Woman Hit With $1.92 Million Fine for Sharing 24 Songs on Kazaa
197 replies, posted
I'm not trying to defend the RIAA, nor do I deny that this fine is extremely harsh and disproportionate to what she did, but I have to point out that the woman is pretty stupid to not take the settlement (according to the article, the average settlement with the RIAA is about $3000) despite the fact that she [i]did[/i] break the law.
Still, 2 million bucks is a tad extreme.
$1.92m for 24 songs? What the honest fuck.
whatchu wanna do ?
i dunno, lets go bust some people for having songs with over-exaggerated fines!
150000 for a single song...? My god, I think I'm worth more money captured than Osama Bin Laden. HOLY FUCK!
[QUOTE=xianlee;15645480]Single song's can make £150,000 and more, you see these "Most selling Dance songs of all time" and shit like that on the music channels all the time[/QUOTE]
Yeah but not [I]each[/I]
[QUOTE=henrikb4;15645139]In one way, I think it's far to many money. I mean it's just 24 songs.
On the other hand, I think she should have thought about what she did, before she starting sharing them.[/QUOTE]
I know that cutting off his hands for stealing is a bit extreme, but on the other hand he should have thought before picking up that pizza hut coupon.
[editline]08:07PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;15646459]You guys aren't thinking this through.
She uploaded 24 songs. Now, the RIAA could count that per one song downloaded, they would have lost $15, or whatever it costs to buy the CD, because to get that song legit, they would have to buy the CD. (Not counting ITunes, because most people don't own an Ipod) Moving on, you have to see how many times each one of those songs was downloaded.
Now 24*15 is already $360, so potentially, if each one of those songs was downloaded [B]a lot[/B] of times, they could have some mathematical proof on how she cost them that much.
However, I do not agree with this punishment, I think it's total shit, I'm just trying to explain what probably happened.
Also keep in mind they were not trying to be fair. They are hoping this story gets to the news so more people will be scared of pirating music.[/QUOTE]
Let it get popular. Less leechers.
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;15646446]So if downloading music gets an excessive fine, excessive fines gets mass murder, I suppose your punishment would be something along the line of being eaten inside out by swarms of insects thousands of times over.[/QUOTE]
Atleast I've stopped non-savvy people from getting $2 million fines.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;15647876]I know that cutting off his hands for stealing is a bit extreme, but on the other hand he should have thought before picking up that pizza hut coupon.[/QUOTE]
What? That's a completely different kind of case.
First of all, I didn't say that the bill was fair, I don't think it is, but she could have used logic to figure out that it would not be legal to distribute music, that you pay for, on a file sharing service.
It also depends on where you take the pizza hut coupon.
[QUOTE=Angus;15645085]brb, going to wal-mart to steal two CDs, get caught, and see if my fines total to about 2 mil[/QUOTE]
I agree, its just sick..
Cmon.. You would get a lower fine STEALING CDs than downloading cds and uploading..
What is the RIAA going to do next, make us pay to listen to the radio per the hour? Greedy fat cats.
Do they really expect her to be able to pay that fine? She'll never be able to pay it.
Greedy capitalist cunts.
RIAA is a bunch of assholes, woman is going to suffer for the rest of her life as the RIAA gets more hate, the end.
What's this? You uploaded 24 songs, costing us comparatively nothing? WE'RE GONNA RUIN YOUR LIFE FOREVER, BITCH
The shit thing is, the RIAA is not doing this for the artist's sake. They do not and have not given a shit about the artists for years now. They already take a majority of the artist's profits, they harass, bully, and in this case, financially ruin for life anyone who defies them.
They are doing this for their own sake, to protect their own interests, not those of the artists they claim to protect by doing this. The artists won't see a cent of this ill-gotten money.
[QUOTE=davidofmk771;15642813]And that kids is why capitalism is bad.
Fuck, cut her some slack.[/QUOTE]
Looks like some one needs a doctor.
My idea, get that fine on purpose, then move to fucking Canada!
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;15646188]Because several hundred wrongs make a right.[/QUOTE]
In some cases they do. It's called double negation.
For example if I say
I like apples.
There is no negation. The sentence is positive.
If I say
I like [b]no[/b] apples.
or
I [b]don't[/b] like apples.
There is one negation in each, they are negative.
But if you say:
I don't like no apples.
You will look like an idiot but logically it will mean you like apples - positive sentence.
Same applies in maths. If you multiply an negative number with other negative number, you get a positive one.
However I think we should make slaves of them instead.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;15642914]What a bunch of morons. How is any one person supposed to pay back that kind of money?[/QUOTE]
You don't, you sell everything you own, buy a plane ticket and go live and become an "Illegal Alien" in another country and just laugh...
[QUOTE=Doug52392;15646519]One of these days, the RIAA is going to pick the wrong person to sue for $1mil+ for downloading 1 song. Then there will be some serious buisness.
It's ironic because the RIAA/MPAA regularly compare downloading movies/music online to walking into a store and shoplifting the same movies/music on a physical medium (hence the whole "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR?" ad that airs (unskippable, of course) on every DVD.
True, sort of. The amount of times a MP3 has been downloaded is, under United States copyright law, another count of "unauthorized distribution", which is how they sue people for 1,000+ times the value of the media in question.
[B]However, the RIAA aren't a police force, and they can't just execute a search warrant on the computer in question and check how many times a certain MP3 was downloaded, so they make up a "magic number", based on how much money they feel like extorting from their victims.[/B][/QUOTE]
What about torrents? Each person only needs to redistribute the file 1-3 times. Further more what if after downloading it once you are only seeding parts 1 to 200 out of 400 parts?
Hey, whatever happened to the 8th amendment?
Oh, I forgot, the legal system has ignored the constitution for years now. I'm sure that woman deserved to have the rest of her life ruined over 24 songs. Let's give a big hand to the RIAA!
[QUOTE=rilez;15649443]Hey, whatever happened to the 8th amendment?
oh, I forgot, the legal system has ignored the constitution for years now[/QUOTE]
What is this constitution of which you speak?
[QUOTE=MS-DOS4;15645077]I say we burn down the RIAA HQ and execute the CEO on national television![/QUOTE]
fined 1.92 million for death threat, more on this at eleven
also this is the riaa attempting to say "yo we run this shit" when in reality it's all "yo we are ran by this shit"
[QUOTE=Kybalt;15649447]What is this constitution of which you speak?[/QUOTE]
i heard some country was founded on it but i'll be damned if I can remember what country that was..
shit its on the tip of my tongue
the constitution is just a piece of paper, people give it power. if the american people allow a corporation to destroy a woman's life over 24 songs, you can tell where our country is going and how much weight our constitution really has in the legal system
We should all send her like 10 dollars.
[b]THEY'RE DOING IT FUCKING WRONG[/b]
They should be fining people small amounts of money £10 - £15 more often. That way you don't just see "oh that person got fined loads of money but it happens so rarely it probably won't happen to me" having a proper system for piracy fines is what is needed rather than "this person got unlucky lets fine the shit out of them".
Judge is still harsh as fuck.
There was a similar case where a young woman was also hit by lawsuit for downloading songs online.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.