digip Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Woman Ordered to Pay $222,000 in File-Sharing Case http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3691170&page=1 Based on the terms of what the Judge told the jury, I think she would have a good chance for appeal. Just because they are available on her pc, did not mean anyone actually downloaded them from her, and they have yet to prove that in a court of law. She was found guilty because they were found on her pc through KaZaa, not because they were shared. Kinda sounds like they went after her for file sharing, but found her guilty of something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jollyrancher82 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Bloody knife in the kitchen drawer, didn't kill anyone though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Thats the good thing about evidence like that. Its not a crime to have a knife covered in someone else's blood, they need to be able to match it to a person who has been stabbed, a body or a missing person. What gets me about this isn't that she is in court being finned, but the ammount she is being finned. You cannot justify that a downloaded mp3 is worth $9,250 or that you have cost the label that much (without being able to detail every single instance that the song was downloaded from her machine, which they cannot do). Her "punishment" should be just being forced to go out and buy the entire discography of each artist she pirated. We all know filesharing is illegal (although how illegal is a very broad matter, especially as this is a global issue, not just an American one), but ignoring the moral arguments, we all do/have done it. Hell, copying a CD you own onto an iPod is a crime in my country. But the way I see it is that for my entire life i've had advertising screaming at me that if I don't own whatever crap they're trying to hock this week then I'm a lesser person, is it any wonder that we turn to "stealing" the stuff we can't afford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F8Junkie Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Wait... So let me get this straight. She has to pay $222,000 to the RIAA? The article said they're a lobbying group. Are they going to turn over the money to the various record companies? Or just keep it for themselves? If a bank gets robbed who goes after the robbers? The Bank's Lobbyists, The Bank, or Law Enforcement? I don't have a law degree or anything, but this sounds completely backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLSS Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Wait... So let me get this straight. She has to pay $222,000 to the RIAA? The article said they're a lobbying group. Are they going to turn over the money to the various record companies? Or just keep it for themselves? If a bank gets robbed who goes after the robbers? The Bank's Lobbyists, The Bank, or Law Enforcement? I don't have a law degree or anything, but this sounds completely backwards. *newsflash* America is backwards ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 I think that if songs are a $1 a download on iTunes, then she shoul dpay that much x the number of songs she had on her PC(that they can prove were actually downloaded). They never even proved that the files were shared or downloaded, just that they were there and could be seen through KaZaa, thus making them "available" for download. What a crock of sh*t! And no, the money is not going to get distributed to the artists themselves. That would only make sense, but I think they should : 1 - List each song and by what artist 2- collect the money per song the same as they would through iTunes and 3 - Distribute the funds in the same manner as they would a normal sale (Publisher, Site that sold it, advertisers, artist, etc) Also, the Artists on the list should SUE the RIAA because they are essentially doing the same thing they said the woman did. They are profiting from the artist without paying the artist. EDIT: Some more news on the subject: http://www.news.com/the-iconoclast/8301-13...9792175-38.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F8Junkie Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Damn I was hoping that really wasn't the case. You're totally right though, the artists should totally sue the RIAA. Silly middlemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.