Author Topic: One less person downloading music in the US !! (Read 5779 times)

Pet shop boys · « **on:** June 19, 2009, 11:00:11 AM »

MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge 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.

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

WOOOSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!

El Diablo Blanco · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:02:27 AM »

Fuck that. What bullshit.

240 is Back · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:12:41 AM »

LOL... they were probably some embarassing songs too. She had to sit in court for a month hearing the titles of the Jonas brothers or Miley Cyrus tracks she ruined her life over.

Tapeworm · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:23:36 AM »

You can have my utorrent when you pry it from my cold dead harddrive.

Rimbaud · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:24:26 AM »

I feel much safer now!

FREAKgeek · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:50:40 AM »

Can't they just make her pay for the downloads? What are they, like a dollar each?
Giver her a small fine.

What the fuck is wrong with our judicial system?

emn1964 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:54:23 AM »

they are going to settle for a few grand. trust me....

mass 04 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:55:27 AM »

Quote from: emn1964 on June 19, 2009, 11:54:23 AM

they are going to settle for a few grand. trust me....

even so, that is still ridiculous.

emn1964 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:56:37 AM »

Quote from: mass 04 on June 19, 2009, 11:55:27 AM

even so, that is still ridiculous.

depends on your point of view. she was stealing. plain and simple. is stealing ok with you?

JOCKTHEGLIDE · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:58:47 AM »

Quote from: Rimbaud on June 19, 2009, 11:24:26 AM

I feel much safer now!

I just injected myself for lunch 2 units of hgh,,,ahhh

BayGBM · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:00:02 PM »

Quote from: FREAKgeek on June 19, 2009, 11:50:40 AM

Can't they just make her pay for the downloads? What are they, like a dollar each?
Giver her a small fine.

What the fuck is wrong with our judicial system?

Agreed. A total waste of time. It's certainly not going to stop me from sharing/trading digital files: movies, music, and more. I do it every weekend.

EL Mariachi · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:00:17 PM »

then they should forbid to sell pc's with a cd/dvd rewriter

mass 04 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:15:20 PM »

Quote from: emn1964 on June 19, 2009, 11:56:37 AM

depends on your point of view. she was stealing. plain and simple. is stealing ok with you?

No. But does the punishment fit the crime? People who commit crimes that endanger lives get off easier. Assuming she has a good record, why ruin her life for downloading songs?

emn1964 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:35:28 PM »

Quote from: mass 04 on June 19, 2009, 12:15:20 PM

No. But does the punishment fit the crime? People who commit crimes that endanger lives get off easier. Assuming she has a good record, why ruin her life for downloading songs?

its a statutory penalty. a song is treated same as any other copywritten materials. if you think the penalty was excessive, then look at it from the point of view of the artist or composer who creates the work.

Earl1972 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:37:07 PM »

LOL talk about having shit luck

everybody downloads music, she's the only one that has to pay for it

E

evandatp · « **Reply #15 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:41:57 PM »

Quote from: emn1964 on June 19, 2009, 11:56:37 AM

depends on your point of view. she was stealing. plain and simple. is stealing ok with you?

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

Digital copies are not finite, physical resources.

emn1964 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:48:00 PM »

Quote from: evandatp on June 19, 2009, 12:41:57 PM

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

Digital copies are not finite, physical resources.

you can steal intellectual property which is what a song is

Mars · « **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:52:39 PM »

they just cant beat it and fail to understand that, if they want people to buy music then lower the prices or add some extra material stuff to the cd. maybe the "artists" can also make a little less money?

funk51 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:59:23 PM »

this is total bullshit just like our judicial system. everyone and there brother were swapping songs on the computer, and they want to nail a few poor suckers to make an example. michael vick got 2 years for killing some dogs, note i'm a dog lover and hope he roasts in hades for his offenses, but donte stallworth got drunk killed a guy with his vehicle, in effect killing someones father and he gets 30 days in jail. some guys in pa beat a mexican immigrant to death for being a mexican and got off scott free at first. than due to public outrage got retryed and were sentenced to a few monthes for assault, they couldn't retry them for murder because they already got off on that charge. where's the justice certaintly not in the us judicial system. i rest my case.

Spike · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2009, 02:39:44 PM »

Quote from: JOCKTHEGLIDE on June 19, 2009, 11:58:47 AM

I just injected myself for lunch 2 units of hgh,,,ahhh

add in 20iu slin

BABOOOOOM

Samourai Pizzacat · « **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2009, 02:54:44 PM »

Quote from: emn1964 on June 19, 2009, 12:48:00 PM

you can steal intellectual property which is what a song is

That would be plagiarism, which is not the case here.

The punishment is excessive to the nth degree, which is against the law. The defense has a decent case here.

emn1964 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Samourai Pizzacat on June 19, 2009, 02:54:44 PM

That would be plagiarism, which is not the case here.

The punishment is excessive to the nth degree, which is against the law. The defense has a decent case here.

i love it when amateur lawyers chime in...what's next on your docket justice brennan...LMAO

divcom · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:47:35 PM »

Quote from: emn1964 on June 19, 2009, 11:56:37 AM

depends on your point of view. she was stealing. plain and simple. is stealing ok with you?

we'll 90% of the internet is f##k for using youtube. got enough jail space.

phish · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2009, 04:52:55 PM »

she wusnt stealing, she wust leting other people steal off her

Camel Jockey · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2009, 05:01:07 PM »

That's fucked up