Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 105

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

  1. #81
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

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

    If memory serves, when going from the Grand Central Pkwy Eastbound to the Cross Island Expressway south, there is a sign that says
    No Littering
    $15,000 fine
    $7500 to the city
    $7500 to the person that reports it

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  2. #82
    Professor
    Travelsonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,376

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

    Still looking for an alternative source to this but:

    Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded | TorrentFreak
    Nationalism in high dosages may be hazardous to your health. Please consult a psychiatrist before beginning a regular regimen, and if feelings of elitism and douchbaggery continue, discontinue immediately before you become unable to do so on your own.

  3. #83
    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 Kandahar View Post
    Uhh this is...strange...reasoning. Let me make sure I understand this:

    1. The police find the guy who stole my sofa and I sue him.
    2. Since my house had previously been broken into, and my TV and my computer were stolen (all on separate occasions), I can sue the sofa thief for all of those items.
    3. The police then find the TV thief.
    4. Sofa thief has to sue TV thief directly, to recover the cost of my TV and half of the cost of my computer, even though the two have never met or had any contact with one another before.
    5. In the meantime, my car is stolen when it is parked on the other side of town.
    6. The police then find the computer thief.
    7. I sue the computer thief for the cost of my car (but not for the cost of my computer, since I already sued sofa thief for that, who in turn sued TV thief to recover half of that cost)
    8. TV thief and sofa thief file a joint lawsuit against computer thief for the cost of the computer.

    Is this correct? Is there a single example of anything like this occurring anywhere in the United States?
    This is my bad, for some reason I misread your initial post as saying that all of the robberies were related. In the case you're talking about, each person is only responsible for the things that they did.

    In the infringement case, she's still only responsible for what she did. However, the penalties for doing this have been increased greatly because of the frequency with which it happens.

    If there were a massive couch stealing epidemic, the government could pass a law allowing people to sue for 10 times the value of their couch if it were stolen.

    It would not effectively repeal copyright protection. Record companies just have to choose their battles wisely. Go after the offenders with thousands of downloads and thousands of uploads, rather than someone who downloaded 24 songs. And work with companies like iTunes and Zune to give the smaller fish a legal outlet.
    Again, if it were just the cost of the songs, it still wouldn't be worth it to sue someone who had tens of thousands of uploads and downloads. These suits are very expensive.

    People already do have legal outlets, but why would they use them if they know they can get away with it for free?

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    I think it would be hilarious is someone tried this same logic in other civil suits. For example, suing Lockheed or Raytheon for cheating during a bid for a defense contract. Since such corruption is pretty much never punished, you make the same argument for insane damages. If you went 90000x the damages of a 100 million dollar contract, you could sue them for 9 trillion dollars.

    So NYC, how exactly is my situation any different than yours?
    Because there's not a statute providing for those types of damages in corruption cases.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #84
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

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

    Because there's not a statute providing for those types of damages in corruption cases.
    True, but such a statuette still falls under the constitution, and thus any fines levied cannot be excessive. The 150,000 dollar limit is the maximum, and thus only applies when appropriate. For example, if you had extremely high end software worth $15,000 a copy, charging $150,000 per infringement wouldn't be unreasonable. However, with 24 songs valued at roughly $1 apiece, 90,000 per song is not.

    Your argument that the difficulty in enforcing the crime requires extra fines as deterrence has merit, but only as long as it doesn't become excessive. There is middle ground between asking for the $24 the songs were worth and asking for something absurd like 1.8 million.

  5. #85
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If there were a massive couch stealing epidemic, the government could pass a law allowing people to sue for 10 times the value of their couch if it were stolen.
    so she was fined 10x the value of downloaded music?
    or was that just a number you pulled out of thin air

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  6. #86
    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 rathi View Post
    True, but such a statuette still falls under the constitution, and thus any fines levied cannot be excessive.
    This isn't a fine, it's damages.

    The 150,000 dollar limit is the maximum, and thus only applies when appropriate. For example, if you had extremely high end software worth $15,000 a copy, charging $150,000 per infringement wouldn't be unreasonable. However, with 24 songs valued at roughly $1 apiece, 90,000 per song is not.

    Your argument that the difficulty in enforcing the crime requires extra fines as deterrence has merit, but only as long as it doesn't become excessive. There is middle ground between asking for the $24 the songs were worth and asking for something absurd like 1.8 million.
    The jury disagreed. They awarded damages that were well within the boundaries of the statute.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeJayH View Post
    so she was fined 10x the value of downloaded music?
    or was that just a number you pulled out of thin air
    It was just an example.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #87
    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
    In the infringement case, she's still only responsible for what she did. However, the penalties for doing this have been increased greatly because of the frequency with which it happens.
    She is not responsible for the frequency with which it happens. She is only responsible for her own actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    If there were a massive couch stealing epidemic, the government could pass a law allowing people to sue for 10 times the value of their couch if it were stolen.
    How about 80,000 times the value of their couch?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #88
    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 Kandahar View Post
    She is not responsible for the frequency with which it happens. She is only responsible for her own actions.
    Of course. We as society just choose to make the cost of those actions more significant because we're concerned with the frequency with which it happens. See, littering, child porn laws, etc.

    How about 80,000 times the value of their couch?
    Sure.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #89
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

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

    This isn't a fine, it's damages.
    Does the 8th not apply to civil damages? The constitution isn't written in legalese, so they should be covered under intent, but if you have the case law to prove me wrong...

    The jury disagreed. They awarded damages that were well within the boundaries of the statute.
    The jury can rule as they wish. However, the appeals process has only just begun.

  10. #90
    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 rathi View Post
    Does the 8th not apply to civil damages? The constitution isn't written in legalese, so they should be covered under intent, but if you have the case law to prove me wrong...
    The 8th has never been applied to civil damages of this type. Fines are very different from damages.

    The jury can rule as they wish. However, the appeals process has only just begun.
    Of course.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •