Poll: Justice?

[magnuslion]

Well, our system of justice frowns upon making examples of people, so no, I don't think that it is reasonable to call this justice.

EDIT: Also, summaries are good.

and we both know if i had summarized, fourteen thousand trolls would have come along and nitpicked about it.

 

[magnuslion]

Piracy is ILLEGAL, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you think it should be or not. The fact of the matter is that she broke the law. Two juries heard her case and both found her guilty. She received her punsihment, which is fair under the law.

She had the oppurtunity to settle for $5000 or less. She declined. She decided to take advantage of her right to a trial by jury. She lost.

She is a criminal.

Justice is served.

Thats upholding the law, not justice.

Fining a person for comminting a fine is jsutice aslong as the fine is reasonable. i.e. it simply cover the amount lost, it could also vastly exced the amount of the intial loss but not distroy a persons life. this sudden $1.2 million dollar debt the has just been place on her has serverly limited her life. Her children are completly unable to inherit anything, she will find it near impssible to buy a new car or a new house.

Having 24 song at a cost of $2 per song (and that is being generous) suddenly turn into a huge debt of $1.2 million in by no means jsutice.

it also states in the constitution that we cannot be charged "unreasonable bail or fines". the law takes loosey goosey with this all the time, which is why riaa prickosaurus fags can get away with a 1.2 million figure. incidentally, even if they settle, that shit goes on her credit and will pretty much ruin it for life.

http://www.acmebail.com/history-of-bail/eighth-amendment-bill-of-rights.php

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

On one hand, I have no idea how they expect her to pay, on the other, it takes skill and creativity to make a song and the artist's rights (including that artist's chosen methods of distribution) should be, in some way, protected.

I don't like when people pirate music wholesale. I'm not sure if the fine was appropriate - but there has to be some kind of legal recourse for the copyright holders.

I'm someone who embraces freedom of creativity initiatives like Creative Commons, GPL, Copyleft, fair use, but I also recognize that wholesale piracy isn't about that. It's about taking someone's work, and making it available to yourself for it's full intended commercial use, without paying for it.

If I were to ever write a book, or similar creative work, I'd sure like to be able to profit from my work.

 

[Rigs83]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I bet the US is glad doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Stevedave00]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I'm glad the US doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

"A mother of four of limited means" Seems cruel to me.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I'm glad the US doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

"A mother of four of limited means" Seems cruel to me.

That's too much of an abstraction. I'm pretty sure legal terms don't work that way.

By that definition, putting a murderer in jail would be cruel and unusual if she had children.

"Cruel and unusual" strikes me as more in the realm of branding her forehead with hot iron, or peeing in an open wound. The sick stuff that you don't want our society to institutionalize. The kind of things that happened at Guantanamo bay, for instance.

 

[Knight Templar]

Piracy is ILLEGAL, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you think it should be or not. The fact of the matter is that she broke the law. Two juries heard her case and both found her guilty. She received her punsihment, which is fair under the law.

She had the oppurtunity to settle for $5000 or less. She declined. She decided to take advantage of her right to a trial by jury. She lost.

She is a criminal.

Justice is served.

Are you aware just how much of what you do is illegal?
Ever crossed the road? Jaywalking, you derserve the death penalty.

I'm not saying Piracy is something that is ok on any level, if you have seen me in topics about it you'll know I all but hate it, but this wasn't Justice, this was a disgrace. She can't pay that money, she'll go bankrupt and won't pay a dime, or go to jail and ruin the lives of her kids.
That court decision is causing more harm the the original actions, and doesn't stop people pirating, its pointless damadge.

The law it may be, but it will never be justice and the fact you think otherwise, is disturbing.

 

[Leorex]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I bet the US is glad doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

i could see it argued as one. especially if shes going to pay it for the rest of her life.

 

[Erzengel]

which is why riaa prickosaurus fags can get away with a 1.2 million figure.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, the "RIAA Prickosaurus" didn't recommend the $1.2 million figure. They want $5,000. It's the Jury of Her Peers that recommended $80,000 per work, totalling $1.2 million.

This isn't a case of the demonic suits in the RIAA greedily trying to squeeze exorbitant amounts of blood from a stone, it's a case of the American Public being complete dipshits that have no sense of scale. And really, who honestly expects better than that from the American public?

 

[magnuslion]

On one hand, I have no idea how they expect her to pay, on the other, it takes skill and creativity to make a song and the artist's rights (including that artist's chosen methods of distribution) should be, in some way, protected.

I don't like when people pirate music wholesale. I'm not sure if the fine was appropriate - but there has to be some kind of legal recourse for the copyright holders.

I'm someone who embraces freedom of creativity initiatives like Creative Commons, GPL, Copyleft, fair use, but I also recognize that wholesale piracy isn't about that. It's about taking someone's work, and making it available to yourself for it's full intended commercial use, without paying for it.

If I were to ever write a book, or similar creative work, I'd sure like to be able to profit from my work.

ego, i agree with pretty much everything you said. and if i wrote a book, etc, I would want to get paid for it too. I just dont think that charging a single mom of four this amount of money ((and if anyone thinks she has 3,000-5,000 laying around....stop sniffing glue)) is really "Justice" in this case which is my concern. I see the law as rather artificial, stiff unbending and often frankly not with the times. I would think the embarrassment and exposure all this got would be punishment enough. but its hard to say.

 

[Rigs83]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I bet the US is glad doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

But it is ridiculous.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I bet the US is glad doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

i could see it argued as one. especially if shes going to pay it for the rest of her life.

That's too much of an abstraction. I'm pretty sure legal terms don't work that way.

By that definition, putting a murderer in jail would be cruel and unusual if she had children.

"Cruel and unusual" strikes me as more in the realm of branding her forehead with hot iron, or peeing in an open wound. The sick stuff that you don't want our society to institutionalize. The kind of things that happened at Guantanamo bay, for instance.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I bet the US is glad doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

But it is ridiculous.

Granted, but it isn't a war crime.

I'm sure she can get a more reasonable settlement, or an appeal.

 

[Lazzi]

On one hand, I have no idea how they expect her to pay, on the other, it takes skill and creativity to make a song and the artist's rights (including that artist's chosen methods of distribution) should be, in some way, protected.

I don't like when people pirate music wholesale. I'm not sure if the fine was appropriate - but there has to be some kind of legal recourse for the copyright holders.

I'm someone who embraces freedom of creativity initiatives like Creative Commons, GPL, Copyleft, fair use, but I also recognize that wholesale piracy isn't about that. It's about taking someone's work, and making it available to yourself for it's full intended commercial use, without paying for it.

If I were to ever write a book, or similar creative work, I'd sure like to be able to profit from my work.

ego, i agree with pretty much everything you said. and if i wrote a book, etc, I would want to get paid for it too. I just dont think that charging a single mom of four this amount of money ((and if anyone thinks she has 3,000-5,000 laying around....stop sniffing glue)) is really "Justice" in this case which is my concern. I see the law as rather artificial, stiff unbending and often frankly not with the times. I would think the embarrassment and exposure all this got would be punishment enough. but its hard to say.

Three to five thousand dollars is a hefty sum, but its is with in her mean. Atleast theoreticly, hopefully the dotn charge intrest on the poor women.

 

[magnuslion]

Piracy is ILLEGAL, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you think it should be or not. The fact of the matter is that she broke the law. Two juries heard her case and both found her guilty. She received her punsihment, which is fair under the law.

She had the oppurtunity to settle for $5000 or less. She declined. She decided to take advantage of her right to a trial by jury. She lost.

She is a criminal.

Justice is served.

Are you aware just how much of what you do is illegal?
Ever crossed the road? Jaywalking, you derserve the death penalty.

I'm not saying Piracy is something that is ok on any level, if you have seen me in topics about it you'll know I all but hate it, but this wasn't Justice, this was a disgrace. She can't pay that money, she'll go bankrupt and won't pay a dime, or go to jail and ruin the lives of her kids.
That court decision is causing more harm the the original actions, and doesn't stop people pirating, its pointless damadge.

The law it may be, but it will never be justice and the fact you think otherwise, is disturbing.

you hit on something Templar that sparked my brain. the Its much the same as if we charged people who steal a pen from a bank ((which is Theft. i dont care how little or insignificant it is, it is steal Theft)) as someone who commits literal Highway robbery.

someone earlier said most of the laws are set up to target people who go out and sell Cd's and flea markets and make a lot of bank off it. but not having a separate set of laws to govern the common mp3thiefosaurus rex seems stupid to me. shouldn't the damn court system be able to figure that out? what the hell do we pay them for?

 

[Rigs83]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I bet the US is glad doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

But it is ridiculous.

Granted, but it isn't a war crime.

I'm sure she can get a more reasonable settlement, or an appeal.

Maybe if she is lucky she can get sent to the Bahamas like the Uoghirs.

 

[Riding on Thermals]

I am surprised this is not considered a violation of cruel and unusual punishment since the woman can obviously could never ever pay it back but she and the executors of her estate will be burdened by the ruling for some time long after they are dead. The crime most likely cost more to try in court than the artist may have lost in royalties if the woman had legally purchased and or sold the music. Glad to know that no other serious crime in the US warranted addressing in Superior Court like I don't know Quantanamo Bay prisoners or torture or Affirmative Action etcetra etcetra.

Wow. Quantanamo bay. I'm glad the US doesn't have to deal with that.

Paying an obscenely large fine might be unfair, but it certainly isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

"A mother of four of limited means" Seems cruel to me.

That's too much of an abstraction. I'm pretty sure legal terms don't work that way.

By that definition, putting a murderer in jail would be cruel and unusual if she had children.

No, "cruel and unusual punishment" is usually akin to the "punishment fitting the crime" in this case, the fine is well beyond the actual damage caused by this woman's actions. How is this a fitting punishment?

As a murderer, being put in jail is an absolutely fitting punishment. Being beaten with a sock full of nickles every day is not. But honestly, if you willfully and intentionally kill another person you deserve the death penalty. That's the most fitting punishment and people argue that even that is cruel

 

[Pimppeter2]

24 songs? What about the people who have 500?

 

[Rigs83]

Piracy is ILLEGAL, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you think it should be or not. The fact of the matter is that she broke the law. Two juries heard her case and both found her guilty. She received her punsihment, which is fair under the law.

She had the oppurtunity to settle for $5000 or less. She declined. She decided to take advantage of her right to a trial by jury. She lost.

She is a criminal.

Justice is served.

Are you aware just how much of what you do is illegal?
Ever crossed the road? Jaywalking, you derserve the death penalty.

I'm not saying Piracy is something that is ok on any level, if you have seen me in topics about it you'll know I all but hate it, but this wasn't Justice, this was a disgrace. She can't pay that money, she'll go bankrupt and won't pay a dime, or go to jail and ruin the lives of her kids.
That court decision is causing more harm the the original actions, and doesn't stop people pirating, its pointless damadge.

The law it may be, but it will never be justice and the fact you think otherwise, is disturbing.

you hit on something Templar that sparked my brain. the Its much the same as if we charged people who steal a pen from a bank ((which is Theft. i dont care how little or insignificant it is, it is steal Theft)) as someone who commits literal Highway robbery.

someone earlier said most of the laws are set up to target people who go out and sell Cd's and flea markets and make a lot of bank off it. but not having a separate set of laws to govern the common mp3thiefosaurus rex seems stupid to me. shouldn't the damn court system be able to figure that out? what the hell do we pay them for?

Mostly to put poor people in jail or at least make them poorer.