Forums | MacLife

... The fine could have run millions of dollars for less than 2,000 songs. How much damage does the court really think she was doing? How could one person do that much damage with MUSIC. Especially if the music isn't selling well because it is awful, then they might want to pay her for providing exposure.

I believe they admitted during this case that their lawsuit campaign is not making them money. This is probably more of a ploy to have some precedent so they can go complain to the lawmakers and screw up our laws.

Czachorski wrote:

[snip]

The RIAA says the lawsuits have mitigated illegal sharing, even though music file-sharing is rising overall. The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March 2007.

I know these are monthly figures, but comparing them to 100 million iPods sold, and only 7-8 million users a month using p2p programs, wouldn't that suggest that the overwhelmingly vast majority of iPod users are not filling their iPods with illegally obtained music, as the labels have suggested elsewhere?

Hah! You want to use logic when arguing against the RIAA?

Alien wrote:

What she did is illegal, and she got caught. I fail to see the problem. The "quality" of the material involved is irrelevant.

I think it's the "quantity" which is the problem here, 24 songs is ridiculous. Any household on earth surely has 24 "pirated" tracks ona tape or CD somewhere. 220 000$ is a smurfload.

She could have settled out of court. She made a very poor decision in fighting the case. The fines are set on the assumption that the people doing the infringement are running businesses, not trading songs. But I don't have a lot of sympathy because I don't trade (read: pirate) songs online. I have on occasion traded CDs with friends, but that's the limit of my abuse, an abuse which (I think) is covered under fair use.

henebry wrote:

She could have settled out of court. She made a very poor decision in fighting the case. The fines are set on the assumption that the people doing the infringement are running businesses, not trading songs.

I have a friend who paid out $4,300 to the record labels for having 5 songs available on Kazaa that her kids shared out.

I think that $220,000 would be fine it could be proved that she was a trading a lot of content, or was selling copyrighted material for profit.

in this case I don't feel that the punishment fits the crime.

I'm not saying she should get off free and clear but $220,000 is completely ridiculous.

Alien wrote:

What she did is illegal, and she got caught. I fail to see the problem. The "quality" of the material involved is irrelevant.

,xtG
.tsooJ

Going simply by what you said, you'd be fine with a death penalty for this crime, right? Because she did something illegal and got caught?

My problem is the excessive fine. She should pay for the damage caused, and I fail to see how she could have possibly caused that much in damages.

Shadowless wrote:

henebry wrote:

... I don't trade (read: pirate) songs online. I have on occasion traded CDs with friends, but that's the limit of my abuse, an abuse which (I think) is covered under fair use.

It is not covered under fair use. You may not be pirating songs online, but you are still pirating. You've stolen music. Congrats.

Welcome to the club.

thats right, and to top it off when you rip a CD and put the music on your iPod I guess we could say you stole just one copy.

You damn criminal!

In honor of this event I am going to download more music.

Former Windork wrote:

I'm trying to figure out how stealing something worth, at the most, around $31 (taking the $1.29 iTunes Plus price times the 24 songs) should result in a $220,000 fine.  Talk about swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.

Because they opted for statutory fines instead of going after actual compensation which would be ridiculously hard to prove and quite likely much less.

As for the crime itself, yes she is technically guilty of copyright infringement, but I have a huge problem with current intellectual property rights laws anyways so the RIAA has very little sympathy from me. They consistently lobby to keep the laws as is when a plethora of economic literature suggests long copyright terms actually end up stifling innovation and economic activity.

Alien wrote:

Your problem may be the excessive fine; others have expressed in this thread that they think the mere fact that she was found guilty is wrong,

Really?  Before you posted above?  It seem like most everyone has commented on the severity of the fine.

or that for some reason the value they personally place on the material traded, the punishment should be less severe.

And that I strongly disagree with.

....I think that comment was probably a joke.  "They should pay her for the exposure?"  You think he meant that?

Alien wrote:

Shadowless wrote:

Alien wrote:

What she did is illegal, and she got caught. I fail to see the problem. The "quality" of the material involved is irrelevant.

Going simply by what you said, you'd be fine with a death penalty for this crime, right? Because she did something illegal and got caught?

Um, no. Don't put words in my mouth, okay?

I said nothing of the graveness of the punishment; I am against the death penalty regardless, and I will not comment on the righteousness of the punishment in this particular case.

My problem is the excessive fine. She should pay for the damage caused, and I fail to see how she could have possibly caused that much in damages.

Your problem may be the excessive fine; others have expressed in this thread that they think the mere fact that she was found guilty is wrong, or that for some reason the value they personally place on the material traded, the punishment should be less severe.

And that I strongly disagree with.

,xtG
.tsooJ

You won't comment on the punishment but you "fail to see the problem"?