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.
I think $3000, while more than she might have laying around, would certainly be a more reasonable number - and one she'd be able to pay sometime in the foreseeable future. But the thing is, if she did do something wrong, it's not like she should get to pick and choose which way would be most convenient for her to make reparations. You murder someone, you can't say, "well, my dog would starve if I were in jail."
I'm not someone who's skilled in making legislation. I don't really know the right answer to this problem. I don't know if there's a better type of settlement, but I do know they had to do something.
Fuck, I'd have made her just pay, say, $50-100 per song or something. Plus some reasonable fine based on how much was proven to have been stolen via her computer with her "consent", if you will.
1.92 million dollars? Holy fuck, what did she do, steal the entire god damn pressing of an album? At $80,000 a pop you have to wonder if this isn't the record company just being pissy about "Stoppit I don't like the way you play" or honestly trying to recoop losses and deter piracy. This kind of shit will make people pirate more, maybe, to try and get back at the company. A more reasonable fine- a flat rate per song, maybe, or per minute or something pirated that's substantially higher than the initial- would be better, maybe. Or maybe not.
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
You know, she's not paying money to the government, she's paying money to the prosecutor. It's not Retributive justice (punishment) it's Restorative justice (giving people back what's stolen, plus emotional damages, additional losses, etc). It wouldn't be considered punishment at all. Just an obscenely large claim.
And that's not what cruel and unusual punishment even means.
Cruel and unusual punishment is a statement implying that governments shall not inflict such treatment for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity. It was founded in the English Bill of Rights, which was signed in 1689 by King William III and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England, Scotland, and Ireland following the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688.
The final sum awarded is ludicrous, but she could have setlled for $3-5000, the judgement is probably taking into account that she wasted a huge amount of peoples time (trials aren't cheap you know, and she had 2).
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
You know, she's not paying money to the government, she's paying money to the prosecutor. It's not Retributive justice (punishment) it's Restorative justice (giving people back what's stolen, plus emotional damages, additional losses, etc). It wouldn't be considered punishment at all. Just an obscenely large claim.
Main Entry:
pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation:
\ˈpə-nish-mənt\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
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
You know, she's not paying money to the government, she's paying money to the prosecutor. It's not Retributive justice (punishment) it's Restorative justice (giving people back what's stolen, plus emotional damages, additional losses, etc). It wouldn't be considered punishment at all. Just an obscenely large claim.
Main Entry:
pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation:
\ˈpə-nish-mənt\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
And that's not what cruel and unusual punishment even means.
Cruel and unusual punishment is a statement implying that governments shall not inflict such treatment for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity. It was founded in the English Bill of Rights, which was signed in 1689 by King William III and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England, Scotland, and Ireland following the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688.
Also that last definition you listed is punishment, as in "taking punishment." Like what happens to your luggage when it gets tossed around by flight attendants.
And for the second definition, it's not a penalty, it's a claim.
Cruel and unusual punishment is a statement implying that governments shall not inflict such treatment for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity. It was founded in the English Bill of Rights, which was signed in 1689 by King William III and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England, Scotland, and Ireland following the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688.
If you continue reading the wikipedia article you just decided to take as fact you will find
"What these words mean in practice is the subject of much legal argument. In general the interpretation of each of the two words is in keeping with the basic legal maxim that the "punishment should fit the crime".
The term "cruel" is necessarily flexible according to the circumstances, since all punishments have the potential to be cruel to some greater or lesser degree."
Jesus, the first paragraph of Wikipedia is NOT A DEFINITIVE ANSWER.
Yeah, but, again, it's not a punishment. It's a claim.
Also, read the rest of the article.
The term "cruel" is necessarily flexible according to the circumstances, since all punishments have the potential to be cruel to some greater or lesser degree.[citation needed] The "unusual" provision has proven easier to interpret: providing that persons will not be subjected to arbitrary, humorous, or capricious punishment outside the normal course of the law (for example, tarring and feathering). Another way to make the punishment usual is to simply use it more often.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.
Sure, it's not hard evidence, but do you think her ex-husband would retroactively frame her? Forget the court-of-law nonsense for a second, do you really think she didn't do it?
Being a mother is why she should have never commited the crime. She put herself above her children, and to me that is just sick. In my opinion, that's the worst of her crimes.
I don't like piracy, it has major impacts on the music industry, film industry, games industry etc..
However, I don't equate people who commit piracy to completely over the top cartoon villains.
New Troll in exactly want way does piracy directly involve the welfare of her children?
I mean this kind of case isn't common, the vast majority of pirates are never caught or at least are not taken to court.
I find the trend of blaming the parents for everything that happens or might happen to their children to be biased and it
sometimes gets twisted/spun in a manner that's simply unfair.
New Troll said:
Stevedave00 said:
that's very short sighted.
what do you really think?
Just because you do it else where they can't Smell it on you?
They can't follow you and see what you are doing?
I'm sorry she's not as dedicated as you are or as paranoid, but everyone has a right to some downtime.
I don't smoke as a father. What's there to get? I enjoy smoking clove cigarettes, but I never will as a father cause I don't want to ever jeapordize thier health or let them ever think it's okay.
And yes, everyone is entitled to some downtime, but they can do it legally without risk losing either thier children, or money that could have gone towards thier future. I still enjoy listening to music, playing video games, reading, and especially seeing movies, but I don't put any of it before my sons, or even thier mothers, or my fiance. They all come first.
The problem I have with the above form of reasoning...
You're oversimplifying the problems and the relationships between actions and penalties.
This isn't like smoking around children where we have tons of evidence supporting that it has severe negative impacts,
especially on babies and young children.
That has a direct impact. It has behind itself clear-cut, simple to learn reasons and consequences.
The amount of the fine is ridiculous, unfair and quite frankly cruel.
It being set at $80k per song, wow those must have been some amazing songs there...hmm?
I'm getting a bit tangential in the paragraph below, so I'll stick my rambling in a spoiler.
Sure piracy is stealing, but individually many people fail to grasp exactly how much impact they are having.
The guilt is usually less tangible and easier to shake off when the act is done online, usually anonymously.
Some people simply can't afford to pay the set amount for entertainment.
The piracy is especially obvious in places like Brazil, where normal prices for movies,
games or music are already much too high for the most people.
I understand why it's done there, sure they don't have as much money, but they still want to get some entertainment.
Yeah, but, again, it's not a punishment. It's a claim.
Also, read the rest of the article.
The term "cruel" is necessarily flexible according to the circumstances, since all punishments have the potential to be cruel to some greater or lesser degree.[citation needed] The "unusual" provision has proven easier to interpret: providing that persons will not be subjected to arbitrary, humorous, or capricious punishment outside the normal course of the law (for example, tarring and feathering). Another way to make the punishment usual is to simply use it more often.
The resolution of a claim is a penalty, which is a punishment
(back to Merriam Webster)
Main Entry:
pen·al·ty Listen to the pronunciation of penalty
Pronunciation:
\ˈpe-nəl-tē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural pen·al·ties
Etymology:
Middle English penalte, from Middle French penalité, from Medieval Latin poenalitas, from Latin poenalis
Date:
15th century
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
3 a: disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action b: a disadvantage (as loss of yardage, time, or possession of the ball or an addition to or subtraction from the score) imposed on a team or competitor for violation of the rules of a sport
4: points scored in bridge by the side that defeats the opposing contract ?usually used in plural
I read that article, actually. How do you think I called you on it so damn fast? Now show me the long legal tradition of these type of draconian fines and I will consider this "usual." Until then, go back to your bridge, troll.
Sure piracy is stealing, but individually many people fail to grasp exactly how much impact they are having.
The guilt is usually less tangible and easier to shake off when the act is done online, usually anonymously.
Some people simply can't afford to pay the set amount for entertainment.
The piracy is especially obvious in places like Brazil, where normal prices for movies,
games or music are already much too high for the most people.
I understand why it's done there, sure they don't have as much money, but they still want to get some entertainment.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.
Sure, it's not hard evidence, but do you think her ex-husband would retroactively frame her? Forget the court-of-law nonsense for a second, do you really think she didn't do it?
Music is my favorite art form (along with gaming of course ). I find it sad to see it's artists constantly being cheated out of what they deserve. So yes I think she deserved what she got. I know CD's are too expensive but so are games and movies. Her punishment was harsh but you have to remember that just because something (downloading music) is done a lot it doesn't make it OK. In New Zealand High school students smoke a lot of pot "In the 1998 National Drugs Survey, 43 percent of males and 27 percent of females aged 18 to 24 years had used marijuana in the preceding 12 months. Most of those who stated that they had tried marijuana had been introduced to the drug at between 14 and 18 years of age." from, http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/130 I can assure you it has gone up since then but that is the most recent survey I could find. Dose the fact that it is common place make it OK?
Not deliberately, but it might've been her kids or something.
Of course, she'd cover them considering kids aren't treated any less harshly in the US (sorry if this is an overgeneralization but we quite often hear of kids getting ridiculously high sentences like an adult might).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
