TBradyOwnsYou

Please, die in a fire.



Ok, now that I have your attention:
The Associated Press: Atty: MN woman can't pay for sharing songs

I know it's old news, but this lady has had THREE trials with jurys of her PEERS each time thinking that for sharing 24 songs, this mother of 4 deserves to pay 222,000, 1,500,000 or 1,920,000 dollars to the RIAA.

Seriously? Wow. Maybe "jury of your peers" is an outdated concept, because I can't think of a single "peer" of mine that would bend me over like this!!
My question is, can anyone here maybe justify making someone pay more than the minimum 750 dollars per song which would equal 18,000 dollars total in this case?
I don't want to argue how our legal system is broke, or how stealing is wrong, or how this or that. I want to know how you justify anything more than the minimum.
They probably figure you share 1 song that costs 1 dollar, and share it with an average of 750 people, bam, there is a loss of 750 dollars to the RIAA.
However, let's say you don't share that file, do you really think those 750 people are going to all of the sudden think "oh no! the one person in the world sharing this one file is not sharing it, I guess I'll pay the 1 dollar for it!"
Unlikely. And this theory gets exponential when you get up to 150,000 per track!
I know if the RIAA got a hold of my records from my college days, I'd be paying millions that I don't have. I'm pretty sure I'd end up walking in to RIAA headquarters and re-enacting the end of Terminator 2.

sdaniels7114

Its an upside down pyramid. One person, say the reviewer for the Washington Post, gets an advanced copy of a new album or a Blue Ray of an unreleased movie and uploads it and the sky is the limit on who gets it. First there's one person distributing it to 10 others, then there's 11 people distributing it to 10 others each and before you know it an album that might have sold 15 million copies sells 1 or 2 million.

You can't use Itunes' price of $1 per song either. That price is about combating piracy.

__________________
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob everyone.

IcyPatriot

Case means nothing ... I would just roll over and file bankruptcy ... screw them.

TBradyOwnsYou

If you can find that the specific individual was the original sharer of an original file that can be found NOWHERE else, ok, I'll buy it, even though I don't buy the fact that a download = guaranteed sale.
However, we're talking any song in general. Could be a song from the 80's. You can't tell me that Joe Blow in Iowa is the first person in the history of history to release to the world a song from 30 years ago. So now, how is the sharing of this song costing record companies millions of sales?

Wolfpack

Well they went after her for 24 counts because they were able to turn that into about a million and a half total. But if they could only get a max of 750 per song, they could have easily gone after her for all 1,700 songs she shared, which would come out to a million and a quarter.
The whole thing is exponential. Her 1,700 songs could easily have been shared a million times.

I honestly don't know what the right solution is. File sharing is illegal and has caused some serious monetary damages to the recording industry. Nevertheless, I'd be lying if I said I never file shared music in my life.

I guess the lesson learned is that the smart thing to do if the industry threatens to sue you is accept their first offer of settlement, which in her case was a very reasonable $5,000.

Wolfpack

Legally that doesn't matter. If Joe downloads a song from her, that would be considered stealing $1 worth of merchandise. You cannot apply the logic "oh, well if the song wasn't available for a free download, then Joe wouldn't have bothered buying it for $1, so the music industry hasn't actually lost out on anything."

patsfan13

The copyright laws have been extended way beyond 17 years for the entertainment industry (as opposed to other types of copyright. If material passed into the public domain like other material some of the issue would go away.

Some artist (the Grateful dead and it's derivatives for example) are fine with their material (live performances) being distributed so long as the specific concerts have not been released commercially. Then there is the issue of material having been purchased multiple times by the consumer and getting a digital copy to replace worn out media (think records or scratched cd's here) which in many cases are no longer available commercially.


The music business needs to figure out a better business model ultimatly to deal with their ongoing issues

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patters

The fine does seem out of proportion to the crime. Does anyone really think the crime of illegally downloading a fairly small number of songs requires a punishment equivalent to a lifetime's wages? Running a red light puts individuals at risk. That doesn't warrant such of punishment. The penalties given this woman are absolutely perverse and distort, in my opinion, a reasonable notion of right and wrong.

TBradyOwnsYou

It's just so ridiculous though. 2 million bucks?! I understand it's illegal, but it just seems extreme. Even 18,000 dollars is a ton for most people to pay, especially for just 24 songs. But it seems like the RIAA isn't content with justice, they want to destory these people's lives.
But again, this is kind of off track.
You are the juror, how do you sleep at night thinking this individual should have to pay 7 figures for her crime?

TBradyOwnsYou

Just for funsies, the 24 tracks the RIAA sued over: