• 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

Jerry said:
So this isn't about deterrence, this is about damage.
Click to expand...

This is about a private party suing to protect their rights to their property, and an $80,000 award gets everybody up in arms.

If the record company had just blown off her head with a shotgun, I wonder if some people would be more supportive.
 
Jerry said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is about a private party suing to protect their rights to their property, and an $80,000 award gets everybody up in arms.

If the record company had just blown off her head with a shotgun, I wonder if some people would be more supportive.
Click to expand...

:prof 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.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then you're part of the problem.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is about a private party suing to protect their rights to their property, and an $80,000 award gets everybody up in arms.

If the record company had just blown off her head with a shotgun, I wonder if some people would be more supportive.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing that the infringement itself was necessarily worth $1.9 million. Reread the thread.
 
RightinNYC said:
Nobody is arguing that the infringement itself was necessarily worth $1.9 million. Reread the thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are arguing that exact thing. Read your own posts.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
No, because far more people are caught littering than are punished for filesharing. Proportionally, I'd bet it works out similarly.
Click to expand...

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?

RightinNYC said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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

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?

RightinNYC said:
Then you will have a system where the companies will effectively have no recourse whatsoever. See the shoplifting example above.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
RightinNYC said:
Nobody is arguing that the infringement itself was necessarily worth $1.9 million. Reread the thread.
Click to expand...

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:
Jerry said:
Yes, you are arguing that exact thing. Read your own posts.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't see the distinction.

jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the fifth time, this is not the state doing the punishment.

Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
RightinNYC said:
For the fifth time, this is not the state doing the punishment.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

No, no it wasn't.

Don't let the fact that CNN is retarded keep you from the truth.

Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty - Ars Technica

A new lawyer, a new jury, and a new trial were not enough to save Jammie Thomas-Rasset. In a repeat of the verdict from her first federal trial, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for willfully infringing all 24 copyrights controlled by the four major record labels at issue in the case. The jury awarded the labels damages totaling a whopping $1.92 million. As the dollar amount was read in court, Thomas-Rasset gasped and her eyes widened.

Kiwi Camara, Thomas-Rasset's lead attorney, spoke briefly after the trial. He told reporters that when he first heard the $80,000 per song damage award, he was "angry about it" and said he had been convinced that any liability finding would have been for the minimum amount of $750 per song.

As for Thomas-Rasset, she appeared shaken by the verdict but didn't blame the jury. "They did their job," she said, "I'm not going to hold it against them."
Click to expand...

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

Yes, because that's how all laws must work.
 
RightinNYC said:
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?
Click to expand...

So your saying it would be justified for a judge to award me your house if you stepped on my lawn and damaged a couple blades of grass in order to deter other people from stepping on other people's lawns?
 
I just want to take a moment to reflect on the fact that I'm getting lectured on proportionality by a guy who thinks that looking at pictures of nude 17 year olds should be punished by death.

el oh el
 
Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illgally downloading 24 songs

jamesrage said:
So your saying it would be justified for a judge to award me your house if you stepped on my lawn and damaged a couple blades of grass in order to deter other people from stepping on other people's lawns?
Click to expand...

If millions of people were going around damaging peoples lawns and getting away with it and the cumulative effect of that was to cause damage that was worth several thousand houses, then I would have no problem whatsoever with a JURY deciding to award you damages in a significant amount pursuant to the law.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is absurd and doesn't even make practical sense. Suppose I sue the sofa thief for cost of all four of my items, and win. The police then find the guy who stole my TV. Can I still sue him too? Can I sue him for the value of the two items that weren't recovered? Can I sue him for the cost of the sofa? Will I have to reimburse the sofa thief?

What if I had my car stolen when it was parked in a different part of town? Can I sue the guy who broke into my house and stole my sofa for that too? :roll:

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well that's up to them. If they feel that it's cost-effective to sue someone for stealing $5 of merchandise, best of luck. If not, too bad. That is not a valid reason to fine someone a ridiculously excessive amount.

RightinNYC said:
Because the laws aren't structured in such a fashion because shoplifting is caught more frequently than file-sharing by several orders of magnitude.

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.
Click to expand...

And again, this is where your JD clashes with my MBA. You seem to be operating under the assumption that every time someone is wronged, a lawsuit should be the default response. And if it isn't cost-effective, then by golly, the government should MAKE it cost-effective. I simply disagree with that reasoning. If it isn't cost-effective, then don't sue.

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deterrence is typically a matter for CRIMINAL cases or especially egregious civil cases (which stealing $1 songs is not).

RightinNYC said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Well you went to law school and I didn't, but according to Wikipedia:

In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I wonder what they'd think about 80,000:1.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
I just want to take a moment to reflect on the fact that I'm getting lectured on proportionality by a guy who thinks that looking at pictures of nude 17 year olds should be punished by death.

el oh el
Click to expand...

I do not think looking at pictures of nude 17 year olds should get you the death penalty. Going after these people who look at such pictures is like the people who have their 15-17 year old daughter's 18 year old boyfriend with statutory rape, a blatant abuse of what the law was intended for. The whole point of laws against child pornography is to protect young children from being sexually abused by adults.
 
Last edited:
Re: Woman fined $1.9 million for illgally downloading 24 songs

RightinNYC said:
If millions of people were going around damaging peoples lawns and getting away with it and the cumulative effect of that was to cause damage that was worth several thousand houses, then I would have no problem whatsoever with a JURY deciding to award you damages in a significant amount pursuant to the law.
Click to expand...

A few blades of grass is not worth your house,its not even worth a bag of grass seed.
 
Kandahar said:
That is absurd and doesn't even make practical sense. Suppose I sue the sofa thief for cost of all four of my items, and win. The police then find the guy who stole my TV. Can I still sue him too? Can I sue him for the value of the two items that weren't recovered? Can I sue him for the cost of the sofa? Will I have to reimburse the sofa thief? :roll:
Click to expand...

You can only be compensated for your total loss. The first guy who had to pay you all of it can then sue the second guy to force him to reimburse the first guy for his share.

Well that's up to them. If they feel that it's cost-effective to sue someone for stealing $5 of merchandise, best of luck. If not, too bad. That is not a valid reason to fine someone a ridiculously excessive amount.

And again, this is where your JD clashes with my MBA. You seem to be operating under the assumption that every time someone is wronged, a lawsuit should be the default response. And if it isn't cost-effective, then by golly, the government should MAKE it cost-effective. I simply disagree with that reasoning. If it isn't cost-effective, then don't sue.
Click to expand...

The alternative is to effectively repeal copyright protection. I believe that would cause greater harm than this.

Deterrence is typically a matter for CRIMINAL cases or especially egregious civil cases (which stealing $1 songs is not).
Click to expand...

It's common in civil cases too.

Well you went to law school and I didn't, but according to Wikipedia:

I wonder what they'd think about 80,000:1.
Click to expand...

These aren't punitive damages. I can't find the actual decision to see whether it was actual damages or statutory, but neither of those is subject to the same limitations.

I believe this is the relevant statute:

US CODE: Title 17,504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(Off to bed for the night, will continue this tomorrow).
 
$1.9 million is ridiculous. Owing $1.9 million could destroy a person. While I also think it's unreasonable to just charge her the small amount the songs would have cost I have to agree $1.9 is complete and utter overkill.

Then again my husband once sued in court and won and winning doesn't necessarily mean crap. It was decided by the courts that we were owed $7,688. But the person never paid still to this day. My grandfather also won an asbestos suit decades ago. He too, supposedly was going to be receiving money from his claim. He died and that still hasn't been paid.

So maybe she can just not pay. I don't know much about how that all works but simply not paying seems to be common enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom