Woman fined $1.9 million for illegal song downloads

[sleestak]

@Spartydog

On the 40th Anniversary of Woodstock we will recall Abbie Hoffman, John Sinclair and Pete Townsend.

Sinclair got busted for two joints and got a sentence of 15 years. But the cop said, “It wasn’t his first offense of being busted for pot.” Like “wow” this make him a hardened criminal! When Hoffman tried to make an issue of the injustice on the Woodstock stage, Townsend hit him in the head with his guitar. Look it up.

All that being said, 15 years for two joints is too much (just like $1.9 million for allowing some songs to be downloaded at no profit). It makes a mockery of the justice system. There is a clause in the Constitution about “cruel and unusual punishment” which I take to mean that the punishment should fit the crime. As appealing as it may seem, making an “example” should not determine the sentence.

This whole thing is BS. If I was the appeals court judge I would send the whole thing back to be retried.

Pete Townsend just went up on my list for smacking Abbie Hoffman around. I didn’t know about that incident. Too bad there isn’t any video.

It’s a bummer you don’t like the verdict but that is what happens when a) you break the law b) try to destroy evidence and c) lie to the jury about it.

This chick is guilty and stupid. She dug her own hole, tried to cover it up and now keeps digging it deeper.

Slee

[Lemur866]

@sleestak

Pete Townsend just went up on my list for smacking Abbie Hoffman around. I didn’t know about that incident. Too bad there isn’t any video.

It’s a bummer you don’t like the verdict but that is what happens when a) you break the law b) try to destroy evidence and c) lie to the jury about it.

This chick is guilty and stupid. She dug her own hole, tried to cover it up and now keeps digging it deeper.

Slee

Of course she was punished acording to the law. I’m not arguing that she was punished in a way that doesn’t comport with the law, I’m arguing that the law is wrong.

See the difference? Or is that too hard to understand?

[sleestak]

@Lemur866

Of course she was punished acording to the law. I’m not arguing that she was punished in a way that doesn’t comport with the law, I’m arguing that the law is wrong.

See the difference? Or is that too hard to understand?

I guess I could have phrased that a bit better. I believe that the law is just fine and the dumbshit got exactly what she deserved. If she would have worked with the RIAA she probably could have got out of this for a much smaller amount of money. Heck, she probably still can but I imagine she is too dumb to take that path.

I get the distinct feeling that one reason the jury smacked this woman so hard is the fact that she lies.

Slee

[mhendo]

@sleestak

Note the time line on this. She had an offer to settle. She declined. She went to court and lost for 222,000, an amount that the jury decided upon. **She decided to go to court again on appeal and lost. **This time the jury upped the amount to $1.92 million. Now she is apparently thinking of trying a third time.

Nitpick.

The bolded part is incorrect. She was probably going to appeal the original verdict, but that became unnecessary when the judge declared a mistrial, because he issued incorrect instructions to the jury, and overturned the verdict.

[SteveG1]

@jtgain

I guess we should all bow to the will of our corporate masters instead of using the court system.

I have my own solution, I won’t buy shit from them. I’ll just play the old stuff that I already have.

[Princhester]

@CaveMike

You seem to agree with most of the posters in this thread that the damages were unreasonable.

@jtgain

There needs to be a mechanism to fight in court without one person being on the hook for a staggering amount.

I think what you are wilfully ignoring is the bit about her being a lying asshole. We will never know, but I suspect if she had fought a lineball case and lost the damages would have been reasonable. There are consequences for fighting against a clear case and lying and conniving while doing so.

@Atrael

… But without proving that she actually redistributed anything.

and

Take for example bittorrent…

One of the problems with being found to have deliberately infringed - or to have tried to infringe - others rights is that you tend to find that the benefit of the doubt on damages goes the other way. In other words, if the claimant crosses the initial threshold of showing an infringement or attempted infringement, but what you have done creates by its nature evidential difficulties for the party whose rights were infringed (or which you tried to infringe), you may well find that (a) the law (b) the court are biased against you.

I am always bemused by those who find this surprising.

@Lemur866

So spare me the sob stories about how file-sharing takes money from the artists.

and

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Well, right or wrong, I think that’s the biggest beef people have with the music industry and paying for music. RIAA likes to pretend that you’re denying the artists their due

I’ve participated in a number of long threads about copyright leaching. One of the notable characteristics is that those supporting or sympathetic to leaching pretend sympathy for the little artist guy. I don’t hear a whole lot about downloaders making any effort to send money to them every time they download a song. Every time one of our doper artists chips in on this subject it’s to speak out against copyright infringement.

The conceptual difficulty that people have with the connection between paying for music to Sony and artists getting paid doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but gives an ability to play up the Big Bad Corporate Bogeyman as a means of dehumanising the victim. It’s all very convenient.