This is fucking ridiculous. What kind of fucked up justice system do we have, where the punishment is 100 THOUSAND times greater than the crime?
I know intellectual property is an important concept. But when you elevate it above REAL property crimes, something is amiss here. If I steal a $1 candy bar from a convenience store, their lost profit is a real and tangible thing. They definitely lost money. If someone illegally downloads a song worth $1… MAYBE the company lost money… but then again maybe not. Maybe if the song weren’t available for free, they simply wouldn’t have bothered getting it at all. So why is the virtual crime so much worse than the tangible one?
Only reason I can come up with for having such harsh punishments is that it’s harder to catch the culprits so we need worse punishments as a deterrent. But I don’t see any evidence that having extreme punishments actually has a measurable effect on the rate of people illegally downloading songs. Millions do it, only a handful get selected to make an “example” for the millions of others getting away with it. It’s arbitrary and freakish to pick a ceremonial scapegoat at random and slap them with an impossibly large fine that most people won’t be able to pay in their entire lifetimes.
For those unaware, this is the latest iteration of a long-running trial. The woman was initially fined just over $200,000, but the judge declared a mistrial, saying that he had given erroneous information in his jury instructions. I started a thread when this happened, but it sunk without any replies.
This latest verdict is all kinds of fucked up. Also, the short article linked by the OP is not actually correct; she was not fined for downloading songs, but for making them available for other people to download. It’s an important distinction in the law.
From the Minute Order summarizing the Special Verdict:
The part of the article that says: “A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet,” (emphasis added) is misleading. This was a civil case for statutory damages. And it could have been worse maximum statutory damages for willful infringement are $150,000 per violation. The jury only awarded $80,000 for each.
On one hand I don’t have much sympathy for her, I feel copyright infringement is more or less equal to theft and it kind of makes me angry how many people get away with it.
On the other hand that is a totally ridiculous amount of money and doesn’t seem to fit the crime at all. 24 songs? That’s insane. The previous penalty of ~$200,000 is REALLY stretching it but 1.9M is so off the chart it’s laughable.
I too wonder what they expect to happen. People are not going to stop stealing music because of this, and she’s certainly not going to be able to pay 2 million dollars anytime soon. If anything, it’s just going to trash the RIAA’s reputation even more (if that’s possible) and make them look even more like money grubbing thugs.
I propose june 19th is punch an RIAA employee in the gut day. In honor of this “victory”. They can sue downloaders all they want, with their bribed corrupt injustice laws, but they should be under house arrest for fear of pissing blood from a kidney shot.
I followed the link, read the very short article, and thought, “There’s gotta be more to this story. There must be some explanation.”
A search turned up several more lengthy and detailed accounts of the matter (such as here, here, here, here, and a list of the songs in question), but I found nothing to make me think you’re wrong in calling it “fucking ridiculous.”
This is one of the reasons that I find juries for civil trials to be somewhat curious. It’s quite likely that the jury’s finding was based more on their reaction to the defendant than the letter of the law. By all accounts, she was not a very sympathetic defendant, and likely annoyed a lot of the jurors.
Currently we have medical liability limits in many states ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. The injured will often never earn any sum for the rest of their life and have extensive medical bills.
I love how congress doesn’t impose limits to these RIAA awards.
It sure as shit doesn’t make me want to go out and buy a bunch of music.
The difference is that those awards are limited because most people see them as the result of honest mistakes on the health care provider’s party rather than outright criminality. As hyperbolic as the RIAA tends to be (“Every time you download a song, God kills a kitten!”), people who download music without paying for it are, in fact, breaking the law, and legislators don’t get a lot of votes by going easy on criminals.
Am I the only one who did the math in his head to figure out how much he’d be on the hook for at a rate of $80K per downloaded song, and then looked up what country’s GDP it would be closest to?
Are you suggesting the “I will mercilessly pursue, prosecute, and destroy anyone who illegally downloads music off the internet!” platform should / would be successful?
Out of curiosity, how does “playlist dot com” get away with sharing music over the internet? Is it an advertising thing?
According to the story I read, the woman posted 1,700 songs for shared downloading, but the prosecution reduced it to 24 for the trial.
The woman was repeatedly offered a chance to settle out of court for a couple thousand per song. That’s still a lot of money, but it’s not $80,000 per song.
The jury was thought to be thoroughly pissed at her for denying everything, despite strong evidence against her… hence the big “eat shit and die” judgement.