• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading 24 songs

jamesrage said:
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?



The woman only COPIED 24 DOLLARS worth of merchandise. The company should not get a penny more than that
Click to expand...



Well that would be no incentive. Have you seen what lawyers charge lately?


I understand the counch metaphor from earlier but It makes little sense to pick this one lady and crucify her for mass generic internet shenanigans.

If they want to protect their property there are plenty of encryption options.

What she gets is a life ending event. What they get out of this is mass advertising.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
She did download thousands of songs (1,700 I believe), but she was only being charged for twenty-four of them.
Click to expand...

If she is only being sued for 24 of them, then for all intents and purposes she only illegally downloaded 24 in the eyes of the law. Any other illicit activity she may have committed is irrelevant to the scope of the case.
 
Kandahar said:
If she is only being sued for 24 of them, then for all intents and purposes she only illegally downloaded 24 in the eyes of the law. Any other illicit activity she may have committed is irrelevant to the scope of the case.
Click to expand...
I am going to use your wording here, but your post is "irrelevant".
The headline is misleading, quite possibly, purposely.
It has already been pointed out (by the Kernel, post #63) that she wasn't convicted of downloading.
 
Coolguy said:
I am going to use your wording here, but your post is "irrelevant".
The headline is misleading, quite possibly, purposely.
It has already been pointed out (by the Kernel, post #63) that she wasn't convicted of downloading.
Click to expand...

The article I cited only mentioned downloading. It didn't say anything about any other copyright infringement.

And even if she allowed others to upload the 24 songs, it's still ridiculous.
 
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
Click to expand...
 
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?

rathi said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because there's not a statute providing for those types of damages in corruption cases.
 
Because there's not a statute providing for those types of damages in corruption cases.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...
so she was fined 10x the value of downloaded music? :confused:
or was that just a number you pulled out of thin air
 
rathi said:
True, but such a statuette still falls under the constitution, and thus any fines levied cannot be excessive.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The jury disagreed. They awarded damages that were well within the boundaries of the statute.

DeeJayH said:
so she was fined 10x the value of downloaded music? :confused:
or was that just a number you pulled out of thin air
Click to expand...

It was just an example.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

She is not responsible for the frequency with which it happens. She is only responsible for her own actions.

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about 80,000 times the value of their couch?
 
Kandahar said:
She is not responsible for the frequency with which it happens. She is only responsible for her own actions.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Sure.
 
This isn't a fine, it's damages.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The jury can rule as they wish. However, the appeals process has only just begun.
 
rathi said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Of course.
 
Slippery Slope said:
That's a big fine. Hey, if it's too much for you, then don't steal. :2wave:
Click to expand...

The concept of proportionate punishment to the crime, regardless of whatever catrch phrases you use, still matters.

(Of course, saying she stole something when talking about legal repricussions, IMO, shows a lack of understanding on the issues)
 
Travelsonic said:
The concept of proportionate punishment to the crime, regardless of whatever catrch phrases you use, still matters.

(Of course, saying she stole something when talking about legal repricussions, IMO, shows a lack of understanding on the issues)
Click to expand...
Now why would that stop ole Slippery from chiming in ;):lol:
 
Travelsonic said:
The concept of proportionate punishment to the crime, regardless of whatever catrch phrases you use, still matters.

(Of course, saying she stole something when talking about legal repricussions, IMO, shows a lack of understanding on the issues)
Click to expand...
"sharing" music in this fashion is theft. Yes, I think the punishment is disproportionate.

A lack of understanding? :rofl Buddy, I should white out my name on my certificate from The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences showing I was a voting member... If I cared enough. :roll: I used to write music and sound effects for Computer games as well as being a working musician (currently). But please do keep assuming...
 
Slippery Slope said:
"sharing" music in this fashion is theft. Yes, I think the punishment is disproportionate.

A lack of understanding? :rofl Buddy, I should white out my name on my certificate from The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences showing I was a voting member... If I cared enough. :roll: I used to write music and sound effects for Computer games as well as being a working musician (currently). But please do keep assuming...
Click to expand...
theft requires teh loss of the original, not the copying of it
that is what he is refering to
 
DeeJayH said:
theft requires teh loss of the original, not the copying of it
that is what he is refering to
Click to expand...
In your opinion and apparently his. Both of you are wrong according to the law. :2wave:

If I make 5 tables by copying the first one and you steal one of the 4, I still have the original, but it's still theft.
 
Slippery Slope said:
In your opinion and apparently his. Both of you are wrong according to the law. :2wave:
Click to expand...

from criminal.findlaw.com:

Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.

For example, Dan goes to Victor's music store, puts two CDs in his pocket, and walks out the door. Dan can be charged with theft/larceny. Had Dan stolen Victor's car from the parking lot, Dan would likely be charged with grand theft/larceny.
Click to expand...

Dowling v. the United States (1985):
(from caselaw.lp.findlaw.com)

(a) The language of 2314 does not "plainly and unmistakably" cover such conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.
Click to expand...


The Morpheus / Grokster trial:
(from Notes From The Morpheus, Grokster Trial | Techdirt)

"Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."
Click to expand...


And in the U.K (just as more examples of legal differentiation, even internationally):
The Theft Act:
(from Theft Act 1968 (c. 60))

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
Click to expand...

You were saying? Your argument is looking very slippery (pun intended) if you ask me. Theft very much is recognized as requiring deprival of property, and separate from copyright infringement.
 
Last edited:
Travelsonic said:
from criminal.findlaw.com:



Dowling v. the United States (1985):
(from caselaw.lp.findlaw.com)




The Morpheus / Grokster trial:
(from Notes From The Morpheus, Grokster Trial | Techdirt)




And in the U.K (just as more examples of legal differentiation, even internationally):
The Theft Act:
(from Theft Act 1968 (c. 60))



You were saying? Your argument is looking very slippery (pun intended) if you ask me. Theft very much is recognized as requiring deprival of property, and separate from copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to inform you that you are sadly mistaken. Let us simply look at your very first quote above:
Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken.
Click to expand...
I separated the two issues addressed in one sentence for clarity. The example which you made bold to make sure we didn't miss is one example out of many, not the only example. :roll: By stealing the music you are permanently depriving the owner of the value (revenue).

As a musician, if I create a song and put it on the web or on any medium for people to PAY for it's use, then you may NOT use it without my permission. You get my permission by PAYING for it. I created it. Before I created it, it did not exist and therefore it and all replicas or copies belong to me unless I release some or all of MY rights.
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
In your opinion and apparently his. Both of you are wrong according to the law. :2wave:

If I make 5 tables by copying the first one and you steal one of the 4, I still have the original, but it's still theft.
Click to expand...
than why is it refered to as piracy instead of theft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom