24 Songs = $1.5 Million, wtf?

[Nekowolf]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40030700?G1=43001

A mother illegally downloaded twenty-four songs, and was caught. And she has to pay $62,500 per a song.

This. Is. Bullshit. I don't have a problem with a fine; alright, fine. But 1.5 million dollars for twenty-four songs? This is BEYOND mere justice. This is completely ruining her, and her family, for years and years to come.

Now it says that the RIAA claims she shared over 1,700 songs, but sued issued a file only on 24 of them. If you ask me, I think the judge is forcing her to pay for those not brought to suit. Sure, it doesn't make them any less illegal, however, they were not brought to suit and must be disregarded by the courts, lest the RIAA files on those songs as well.

And fuck the RIAA while I'm at it. They are a draconian monster. They cannot stop piracy; it's like the "war on drugs." But they'll destroy anyone who they can get their hands on for the sake of a losing battle. Hell, even $750 per a song is too bloody much when you can pay a few bucks a song plus production on an ordinary physical CD!

What this bullshit is, is trying to levy all the (falsely) speculated damages onto a handful of people! Because they can't hunt down all the people who pirate music!

[kennyinbmore]

What's funny about those dumb lawsuits is the money RIAA spends on lawyers to file and go to court for them and the fact they more cases than not won't see a dime of the judgement. Not to mention music sales have been up the last two years

[Oaktree]

I think I understand the reason why the RIAA sues for such ridiculous amounts, but it doesn't make it right. The only way to make it worth the cost of hiring lawyers is to sue for a massive amount of money. The fair price of one song is about $1, but, allowing for punitive costs, lets say, maybe $20 a song is appropriate (just for the sake of argument). No one is downloading so many songs illegally that the RIAA could sue that person and still pay for its lawyers if it is suing them for $20 a song. So, if the RIAA were to remain fair, it wouldn't choose to sue those who aren't worth suing at $20 a song. Because no one is worth suing at $20 a song, the RIAA would not be able to remain fair in the amount that it sues for and still maintain its intellectual property rights. Therefore, it sues for massive amounts of money because it wants to maintain its intellectual property rights while not going backrupt through court costs.

That said, I think it's patently ridiculous that the RIAA sues for massive amounts of money. It can still make money from the sales that they do make. It still has intellectual property rights to the songs, whether they are downloaded or not (though, on a side note, I think that copyright laws in this country are ridiculous). It is not only screwing over its customers, but it is failing miserably at business optimization, as there will always be a certain level of unavoidable theft/losses when you run a business, yet they are throwing money at trying to eliminate the unavoidable.

[Marcos_Edson]

After learning of the article below, I can only wonder why this RIAA organization has not been shut down already... Paying your lawers more than you actually got from suing alleged pirates is bad enough, paying what they paid is plain bad business...

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/07/ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-riaa-paid-its-lawyers.html :rofl:

[Tempscire]

Obviously the lesson to be learned from this is that it's preferable to physically shoplift CDs than to download them.

Per Lessig's Free Culture (http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-15.html) (Ch. 15), "And, while we’re at it, we could also note that when I take a CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under California law, at least, is $1,000. According to the RIAA, by contrast, if I download a ten-song CD, I’m liable for $1,500,000 in damages."

[Oaktree]

@Tempscire: It's quite sad that that's the conclusion that one must logically come to. For someone who is determined to shoplift, stealing the CD is the route with the least personal risk, but it is the route that impacts the store owner, as opposed to the RIAA. I don't think that one should intentionally try to harm either business on principle, but it is harder for the store owner to deal with the cost of shoplifted CDs than it is for the RIAA to deal with fewer sales of a piece of digital information.

[el_flel]

Do you think it might also be a case of whoever brought the case against her (the RIAA?) is trying to make an example of those who commit software piracy? We all know that software piracy is very hard to detect and those who commit it are unlikely to be caught. I wonder if they're compensating for this in a way and trying to scare people off by increasing the punishment for it.

[gabrielorie]

I don't support piracy but 1.5 million is just unreasonable :| I feel really sorry for that woman :( By me if you kill someone the fine is like $100,000 or something like that but $1.5 million for downloading songs,wtf :wtf: !

[kustirider2]

Seriously. This is just so stupid. I don't know one person who doesn't download songs illegally from the internet, and the fine is astronomical. Even people who go on mass-robberies don't get fined this much, and that's much worse.

[Tempscire]

I agree with gebrielorie. I would also like to add that this woman did not download those songs to earn money. Piracy is about violating the copyrights by spreading pirated stuff. She simply wanted to listen to the songs like anyone else would.

Well, except 1)you don't have to seek a profit for piracy to still count as piracy, and 2)the article says she used Kazaa to download her music, which, as a P2P network, means that she was seeding songs to others as she was downloading them. So technically she was spreading pirated stuff.

And 3, just because you want something doesn't mean you get to just have it. If she just wanted to listen, she could have found legal alternatives, up to and including purchasing them. The best thing that followed the whole Napster debacle was the concept of individual song sales, so you can't even really use the excuse "but that CD only has, like, 1 good song on it!" And if she couldn't afford all that music, well, no one is entitled to free music, and it's called "going without" if you can't legally obtain it.

[Tempscire]

No matter what approaches people have to piracy the government should find a different way to fight with piracy. ... You'll not prevent people from downloading pirated stuff from the Internet if such programs/sites are still easily accessible.
Well, part of the problem with that is that there is no such thing as "the" government. There's no international copyright law, only countries that have agreed to honor each others' IP, and no one country can enforce their copyright laws within another. It may be US production companies getting their stuff ripped off, but the programs/sites that facilitate it are based outside of the US's jurisdiction (and the same is true for other countries, of course, but American copyright law is what I'm most familiar with).

It's a very complex issue with no easy resolution, and I'm certainly not saying that the punitive approach they've been moving forward with is the best approach or even a functioning one-- I'll even be one of the first to comment on how screwed up copyright law is in the first place.

...none of which excuses knowingly pirating shit. Even if you think of it as a form of protest, that only works if you're also willing to bear the consequences when you're caught. Yeah, people do it. And when they get caught, copyright lawyers sue for supposed damages.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Yeah, people do it. And when they get caught, copyright lawyers sue for supposed damages.


*ahem*
if i blew up my home, i would still not need to pay that much for "supposed damages".


something needs revision here. and... im surprised that anyone could hint that they got that sort of mess comin' to 'em, no matter what theyve done. thats more than punishing the offender; thats punishing the offenders relatives and grandchildren for who knows how many more generations as well.

[TopNotch]

"Davis called that figure "monstrous and shocking" and reduced the penalty to about $54,000. The RIAA rejected the reduced penalty for legal reasons. But the industry group said it would settle for $25,000, with the money going to a charity for struggling musicians."

Are you kidding me?
A charity for struggling musicians?
How about a charity for mothers who can't afford to pay 1.5 million dollars for 24 songs let alone care for her kids!

I think that's ridiculous. If she pays that 1.5 million dollars, she won't be able to care for her kids and will probably get in trouble and get her kids taken away from her. These music companies are just being greedy. It was 24 illegally downloaded songs, so what. I'd understand maybe $20 per song, a total fine of $480... but 1.5 million dollars? WTF?

[Tempscire]

if i blew up my home, i would still not need to pay that much for "supposed damages".
Well, yeah. Hence the "supposed." I'm not supporting their wacky pseudo-math that they claim backs up their exorbitantly punitive damages.

But the industry group said it would settle for $25,000, with the money going to a charity for struggling musicians."
...
I think that's ridiculous. If she pays that 1.5 million dollars, she won't be able to care for her kids and will probably get in trouble and get her kids taken away from her. These music companies are just being greedy. It was 24 illegally downloaded songs, so what. I'd understand maybe $20 per song, a total fine of $480... but 1.5 million dollars? WTF?
They don't expect anyone they've sued to actually pay that much money. Unless there's an exception or two I didn't hear about, pretty much everyone takes the settlement, which is still a good deal of money but within the more manageable realm of, say, student loans. Even they were to demand the $1.5m--or especially if they did--she could declare bankruptcy, keep her home, and they still wouldn't get that much (assuming they didn't just agree to a crap-ton of installment payments, which they certainly would, because again, it would be that or nothing). Kids wouldn't get taken away.

Why's the amount so high? Because the Copyright Act (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504) allows it: In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. (That's per infringement, by the way.)

[Marcos_Edson]

You know, if instead of paying those lawyers 16 millions back in 2008 they have given 100.000 to that "charity" once a month, they could support it for 160 years... :faceslap:
Hell, the cheapest and safest investment I can make in a bank down here will give me 0,7% a month, with 16 millions as initial deposit I could give 100.000 a month to charities, still have some to spend myself and never touch the initial investment... :deal:

[geallach]

The fact that the RIAA indicated that money would go towards a charity for struggling musicians seems to show that they were trying to make an example of this woman by showing, I suppose, the consequences of music piracy. I agree that the amount of money is ridiculous, but really, could she, or anyone for that matter, be forced to pay $1.5 million? I'm asking this seriously.

My sympathy for her is limited. One can point out the fact that she was a mother all they want, but she was knowingly committing an illegal act, and, like most people who download illegally, probably believed she would never get caught. It was not as if it was something necessary; no one 'needs' the music they illegally download. And it is not as if music is that expensive. I believe that there should be a punishment that reflects the seriousness of the crime, but $1.5 is unbelievably, ridiculously high.

[mangaroo]

Considering that the RIAA's original settlement offer to the woman was $3000, this looks like the old "pay the man the two dollars" comedy routine. When the award is this outrageous, it is nothing but a warning to other pirates. If it sticks, the woman will have to declare bankruptcy and the RIAA would never see a penny, so they are on the financial losing end of all the lawyers' fees they incurred. But they have a dead pirate swinging over the entry to the harbor, as it were.

The sad thing is that bankruptcy will tear up this woman's life for at least ten years. She should have just paid the man the $3000.

[crocobaura]

I think people all over the world should just stop purchasing and pirating all piratable stuff for a day or two. Intellectual property owners will see just what loss of income means. Anyway, 1.5 million is preposterous. You can download and upload the same very songs on Youtube and yet that's legal.

[Tempscire]

You can download and upload the same very songs on Youtube and yet that's legal.
Since when? Stuff gets removed from YouTube everyday for copyright violations. The latest ruling (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtube-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html) on that simply says YouTube isn't responsible for people posting copyrighted materials so long as they take it down when it's reported. Hell, there's been take-downs of fair use (albeit over-ruled take-downs (http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2010/03/prince_vs_danci.php)).

[simneesee]

The fine is ridiculous. I understand that she got caught and so she should be punished in the eyes of the law, but this is just too much. I highly doubt this will stop people from downloading music- they just won't get caught.

[crocobaura]

Since when? Stuff gets removed from YouTube everyday for copyright violations. The latest ruling (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtube-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html) on that simply says YouTube isn't responsible for people posting copyrighted materials so long as they take it down when it's reported. Hell, there's been take-downs of fair use (albeit over-ruled take-downs (http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2010/03/prince_vs_danci.php)).


Don't know what they take down, but I can probably listen to anything i'm intrested in anytime I want to. :giggler:

[Tempscire]

Don't know what they take down, but I can probably listen to anything i'm intrested in anytime I want to. :giggler:
Haha, yeah, and thank goodness for that. Doesn't mean it's actually legal, though. ;)

[ElementMK]

Swedish courts have decided the founders of TPB's fate. Sort of. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/appeals-court-pirate-bay-admins-still-guilty-now-with-higher-damages.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss) They're now going to the Supreme Court of Sweden.

On TPB trial: "My assessment is that in two years this type of piracy activity will be completely dead." - Monique Wadsted, lawyer for Warner Bros., MGM, and Columbia.

Here's to piracy until 2013.

[Nekowolf]

HA! What fools. They will never learn that piracy cannot be stopped. It has always existed, and will always exist, in one way or another.

[el_flel]

^ I read your post in the voice of a supervillain... have I stumbled upon your secret Nekowolf?!

[Nekowolf]

...I have no idea just what you mean, el flel. *strokes my cat*

[Marcos_Edson]

"My assessment is that in two years this type of piracy activity will be completely dead." - Monique Wadsted, lawyer for Warner Bros., MGM, and Columbia.

ROFL... Oh, my... Honest, what planet is this lady from? I may not endorse piracy but her statement is awfully dumb... :rofl:

[Sparklycookie]

Trying to stop piracy is like shooting fish in a barrel- impossible. People will just find new sneakier ways of doing so :wtf:

[HystericalParoxysm]

Erm... the "shooting fish in a barrel" analogy means that something is easy, not that it's impossible. The fish are unable to get away, and can't build up any speed to swim quickly, so they're easy to aim at and shoot. Or at least, one would assume... I'd imagine after the first shot, you'll have a rapidly-draining barrel...

[lauratje86]

Erm... the "shooting fish in a barrel" analogy means that something is easy, not that it's impossible. The fish are unable to get away, and can't build up any speed to swim quickly, so they're easy to aim at and shoot. Or at least, one would assume... I'd imagine after the first shot, you'll have a rapidly-draining barrel...

Or in my case, a bullet/arrow through my foot and a barrelful of fish laughing at my incompetance....

Back on topic though, I don't think piracy will be stopped by randomly taking people to court and reaching stupid settlements or dealing out excessive punishments. It's not (just) the severity of the punishment that deters people from doing illegal stuff, it's also how likely it is that you'll be punished like that!

And in this case, I'd say not very. For every case like this there must be thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, who get away with it unpunished. For as long as people know that I don't think piracy will stop, or even decrease......

[MistyBlue]

Great method for preventing piracy, punishing this woman for a preposterous sum of money...to RIAA is just a way to set an example for others, and this woman and her family will be financially ruined for years. It's moot, though, because there are other ways to pirate stuff, without the fear of getting caught (like various hosting services). Piracy -is- wrong, but it will be impossible to stop, and many people don't even think of it as stealing even though it's the same thing as shoplifting.

[MaydayParade]

Sympathy for your mother, but downloading 24 songs from iTunes would of only cost $24-$25.

[WaterWolf]

"Three juries have now spoken and each has sent a strong message that she needs to accept responsibility for her actions," Duckworth said. "I'd say, enough is enough."

People like him is why the modern world is so corrupt.

Sympathy for your mother, but downloading 24 songs from iTunes would of only cost $24-$25.
But considering she violated copyright, it would be about $200, but not millions.

[Tempscire]

People like him is why the modern world is so corrupt.
How do you figure?

But considering she violated copyright, it would be about $200, but not millions.
Except American copyright law allows up to $150,000 to levied per violation, so in this case, $62,500/song is not even the worst it could be. Perhaps it should be only a $200 fine (though shoplifting fines can go much higher than that), but as the law is written, yes, it would be "millions."

and many people don't even think of it as stealing even though it's the same thing as shoplifting.
No, it really isn't. For one thing (and this is a pretty big thing, here), if it were the same as shoplifting, it would be a criminal rather than civil matter, and the accused would have a lot more rights with which to defend themselves, and the RIAA would have to provide actual concrete evidence that the person they were after had actually pirated what they claim (assuming the RIAA could do anything at all, since it is not a law enforcement agency).

It's not theft, it's copyright infringement, which, actually, a number of people in this forum are probably committing thanks to their choice of avatars. Would you assert that, e.g., sparklycookie up there is stealing from the owners of Sesame Street? I doubt that image was officially licensed and permitted modification. Is that the same as shoplifting a Cookie Monster plush or sticker from a store?

[WaterWolf]

How do you figure?
he acknowledged she couldn't pay the fine, and that she was raising 4 kids, yet he refuses to reduce the fine. What she did was illegal yes, but you have to consider she is raising a family, and the $1.5m, excuse my language, will just f**k her life up for downloading 24 songs.

Except American copyright law allows up to $150,000 to levied per violation, so in this case, $62,500/song is not even the worst it could be. Perhaps it should be only a $200 fine (though shoplifting fines can go much higher than that), but as the law is written, yes, it would be "millions."

It is still unnecessary, 24 songs? I don't care what anyone says, what evidence says, what the law says, it is unreasonable.

[Tempscire]

he acknowledged she couldn't pay the fine, and that she was raising 4 kids, yet he refuses to reduce the fine. What she did was illegal yes, but you have to consider she is raising a family, and the $1.5m, excuse my language, will just f**k her life up for downloading 24 songs.
So, if she were wealthy, she should pay, but since she's poor, she should receive a different application of the law? I wonder how much money she spent on the three appeals...probably more than if she had just accepted one of the settlement offers.

Duckworth (a female, not a "he," by the way) is merely a spokesperson and has no ability to affect the outcome of this situation. Further, this $1.5m in damages has been awarded by the court...IANAL, but at this point, they (RIAA) may not be in a position to just drop it and refuse the money even if they wanted to.