[linuxworks]

such a compassionate 'judge' you are.

THIS is the problem, folks.

'tough on offenders'. yeah, a pocketful of songs and you call this lady 'an offender'.

perspective, folks. perspective. have we solved all the REAL problems and crimes in the world that we have time for this kind of crap?

wasting time on 'she took my songs!' is just absurd. don't quote law to me, this is about perspective. if you can only see the legal details, you have lost all perspective in life.

she downloaded songs. she did not kill anyone, she did not steal bread from someone's table. she made BIT IMAGE COPIES of melodies.

big frigging deal.

 

[zotjen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif she downloaded songs. she did not kill anyone, she did not steal bread from someone's table. she made BIT IMAGE COPIES of melodies. big frigging deal.

What if she walked into a store and stole some CD's? Would that be okay?

 

[linuxworks]

stealing physical property is ENTIRELY different from making bit-image copies of songs.

one deprives the owner of property. the other does not.

its not a hard concept. even kids understand this. the old men in the old business model also understand it but ACT like they don't. quite ingenuous, actually. they try to further their con but the kids today don't buy that - they're a bit smarter than the old guys and the old business models.

its not theft when you copy a file. that's an abuse of the word. a logical fallacy.

 

[KONAKONA]

Oh boy now this is a piracy argument with a little bit of 'americanism' thrown in. Not gonna last long eh?

Oh hay, my 2C,

The point of buying music in the first place is to support the people who make it. They make it (hopefully) because they are trying to make money doing something they love to do. You can go into the whole record companies taking all the cash bit, but we've been there too many times.

I think it is downright blasphemous to sue someone for that amount of cash for music. Instead of the record companies, or the lawyers, or anyone else deciding the price, it should be the people who made those songs. They should be the ones do decide how much damage was done and they should be the ones to receive all of the reimbursement.

In any case, hopefully there will be a sane jury and judge down the line somewhere. You can continue with your argument now.

 

[zotjen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif stealing physical property is ENTIRELY different from making bit-image copies of songs. one deprives the owner of property. the other does not.

Whether or not your definition of stealing entails physically taking something, the end result is the same. You end up with something you normally should have paid for.

If that something, in this case the music, is put forth and made available by the owner, copyright holder, etc. with the intent purpose of having consumers purchase it, and it is obtained by someone without purchasing it by whatever means, then it is wrong.

This of course is strictly my opinion and you are entitled to yours. Our main difference is that I view the music itself as the product regardless of however it is delivered, whether it is via CD or a downloadable file.

 

[jsaliga]

Does anyone posting in this thread believe that the ~ $2 million award to the RIAA is "just and fair"? Really, I would very much be interested how one could logically, fairly, and sensibly arrive at that number.

Just keep mind that the trial judge thought the $220K from the first trial was excessive.

Does "the jury is pissed off at the defendent" justify the result? Some here have used that to explain it.

--Jerome

 

[iriverdude]

I wonder if the people on the jury had some connection with RIAA board.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does anyone posting in this thread believe that the ~ $2 million award to the RIAA is "just and fair"? Really, I would very much be interested how one could logically, fairly, and sensibly arrive at that number. Just keep mind that the trial judge thought the $220K from the first trial was excessive.

where did you read that the judge in the first trial thought that the amount was excessive? I thought it was the jury instruction regarding proof.

Quote:

Does "the jury is pissed off at the defendent" justify the result? Some here have used that to explain it. --Jerome

That the jury was pissed off at this specific defendant sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation for the verdict. An explanation is not a justification. In these cases, the availability of such high statutory damages likely presents a due process issue and could be Unconstitutional.

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

That the jury was pissed off at this specific defendant sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation for the verdict.

#

Do you really expect a single mother on minimum to pay back $2 million? She wouldn't earn that in her lifetime.

 

[limpidglitch]

I think I'm worth something like $500 mill. to the RIAA. This whole piracy business has gone totally bonkers.
The record companies are grasping at straws, they can see the abyss below.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif where did you read that the judge in the first trial thought that the amount [was excessive]

In the news story that appeared on Yahoo yesterday as I recall. To tired to dig it up. It was also mentioned on several sites (EFF was one as I recall but I could be wrong).

Quote:

That the jury was pissed off at this specific defendant sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation for the verdict. An explanation is not a justification. In these cases, the availability of such high statutory damages likely presents a due process issue and could be Unconstitutional.

I read a number of articles yesterday that raised the same due process concerns that you did.

--Jerome

Note: Not meaning to pick nits...but there is text in your last post that quotes me, and I never said anything about jury instruction. Thanks.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif # Do you really expect a single mother on minimum to pay back $2 million? She wouldn't earn that in her lifetime.

Are you asking me? Be more careful with your conclusions. Where did I ever say that I expected her to pay back $2 million? In fact, it is entirely possible that the jury awarded such a high amount, in part, because they knew full well she could never pay it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the news story that appeared on Yahoo yesterday as I recall. To tired to dig it up. It was also mentioned on several sites (EFF was one as I recall but I could be wrong). Note: Not meaning to pick nits...but there is text in your last post that quotes me, and I never said anything about jury instruction. Thanks.

I fixed the quote, posting from the iphone stinks. But I trust you were able to parse it out.

My point was that I am pretty sure that the first verdict was tossed because the judge blew the instruction regarding the need to prove dissemination. It's also entirely possible that he used that as a premise because he thought the award excessive. Didn't turn out so well in that regard if that was the case.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder if the people on the jury had some connection with RIAA board.

Likely not. The jury system gets its share of criticism, but I like it because pulling from the public at large is a good way to keep things honest. Also, each juror was, almost certainly, placed under oath and questioned about their connections to either party. If any of them lied, they could be charged with perjury and the verdict would get thrown out.

Everyone must keep in mind that a jury of ordinary citizens made this decision. When someone gets slapped like this, it's my experience that the person probably lied to or otherwise offended the jury. They wanted to send a message and they sure did.

If anyone has a problem with these amounts being awarded, there are a few things you can do. First, contact your state senator or legislature. Ask them to introduce a bill limiting the awards that can be granted for filesharing music. That's the way the system works, generally. The reps and senators pass a bill, the governor signs off and then the courts enforce that law when suit is brought. That's a simplification, and there are other ways laws and rules are created, but this is one way it's done in almost every state. Further, every elected representative introduces bills based on requests from constituents. Most people don't know that, but contact yours and see what you can do to change the system.

The second point is that if you disagree with a law, you probably shouldn't break it no matter how ridiculous it might seem to you. Don't get me started on the speed limit. Or the ticket I got last year for making a U-turn in a business district. Utter crap. But I paid the ticket and went to traffic school like I was supposed to. I won't make another U-turn in a business district, even though it's a stupid law. Why? I don't need the trouble and there are legal alternatives.

Similarly, I hate the RIAA. But I'm not going to do anything illegal against them. Filesharing, like it or not, is something you can get in trouble for. If you think that the laws are wrong, please refer to the earlier part of this post about contacting your representatives to do something about that.

Instead, I think you're much better off using legal means to strangle the RIAA. Mainly, buy used music. LPs and CDs have never been cheaper. Go buy those. It is 100% legal, moral and ethical to buy used music. You also save lots of money and put a finger in the eye of Big Music at the same time. If everyone bought used, the industry would collapse from lack of revenue.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif They wanted to send a message and they sure did.

Isn't that a big no no -- dolling out absurdly high awards to deter other people not involved in the case being decided from doing the same thing?

--Jerome

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

would this $2mil fine violate the 8th amendment?