RIAA wins $1.92 Million in retrial

http://wcco.com/local/music.sharing.retrial.2.1049691.html

Wow. Just wow.

The thinking behind this:

[I]Let’s destroy the life of this person by bankrupting her.
A punishment completely out of proportion to the offense will put terror into the hearts of all other potential copyright infringers out there![/I]

I might understand why greedy companies think like that, but it’s a sad day for justice when the judicial system in a democracy becomes an accomplice to such rule-by-terror! :rolleyes:

This beggars belief.:a Home of the free and brave, I think not.
Didn’t you citizens revolt and go to war with Britain because of unjust taxes? How is this any different?
Perhaps the judge could have set aside the judgement and justice been allowed to prevail.
The RIAA are only making enemy’s and fools of themselves, the compensation far,far outweighs the actual loss. (If any).

This just goes to show you that they are on the loosing side…they won’t get anything not a cent. They will only get more and more p2p going regardless of whom they try to blame but they should blame themselves for not taking advantage of the p2p technology. JAlot of artist themselves are going online and advertising themselves and surviving in the p2p world. Some startups made a start from the online world as well. The RIAA and MPAA are just shooting themselves in the foot even if when they win. Cause they have no solution for the p2p it’s just use tyranny and legal fees on people to stop them but it helps to further legitimize pirating on p2p networks. Cause people will say why should I pay those greedy coporation when they could give a f**&^ about the Artists and Consumers they only care about lining their pocket books.

The RIAA is trying to swim upstream in a lahar. They can’t stop P2P no matter what they do. In fact, they probably make it worse by using the tactics they have for the past several years. If they were smart they would accept $23.76 (99 cents per song) from this woman and say that is all they wanted from her. It would do much good in repairing their reputation. They also need to go with the flow and offer a cheap download service that includes the songs from all labels. They would make billions of dollars with this model. If they don’t then they will become irrelevant in the not to distant future.

I will not go into the dubious ethics of this whole issue, but i will say this: evolution does not apply only in biology; the music industry will either adapt to the “new environment” that is here to stay or new concepts and ways to deal with the market will arise and take their place. It is just a matter of time.

Not one person who assisted in the Global meltdown faces this kind of persecution. Not a bright spot in “Our” (U.S.) legal history. You can’t squeeze blood from a rock either. With all the pedophiles and bankers getting away with a slap on the hand, this is ridiculous.

Supposedly she uploaded 1000’s of songs. I think this is how you get caught. I don’t know why people think they can’t be traced when they do these kind of things. Better to do these things in person, if not at all.

[QUOTE=Zathros;2294829]Not one person who assisted in the Global meltdown faces this kind of persecution. Not a bright spot in “Our” (U.S.) legal history. You can’t squeeze blood from a rock either. With all the pedophiles and bankers getting away with a slap on the hand, this is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the politicians that are trampling the Constitution and breaking laws on a daily basis for self serving interests with impunity.

[QUOTE=Zathros;2294829]Supposedly she uploaded 1000’s of songs. I think this is how you get caught. I don’t know why people think they can’t be traced when they do these kind of things. Better to do these things in person, if not at all.[/QUOTE]

I look at this case and see the RIAA winning one case while hundreds of millions of others throughout the world continue downloading without even the slightest hiccup. It amazes me how dense they are in thinking this one case means anything in the big picture. You are right that it is the uploading, or distribution, of files that get you into trouble. Even then it is very likely the continuous uploading over a long time frame that even gets someone on the RADAR screens the RIAA hired thugs.

It will be interesting to see what comes of Pirate Bay’s new enterprise that completely shields one file sharer’s identity from another one’s. While this isn’t all that big a deal they will not keep records at all of traffic through their service. This will eliminate the RIAA, MPAA etc. from ever knowing who is sharing what with whom. I am sure this will put a big, fat bulls eye on them for the RIAA, MPAA etc. to shoot at.

the sad part is HOW would a jury ALLOW that kind of verdict. it just don’t make any sense. where they paid off? lol

i figure even if you shared craploads of music on p2p etc etc… NO ONE should ever have to pay more than ‘maybe’ 5grand or so (especially the average joe). hell, even at those prices would still be unrealistic for a average person as it would put alot of strain on them financially etc … because it ain’t like ALL of those people who downloaded those songs would have actually paid for them had they not been able to get it for free to begin with… i think this is pretty safe to assume. but the RIAA expects to be paid a arm and a leg for each song downloaded and thinks every download = loss of $$$ when in reality it’s not.

any chance this person could file bankruptcy? … because there’s no way i would pay those prices there asking it’s not even remotely close to ‘fair’… plus it aint like the RIAA is going to be poor anytime soon unlike the person they sued.

someone needs to sue the RIAA for basically destroying average people for petty stuff like ‘music sharing’ :frowning:

but i just wonder what was going through those jury’s heads at the end of the day (assuming they where not paid off) … because i just dont see HOW the lawyers could talk the jury into actually justifying those prices.

Most of if not all these files are MP3 which any audiophile wouldn’t consider the “real thing” anyway. The music industry should be charged with deceiving a generation or two of what a high quality recording is.

“It will be interesting to see what comes of Pirate Bay’s new enterprise that completely shields one file sharer’s identity from another one’s. While this isn’t all that big a deal they will not keep records at all of traffic through their service. This will eliminate the RIAA, MPAA etc. from ever knowing who is sharing what with whom. I am sure this will put a big, fat bulls eye on them for the RIAA, MPAA etc. to shoot at.”… UTR

I think that all websites should do this to insure the privacy of their members. I don’t think you can ever really hide though.

[QUOTE=NBR;2294978]…any chance this person could file bankruptcy? … [/QUOTE]Although not in the field, i am pretty sure that “bankruptcy” in legal terms only stands for businesses not individuals.

Maybe she should ask the government for a bailout, seems to work for some.

[QUOTE=Hemispasm;2295094]Although not in the field, i am pretty sure that “bankruptcy” in legal terms only stands for businesses not individuals.[/QUOTE]

well i know average joe’s can file bankruptcy (my sister did a while ago… i never will as my credit is in good shape :wink: ) but i just don’t know ALL the details on it and if it would cover something like this.

[QUOTE=Zathros;2295093]I think that all websites should do this to insure the privacy of their members. I don’t think you can ever really hide though.[/QUOTE]

It The Pirate Bay does what they are advertising then there won’t be a trace route for anyone to follow to know who downloaded what. They are the proverbial “black box” that will not leave a trail to follow. No one but TPB will know and if they don’t keep logs then there is no records to sift through to know who is downloading or uploading. It might be the ultimate FU they can give the RIAA.

[QUOTE=NBR;2295107]well i know average joe’s can file bankruptcy (my sister did a while ago… i never will as my credit is in good shape :wink: ) but i just don’t know ALL the details on it and if it would cover something like this.[/QUOTE]

My wife’s cousin did this a while ago and she had to pay an amount determined by the court for a period of three years. The amount was calculated by subtracting her typical living expenses for the area she resided in from her income. She was able to keep her car and house. I think the three year period is typical for personal bankruptcy cases.

Bankruptcy is an option as the RIAA will have a hard time proving she “intended harm”. Courts have been warned when finding people guilty of these sorts of crimes they must find the defendant guilty of with malicious intent to cause harm or the case fine could be thrown out in bankruptcy court. The RIAA might not want to fight, if this came up to the Supreme Court which has repeatedly stated the fine must reflect the damage, her judgment could be set aside. She is going to walk away and has given opponents of the RIAA gun powder for their case.

They only further to alienate legit users and music buyers. All this shows is they are more concern with their pocket then getting the best music options to the consumers. They are way behind the time p2p is here to stay regardless of how many people they sue or fine or imprisoned. Just like dandilons you pull part of it out and more will sprout and spread more. Until they see how Amazon and Itunes business model is making money for those corporations those Music Mogoul will never learn. They are a dieing bred and grabbing any straws they can get a hold of that is how I see it.

[QUOTE=NBR;2294978]the sad part is HOW would a jury ALLOW that kind of verdict. it just don’t make any sense. where they paid off? lol
[/QUOTE]

This is exactly my thought as well. The whole thing is just daft.

If I was on the jury, I would have said that the first jury was collectively fucked in the head for awarding the RIAA $220,000 in the first trial, and now you want to increase the payment.

Regardless of your personal view on piracy, there is absolutely no way this punishment fits the crime.

[QUOTE=NBR;2294978]the sad part is HOW would a jury ALLOW that kind of verdict. it just don’t make any sense. where they paid off? lol[/QUOTE]

That makes one wonder doesn’t it? And to further that note more if the story prove true the Judge in the Piratebay case turns out to be true then it only further legitimizes p2p sharing. The judge there was ousted as a pro oppoent of the RIAA and MPAA associtation but some how failed to recuse himself from the case and the claim is and on the face gives the judical ruling there a black eye and most likely a mistrial or retrial that won’t be favorable in the RIAA or MPAA case. For me I have to ask how stupid do they take the defendant lawyers to be??? Thinking they won’t find out about this???