Seriously, F the RIAA

Cognoscente · Post by **Cognoscente** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:27 pm

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-102681 ... 47-1_3-0-5

Ah, the best justice money can buy! Charged with 24 songs pirated, the fair compensation for punitive damages is apparently 1.92 million dollars.

Hell, why not charge her eleventy-million bajillion dollars?? That'll REALLY teach those little inter-tube pirate bastards a lesson!

I want to throw up all over every single member of that jury.

Yarjka · Post by **Yarjka** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:43 am

The copyright laws are outdated. Yes, if she had been pirating music and selling it to make a profit back in the old days, she'd probably have made this much money, and should rightfully pay it back to the companies who would have made the profit originally (although I doubt the 1.92 million figure would have been made by anyone ... I don't know what happened there ... the 220,000 from her original trial sounds more accurate). But she gave them out for free ... and had she tried to sell these musics online as mp3s, no one would have bought them, so what she gave was essentially worthless. If she had made 1.92 million on this, I can see the jury saying, "hey, give that money to the people who rightfully profit off the musicians' hard work." Ordering someone who made no money off the venture to give money back is quite absurd (but yes, I do understand, technically it's what is written in the law ... that's why the law should be changed, and the jury should be smart enough to see that). In fact, I'm very curious as to who this jury was made up of ...

Cuddlefish · Post by **Cuddlefish** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:26 pm

She had actually downloaded over 17,000 songs, but those 24 were the only ones they could prove, because she had done so using a username that was, in fact her whole, real name. In addition, she refused to comprimise with the company twice (one where she would have had to pay $3000 and one where she would have had to pay $6000). I think she was being stupid and deserved what she got.

Waldorf and Sauron · Post by **Waldorf and Sauron** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:10 pm

"She had actually downloaded over 17,000 songs, but those 24 were the only ones they could prove"

um... if they couldn't prove she downloaded 17,000 songs, then maybe you shouldn't talk like it's a proven fact?

Post by **Laser Jock** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:24 am

Cognoscente, I know we have vastly differing viewpoints on the ins and outs of piracy and copyright, but I can certainly agree with you on this: the RIAA uses incredibly dubious, morally reprehensible tactics, and I seem to only despise them more the more I learn about them. In particular, their lawyers seem to be absolutely amoral scumballs (in their legal tactics, anyway), the kind of people that give lawyers such a bad professional reputation. (An interesting blog following their cases--and which is highly critical of the RIAA--is Recording Industry vs. The People, which is maintained by a knowledgeable lawyer.)

Yes, this woman was guilty of copyright infringement (there's basically no doubt about that), but $1.92 million for 24 songs? What?

Cognoscente · Post by **Cognoscente** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 3:30 pm

Under this ludicrous scale, if I were ever subpoenaed by the MAFIAA, I would probably be liable for the combined GDP of the G8 nations.

thankfully, it seems they've stopped going after private citizens now.

Cognoscente · Post by **Cognoscente** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:51 am

Oh, and...