5 ms·
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 cha
by 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 agoor that she needs teaching a lesson for takign things she cant afford (an important life lesson she apparently needs :))
- pmjordan 17y agoDefinitely. However, I don't see how financially destroying someone's life such that they might never recover from it is in any way a reasonable way to deal with a one-off copyright infringement on 2 dozen songs. My understanding is that she wasn't selling them or passing them off as her own.
- ErrantX 17y agoignoring the fine (it is excesive) the person I was replying to was inferring the RIAA should have chased her because she isn't well off. Which sounds like a poor argument to me :) She did need a lesson - not one quite so extreme but still.
- seertaak 17y ago> That would be a pretty good argument except for this woman's particular circumstances. Should her circumstances also be taken into account if she robs a bank? Justice is personified as being blind for a reason. You break the law, you pay the price. There's no: you broke the law, but factor X and Y should increase our leniency. That's a recipe for chaos I'm afraid.
- menloparkbum 17y agoThere's no: you broke the law, but factor X and Y should increase our leniency. Actually you're completely wrong. The legal system is there to look at factors X and Y and determine if and how they should affect the ensuing penalties or awards.
- anamax 17y agoThey're using her to send a message to people who can pay, the message being something like "if you steal our stuff, we'll make things very expensive for you". The "excessive" penalty and the resulting publicity helps get that message out. I'm not arguing that it's good to do that, but that is the idea. (Yes, whether it is good and whether it is effective are different questions that may have different answers.)
- netsp 17y agoThey want people to either pay or not listen. Not listen & pay if you can. They want music to be the same as milk or shoes. You either buy it, or you don't have it. They want the laws, which are on their side, to be enforced to the point where the great majority of people do not break them. That means harsher penalties, more penalties or both. They don't want to send the message that they are ruthless bastards, necessarily. They want to send the message that the it is not in people's best interests to download free stuff. Doing this by making it risky in the way that speeding past a cop shop is risky (very likely to be caught), is too hard. So they opt for making it like not having fire insurance a one-in-a-lot chance of being ruined. I don't agree with the law, with the ruling or their morals. I think that this kind of enforcement is immoral. Deterence is not the only thing behind enforcement of laws. Punishment/deterrence should not be concentrated in one person. It's like saving money on police patrols by catching only 1/4 of burglars we currently do but shooting them to make up the difference. I'm just arguing that the RIAA are rational. Her capacity to pay doesn't interest them.