• 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

The jury awarded it. Also, if the odds of being prosecuted for a crime are low, the punishment has to be high to have a worthwhile deterrent effect. Sucks for the person who gets caught, but it makes sense.
 
The jury awarded it. Also, if the odds of being prosecuted for a crime are low, the punishment has to be high to have a worthwhile deterrent effect. Sucks for the person who gets caught, but it makes sense.

No it doesn't considering the BS that is surrounding this and other File Share case. It's going ot end up at the US Supreme Court mark my words on that. They have said they are going to file an a motion for appeal on Friday.
 
The jury awarded it. Also, if the odds of being prosecuted for a crime are low, the punishment has to be high to have a worthwhile deterrent effect. Sucks for the person who gets caught, but it makes sense.

It does not make sense. If society deems that this crime is severe enough that it needs a stronger deterrent effect, then it should prosecute the crime more often...not fine some random person $80,000 per illegal download while allowing everyone else to get off scot-free. That is just stupid and excessive. Fortunately the punishment will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal, as it should.
 
How do they select which person is to get caught? This is something that baffles me. I could get onto a Peer to Peer Network right now and give an IP Address to someone who has all sorts of illegal music, games, and movies.
 
No it doesn't considering the BS that is surrounding this and other File Share case. It's going ot end up at the US Supreme Court mark my words on that. They have said they are going to file an a motion for appeal on Friday.

1) English please.

2) This is a district court case. It would go to the Circuit Court, not the Supreme Court.

It does not make sense. If society deems that this crime is severe enough that it needs a stronger deterrent effect, then it should prosecute the crime more often...not fine some random person $80,000 per illegal download while allowing everyone else to get off scot-free. That is just stupid and excessive. Fortunately the punishment will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal, as it should.

1) We do this all the time. Littering carries a $500 fine - is that because someone littering actually costs $500, or because it's so hard to catch someone littering that you have to make the fine big to deter it?

2) "Prosecute" was a bad choice of words on my part - this is a civil trial. In civil trials, the rationale is even stronger. If they only awarded nominal damages, it would not be cost efficient for the injured party to sue and it would effectively result in a repeal of a law via nuisance.

3) What makes you say it will get thrown out on appeal?
 
How do they select which person is to get caught? This is something that baffles me. I could get onto a Peer to Peer Network right now and give an IP Address to someone who has all sorts of illegal music, games, and movies.

Generally they warn people several times via their ISPs to cut the sharing out. Then I guess they probably pick based on forum/other factors unknown to us.
 
Holy **** that made my heart stop until i read the link:

A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each — a total of $1.9 million — for 24 songs.

Phew, me and my music is safe ... for now o_O
 
1) We do this all the time. Littering carries a $500 fine - is that because someone littering actually costs $500, or because it's so hard to catch someone littering that you have to make the fine big to deter it?

The people who are prosecuted for littering usually aren't the people who throw a candy bar wrapper on the ground. They're the people who take all of the trash from their house or business and just dump it on the side of the road. And $500 does seem reasonable for that.

RightinNYC said:
2) "Prosecute" was a bad choice of words on my part - this is a civil trial. In civil trials, the rationale is even stronger. If they only awarded nominal damages, it would not be cost efficient for the injured party to sue and it would effectively result in a repeal of a law via nuisance.

Well that's too bad for the plaintiff if it isn't cost-effective to sue. It does not warrant such an excessive punishment.

RightinNYC said:
3) What makes you say it will get thrown out on appeal?

For one thing, the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment here does not fit the crime. Let's look at her crime: 24 counts of illegal music downloads, for each of which she was fined $80,000. The market value of the songs is approximately $1 each.

If she had stolen an item from the dollar store, would she have been fined $80,000? No. If she had stolen a single copy of a song from a CD store, would she have been fined $80,000? No. Hell, even if she had illegally downloaded hardcore child pornography instead of songs, would she have been fined $80,000 per download? Probably not.

The punishment here is so excessive (especially when compared to other crimes of this nature of equal or greater severity) that it is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.....the law says up to $80,000 per download, huh?

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Some law makers need to be horsewhipped as soon as the appeals court throws out the fine.
 
If you wanted to be punitive, slap her with a $1000 dollar fine, maybe plus attorneys fees. That would be painful enough to make people worry about the consequences. Charging $1.8 million is simply unacceptable.
 
The people who are prosecuted for littering usually aren't the people who throw a candy bar wrapper on the ground. They're the people who take all of the trash from their house or business and just dump it on the side of the road. And $500 does seem reasonable for that.
Not necessarily

Got a group of kids for littering once when I witnessed them throw eggs at other people's cars while in a moving vehicle.

It was the most punitive thing I could come up with, and it works, because they are littering.
 
Not necessarily

Got a group of kids for littering once when I witnessed them throw eggs at other people's cars while in a moving vehicle.

It was the most punitive thing I could come up with, and it works, because they are littering.

Well OK, but you were REALLY busting them for vandalism, even if the actual charge was littering, right? I would assume you don't often arrest people for small stuff like throwing a McDonald's wrapper out their car window?
 
Last edited:
How do they select which person is to get caught? This is something that baffles me. I could get onto a Peer to Peer Network right now and give an IP Address to someone who has all sorts of illegal music, games, and movies.

They have been known to warn people but the first few cases were to make examples. The way you are marked is at random and its a simple case of going to the ISP for the information, depending on the ISP. Some ISPs have stated they will never, under any circumstances turn over information about its users. Verizon is one of them. Other ISPs have no problem turning over user data. AT&T is one of them.
 
The people who are prosecuted for littering usually aren't the people who throw a candy bar wrapper on the ground. They're the people who take all of the trash from their house or business and just dump it on the side of the road. And $500 does seem reasonable for that.

$500 seems reasonable for both, because the point is to deter.

Well that's too bad for the plaintiff if it isn't cost-effective to sue. It does not warrant such an excessive punishment.

Congress disagreed by passing the laws to permit such damages.

For one thing, the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment here does not fit the crime. Let's look at her crime: 24 counts of illegal music downloads, for each of which she was fined $80,000. The market value of the songs is approximately $1 each.

This isn't a government punishment, it's civil damages. If a company does something really egregious, the jury can award punitive damages. That doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment.


Hmmm.....the law says up to $80,000 per download, huh?

Some law makers need to be horsewhipped as soon as the appeals court throws out the fine.

This is a civil damages award, not a criminal fine. Some citizens need to be taught the constitution.
 
The 1.8 million caught everyone's attention even if overturned.
A $1000 fine and legal expenses would barely get any press.

Not commenting on overkill or not, just the tactic to generate press.

.
 
This is a civil damages award, not a criminal fine. Some citizens need to be taught the constitution.

Wait, you're telling us that the company is getting the money?
 
$500 seems reasonable for both, because the point is to deter.

And $500 would be OK for illegally downloading 24 songs as well. $1.9 million, on the other hand, is ridiculous.

Would you fine someone $1.9 million for throwing a bag of McDonald's out of their car window? After all, the point is to deter. Maybe we should skip the fines and go directly to execution.

RightinNYC said:
Congress disagreed by passing the laws to permit such damages.

And I guess this is where your JD and my MBA clash. If it isn't cost-effective for a company to sue, that sounds like a good rationale for NOT suing...not a good rationale for imposing ridiculous fines on the offender.

One wonders why they don't just target a big-time offender who it WOULD be cost-effective to sue instead.

RightinNYC said:
This isn't a government punishment, it's civil damages. If a company does something really egregious, the jury can award punitive damages. That doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment.

And you think illegal music downloads are "really egregious"? So egregious that they warrant a fine 80,000 times larger than the value of the songs?

RightinNYC said:
This is a civil damages award, not a criminal fine. Some citizens need to be taught the constitution.

Then fine her $1 per song in compensatory damages and $10 per song in punitive damages, for a total of $264.
 
Last edited:
Something that has a value of a dollar is not worth eighty thousand dollars. Thats like executing someone for going one mile over the speed limit. I hope an appeals court tosses out the fines.That is ridiculous. If you went and shop lifted from the dollar tree they wouldn't fine 80,000 for each piece of merchandise taken. Considering the fact illegal downloading is not theft(since the owner is not deprived of his or her property) it makes this even more ridiculous.
 
1)

3) What makes you say it will get thrown out on appeal?

A moment of sanity perhaps? 24 99 cent songs is the case. 1.9 mill must be the judges bonus from the music company.
 
Wait, you're telling us that the company is getting the money?

Yes. This was a civil lawsuit between private parties.

The story on CNN says "fined" because CNN is a bunch of mouthbreathers.

And $500 would be OK for illegally downloading 24 songs as well. $1.9 million, on the other hand, is ridiculous.

Would you fine someone $1.9 million for throwing a bag of McDonald's out of their car window? After all, the point is to deter. Maybe we should skip the fines and go directly to execution.

No, because far more people are caught littering than are punished for filesharing. Proportionally, I'd bet it works out similarly.

And I guess this is where your JD and my MBA clash. If it isn't cost-effective for a company to sue, that sounds like a good rationale for NOT suing...not a good rationale for imposing ridiculous fines on the offender.

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?

The purpose of these laws is to deter people from conduct where the actual damages are small individually, but huge in the aggregate.


And you think illegal music downloads are "really egregious"? So egregious that they warrant a fine 80,000 times larger than the value of the songs?

Of course not, and I don't think littering is $500 egregious either. But that's not the purpose of the law.

Then fine her $1 per song in compensatory damages and $10 per song in punitive damages, for a total of $264.

Then you will have a system where the companies will effectively have no recourse whatsoever. See the shoplifting example above.
 
Yes. This was a civil lawsuit between private parties.

So this isn't about deterrence, this is about damage.

If that same woman stole 24 $1 candy bars, and had to pay that store 1.9M in damages, you don't see where there would be a problem?
 
Last edited:
Something that has a value of a dollar is not worth eighty thousand dollars. Thats like executing someone for going one mile over the speed limit. I hope an appeals court tosses out the fines.That is ridiculous. If you went and shop lifted from the dollar tree they wouldn't fine 80,000 for each piece of merchandise taken.

No, but if you shoplifted $100 worth of something 3 times, you could get life in prison.

LOCKYER V. ANDRADE

Which sounds more egregious?

And aren't you one of those people who is a huge fan of 3 strikes laws?
 
Back
Top Bottom