The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Download songs, get fined $1.9 million
Dalboz
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html
In short, the woman in question was accused of downloading 24 songs illegally. This was the first case of copyright infringement of its kind to actually go to trial. This was actually the second trial, but the first one (where she was fined $220K) was thrown out and a new trial ordered after an error in the jury instructions. Basically she was fined $80K per song, which totaled to $1.9 million.
So, the question is, what kind of repercussions will this have? Could this embolden the RIAA and other industry organizations to actively pursue people for large sums of cash? Will we be see more cases like this soon?
In short, the woman in question was accused of downloading 24 songs illegally. This was the first case of copyright infringement of its kind to actually go to trial. This was actually the second trial, but the first one (where she was fined $220K) was thrown out and a new trial ordered after an error in the jury instructions. Basically she was fined $80K per song, which totaled to $1.9 million.
So, the question is, what kind of repercussions will this have? Could this embolden the RIAA and other industry organizations to actively pursue people for large sums of cash? Will we be see more cases like this soon?
Dalboz on
0
Posts
More discussion (/.)
Basically... yeah. As far as the broader consequences go, nobody wins - the defendant is bankrupt and the RIAA can't parade this result because it's transparently excessive.
Essentially, though not verbatim, she said:
"I'm a mom with limited means. All they did was attach a $1.9 million tag to my name. They won't see any of it unless I win the jackpot or find an oil well"
Yeah. This.
They're undermining whatever legitimate issue they may originally have had with pirating, "anecdotally fuck with us and we'll destroy your whole life over a $24 issue!". Fuck those guys, may they die in a home fire.
"Downloading songs is the same as stealing, give or take a few million dollars."
It's kind of interesting that they want to call it stealing because it has more negative connotations, but want to prosecute it as piracy because they get to sue for so much more.
Edit: Okay, beaten to the punch I guess.
Why can't the same thing apply to piracy? If you're caught stealing something, you have to pay for it. The "poor artists" then get the money they're supposedly being conned out of.
But where'd the RIAA et al. get their sweet sweet money?
IANAL, etc. IAN familiar with the case either.
Actually, what repercussions would you get if you stole someone's ipod? Would they charge you with just taking the device itself or roll the 80k per song into that for all the music you stole too?
This whole this is absurd.
Physically stealing stuff by force appears to be more okay, you wouldn't get fined 2 million for punching someone and taking their iPod/car/yacht.
Erm. From the games/movies/songs from the same studio/director/artist that the person pirating buys because he liked the pirated game/movie/song?
Seriously.
What the fucking Hell is their problem?
Yeah, totally disproportionate to the offence.
I still think it's a comically ridiculous amount though. Clearly if you're going for copyright infringement, you may as well go for the big time.
I think there was another case about a year ago like this, wherein the court threw it out because, essentially, downloading songs from others is in no way different (philosophically) from having a friend lend a CD to you to burn.
It's the "seeders" here that the RIAA is trying to bushwack with ridiculous fines, not the "leechers."
Somehow I doubt this decision will stand up through an appeal.
It's more like you bought a CD, cloned it, and then handed it out. You didn't "steal" 1,000 songs, you "stole" one. And you didn't force anyone to "take" it, so they're just as guilty as you are.
So, let's say have 1000 clone CDs in a box on a corner, with a sign posted saying, "Free for everyone." You're trying to argue that you're no more than co-equally guilty as those who take the CDs?
Look, I used to pirate shit all the time. I don't know a single person who's ever paid for Photoshop. But I don't try to pretend it's something more honorable or less criminal than it is. So shouldn't anyone else.
The RIAA doesn't usually go after just people who download. They go after those who allow to be downloaded from. Of course they know it's illegal. But it's also illegal to entrap those doing illegal things. So yes, from a legal perspective, it is more wrong to offer up goods to be taken without proper reimbursement than it is to take them.
Nonetheless, judgments like these are mindboggling stupid. I don't think they should just fine them 99 cents for song, since then that would be no detterent at all, but 1.8 million? Fucking christ. It'll be lowered, I'm sure, but still. Lady is pretty much fucked for the rest of her life.
like in berlin
but even then it was like.... not a ridiculous amount
The TPB guys wish to know as well.
And no, they didn't get convicted for running TPB. They got convicted for assisting in the sharing of two dozen songs, nine movies and four games.
The fact of the matter is that she accepted assistance from counsel with ulterior motives, who then proceeded to try to use her as a testbed for too cute by half legal theories, such as the "MediaSentry isn't a licensed PI in MN, therefore they're violating MN law" theory, which had exactly zero chance of working (seeing as they were in federal court.) And because of that, she didn't get the counsel that she needed.
It's likely that the RIAA will offer a settlement that is much lower, because, as many of you pointed out, the ruling amount isn't doing them any favors. But the jury came up with that amount, and I'd bet that everyone, including RIAA counsel, was pretty shocked when they announced the amount.
I was appalled then, and I'm appalled now. I'm glad the RIAA hasn't changed at all.
$1.9M? The fuck? If anything, damages awarded for downloading should not exceed the current market value of a legally licensed copy of the media in question. So, approximately $24. In reality, it seems to me that the actual damages would be considerably less than that, since I seriously doubt any pirate would purchase as much as he "steals".
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
The millionare neo-nazi can probably cover the bill.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.