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

[Baresark]

Organizations like this disgust me. The money isn't going to the artists, they have no right to demand that much in return. They should demand $20 (the cost a CD) from her. That is it. And it's really disgusts me that this is allowed to happen to an individual. Just another reason to burn all the politicians.

 

[Baresark]

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.

There are rules in societies that dictate equal punishment for crimes committed. I don't know at what part 24 songs = $200,000 can constitute equal retaliation. People can just make up the value of something and then demand someone pay them that much money. In the real world, 24 songs is worth about $20 (as that is what you would pay for a music CD containing that many songs).

 

[FoolKiller]

There should be a max of like $50 penalty per song. It's fifty times the value of the song and then people who download hundreds of songs would still owe thousands. Enough to punish but not seem ridiculous.

But stupid greedy companies will be stupid.

 

[Jfswift]

That's a bit ridiculous. I can understand them sueing for the value of the music and possibly damages but um.. 24 songs are not worth 200k. I don't feel the punishment fits the crime here.

 

[Saulkar]

"We are pleased with the appellate court's decision and look forward to putting this case behind us."

And I will be pleased the day some random hoodlum beats you to within an inch of your life over a couple of dollars and leaves you to die slowly with no one around to hear you whimper. Your corpse will be found, the company that you represented will casually sweep you from their payroll and you will be forgotten.

Damn that was dark, even for me.

 

[Twilight_guy]

My lawful good side says 'tough noogies, you did a crime. It's sad but we can't make exceptions for your sad sob story', my neutral good side says 'That's unreasonable. Can't they cut here some slack. I mean their tactics have changed, why not relent a bit?', my chaotic good side just keeps muttering about dirty streets and says 'no' to people.

 

[GTwander]

So... how do they get a 220k figure when all those songs are about a buck a piece on itunes?

 

[chadachada123]

*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.

I'm confused as to why you're quoting me, to be honest. You seem to be suggesting I'm making a claim that I'm not and are arguing a semantic, as you see it, that I never actually brought up. The message you quoted said:

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.

You told me that she had broken the law, but not in the "normal sense." You also just stated then she "broke several laws." So we both agree she broke the law and is being punished under that law. I never said anything beyond that and I don't the need to infer beyond it for the sake of arguing a supposed semantic.

I said that she is not being charged with breaking the law. She MAY have broken some laws, but she is not being CHARGED for them. She has done nothing illegal in the eyes of the law.

That's it.

Ignore everything else, because that is what I meant, even if you interpreted it wrong. Don't say she did anything illegal when she hasn't been charged with doing anything illegal. It's slightly semantic, but it's really fucking annoying to see CIVIL suits described as being criminal.

 

[Kopikatsu]

People are missing the point of the ruling. She's not being charged that much per song for downloading them, she's being charged that much per song for illegal file sharing. The reason it's so high is because the RIAA estimates how much money was lost (generally by multiplying the cost of the track with a fraction of the number of downloads the file got) and then submits that number to the court who has to them agree that it seems like a reasonable amount. (Note: Reasonable in this case doesn't mean 'So that the defendant can actually afford to pay the fine' but 'This is how much money we believe to have approximately lost due to her actions'. Say a track had 120,000 downloads...they would likely only be able to say that they lost 50,000~ sales. Much more than that would be denied by the court because they realize that not everyone who downloaded the file would have bought it.

So again, she's not being sued for downloading the songs. She's being sued for sharing those files publicly.

 

[Genocidicles]

The question is though, what would happen if the RIAA hauled someone in just for downloading songs? Would they get sued through the roof too? Or they would be given a reasonable fine for the incredibly insignificant crime they committed?

 

[Kopikatsu]

The question is though, what would happen if the RIAA hauled someone in just for downloading songs? Would they get sued through the roof too? Or they would be given a reasonable fine for the incredibly insignificant crime they committed?

Maximum sentence is five years prison.

It's actually the lowest maximum sentence that I know of.

Edit: It's a county thing though. You'd have to check the laws in your county to find out what the punishment for downloading is. In mine, it's five years in the big house.

 

[90sgamer]

The judgment amount is not calculated by considering what each piece of music is worth you quackwads. It's considering total revenue lost because file sharing those songs*, plus court costs, attorney's fees and something like "punitive damages" which are purely meant to deter future wrongful behavior by making the punishment disproportionate to the actual damage because in many cases the actual damage is very small.

*Back to file sharing. So the defendant shares one song (valued at $1). 100 people download that song from defendant (valued at $100). To keep the math simple we'll say each of those people uploaded the song to 100 other people for a total of 10,000 uploads (valued at $10,000). This keeps going on to the extent the plaintiff can prove it, and it happens for each song. The potential revenue lost grows alarmingly. The damages calculated in these cases consider revenue lost because of the actions of the defendant. In the example above, the defendant is liable up to $10,101.00.

"Quackwads" is that a new swear word for the PC crowd?

Anyways we know how this amount was calculated. No need to rage out and go into preach mode. But you can't seriously defend someone getting hit with a $220 000 USD bill.

And the "lost revenue" calculation argument is still BS. If it was about lost revenue they should sue her for what she stole, not what EVERYONE stole.

That's like giving a guy 45 years in jail because he stole a bike from Wal-Mart and the thief is doing to for every bike ever stolen from that Wal-Mart.

Quackwads: because I ain't even mad.

Anyway, you still don't understand. Your analogy breaks down because she didn't just steal the song. She stole it then uploaded to other people enabling them to steal it as well. She enabled theft by her actions.

Keep in mind the damages also include punitive damages, not just the value of anticipated lost revenue. As to "lost sales", in civil Court you don't have to prove your case to beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence is "in the preponderance of the evidence" which essentially means that something is more likely to be true than not true. Some people describe it as 51%.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

Shouldn't it be more like $24 for 24 songs? I'm betting you can get most of those on I-tunes.