So apparently a human life is worth less than the price of an illegal download..

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I really don't get why people have to pay utterly absurd amounts that do not fit the crime. Why do companies and the jury get to say "You have to pay eleventy billion dollars!"

That isn't justice. I'd personally like to see judges instantly toss out of court any civil case that involves someone being sued for an amount FAR above what should be asked.

PBSnipes

The law in question was designed to combat large-scale commercial piracy, and to do so in both a compensatory and deterring manner. While it may be unfair in the case of casual piracy, the fact remains that it is the applicable law and anyone found in violation of it must be punished accordingly.

As for the judge and jury the case is far more nuanced than Thomas simply being forced to pay $1,920,000 in damages. For the jury, not only was Thomas obviously guilty but she totally refused to accept responsibility for her actions, even going so far as to imply that her children may have been at fault. As for the judge, he slashed the damages from $1,920,000 to $54,000, calling the original figure "monstrous and shocking" and suggesting that even the $54,000 figure was too high, but that to go any lower would be to go against the jury's verdict.

I don't really see "she won't accept shes guilty" as a valid reason to destroy her and her families life.

If the judge actually did slash it to 54,000 then I have the utmost respect for the sensibilities of that judge. 1,920,000 is utterly unfair and is an obvious abuse of the legal system.

And the law obviously needs a change if the law is designed to fight large scale piracy and major companies are using loop holes and exploitation to rake in huge profits from legal cases.

[QUOTE="GeForce2187"]Can't wait for the RIAA and MPAA to go under!Saturos3091

I'm sure many will think this silly but I fully expect the RIAA,MPAA, and other copyright warriors to force the world into a dystopian like state.

I figure she may as well keep downloading because what could they do to her? Sue her again for even more money that she can't pay them because she doesn't have it?

If someone sues you and you don't have the money to pay them it really doesn't mean anything. For the amount of money they want she will be paying it off for the rest of her life. So it's just another bill. So **** them. Like I said, what can they do? Add to a bill she will never pay off as it already is?

MagnumPI

Oh believe me, they can get their money one way or another. They'll drain each and every account she has, and even more.

As for the judge and jury the case is far more nuanced than Thomas simply being forced to pay $1,920,000 in damages. For the jury, not only was Thomas obviously guilty but she totally refused to accept responsibility for her actions, even going so far as to imply that her children may have been at fault. As for the judge, he slashed the damages from $1,920,000 to $54,000, calling the original figure "monstrous and shocking" and suggesting that even the $54,000 figure was too high, but that to go any lower would be to go against the jury's verdict.

PBSnipes

Was this one of these cases where she could've just settled for a couple thousand dollars if she chose not to take it to court? If so, I have no idea why she didn't just settle.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]People are too dumb/gullible/corrupt for jury trials to be fair.doanm

Was it a jury trial? Then f***ing hell that explains everything. One of the things that I really despise is the bloody jury system. Seriously, that entire system can go blow itself until kingdom come >: (

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

As for the judge and jury the case is far more nuanced than Thomas simply being forced to pay $1,920,000 in damages. For the jury, not only was Thomas obviously guilty but she totally refused to accept responsibility for her actions, even going so far as to imply that her children may have been at fault. As for the judge, he slashed the damages from $1,920,000 to $54,000, calling the original figure "monstrous and shocking" and suggesting that even the $54,000 figure was too high, but that to go any lower would be to go against the jury's verdict.

Orlando_Magic

Was this one of these cases where she could've just settled for a couple thousand dollars if she chose not to take it to court? If so, I have no idea why she didn't just settle.

A little update:

From Wikipedia, Capitol vs Thomas:

"Subsequently, Judge Davis reduced the amount of the damages to $54,000, characterizing the original damages as "monstrous and shocking." A few days later, the plaintiffs proposed to Thomas-Rasset a $25,000 settlement, which she declined. (...) Because of the parties' failure to reach settlement talks, the court on June 18 appointed a special mediator to facilitate negotiations. If the settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, a third trial to determine the amount of damages is set for October 4, 2010."Wikipedia

A little update:

From Wikipedia, Capitol vs Thomas:

[QUOTE="Wikipedia"]"Subsequently, Judge Davis reduced the amount of the damages to $54,000, characterizing the original damages as "monstrous and shocking." A few days later, the plaintiffs proposed to Thomas-Rasset a $25,000 settlement, which she declined. (...) Because of the parties' failure to reach settlement talks, the court on June 18 appointed a special mediator to facilitate negotiations. If the settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, a third trial to determine the amount of damages is set for October 4, 2010."Cataclism

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

gamedude234

lol... are you serious? This is like stealing 24 pieces of candy from the store and getting fined $2,000,000 for it. They're trying to make an example out of her plain and simple, there's nothing just about it.

so for killing someone. it is not just to give the death penalty. but for stealing 100 squids worth of stuff for eg it is just to make someone pay the amount stolen to ^10 :?

[QUOTE="gamedude234"]

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

GenericUser12

lol... are you serious? This is like stealing 24 pieces of candy from the store and getting fined $2,000,000 for it. They're trying to make an example out of her plain and simple, there's nothing just about it.

so stealing is ok?

Downloading things illegally is bad kids!..

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

gamedude234

[QUOTE="GenericUser12"]

[QUOTE="gamedude234"]

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

gamedude234

lol... are you serious? This is like stealing 24 pieces of candy from the store and getting fined $2,000,000 for it. They're trying to make an example out of her plain and simple, there's nothing just about it.

so stealing is ok?

lol i like it when people like this guy start acting all stupid trying to spin things for no reason

I don't see anywhere in his post saying stealing is ok, just that he thinks they're trying to make an example out of the woman

She is being charged $125 for each byte downloaded (assuming each song was 10 megabytes large). Who the hell did the math and considered this a perfectly reasonable amount? Hell, even $125 for each 10 megabytes downloaded would have been pushing it.

i could understand 80,000 per upload because your giving thousands of people something for free that they could be buying in their masses, but 80,000 for each download is ridiculous.

Can't wait for the RIAA and MPAA to go under!GeForce2187

I only pay 7 pence a track for legal downloads I don't see what the bother is over everyone being so adamant about illegal downloading.

I really don't get why people have to pay utterly absurd amounts that do not fit the crime. Why do companies and the jury get to say "You have to pay eleventy billion dollars!"

That isn't justice. I'd personally like to see judges instantly toss out of court any civil case that involves someone being sued for an amount FAR above what should be asked.

Pixel-Pirate

How do you put a price to someone sharing your product over the internet?

[QUOTE="GenericUser12"]

[QUOTE="gamedude234"]

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

gamedude234

lol... are you serious? This is like stealing 24 pieces of candy from the store and getting fined $2,000,000 for it. They're trying to make an example out of her plain and simple, there's nothing just about it.

so stealing is ok?

Have you ever heard that the sentence should be proportional to the offense?

[QUOTE="GenericUser12"]

[QUOTE="gamedude234"]

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

gamedude234

lol... are you serious? This is like stealing 24 pieces of candy from the store and getting fined $2,000,000 for it. They're trying to make an example out of her plain and simple, there's nothing just about it.

so stealing is ok?

Digital music piracy is not legally or socially defined as stealing.

Also different crimes have different punishments. Grand theft auto has a different penalty than grand theft candybar. The fact is this "fine" is probably more than you'd have to pay for dozens of far FAR more illegal things.

Punishment does not fit the crime.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I really don't get why people have to pay utterly absurd amounts that do not fit the crime. Why do companies and the jury get to say "You have to pay eleventy billion dollars!"

That isn't justice. I'd personally like to see judges instantly toss out of court any civil case that involves someone being sued for an amount FAR above what should be asked.

Espada12

How do you put a price to someone sharing your product over the internet?

I didn't bother reading the entire article or case but I am to understand she was a downloader, not an uploader.

One can easily download something and never share it.

[QUOTE="gamedude234"]

[QUOTE="GenericUser12"]

lol... are you serious? This is like stealing 24 pieces of candy from the store and getting fined $2,000,000 for it. They're trying to make an example out of her plain and simple, there's nothing just about it.

Pixel-Pirate

so stealing is ok?

Digital music piracy is not legally or socially defined as stealing.

Also different crimes have different punishments. Grand theft auto has a different penalty than grand theft candybar. The fact is this "fine" is probably more than you'd have to pay for dozens of far FAR more illegal things.

Punishment does not fit the crime.

I think the ridiculous amount of money she has to pay serves two purposes:

1. Given that she is able to actually pay the charge (which I doubt), she would be compensating for the millions of other illegal downloads which have gone uncaught. It's their way of reclaiming all of their lost profit.
2. It deters other potential illegal downloaders.

terrible. She didn't even upload any illegal files- she just obtained them for herself. This is getting rediculous- if you want people to actually buy your songs and whatnot legally, don't charge them like $1.29 per song! People just can't afford that.

thats her fault for pirating. Pirating is criminal, and is stealing, and as we all know, stealing is unacceptable and has its consequences. sorry lady, next time try not stealing.

gamedude234

Stop being self-rightous, we've all downloaded stuff illegally from time to time. Is it really acceptable to destroy this woman's life just because she got like $24 worth of free songs? If you say the answer is yes, then well... that speaks for itself about your moral character.

Bloody ridiculous. A great example of corporative greed. savetehhaloz

A corporation didn't try her and a corporation didn't make the law...the government did...

[QUOTE="savetehhaloz"]Bloody ridiculous. A great example of corporative greed. SpartanMSU

A corporation didn't try her and a corporation didn't make the law...the government did...

But the jury delivered an absurd punishment.

terrible. She didn't even upload any illegal files- she just obtained them for herself. This is getting rediculous- if you want people to actually buy your songs and whatnot legally, don't charge them like $1.29 per song! People just can't afford that.

Tokugawa77

We need Obama to create and enforce a policy which forces the Music Industry to sell their music at a price the typical American can afford. Every year, the Federal Government would inform The Music Industry of the average income for Americans that year. The Music Industry would raise or lower their prices accordingly, each year. Obama has taken over the banks and the housing industry. Why not take over the Music Industry as well?

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

terrible. She didn't even upload any illegal files- she just obtained them for herself. This is getting rediculous- if you want people to actually buy your songs and whatnot legally, don't charge them like $1.29 per song! People just can't afford that.

BluRayHiDef

We need Obama to create and enforce a policy which forces the Music Industry to sell their music at a price the typical American can afford. Every year, the Federal Government would inform The Music Industry of the average income for Americans that year. The Music Industry would raise or lower their prices accordingly, each year. Obama has taken over the banks and the housing industry. Why not take over the Music Industry as well?

First of all, forcing an industry that produces a luxury to price their products according to income doesn't make logical sense.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

terrible. She didn't even upload any illegal files- she just obtained them for herself. This is getting rediculous- if you want people to actually buy your songs and whatnot legally, don't charge them like $1.29 per song! People just can't afford that.

789shadow

We need Obama to create and enforce a policy which forces the Music Industry to sell their music at a price the typical American can afford. Every year, the Federal Government would inform The Music Industry of the average income for Americans that year. The Music Industry would raise or lower their prices accordingly, each year. Obama has taken over the banks and the housing industry. Why not take over the Music Industry as well?

First of all, forcing an industry that produces a luxury to price their products according to income doesn't make logical sense.

I guess I have a poor sense of humor. It was a joke.

Justice FTW -_-'

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="savetehhaloz"]Bloody ridiculous. A great example of corporative greed. 789shadow

A corporation didn't try her and a corporation didn't make the law...the government did...

But the jury delivered an absurd punishment.

Ok?

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

A corporation didn't try her and a corporation didn't make the law...the government did...

SpartanMSU

But the jury delivered an absurd punishment.

Ok?

OK what? Or are you trying to tell me that it wasn't illegal to steal those songs? The punishment is the big issue here.

Why wouldn't she just pay for the downloads plus court fees? :?Sajo7

Because it was more about making a statment than delivering justice.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

But the jury delivered an absurd punishment.

789shadow

Ok?

OK what? Or are you trying to tell me that it wasn't illegal to steal those songs? The punishment is the big issue here.

Your post had nothing to do with my original comment...

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Ok?

SpartanMSU

OK what? Or are you trying to tell me that it wasn't illegal to steal those songs? The punishment is the big issue here.

Your post had nothing to do with my original comment...

I though it did....you said that the government made the law and tried her.....

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

OK what? Or are you trying to tell me that it wasn't illegal to steal those songs? The punishment is the big issue here.

789shadow

Your post had nothing to do with my original comment...

I though it did....you said that the government made the law and tried her.....

Because I was correcting the poster who said that it was a perfect example of corporate greed...which it is not...

What does your comment have to do with mine?

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"]

Tracking down individuals isn't helping combating piracy at all, they're just wasting more money. They must be butt **** down stupid to think she is willing to pay 80k for each download. What does that result? Jail time. What does that mean? Wasting taxes on something stupid.

Pixel-Pirate

But the fact of the matter is that statisticly you probably have a higher chance of being struck by lightning 30 times and then hit by a meteor while a super volcano explodes and terrorists crash the moon on you.

This made me lol :lol: