The American Justice System is fucking retarded

[Makoeyes987]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090618/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_music_downloading

MINNEAPOLIS -

A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result, finding a Minnesota woman to have violated music copyrights and ordering her to pay hefty damages to the recording industry.

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

I want to stab each one of those jurors in the throat for believing such bullshit and that such a settlement was "fair" and "reasonable" for a fucking song online.

This is truly scary because not only does this further validate the RIAA's bullying tactics, but like the Defense attorney said...

They could go after ANYONE they want with this weak ass evidence. And then milk them for all they're worth.

This is fucking shameful.

 

[DNA]

lol getting caught for dl'ing music lol

 

[Makoeyes987]

What? That's funny? Her life is probably fucking ruined on account of the RIAA deciding to crucify a random person and a jury that doesn't know shit from shinola.

 

[DNA]

No, It's funny that she actually got caught for dl'ing music.

Must have been using Limewire.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Eh probably, but that's not exactly what this thread's about. Being fined over a million dollars for 20 songs is fucking stupid and pretty unjust. Stealing a brand new car doesn't even land you this much of a fine.

 

[Max Payne]

This isn't anything new.

This shit happened at least 40 times last year.

 

[Makoeyes987]

This is the only one that went to trial though.

 

[Dawnbreaker]

I'd appeal if I were her. That's just wrong on so many levels.

 

[Cthulhu]

This was the appeal, before she had to pay 'only' 88.000 in total. Now they're going to argue that the fine is against the constitution though - the fine is many, many leagues away from the actual damage done (which would be about $24,- if bought from itunes), which makes it excessive, and against the constitution.

Besides, both she and the fellows from TPB have indicated they wouldn't have the cash to pay for the fine.

 

[Celes Chere]

Wow, that's just shocking. It makes me kind of nervous, too...

 

[Dawnbreaker]

Indeed, who the fuck would have that kind of cash?

If they really want to be anal and actually charge her for this (which is ridiculous as the courts should spend their time prosecuting I dunno, killers?) they should just charge her for each song that she didn't pay for and maybe a little besides. You don't fucking charge her as if she's the downfall of the entire music industry, fuck.

 

[Part the Yngve]

I can't wait until the labels just give up, it's just another example of corporate interests deemed more important than individual interests.

 

[firehahahahahaha]

Good thing I don't download music .

 

[Cthulhu]

They'll fuck you over even if you don't. Over here, everybody pays extra for blank CDs and DVDs which is claimed to be paid to the artists. Turns out though that the organization that handles that hardly ever pays up to the artists, and they get millions every year. And now they want to extend that arrangement (pay extra) to MP3 players and hard disk recorders as well. So even if you buy everything legal, you still pay for it, and the artists gain nothing.

Luckily, the government has stepped in and has suspended the organization for now until it becomes clear what happens with the money.

 

[Part the Yngve]

Yeah shit like that needs to be properly managed.

Although I'd be 500% behind a measure which would increase internet subscription by 5-10 pounds a month if it meant I could download as much music as I wanted, however I wanted without having to worry about the legal risks.

 

[Munatik]

Figures this would happen. With the courts' permission, the RIAA will continue biting the hand that feeds until their last dying breath. Soon we'll be sued into poverty for merely humming a song.

IMO, they can't choke too soon. CDs are too expensive and, with the digital market in full-swing, they are going the way of the dinosaur. Combined with the fact that the RIAA feels fully justified in reaping excessively punitive damages, it's no fucking wonder nobody wants to buy a CD anymore. Ironically these fines are probably meant to deter people from downloading, yet all they probably succeed in doing is detering consumers from wanting to support these kinds of practices.

Yet the RIAA still wants to blame pirates for the decline in sales and preventing them from raking in only a couple bajillion less dollars a year. They also are taking it out on Internet radio stations, and have moved to crush them extreme royalty rates instead of treating it as a fantastic form of advertising.

I mean, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with their refusal to adapt to a new business environment, and thus are also pushing artists themselves to find greener pastures by selling directly to the consumer via MP3. Yet another hand the RIAA routinely snaps at and at their peril.

I'm in no way suggesting that stealing is OK, but with everybody and their dog having scrambled aboard the iTunes/MP3 bandwagon, expecting consumers to comply with the RIAA business model is like expecting people to continue buying gamophone records and suing the shirts off them when they don't.

Too bad for Jammie. I'm sure there will be many more.

 

[firehahahahahaha]

How are CD's expensive?

 

[ForceStealer]

"Oh you don't wanna mess
with the RI double A.
They'll sue you, if you burn that CD-R.
Doesn't matter if you're a grandma,
or a 7-year-old girl.
They'll treat you like the evil, hard-bitten, criminal scum you are."

-Don't Download this Song, Weird Al

 

[Ⓐaron]

How are CD's expensive?

they're $15 a disc, and cost like $1 to manufacture. That's pretty god damn expensive.

 

[CK]

And if you live in new zealand like me and have a distinct taste in music you have to order the cd's online which cost 2-3 times as much as it would buying in a shop.

 

[Ⓐaron]

they're $15 a disc, and cost like $1 to manufacture. That's pretty god damn expensive.

especially since most artists also only get like $.50 for them. I don't know why I left out the most important part.

 

[Channy]

What I don't get, is who they choose to take to court so suddenly? Did she put the songs onto a torrent site and let everybody download them off of her, or did she just one time download each song?

And for that matter, why stop at 24 songs? There are millions of people who download perhaps only 20 songs per day, so imo they would be the liable targets.

But why/how do they choose their targets?

 

[firehahahahahaha]

they're $15 a disc, and cost like $1 to manufacture. That's pretty god damn expensive.

That's not very expensive, but even then, I just got a 3-disk collection of Billy Joel for only 20$. That's way better than what you'd get on iTunes.

 

[muchmoxie]

I thought you were saying something about her at first... anyway, wow. That's a bit much. I mean, really. The lady obviously doesn't even have enough money to pay this fine. She was downloading songs in the first place. I don't get why she has to pay so much. Poor lady.

 

[Munatik]

That's not very expensive, but even then, I just got a 3-disk collection of Billy Joel for only 20$. That's way better than what you'd get on iTunes.

Also to consider is the fact that I prefer not to plunk down 15-20 bucks for one album when all I want is a couple of songs from it. That's also a big reason I find iTunes and such to be the better deal.