Woman to Pay RIAA $220,000 For 24 Downloaded Songs

[chadachada123]

I'll just leave this here:

Spoiler

I may just have a piece of media that tops Cracked's analysis:


I for one love copyright math. My laptop is worth some ten billion dollars, obviously.

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

 

[chadachada123]

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

But it is illegal. Signing a contract and then later refusing to follow through with your promise is illegal. You can't be arrested for it (ignoring things like fraud for the sake of argument) but it's against the law. Here, anyway. "Normal sense" just refers to how much of the law you understand.

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

 

[GAunderrated]

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

She hasn't been arrested. She isn't being 'punished under the law,' but is being sued in a civil case because the RIAA feels they have been wronged.

That may seem like semantics, but I always get a little annoyed when people say that piracy is "illegal." It's not illegal in the normal sense, it just opens you up for being sued for damages, even if the amount of damages is clearly insane.

But it is illegal. Signing a contract and then later refusing to follow through with your promise is illegal. You can't be arrested for it (ignoring things like fraud for the sake of argument) but it's against the law. Here, anyway. "Normal sense" just refers to how much of the law you understand.

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

Thank you for that education on the subject. It is painful to see many people using buzz words and not fulling understanding the difference between words. You should pursue the degree.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

Why would she take the $4500? Every day in court is more negative press for the RIAA & one step closer to her inevitable appeal.
The woman's drawing a line in the sand & I support it

 

[chadachada123]

What contracts were signed by her?

But anyway, civil suits aren't considered "against the law" in my locale. They're considered civil suits. Breaking the law involves criminal suits here. Perhaps yours is different.

Don't act like I don't understand the law. I understand it damn-well, and have considered going for a law degree over my current choice.

I just draw a distinction between criminal cases (breaking the law) and civil cases (damaging someone, not inherently breaking the law).

Like I said, semantics. But personal preference.

I think you'll find "damaging someone" is criminal in most places, if you want to argue semantics so badly. As is copyright infringement and the distribution of unlawfully obtained goods.

*Sigh*

OJ Simpson was arrested for killing his girlfriend and another guy. He was found not guilty. He was then SUED in a civil case for damages to the other guy, and lost. The first case was a criminal case, for him breaking the law, and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter case was a civil case and only requires a preponderance of evidence (basically, a greater-than-fifty-percent-chance of him being at fault).

He was found to have broken no laws but was found to have been enough at fault for the man's death to warrant paying the dude's family some huge sum of money.

According to Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illegal

The definition of "illegal" says:

1. (law) Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

The rest are unrelated to law. Under criminal law, it says:

(law) The area of law pertaining to crime and punishment.
Coordinate term: civil law

Under civil law, it says:

1. (law) Roman law based on the Corpus Juris Civilis; it contrasts with common law.
2. (law) The body of law dealing with the private relations between members of a community; it contrasts with criminal law, military law and ecclesiastical law.

She may have broken several laws, but she was not charged for breaking any laws. She is being sued for causing damage to the RIAA. The law may be written to allow for these civil suits, but she didn't 'break the law' in the eyes of prosecutors. If she were, she would be in a criminal case against the state/town, and not against an entity.

Example: You punch someone. When someone "presses charges," they are seeking for the state/town to pursue criminal charges against you, with this person as a witness. They can additionally sue you in civil court for damages, with *this person* bringing the case against you, which is a separate issue.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Funny. They love complaining about 'pirates' and yet they're the ones forcing a mother to jump off a plank. Ruining the future of numerous kids over a few downloaded songs. The truth behind businesses like this is that despite how much they love sucking the dick of Capitalism and Democracy their practices are neither very capitalist nor very democratic. Corporations like these are more like dictatorships. They don't need to respect you, they don't need to be just and fair, and whenever you buy something from them you need to practically be in awe of just how kind and gracious the 'benevolent' dictator is.

I don't pirate. But you know, when I read things like this I really hate my self when I buy things from these immoral punks. I really do. They don't deserve money. They're nothing but these self entitled spoiled brats that need a good belting. In fact, by this point I'm willing to argue that The Pirate Bay are just thieves, meanwhile it's the RIAA that are the real pirates. Thieves only steal, where as pirates rape, pillage, and destroy. And gee, doesn't that sound familiar, like maybe forcing a mother of four kids to pay a ridiculous fine over a few fucking songs?

I've completely lost faith in the music industry. They were always enslaving musicians to contracts, suing musicians for plagiarizing themselves, (like John Fogherty) but now they really just reached a new low. This can't be forgiven. In fact, I'm not even going to say that piracy is even a detriment to the music industry anymore. Instead it's just competition. Except the service they bring is cheaper, arguably better, and doesn't involve completely destroying the lives of families over a few songs which, what, would cost only around 40 dollars at most?

I got a good idea of 'setting an example' How about instead of probably ruining the lives of a family of five over a few songs we have the mother pay 50$ to a charity and we have these criminals shut down once and for all. If you think that's extreme, then it's fortunate that I didn't share what I think these monsters truly deserve.

 

[Aureliano]

Brilliant move. By all means, RIAA, please continue trying to extort almost a quarter of a million dollars from a Native American mother of four whose crime was not paying for a Green Day song.

That's just going to get everybody on your side.

One of these days somebody needs to invent a sarcasm font for the internet.

 

[1337mokro]

How do 24 songs equal 220'000 dollars in damages?

Is the RIAA saying they sell singles for close to 10000 dollars each these days? This is really just fearmongering. Scaring people with insane high fines.

I am sure that the musicians are happy that less people will know about their songs now seeing as downloading them could lead to a death setence of debt.

I am also 100% sure that the musicians will be receiving the full amount of those 220'000 dollars right? It's not like the RIAA will pocket it themselves.

Wait a second, did she download these songs or host them for filesharing?

You seem to be confused about how filesharing works: The two are the same.

Actually they compeltely aren't.

Filesharing is making files available online for download. Downloading a shared file is not filesharing. That is just downloading.

She both downloaded and uploaded the songs to a filesharing site.

 

[Legion]

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

The issue isn't the punishment, it is the extent of the punishment. People are not complaining that she received a fine, but the ridiculously high amount of it.

I'd have thought that'd be obvious, but you seem to love going into every news thread and replying "Why is this an issue" or "Why is this a news story?" without seeming to actually ready any of it.

 

[sethisjimmy]

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

To change a law can often take literal lifetimes of red tape. Most people aren't willing to wait that long or dedicate that effort just to download a song. In any case there are people currently working on getting piracy and copyright laws changed.

She did break the law, and she got caught, so she can't just be let off scott-free, but the damage estimations are beyond ridiculous and are in no way correlated to the crime she committed.

OT: She should have settled when the charge was 4500$, but I guess hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Teacakes]

To change a law can often take literal lifetimes of red tape. Most people aren't willing to wait that long or dedicate that effort just to download a song. In any case there are people currently working on getting piracy and copyright laws changed.

All of this.

Don't act like everyone is shocked and appalled someone violated copyright and got punished. Nobody here is surprised that there was a fine, they're surprised it was a completely ridiculous one.

 

[ElPatron]

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

The issue is that 220,000 bucks is nearly what some people/families get paid for permanent disabilities or death. So basically the crime of sharing songs is giving the RIAA more money than a human life is "worth".

I disagree with copyright laws as they are right now, but this is beyond stupid laws - it's their ridiculous implementation.

 

[Chiave]

A little off-topic but how well did the music industry fair during the last recession?

 

[fractured_sanity]

Why would she take the $4500? Every day in court is more negative press for the RIAA & one step closer to her inevitable appeal.
The woman's drawing a line in the sand & I support it

Indeed. The RIAA is a bully trying to make you eat a shit sandwich, why take a bite to make him leave you alone instead of trying to fight him off?

What's the issue? Person broke law. Person punished under law.

If you think it's a dumb law, you seek to have it thrown out, you don't just ignore it and break the law anyway.

If the punishment fit the crime this wouldn't even be news.
But as it sits now it should be reported to help along changes.