Woman Must Pay $1.5 Million for Sharing MP3s

[zooted]

The US does not have a justice system. It has a legal system. There is a difference. "Retarded" is a good word to describe that difference.

I agree 100%

 

[demonhorde665]

weriously wehre do they exopect this woman to pul this money from ???

 

[cptnjarhead]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]The solution: stop pirating and stop buying... and watch RIAA / MPAA squirm.[/citation]
agreed..
People have more power with their wallets... than the RIAA could ever have.
Just dont buy music for a while.. boycott with your money. Stealing isnt the answer.
If consumers really knew how much power they have.. they could control everything!

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]I'm glad you feel that way. Do you treat all other consumer goods with the same ridiculous logic?This 12 pack of beer is too expensive. I'm going to steal it. I'll buy it when it sells at a decent price. Oh, but wait, non tangible goods don't have any value though.... right? Right?Do you know what I do? I haven't purchased music in over two years. I haven't download any music either. I'm doing without in a protest to the RIAA. People like you aren't hurting the RIAA you are just justifying their actions. You are sending the message to the RIAA that the music IS in demand but you would rather steal it than buy it. If the message was "we don't want your music" they might change their demeanor. Ironically enough, you are the problem and yet here you are whining about it.[/citation]

ok ass hat , where in "uruquiora's" post did he say he was goign to steal the music in stead of buying ,... wow some people's lack of logical thinking is astounding . this si even a basic logic fallacy

here is the formula of your logic broken down for you

A is B, if C then A
C is B
therefore A must be C

here is that formular reworded

john is dead,
if some one is murderd then they are dead
therefore john was murderd

you see the problem with your logic now ?


just because some one doesn't buy something it doesn't necessitate that they are instead stealling it.


i dont buy music but i don't steal it either.

 

[rubix_1011]

Wait...

1.5 million for 2-3 CD's worth of music? (I think the actual story was it was fewer than 30 songs.)

If you walk into a store, steal 3 CDs and get caught, you get a slap on the wrist and a $100 fine + court costs.

If only the music industry had embraced downloading mp3's over a decade ago similar to how iTunes, Amazon and others do now ($1/song) they would have made a killing on music sales, but they were too caught up trying to create encryption and perpetuate the life of the music CD...instead of jumping on digital media in its infancy to make billions.

 

[tsnorquist]

The sad fact is, a DUI is cheaper than this. A DUI hurting/killing someone is cheaper than this.

Fine her $500.00 a song and close the case. This is absurd.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]hihiman1[/nom]What? She could have paid only $25,000 but she refused? Maybe she didn't think she should have been fined at all, but even so, she should've taken 25k over 1500k.[/citation]

If you read carefully you would understand she fought for the logic behind the case. RIAA dont want the painalty to be low at 54k (and didnt want to risk another trial) they want millions in order to point to this case for reference in future trials so they can ruin anyones life even if they shared just one track. Its that simple, they tried to bribe her to stand down with the latest painalty in order to keep the monsterous one.

RIAA just makes me sick, it should be a federal crime just to purchase anything from a label associaded with the organisation. I hope everyone boycots the labels behind it just to show that its not acceptable to fine 50.000$ for a single track. Would be fun to know how much extra trips ect that last judge got from the organization afterwards or what possition he will be leaving his work as a judge for under the riaa's flag. Hope they realy feel good about themselves, ruin a persons entire life for sharing a few tracks that wouldn't likely been purchased either way.

 

[bildo123]

[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]

That's nice. Meanwhile the "good guy", the band who's music your downloading doesn't get a dime for their efforts either. Perhaps this is way radio is terrible since its all corporate garbage music anyways since indy bands can't get a dime to break the barrier.

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]mrmez[/nom]Piracy is wrong and should be punished. However, even the RIAA calles it "MISCONDUCT", and is happy to accept $25,000.Frak me sideways. 25k for misconduct, i wonder how much you get for a real crime?[/citation]
2 year paid suspension from work ($136,000) and 30 months probation sadly enough

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]bildo123[/nom]That's nice. Meanwhile the "good guy", the band who's music your downloading doesn't get a dime for their efforts either. Perhaps this is way radio is terrible since its all corporate garbage music anyways since indy bands can't get a dime to break the barrier.[/citation]
Indy bands and big groups all make their real money the same way, doing concerts and appearances, do you really think they make a lot of money from selling CDs? They make almost nothing from those, the HUGE majority of that money goes to the label and the executives and everyone else other then the artist who created the music.

The only reason the RIAA cares about pirating is not cause it affects the artists (my thought is it exposes more artists to a wider audience) but because THEY lose money from it, they don't give a damn about the artist they just care about their money.

 

[Parrdacc]

[citation][nom]tsnorquist[/nom]The sad fact is, a DUI is cheaper than this. A DUI hurting/killing someone is cheaper than this.Fine her $500.00 a song and close the case. This is absurd.[/citation]

Very true a DUI is cheaper how sad is that. However a DUI that causes hurting/killing of someone, I do believe is not cheaper once you add in all the fines, court costs, and the sure to be civil suit coming. Moral of the story, if your going to "break" the law do not download 30 songs. Instead get sloushed and do a hit and run and get smaller fine and overall less punishment Either way its all about the money brought to bare.

 

[thechief73]

Besides the fact that she was sharing music, these damage numbers that the court/jury have come up with are absolutly rediculous. 98% of the people in this country probably could not come up with that kind of $$$ in thier lifetime(just a guess but probably close). Just another prime example of how the courts in this country are a complete and utter failure.

+1 to rubix_1011 and tsnorquist

 

[Guest]

this is bull shit.... as long as the file sharing networks exists people will share... its like killing all the people who get a disease.... instead of finding the cure.....

 

[yugmus]

Wouldn't it make sense to maybe make her pay for the cost # of songs*# of times shared*interest? It would be something like .99*2400*1.1=$2614. I know I'm not compounding the interest or anything like that but, I'm sure the RIAA hasn't proposed a breakdown of the reasoning of the civil suit like this either. I have a hard time believing that she shared each song ~60,000 times. Obviously she would have to pay the court costs too but, seriously!?

 

[yugmus]

Oh, its pretty obvious but, I was also assuming she shared each song 100 times. Maybe its more, maybe its less.

 

[tolham]

i don't understand these jurys. how are these people coming to the conclusion that an mp3 is worth tens of thousands of dollars?

 

[Guest]

My question is....where are they gonna get 1.5mil from this woman? gonna take her and house and put her kids in the street? If thats the case, im ashamed to be associated with our government .

 

[brendano257]

Rich Industrial Assholes of America. 'nuff said.

 

[Guest]

Why do people think of piracy as the problem instead of as the symptom? If it costs nothing to reproduce something, why shouldn't we pay for its creation and then release it to everyone? Makes a lot more sense than trying to artificially restrict something that costs nothing to replicate. The only issues are in how we pay for the creation, but concert tickets are a start and if that isn't enough theres always those that want a hard copy of an album for the collectors value. Worst case scenario we have to tax isp's and use that to pay musicians based upon how often people download their music. However we do it, it makes a lot more sense to pay musicians to create music than it does to pay for a copy that costs nothing to produce.

 

[datawrecker]

[citation][nom]bildo123[/nom]That's nice. Meanwhile the "good guy", the band who's music your downloading doesn't get a dime for their efforts either. Perhaps this is way radio is terrible since its all corporate garbage music anyways since indy bands can't get a dime to break the barrier.[/citation]

Bands can earn a MAXIMUM of 9 cents per song. However, the artist cannot start collecting on these royalties until recording, artwork, extra musicians and any advances to the label are paid in full. Looking at these factors there are plenty of artists that never receive a cent from cd sales.