80,000 per song? Who are the artists?!

 

Concerts are what? 100 dollars? And if you went to about ANY site. 99c. What's with the overpriced tag on this?

 

 

 

I find this to be extremely crazy, as I've shared tons of albums.

I believe they wanted to send a message to anyone who is downloading illegally. It's getting out of control. While I feel sorry for the woman, she brought this on herself by knowingly downloading/sharing these songs.

That is some serious debt. Pretty messed up, I'm just glad that downloads can't be tracked back to me. God knows how much illegal [cabbage] I got on here.

 

 

 

Why would they be unable to get to you? Because if you got a secret, tell me :pray:

though i do agree this is outrageous, she wasn't actually fined this much just because of 24 songs.

 

 

 

she actually shared thousands of songs, but the companies that sued her chose a "representative" group of [24] songs.

 

 

 

The 12-person jury said Jammie Thomas must pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that were the focus of the case. In their complaint, the six music companies that sued her had claimed that Thomas had illegally shared a total of 1,702 songs over the Kazaa file-sharing network, but they chose to focus on a representative list of 24 songs.

 

 

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/138115/j ... k=rel_news

 

 

 

edit: that quote is from the first trial, which is why it is 9,250 per song. the appeal was the one that got 80,000 per song.

I believe they wanted to send a message to anyone who is downloading illegally. It's getting out of control. While I feel sorry for the woman, she brought this on herself by knowingly downloading/sharing these songs.

 

The price is really crazy and even if a fine was owed 80,000 per song is just wrong. Just because they caught one person doesn't mean they should punish her for every person.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Why the [bleep] is the RIAA immune to this? There's no way in hell someone would be fined $80,000 for stealing a candy bar, but it's "just" fine for a song? :roll:

 

THERE'S the grounds for a lawsuit! :lol:

I do agree that $80,000 is a huge amount of money for each song, but as Smapla pointed out, those 24 were just the focus of the case. She shared over 1,000 songs on Kazaa, so it's not like she was just a minor file sharer.

=D>

 

This is gonna greatly increase the way people look at the RIAA.

I do agree that $80,000 is a huge amount of money for each song, but as Smapla pointed out, those 24 were just the focus of the case. She shared over 1,000 songs on Kazaa, so it's not like she was just a minor file sharer.

 

Well doing the math even if she was charged for all 1702 it still figures out to $1,128 dollors per song. Still majorly overpriced.

That is some serious debt. Pretty messed up, I'm just glad that downloads can't be tracked back to me. God knows how much illegal [cabbage] I got on here.

 

 

 

Why would they be unable to get to you? Because if you got a secret, tell me :pray:

 

 

 

Says the person who started this thread:

 

 

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=798681 :lol:

 

 

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Why the [bleep] is the RIAA immune to this? There's no way in hell someone would be fined $80,000 for stealing a candy bar, but it's "just" fine for a song? :roll:

 

But you can't share that candy bar with millions of people, will probably be their way to attack that ideology. And isn't the Eight Amendment for Criminal Cases, but not Civil?

That is some serious debt. Pretty messed up, I'm just glad that downloads can't be tracked back to me. God knows how much illegal [cabbage] I got on here.

 

 

 

Why would they be unable to get to you? Because if you got a secret, tell me :pray:

 

Says the person who started this thread:

 

 

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=798681 :lol:

 

 

 

Shhhh, what :| I download of illegal stuff... I'm a pirate... Arr.... it's just that I was shocked and.... w/e, but really. I download alot yet I'm not secure at all. The dog of the guy that leaves next door could get on the computer and see what I download and what I have easily... I need to hide it :wall:

Shouldn't she be paying 0.99$ per song she downloaded and per song downloaded off her, since she could get them for that much on iTunes, and she should also be paying for the people she gave them to, plus the theft fine? If you go to a store and steal 100 (assuming 76 downloads from her Kazaa were made) 1$ cans of coke, you don't get fined 1.92M...

Shouldn't she be paying 0.99$ per song she downloaded and per song downloaded off her, since she could get them for that much on iTunes, and she should also be paying for the people she gave them to, plus the theft fine? If you go to a store and steal 100 (assuming 76 downloads from her Kazaa were made) 1$ cans of coke, you don't get fined 1.92M...

 

Well if you stole something from a shop, don't you usually have to pay more than the cost of the item?

 

 

 

e.g you stole a drink worth $1 and got caught, you end up having to pay $10 as a fine.

 

 

 

But 88,000$ is pretty [bleep]ing crazy..

That's what happens when corporations have too much control.

 

 

 

It's disgusting.

Ridiculous.

 

 

 

There was some study/calculation some law professor did that, if every bit of copyright infringement law was enforced perfectly (as in every offense was prosecuted, etc.) he would have had to pay several million dollars by the end of the day, even though he did nothing like p2p file sharing. I'd find a link, but I have no idea what it was called.

 

 

 

Anyhow, 88 grand per song is ridiculously excessive.

 

In most states the maximum punishment for a misdemeanor crime is 1000$ and 1 year in jail.

 

This isn't theft, which is why because, to quote

 

"Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken."

 

 

 

Downloading a song isn't "permanently depriving him or her of the value of the property taken", so it's not theft. Thus it's copyright infringement where the law are a [cabbage]load heavier, and way more ridiculous.

Moral: dont get caught?

The main problem I have with this case is that it sets a bad precedent in terms of the constitution.

 

 

 

snippet from the 8th amendment

 

[hide=]that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[/hide]

 

 

 

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090618/1950315285.shtml

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Why the [bleep] is the RIAA immune to this? There's no way in hell someone would be fined $80,000 for stealing a candy bar, but it's "just" fine for a song? :roll:

 

THERE'S the grounds for a lawsuit! :lol:

 

 

 

They always find a "loophole" around that, to be honest.

Shouldn't she be paying 0.99$ per song she downloaded and per song downloaded off her, since she could get them for that much on iTunes, and she should also be paying for the people she gave them to, plus the theft fine? If you go to a store and steal 100 (assuming 76 downloads from her Kazaa were made) 1$ cans of coke, you don't get fined 1.92M...

 

Well if you stole something from a shop, don't you usually have to pay more than the cost of the item?

 

 

 

e.g you stole a drink worth $1 and got caught, you end up having to pay $10 as a fine.

 

 

 

But 88,000$ is pretty [bleep] crazy..

 

Yep, that's why I added theft fine. ;)

She was probably seeding. In Canada (don't know about USA) its legal to download the music, just not to Seed, or make it available for downloading. The problem is that if no one seeds, no one can download, and file sharing dies. It is also legal to take a friends CD and copy it to your computer, because they cant prove that the CD wasn't yours.

 

 

 

The problem isn't that she downloaded the songs, its that she made them available for others to download, thus they feel they have the right to sue her for every user that downloaded from her ( even if this made sense, i doubt 80000 users downloaded just from her)

If I was in a successful band I wouldn't care if people "stole" my music. It just shows that they really appreciate it that much which is better than a monetary reward if you ask me. Artists are entitled to making a living, but poor teenagers are also entitled to listening to music they enjoy.

She was probably seeding. In Canada (don't know about USA) its legal to download the music, just not to Seed, or make it available for downloading. The problem is that if no one seeds, no one can download, and file sharing dies. It is also legal to take a friends CD and copy it to your computer, because they cant prove that the CD wasn't yours.

 

 

 

Shouldn't she be paying 0.99$ per song she downloaded and per song downloaded off her, since she could get them for that much on iTunes, and she should also be paying for the people she gave them to, plus the theft fine? If you go to a store and steal 100 (assuming 76 downloads from her Kazaa were made) 1$ cans of coke, you don't get fined 1.92M...

 

Well if you stole something from a shop, don't you usually have to pay more than the cost of the item?

 

 

 

e.g you stole a drink worth $1 and got caught, you end up having to pay $10 as a fine.

 

 

 

But 88,000$ is pretty [bleep] crazy..

 

Yep, that's why I added theft fine. ;)

 

 

 

The problem isn't that she downloaded the songs, its that she made them available for others to download, thus they feel they have the right to sue her for every user that downloaded from her ( even if this made sense, i doubt 80000 users downloaded just from her)

 

 

 

Can they track how many were made, or that downloads were made anyways? If not, then they can only sue her for making it available. In which case that can't be 80K.

 

And at the above post, I don't think musicians care, just record labels. As long as no one takes credit for themselves, then I'm fine with people getting my money for free as long as I make a decent amount of money.

If I was in a successful band I wouldn't care if people "stole" my music. It just shows that they really appreciate it that much which is better than a monetary reward if you ask me. Artists are entitled to making a living, but poor teenagers are also entitled to listening to music they enjoy.

 

 

 

Its not the bands though, its the record labels

If I was in a successful band I wouldn't care if people "stole" my music. It just shows that they really appreciate it that much which is better than a monetary reward if you ask me. Artists are entitled to making a living, but poor teenagers are also entitled to listening to music they enjoy.

 

 

 

Its not the bands though, its the record labels

 

 

 

Bands have been known to sue though. My post wasn't really about the story on this thread specifically, so I'm sorry if it was a bit off topic but I just wanted to make a point. It's something I've been thinking about lately.

The main problem I have with this case is that it sets a bad precedent in terms of the constitution.

 

 

 

snippet from the 8th amendment

 

[hide=]that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[/hide]

 

 

 

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090618/1950315285.shtml

 

 

 

The US government ripping and tearing the constitution to shreds is nothing new, sadly.

 

 

 

Our fore fathers will probably cry.