So, about that piracy... AKA Woman forced to pay $1.5 million for pirating music
- Thread starter Sven und EIN HUND
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As usual, a punishment completely disproportional to the crime.
Also:
Mind you, it's still stealing.
Also:
Mind you, it's still stealing.
This is known as the 'bloody nose' approach, and it's used to great effect when properly employed. Are you going to go download songs off Kazaa now? Didn't think so. The point of such an excessive fine is to make a statement to everyone, namely, "Don't do this illegal thing or we will WRECK you".
Whining about the severity of the punishment is undermined by the fact that this was a CRIME. Whether or not you agree with copyright law or not doesn't factor into the equation here. If someone was stealing your livelihood, you'd want to see them punished. Personally, I have zero sympathy for her. It sucks to be the one who gets an example made of themselves, but I'm glad it happened. Hopefully she has to work long and hard to find some way of paying.
Whining about the severity of the punishment is undermined by the fact that this was a CRIME. Whether or not you agree with copyright law or not doesn't factor into the equation here. If someone was stealing your livelihood, you'd want to see them punished. Personally, I have zero sympathy for her. It sucks to be the one who gets an example made of themselves, but I'm glad it happened. Hopefully she has to work long and hard to find some way of paying.
and the straw that broke the camels back has landed...
simple fact of the matter is, the industry has asked repeatedly for people to stop pirating their stuff and were ignored repeatedly, fed up with no one taking a hint, they have decided to do away with both subtlety and playing nice, you can go on about how immoral and disproportionate it is, but the facts remains that we as a whole brought this upon ourselves, and if more lawsuits like this happen we will only have ourselves to blame.
its like provoking a dog, if you keep pissing it off sooner or later its going to bite back
simple fact of the matter is, the industry has asked repeatedly for people to stop pirating their stuff and were ignored repeatedly, fed up with no one taking a hint, they have decided to do away with both subtlety and playing nice, you can go on about how immoral and disproportionate it is, but the facts remains that we as a whole brought this upon ourselves, and if more lawsuits like this happen we will only have ourselves to blame.
its like provoking a dog, if you keep pissing it off sooner or later its going to bite back
I'd like to think if I were ever to be sued for massive charges like this I'd set my self on fire in their corporate office (after calling the press and leaving a proper note behind with a valid argument on why I should only pay for what I stole for).
Of course, I'm kind of a douche like that.
Of course, I'm kind of a douche like that.
1) The "recording industry" doesn't assign the damages, the court does.
2) The court is only doing this because she has repeatedly refused to settle and pay a lesser amount. She's likely under the advice of some wanna-be activist lawyer trying to use her to make a point. She's spending far more than the possible out-of-court settlement just to pay legal fees for all of this.
3) SHE has CHOSEN this punishment in some attempt to play martyr. The court is happy to oblige, rather than back down. Don't download shit, and if you do, and you get caught, just cop to it and pay the settlement.
2) The court is only doing this because she has repeatedly refused to settle and pay a lesser amount. She's likely under the advice of some wanna-be activist lawyer trying to use her to make a point. She's spending far more than the possible out-of-court settlement just to pay legal fees for all of this.
3) SHE has CHOSEN this punishment in some attempt to play martyr. The court is happy to oblige, rather than back down. Don't download shit, and if you do, and you get caught, just cop to it and pay the settlement.
What's stupid is that if she had just stolen that music from Wal-Mart she wouldn't have had a problem, maybe a slap on the wrist and told to return the stolen music with the warning she'd get banned if she was caught again but once the theft goes digital they go "OMFGYOUSTOLEPAYUS$1.5MILLIONBECAUSETHATISTOTALLYPROPORTIONATETOSTEALING24SONGSANDNOTUSTRYINGTOMAKETO
NSOFMONEYATALLBECAUSEWEAREGREEDYLITTLEBASTARDSTHATDONTCARETHATWEARERUININGPEOPLESLIVESINTHEPROCESS".
If those people turned up dead I would not mourn them.
NSOFMONEYATALLBECAUSEWEAREGREEDYLITTLEBASTARDSTHATDONTCARETHATWEARERUININGPEOPLESLIVESINTHEPROCESS".
If those people turned up dead I would not mourn them.
The thing is though, the big record labels have been at this absurd crusade for around a decade now and what has it achieved? This is yet another case of a label victimising an individual in a vain attempt to halt piracy via fear. I'd go so far as to say they may simply do this out of malice since they must have realised by now that this method does not work.dastardly said:
Making pirates hate you isn't going to bring them over to your way of seeing. It seems obvious and yet these big labels continue with their dogmatic witch hunt. I'm happy she is attempting too fight, because it is drawing more attention to how backwards the world's major labels have become.
Yes, she had the opportunity to settle for $25,000.
That opportunity was offered after a trial in which the judge decided that a damages fine of $1.92 mil was absurd nad lowered it to $54,000. To settle for $25,000, the condition was that she would have to ask the judge to vacate his decision, invalidating the legal precedent.
So, I think she did well. That legal precedent makes it harder for RIAA to get this kind of absurd veredict. I hope she can still ask for a new trial.
That opportunity was offered after a trial in which the judge decided that a damages fine of $1.92 mil was absurd nad lowered it to $54,000. To settle for $25,000, the condition was that she would have to ask the judge to vacate his decision, invalidating the legal precedent.
So, I think she did well. That legal precedent makes it harder for RIAA to get this kind of absurd veredict. I hope she can still ask for a new trial.
Bullshit. But that's classic American lawyers for you. Reminds me from a bit out of Futurama where Fry is bidding on a can of anchovies:
Fry: "One *pause for effect* GAZILLION dollars!"
Crowd: "Ooooh!"
Person accepting bids: "Sir, that's not a real number."
Seriously, every time I see an American lawsuit, it has a ridiculous number attached to it. I suppose it's the mindset of "well, if we ask a completely ridiculous over the top sum, they'll bargain and totally pay us the normal sum without complaint".
Fry: "One *pause for effect* GAZILLION dollars!"
Crowd: "Ooooh!"
Person accepting bids: "Sir, that's not a real number."
Seriously, every time I see an American lawsuit, it has a ridiculous number attached to it. I suppose it's the mindset of "well, if we ask a completely ridiculous over the top sum, they'll bargain and totally pay us the normal sum without complaint".
People still use KaZaA? Huh.Sven und EIN HUND said:
ON the topic, I'd say that she had it coming. You can't keep piratng music and expect to get away with it forever.
It's important to keep in mind that it was reduced to something like $20,000 with no legal fees owed, which is less than a Mortgage and the continued fighting of the charges led to it being ramped back up.
She is responsible for so much because she counter-sued, appealed, and re-appealed essentially ensuring that if she lost she was going to get the maximum penalty.
That said what the RIAA hopes to accomplish with this lawsuit is beyond me, they won't get that 1.5 Million, there are very few people in their entire lifetime that can make that kind of money. The RIAA have effectively condemned her to a life of poverty and I wonder why The American Government is willingly allowing the RIAA to destroy lives and inflate charges over what basically amounts to petty theft.
She is responsible for so much because she counter-sued, appealed, and re-appealed essentially ensuring that if she lost she was going to get the maximum penalty.
That said what the RIAA hopes to accomplish with this lawsuit is beyond me, they won't get that 1.5 Million, there are very few people in their entire lifetime that can make that kind of money. The RIAA have effectively condemned her to a life of poverty and I wonder why The American Government is willingly allowing the RIAA to destroy lives and inflate charges over what basically amounts to petty theft.
"We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognised the severity of the defendant's misconduct," the RIAA said in a statement.
"Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions," it said.
Seriously? I don't know how you can win $1.5m for 2 albums worth of songs and then insist that it is somehow right. It was a silly lawsuit in it's conception, and they certainly shouldn't be proud of anything they've done.
Did they bribe the frickin' jury or was it just full of sociopaths?...
"Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions," it said.
Seriously? I don't know how you can win $1.5m for 2 albums worth of songs and then insist that it is somehow right. It was a silly lawsuit in it's conception, and they certainly shouldn't be proud of anything they've done.
Did they bribe the frickin' jury or was it just full of sociopaths?...
So let me get this straight. A mother of four downloaded 24 songs... and now she has to kill herself out of horrific greif and leave her children orphaned?
Way to go RIAA. You're proving yourselves now.
I didn't used to support Anonymous... now I'm wondering where I can buy a Guy Faux mask myself...
Way to go RIAA. You're proving yourselves now.
I didn't used to support Anonymous... now I'm wondering where I can buy a Guy Faux mask myself...
Yeah, she in fact was convicted before and refused to pay, but $1.92 million and $220,000 don't sound too well either.
Geez, she should just pay for what she's stolen, maybe two times the price.
Edit: I hope Anonymous intervenes.