| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2009 05:02:33 AM · #1 |
| I just heard about the mother of 4 who illigally downloaded 24 songs. Each song sels for.99 on-line. Recording Industry Assosiation of America won in court agaist her and she was found guilty. She now has to pay 1.9 million!!! Ok, I can understand her having to pay a fine, but come on, 1.9 million? That is just rediculous. This is an example of why the judgicial system in the US is broke, it's why we have to pay so much for insurance. I can understand making an example of someone, but this is going too far. I'll bet you couldn't get $80k per photo that the RIAA illigally downloaded from your site. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 05:17:20 AM · #2 |
| news like these makes u wanna rebel, doesnt it? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 05:28:45 AM · #3 |
| It sure would be nice if a mass protest took place against the Record Industry. But we know that will never happen. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 05:32:53 AM · #4 |
usually these kind of "random" citizen arrest is to serve as a warning to others.
i pity the random victim though. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 07:08:25 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by crayon:
usually these kind of "random" citizen arrest is to serve as a warning to others.
i pity the random victim though. |
It still doesn't justify the way too harsh punishment doled out. The judge who handed down this decision did not do it in am impartial manner dealing only with the facts (alleged illegal download (theft) of 24 songs @ $0.99 each). The arguments for fining someone $1.8 million for such a small amount is absolute nonsense. This type of judgement has little imapct because it is unequitable: people are still going to illegally download electronic files since the chance of them being cuaght doing so is exceedigly slim. The proper way of going about it is not levying huge fines against a very few people but issuing lower fines to a larger number of violators. But as you can imagine, this would take time, resources and $$$. My point of view is enforce fairly, or don't enforce at all.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 07:24:38 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by crayon:
usually these kind of "random" citizen arrest is to serve as a warning to others.
i pity the random victim though. |
... issuing lower fines to a larger number of violators. But as you can imagine, this would take time, resources and $$$. My point of view is enforce fairly, or don't enforce at all. |
That's just it though. The RIAA knows its hosed in terms of volume. If they attempted to file for everybody they would bankrupt themselves in litigation. Instead, they make these high profile cases to for some nice posturing as a vicious attack dog organization when in actuality they have next to no control on the issue. Hell, they can't even effectively shut down a website, let alone battle the concept of it being an acceptable act to many. The RIAA is just trying to hold on to a system that's already been so mangled that it hardly resembles what it began as. Artists used to actually make money from albums and the music scene wasn't the huge advertising whorefest that it is now. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 07:44:57 AM · #7 |
| To me this just makes the music industry look like big money grubbing ogres ready to stick it to the little guy at any chance they get. I hope this court case really backfires on them. But I imagine that todays MTV bubblegum crowd even bothers to follow current events in the news enough to care. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 12:53:56 PM · #8 |
Well, she did ask for a new trial. The jury could have awarded 300,000 per song and the total would have been close to 4 million. But..... RIAA still indicates it's willing to settle so I suspect a final fee of much less than 2 million.
The music industry lost me in the transition to CDs when they arbitrarily raised the prices just because they could. So I stopped buying new CDs and concentrate on private purchases of used CDs. That's the source of almost all my MP3s. To show they haven't learned the lesson, online music stores just recently raised the per tune price of most recent music 30 percent. During the worst recession since 1930. FAIL
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 01:09:47 PM · #9 |
I've been following that case and was reading about it this morning as well. I think she is certainly guilty, but the damages were WAYYYY out of line. I'm not sure why the jury saw fit to set the damages at such a ridiculous level, even higher than the first trial. A case of making an example out her I suppose. I don't agree with the widspread online file sharing, but I think the RIAA is making enemies out of the music buyers. I'm not fond of them.
Added: Not terribly fond of the MPAA either.
Message edited by author 2009-06-19 13:11:45. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 02:20:27 PM · #10 |
| To be honest, I have a hard time seeing these lawsuits and buying from big record companies that are complicit with the RIAA. For me, it isn't that big of a deal because a huge portion of the music I enjoy is produced by independent labels anyway, but it's still troubling. Why would I support a power crazed giant that tries to destroy the lives of grandmothers? |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 03:19:41 PM · #11 |
Just goes to show... you're better off shoplifting CDs.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2009 03:35:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Just goes to show... you're better off shoplifting CDs. |
The five fingered discount did always have a nice ring to it (financially too!). |
|
|
|
06/21/2009 08:27:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Just goes to show... you're better off shoplifting CDs. |
u said it slippy. it IS less painful (if caught) compared to what that grandma is paying! |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 06:36:04 PM · #14 |
| Man, this is up there with Jean Valjean's twenty years for stealing a loaf of bread... |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 06:44:58 PM · #15 |
| How about if you extorted millions of dollars from people, trafficked in drugs, employed child slave labor while being married to 4 wives and ...... downloaded illegal music? Would the illegal downloads be the thing that gets you more that 3 years in prison?? ;-) |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 07:02:20 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
How about if you extorted millions of dollars from people, trafficked in drugs, employed child slave labor while being married to 4 wives and ...... downloaded illegal music? Would the illegal downloads be the thing that gets you more that 3 years in prison?? ;-) |
No, they would just flee Colorado City, and hide in the compound in Texas. Oh then get arrested, and sue the government.
Message edited by author 2009-06-22 19:07:22. |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 07:04:27 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, this is up there with Jean Valjean's twenty years for stealing a loaf of bread... |
Yeah, but look who had the last laugh there.. |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 07:49:04 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by crayon:
news like these makes u wanna rebel, doesnt it? |
;-) |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 08:47:55 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by crayon:
usually these kind of "random" citizen arrest is to serve as a warning to others.
i pity the random victim though. |
it's like a reverse lottery. |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 09:01:22 PM · #20 |
I don't get the courts thing in the US. I mean, how is she supposed to pay that $1.9m, and what happens to her when she can't pay? Do they keep sending her back to prison until she pays up, or do they start her paying back so much per year until she dies?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2009 09:15:43 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by crayon:
news like these makes u wanna rebel, doesnt it? |
Wait 'till you read this classic article from EW in 2003. It's the film industry, but it's the same thing...
Joel Stein on why he'll ''steal'' from Ben Affleck. Lucy Liu and other celebs are pleading poverty in a PSA
The highlight:
When I asked Motion Picture Association of America president Jack Valenti whether the director of the highest-grossing movie of all time was the ideal spokesperson against petty theft, he tap-danced. ''I found the most convincing part to be the working stiffs,'' said Valenti of the PSA, ''the guys who have a modest home and kids who go to public schools. They make $75,000 to $100,000 a year. That's not much to live on. I don't have to tell you that,'' he said, vastly overestimating the U.S. poverty level and what I get paid for this column. I vowed right then not only to pirate a movie but also to find a way to use the Internet to steal directly from Jack Valenti's home.
Message edited by author 2009-06-22 21:18:27. |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 10:29:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by crayon:
news like these makes u wanna rebel, doesnt it? |
Wait 'till you read this classic article from EW in 2003. It's the film industry, but it's the same thing...
Joel Stein on why he'll ''steal'' from Ben Affleck. Lucy Liu and other celebs are pleading poverty in a PSA
The highlight:
When I asked Motion Picture Association of America president Jack Valenti whether the director of the highest-grossing movie of all time was the ideal spokesperson against petty theft, he tap-danced. ''I found the most convincing part to be the working stiffs,'' said Valenti of the PSA, ''the guys who have a modest home and kids who go to public schools. They make $75,000 to $100,000 a year. That's not much to live on. I don't have to tell you that,'' he said, vastly overestimating the U.S. poverty level and what I get paid for this column. I vowed right then not only to pirate a movie but also to find a way to use the Internet to steal directly from Jack Valenti's home. |
nicely said. exactly my sentiments. |
|
|
|
07/04/2009 12:56:02 AM · #23 |
RIAA...protecting an outdated business model, a mob style cartel, simply by buying off as many politicians as they can.
And I'll also add that illegal != immoral.
Frankly, I think this mom should pick up a bull dozer and drive right through RIAA's headquarters. Her Constitutional rights have been so violated, that I think she is fully justified in launching an all out war against the monstrosity that is RIAA.
Oh, and let's not forget that Obama has appointed like 5 of RIAA's top lawyers to prominent positions.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/01/2025 11:57:52 PM EDT.
