Woman Must Pay $1.5 Million for Sharing MP3s

[tolham]

[citation][nom]datawrecker[/nom]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.[/citation]
which begs the question, why sign with a label at all?

 

[marcus_br]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Because it's all a game. It's about making the RIAA's lawyers feel like they've accomplished something, and that by extension, the RIAA is necessary and useful.Would any musician even see a dime of this money?[/citation]

OH wait..are they helping to pay the legal fees?
No?? So STFU.

Stupid old argument...RIAA is protecting most artists that WANT this lawsuit to keep going.

In Brazil, a couple of sharers got arrested. Suits them well.

 

[lradunovic77]

So ok, how the fuck they expect from her to pay 1.5 million, she doesn't have money. What they are going to do about that? What a stupid system.

 

[cj_online]

[citation][nom]cronik93[/nom]Like the quality of music is worth anything these days.....[/citation]
Actually, it is.... let's see you do better..

Haters gonna hate.

 

[g00fysmiley]

so declare bankrupcy chapter 7 out of it. bad credit for 8 years but whatever

 

[lance6270]

(@ekulz: it looks like she stole some 62,500 songs)

It was actually 24 songs at a fine of $62,500 per song, not 62,500 songs.

 

[khanny]

lance6270,

I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[datawrecker]

[citation][nom]tolham[/nom]which begs the question, why sign with a label at all?[/citation]

Exactly.

 

[rantoc]

Hope RIAA don't get a dime nor scare anyone off, that would mean a loss loss for them no mater how you view it. They gladly ruin a persons life just to scare people to purchase their music and seriously, there are alot of people who don't even bother to listen to all their downloaded music and how many sales would that have generated in the end if they were forced to purchase it ?

I don't defend the pirates at all, i dislike it but seeing how RIAA litterary destroys peoples lives just to get over some more money it makes me sick, the pirates might destroy that additional bonus party among the Ceo+Board+Major Share holders but i think most of them wouldn't even notice that loss unless someone told them they were missing it!

The real musicians are screwed anyway and i'll rather purchase it from them directly then let the fingers of corruption (RIAA labels) get even more money in order to screw more people over or lobby for lawchanges and the like from our "elected" (that sadly seem to be more interested in their own gains than actually represent their people that put them there in the first place)

 

[rasagul]

This Woman has made a Martry of herself with the file shareing community. I think the fine is exsessive and absurd. She made her choices though and it would appear that it might cost her, and what about her family? I don't remember what profession she is in but I don't know too many people that can pay off the better part of 2 million in a lifetime. Well kids there is always community college..

 

[f-14]

if she just gave them everything she owned she could file bankruptcy and screw them out of the rest or have the bankruptcy rules changed too much for that?

 

[neoverdugo]

I admit that the woman was very stupid, but the RIAA doesn't care and still want all our money to their pockets. I think they need another dose off Payback.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]rasagul[/nom]This Woman has made a Martry of herself with the file shareing community. I think the fine is exsessive and absurd.[/citation]

Share 24 tracks and no prof how many copies were made from her, how can they fine anything but the proven copies? Roll a dice? What a great joke for a "justice" system!

A digital copy don't cost the companies a dime since its still a copy and they can still sell their CD's so the argument that its theft is flawed, what it can do it however is resulting in a loss of CD sales and considering reading articles about how many people download and how few that actual uses their downloaded material i don't think those losses are major - certainly not 65250$ per track.

RIAA can take the elevator down to the warmer place where they belong, i dont think it will be long before we can start reading about file-sharers that were fined for copying that commits suicide after RIAA+Our "justice" killed them and that for sharing a few track of music!

 

[f-14]

how many sales would that have generated in the end if they were forced to purchase it ?

none you can record it off the radio since cassette days.

 

[koga73]

FUCK THE RIAA AND MPAA...
simple.

 

[gmarsack]

Doesn't the RIAA know that the music their sworn to protect these days isn't that good.. certainly not worth the settlement price.

 

[dark_lord69]

I live in MN and I heard a local radio station talking about this saying, She will not pay the amount, her lawyer claims the amount is unconstitutional and that it is "monstrous and shocking". As the article claims the judge had said previously.

 

[requiemsallure]

[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]


do you realize 90 % or more of the majority of artists income comes from concerts and such, and not as much from accual sales.

 

[znegval]

We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct

Yeah, sharing content... what a MONSTER! We should burn her or something!

 

[WyomingKnott]

[citation][nom]ekulz[/nom]how much filesharing did she actually do?[/citation]
Lessee.

A jury in Minneapolis decided that Thomas-Rasset must pay $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages to Capitol Records, or $62,500 for each song she illegally shared in April 2006.

1.5 million divided by 62,500 per song is - 24 songs.