$1,000,000 per LP ??

[Wij]

Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty - Ars Technica

Not complaining about the verdict. She clearly did it and her defence was pitiful but close to 2 million dollars for 24 songs ? That's 2 albums probably. Crikey !

 

[Tom]

A file sharer? This may be a simpleton's answer, but I'm presuming she can't ever pay that, which in this country would mean bankruptcy, 6 years of no credit, and then normality.

I'm troubled by the jury just picking a number from the air. You can't possibly quantify losses for things like this, its impossible.

 

[TdC]

I'm troubled by the jury just picking a number from the air..

you should be, seeing that the fine was not set by them

 

[DaGaffer]

A file sharer? This may be a simpleton's answer, but I'm presuming she can't ever pay that, which in this country would mean bankruptcy, 6 years of no credit, and then normality.

I'm troubled by the jury just picking a number from the air. You can't possibly quantify losses for things like this, its impossible.

Yeah its says in the article she won't pay it and the RIAA probably won't try to collect it. She's being punished for lying in the retrial rather than direct damages for each song. In the original trial it worked out at $9250 per song, (so I'm assuming they were basing that on each song being leeched from her approx 1000 times). Guilty or not, this still smacks of a hugely out of proportion to the crime decision though.

On the other hand, who the fuck calls themselves "Jammie"? It should be a million dollar fine for that right there.

 

[GReaper]

The punishment is out of proportion for the crime committed.

Sharing 24 songs is effectively going to ruin her life if this is enforced. Whilst I'm sure she's an idiot and lied to the court - is $2m a suitable amount for what she's done?

She'd probably have got far less trouble for stealing 24 CDs from a supermarket.

 

[Scouse]

We all know that copyright theft is worse than dry anal rape.

Perhaps a different perspective would help?

:|

 

[DaGaffer]

We all know that copyright theft is worse than dry anal rape.

Perhaps a different perspective would help?

:|

Interesting article, but the devil is very much in the detail. For instance they point out that the number of albums produced has gone up, but what's the mix of original works to compilations? I've a sneaking suspicion that if you look at original works, the picture doesn't look so rosy, despite the fact that the cost of production of music has dropped enormously.

In addition they talk about the rise in revenue from "complements" (live performance, merchandise etc.), which is all well and good for certain bands/artists, but doesn't do much for songwriters or session musicians, and is a model that doesn't really stack up at all for other media like writing (I know there are book tours and personal appearances, but that kind of stuff was already built into the model for most writers before their book sales were decimated by file sharing).

I think they definitely have an argument for weaker copyright, but that's not the same as no copyright, and creators should be able to enforce protection of their original works.

 

[Scouse]

...book sales were decimated by file sharing...

???

I just don't see it. Paper books ftw tbfh. I can't believe that book sales have been "decimated". I can, hand on heart, say I've never met anyone who reads from anything other than squashed pulped tree.

It'll be another bullshit story - like the "VHS will kill movie industry" one of the 80's. A quick google search says book sales are fine.

The fact is, a massive proportion of people who are connected to the internet do some sort of filesharing, with full knowledge of the law. But they still do it.

Why? Because most people think it's fine and the law's an ass. And if we live in a democracy..........

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

???

I just don't see it. Paper books ftw tbfh. I can't believe that book sales have been "decimated". I can, hand on heart, say I've never met anyone who reads from anything other than squashed pulped tree.

It'll be another bullshit story - like the "VHS will kill movie industry" one of the 80's. A quick google search says book sales are fine.

The fact is, a massive proportion of people who are connected to the internet do some sort of filesharing, with full knowledge of the law. But they still do it.

Why? Because most people think it's fine and the law's an ass. And if we live in a democracy..........

Most of the guys I work with read downloaded novels and technical books, rather than the real paper 'n' ink type.

 

[Santa's little helper]

That's the good thing about Denmark (and normal countries)...

You CANNOT be forced to pay more than what you have damaged for.

So if i copy a CD (and i get caught) i have to pay 20$ish. But in a court you can argue that copying doesn't equal lost reveanu - i can't buy something i don't have the money for.

It's all about perspective.

 

[Santa's little helper]

But in a court you can argue that copying doesn't equal lost reveanu - i can't buy something i don't have the money for.

It's all about perspective.

That's why anti-pirategroups ALWAYS wants to settle, before going to court - cos they simply can't win. Usally it starts out with: PAY US 150,000$! ... Then you refuse, and it's: Pay us 10,000$! ... Then it's: Please? Pay us 1,000$? C'mon? Please?

Had a few mates going that way...

 

[Tom]

you should be, seeing that the fine was not set by them

I thought in US trials it was the jury who set the damages? ("The jury awarded the labels damages totaling a whopping $1.92 million")

 

[Ch3tan]

???

I just don't see it. Paper books ftw tbfh. I can't believe that book sales have been "decimated". I can, hand on heart, say I've never met anyone who reads from anything other than squashed pulped tree.

It'll be another bullshit story - like the "VHS will kill movie industry" one of the 80's. A quick google search says book sales are fine.

The fact is, a massive proportion of people who are connected to the internet do some sort of filesharing, with full knowledge of the law. But they still do it.

Why? Because most people think it's fine and the law's an ass. And if we live in a democracy..........

Actually I have, it's when I've had no money to buy the latest book or the library have not had it -it's rarely though, as I find it a pain in the arse to read off of a monitor or mobile device.

 

[mooSe_]

My eyes wear out quicker reading off a computer screen than reading a real book

 

[Helme]

I found this extremely funny, in Sweden you don't even get 1/10th of that as compensation if you get raped, but they are fine slapping these silly fines on piracy.