Members the stranger Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading MINNEAPOLIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scud133 Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 $80,000/each?? Holy moly. The RIAA better make sure I get to hear some awesome {censored}ing music in 2010 if that's the kind of money they're going to pull from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members whiteop Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 I'd have to know more about the case and the actions that caused the lawsuit to be filed in the first place, but all I can say is WOW; either she really blatantly violated the copyrights or the recording companies are trying to make up for their lack of sales by going after whoever they can find to target. Sounds a little extreme to me. Think about being told you have to come up with 1.92 Million to pay the judgment and that everytime you open a bank account it's going to get garnished. Any property other than your homestead that you buy is going to have a lien placed against it. I'd move to another country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 She had a peer to peer client on her machine and it had access to a folder with a few hundred songs in it, IIRC. Other people supposedly had access to the machine and she said she had no idea how the songs (or p2p client) ended up on the machine. She's a young under- or unemployed single mom, as I remember the story. But I imagine all these details should be getting replayed soon enough. I have a strong suspicion that this is not the last we've heard of this case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 Hey I remember this. It was limewire, and the songs they picked to nail her on were only a few that they could have. The songs she downloaded were horrible . Just goes to show, 99 cents for a song is a STEAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 Woops, I thought it was limewire, now I guess it's Kazaa. WTF though, why on earth wouldn't you just settle for $5-6K if you were guilty of doing this? Especially when it seems to me like the RIAA has the ability to prove you did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 That Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 WTF though, why on earth wouldn't you just settle for $5-6K if you were guilty of doing this? Especially when it seems to me like the RIAA has the ability to prove you did it? She probably had no idea how the computer and/or software was functioning. Most home computer users don't seem to know anything except how to post glitter graphics on MySpace anyway. Ignorance is no excuse, but she probably feels railroaded. I'm surprised there isn't a cross-action against Kazaa for not clearly explaining (i.e. written for a 2nd grader) how the software functions, and what a "shared folder" means. The woman has already said she has no means to pay the judgment. I'm surprised Charlie Nesson hasn't gotten involved, but as noted above, we probably haven't heard the last of this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 It's almost as though the jury was sending a message that the law, with its absurdly high summary jugment provisions is, itself, totally absurd. I suspect the jury was told they had no legal justification for returning anything other than this judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Frantag Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 Sure makes me want to pay too much for music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members veracohr Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 Ignorance is no excuse I don't get it when people say this. How is it not? In general, I mean. That amount of money is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 I haven't read the story, but I think as in all these cases, people aren't actually being charged with downloading. They're being charged with uploading. Taking copyrighted material and making available to other people. That's different than downloading, but of course they don't tell you that. Pretty much, they're charged with making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material available for public access/copying/download. In this case via peer to peer sharing software. Which, of course, often defaults to two way access, easily making users potentially subject to huge summary civil judgments. The industry lawyers who drafted the key provisions of the MCA and then got their paid congressional shills to pass it were smart enough to realize that those defending against such civil actions have far fewer constitutional protections than those in criminal cases -- hence they directed the lawmakers in their vest pockets to include these black letter mandatory summary judgment provisions... nice, huh? "Frivolous lawsuits" with "exorbitant judgments" are apparently only frivolous and exorbitant when they protect the environment or the rights of the people -- not deep pocketed, vested interests with long, tight hooks in Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted June 19, 2009 Members Share Posted June 19, 2009 this is a very good example to learn how much my music is really worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 I haven't read the story, but I think as in all these cases, people aren't actually being charged with downloading. They're being charged with uploading. Taking copyrighted material and making available to other people. That's different than downloading, but of course they don't tell you that. So the ignorance defense would be "I had NO IDEA that something called a "public folder" would be available to everyone else who uses Kazaa." This gets to the heart of why the RIAA pursued individual users, because the first efforts to shut down P2P sites failed because there are legitimate uses for a P2P network for perfectly legal collaborative work and sharing of information. Killing P2P would be like killing photocopiers because someone might copy a book or magazine. An no one ever photocopied and shared magazine articles, right? Anyway, they have as much chance of collecting $2 million dollars from that woman as they have chance of putting a genie back in the bottle. And I don't think this thing is over yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scud133 Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 Anyway, they have as much chance of collecting $2 million dollars from that woman as they have chance of putting a genie back in the bottle. And I don't think this thing is over yet. Don't you just wish it to go back in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 This is the beginning of the end for the RIAA ... I'm sure of that much; at least their militant arm. They have slain themselves with their own sword. People don't generally like to see powerful entities unleash on comparatively helpless individuals, even if the individual has made a misstep. They are playing the bully, and like every bully I just want to hit them back kinda hard (ok, really hard). It seems many people feel that way in this case. IMO, they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 While I am totally against stealing intellectual property, and I understand they're trying to make an example of her - just like cops will pull over one car that's speeding out of a group of cars that's speeding - the amount is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 Jury made the award and could have committed to 150,000 per offense as instructed. They still offered her to pay only the settlement which is about 3500 bucks and she refused again. You can blast the RIAA or artist or whoever, but theft is theft. Go to bank and steal $1000 and see what happens to you. Even by some fluke if you could go online and drop $1000 in your acct, I think you'll do some jail time too. She should just agree to the orig settlement and be done with it. Wait till they catch the freeloaders (thieves) with 1TB of songs on their HDD. I'd hate to see that penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 The reason why I think the amount is absurd is that she'll never be able to pay it. If she had to pay $1K a month for the next 20 years, that's something people could relate to, and would scare them more IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 I agree the amt is absurd. She'll most likely take the "deal" unless she is stupid. I think they are using this case (an old one at that) to set a precedent but it won't stop the theft. All I can say is what goes around......... I've had friends that pirate and torrent their recording software, drum programs and tons of movies etc. I tell them if your unlucky lottery number comes up, don't whine. What amazes me is the argument of calling the label or artist GREEDY. Stealing software and music is for what other reason besides GREED! To me, that makes persons who steal this stuff no better than the corporate yo yo's. It really amazes me when artists and aspiring musicians pirate these items and yet want mojo when their guitar, or practice space gets ripped off. Karma FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Duddits Posted June 20, 2009 Members Share Posted June 20, 2009 The RIAA offered her a chance to settle for a few thousand bucks, and that offers remains on the table. The jury amount of a gazillion dollars is sensational, but the fact that all she really has to pay is a few thousand bucks seems to get lost in all the coverage of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted June 21, 2009 Members Share Posted June 21, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading This is INSANE AND ONLY PUTTING THE NAIL FURTHER IN THE COFFIN FOR THE RECORDED MUSIC INDUSTRY.....Seriously..NO ONE buys music anymore. :cop:Not everyone steals but no one buys it. No one I know at least. I'm just being honest. I listen to Pandora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted June 21, 2009 Members Share Posted June 21, 2009 Nineteen Eighty-Four Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted June 21, 2009 Members Share Posted June 21, 2009 the IFPI is giving your money to the lawyers, the money of the IP holder, the composers and lyricist, not their own money they chosed a poor native american women this lady will never pay a dime of the $1.92 million they didn't chose the son of a millionaire the lawyers's cost in the piratebay case in Sweden are 2.5 million Euro so far the torrent site piratebay is still working the copyprotection developed by the IFPI never worked the developement of the diverse copy protection software did cost millions, all your money the IFPI throwed out the window, not theirs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.