6 ms·

Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million

25 points by dionidium 17y ago

mynameishere 17y ago
Blood, turnip. Anyway the riaa has moved on from that misguided tactic.
ghshephard 17y ago
I'm wondering if everyone is as annoyed as me when the press consistently gets the crux of the matter incorrect in its headlines: " Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million" The issue was the _sharing_ of 24 songs, not the downloading. Thomas-Rasset also is not the most innocent of those who have gone to court... Great write up on the entire case here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selecte... "Thomas-Rasset had used Napster for a college course and had written a paper on it, arguing that it was legal. She also admitted that she followed the court case that shut Napster down and knew that it was not legal. Given her knowledge and experience with file-sharing, her claim never to have heard of KaZaA and never to have downloaded files might seem suspect."
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- lurkinggrue 17y ago
  That is true but the fine is rather excessive.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
I suspect she wasn't fined for downloading 24 songs but for distributing the songs to others. Still, that's an excessive fine. All legal systems that I know are completely broken because the consequences of losing are so different for the parties involved. For that woman, losing the case means total financial ruin for the rest of her life. If the RIAA had lost, it would be just a blip in their legal budget if anything. In my view, the right way to set fines would be to ask, what percentage of their profit have record companies lost due to the actions of that woman. She should be fined that same percentage of her disposable income (excluding minimum wage).
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  I agree. However, you need to take into account that the studio will allege that there must be greater punishment to deter the crime than just the cost. Even at double or triple percent it's not close though obviously.
  - _pius 17y ago
    However, you need to take into account that the studio will allege that there must be greater punishment to deter the crime than just the cost. Even at double or triple percent it's not close though obviously. True. You'd think though that eventually good old-fashioned common sense would come into play. We have murderers who get punished more proportionally than this.
- netsp 17y ago
  A purpose of fines & other punishment is to .deter Very broadly speaking, two things go in to deterrence: (perceived) Chance of getting caught * (perceived) Cost of getting caught = deterence. To improve deterrence you need to increase one of these. There obviously isn't enough deterrence to stop illegal downloading/distribution. Higher fines are an easier option then more fines.
  - joecode 17y ago
    That would be a pretty good argument except for this woman's particular circumstances. She's a mother of 4 children and works at an Indian reservation. So chances are, she has very little disposable income, and wouldn't buy the songs otherwise. So what message is the RIAA trying to send by going after her? That they are ruthless bastards? They should go after people who can pay for the stuff.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      or that she needs teaching a lesson for takign things she cant afford (an important life lesson she apparently needs :))
pygy 17y ago
Wouldn't it be possible to organise a DDOJ attack in Minesota? If this makes jurisprudence, you could flood the tribunals by simply, massively admitting filesharing, couldn't you (I say "you" because I not from the US)?
- gjm11 17y ago
  Distributed Denial of Justice?
  - pygy 17y ago
    :-)
dejan 17y ago
Although I have lived in the US, and love it for many reasons, I have to say that this stuff is "Only in America"..Here is my rant on this.. US is all about the money, screwing up someone, suing someone and going to court. It is one big capitalistic system that hurts only the people worldwide. Everything is messed up, starting from IRS, government, army and politics, education, food, patents, and especially things like this - "copyright". Yes, my life goal is to make someone rich. How about some honor and doing something for the society without "profits first"? I almost puked when I saw that John La Grou smart power outlet - we will save lives etc...and we filed many patents. Save lives? Give the technology as free, and build other means around it for sustaining own costs. Should have Tesla patented his inventions with the US approach, most of the world would have been in the dark ages, where computer is not possible, Internet doesn't exist and healthcare is power-less. Should he have dictated the progress of the world? No. The world as we know it, is made from minds that think of social progress, not this invented thing called money. US dishonored Tesla, (most even think Tesla is a car now!!), and named a nice little corner in NYC, instead of teaching real values in schools. Laws do support growth of startups indeed, but that is the side-effect which truly should be taken as an example. Everything else, plain wrong. I do not think reproducing material or sharing is something that is wrong. People in the US just wrote that it is, while in nature of the Internet it is not. Let me guess, downloading youtube video is also illegal? Than sue my browser's cache. I really feel sick when reading stuff like this, for goodness sake, this is not the first time nor the last, meaning something there is broken, so change it. I am boycotting buying CDs from those retards calling themselves artists. They are all about the money, not art. Real artists do things for the love of it, not the money. And when I see that, I feel great donating my money directly to them to hear more of that. Disclaimer: I am some nationality as Tesla, but that is no reason why I mention him. He is the most important scientist of all times.

25 points by dionidium 17y ago

Blood, turnip. Anyway the riaa has moved on from that misguided tactic.

I'm wondering if everyone is as annoyed as me when the press consistently gets the crux of the matter incorrect in its headlines: " Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million" The issue was the _sharing_ of 24 songs, not the downloading. Thomas-Rasset also is not the most innocent of those who have gone to court... Great write up on the entire case here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selecte... "Thomas-Rasset had used Napster for a college course and had written a paper on it, arguing that it was legal. She also admitted that she followed the court case that shut Napster down and knew that it was not legal. Given her knowledge and experience with file-sharing, her claim never to have heard of KaZaA and never to have downloaded files might seem suspect."

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
lurkinggrue 17y ago
That is true but the fine is rather excessive.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

I suspect she wasn't fined for downloading 24 songs but for distributing the songs to others. Still, that's an excessive fine. All legal systems that I know are completely broken because the consequences of losing are so different for the parties involved. For that woman, losing the case means total financial ruin for the rest of her life. If the RIAA had lost, it would be just a blip in their legal budget if anything. In my view, the right way to set fines would be to ask, what percentage of their profit have record companies lost due to the actions of that woman. She should be fined that same percentage of her disposable income (excluding minimum wage).

nopassrecover 17y ago
I agree. However, you need to take into account that the studio will allege that there must be greater punishment to deter the crime than just the cost. Even at double or triple percent it's not close though obviously.
- _pius 17y ago
  However, you need to take into account that the studio will allege that there must be greater punishment to deter the crime than just the cost. Even at double or triple percent it's not close though obviously. True. You'd think though that eventually good old-fashioned common sense would come into play. We have murderers who get punished more proportionally than this.
netsp 17y ago
A purpose of fines & other punishment is to .deter Very broadly speaking, two things go in to deterrence: (perceived) Chance of getting caught * (perceived) Cost of getting caught = deterence. To improve deterrence you need to increase one of these. There obviously isn't enough deterrence to stop illegal downloading/distribution. Higher fines are an easier option then more fines.
- joecode 17y ago
  That would be a pretty good argument except for this woman's particular circumstances. She's a mother of 4 children and works at an Indian reservation. So chances are, she has very little disposable income, and wouldn't buy the songs otherwise. So what message is the RIAA trying to send by going after her? That they are ruthless bastards? They should go after people who can pay for the stuff.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    or that she needs teaching a lesson for takign things she cant afford (an important life lesson she apparently needs :))

pygy 17y ago

Wouldn't it be possible to organise a DDOJ attack in Minesota? If this makes jurisprudence, you could flood the tribunals by simply, massively admitting filesharing, couldn't you (I say "you" because I not from the US)?

gjm11 17y ago
Distributed Denial of Justice?
- pygy 17y ago
  :-)

dejan 17y ago

Although I have lived in the US, and love it for many reasons, I have to say that this stuff is "Only in America"..Here is my rant on this.. US is all about the money, screwing up someone, suing someone and going to court. It is one big capitalistic system that hurts only the people worldwide. Everything is messed up, starting from IRS, government, army and politics, education, food, patents, and especially things like this - "copyright". Yes, my life goal is to make someone rich. How about some honor and doing something for the society without "profits first"? I almost puked when I saw that John La Grou smart power outlet - we will save lives etc...and we filed many patents. Save lives? Give the technology as free, and build other means around it for sustaining own costs. Should have Tesla patented his inventions with the US approach, most of the world would have been in the dark ages, where computer is not possible, Internet doesn't exist and healthcare is power-less. Should he have dictated the progress of the world? No. The world as we know it, is made from minds that think of social progress, not this invented thing called money. US dishonored Tesla, (most even think Tesla is a car now!!), and named a nice little corner in NYC, instead of teaching real values in schools. Laws do support growth of startups indeed, but that is the side-effect which truly should be taken as an example. Everything else, plain wrong. I do not think reproducing material or sharing is something that is wrong. People in the US just wrote that it is, while in nature of the Internet it is not. Let me guess, downloading youtube video is also illegal? Than sue my browser's cache. I really feel sick when reading stuff like this, for goodness sake, this is not the first time nor the last, meaning something there is broken, so change it. I am boycotting buying CDs from those retards calling themselves artists. They are all about the money, not art. Real artists do things for the love of it, not the money. And when I see that, I feel great donating my money directly to them to hear more of that. Disclaimer: I am some nationality as Tesla, but that is no reason why I mention him. He is the most important scientist of all times.