$2.4m for 24 songs

Remove this Banner Ad

Is that your test of theft? If so, all those folk who knicked a car for a joy ride rather than re-birth it and sell it, and got busted, shouldn't face a penalty.

Why play the simpleton?

As you know well enough,downloading music is a victimless crime,as the vast majority of the time the person downloading never would have bought the album anyway.Once again i can say that downloading music has only ever made me buy even more music than i otherwise would have.

Stealing someones car affects their life directly,obviously.

I realize this is like playing tennis against a wall - you have your irrational views on this and they won't change.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is that your test of theft?

CP infringement isn't theft, it's infringement

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218


 
But what is an appropriate penalty for theft? It isn't just repaying what you pinched.

Whatever penalty she would have got for walking into JB Hifi and stealing physical copies of the CDs. Even though that's not exactly analogous to what she did, it's a shitload less than a 2.4m fine obviously. Probation and community service with a small fine?
 
She hasn't been convicted of any crime.None.This is a civil matter.

actually she been convicted, however the penalty she was ordered to pay on the original case was set aside, but she has been convicted of a criminal offence last year so your wrong :)

marvellous effort to prosecute this case, should be more of it.

as for victimless, if they are unwilling to pay for the right to the IP, then they should NOT have the benifit of the IP.

if the owner of the IP CHOOSES to release the IP freely, thats one thing, but when the owner of IP CHOOSES to NOT release the IP freely, and imposes a charge to use the IP, and you take it without permission, then its a crime and you should be punished.

2.4m is excessive, i think a fine of a few thousand dollars should be sufficient, however she CHOSE not to accept the fine, and now must wear the consequences of HER choice to fight for the right to take IP without permission.

she has been found guilty of a criminal offence and lost a civil case, her choices all the way to fight justice.

:thumbsu:
 
actually she been convicted, however the penalty she was ordered to pay on the original case was set aside, but she has been convicted of a criminal offence last year so your wrong :)

marvellous effort to prosecute this case, should be more of it.

as for victimless, if they are unwilling to pay for the right to the IP, then they should NOT have the benifit of the IP.

if the owner of the IP CHOOSES to release the IP freely, thats one thing, but when the owner of IP CHOOSES to NOT release the IP freely, and imposes a charge to use the IP, and you take it without permission, then its a crime and you should be punished.

2.4m is excessive, i think a fine of a few thousand dollars should be sufficient, however she CHOSE not to accept the fine, and now must wear the consequences of HER choice to fight for the right to take IP without permission.

she has been found guilty of a criminal offence and lost a civil case, her choices all the way to fight justice.

:thumbsu:

Link to the criminal conviction story?
 
I think Zarrix mentioned something like add 5 per cent on the top or something. The courts should be able to work out a reasonable penalty without going over the top.

What sort of deterrent is that?

The US system has punitive damages at a multiple times the compensatory damages

If there was dispute where two entities were not knowing going out of their way to cause a lost/damage etc on the other party compensatory damages would be sufficient.

Further they are meant to stop people like this bringing cases like this when they were offered a penalty before bringing it to court
 
phrase lifted from the linked article

Thomas-Rasset had been convicted previously, in October 2007, and ordered to pay $US220,000 ($A275,000) in damages but the judge who presided over that trial threw out the verdict calling it "wholly disproportionate" and "oppressive".

clearly the court saw the original fine as insufficient.

of course she COULD have settled for $3000 to $5000 as offered originally and apparently some 30,000 other people have accepted when getting caught, but she had to try and defend the indefensible and got burnt.

she got what she deserved. :thumbsu:

wish they did more of this :thumbsu:
 
CP infringement isn't theft, it's infringement



[/INDENT]

This is the crucial point, I feel. The legal basis for theft seems simple and logical.

In the case of physical goods, it is logical to allow one person to prevent another from using the goods through 'ownership', because this is the easiest and most efficient way to distribute goods. One person's use prevents another person from usage, so the law exists to clearly define who has ownership at a given point in time (and thus quickly and easily settle disputes).

But with intellectual property, this logic no longer applies. Use of intellectual property does not prevent another person from the same use. In fact, the reverse is more likely to be true - a friend of mine is more likely to like a song or share an idea if I play that song or tell them about that idea, so usage in facts promotes further usage. In this case, we don't need the law to intervene and decide who has 'ownership' of something, because EVERYONE can have ownership with no disadvantage to any party.

The laws surrounding IP are therefore illogical. They discourage usage, while creating enormous artificial barriers in the market. The argument that it allows producers of IP to become wealthy, and thus encourages IP production, is a fallacy. Only a tiny minority of the producers of IP (musicians, artists, authors, etc) do so for economic reasons. And even without IP rights, turning a non-exclusive product (such as a song or idea, but even an easily copied CD or DVD) into an exclusive product is remarkably simple. Musicians play concerts - the experience of which cannot be copied. Movies are played in cinemas, the experience of which can't be replicated unless you have a 60-ft TV screen in your lounge. Authors have a more difficult time creating an exclusive product, but piracy of books is far less prevalent (and teh publishing industry comparably less vocal) than the piracy of music and films.

Essentially, the producers of films, music, books and ideas should retain authorship. But once it is created, there is no logic in restricting usage unless usage breaks other laws (such as slander or libel). Movies can make enough money from cinema takings. Musicians make money from live performances. Everyone retains their incentives, and the world is a better place.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

phrase lifted from the linked article

Thomas-Rasset had been convicted previously, in October 2007, and ordered to pay $US220,000 ($A275,000) in damages but the judge who presided over that trial threw out the verdict calling it "wholly disproportionate" and "oppressive".

clearly the court saw the original fine as insufficient.

of course she COULD have settled for $3000 to $5000 as offered originally and apparently some 30,000 other people have accepted when getting caught, but she had to try and defend the indefensible and got burnt.

she got what she deserved. :thumbsu:

wish they did more of this :thumbsu:

Her criminal trial was declared a mistrial,wasn't it?The judge gave the jury wrong instructions.You're getting your civil and criminal courts mixed up.Either way she is guilty,but you're just trolling when you say she deserves a 2 million hit.She should have to pay the costs of the songs,plus however many times the songs were downloaded off of her computer...which they can't prove.So she should hurting to the tune of 30 bucks,realistically.

And you mean clearly the jury saw the original fine as insufficient,not the court.When it gets to a higher court it will get thrown out,obviously.
 
Her criminal trial was declared a mistrial,wasn't it?The judge gave the jury wrong instructions.You're getting your civil and criminal courts mixed up.Either way she is guilty,but you're just trolling when you say she deserves a 2 million hit.She should have to pay the costs of the songs,plus however many times the songs were downloaded off of her computer...which they can't prove.So she should hurting to the tune of 30 bucks,realistically.

And you mean clearly the jury saw the original fine as insufficient,not the court.When it gets to a higher court it will get thrown out,obviously.

why would it get thrown out?

i see no reason why it would get thrown out?

the judge ruled a mistrial because he felt the penalty was excessive from what i have read, NOT what the decision was.

i would hope to see the conviction stick, and it may well be she will now accept with a settlement and an apology because clearly this person can't afford to pay.

apparently many thousands have agreed to pay the $3000 to $5000 demanded by the RIAA, and , she's the first person stupid enough to refuse to pay and got what she deserved.:thumbsu:

if she's isn't stupid she'll agree to anything that is offered because she is clearly in the wrong.

Good work by all :thumbsu:

more of it I say :thumbsu:
 
Eh, that's what happens when shit music fails to sell as well as it used to. Just sue people.

Maybe if they put out something worth a pinch of shit, people would buy it.

Dying industry, anyway.
 
The music industry is a sunset industry, and the fatcats only have themselves to blame. If you try and fight change rather than adapting to it, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

That and the decline of quality mainstream music since the turn of the decade. The thrase Quality mainstream music is almost an oxymoron nowdays, and would be if not for the half decent mainstream scene in the UK.
 
Gee is she was fined this much for the victimless "crime" of filesharing, imaging how much she would have been fined if he walked into a shop an stole a CD...

Austin_Powers_Mike_Myers_as_Dr_Evil.jpg


10 Billon dollars?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top