Woman fined $1.9M by RIAA for downloading 24 songs

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I thought in civil cases the judge is the one who dolls out punishment, while the jury decides guilty or not guilty?

Not necessarily, in this case the jury had a potential range of liability that they could assign. In the first case they chose a much lower number, but that doesn't make this decision incorrect. Oddly, as far as I can tell the correction of the jury verdict actually was in favor of the defendant and made the claim harder to prove. This shows the danger of allowing something to go to a jury. It's just a group of regular people sitting in a room, they could come up with pretty much anything, and so long as it's within an allowable range it will be upheld.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Fair enough, but I'm not exactly sure where they think that money will come from.

Collecting seems to be pretty much impossible here, somebody said above that they may not try to collect due to the PR issues it amy cause.

A lot of civil cases are like this, getting the decision is just half of the battle, collection can be a whole new war.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by valo403

Not necessarily, in this case the jury had a potential range of liability that they could assign. In the first case they chose a much lower number, but that doesn't make this decision incorrect. Oddly, as far as I can tell the correction of the jury verdict actually was in favor of the defendant and made the claim harder to prove. This shows the danger of allowing something to go to a jury. It's just a group of regular people sitting in a room, they could come up with pretty much anything, and so long as it's within an allowable range it will be upheld.

The worst part is, you can basically guarantee that just about every one of them has come in contact with illegally downloaded music, either directly (I'm sure they were asked during screening, but still), or through their kids (definitely their kids) or other relatives.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

The worst part is, you can basically guarantee that just about every one of them has come in contact with illegally downloaded music, either directly (I'm sure they were asked during screening, but still), or through their kids (definitely their kids) or other relatives.

Ya, the jury selection process was probably pretty interesting. Either they found people living under rocks or they found people who were easily convinced that this woman was actually responsible for the downfall of the traditional record industry.

One of the worst parts of this IMO is that the RIAA was undoubtedly represented by a large team of highly skilled lawyers while the defendant probably had a lone guy with very little experience at this level.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jayems

You referenced stealing CDs, which is a criminal case, by saying that there has to be consequences.

I'm saying the punishment she received is equivalent to being sentenced 60 years in a hard labour camp in NK for taking 20 CDs.

I thought they just cut your hands off for things like that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

I think they wanted to send a strong message to people who use file sharing places.

Yeah, that's probably true. I wonder when they'll figure out that this message is counterproductive.

Sure, they pinched this woman for stealing 24 songs. Meanwhile, this judgement is all over the internet and a million people have downloaded music today just to spite them.

[3 Justin 3]

I just download, not upload, so in Canada this is legal.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Now a new, but similar, case.

A federal jury on Friday ordered a Boston University graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award the record labels.

But Tim Reynolds, a lawyer for the recording labels, recounted Tenenbaum's history of file-sharing from 1999 to 2007, describing him as "a hardcore, habitual, long-term infringer who knew what he was doing was wrong." Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs.

Tenenbaum said he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs by Nirvana, Green Day, The Smashing Pumpkins and other artists. The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0...ic_downloading

[BlackArcher101]

Holy Crap... @ 80K a pop, I'd be in the hole over $2,000,000,0000.

[Clarkey]

Does anyone know if a person is uploading data when downloading bit torrent files?

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Does anyone know if a person is uploading data when downloading bit torrent files?

Of course, that is how bit torrent works. As you are downloading you are contributing to other people's download.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Fair enough, but I'm not exactly sure where they think that money will come from.

The RIAA does not care about that money. They hope this deters others.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by flamingreen

Of course, that is how bit torrent works. As you are downloading you are contributing to other people's download.

Not necessarily. You can turn off your uploading settings, and download only.

[Ford Prefect]

Good. I wish they'd nail more intellectual property thieves like this. This type of crime really bugs me. People think it's okay because it's small scale, but it's still thievery. I have a super religious sister in law who thinks I'm going to hell because I drink, smoke and don't believe the world is 3000 years old. Yet she has no problem pirating software and stealing music. Some Christian!!