fees that she will have to recoup to Capital.[/citation]

Incorrect, it hurts the execs more than the artist because management takes 90% of the albums sales, this is why you see artists on tours because that's how they make their money.

This $1.5 million is ridiculous, the fine should be the standard one for whatever a misdemeanor is in her state. Something like a $500 fine and suspended Internet privileges for a year would make more sense, or for her ISP to monitor her usage as part of a probationary period, six months to a year. File sharing music shouldn't lead to having a person's whole life destroyed, that's an abuse of the justice system.

 

[flachet]

They still make radio's right?

 

[azcoyote]

Steal your music the old fashioned way...
Screw Columbia House....

 

[Khimera2000]

so there suing her becaus of sailes loss? i think its there own fault, i dont remember the last time i've heard a good band from the record company that wasent underground. The fact is there trying to scare people, but there also releasing !@#$ for product. there trolling just like the weenies who sue for patint issues becaus they cant release a descent product.

when the music industry stops treating us as the enemy, and starts releasing music people want to listen ill start supporting them... But by the looks of things they will never stop treating us as criminals, and they will continue to release songs that are luke warm, while actual talent is ignored. When was the last time the record companies released an underground hit???

what china is to quality control the RIAA is to music.

 

[zmbcat]

This whole "pirating == stealing" thinking starts to look like a religion nowdays.

 

[applegetsmelaid]

Publicity stunt. All music is copyright infringement - it all sounds the freakin' same these days anyway.

 

[x0r-lord]

"RIAA then wanted to strike a deal with Thomas-Rasset to make the amount $25,000 if she would ask the judge to remove from record the decision to reduce the original $1.92 million (which the judge termed to be "monstrous and shocking")."

Trick her into making a deal that screws everybody else harder....
By removing the reduction from the record it would make it appear that precedent was set at 1.92$ million in the previous case. making the amount they can expect to be granted through decision much much higher...

I think the Damages are irrelevant, you've got a security problem. information still propagates along the "Darknet" and frankly, you can't get warrants to look there.

best of luck to 4chan, I hope the RIAA rots like the bloated carcass it is.

 

[rooket]

Weird and by the way, thanks Lars LOL.. I'm amazed his band still even has fans

 

[fayzaan]

Since when did sharing become illegal? next thing you know, they'll arrest people for sharing their dvd movies or songs with friends.

 

[cp8427]

all i can say is WTF was she smoking. Whatever it was, I need to avoid that!

 

[christop]

I'm sure she has 25k laying around. Are THEY FOR REAL...!!!!!!!!!!!! The newer music sucks anyways.

 

[southernshark]

1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is a good start.

Time to GET STARTED!!!

 

[teeth_03]

If she has to pay this amount,she should start a donation fund,because I would donate to this cause.

Not that I want to see those dumbasses get the money they want, but this woman is just being used to make an example of,and I say lets make an example back by not letting people like this having to pay these ridiculous fees