Assquatch Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Link What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 it is no joke....we need universal health care we need to pay for....you think that sh--'s free?????????? Â What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 Funny that her lawyer says the woman is shocked at the fine "noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents". Â I can hear this lawyer's next client: "You cant give me the death penalty for raping that hooker. She only charges $100" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Funny that her lawyer says the woman is shocked at the fine "noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents". Must have been one of those "totally legal" Russian download sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I'm against illegal downloading, but this is absurd. I can understand the logic behind fining the uploaders that amount, but an individual downloader? Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 That is absolutely rediculous. I think this is a BS move by the RIAA. I've bitched about this before. The RIAA doesn't give a rat's a$$ that I've bought 4 copies of London Calling. Vinyl, cassette and CD (twice). I think they've made their money on that one. And lord knows how many times this happens, not just to me, but to all music consumers. Â This is BS . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 People are chatting about it on the morning radio talk/call-in show here in Cincy.  Seems she loaded up 17,000 songs onto a server or her own computer for others to pirate. And that the RIAA was going to settle for $3,500 (I've heard that figure or something close to it, before).. She refused to settle, according to one caller, because she wanted "to prove a point."  For some reason, 24 songs were chosen as the basis of the litigation  That's all hearsay, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Looks like TracyLee got busted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Loos like TracyLee got busted. Â - first thing I thought of when I read this story. Â I love this decision. Sorry folks, but if you are downloading music without paying for it, you are a thief, plain and simple. I have no problem with the judgment amount either as examples need to be made. Besides, it'll get reduced on appeal and/or they'll be willing to accept a token fine after the headlines have faded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 - first thing I thought of when I read this story. I love this decision. Sorry folks, but if you are downloading music without paying for it, you are a thief, plain and simple. I have no problem with the judgment amount either as examples need to be made. Besides, it'll get reduced on appeal and/or they'll be willing to accept a token fine after the headlines have faded. I learned something else listening to the radio show today.  A fellow who owns a "sports" bar called in. Televisions, no juke box. He pays about $3K per year to ASCAP/BMI, because of commercials that use copyrighted music. He used a Bud Light tv ad as an example.  He said that ASCAP/BMI routinely send people out to check up and get the royalty cash. Then went on to talk about the OH. liquor commission.  In Ohio, you can't promote anybody's alcoholic product (there must be an exemption for neon window signs). If an agent were to spot that beer commercial playing on the tv, they fine the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 People are chatting about it on the morning radio talk/call-in show here in Cincy. Seems she loaded up 17,000 songs According to this it was 1,700 songs.  Mom of the Year nominee...tosses her kids under the bus!  © link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 People are chatting about it on the morning radio talk/call-in show here in Cincy. Seems she loaded up 17,000 songs onto a server or her own computer for others to pirate. And that the RIAA was going to settle for $3,500 (I've heard that figure or something close to it, before).. She refused to settle, according to one caller, because she wanted "to prove a point."  For some reason, 24 songs were chosen as the basis of the litigation  That's all hearsay, of course.  1700 songs $35000  what's an order of magnitude between friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I love this decision. Sorry folks, but if you are downloading music without paying for it, you are a thief, plain and simple. I have no problem with the judgment amount either as examples need to be made. Besides, it'll get reduced on appeal and/or they'll be willing to accept a token fine after the headlines have faded.  Actually, the judge in the case said that the penalty was ridiculous as well. There's been a lot of chatter about changing copyright law in the country (including a study that was done showing that infringement does not stop the creation of content), and this will make it even more mainstream.  http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/09/capit...rial-implores-c  Plus, this judgement may not even be constitutional. You state that, "examples need to be made," but that's not legal either...  http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/record-labels-awarde  "Second, recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court. In other words, the award should be aimed at deterring this defendant, not giving the plaintiff a windfall in order to send a message to others who might be tempted to infringe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 People are chatting about it on the morning radio talk/call-in show here in Cincy. Seems she loaded up 17,000 songs onto a server or her own computer for others to pirate. And that the RIAA was going to settle for $3,500 (I've heard that figure or something close to it, before).. She refused to settle, according to one caller, because she wanted "to prove a point."  For some reason, 24 songs were chosen as the basis of the litigation  That's all hearsay, of course. more reason why I NEVER share files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Actually, the judge in the case said that the penalty was ridiculous as well. Sure it is, and it's also meaningless since the woman will never have the means to pay even a fraction of it. They should make her pay the original $3500 and be done with it. Â There's been a lot of chatter about changing copyright law in the country (including a study that was done showing that infringement does not stop the creation of content), and this will make it even more mainstream. I wouldn't think so, but that doesn't mean it's ok or right. It's still stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Funny that her lawyer says the woman is shocked at the fine "noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents". I can hear this lawyer's next client: "You cant give me the death penalty for raping that hooker. She only charges $100"  yeah, that makes a lot of sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 that's why i like Peer Guardian... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 that's why i like Peer Guardian... :rolleyes: Does it work with Vista x64 yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Can they get "blood out of a stone?" I hope she has no assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts