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

They could have fined her for all the songs she is alleged to have shared...Bourbons3

Yea, I heard they could have got her for a LOT more.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]They could have fined her for all the songs she is alleged to have shared...DarkKar

Yea, I heard they could have got her for a LOT more.

They could have sued up to $150,000 for each song.

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?

f789790

Too freakin bad. Being a single mom doesn't mean you get to be exempt from the law. She knew the consequences and she did it anyway.

[QUOTE="f789790"]

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?

MrGeezer

Too freakin bad. Being a single mom doesn't mean you get to be exempt from the law. She knew the consequences and she did it anyway.

Pirates are like a herd of buffalo. Some get caught, most don't. :?

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

It's easy to look at the headlines and see a poor single mother being bullied by the big nasty corporations. The story changes quite a bit when you see the details. Throughout this whole ordeal she was deceptive, evasive, and belligerent.

MotherSuperior

Which is why she should be punished, but I think everyone can agree that $220k is too harsh.

Is it really too harsh? Here's what I found from reading about this case:

Copyright law sets civil damages in the range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was willful. Holy hell! She could've faced much, MUCH worse. According to the plaintiffs, she had distributed over 1700 songs. For the sake of the case, they elected to focus only on 24. The jurors awarded the companies $9,250 for each of those 24, which means they went towards the low to medium range of what the law permits.

**** record companies! they need to face the fact that they are obsolete. society does not need them anymore. i pray that radiohead's album "in rainbows" does well, in which case it will be another step towards the demise of the greedy corporate swine behind the recording industry. it will the first album that i will gladly pay $20 for.

[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?

[QUOTE="MotherSuperior"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

It's easy to look at the headlines and see a poor single mother being bullied by the big nasty corporations. The story changes quite a bit when you see the details. Throughout this whole ordeal she was deceptive, evasive, and belligerent.

Oleg_Huzwog

Which is why she should be punished, but I think everyone can agree that $220k is too harsh.

Is it really too harsh? Here's what I found from reading about this case:

Copyright law sets civil damages in the range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was willful. Holy hell! She could've faced much, MUCH worse. According to the plaintiffs, she had distributed over 1700 songs. For the sake of the case, they elected to focus only on 24. The jurors awarded the companies $9,250 for each of those 24, which means they went towards the low to medium range of what the law permits.

Be a while before she lets another computer in the house :lol:

[QUOTE="MotherSuperior"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

It's easy to look at the headlines and see a poor single mother being bullied by the big nasty corporations. The story changes quite a bit when you see the details. Throughout this whole ordeal she was deceptive, evasive, and belligerent.

Oleg_Huzwog

Which is why she should be punished, but I think everyone can agree that $220k is too harsh.

Is it really too harsh? Here's what I found from reading about this case:

Copyright law sets civil damages in the range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was willful. Holy hell! She could've faced much, MUCH worse. According to the plaintiffs, she had distributed over 1700 songs. For the sake of the case, they elected to focus only on 24. The jurors awarded the companies $9,250 for each of those 24, which means they went towards the low to medium range of what the law permits.

While that may be true, the record company probably isn't going to see much of the reward, if any at all. The reason being that this woman will no doubt clog the courts with numerous cases relating to unfair judgement. The record company should have gone after Kazaa for copyright infringement and allowing illegal activity to be conducted with their software, that way they could have gotten some money.

While that may be true, the record company probably isn't going to see much of the reward, if any at all. The reason being that this woman will no doubt clog the courts with numerous cases relating to unfair judgement. The record company should have gone after Kazaa for copyright infringement and allowing illegal activity to be conducted with their software, that way they could have gotten some money.

MotherSuperior

The record companies tried that with Napster and found that did nothing to stop piracy. If they go after Kazaa, another service will replace it. Going after individual offenders is (in the companies' hopes) a more effective means.

[QUOTE="MotherSuperior"]

While that may be true, the record company probably isn't going to see much of the reward, if any at all. The reason being that this woman will no doubt clog the courts with numerous cases relating to unfair judgement. The record company should have gone after Kazaa for copyright infringement and allowing illegal activity to be conducted with their software, that way they could have gotten some money.

Oleg_Huzwog

The record companies tried that with Napster and found that did nothing to stop piracy. If they go after Kazaa, another service will replace it. Going after individual offenders is (in the companies' hopes) a more effective means.

Duh it wont stop piracy, nothing will. I'm just saying they could have gotten a lot more money if they went after Kazaa. Besides, if their main goal was to eliminate music piracy, millions of people and companies would have to be sued and the court cases would never end.

This is stupid because if she bought the CD's it would have been around $500. So how did they get $222,000?

Boo freaking hoo, indie musicians and over rich musicians are cry baby's they're all about the money they could give a **** if the music was good or not.

Duh it wont stop piracy, nothing will. I'm just saying they could have gotten a lot more money if they went after Kazaa. Besides, if their main goal was to eliminate music piracy, millions of people and companies would have to be sued and the court cases would never end.

MotherSuperior

I don't think their goal was to grab a pile of money. Thousands of people HAVE been targeted. It begins with a cease-and-desist order. Basically, they say "Hey, we know what you're doing. Stop, or face the consequences." The few people who ignore their warning are then sued by the companies. Up until now, every suit has been settled outside of court for a far lesser sum. This case was the first time someone called their bluff and took the case to court.

The biggest victory here isn't the $222k, it's the message to everyone else that the record companies aren't bluffing. I wager the number of people who pay attention to the first warning (when received) will jump dramatically.

I do believe the minimum of hosting one song on Kazaa or one of those sites is 300+ dollars, max is 30k per song. She had 1700 songs hosted I think.. I don't remember.

I'm not defending them in anyway, I'm just pointing out how stupid the cost of pirating is.

Pics?

WON'T ANYONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN !

thats way to much of a fine, if you ask me2ndWonder

[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.

She could have settled for a few thousand and ended it right there. Instead she gets the bright idea to whine and **bleep** and moan and take it to court, where she's served up a delicious platter of ownage.

Sorry, I don't feel sorry for her in the slightest. Single moms can have blonde moments just like anyone else - sometimes it might even be the reason why they're single moms.

The music industry can go to @#!! I'm going to listen to all the free music/songs I want on deezer.A1B2C3CAL

Word, I really don't care if they make no money, they're a bunch of whiney babies.

She could have settled for a few thousand and ended it right there. Instead she gets the bright idea to whine and **bleep** and moan and take it to court, where she's served up a delicious platter of ownage.

Sorry, I don't feel sorry for her in the slightest. Single moms can have blonde moments just like anyone else - sometimes it might even be the reason why they're single moms.

DJ_Lae

She could've avoided paying any penalty at all if she simply obeyed the original order to stop sharing.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

She could have settled for a few thousand and ended it right there. Instead she gets the bright idea to whine and **bleep** and moan and take it to court, where she's served up a delicious platter of ownage.

Sorry, I don't feel sorry for her in the slightest. Single moms can have blonde moments just like anyone else - sometimes it might even be the reason why they're single moms.

Oleg_Huzwog

She could've avoided paying any penalty at all if she simply obeyed the original order to stop sharing.

Really? Then she's even more of an idiot than I thought and I feel less sorry for her.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

She could've avoided paying any penalty at all if she simply obeyed the original order to stop sharing.

DJ_Lae

Really? Then she's even more of an idiot than I thought and I feel less sorry for her.

Yep. She received a warning in February 2005 that she was violating copyright law. It was the following month when she tried masking things by changing her hard drive (apparently she doesn't understand the concept of IP addresses).

I won't be buying any music for a longtime. Without us the music industry wouldn't exist and alot of whiney little so called stars wouldn't have a job. You think they really taught people a lesson all they did was open up a can of worms and I hope they enjoy eating them. The industry/musicians won't be getting any $ from my paychecks. Metallica used to be one of my faves but now they are only a bunch of whiney rich overpaid sellouts that deserve everything they get.A1B2C3CAL

Exactly, if they are a damn good band they can make a ton of money selling out seats at concerts, and they would sell more seats if the music was free.

[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"]I won't be buying any music for a longtime. Without us the music industry wouldn't exist and alot of whiney little so called stars wouldn't have a job. You think they really taught people a lesson all they did was open up a can of worms and I hope they enjoy eating them. The industry/musicians won't be getting any $ from my paychecks. Metallica used to be one of my faves but now they are only a bunch of whiney rich overpaid sellouts that deserve everything they get.mark4091

Exactly, if they are a damn good band they can make a ton of money selling out seats at concerts, and they would sell more seats if the music was free.

It all boils down to the greed and the God they worship $$$.A1B2C3CAL

Can't the same be said about you for your refusal to pay for their product?

[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"]It all boils down to the greed and the God they worship $$$.Oleg_Huzwog

Can't the same be said about you for your refusal to pay for their product?

no, musicians have to pay us to listen to there music... I mean wtf should we pay for there hard work...(sarcasm

[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"]It all boils down to the greed and the God they worship $$$.Oleg_Huzwog

Can't the same be said about you for your refusal to pay for their product?

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"]It all boils down to the greed and the God they worship $$$.A1B2C3CAL

Can't the same be said about you for your refusal to pay for their product?

no they won't because the radio purchases the songs.

[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"]It all boils down to the greed and the God they worship $$$.Ravirr

Can't the same be said about you for your refusal to pay for their product?

no they won't because the radio purchases the songs.

[QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]

[QUOTE="longhorn7"][QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]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
Donkey_Puncher

I know it sucks but you can't expect the court to let her go just cause she's a mother... that argument just can't be used in a criminal case.

nobody is argueing that she be let off, but 220,000 dollars is unwarranted for 20 songs. We have laws set against cruel and unusual punishment.

Did you even read the article??? She was sharing the mp3 files. That would mean that hundreds of people could have downloaded the mp3s.

She should be sent to prison as well! Downloading songs is just like killing someone, it is a crime and she should do time! I say send her to prison for 20 years! Then she won't download anymore songs that theif!joshmackman

She should be sent to prison as well! Downloading songs is just like killing someone, it is a crime and she should do time! I say send her to prison for 20 years! Then she won't download anymore songs that theif!joshmackman

The penalty really is just a statement. I seriously doubt the RIAA is expecting to collect from this poor woman. People need to open up their eyes and realize it's people like her who are sharing illegally downloaded music that is costing the industry - and the artists themselves - revenue. The more people the RIAA goes after and the more penalties they slap them with, maybe the rest of you will finally get it through your heads that you're breaking the law.

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

[QUOTE="sens_rocks_40"]that's ridiculous, they ignore the people who've downloaded thousands of songs, and go after someone with only 24?xtn702