woman fined 200,000$ for 24 songs

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by spuriousmonkey, Oct 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    I think this thread is a perfect example of ....One can justify anything that they want.

    It's also a good example of not taking responsibility for one's own actions. The woman in question violated a law, got caught, now most of y'all don't think she should be responsible for her actions.

    Can y'all justify anyone and everyone violating any laws that they want to or don't like?

    Baron Max
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Responsibility? 200000$ for 24 songs? Really?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    She wouldn't have been fined if she'd obeyed the copyright laws. I'd say that the fine makes her responsible for her actions, don't you think?

    Baron Max
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    I think the fine is unproportional. Proportionality is a very important principle in the application of law in Europe. Maybe it's not so in the USA.
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Indeed. Unproportional is the keyword.

    Microsoft got fined by the EU for 500 million or something similar not too long ago for preventing the competition to compete: another kind of 'stealing'.

    500 million seems a lot, but it was for selling millions of copies of the program over many years: billions of profit/ billions of theft.

    The woman will be financially destroyed with the fine of 200,000$

    It was already stated that the 500million euro fine wouldn't even dent microsoft.

    Some pigs are created more equal than others. The record industry is created more equal than the artists. The record industry is created more equal than the consumer.

    Microsoft is created more equal than most people.

    Money buys justice

    They went after the woman with the best lawyers. She spend a meager 60k on laywers according to a previous post.

    Money destroys people. Real people.
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Maybe they should have just executed her. Or sold her into slavery. Perhaps taken away her first born child?

    I'm all for harsh sentences for murderers, rapists, etc. But this fine is just way out of line.

    The sentence for grand theft is "not more than a $10000 fine", at most. This lady stold like $50.

  10. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Actually she didn't steal anything, she just infringed some copyrights of a US corporation.
    On the other hand infringing copyrights of a US corporation must be a really terrible thing in such a capitalistic country ruled by lobies.
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Wouldn't have bothered me a damned bit!

    As I understand it, she this was not one single case, she did the same crime 24 times. I also understand that the sentence was about $9000 for each count.

    The car theft fine would have been not been as you've stated ...it would have been 24 counts of grand theft ...times... $10,000. See?

    Y'all don't like the fine and think it's too much. But she disobeyed the law and she should reap the rewards just like any other criminal.

    Baron Max
  12. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    She didn't steal anything. She copied something and left the original intact. These jerks at the corporation would do better to accuse her of copying instead of theft.
  13. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Isn't "stealing defined as the taking of property without right or consent? That's a different standard than depriving the owner of its use. If you're in Italy and I "borrow" your car that you left in the states, but return it before you get back, I still stole the car. The fact that you didn't directly lose the use of the property because of the theft is not relevant.

    I can understand the argument "I don't think taking intangible goods should be a crime," but copyright infringement does look like theft to me, except the thieves are the downloaders, not the uploaders. Downloaders "take" uploaders, at most, facilitate the unlawful taking.
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    A better analogy would be building your own car that was exactly like my car. Eg, copying my car. Would you still consider that theft?
  15. scorpius a realist Valued Senior Member

    what copyright laws?
    there are no warning labels on any songs you download,or are there?
    I sure havent seen any

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    sharing music is not stealing,imo,
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    If you compare it to cars, it's like I own a car, she owns a car, and I deprive her of the opportunity to make a profit using that car by offering the same service, using my car, for a lower price or for free. I think they've corrupted the concept of theft. In such a case I am not even necessarily taking money that should have gone to her, but I am depriving her of potential profits that she may think that she's entitled to. I still haven't deprived her of its use because she is still free to use it and to sell services using it. I deprived her of a customer. What I've really "stolen" are customers.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2007
  17. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Exactly. As I said before, this is analogous to a furniture store suing someone for building a copy of a friend's table rather than buying a table from the store, then trying to claim that the copier was "stealing" the table by building it himself rather than paying the store for a new one.
  18. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Thank you to those who have spoken clearly about the difference between theft and copyright violation. And also those who mentioned the disproportionality of this judgment.

    To re-iterate and add a few points:
    • She did not *steal* anything (though if she had stolen the CDs these 24 song came from, she would have been hit with fines 100X less than the $220k she now faces.)

    • Copyright infringement is not a criminal act, though it is illegal. Tort/civil law and criminal law are different beasts, and abide by different rules. For instance, the RIAA did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman violated copyright, just that it was likely that she did. The bar for evidence is much lower in these civil suits.

    • The fine *could* have been between $750 and $30,000 *per song*. Those numbers were designed with major pirates in mind - those who are duplicating CD's and selling them on street corners for a PROFIT. The laws were not written with P2P file sharing systems in mind, where a single person could be driven to bankruptcy for copyright violation of 24 songs.

    • The closest analogy is one that I've used since the Napster case, and which a federal court judge used earlier this year: placing a book and a xerox machine next to each other out on your curb. You are not copying anything, but are "making available" the tools needed to copy.

    • The Judge in this case initially wanted to tell the jurors that actual downloading must have taken place for infringement to have occurred. This was changed at the last minute to "Making Available= infringement" under pressure form the plaintiff's attorneys and without adequate fight from the defendant's lawyer. This is the foundation of their appeal, and I seriously hope that they win. There is a new suit based on this same argument where a business is being sued for a similar amount because they allowed music to be played on business property loud enough for lots of people to hear. Yes, you read that right. Playing a loud radio is now considered copyright infringement.

    • This "Making Available is the same as infringement of the right of distribution" argument is a worrisome one to me, and it has had a split favor in the courts over the past year. Two judges decided that Making Available was sufficient grounds for infringement fines, one other said the opposite. How easy do you have to make the duplication of a copyrighted work before you are considered a party to the act?

    • The RIAA's assertions (repeated in this case in sworn testimony) that copying of any kind is theft is simply WRONG. Any act of copying is protected if it falls under Fair Use, a gray area of copyright law where educational, personal, parody and non-commercial use of copyrighted works without permission are admissible. And important! Since the copyright term *used* to be 14 years, but is now the life of the artist plus 140 years (IIRC), new artists have a very hard time commenting on other works and on society as a whole while remaining within the bounds of copyright.
      Both copyright (the protection of a creative work for the benefit of the creator) and the expiration of copyright (the release of the work into the public domain for the good of the society) are critical for this whole system to work properly.

    • The Supreme Court has already ruled that statutory damages in civil cases cannot be outside of 10x the actual damages incurred. Since the song singles can be had for $.99US on iTunes, the actual damages incurred could be argued at anywhere from $24 to some multiple of that number, based on assumed number of copies made by others. In either case, the chances are this $220k judgment will not hold up on appeal, given this <10x requirement.

    • She was sued for, and a fine was levied for, 24 shared songs. There were 1700 songs in her shared folder, but you cannot fine someone for something they were not sued for. Dividing the $220k by 1,700 is like saying that putting a person in jail for 30 years for shoplifting is OK because you heard that your brother's friend said that they used to jaywalk everyday. The facts pertinent to the CASE AT HAND *ONLY* can be used in the determination oft he judgment, once the nature of the infringement has been determined (willful vs accidental).

    • Copyright law in the US today is royally screwed up, and needs to be fixed. From term length to the DCMA, it is too heavily balanced towards the copyright holders at the expense of everyone else. Thankfully Sonny Bono didn't get his way, or else no work would *ever* enter the public domain. We'd be paying the family of the creator of the wheel a royalty every time we built a car. We'd be paying Shakespeare's estate when we printed a copy of Macbeth. Even worse, we'd have to pay a license fee to who ever invented sliced bread anytime we made a sandwich! Limitations on copyright are not just smart - they are a requirement for a successful economy.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2007
  19. DeepThought Banned Banned


    My God....this woman is a Native American.

    The people from whom all the land was stolen to build America on.

    Are there no limits to American depravity?
  20. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Dear All,

    i read about this a few days ago..

    and its like shit!!!!! if they catch up with my arse i proper fucked, alomost all my digital media is pirated downloads i should imagine

    cheers z
  21. Learned Hand Registered Senior Member

    It is theft of an electronic media protected by intellectual property rights. As opposed to a table (whose design may have been copyrighted by the way), intellectual property include basically all works of art: paintings, photos, music, etc. It is a theft. To copy Dean Koontz latest novel is theft if you don't already own it; selling copies for profit is another form of intellectual theft. Think of it as "white collar" theft.
  22. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Really? According to US laws? Then USA has such bizzare laws...
    Hopefully open source and creative commons will take care of that in time.
  23. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Now THAT'S just plain stupid!!!!! What the heck does her heritage have to do with it?????????????????????

    You certainly aren't applying your screen name in this case, "Deep Thinker!":bugeye:

    (And incidentally, just what square mile of land in the whole world WASN'T taken from it's previous owners????)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page