Single mom fined $222,000 for pirating 22 songs.

http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/10274.html

If they are going to attack someone for pirating make it a jerk not a single mom. They have no souls. How is she going to pay for that? What was the jury thinking when they did that?

Why does the fact that she is a single mum matter? She committed a crime, regardless of whether she has children or not.Bourbons3

Bingo. If she was a single mother of 4 kids, working 3 jobs to survive, and committed 1st degree murder, would you still let her off the hook? A crime is a crime no matter who it is.

HAHAHAHAHA If I was her I would have distryed my hd

Killing a person and listening to some songs isn't the same. :|

Killing a person and listening to some songs isn't the same. :|

Selrath

So you're saying that single moms should be exempt from minor crimes?

[QUOTE="Selrath"]

Killing a person and listening to some songs isn't the same. :|

southy787

So you're saying that single moms should be exempt from minor crimes?

How is $220,000 not cruel and unusual? How did she cost the industry a quarter of a million dollars for a couple dozen songs?

[QUOTE="Selrath"]

Killing a person and listening to some songs isn't the same. :|

southy787

So you're saying that single moms should be exempt from minor crimes?

Naw, but don't ya feel sorry for the kid/kids now? The mom isn't the only one that's gonna suffer.

[QUOTE="southy787"][QUOTE="Selrath"]

Killing a person and listening to some songs isn't the same. :|

Engrish_Major

So you're saying that single moms should be exempt from minor crimes?

How is $220,000 not cruel and unusual? How did she cost the industry a quarter of a million dollars for a couple dozen songs?

People, the jury may not have known she was a single mother with X amount of children. The judge may not have allowed that in court and so all the jury knew was she was a woman who pirated 22 songs.

I did feel sorry for her, but then I read the news and it said she used Kazaa...

Ehm... sorry to break it to ya but it IS a crime. It doesn't matter if everybody are doing it, saying the jury members are evil is going a bit overboard
Hungry_bunny

People, the jury may not have known she was a single mother with X amount of children. The judge may not have allowed that in court and so all the jury knew was she was a woman who pirated 22 songs.

cametall

[QUOTE="southy787"][QUOTE="Selrath"]

Killing a person and listening to some songs isn't the same. :|

Engrish_Major

So you're saying that single moms should be exempt from minor crimes?

How is $220,000 not cruel and unusual? How did she cost the industry a quarter of a million dollars for a couple dozen songs?

Did you read the article? It stated they were trying to set a precedent. By giving this woman such a high penalty for something many people wrongly regard as trivial and meaningless it not only helps to deter future people from committing said crime but sets an adequate penalty for when they do. It shows that there is zero tolerance for this kind of thing. If she had been given a low fine, merely the price it would have cost to download the tracks legally, then nobody would have taken notice, and piracy would go about it's business in much the same way.

I couldn't care less if she was Mother Teresa. She commited a crime, and that's that. She was aware of the penalties for that (just as everyone is), before she downloaded the songs.

Ironically, she only had 24 songs, which is a surprisingly low number conpared to that of many other people.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]Why does the fact that she is a single mum matter? She committed a crime, regardless of whether she has children or not.LukeAF24

Bingo. If she was a single mother of 4 kids, working 3 jobs to survive, and committed 1st degree murder, would you still let her off the hook? A crime is a crime no matter who it is.

pirating 22 songs is different than murdering someone.

Illegally downloading songs is no different than if you were to walk into a store, and steal a CD.SilentFireX

Apparently it is, because no shoplifter has been fined $222,000 for a few CDs.

Actually thinking about it... my sister downloads crazy amounts of stuff from limewire... hella lot, i always have to go in and tell her to get off it so i can play css. If someone by chance comes across us with me @ 10gb of music and god knows how much my sister has :shock: that's a lot of money...

I know there are probably people with 1000000s of downloaded songs on different hard drives they've had over the years and such but that doesn't mean anything, this woman had 22 songs so just because i have a lot less than the guy across the road doesn't mean I'm safe from a crazy fine.

Illegally downloading songs is no different than if you were to walk into a store, and steal a CD.SilentFireX

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]Illegally downloading songs is no different than if you were to walk into a store, and steal a CD.Engrish_Major

Apparently it is, because no shoplifter has been fined $222,000 for a few CDs.

Well..tell me, how many CD's you'd have to steal to get 10k songs. She also redistributed them online.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]Why does the fact that she is a single mum matter? She committed a crime, regardless of whether she has children or not.LukeAF24

Bingo. If she was a single mother of 4 kids, working 3 jobs to survive, and committed 1st degree murder, would you still let her off the hook? A crime is a crime no matter who it is.

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]Illegally downloading songs is no different than if you were to walk into a store, and steal a CD.longhorn7

Supposedly, she was only charged on those 24 songs, but in reality she had pirated, and shared over 10,000.

Actually thinking about it... my sister downloads crazy amounts of stuff from limewire... hella lot, i always have to go in and tell her to get off it so i can play css. If someone by chance comes across us with me @ 10gb of music and god knows how much my sister has :shock: that's a lot of money...

I know there are probably people with 1000000s of downloaded songs on different hard drives they've had over the years and such but that doesn't mean anything, this woman had 22 songs so just because i have a lot less than the guy across the road doesn't mean I'm safe from a crazy fine.

Brainkiller05

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="southy787"][QUOTE="Selrath"]

Killing a person and listening to some songs isn't the same. :|

southy787

So you're saying that single moms should be exempt from minor crimes?

How is $220,000 not cruel and unusual? How did she cost the industry a quarter of a million dollars for a couple dozen songs?

Did you read the article? It stated they were trying to set a precedent. By giving this woman such a high penalty for something many people wrongly regard as trivial and meaningless it not only helps to deter future people from committing said crime but sets an adequate penalty for when they do. It shows that there is zero tolerance for this kind of thing. If she had been given a low fine, merely the price it would have cost to download the tracks legally, then nobody would have taken notice, and piracy would go about it's business in much the same way.

So we're turning into the Roman Empire now?

"You committed a small crime, but there are others that do the same crime to a much higher degree, so we're going to use you as an example." This woman really didn't commit a crime worthy of $220,000. If they're going to fine someone $220,000 it sure as hell'd better be someone who deserves it. Someone who actually pirates thousands of songs.

[QUOTE="longhorn7"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"]Illegally downloading songs is no different than if you were to walk into a store, and steal a CD.SilentFireX

Supposedly, she was only charged on those 24 songs, but in reality she had pirated, and shared over 10,000.

So the crime someone is actually charged for is irrelevant, and people should be punished for alleged crime?

that's ridiculous, they ignore the people who've downloaded thousands of songs, and go after someone with only 24?sens_rocks_40