Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 105

Thread: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

  1. #31
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The punishment needs to fit the crime.

    I know that and I'm not in law school, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
    Good thing it's not a criminal case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Then you're part of the problem.
    OH NOES!!!!!111
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #32
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    No one stole anything nor did anyone copy anything worth 1.9 million dollars. This make as much sense as awarding a plaintiff your house because you stepped on a blade of grass on his lawn.
    Nobody is arguing that the infringement itself was necessarily worth $1.9 million. Reread the thread.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Nobody is arguing that the infringement itself was necessarily worth $1.9 million. Reread the thread.
    Yes, you are arguing that exact thing. Read your own posts.

  4. #34
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If a million people were getting away with the theft of candy bars for every one person who got sued over it, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with such a verdict.
    You are only guilty of the crimes you committed not what someone else did and gotten away with. We do not punish a single murderer for crimes someone else did in another state.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #35
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    No, because far more people are caught littering than are punished for filesharing. Proportionally, I'd bet it works out similarly.
    It is not the fault of any individual offender that more people are not caught. Therefore, the proportion of people who are caught should be completely irrelevant to the actual damages awarded.

    Suppose I decide to live in the ghetto and leave my house unlocked every night. In one year, my house is robbed four times. My TV, computer, sofa, and new computer (each valued at $500) are stolen on these four separate occasions. Three of them get away, but the police find the guy who stole my sofa and I sue him for the damages. Now, do you think it's fair to fine him four times as much because the other three guys got away?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    So a party should be able to violate the rights of another party simply because it's not a huge deal? Say that the penalty for shoplifting was that you just had to say sorry - why would companies even stay open for business?
    That essentially IS the punishment for shoplifting at many retailers. Wal-Mart, for example, has an explicit policy (which they try to keep quiet) that if they catch someone shoplifting less than $25, they won't press charges unless they've caught this person before. Yet Wal-Mart does pretty well.

    Furthermore, I am unaware of any store where shoplifting $1 of merchandise has resulted in a successful lawsuit of $80,000. Most of the time they'll just kick the person out of the store and tell them not to come back...which seems like the reasonable course of action.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    The purpose of these laws is to deter people from conduct where the actual damages are small individually, but huge in the aggregate.
    Then that is a reason to prosecute or sue more offenders, and/or go after the big fish. Not to impose absurd penalties on a few unlucky small-timers who ARE caught.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    Of course not, and I don't think littering is $500 egregious either. But that's not the purpose of the law.
    Then why have differing punishments for crimes at all? The purpose of ANY penalty (criminal penalty or punitive damages) is to deter the action. Why not just fine everyone who does anything illegal $1.9 million?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    Then you will have a system where the companies will effectively have no recourse whatsoever. See the shoplifting example above.
    And that is a bad example because companies essentially DON'T have any recourse for small scale offenders, yet shoplifting is not a major problem.

    They WILL, however, prosecute major shoplifters. Which brings us back to this example: Why doesn't this record company sue someone who downloaded thousands of songs and allowed thousands of other people to download the songs from him...instead of someone who just stole $24 worth of merchandise? That would actually be cost-effective for them.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-19-09 at 02:23 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    If it were me, since this is a civil suit, I'd just file bankrupt.

    1.9M is life ending. You'll never be able to make anything of yourself with that over your head.

  7. #37
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Nobody is arguing that the infringement itself was necessarily worth $1.9 million. Reread the thread.
    The woman was sued for illegally copying 24 songs,that is two cds worth of music that cost any where from 12-15 dollars(mole or less depending on where you buy your music) for each cd. Thats the equivalent of making a copy of two cds without even having to remove the cds from the shelf at the store. When the company is awarded 80,000 for each song that is what they are saying the copies of those songs are worth.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 06-19-09 at 02:25 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #38
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yes, you are arguing that exact thing. Read your own posts.
    I'm sorry you don't see the distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    You are only guilty of the crimes you committed not what someone else did and gotten away with. We do not punish a single murderer for crimes someone else did in another state.
    For the fifth time, this is not the state doing the punishment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It is not the fault of any individual offender that more people are not caught. Therefore, the proportion of people who are caught should be completely irrelevant to the actual damages awarded.

    Suppose I decide to live in the ghetto and leave my house unlocked every night. In one year, my house is robbed four times. My TV, computer, sofa, and new computer (each valued at $500) are stolen on these four separate occasions. Three of them get away, but the police find the guy who stole my sofa and I sue him for the damages. Now, do you think it's fair to fine him MORE because the other three guys got away?
    Absolutely - and that's exactly what happens in real life.

    If all four people got caught and you wanted to sue for the cost of the sofa, each of them would only owe you 1/4th of the total cost. If only one got caught, you could sue him for the total cost.


    That essentially IS the punishment for shoplifting at many retailers. Wal-Mart, for example, has an explicit policy (which they try to keep quiet) that if they catch someone shoplifting less than $25, they won't press charges unless they've caught this person before. Yet Wal-Mart does pretty well.
    And many smaller stores (especially those in ****ty areas) have the exact opposite policy. I had probably a half dozen juvenile cases for shoplifting where the merchandise was valued at $5 or $10. The stores have an absolute no tolerance policy for shoplifting because they can't afford to do otherwise.

    Furthermore, I am unaware of any store where shoplifting $1 of merchandise has resulted in a successful lawsuit of $80,000.
    Because the laws aren't structured in such a fashion because shoplifting is caught more frequently than file-sharing by several orders of magnitude.

    Then that is a reason to prosecute more often. Not to impose absurd penalties on the few people who ARE caught.
    Again, it's not cost-efficient to sue if damages are only nominal. We're back to the earlier point about nuisances writing the laws.

    Then why have various punishments for crimes at all? The purpose of ANY penalty (criminal penalty or punitive damages) is to deter the action. Why not just fine everyone who does anything illegal $1.9 million?
    Penalties/punishments are designed to be as large as they need to be to deter the crime. A $500 littering fine works because it's not worth risking $500 for me to throw my trash on the ground. If stealing music were only punishable by $500, why would anyone hesitate? You can steal $500 worth of **** in about 10 minutes.

    And that is a bad example because companies essentially DON'T have any recourse for small scale offenders, yet shoplifting is not a major problem.
    Yes, it absolutely is. For many, many businesses, shoplifting is the difference between a profitable year and a year in the red. Retail theft is HUGE in many places.

    They WILL, however, prosecute major shoplifters. Which brings us back to this example: Why doesn't this record company sue someone who downloaded thousands of songs and allowed thousands of other people to download the songs from him...instead of someone who just stole $24 worth of merchandise? That would actually be cost-effective for them.
    Don't know. Probably because this has more of a deterrent effect in their eyes because it makes everyone hesitate, not just the huge users.

    (Of course, even they seem to have changed their minds on this strategy.)
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #39
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The woman was sued for illegally copying 24 songs,that is two cds worth of music that cost any where from 12-15 dollars(mole or less depending on where you buy your music) for each cd. Thats the equivalent of making a copy of two cds without even having to remove the cds from the shelf at the store. When the company is awarded 80,000 for each song that is what they are saying the copies of those songs are worth.
    If I get a $500 ticket for leaving dog poop on the ground, is that because it's "worth" $500, or is there another reason?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #40
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    For the fifth time, this is not the state doing the punishment.
    It was the judge that fined the woman. Does the judge work for the music company or does that judge for the state aka the tax payers?

    Absolutely - and that's exactly what happens in real life.

    If all four people got caught and you wanted to sue for the cost of the sofa, each of them would only owe you 1/4th of the total cost. If only one got caught, you could sue him for the total cost.
    The woman only COPIED 24 DOLLARS worth of merchandise. The company should not get a penny more than that
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •