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

I agree, its like she only downloaded 22 and boom they got her, unlike others. Though not most people know downloading music without paying is illegal. I asked most of my classmates/friends and they don't care.SoberWarock

she downloaded (actually, it was shared) 1700 songs.

[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="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.

Personally, I think the record producers should be fined for failing at coming up with something decent to protect their products. "Lolz, don't give dis 2 ur friends in emails, dat works". At least video game publishers try.wemhim

This IS how they protect their products. That's like saying you should fine a person who gets robbed because he or she should have done something better to protect his or her house. :roll:

Stop trying to make this woman out to be 'wronged.' It's HER FAULT that she was doing something illegal. It's HER FAULT that she ignored warnings to stop. And it's HER FAULT that she decided to take the matter to court. It's amazing how people are willing to turn a blind eye towards illegal activity when they themselves participate in that same illegal activity and believe they are justified in doing so.

[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.

Exactly, but they should go after the people who make a bussiness out of pirating first not personal userers, they're doing more damage to the industry

[QUOTE="LukeAF24"]

[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.markop2003

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.

Exactly, but they should go after the people who make a bussiness out of pirating first not personal userers, they're doing more damage to the industry

Uh huh... because that will certainly send the message to 'personal users' that they should stop. "We're going to tell you that what you're doing is illegal, but don't worry - we won't actually prosecute you if you're only a personal user." Yep, that makes a whole lotta sense.

why don't they target the sources like limewire rather than the people who are downloading it? monkeysrfat

It's not their fault they have a disclaimer you can't blame the downloader either unless you tell them that they need to pay so much loyalties to whateva label

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="LukeAF24"]

[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.pianist

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.

Exactly, but they should go after the people who make a bussiness out of pirating first not personal userers, they're doing more damage to the industry

Uh huh... because that will certainly send the message to 'personal users' that they should stop. "We're going to tell you that what you're doing is illegal, but don't worry - we won't actually prosecute you if you're only a personal user." Yep, that makes a whole lotta sense.

Did you read what i posted???

I'm just saying that resources should be put into whole sites of pirated content and people selling on the streets more than just personal users. Get the people that are pirating on mass first, resources can be better spent there, it will make a much bigger effect than someone that only shared 1700 times.

Did you read what i posted???

I'm just saying that resources should be put into whole sites of pirated content and people selling on the streets more than just personal users. Get the people that are pirating on mass first, resources can be better spent there, it will make a much bigger effect than someone that only shared 1700 times.

markop2003

Very few of you seem to understand that this suit had nothing to do with the money. I guarantee you that the RIAA doesn't give a crap about a couple hundred thousand dollars. What matters here is the message - that EVERYBODY who shares copyrighted material is breaking the law and is liable to be punished for it. They didn't 'single out' this woman like everyone thinks - she got screwed because SHE took the matter to court after requests were made for her to stop what she was doing and settle privately.

People state that companies are to blame for piracy because they don't protect their products. Then when the companies DO protect their products, people state that the companies are out of line for protecting their products. A slap on the wrist is NOT going to do anything to protect the product in this case. Heck, this one case isn't going to do it either. What the RIAA needs to do is start taking people to court in droves.

I'm sick of people using the tired old "everybody does it so it's OK for me to do it" argument. It is NOT alright to steal or distribute someone else's work without their consent just because other people do it. The only reason people can get away with it is because copyright laws were poorly suited to protect intellectual property that can be distributed online. But the concept is no different than posting the text of a book on the internet. The author spent time writing the book, and a company spent time and money producing the book, and people are NOT entitled to read it for free unless the people who created it say they can. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand.

If you're going to pirate, be ready to deal with the consequences. Stop whining about companies trying to protect their intellectual property against droves of cheapskates.