US woman fined $222,000 for..

gurramok

'illegally sharing 22 songs over Kazaa'

My question to boardsies is not if she was guilty or not or the rights/wrongs of 'sharing music' but does the punishment fit the 'crime'?

Take into account all other forms of crime and their consequent punishments but does sharing 22 songs over kazaa really merit a $222,000 fine that this person would pay for rest of her life due to the justice system and extreme DRM laws?

Me, i don't think so.

The following quote from sums it up..
'The US record industry said people would understand the verdict.'

Because they know that the public knows that the punishment don't fit the crime:mad:

Boston

afaik, she was bootlegging the songs and selling copies.

gurramok

Boston wrote:

afaik, she was bootlegging the songs and selling copies.

We know that..:rolleyes:

You never answered...But does the fine justify the crime?

arybvtcw0eolkf

gurramok wrote:

..But does the fine justify the crime?

Yes she does. I'd just pay it and shut the feck up.

mise_me_fein

What's the difference between 22 and 22,000 in the eyes of the judge.

Recon

Mairt wrote:

Yes she does. I'd just pay it and shut the feck up.

You'd just pay $220,000 for sharing 22 songs with someone??? Would you like to buy a house or two for those songs while you're at it?

Ishmael

Well, if she was selling the music and making a profit from it then yeah i'd agree that she should be screwed over for it. For 22 songs it seems a bit of a steep Payment for her crime but i'd say she was selling a few more than that so i think it balances out.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Recon wrote:

You'd just pay $220,000 for sharing 22 songs with someone??? Would you like to buy a house or two for those songs while you're at it?

Absolutely I would.

Kintarō Hattori

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/riaa_wins_first_music_sharing_jury_trial/

A little more detail there. I don't believe that the punishment is just, it's certainly extreme but that's the RIAA making up for lost time.

Boston

gurramok wrote:

We know that..:rolleyes:

Well you never said that in your post, you make out if was for using kazaa when in fact she was bootlegging the old fashion way.

gurramok

Ishmael wrote:

Well, if she was selling the music and making a profit from it then yeah i'd agree that she should be screwed over for it. For 22 songs it seems a bit of a steep Payment for her crime but i'd say she was selling a few more than that so i think it balances out.

It don't say anything in the bbc/register about sellling songs.

She was sharing them for free, no profit taking there.

Red Alert

If I steal a french stick from superquinn which costs about 2 Euro what would you say I'd get if I turned up in the dublin district court?

Boston

You acknowledged my post where i said she was selling songs with 'we know that'.

Boston

Red Alert wrote:

If I steal a french stick from superquinn which costs about 2 Euro what would you say I'd get if I turned up in the dublin district court?

We thats not correct for a start. The value to you the consumer is not the same as the value to the producer. You'd be more correct to equate it to destroying a bakery are removing someones ability to earn money.

seamus

Red Alert wrote:

If I steal a french stick from superquinn which costs about 2 Euro what would you say I'd get if I turned up in the dublin district court?

A tub of butter and a knife if past cases are anything to go by...

Ghost Train

No I don't think the punishment fits the crime by a long way

The record industry should be paying this lady for distributing their crap music and inflicting it on the rest of the world... I'm sure the songs in question where some Britney rubbish or something from that white trash rapper, and if anybody wanted a copy of it they could have recorded it off the radio. Targeting one user for a crime involving a network of users seems unfair, at least the ridiculous fine, will gain some sympathy for the victim

Down with this sort of thing

User45701

gurramok wrote:

We know that..:rolleyes:

You never answered...But does the fine justify the crime?

if the dumb bitch was making money by selling illigal copes then the fine should have been 1m. Stupid ****, Share what you have dont sell, anyway its nothing to do with me i have no ilvolvement in any music comunity and i dont download music so in my view ye it fits 100%

North&South

If it was PROVED that she had downloaded music to sell it on, then ok - but the fine should have reflected the crime - if, like in the report, it was NOT proved that she did this, then nope, the punishment is an ass.

If you download music just to play on your PC while you're home, then sharing shouldn't be a crime - it's just like listening to a 'selective' radio without the adverts, really.

However, if you're downloading for free then progressing to make money, then yep, that should be frowned upon. You never get nothing for nothing, right?

Wez

I think it's a bit rediculous to stick someone with this huge bill when there's such a huge network of people doing it to set an example.

It's unrealistic to expect her to be able to pay that bill and just 'learn her lesson'.. They need to make it realistic and start stinging everyone, can't just pick on a few users and rape the arse off their wallet..

Love this User45701..
'A Joint Will Get You Through Times Of No Money Better Than Money Will Get You Though Times Of No Joint'

So true!

DonkeyStyle \o/

Well if she made that much selling pirated music, then fine... but all I've read in the news reports was that she was sharing music and living from pay cheque to pay cheque... hardly fair to slap a financial life-sentence on her for the sake of making an example.

seamus

eolhc wrote:

The record industry should be paying this lady for distributing their crap music and inflicting it on the rest of the world... I'm sure the songs in question where some Britney rubbish or something from that white trash rapper, and if anybody wanted a copy of it they could have recorded it off the radio. Targeting one user for a crime involving a network of users seems unfair, at least the ridiculous fine, will gain some sympathy for the victim

To be fair, the excuse of "Loads of people are doing it", doesn't exonerate anyone from participating.

The problem is that the record companies are continuing to bury their heads in the sand and hoping that people will forget about new technologies. They love when a new format comes out and they hail it as a musical revolution, but then as soon as a writeable format comes out, they hail it as the end of music as we know it. The record industry had a fit when Vinyl record cutting machines came out, they went mad when recording tape decks came out, and they wept when the CD-R appeared.

Yet music is more popular and widely purchased than ever before. They are failing to move with the times.

What they have so far been uable to spot was that most people don't want or don't know how to download music. If they provided a common store interface for people to purchase music which downloaded straight onto their machines and portable players, they would rake it in. Their distribution costs would plummett, which means they could drop the price of the music, which would generate more sales.

The industry as it's known now will eventually collapse if it fails to change to suit the new trends. Bands will discover that they can distribute their own music without the need for a label to promote them and bigger bands, such as Radiohead have done, can distribute directly to their fans based purely on their popularity. They don't even need the marketing.

JIZZLORD

whoa! people still use kazaa? :eek:

gurramok

Boston wrote:

You acknowledged my post where i said she was selling songs with 'we know that'.

What i meant was you didn't discuss the merit of the punishment but the source of the crime. (bootlegging which could of been accurate, it didn't say that in article)

I didn't agree with the selling part of your post as it don't say that she sold and made a profit.
Selling for a profit would have made it into the article imho as its a defined ciminal activity and probably would have seen the offender in jail as well as a huge fine.
In this case she got a huge fine by way of a civil suit, she didn't commit a criminal offence.

She ain't convicted of anything yet afaik.

gurramok

Red Alert wrote:

If I steal a french stick from superquinn which costs about 2 Euro what would you say I'd get if I turned up in the dublin district court?

If you stole 22 french sticks costing 2 euro each, you'd probably end up in jail under the US criminal system for a short period of time along with a fine.
Here in good ole Ireland, you might get a fine and be released a short while later
Should you be slapped with a $222,000 fine for it though?

Is it the same crime and punishment as a civil lawsuit for sharing 22 songs?

That would make you think about the scale of certain laws and your rights under them:)

humanji

Boston wrote:

We thats not correct for a start. The value to you the consumer is not the same as the value to the producer. You'd be more correct to equate it to destroying a bakery are removing someones ability to earn money.

Actually, his analogy was a good one. For yours to be correct, the arrested woman would of had to break a musicians hands or torn out a singers vocal chords to stop them from being able to create their music.

Red Alert

I'm quite happy to pay to download music, but I want it in high quality MP3 or FLAC format. I will not buy something with DRM on it. I own an i-Pod and another personal player and have a music server set up at home. DRM'ed tracks are therefore a non-runner for me.

The record industry believe they have an automatic right to exist in their current form. They also plan on 'enforcing' this perceived right!

Boston

gurramok wrote:

What i meant was you didn't discuss the merit of the punishment but the source of the crime. (bootlegging which could of been accurate, it didn't say that in article)

I didn't agree with the selling part of your post as it don't say that she sold and made a profit.
Selling for a profit would have made it into the article imho as its a defined ciminal activity and probably would have seen the offender in jail as well as a huge fine.
In this case she got a huge fine by way of a civil suit, she didn't commit a criminal offence.

She ain't convicted of anything yet afaik.

You said you knew that. Also theres more then one source of news. It was mentioned on the either TV3 or ITV news that she selling them.

humanji: Thats basically what you are doing. Why buy when you can get something for free? Its the age old problem of bootlegging. If she had downloaded it without distributing them, then yes its the same as what Red Alert discribes, however that wasn't the case

humbert

Can someone point out to me where it says she was "selling" the music? Basically destroying a single mothers life for sharing 22 songs is insane.

humanji

Boston wrote:

humanji: Thats basically what you are doing. Why buy when you can get something for free? Its the age old problem of bootlegging. If she had downloaded it without distributing them, then yes its the same as what Red Alert discribes, however that wasn't the case

I'm not condoning what she did, I was just saying that you equated the woman stealing the songs, to someone removing a bakers ability to make money. Musicians can still make more music, so they still have their ability to make music.

All this talk of bread is making me hungry

humbert wrote:

Can someone point out to me where it says she was "selling" the music? Basically destroying a single mothers life for sharing 22 songs is insane.

edit: she was sharing 1,702 songs. She was just brought to court for those 22. Still, don't think she sold any.

gurramok

And its NOT stealing, its copyright infringement of songs.

You can steal a loaf of bread but not a song as the original song is and always will be there.

Boston wrote:

Also theres more then one source of news. It was mentioned on the either TV3 or ITV news that she selling them.

Any links to back this up as the story is all over the net?

Google news has about 625 links, i have checked the first 20, not a mention of selling songs at all
http://news.google.ie/nwshp?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1121627151&topic=t

Boston

humbert wrote:

Can someone point out to me where it says she was "selling" the music? Basically destroying a single mothers life for sharing 22 songs is insane.

the register is the only source of information
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

guess she should have been more careful.

Boston

gurramok wrote:

And its NOT stealing, its copyright infringement of songs.

You can steal a loaf of bread but not a song as the original song is and always will be there.



Any links to back this up as the story is all over the net?

Google news has about 625 links, i have checked the first 20, not a mention of selling songs at all
http://news.google.ie/nwshp?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1121627151&topic=t

You seem to have a problem reading peoples posts. I heard it on the news. That all I'm saying btw. Btw that register article says it was 24 songs not 22.

gurramok

Boston wrote:

You seem to have a problem reading peoples posts. I heard it on the news. That all I'm saying btw. Btw that register article says it was 24 songs not 22.

Well, if it was on the news(asume Irish) that it invloved selling, they must have picked it up wrong.
I'd trust the American news source more as it happened in the states nevermind the hundreds of sources i've posted from google news which state not a word of selling :rolleyes:

22 was changed to 24 in bbc article during the morning, talk about semantics

Maple

ridiculous fine, far outweighs the "crime". they're just making an example of her. Plus she was sharing the songs, not making a profit of selling them on.

Boston

gurramok wrote:

Well, if it was on the news(asume Irish) that it invloved selling, they must have picked it up wrong.
I'd trust the American news source more as it happened in the states nevermind the hundreds of sources i've posted from google news which state not a word of selling :rolleyes:

22 was changed to 24 in bbc article during the morning, talk about semantics

Or they could be just selectively leaving out details.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Boston wrote:

Or they could be just selectively leaving out details.

It'd certainly work in the record industries favour if people were made to believe they could face a penalty like that for nothing but file sharing.
Not sure why news sources are playing ball though... certainly some spin/propaganda going on if she was selling music.

Peanut

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

It'd certainly work in the record industries favour if people were made to believe they could face a penalty like that for nothing but file sharing..

Hmm I really don't think so, if anything they have totally shot themselves in the foot with this one.

There can't be any other reaction than a public backlash against the disproportionality of the fine.

..Add to that the arrogance of the RIAA lawyer - "This is what can happen if you don't settle," - smugness and barely veiled threats like that do not go down well with the public. The stupidity is quite immense - do they think it's a Sopranos episode or something?

Their various PR depts really screwed up bigtime by letting this happen.

Cuddlesworth

Peanut wrote:

..Add to that the arrogance of the RIAA lawyer - "This is what can happen if you don't settle," - smugness and barely veiled threats like that do not go down well with the public. The stupidity is quite immense - do they think it's a Sopranos episode or something?

Don't suppose he decided to mention after that nearly every other case that didn't settle was either thrown out of court or given a sensationalist verdict like this, then thrown out of court on appeal.

If she gets a good lawyer and spends the money on some tech experts she can get out of paying the fine very easily. She doesn't have to prove that she didn't do it, she just has to make it impossible to prove that she did do it.

AARRRGH

This whole area of law is very vague.

In Ireland it seems to be downloading is legal, uploading (or sharing) may or may not be legal.

The fact that a jury of her peers agreed to the massive payout is the most disturbing aspect of that case to me...

togster

Boston wrote:

Or they could be just selectively leaving out details.

+1
wouldn't be the first time they did it.
Downloading songs for free is wrong anyway. Just because you can share doesn't make it morally right.
Thats just my opinion loike.

Dozyart

i read that it was her who wanted it brought to court for some sort of martyrdom..if that is the case i believe she got what she deserved....

togster

Dozyart wrote:

i read that it ..

Where?

Dozyart

togster wrote:

Where?

bbc 1 teletext:"the jury ordered to pay for offering to to share 24 specific songs online at $9,250 per song"

"....was the first person accused of file sharing to decide to fight in court"

limklad

gurramok wrote:

My question to boardsies is not if she was guilty or not or the rights/wrongs of 'sharing music' but does the punishment fit the 'crime'?

In The US, a land Full of extremes and bizarre laws even more weird than this side of the Atlantic, therefore nothing will ever fits the crime!!

It's justice system is not just based on an "eye for an eye" mentality if far worst. a "Crack scull for an eye", and mob rule. if you pay for or Shout loud enough, intimidate and emotionally bully the Politicians (Who will look after their own arse for good publicity) and you get any extreme law in place. There is still a "hanging mentality" for stealing for food to eat.

After saying the above, if you steal (and not staving for food), you must pay for the crime.
After all, what about all of the legal costs of bring this case to court?
Lawyers, Judge, clerical staff, records keeping,Guards, police, Witness, etc, and costs of investigation, costs of fatalities. Could I go on?

I say $222,000 is cheap once you add up all the costs and you need to make people think before committing this crime again.

Keyzer

This case just goes to highlight the general muppetry that goes on in America...

$220,000 for 24 songs is ridiculous....
The womans life is probably totally destroyed now....

TheAlmightyArse

The stealing loaves of bread analogy doesn't work at all. With file sharing, you're not taking the data, you're copying it. How exactly is it stealing if afterwards the "victim" still has everything exactly as they had it before?

Saying that she cost record companies however much they charge for the songs if she'd bought them doesn't work either. Who's to say she would have bought them if she couldn't download them? If someone copies (not steals) something they weren't prepared to pay money for anyway, then no-one has lost anything.

Lemming

I haven't read pages 2 or 3, but this judgement sets an extremely dangerous and incredibly naieve precedent.

The judge has made an incredibly faux pas in several domains.

1. Rental companies are now liable, thus their entire business model is now defunct.

E.g. Xtra-Vision rent a DVD to you. You take it home and rip it before returning it without their consent or knowledge. Xtra-Vision are guilty, not you. Not the person who committed the act of copyright violation.

In ruling that the defendant by accident, design, or third-party misdeeds (it has not been proven either way), is guilty of the crime of copyright violation, the judge has made a farce of the entire concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

2. The RIAA did not prove any losses actually occured, which is a prequisite for awarding damages, outside of punitive damages. Thus, they have essentially been asked "So how much would you like us to rob for you?"

Two very serious errors in judgement.

And no, the punishment did not fit the crime. What-so-f*cking-ever. RIAAfia at it again :mad:

seamus

Lemming wrote:

1. Rental companies are now liable, thus their entire business model is now defunct.

E.g. Xtra-Vision rent a DVD to you. You take it home and rip it before returning it without their consent or knowledge. Xtra-Vision are guilty, not you. Not the person who committed the act of copyright violation.

I don't think that's the case. At least in this country anyway, sharing your files is in itself a copyright violation - it is a form of "publishing" the content, when the person doesn't have a licence from the copyright holder to publish or distribute the content.
The person who downloaded the content technically isn't committing an offence unless they listen to/use the content - being in possession of the content isn't a breach of copyright.

2. The RIAA did not prove any losses actually occured, which is a prequisite for awarding damages, outside of punitive damages. Thus, they have essentially been asked "So how much would you like us to rob for you?"

This indeed is a concern. All the RIAA did was prove that copyright was breached. In my eyes anyway, this doesn't prove that any loss was actually experienced.

humanji

1. Rental companies are now liable, thus their entire business model is now defunct.

E.g. Xtra-Vision rent a DVD to you. You take it home and rip it before returning it without their consent or knowledge. Xtra-Vision are guilty, not you. Not the person who committed the act of copyright violation.

Don't video rental places have consent to rent of the films, so they aren't commiting an offence?

limklad

Keyzer wrote:

This case just goes to highlight the general muppetry that goes on in America...

$220,000 for 24 songs is ridiculous....
The womans life is probably totally destroyed now....

If she knowingly and intended to committed the crime of robbing other people earnings then, she should expect to be punishment, no matter how severe.
Stealing is taking risks, get away with it or get caught. Going to court is like gambling, you win or lose. How much you lose by, depends on the odds and determination of others. Punishment in court is supposed to be a deterrent against future breaches of law.

If she was rich, she could afford some smart lawyers to get her off.